Ni: "Mapping Between Signs and Meaning"

[beyondaurora]

I was reading the Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki page on introverted intuition, and I was extremely fascinated by Proposed Definition #5, particularly the areas in bold below:

Ni is orienting yourself by an explicit representation of the mapping between signs and meaning. For example, "This dark-stained mahogany table is supposed to make me think the owner is upper-class" or "We put north at the top of maps (rather than, say, the bottom or the right), because northern countries traditionally had more power, and we perceive 'higher on the page' to mean 'more important'." From an Ni standpoint, one doesn't feel oriented until one can articulate explicitly what are the signs one is supposed to look at and what are the meanings one is supposed to take from them.

Because the mental space that Ni "lives in" is the world of all possible ways of mapping signs to meanings, Ni leads you to consider not only the accepted ways of mapping signs to meanings, but others. For example, why couldn't dark-stained mahogany mean "lower class"? For example, what if instead of viewing failing a test as an occasion for shame, we viewed it as an occasion for celebration? How might our lives change if we merely rewired the interpretations we are giving to things?

An Ni perspective leads one to seek out the leverage points of any system. What is triggering what? What "good faith" assumptions are being made, and what would happen if those assumptions were violated? For example, ants "interpret" certain pheromones as "meaning" that something is a larva that needs to be fed. Some parasites have evolved the ability to give off these same pheromones, triggering the ants to feed them. The parasites have found a way to game the system by exploiting its assumptions. The parasites don't orient by Ni, of course, but this kind of analysis takes an Ni approach. One can apply this same kind of analysis to almost anything: looking at a system not through the lens of "how it's supposed to work", but from outside the system, merely characterizing how it converts a sign into an interpretation, triggering a cascade of behaviors.

Lenore characterizes Ni as "about the box" as opposed to Extraverted Intuition's "outside the box". That is, an Ni orientation leads you to describe the assumptions and rules that a given system of thought or perception is following.

Ni on this perspective is a decidedly left-brain orientation. It doesn't lead you to flow with anything or even participate. It leads you to stop, get "into your head", and even act in ways that go against the spirit of a system, or to think about ways that going with the spirit of rules can lead to unexpected and undesired results.

In contrast to most other definitions, this one has nothing mysterious or particularly "intuitive" about it. Ni on this definition is simply a matter of looking at things from a "meta" perspective, explicitly characterizing how signs are getting mapped to meanings. This simple definition, combined with the idea of ego-orientation, explains the many standard observations about NJs and SPs: the "commenting from an outside perspective" usually seen in INJs, the coldly "objective, impersonal" style usually seen in INTJs, the interest in pointing out that social myths exist to support power structures usually seen in INFJs, the interest in gaming a system or throwing a monkey wrench into it usually seen in SPs, the seeking of the social "cat-bird seat" usually seen in ENJs, the endless levels of meta-discussion found in INJ-filled academia, etc.

I have been looking for an elegant description of Ni, and I feel I've found it with this one. I especially love the contrast of Ni and Ne: thinking "about the box" versus thinking "outside the box".

Because this description is so different than the usual ones, I'm curious to hear whether you agree with this description and whether you find it sufficient (as in, it is not necessary to add the 'future seeing' aspect of Ni to the description).

 

[Costrin]

I was reading the Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki page on introverted intuition, and I was extremely fascinated by Proposed Definition #5, particularly the areas in bold below:


I have been looking for an elegant description of Ni, and I feel I've found it with this one. I especially love the contrast of Ni and Ne: thinking "about the box" versus thinking "outside the box".

Because this description is so different than the usual ones, I'm curious to hear whether you agree with this description and whether you find it sufficient (as in, it is not necessary to add the 'future seeing' aspect of Ni to the description).

Yay Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki (quite a mouthful)! Discovered this site a month or two ago, it's really interesting. Anyway, I like this definition of Ni much better than others, it actually makes some sense to me. Of course, I don't really use Ni all that much, so I can't really comment on its accuracy.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Based on those descriptions, would imageboards like 4chan be considered Introverted Intution Incarnate?

 

[velocity]

undermining assumptions tastes so good

 

[nightning]

Based on those descriptions, would imageboards like 4chan be considered Introverted Intution Incarnate?

In a very limited and overused cliche sense, yes.

At the same time, it's also good to keep in mind that Ni isn't restricted to that sort of humor.

In response to beyond's question

Because the mental space that Ni "lives in" is the world of all possible ways of mapping signs to meanings, Ni leads you to consider not only the accepted ways of mapping signs to meanings, but others.

Very much so. Ni based on what others told me and my personal experience likes to entertain possibilities. Just because there's an obvious explanation for something to happen doesn't mean it's the truth. Ni will explore all of them. Although the exact opposite case like a poor person owning an expensive piece of furniture is less likely to happen. It's more likely to look at things on a tangent. The person might not have brought it... it could have been inherited... or the person is a carpenter that makes tables... etc

Lenore characterizes Ni as "about the box" as opposed to Extraverted Intuition's "outside the box". That is, an Ni orientation leads you to describe the assumptions and rules that a given system of thought or perception is following.

I don't necessarily agree with this. Ni doesn't care about boxes. It cares about "objective truth", as in what IS. It sees that any information we gather is subjected to bias. Therefore only by looking at all the pieces, seeing how they all fit, that allows you to get at this truth. Hence Lenore's comment on objectiveness of INTJs.

With that said, the "box" defined by Ni in the end is "the universe and everything". The ultimate unity of all that we know into one system is what Ni would like to do. Other than this box, there is no box.

In contrast, from the ENTPs I've talked to... they try very much to "push the boundaries". Perhaps that's why Ne thinking is considered "outside the box". But they first must define something using boxes in order to move beyond. Ni doesn't see one at all. It moves to whatever that fits.

Ni on this perspective is a decidedly left-brain orientation. It doesn't lead you to flow with anything or even participate. It leads you to stop, get "into your head", and even act in ways that go against the spirit of a system,

Never got the idea behind left-brain/right-brain processes. Ni does need time to work. Throw a problem at an Ne dominant, and you'll see them poking at things to see how it work. Throw a problem at an Ni dominant, and you get the opposite. They stare at the thing, ask questions and try to develop a mental model of the thing. Then they try to solve it by run virtual simulations using the model in their head.

The last bit about "even act in ways that go against the spirit of a system" is misleading. Ni doesn't deliberately go against the system. It doesn't even see it unless you factor the existing system as one of the parameters you have to consider.

In contrast to most other definitions, this one has nothing mysterious or particularly "intuitive" about it. Ni on this definition is simply a matter of looking at things from a "meta" perspective, explicitly characterizing how signs are getting mapped to meanings.

Ni is not mystical. It's really just connecting A -> B -> C -> D -> E, each connection using slightly different set of parameters, then presenting you with the just A -> E to save you some time.

 

[cascadeco]

^^^ What Nightning wrote.

 

[Thursday]

Nightning seconded

 

[01011010]

undermining assumptions tastes so good

If you're actually correct...

 

[beyondaurora]

Very much so. Ni based on what others told me and my personal experience likes to entertain possibilities. Just because there's an obvious explanation for something to happen doesn't mean it's the truth. Ni will explore all of them. Although the exact opposite case like a poor person owning an expensive piece of furniture is less likely to happen. It's more likely to look at things on a tangent. The person might not have brought it... it could have been inherited... or the person is a carpenter that makes tables... etc

Nightning, it seems to me you are describing Ne, in that you are brainstorming various reasons for why a situation is.

The furniture example given illustrates the mapping of signs (mahogony furniture) to an accepted meaning (upper-class status).

I highlight the following:

Because the mental space that Ni "lives in" is the world of all possible ways of mapping signs to meanings, Ni leads you to consider not only the accepted ways of mapping signs to meanings, but others. For example, why couldn't dark-stained mahogany mean "lower class"? For example, what if instead of viewing failing a test as an occasion for shame, we viewed it as an occasion for celebration? How might our lives change if we merely rewired the interpretations we are giving to things?

Per this description, Ni takes the accepted mapping and flips it (and/or turns it upside down and inside out!) to uncover various potential.

 

[MrME]

Thank you for that link. It will provide me with some interesting reading!

 

[nightning]

Nightning, it seems to me you are describing Ne, in that you are brainstorming various reasons for why a situation is.

The furniture example given illustrates the mapping of signs (mahogony furniture) to an accepted meaning (upper-class status).

I highlight the following:



Per this description, Ni takes the accepted mapping and flips it (and/or turns it upside down and inside out!) to uncover various potential.

No! That is not what Ni does. Ni considers ALL variation of possibilities... from the direct opposites of mahogony furniture for the rich to furniture for the poor... AND everything in between of that.

Grabbing a snippet from yesterday...

Ni person (NJ) will focus more on a specific aspect or attribute of a mental representation of a pineapple and see how that specific aspect links to other things. For example pineapples is for eating, you get canned slices of pineapples and those typically have a whole down the center because they're de-cored, then it reminds you of donuts, chocolate glazed donuts and now suddenly you want hot chocolate.

If you look at the example there... I went from pineapple to hot chocolate. The underlying theme is "food" because I was hungry. But I did not take the opposite of a pineapple. For what is the opposite of a pineapple? I've simply taken an attribute of the pineapple and looked at other things with a similar attribute. I could equally have focused on the spikes on the outside of a pineapple and ended up with a time bomb. Pineapple -> spikes -> spikes hurts/nails -> exploding nails -> bomb with embedded nails (OUCH) -> time bomb. Looking at just the opposites or turning things "inside-out/upside-down" would not be the complete picture of what Ni does.

As I understand it, Ne differs from Ni by taking a static view of the object and imagining how it can interact with various situations. Which means a pineapple for Ne would be a pineapple... what it physically contains, not what concepts are associated with it. So Ne ask questions like what sort of things can you do with a pineapple. Eat it, cut it, throw it, make a battery out of it, carve it like a jack-o-lantern etc.

 

[beyondaurora]

Very cool, nightning. I'm with you now.

 

[Apollanaut]

I'm a huge fan of Lenore Thomson's work and I consider her description of Ni (and the additions posted on the related wiki) to be the definitive one.

Nightning, you also have a clear understanding of this complex function and how it operates.

However, there is a deeper side to Ni which does appear to be mystical in it's operation. Whether it is or not is open to debate, but this deep aspect of Ni is entirely consistent with the "mapping signs to meanings" definition. I'm referring to Ni's ability to perceive, understand and even interact with the Archetypes of the collective unconscious described by Jung. These are powerful semi-autonomous psychological constructs which are contained within each person, and yet seem to be able to transcend individual psyches and manifest in a collective fashion.

For example, they are what used to be known as the "Gods". Ni seems to "get" the archetypes like no other function and this is perhaps why INJs were often shamans or priests in ancient cultures.

Archetypes can be seen as the ultimate arbiters of meaning - they are powerful and not to be underestimated. An out-of-control negative archetypal manifestation can have dire consequences, for example, mob violence or mass suicides.

Ni has the ability to map archetypal signs (the visible manifestations of an archetype) and meanings and this is perhaps where its greatest power lies. The much-discussed prophetic power of Ni derives from this ability, since archetypal forces have a certain predictability and inevitability about them. If Ni can detect and correctly identify the underlying archetypes at play in a situation, then it has a decent shot at accurately predicting how the situation will play out and intuiting what consequences will ensue.

 

[Venom]

I'm a huge fan of Lenore Thomson's work and I consider her description of Ni (and the additions posted on the related wiki) to be the definitive one.

Nightning, you also have a clear understanding of this complex function and how it operates.

However, there is a deeper side to Ni which does appear to be mystical in it's operation. Whether it is or not is open to debate, but this deep aspect of Ni is entirely consistent with the "mapping signs to meanings" definition. I'm referring to Ni's ability to perceive, understand and even interact with the Archetypes of the collective unconscious described by Jung. These are powerful semi-autonomous psychological constructs which are contained within each person, and yet seem to be able to transcend individual psyches and manifest in a collective fashion.

For example, they are what used to be known as the "Gods". Ni seems to "get" the archetypes like no other function and this is perhaps why INJs were often shamans or priests in ancient cultures.

Archetypes can be seen as the ultimate arbiters of meaning - they are powerful and not to be underestimated. An out-of-control negative archetypal manifestation can have dire consequences, for example, mob violence or mass suicides.

Ni has the ability to map archetypal signs (the visible manifestations of an archetype) and meanings and this is perhaps where its greatest power lies. The much-discussed prophetic power of Ni derives from this ability, since archetypal forces have a certain predictability and inevitability about them. If Ni can detect and correctly identify the underlying archetypes at play in a situation, then it has a decent shot at accurately predicting how the situation will play out and intuiting what consequences will ensue.

there is 0 evidence for a collective unconscious....i smell pseudoscience


on a nicer note: i agree that Ni has an amazing ability to work with the archetypes that the brain has been able to identity and collect. To me Ni is supercomputing...its taking in loads of info, and pumping out the bottom line meta-analysis that can make it seem like someone somehow pulled out mystical truths simply from "percieving" the world.

 

[nightning]

I'm a huge fan of Lenore Thomson's work and I consider her description of Ni (and the additions posted on the related wiki) to be the definitive one.

Nightning, you also have a clear understanding of this complex function and how it operates.

However, there is a deeper side to Ni which does appear to be mystical in it's operation. Whether it is or not is open to debate, but this deep aspect of Ni is entirely consistent with the "mapping signs to meanings" definition. I'm referring to Ni's ability to perceive, understand and even interact with the Archetypes of the collective unconscious described by Jung. These are powerful semi-autonomous psychological constructs which are contained within each person, and yet seem to be able to transcend individual psyches and manifest in a collective fashion.

For example, they are what used to be known as the "Gods". Ni seems to "get" the archetypes like no other function and this is perhaps why INJs were often shamans or priests in ancient cultures.

Archetypes can be seen as the ultimate arbiters of meaning - they are powerful and not to be underestimated. An out-of-control negative archetypal manifestation can have dire consequences, for example, mob violence or mass suicides.

Ni has the ability to map archetypal signs (the visible manifestations of an archetype) and meanings and this is perhaps where its greatest power lies. The much-discussed prophetic power of Ni derives from this ability, since archetypal forces have a certain predictability and inevitability about them. If Ni can detect and correctly identify the underlying archetypes at play in a situation, then it has a decent shot at accurately predicting how the situation will play out and intuiting what consequences will ensue.

Here is where I'm confused... how are archetypes in anyway "mystical"?

I know one of Jung's theories besides cognitive function are archetypes and the collective unconscious, which as Babylon said there's no evidence in support of. Putting that aside, I can see how Ni would grab onto archetypes due to its symbolic nature. But I don't see the link between the archetypes and predicting the future.

The Ah-hah moments of Ni happens when it teases out hidden connections between ideas and from that revealing some underlying pattern. The Ni intuitive hunch is nothing more than an expansion of that. Ni works with the underlying assumption that things are likely connected and if you search deep enough you'll see the pattern. Anything that doesn't seem to fit this pattern sets off a warning. Something's off, which needs further looking into.

The reverse case is "I 'know' this is so", but I can't tell you why. That would be Ni sensing the pattern but you're unable to articulate just what exactly this pattern might be.

Neither of these are in anyway "mystical" or "prophetical". Because if you use Ti and look back, more times than not you'll see exactly what pieces of info led you to those conclusions. This isn't due to god or some higher being telling you things.

 

[Apollanaut]

Here is where I'm confused... how are archetypes in anyway "mystical"?

I know one of Jung's theories besides cognitive function are archetypes and the collective unconscious, which as Babylon said there's no evidence in support of. Putting that aside, I can see how Ni would grab onto archetypes due to its symbolic nature. But I don't see the link between the archetypes and predicting the future.

The Ah-hah moments of Ni happens when it teases out hidden connections between ideas and from that revealing some underlying pattern. The Ni intuitive hunch is nothing more than an expansion of that. Ni works with the underlying assumption that things are likely connected and if you search deep enough you'll see the pattern. Anything that doesn't seem to fit this pattern sets off a warning. Something's off, which needs further looking into.

The reverse case is "I 'know' this is so", but I can't tell you why. That would be Ni sensing the pattern but you're unable to articulate just what exactly this pattern might be.

Neither of these are in anyway "mystical" or "prophetical". Because if you use Ti and look back, more times than not you'll see exactly what pieces of info led you to those conclusions. This isn't due to god or some higher being telling you things.

First off, I am a scientist by training and profession, and I believe that there is a scientific explanation for everything, ultimately. However, there is a great deal of human experience which science cannot yet explain, and some of this experience falls under the category of "mystical". You'll note that I actually said "appear to be mystical" rather than "is mystical" in my original post.

Ni in particular is interested in the unseen and unknown (at least it is in me!), it therefore has a tendency to wander into territories for which there are no rational or scientific definitions, or even, sometimes, a language to express what it is perceiving. This, to my mind, is highly desirable - how else can new knowledge be discovered? If we were only ever allowed to use what is known and commonly accepted as "facts" there would be no new knowledge and no point whatsoever to intuition.

The archetypes are now a fairly well-accepted part of human psychology, and you cannot have the archetypes without a "collective unconscious", since that is where they dwell! There is actually plenty of evidence (much of it anecdotal or observational, admittedly) for a collective unconscious, and I believe that one day there will be some scientific proof of its existence. However, this may take a long time, for how do you measure such a nebulous concept?

In the meantime, those of us who have had some direct experience of the power of these mysterious archetypes will continue to be fascinated by the whole subject, and will continue to struggle to describe this territory in ways which make sense to others. As I said before, there isn't even an effective language to properly describe the deep levels of the human psyche - all we can really do is hint at what lies there. However, I am personally convinced that this is a fertile area for study, with enormous implications for the psychological evolution of our species.

I'll shut up now, after making this plea to all you NT rationals out there: please, please leave something of the mysterious and mystical out there for us poor Idealists to cling to! You'll really miss us if you "rationalise" us out of existence!

 

[Hendo Barbarosa]

Oh man, the Ni ideas in this thread rule. On a personal level, it's definitely tripping me out to see the correlations with how I do art, as well.

 

[nanook]

i want this to be confirmed by enfj and entj.
also the tiny opposite part about Ne by enfp and entp.

 

[Apollanaut]

Oh man, the Ni ideas in this thread rule. On a personal level, it's definitely tripping me out to see the correlations with how I do art, as well.

Please expand on this a little: Ni art is one of the best ways to express concepts for which there are no words.

 

[Hendo Barbarosa]

Oh also, I might add that even though Ni probably isn't mystical, the mere breakdown of how it functions should prove that it is the basis for (essentially erroneous) attributions of mystical or prophetic nature.

(This is coming from 23 years experience as a born-again christian. Sometimes I feel like something comes from somewhere else with Ni. I know it's not true, but I can understand the misconception, at least)

Edit: In regards to the art thing, I often feel like the process for my art is:

a.) create an art piece
b.) ponder over it
c.) discover it's meaning

notice which element is LAST in that order...it always freaks me out how my mind can apparently think of things or come up with things that, consciously, it has no capacity to understand. A-ha moments for me tend to be really spatial. Like the way I build stories in my worlds tends to be, I will draw the character first, then maybe a few days later while thinking about the drawing, suddenly from nowhere it will come to me who the character is, what their purpose is in the world, and how they fit into the "pattern" of the narrative. Maybe that's not at all artistic Ni, but when I first heard the description of the characteristics of it, I just automatically made those connections with how I can definitively discover territories in my imagination.