# Why Ni is the best function



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Best entails achieving the highest score in a list of appropriately selected criteria.

Which depends naturally on success, which depends on goals, which depends on strategy, which depends on your adopted philosophy of your approach.

Ergo... best _for what_, exactly?

Best in general is... too general to be applicable to a complex world. And yet irrelevancy naturally lacks relevancy to this complex world and the people within it.

...

And why yes, this _is_ a parody of a lot of the function discussions that have taken strange or childish directions. 

Toodeloo!


----------



## Gerro (Mar 21, 2013)

Allright.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Nice and provocative thread title you have there. I saw it, rolled up my sleeves and came here thinking: oh it looks like OP needs a nice and long lesson in "sit the fuck down and let me tell you why Ni ain't equivalent to godliness". But then I read the contents of your post and it looks like you don't seem to be deserving of that lesson after all. So... thanks for saving my time  

P.S.: I wonder how many more people are going to click this thread with a misconception.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Omgz you are so right. Ni for president.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> P.S.: I wonder how many more people are going to click this thread with a misconception.


I wonder how many people are clicking this thread with the right conception. But I think the OP makes a good point about the weakness of Ni


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

I think there's a stronger argument for Ni being the worst function.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

uncertain said:


> I wonder how many people are clicking this thread with the right conception.


Were you one of them?


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> Were you one of them?


No.

It's not what I expected to see after I clicked and I got a little bit disappointed


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

I would never vote Ni for president! Ha! Sooner vote in fucking Fe.

I am so tired of inferior beings prancing in front of my face.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

uncertain said:


> No.
> 
> It's not what I expected to see after I clicked and I got a little bit disappointed


Haha yeah! I thought there could be a fiery argument but it seems like everyone's already aware of what's up. Ah well... it's not like there aren't other places to argue here


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

If Ni was president we'd all run out of everything in a half a day, but we'd still be valued as concepts


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

tangosthenes said:


> I would never vote Ni for president! Ha! Sooner vote in fucking Fe.
> 
> I am so tired of inferior beings prancing in front of my face.


Disrespectful!


----------



## sanari (Aug 23, 2011)

Cellar Door said:


> I think there's a stronger argument for Ni being the worst function.


Why did I know you were INTP before looking at your name and type?


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

firedell said:


> Disrespectful!


Disrespect is no laughing matter.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

Ni isn't a very good function.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

I like Ni, and wouldn't trade it.

However, if Ni was president... things would probably fall apart (in the short to medium term rather than longer terms) as it moves to replace inefficient systems from the philosophical basis for existence up to implementation and societal education. And it would probably screw up allocating enough time and effort to presentation, to tactfully marry change to those tempted to remain comfortable.

Massive energies would be invested in an overblown undertaking.


----------



## sanari (Aug 23, 2011)

Why do INTPs reliably hate Ni so much?

Seriously, I'd like to know.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Ni is undervalued in a world where reality is considered only that which is quantifiable and perceivable by the naked senses.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Guu said:


> Why do INTPs reliably hate Ni so much?
> 
> Seriously, I'd like to know.


Because it is the root of all genius, and they like to think of themselves as such. It's funny cause Einstein is epitome of a Ni dom, but typed as an INTP, and many think of him as the prototypical INTP, when he is actually prototypical Ni. 

A stroke of genius is really a stroke of intuition. It is those momentary strokes that separate the greats from the rest. Just a few, small, key moments. That is all it takes to make a genius, a few seconds. That is Ni. That his how guys like Einstein and Newton got their name. Those few pop up moments, the rest is commentary.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Guu said:


> Why do INTPs reliably hate Ni so much?
> 
> Seriously, I'd like to know.


Because, well ok, definition-wise, it's right there- Ni is image based. Not principle based. Oftentimes Ni just doesn't "get" it, and its hard to explain, because its like you understand it in a _way_, but you don't actually understand it... just my honest answer.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Guu said:


> Why do INTPs reliably hate Ni so much?


Not all INTPs. There are healthy INTPs.

However.

You can't argue that people should listen to you above the rest if others have equally valid merits.

It threatens their perceived appreciation from society unless they feel they have a monopoly on things like high end intelligence and philosophy, because its not like a myriad of types can share aptitudes at such things without INTPs being placed above and beyond them by some misinterpreted theoretical dogma.

So you need to convince people that they are inferior to you.

And to do that convincingly, you need to believe in that enough to appear to be confident about it.

And so insecurity and antagonism reigns.

Arrogance and xenophobia breeds, like at INTPc. The INTPc website being a painfully obvious example.

Us vs them, superior vs inferior, freedom vs control... I'm waiting for some INTPs to get over these simplistic illusions. One can stand without being allied to either party, one can possess qualities more advantageous depending on the goal and situation, and one can choose to take a risk on the absurd if they are willing to live with the consequences. Was that so difficult, or will fear and irrational inhibitions get in the way again?


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

firedell said:


> Omgz you are so right. Ni for president.





tangosthenes said:


> I would never vote Ni for president! Ha! Sooner vote in fucking Fe.
> 
> I am so tired of inferior beings prancing in front of my face.


Did someone say Hitler was an INFJ?

Just saying


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Guu said:


> Why do INTPs reliably hate Ni so much?
> 
> Seriously, I'd like to know.


They don't. Many of them drool over Ni, like some weird fetish?/


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

I personally find my Ni a bit of a curse than a blessing.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Because it is the root of all genius, and they like to think of themselves as such. It's funny cause Einstein is epitome of a Ni dom, but typed as an INTP, and many think of him as the prototypical INTP, when he is actually prototypical Ni.
> 
> A stroke of genius is really a stroke of intuition. It is those momentary strokes that separate the greats from the rest. Just a few, small, key moments. That is all it takes to make a genius, a few seconds. That is Ni. That his how guys like Einstein and Newton got their name. Those few pop up moments, the rest is commentary.


What you're suggesting is totally absurd. All types experience this to some extent regardless if they have Ni, it's not like suddenly understanding things is something that is reserved for Ni users, I do this all the time. Ne and Ni are the same, both are intuition, the only difference is that Ni is based on your subjective experience where Ne is objective. Which in my opinion makes all the difference.

Pe types notice everything, all the details. I know when someone gets a hair cut, when there's a discrepancy in data, the implications of every statement made in a conversation, when something is off in a situation and where the situation might lead, etc. It's like blown out diagram of how everything works is constantly being generated and regenerated, that's just how I think. Most of the time I talk with someone I know where the conversation is going before they're half way through their first sentence. To be honest, Ni types just aren't like that, they just aren't as fast and in the moment. The Ni doms I know don't thrive in a fast paced environment whereas I absolutely love it. Ni doms are going to be better at writing a 2000 page book that's the comprehensive history of a topic in it's totality. Go to an Ne type if you need that entire 2000 page book condensed down to one sentence.

Maybe I'm off, but that's just my experience.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

I wonder if most people close themselves off from the very possibility that Einstein wasn't even an NT.

If it was too heretical to their head canon.

If it would take too much out of the NT collective ego.

If it would mean that they would need to seriously re-evaluate what the other types are in fact capable of, even if it means eclipsing the pride of the NTs.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

googoodoll said:


> I personally find my Ni a bit of a curse than a blessing.


But is it useful?


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

default settings said:


> I wonder if most people close themselves off from the very possibility that Einstein wasn't even an NT.
> 
> If it was too heretical to their head canon.
> 
> ...


is there an argument that you've seen(curious)? I mean, everybody's like that. People reject things that are heretical to their head canon... not just NTs. and NTs are only the prideful ones on the net, haha(as opposed to life, where everybody is).


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Cellar Door said:


> What you're suggesting is totally absurd. All types experience this to some extent regardless if they have Ni, it's not like suddenly understanding things is something that is reserved for Ni users, I do this all the time. Ne and Ni are the same, both are intuition, the only difference is that Ni is based on your subjective experience where Ne is objective. Which in my opinion makes all the difference.
> 
> Pe types notice everything, all the details. I know when someone gets a hair cut, when there's a discrepancy in data, the implications of every statement made in a conversation, when something is off in a situation and where the situation might lead, etc. It's like blown out diagram of how everything works is constantly being generated and regenerated, that's just how I think. Most of the time I talk with someone I know where the conversation is going before they're half way through their first sentence. To be honest, Ni types just aren't like that, they just aren't as fast and in the moment. The Ni doms I know don't thrive in a fast paced environment whereas I absolutely love it. Ni doms are going to be better at writing a 2000 page book that's the comprehensive history of a topic in it's totality. Go to an Ne type if you need that entire 2000 page book condensed down to one sentence.
> 
> Maybe I'm off, but that's just my experience.


Ne is glorified sensing, and closer to sensing. Jung actually compared extraverted intuitives to sensors. 

The deepest discoveries are made by Ni. It digs deeper than any other function. Imagine knowledge is like an oil field. Ni discovers the oil field, and extracts it out of the ground. Then transfers it off to something like Ti for transporting and processing. Ni is _the _discoverer and extractor_. _​We are scientists, you are engineers. There can be science without engineering. There can't be engineering without science.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

FearAndTrembling said:


> The deepest discoveries are made by Ni. It digs deeper than any other function. Imagine knowledge is like an oil field. Ni discovers the oil field, and extracts it out of the ground. Then transfers it off to something like Ti for transporting and processing. Ni is _the _discoverer and extractor_. _​We are scientists, you are engineers. There can be science without engineering. There can't be engineering without science.


Don't you think you view it this way BECAUSE you're an INFJ and that's the way you utilize the two functions because you're an Ni-dom and a Ti-tert? And that this doesn't apply to everyone?


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> is there an argument that you've seen(curious)? I mean, everybody's like that. People reject things that are heretical to their head canon... not just NTs. and NTs are only the prideful ones on the net, haha(as opposed to life, where everybody is).


Perhaps there is an argument, although at this stage I just wanted to tease people out to the possibility.

If there was an argument, a long term view may suggest revealing it would have a detrimental effect upon the MBTI community. Which would make revealing the argument an unattractive option to implement.

That is if said argument existed and was sufficiently convincing or true.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Don't you think you view it this way BECAUSE you're an INFJ and that's the way you utilize the two functions because you're an Ni-dom and a Ti-tert? And that this doesn't apply to everyone?


Probably, yes. I have always valued Ni , even before I knew what it was. Much Ni pride here. 

I see Ni doms like high end sports cars. We are higher maintenance, and often less efficient, but we are higher performance. Einstein is a great example of this. Einstein sucked at math. I mean, he was probably better than you and I, but compared to other physicists of his day, he was below average. He didn't even like math, and had others do it for him. And if you put him up against a talented mathematician to solve some problems, he would get blown out. But give him time, and let him do it in his own way, and he will beat the best mathematician in the world on the most perplexing mathematical relations in the universe. 

Like that guy just said, we don't work well at a fast pace. I guess that is somewhat true. Einstein is that example. He would get crushed in a time contest, but will beat anybody in the long run.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

default settings said:


> Perhaps there is an argument, although at this stage I just wanted to tease people out to the possibility.
> 
> If there was an argument, a long term view may suggest revealing it would have a detrimental effect upon the MBTI community. Which would make revealing the argument an unattractive option to implement.
> 
> That is if said argument existed and was sufficiently convincing or true.


Even though people cite his physics, the stronger argument would probably attack his personal philosophy(especially stuff based on reading spinoza). Spinoza himself has been argued intp or infj. So thats probably where the crack would be if there are any(how deeply those spiritual and other notions are traced throughout his writings and stuff, and in what manner:more Ne or Ni-like)


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> Even though people cite his physics, the stronger argument would probably attack his personal philosophy(especially stuff based on reading spinoza). Spinoza himself has been argued intp or infj. So thats probably where the crack would be if there are any(how deeply those spiritual and other notions are traced throughout his writings and stuff, and in what manner:more Ne or Ni-like)


Hmm. I think some of the clues lay in his attitude towards his students, his relaxation about the fickle nature of those who regarded him highly without overplaying the certainty of his success, and his hesitations with the direction of quantum theoretical research practices.

Although the issues can be regarded as quite NT... the quirks he brings within an NT arena are distinctive but perhaps not NT quirks. But I'm not saying they are SP, SJ or NF quirks. But the quirks of _one_ specific type.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

default settings said:


> Hmm. I think some of the clues lay in his attitude towards his students, his relaxation about the fickle nature of those who regarded him highly without overplaying the certainty of his success, and his hesitations with the direction of quantum theoretical research practices.
> 
> Although the issues can be regarded as quite NT... the quirks he brings within an NT arena are distinctive but perhaps not NT quirks. But I'm not saying they are SP, SJ or NF quirks. But the quirks of _one_ specific type.


There is no doubt he is a Ni dom. The case:

epitome of Ni "pop up" thinking. If Einstein isn't Ni, nobody is.

his big picture thinking, Ni hate detail. Einstein only cared about the grand problems of physics, like unified field theories. 

Tangoesthens said that Ni is image based. There was not a more image based thinker than Einstein. Nearly every one of this discoveries was image based. 

His appreciation of order and structure. One of the reasons he didn't like Quantum Mechanics or The Big Bang, was because it didn't have the crispness of order that Einstein wanted to oppose on the universe. Einstein wanted to unify things. Ni are unifiers. Newton, Einstein, unifiers. 

The belief that his inner vision is right above all else. Like he told the founder of the Big Bang to go fuck himself even though his science was sound. Newton had a similar personality trait, but was much more grating. Einstein was more easy going, but both clung to belief in their inner vision, their Ni, above all else. 

Einstein's entire scientific career screams Ni, and his philosophy further confirms it. INTJ or INFJ.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Ne is glorified sensing, and closer to sensing. Jung actually compared extraverted intuitives to sensors.
> 
> The deepest discoveries are made by Ni. It digs deeper than any other function. Imagine knowledge is like an oil field. Ni discovers the oil field, and extracts it out of the ground. Then transfers it off to something like Ti for transporting and processing. Ni is _the _discoverer and extractor_. _​We are scientists, you are engineers. There can be science without engineering. There can't be engineering without science.


What does it mean to be close to sensing? More based on reality? 

Again, being a genius has nothing to do with Ni, making the biggest discoveries has nothing to do with Ni. It has nothing to do with functions in general. The other thing is that just because Ni users see what they consider depth, doesn't mean it actually exists, or is explainable to others if it does exist. For example, I'm sure you think that what you wrote hear about the oil field is really significant, and I have no doubt that you have attached all sorts of extra meaning to this in your mind. However, from an objective standpoint, couldn't you have said the EXACT same paragraph and put any functions? Couldn't Si, Se, Ne, or Ni discover the field and extract the oil? Couldn't Te, Ti, Fe, or Fi transport it and process it? On a side note that's not entirely relevant, wouldn't you use Fe to transport and process the oil since you're an INFJ, you're Ti isn't that strong comparatively. Depending on your definitions, theory of choice, and interpretation of JCF you could argue that you have strong Ti, but how could that be your go to judging function if it's lower in your stack? Not that it's very relevant, I just don't understand the choice.

As for the scientist vs. engineers part....sure there can't be engineering without science, however there can be science without engineering. What you're not saying is that you can't have science without math, which I'm calling dibs on for Ti. Also, Ni can't have discovery and extraction, Ne definitely gets discovery.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Probably, yes. I have always valued Ni , even before I knew what it was. Much Ni pride here.
> 
> I see Ni doms like high end sports cars. We are higher maintenance, and often less efficient, but we are higher performance. Einstein is a great example of this. Einstein sucked at math. I mean, he was probably better than you and I, but compared to other physicists of his day, he was below average. He didn't even like math, and had others do it for him. And if you put him up against a talented mathematician to solve some problems, he would get blown out. But give him time, and let him do it in his own way, and he will beat the best mathematician in the world on the most perplexing mathematical relations in the universe.
> 
> Like that guy just said, we don't work well at a fast pace. I guess that is somewhat true. Einstein is that example. He would get crushed in a time contest, but will beat anybody in the long run.


Except Einstein is generally understood as an xNTP, not an Ni type so I am not sure how your analogy applies to him. 

Also, INTJs are very concerned about efficiency, and so are ENTJs. I want to clarify that in socionics, Ni is actually defined as the function of time because the Ni type is acutely aware of the progress of things through time and space. The Ni type never needs to hurry because he always knows when something will happen before it happens so he has all the time in the world to distribute how to achieve something in time. It's therefore not so much that the Ni type doesn't like to hurry as much as the Ni type doesn't need to hurry because it's a non-issue. 



FearAndTrembling said:


> There is no doubt he is a Ni dom. The case:
> 
> epitome of Ni "pop up" thinking. If Einstein isn't Ni, nobody is.
> 
> ...


I don't think you understand how Ni works. You throw out things you think relate to Ni like unification, but you don't understand this unification in actuality. Unification in the Ni means to take all that exists and find some similarity within all of them, all that they share and have in common as to create a common core of concept and understanding. 

Also, having an inner vision isn't related to Ni. Any person can have an inner vision. Ni is itself not visionary. Ni simply perceives intuitive archetype content in a subjective manner. Notice how I just unified things into one point of view right now? Ni seeks a starting point, an ultimate source wherein all came from. It will keep changing the perspective of what an object is until it can find that singularity among all objects, wherein they all become one and the same. This is what Ni does. 

You haven't described this process at all. You're just the rambles of a madman.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Except Einstein is generally understood as an xNTP, not an Ni type so I am not sure how your analogy applies to him.
> 
> Also, INTJs are very concerned about efficiency, and so are ENTJs. I want to clarify that in socionics, Ni is actually defined as the function of time because the Ni type is acutely aware of the progress of things through time and space. The Ni type never needs to hurry because he always knows when something will happen before it happens so he has all the time in the world to distribute how to achieve something in time. It's therefore not so much that the Ni type doesn't like to hurry as much as the Ni type doesn't need to hurry because it's a non-issue.
> 
> ...


'
And that typing of Einstein is incorrect, as I have laid out. He has been typed by people who are totally ignorant of scientific theory, history and him. Typists have no context of the difference between and Einstein or somebody like Hilbert. How they both raced to solve the same mathematical problems, but in totally different ways. If you don't think Einstein is Ni dom, you don't know anything about Ni, or Einstein. And to think he has that Ni far down, such as an INTP, is not even debatable. 

Thank you for just repeating the exact definition of unifier that I applied to Einstein and Newton. So yeah, Ni unifies. It doesn't diversify. There are diversifying scientists, and there are unifiers. Einstein and Newton were supreme unifiers, and wanted to make their work as simple and elegant as possible. This is why you're not Ni. You just take my more streamlined version, flower it up, and send the same exact thoughts back in a less efficient, more cryptic package. You are one of those people who would rather be (seemingly) cleverly wrong, than boringly right. 

Jung talked about people like. Non Ni can see only aspect of Ni, and not its nature. And you trying to make your arguments academic, just shows it is not your nature, but your aspect. You are a bunch of words repeated. You are like Chinese Room argument. You just take in inputs and give outputs, you have no understanding of essence, because you aren't part of the essence.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Cellar Door said:


> What does it mean to be close to sensing? More based on reality?
> 
> Again, being a genius has nothing to do with Ni, making the biggest discoveries has nothing to do with Ni. It has nothing to do with functions in general. The other thing is that just because Ni users see what they consider depth, doesn't mean it actually exists, or is explainable to others if it does exist. For example, I'm sure you think that what you wrote hear about the oil field is really significant, and I have no doubt that you have attached all sorts of extra meaning to this in your mind. However, from an objective standpoint, couldn't you have said the EXACT same paragraph and put any functions? Couldn't Si, Se, Ne, or Ni discover the field and extract the oil? Couldn't Te, Ti, Fe, or Fi transport it and process it? On a side note that's not entirely relevant, wouldn't you use Fe to transport and process the oil since you're an INFJ, you're Ti isn't that strong comparatively. Depending on your definitions, theory of choice, and interpretation of JCF you could argue that you have strong Ti, but how could that be your go to judging function if it's lower in your stack? Not that it's very relevant, I just don't understand the choice.
> 
> As for the scientist vs. engineers part....sure there can't be engineering without science, however there can be science without engineering. What you're not saying is that you can't have science without math, which I'm calling dibs on for Ti. Also, Ni can't have discovery and extraction, Ne definitely gets discovery.


More based on the physical, and surface thinking. The outside.

I am just curious as to why certain functions are more dominant in the more intellectual types then? Why are like most of the great artists, scientists and philosophers not have sensor leads?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

> _You throw out things you think relate to Ni like unification, but you don't understand this unification in actuality. Unification in the Ni means to take all that exists and find some similarity within all of them, all that they share and have in common as to create a common core of concept and understanding. _


This statement for example. Jesus. Isn't that exactly what Newton and Einstein did? Why even say this, unless you don't understand Newton and Einstein's work? That definition is implicit to anyone who knows their work. You couldn't even see that the definition you used, is the one I already used. Your posts are actually redundant with mine, and you don't even know it. That's the lack of Ni.

This point exemplifies the Chinese Room type thinking I was talking about. You are good at returning words when they are given to you. You know which ones to say, but you lack understanding. It slips by most people, but not me. People can talk in an entire language they don't understand.

That is why you you had to repeat the definition of unifier. It was right there. When I called Newton and Einstein unifiers, that definition you repeated back to me should have instantly popped in your head. But it didn't. It never even registered. Because you lack understanding. As Feynman said, there is a difference between knowing something, and knowing the name of something. You just failed the Chinese Room experiment.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> More based on the physical, and surface thinking. The outside.
> 
> I am just curious as to why certain functions are more dominant in the more intellectual types then? Why are like most of the great artists, scientists and philosophers not have sensor leads?


There could be any number of reasons for this trend. First, there might actually be a lot of famous sensor artists, scientists, and philosophers but we just don't know because they died a long before they could be typed. Second, people always want a reason why someone is smarter, faster, stronger, or otherwise better than they are, and labeling someone as an intuitive is one way to do that because intuitives are supposedly smarter. So when typing some people aren't coming from the perspective of trying to determine a person's type, they're trying to find a way to fit them into an image that already exists. With having said that (and assuming the people you have in mind are accurately typed), I understand what you're getting at, and the reason could tied to the theory of the functional stack. Different world views value different types of information differently which lead to different people being charged by different activities, and maybe there are aspects of art, science, and philosophy that are probably more stimulating to intuitives. 

But also, you have to keep in mind that you're evaluating type based on results and not process. If your argument that Einstein is Ni is that his work was unifying, it begs the question, could only an Ni type do what he did? Or do you just think Ni is the most likely?


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

FearAndTrembling said:


> his big picture thinking, Ni hate detail. Einstein only cared about the grand problems of physics, like unified field theories.


But physics uses math, therefore is extremely detail-oriented. Einstein picked up these details with his Ne. There was a lot of external things or things that connected with a web of logic in a way that Ni-users just don't do like the incident with the train moving and the theory of relativity.

Ti is even better at unification than Ni in such a purely logical field. Even though its working with random information with Ne, the logical type of unification it employs is more suited for physics than Ni. Ni might incline toward some type of abstract unification, but Ti insists on logical unification. 

I played along but...saying "Einstein believes in unification, therefore he is an Ni-dom" is way too specific to begin with. Functions do not contain something as specific as a belief.

If you want to say that Einstein is an Ni-dom you need to talk about his auxiliary function as well, not just Ni.

Now, Newton is a better example of an INTJ. He arrived at his conclusions methodically using Ni to bridge the gap between ideas, then following through with Te once he had the information in front of him. His approach was a lot more intentional and less random than Einstein's, almost strategic. The N is hidden with Newton. Introverted. What you see is the T. The N is obvious in Einstein. The Ti is hidden. What you see is his N.... even though Einstein was T dom and Newton was N dom.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

> But physics uses math, therefore is extremely detail-oriented. Einstein picked up these details with his Ne. There was a lot of external things or things that connected with a web of logic in a way that Ni-users just don't do like the incident with the train moving and the theory of relativity.
> 
> Ti is even better at unification than Ni in such a purely logical field. Even though its working with random information with Ne, the logical type of unification it employs is more suited for physics than Ni. Ni might incline toward some type of abstract unification, but Ti insists on logical unification.
> 
> ...


Yes, theoretical physics is very mathematical. I somewhat addressed this. Einstein did NOT like math. He had others do it for him. Like I said, he was a competent mathematician, but compared to the average physicist, he was average at best, and to the elite physicist, far, far below average. This is why him being able to compete with guys like Hilbert in mathematical problems is so amazing. But Hilbert was a far better technical mathematician. Einstein was not a technical master. Stephen Hawking is a technical master. That isn't Einstein. Hilbert actually made the comment that "physics is becoming too difficult for physicists" because he saw physics as getting too complex mathematically for physicists, like Einstein, and should be handed over to pure mathematicians like himself. He was actually right when he said that to a degree though, as String Theory is so difficult that you could probably fit every human who truly understands it in one building. 

I don't think the best case for Einstein being Ni dom is the order thing, that was just a smaller piece of supporting evidence. The biggest thing is his "pop up thinking." The "leaps of consciousness". 

“The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why.”-Einstein



> Of all types, INJs are those most concerned with the “big picture.” This can be understood in terms of their Ni, which is the most abstract and forward-looking of all functions. Ni is comprehensive and holistic. Its visions, answers, and insights manifest as comprehensive wholes. Consequently, _INJs often feel more like recipients than they do creators of their ingenious ideas_.
> In his memoir, _On Writing_, Stephen King, most certainly an INJ type, describes his process of writing novels. He is adamant about the fact that _he does not consciously plan or piecemeal the plot or direction of his stories_. Rather his stories emerge from his unconscious as preexisting wholes, requiring little as far as conscious effort or planning. Other INJ novelists report similar experiences, feeling that once they have established the spigot to their creative unconscious their ideas seem to flow effortlessly and without volition.


----------



## eleventhheart (Jun 11, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Yes, theoretical physics is very mathematical. I somewhat addressed this. Einstein did NOT like math. He had others do it for him. Like I said, he was a competent mathematician, but compared to the average physicist, he was average at best, and to the elite physicist, far, far below average. This is why him being able to compete with guys like Hilbert in mathematical problems is so amazing. But Hilbert was a far better technical mathematician. Einstein was not a technical master. Stephen Hawking is a technical master. That isn't Einstein. Hilbert actually made the comment that "physics is becoming too difficult for physicists" because he saw physics as getting too complex mathematically for physicists, like Einstein, and should be handed over to pure mathematicians like himself. He was actually right when he said that to a degree though, as String Theory is so difficult that you could probably fit every human who truly understands it in one building.
> 
> I don't think the best case for Einstein being Ni dom is the order thing, that was just a smaller piece of supporting evidence. The biggest thing is his "pop up thinking." The "leaps of consciousness".
> 
> ...


Just curious, but where did you get the idea that Einstein was bad at maths? There was a misconception going around that he failed maths in school, but that's not in fact true. From what I've seen of his work, he's a brilliant mathematician. Are you a mathematician yourself? Or a history buff? Just wondering where you're getting your info from.

Not entirely sure what you're saying about Ni and having 'pop up moments'. If you're saying that only Ni doms have them then you're just plain wrong, unfortunately. That level of naivety towards every other type and the majority of the human race is actually astonishing.
If you're saying that those moments of inspiration are more common among Ni users, well you have a little more to work with, but that argument is by no means a closed deal.

Also, I'd like to hear your argument for Ne being closer to sensing. Ne makes up about half the definition for intuition, so that strikes me as a funny thing to say, haha. Here's to hoping your justification is sound and you didn't just make that up.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

eleventhheart said:


> Just curious, but where did you get the idea that Einstein was bad at maths? There was a misconception going around that he failed maths in school, but that's not in fact true. From what I've seen of his work, he's a brilliant mathematician. Are you a mathematician yourself? Or a history buff? Just wondering where you're getting your info from.
> 
> Not entirely sure what you're saying about Ni and having 'pop up moments'. If you're saying that only Ni doms have them then you're just plain wrong, unfortunately. That level of naivety towards every other type and the majority of the human race is actually astonishing.
> If you're saying that those moments of inspiration are more common among Ni users, well you have a little more to work with, but that argument is by no means a closed deal.
> ...


Yes, history of science is somewhat of a hobby of mine. How bad Einstein is at math is relative. He is better than you or I, and probably most people on this forum. But I am talking about the context of other professional physicists. He was not a brilliant mathematician by any stretch though. He was not even exceptional. And didn't care for it either. It doesn't hold his interest, that wasn't the way he thought. He respected math as a useful tool, but was not a brilliant mathematician. He was a physicist who used math.

Freeman Dyson, a much better mathematician, gets Einstein well:



> Great scientists come in two varieties, which Isaiah Berlin, quoting the seventh-century-BC poet Archilochus, called foxes and hedgehogs. Foxes know many tricks, hedgehogs only one. Foxes are interested in everything, and move easily from one problem to another. Hedgehogs are interested only in a few problems which they consider fundamental, and stick with the same problems for years or decades. Most of the great discoveries are made by hedgehogs, most of the little discoveries by foxes. Science needs both hedgehogs and foxes for its healthy growth, hedgehogs to dig deep into the nature of things, foxes to explore the complicated details of our marvelous universe. Albert Einstein was a hedgehog; Richard Feynman was a fox.


The "hedgehogs" that Berlin describes are Ni doms. Newton was another hedgehog. Dyson is a fox btw. As I said, Ni digs deepest. Like the hedgehog. The fox covers a larger terrain, but never digs as deep as the hedgehog does in one spot. And Feynman is actually listed as a Ne dom, so the analogy is perfect. Ni digs deepest.


----------



## Rafiki (Mar 11, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> What does it mean to be close to sensing? More based on reality?
> 
> Again, being a genius has nothing to do with Ni, making the biggest discoveries has nothing to do with Ni. It has nothing to do with functions in general. The other thing is that just because Ni users see what they consider depth, doesn't mean it actually exists, or is explainable to others if it does exist. For example, I'm sure you think that what you wrote hear about the oil field is really significant, and I have no doubt that you have attached all sorts of extra meaning to this in your mind. However, from an objective standpoint, couldn't you have said the EXACT same paragraph and put any functions? Couldn't Si, Se, Ne, or Ni discover the field and extract the oil? Couldn't Te, Ti, Fe, or Fi transport it and process it? On a side note that's not entirely relevant, wouldn't you use Fe to transport and process the oil since you're an INFJ, you're Ti isn't that strong comparatively. Depending on your definitions, theory of choice, and interpretation of JCF you could argue that you have strong Ti, but how could that be your go to judging function if it's lower in your stack? Not that it's very relevant, I just don't understand the choice.
> 
> As for the scientist vs. engineers part....sure there can't be engineering without science, however there can be science without engineering. What you're not saying is that you can't have science without math, which I'm calling dibs on for Ti. Also, Ni can't have discovery and extraction, Ne definitely gets discovery.



hah you sound like an INTP! good, reminiscent way— nothing bad


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

This is why a larger understanding of Jung helps.

@*ephemereality* said:




> Ni is itself not visionary. Ni simply perceives intuitive archetype content in a subjective manner






If you had read Jung, you would know that the sentence you just used is EXACTLY WHY NI IS VISIONARY. Even though you just used the statement to say the opposite. Why? Jung said that when conscious knowledge reaches a level that it can't go beyond, it projects an archetype. Where knowledge ends, archetypes begin. The fact that Ni is so good at using those archetypes is EXACTLY what makes Ni visionary. That is why Ni is so connected to mysticism and religion as well as scientific discovery. The old saying is that "where knowledge end, religion begins", but religion is merely a collection of archetypes. So, yes, Ni is visionary, because Ni brings us beyond the known. Archetypes are a road to the unknown, and Ni is the best at using them.

Those open moments. When human knowledge has reached its limits, and a subjective version of an archetype must be projected, is the second when genius and creation are made. It it the root of all art, etc..


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

If Ne is glorified Si, I'm afraid it could be said that Se is glorified Ni or Ni is glorified Se.

Si is a conceptual entity of pretty much equal consequence as others and a fair amount of consequence to humanity.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

Lots of eloquent shit talking in this thread.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Yes, theoretical physics is very mathematical. I somewhat addressed this. Einstein did NOT like math. He had others do it for him. Like I said, he was a competent mathematician, but compared to the average physicist, he was average at best, and to the elite physicist, far, far below average. This is why him being able to compete with guys like Hilbert in mathematical problems is so amazing. But Hilbert was a far better technical mathematician. Einstein was not a technical master. Stephen Hawking is a technical master. That isn't Einstein. Hilbert actually made the comment that "physics is becoming too difficult for physicists" because he saw physics as getting too complex mathematically for physicists, like Einstein, and should be handed over to pure mathematicians like himself. He was actually right when he said that to a degree though, as String Theory is so difficult that you could probably fit every human who truly understands it in one building.
> 
> I don't think the best case for Einstein being Ni dom is the order thing, that was just a smaller piece of supporting evidence. The biggest thing is his "pop up thinking." The "leaps of consciousness".
> 
> ...


Einstein was bad at number-crunching, but when you get into very advanced math, that really doesn't matter. Einstein probably said he was bad at math jokingly. My calculus professor constantly added numbers incorrectly, but he certainly was an expert at how to do the math. Anyway, Einstein actually loved math even though he hated school.

Its funny you mention Hawking. He is definitely a better candidate for INTJ than Einstein.

Stephen King an INJ? No, he is definitely INP. I've been through a creative writing degree and have written a ton of stuff. Generally, I plan all of it out. I have an ending in mind, and work my way backwards from there like a game of chess... I do let the characters develop more fluidly, but the plot is completely planned. A self-identified INTJ professional writer I know also writes in this way. Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't INTJs that write In a more stream-of-consciousness way. That is how I write poetry.

Anyway, I believe King is an INTP (though I don't preclude the possibility of him being INFP), for reasons you have already stated, comparing him with Einstein. _The Dark Tower_ is full of "random" references (Ne), yet he weaves all of them together with the underlying logic (Ti) of the story. The _Dark Tower_ is the central pillar of his work, a unification, a piece of writing that only a Ti or Fi dom would produce. It could be compared to Milton (INFP). All of his works dealt with the same topics, and he explored the more and more with each. 


_Great scientists come in two varieties, which Isaiah Berlin, quoting the seventh-century-BC poet Archilochus, called foxes and hedgehogs. Foxes know many tricks, hedgehogs only one. Foxes are interested in everything, and move easily from one problem to another. Hedgehogs are interested only in a few problems which they consider fundamental, and stick with the same problems for years or decades. Most of the great discoveries are made by hedgehogs, most of the little discoveries by foxes. Science needs both hedgehogs and foxes for its healthy growth, hedgehogs to dig deep into the nature of things, foxes to explore the complicated details of our marvelous universe. Albert Einstein was a hedgehog; Richard Feynman was a fox.
_




> The "hedgehogs" that Berlin describes are Ni doms. Newton was another hedgehog. Dyson is a fox btw. As I said, Ni digs deepest. Like the hedgehog. The fox covers a larger terrain, but never digs as deep as the hedgehog does in one spot. And Feynman is actually listed as a Ne dom, so the analogy is perfect. Ni digs deepest.


I would say, first of all, that this analogy compartmentalizes too much. Though, if either is the hedgehog, it would be the INTP. Newton (INTJ) would be more of a fox. He branched out and actually studied optics... and of course he invented calculus as well as his theory of gravity.

Ti is a function that creates logical maxims. It creates a single structure. It is not like Ni that can create many structures. Einstein as well as Nikola Tesla devoted their entire life to a single set of logical maxims; they are INTPs. I will also say that Ti is inflexible, since the maxims it builds with Ne blocks are actually being stored in tertiary Si. That is why Einstein and Tesla lost touch with the science of their day in their old age.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Octavian said:


> Lots of eloquent shit talking in this thread.


When things seem backwards, maybe the first post was the conclusion.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Yes, history of science is somewhat of a hobby of mine. How bad Einstein is at math is relative. He is better than you or I, and probably most people on this forum. But I am talking about the context of other professional physicists. He was not a brilliant mathematician by any stretch though. He was not even exceptional. And didn't care for it either. It doesn't hold his interest, that wasn't the way he thought. He respected math as a useful tool, but was not a brilliant mathematician. He was a physicist who used math.
> 
> Freeman Dyson, a much better mathematician, gets Einstein well:
> 
> The "hedgehogs" that Berlin describes are Ni doms. Newton was another hedgehog. Dyson is a fox btw. As I said, Ni digs deepest. Like the hedgehog. The fox covers a larger terrain, but never digs as deep as the hedgehog does in one spot. And Feynman is actually listed as a Ne dom, so the analogy is perfect. Ni digs deepest.


The analogy is perfect and that's all that matters doesn't it? I don't think you need to dig deep to find out this is based on self-reference. Einstein is Ni because he is a hedgehog and hedgehogs are ni because Ni 'digs deeper'. That's an interesting display of deductive convergent thinking.



Divergent Thinking said:


> “Einstein was a strong divergent thinker. He asked simple questions and then did mental exercises to solve problems. For example, as a young man Einstein asked himself what it would be like to ride on a beam of light. It took him many years of thought experiments, however the answer helped him develop the special theory of relativity. Thought experiments are imagined scenarios to understand the way things are.”
> Convergent Thinking


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> '
> And that typing of Einstein is incorrect, as I have laid out. He has been typed by people who are totally ignorant of scientific theory, history and him. Typists have no context of the difference between and Einstein or somebody like Hilbert. How they both raced to solve the same mathematical problems, but in totally different ways. If you don't think Einstein is Ni dom, you don't know anything about Ni, or Einstein. And to think he has that Ni far down, such as an INTP, is not even debatable.


I think the problem is that _you_ don't know what Ni is and try to ascribe Ni to be something it's not. 



> Thank you for just repeating the exact definition of unifier that I applied to Einstein and Newton. So yeah, Ni unifies. It doesn't diversify. There are diversifying scientists, and there are unifiers. Einstein and Newton were supreme unifiers, and wanted to make their work as simple and elegant as possible. This is why you're not Ni. You just take my more streamlined version, flower it up, and send the same exact thoughts back in a less efficient, more cryptic package. You are one of those people who would rather be (seemingly) cleverly wrong, than boringly right.


Except Einstein clearly had no interest to create a unified theory in an Ni-sense. He's interested in the effect, not the cause. Very different. That's why e=mc2 is the way it's formulated, because it's measuring or describing an effect, not a cause. 



> Jung talked about people like. Non Ni can see only aspect of Ni, and not its nature. And you trying to make your arguments academic, just shows it is not your nature, but your aspect. You are a bunch of words repeated. You are like Chinese Room argument. You just take in inputs and give outputs, you have no understanding of essence, because you aren't part of the essence.


LOL. You have no understanding of the essence of Ni. That much is clear. You can't even point out what was wrong with my definition of it as I provided to you, but instead of you throw an ad hominem in my face. The fact you don't understand shows you're not an Ni type. You don't care about profound deep symbolism and mysticism. Your thinking is much too quaint and grounded in reality to genuinely care about such things.



FearAndTrembling said:


> This is why a larger understanding of Jung helps.
> 
> @*ephemereality* said:
> 
> ...


If you have had read my posts, you'd know I have read my fair share of Jung. If you also actually understood what Jung meant, he did not at any point state that Ni is by itself visionary as in having ideals of how the future should pan out. When Jung considers the Ni visionary, he means so in terms of a mystic - someone who is able to read what will be before it actually is. Furthermore, when Jung expressed that intuition itself is imaginary, he didn't mean concrete images but he meant impressions of what something is beyond its actual concrete nature. 

Ni is again not visionary. it is Ne that _is_ visionary. If you actually read Jung's Ne portrait and understood it, you'll see Jung ascribe a lot of qualities you are here trying to ascribe to Ne. The way the word visionary is implied means future visions of how it should be aka someone has a future vision. You are not ascribing it as receiving visions from the future. That'd be Ni. Instead you ascribe it as visionary, hence Ne. 

And just for your information, all the functions are capable of tapping into archetypes. It's not unique to Ni by any means. It's just that Ni is innately good at reading them in an intuitive way, because it is Ni.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

This whole fight about which is better is stupid, Ti and Ni are both better at different kind of things.

_INTP having dominant Ti has the most logical and precise mind and they're able to see even the slightest logical inconsistency between two phrases, now matter how much time has passed between them. Strong sense of the hidden principles that govern how the world works. Best at thinking on the present.

INTJ having the domiant Ni has the most decisiveness and vivid imagination and they're able to design and execute brilliant plans like playing on a chessboard, they would assess all possible situation and calculate strategic moves. Strong, private sense of strategic vision, both for the future and how that future can be achieved. Best at thinking on the future._

Deal with it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

> Einstein was bad at number-crunching, but when you get into very advanced math, that really doesn't matter. Einstein probably said he was bad at math jokingly. My calculus professor constantly added numbers incorrectly, but he certainly was an expert at how to do the math. Anyway, Einstein actually loved math even though he hated school.
> 
> Its funny you mention Hawking. He is definitely a better candidate for INTJ than Einstein.
> 
> ...


No, Einstein was simply not a mathematician. He wasn't just mediocre at number crunching, but at higher mathematics. If he were alive today, he would be totally removed from arguments about String Theory, because they are above his level. They are above most physicist's level. Feynman was also a mediocre mathematician who would be excluded form the subject. That's why guys like Dyson had to sort all this shit out mathematically for them. Feynman won the Nobel for a particular theory, but two other people also came up with the same theory, in different form, independently. So three guys came up with the same thing, but only Dyson could see it. Dyson saw the connecting thread. Einstein or Feynman would never be able to do that. They don't have that kind of mathematical pedigree. I mean, the difference between someone like Einstein and Dyson in math, is bigger than the difference between me or you and Einstein in math. 

Newton was a polymath, so he may seem to be a fox, but he wasn't. He was interested in the big picture. Alchemy, religion, science, it all united into one. Ni is all about the big picture. The fundamental problems. Jung was the same way, he appears to be a fox but is really a hedgehog. He looks like he is digging around a larger area than he is.

I think it is Ni that is inflexible, because it is neither feeling or thinking. It's a thing its own.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

@FearAndTrembling
Image-based is like "the image of X mind object," not a literal image. Its like watching a pig's skin slough off its bones-therefore it sees the image(not literal) of the concept as opposed to the rule that... animates it, I guess. Ti checks for its principle by limiting parameters and exposing the range of what it left(as determined by perceiving). So the way they understand things is hard to reconcile.

Thats what I was getting at.

It is this way vs. It has to be this way


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

pancaketreehouse said:


> hah you sound like an INTP! good, reminiscent way— nothing bad


Guilty as charged, haha.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> No, Einstein was simply not a mathematician. He wasn't just mediocre at number crunching, but at higher mathematics. If he were alive today, he would be totally removed from arguments about String Theory, because they are above his level. They are above most physicist's level. Feynman was also a mediocre mathematician who would be excluded form the subject. That's why guys like Dyson had to sort all this shit out mathematically for them. Feynman won the Nobel for a particular theory, but two other people also came up with the same theory, in different form, independently. So three guys came up with the same thing, but only Dyson could see it. Dyson saw the connecting thread. Einstein or Feynman would never be able to do that. They don't have that kind of mathematical pedigree. I mean, the difference between someone like Einstein and Dyson in math, is bigger than the difference between me or you and Einstein in math.
> 
> Newton was a polymath, so he may seem to be a fox, but he wasn't. He was interested in the big picture. Alchemy, religion, science, it all united into one. Ni is all about the big picture. The fundamental problems. Jung was the same way, he appears to be a fox but is really a hedgehog. He looks like he is digging around a larger area than he is.
> 
> I think it is Ni that is inflexible, because it is neither feeling or thinking. It's a thing its own.


If he's so smart then why can't he understand the math? Physics is the most math-heavy subject that isn't math, I just have a hard time believe there's a difference between mathematical aptitude and aptitude in physics. How can someone be one of the greatest physicists to ever live, while only be mediocre at the entire basis of the field? What kind of papers is he writing if he can't write the mathematical proofs to prove his theories?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I think the problem is that _you_ don't know what Ni is and try to ascribe Ni to be something it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Alright, I am just gonna cut to the chase because these arguments never go anywhere. So let's revisit a point of confusion.

"_Ni is itself not visionary. Ni simply perceives intuitive archetype content in a subjective matter.
_
That IS visionary. Everything you say is an arguing my side for me. And you still haven't gotten that. 

Let's remove the word "Ni" from your statement, and look at it. "X simply perceives intuitive archetype content in a subjective manner".

Now, I don't care if you want to call X Ni or what. But the fact is, whatever X is, in my interpretation of Jung, is the spark of the creation process. That is the "leap of consciousness" that Einstein talked about. What you described in that sentence is what I consider the genesis of at all. And you just happened to label exactly what I think is the creative process "Ni", when I have been arguing the entire time that the creative process is Ni. _
_


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Alright, I am just gonna cut to the chase because these arguments never go anywhere. So let's revisit a point of confusion.
> 
> "_Ni is itself not visionary. Ni simply perceives intuitive archetype content in a subjective matter.
> _
> ...


Well, your interpretation is wrong. X is decisiveness and vivid imagination able to design and execute brilliant plans like playing on a chessboard, assuming possible situation and calculate strategic moves. Private sense of strategic vision, both for the future and how that future can be achieved. Einstein talked about Ne by the way which is visionary and connects by intuition facts from the present in real time.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Cellar Door said:


> If he's so smart then why can't he understand the math? Physics is the most math-heavy subject that isn't math, I just have a hard time believe there's a difference between mathematical aptitude and aptitude in physics. How can someone be one of the greatest physicists to ever live, while only be mediocre at the entire basis of the field? What kind of papers is he writing if he can't write the mathematical proofs to prove his theories?


Again, how good he is at math is relative. He is competent enough at math to do graduate level stuff. But the guys he was up against were on a whole other level. And that is why what he did was so impressive. Because he beat guys with much more horsepower than him. This is why Hilbert said that "physics is becoming too difficult for physicists", he was talking about guys like Einstein. He thought that pure mathematicians had to step in and take over the subject. And often they did have to come in and help. It is a team effort.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Dezir said:


> Well, your interpretation is wrong. X is decisiveness and vivid imagination able to design and execute brilliant plans like playing on a chessboard, assuming possible situation and calculate strategic moves. Private sense of strategic vision, both for the future and how that future can be achieved. Einstein talked about Ne by the way which is visionary and connects by intuition facts from the present in real time.


Nope, if you really think that the creative or discovery process is like chess, you have no idea. Einstein didn't have a board or pieces. They were thrown in his lap. He didn't strategize. Thoughts in your head like that just come together like gravity. They are not directed.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Nope, if you really think that the creative or discovery process is like chess, you have no idea. Einstein didn't have a board or pieces. They were thrown in his lap. He didn't strategize. Thoughts in your head like that just come together like gravity. They are not directed.


I've never said the creative or discovery process is like chess...
Einstein didn't had Ni either.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

default settings said:


> Not all INTPs. There are healthy INTPs.
> 
> However.
> 
> ...


That was beautiful. I could have just thanked the post, but I needed to say that.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Nope, if you really think that the creative or discovery process is like chess, you have no idea. Einstein didn't have a board or pieces. They were thrown in his lap. He didn't strategize. *Thoughts in your head like that just come together like gravity. They are not directed.*


Are you suggesting this is Ni? Undirected thoughts that float around and happen to converge, like gravity?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Are you suggesting this is Ni? Undirected thoughts that float around and happen to converge, like gravity?


Ni is a larger part of what Jung called "phantastic" thought. Jung broke down thinking into two types: directed and phantastic. Writing this post and thinking how to respond takes directed thought. The process of which Einstein came across his discoveries was not so strict or strategic. They just came to him, out of nowhere, and he didn't know how or why. Ni users are often said to be "recipients" of their ideas more than creators. Einstein felt he was a recipient of his idea, not a creator. 

Directed thought is a recent discovery of man. Primitive men all thought fantastically. Directed thought is the product of language/speech. That's why Ni can dig into archetypes best, because they come from primitive times, and we are primitive thinkers. We best relate to them. We think like those who first channeled them. 

I would consider Ti directed thought, and Ni to be fantastic. I don't know if Jung explicitly broke down functions by this dichotomy, but it fits with his definitions.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Quite the opposite actually...


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

Fear, you keep saying you don't like details, but it seems so much more like a cop out than anything else.
As a sensing inferior, I still realize the importance of them. Without them, you're just making stuff up with no basis.
Details can point people to intuition.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Ni is a larger part of what Jung called "phantastic" thought. Jung broke down thinking into two types: directed and phantastic. Writing this post and thinking how to respond takes directed thought. The process of which Einstein came across his discoveries was not so strict or strategic. They just came to him, out of nowhere, and he didn't know how or why. Ni users are often said to be "recipients" of their ideas more than creators. Einstein felt he was a recipient of his idea, not a creator.
> 
> Directed thought is a recent discovery of man. Primitive men all thought fantastically. Directed thought is the product of language/speech. That's why Ni can dig into archetypes best, because they come from primitive times, and we are primitive thinkers. We best relate to them. We think like those who first channeled them.
> 
> I would consider Ti directed thought, and Ni to be fantastic. I don't know if Jung explicitly broke down functions by this dichotomy, but it fits with his definitions.



Jung thought of undirected thoughts to be ruminations, otherwise categorized as Undirected Thinking or Intellectual-Intuitions.

Ni, on the other hand, he neither considered to be fantastical or undirected. He considered concrete intuition as fantastical, whereas abstract intuition (Ni) is symbolical. He considered abstract intuition as needing an "element of direction, an act of will, or an aim." (PT CW6, P771, Pg 453)


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Jung thought of undirected thoughts to be ruminations, otherwise categorized as Undirected Thinking or Intellectual-Intuitions.
> 
> Ni, on the other hand, he neither considered to be fantastical or undirected. He considered concrete intuition as fantastical, whereas abstract intuition (Ni) is symbolical. He considered abstract intuition as needing an "element of direction, an act of will, or an aim." (PT CW6, P771, Pg 453)


If it is symbolical, it is phantastical... Dreams are symbolical, and dreams are fantastic. That was Jung's whole point, and why he brought up these 2 types of thinking to begin with. To explain why dreams speak in symbols. They speak in symbols because that is the language of phantastic thought, and phantastic thought is the remnant of primitive man. Dreams speaks in symbols, in metaphors. Jung considered dreams to be phantastical thinking, but they obviously have a direction, a will, etc..


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> If it is symbolical, it is phantastical... Dreams are symbolical, and dreams are fantastic. That was Jung's whole point, and why he brought up these 2 types of thinking to begin with. To explain why dreams speak in symbols. They speak in symbols because that is the language of phantastic thought, and phantastic thought is the remnant of primitive man. Dreams speaks in symbols, in metaphors. Jung considered dreams to be phantastical thinking, but they obviously have a direction, a will, etc..


Why distinguish them as two different things if symbolical and fantastical intuition, according to you, are the same thing? Are you suggesting that Ne and Ni are the same?

Dreams are something different than intuition. When we are talking about the functions, we are talking about acts of will. Dreams are entirely unconscious, unless you happen to be lucid dreaming.

When you say "phantastical thinking" are you referring to Ni? If so, then the quote by Jung is that it _needs _an act of will rather than _has_ a will. The distinction is important in that the former implies an act of the ego, while the other implies an act of unconscious compulsion.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Alright, I am just gonna cut to the chase because these arguments never go anywhere. So let's revisit a point of confusion.
> 
> "_Ni is itself not visionary. Ni simply perceives intuitive archetype content in a subjective matter.
> _
> That IS visionary. Everything you say is an arguing my side for me. And you still haven't gotten that.


No, sorry, but you don't get it. I already defined the word "visionary" for you when applied to someone's cognition. It's nice to know you completely ignored it favor of your own understanding of what Ni is while ignoring everything else Jung wrote about intuition in the process, and how you twist it in order to fit your definition of what Ni is. 

You are making the word "visionary" to be something it's not. I already defined the "visions" of Ni for you: The ability to predict the future, to foresee what is to come, to receive visions of the future. You have not *once* tried to define Ni this way. Instead you apply it as visionary in a colloquial sense. Do you deny this? 

Ne also intuits the archetype. Intuition is as a whole, as Jung pointed out, the ability to experience the archetype by connecting to the collective unconsciousness. You have yet to show any rational delineation between the two that is capable of separating intuition into its two orientations based on Jungian principles.



> Let's remove the word "Ni" from your statement, and look at it. "X simply perceives intuitive archetype content in a subjective manner".
> 
> Now, I don't care if you want to call X Ni or what. But the fact is, whatever X is, in my interpretation of Jung, is the spark of the creation process. That is the "leap of consciousness" that Einstein talked about. What you described in that sentence is what I consider the genesis of at all. And you just happened to label exactly what I think is the creative process "Ni", when I have been arguing the entire time that the creative process is Ni. _
> _


Creativity has nothing to do with intuition itself. Any person and type can by definition be creative. And Ne can also make "leaps of consciousness". In fact, one might argue it is the Ne type that is more likely to do that, precisely because the way Ne operates seeking to expand a concept outside of its immediate presentation. Ni doesn't expand, it contracts. It wants to see the singular essence of it. You have yet to describe this process in Einstein's thinking, this need for singularity.

Actually, thank you PaladinX for putting it in better words than I apparently can:



PaladinX said:


> Jung thought of undirected thoughts to be ruminations, otherwise categorized as Undirected Thinking or Intellectual-Intuitions.
> 
> Ni, on the other hand, he neither considered to be fantastical or undirected. He considered concrete intuition as fantastical, whereas abstract intuition (Ni) is symbolical. He considered abstract intuition as needing an "element of direction, an act of will, or an aim." (PT CW6, P771, Pg 453)


This is exactly what I'm trying to get at. Ni is symbolic and I know for a fact because I've spent most of my life studying and understanding symbols and I've been seeking various avenues where I can explore that. Not just symbols like a Christian cross is representative of Christianity (I'd say that's concrete symbolism aka Ne honestly. It lacks the depth of Ni and seems rather trite and duh obvious in my opinion), but symbolism like looking at the color red and say it means anger, it means passion, it means love and so on, based on the context in which it appears of course. The color red means all those things without being anyone of them specifically. That's Ni singularity and unity. It doesn't branch out, but it wishes to unify all into one expression but not an expression of logic, but an expression of concept/symbol/idea. This is why we can for example interpret texts that describe scenarios like these:

"His face was beaming red and all he could think of was how much he wanted to murder someone."

As being the same as:

"He is angry."

And we could go further and say:

"He was like a steaming kettle."

This is Ni because it all points to the same thing - anger.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)




----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

uncertain said:


> Did someone say Hitler was an INFJ?
> 
> Just saying


The same people who say Ghandi is and I think King as well.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Why distinguish them as two different things if symbolical and fantastical intuition, according to you, are the same thing? Are you suggesting that Ne and Ni are the same?
> 
> Dreams are something different than intuition. When we are talking about the functions, we are talking about acts of will. Dreams are entirely unconscious, unless you happen to be lucid dreaming.
> 
> When you say "phantastical thinking" are you referring to Ni? If so, then the quote by Jung is that it _needs _an act of will rather than _has_ a will. The distinction is important in that the former implies an act of the ego, while the other implies an act of unconscious compulsion.


Dreams and intuition are both under the umbrella of fantastic thinking. Fantastic thinking can be conscious or unconscious. Dreams are different than intuition but both are fantastic thinking. Daydreaming is fantastic thinking, sleep dreaming is fantastic thinking.. If am driving down the road, or sitting on my sofa, and just start imagining myself with a woman or something. That is fantastic thinking. Those thoughts just come together like gravity. There is no effort. That's what makes it fantastic. It just flows...the mind plays with objects it loves, as Jung said. In directed thinking, it focuses on the objects we hate. I would rather be daydreaming than focusing on writing this post for example. Fantastic thinking is always trying to bring me away from directed thought. Yes, my daydreams have a direction or will, but they are not directed. Jung thought that directed thought was a very recent discovery of men, and people like the ancient Greeks could barely do it. That is why they were so obsessed with phantasms. He thought that even a guy like Aquinas lacked directive thought and stumbled to convert his phantoms to directed thought. 



> The subjects of thinking were often astonishingly phantastical; for example, questions were discussed, such as how many angels could have a place on the point of a needle? Whether Christ could have done his workof redemption equally well if he had come into the world as a pea? The possibility of such problems, to
> which belong the metaphysical problems in general, viz., to be able to know the unknowable, shows us of what peculiar kind that mind must have been which created such things which to us are the height of absurdity.





> The modern culture-creating mind is incessantly occupied in stripping off all subjectivity from experience,
> and in finding those formulas which bring Nature and her forces to the best and most fitting expression.
> It would be an absurd and entirely unjustified self glorification if we were to assume that we are more
> energetic or more intelligent than the ancients our materials for knowledge have increased, but not our intellectual
> ...


That is why I said my kind thinks more like the ancients. 



> *Here, we move in a world of phantasies, which, little concerned with the outer course of things, flows from an inner source, and, constantly hanging, creates now plastic, now shadowy shapes. This phantastical activity of the ancient mind created artistically par excellence.*


That's what I've been saying all along. Par excellence. A guy like Newton had one foot in each. The ancient world, and the modern. And to Jung, that is a good balance. Jung was another with a foot in each world. The stripping of the subjective as Jung called it, is what gave us soulless specialists like Stephen Hawking, instead of inspiring polymaths like Newton and Leibniz. It has actually degraded our thought. A guy like Hawking has no appreciation for that kind of thinking. And that is largely due to cultural influence.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> No, sorry, but you don't get it. I already defined the word "visionary" for you when applied to someone's cognition. It's nice to know you completely ignored it favor of your own understanding of what Ni is while ignoring everything else Jung wrote about intuition in the process, and how you twist it in order to fit your definition of what Ni is.
> 
> You are making the word "visionary" to be something it's not. I already defined the "visions" of Ni for you: The ability to predict the future, to foresee what is to come, to receive visions of the future. You have not *once* tried to define Ni this way. Instead you apply it as visionary in a colloquial sense. Do you deny this?
> 
> ...


Wait a second, did you just say that something is Ne, because it lacks the depth of Ni, and is trite? I think you may be arguing just to argue. I also don't think you Ni, because you write a lot, and say little. 


My previous post knocked over your entire argument. You have been championing Ne as the great creator. Ne is more outside oriented. "objective orientation" as Jung said. But I just referenced a passage of Jung who said that the subjective, ignoring of the outside, and moving of phantoms, was what was responsible for the creation of art, that is "par excellence". That art was created using the exact opposite philosophy and method you claim. And he went on to rail against the objective orientation you continue to champion. And I agree with him, the fact that artists, and thinkers, were better in the past is not a coincidence. It is because we lost touch with what was the main source of that creation. Within, not without. You're right that Ni contracts, inside, inside, inside. 

Those phantoms being moved around are archetypes btw. Archetypes ARE phantoms. 

This phantom type thinking does require the nourishment of non phantom thinking to reach its full potential, as Jung said. But that phantom thinking is the GENESIS of creation, as I have been saying all along.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Wait a second, did you just say that something is Ne, because it lacks the depth of Ni, and is trite? I think you may be arguing just to argue. I also don't think you Ni, because you write a lot, and say little.


Of course the introvert is going to find the extrovert lacking depth. Jung admits as much himself. Because Ni is introverted, it will find the extroverted counterpart lacking depth, just like the Fi type is going to find Fe lacking depth. 



> My previous post knocked over your entire argument. You have been championing Ne as the great creator.


No, I haven't. If you read my posts I explicitly stated that creativity has nothing to do with intuition at all. 



> Ne is more outside oriented. "objective orientation" as Jung said. But I just referenced a passage of Jung who said that the subjective, ignoring of the outside, and moving of phantoms, was what was responsible for the creation of art, that is "par excellence".




You did, and you put three different quotes taken out of context but provided in such a way that they should provide a context together. Quite a biased way of presenting data. And I don't think you understood that quote nor the theory, since according to what you yourself wrote previously, it doesn't need to be intuition because it can be other forms of thought such as daydreaming, dreams, fantasy etc. You cited intuition as _one_ possible cause but not the only one. That you then assume that it is _the_ cause is a fallacy and contradicts what you've previously claimed. If something has many causes, it has many causes, not suddenly one cause. 

Furthermore, what you wrote in addition to that quote simply suggested Ti > Te. It didn't suggest anything about Ni/Ne. Ti is subjective too, you know, as are all introverted orientations. It's simply your subjective bias that leads you to think it must be Ni in all these instances when it could equally have been introversion in general. 



> That art was created using the exact opposite philosophy and method you claim. And he went on to rail against the objective orientation you continue to champion.


What? 



> And I agree with him, the fact that artists, and thinkers, were better in the past is not a coincidence. It is because we lost touch with what was the main source of that creation. Within, not without. You're right that Ni contracts, inside, inside, inside.


Then why are you rambling like a mad person? You're not expressing Ni at all. I don't agree with you. I see a lot of great art being produced in this day and age. You should learn to see and appreciate things for what they are instead of trying to always make it conform to some image you have preconceived, which by the way, fits the mental activity of Thinking more so than it does Intuition.



> Those phantoms being moved around are archetypes btw. Archetypes ARE phantoms.


Yes and no. I mean really... I am not even sure why you thought you felt the need to state this. Yet you don't quite grasp the difference. There's a difference in experiencing thanks to intuition, and dealing with them concretely like say, daydreaming. If we are to believe Jung, our entire cosmos is simply made up by archetypes. Therefore no matter what we do we will engage with archetypes in some way and in this sense I agree with him. It does not however mean that when one does so, it's on the basis of intuition. 



> This phantom type thinking does require the nourishment of non phantom thinking to reach its full potential, as Jung said. But that phantom thinking is the GENESIS of creation, as I have been saying all along.


Creativity =/= intuition. Again.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Of course the introvert is going to find the extrovert lacking depth. Jung admits as much himself. Because Ni is introverted, it will find the extroverted counterpart lacking depth, just like the Fi type is going to find Fe lacking depth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, everything is taken out of context....when it disproves your point. Jung thought that ancients created better art. That is a fact. If you think guys like Hawking and Witten are as deep as guys like Leibniz or Descartes, that's your own problem. But thought and art has declined over the centuries, to anyone who actually followed it. There isn't even a true polymath on this Earth. Every area of thought has declined. Politics, religion, science, philosophy. There are no great political thinkers today, for example. Are you fucking kidding me? Where are the Max Weber's, the Karl Marx, the De Tocqueville's. Please. Who are today's great thinkers? This is why the bottom of Christianity fell out, because it was based on thought, and lost its thinkers. Bacon, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, CS Lewis, these guys were always breathing new life into these subjects, in a profound way. Christianity lost its thinkers, and so did every other subject. It's funny how hobbyists in the past made more profound insights than specialists in modern times. I mean, a guy like Kant pulled how the solar system was formed totally out of his ass, and he was largely right. Everyone is less artistic in their thinking. When Bacon wrote essays against atheism, it was like poetry. Why don't men like him exist anymore? Explain that to me. 

According to Jung, intuition is "perception via the unconscious". Now what is in the unconscious? Archetypes. Archetypes are the forms of creation. So whatever is perceived in the unconscious is in that mixture of archetypes. That's what makes it creative. This goes back to primitive thinking and why it is creative. Because in the past, all humans perceived with their unconscious. This is why intuition gets us in touch with archetypes, and creativity. 

Ti does not reject the outside world though, it focuses on it. Jung describing it:




> Even though my thinking process is directed, as far as possible, towards objective data, nevertheless it is my subjective process, and it can neither escape the subjective admixture nor yet dispense with it. Although I try my utmost to give a completely objective direction to my train of thought, even then I cannot exclude the parallel subjective process with its all-embracing participation, without extinguishing the very spark of life from mythought. This parallel subjective process has a natural tendency, only relatively avoidable, to subjectify objective facts, i.e. to assimilate them to the subject.




Whereas, fantastic thinking does not try to direct towards the outside world,. it does the opposite. It moves around phantoms. Archetypes. Whenever you reach a point that your brain can't go past, an archetype is summoned to get you beyond that point. Ti is directed thinking, Ni is phantastic. I think Ni is the only function that is truly phantastic. Others accept reality too much. So, if we are talking about functions, Ni is the creator. Ni attaches archetypes to other types of fantastic thinking like daydreaming. Fantastic thinking like daydreaming is like a flammable gas. Ni is combustion itself, that ignites it. Other types of phantastic thinking contribute, but the root, when you reduce it down to its source, is Ni. I don't think Ni is responsible for all creation, it is antecedent of it. It is always waiting for the right material to set on fire. There are many causes, but Ni is the causes of causes. I never said that Ni can do creation alone, or encompasses the whole creative process. Only that it was the root of it all.


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

Ni is so overhyped. Fe will lead us all to the Promised Land, bitches.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Alright, I'm out. This conversation is consuming too much of my day. But I finally found the analogy I was looking for after 8 pages. Whats his name is saying that creation is not intuition. No, obviously they are distinct things. Ni, or intuition in general, is an enzyme. It connects two energies that could not have a reaction otherwise. It connects the energy of the archetype with the energy of whatever. I've been thinking this whole time that intuition was a bridge, but didn't feel it quite described the process precise enough. Enzyme fits perfectly. The creative process is a chemical reaction. A transformation. Intuition is an enzyme that makes it happen. They reduce the resistance to the archetypes, and lower the wall between the two.


----------

