Ne and Ni

[gromit]

What makes them both N, then?

 

[Eric B]

The process of abstracting information from the data.

 

[gromit]

Okay that makes sense to me.

From INTJ perspective things look like this. (if we presume that the function order is correct)


Ni leads in every way as a way of perciving thing and feeds the Te. The Te then decides what to do, how to do and when to do. The only task of the Se here is to make sure that you can read and that you don't fall down stairs.

Hmm... the way you describe it makes me wonder whether Ne/Si (and Se/Ni) are really that interconnected at all. I mean, it almost seems, at least based on what I read on the forum, that Te is really linked with Fi, and the same for Fe and Ti. Almost as though humanity can be divided into Te/Fi and Fe/Ti people. However, when we talk about sensing and intuition, it's more like we categorize people as a sensor or an intuitive, do you know what I mean? Is there a reason for that, or am I just not picking up on some subtleties or something? Or do you think that we are over-simplifying it?

Also, is there a non-tangible side to Se? What I mean by this is that Si seems to be about an internal library almost, of facts and information and sensations, so Si is not purely physical... but is there a part of Se that's not purely physical?

 

[Tradewind]

I mean, it almost seems, at least based on what I read on the forum, that Te is really linked with Fi, and the same for Fe and Ti./QUOTE]

All of these are linked in a way. Functions are not used individually. People are not that simple so they are often mixed.

For example: Some can use their leverage and influence (Ti) to purposefully make social connections (Fe)

Or.. Some could organize data or ideas in a chart (Te) based on what is important to you (Fi)

The same goes for the perception functions.

Also, I always understood Ni as gathering a meta perspective or this kind of all encompassing vision. Instead of thinking within the box (Si) or see multiple options (Ne) it describes the system. This allows the person to use the system in ways it wasn't meant to be used. Think about the Matrix. He uses the flaws in the programming against other programs or agents for his benefit.

 

[Within]

Ne and Ni are supposedly the most confusing functions people try and make out. There are many false explanations I've seen before so hopefully this thread will make things clear.

 

[KDude]

Okay that makes sense to me.



Hmm... the way you describe it makes me wonder whether Ne/Si (and Se/Ni) are really that interconnected at all.

Some people who don't provide their "Ne" with enough experience probably fall back on Si for their conclusions a little. It can skew things, I bet.

Could be the same for Se/Ni, but not as likely, I think. Se is... needier for experiences.

 

[Resonance]

Comparing Ni and Ne

I know the question of what distinguishes Ne from Ni comes up a lot and everyone has different perspectives, so if nothing else just post your own idea of what it is, and we can see about discussing and at least make sure everyone's perspectives are out there so we can pick what seems 'right' to us.

There are probably some older threads on the topic, but I looked through some pages and only saw more specialized discussions.

----

The reason I'm wondering about this is because I've pretty much 'locked in' that I use Fe with people IRL and Ti for analysis/debates/work/etc, regardless of what meaning I'm going by. And N has always been unquestionably tops. So that leaves either Ni-Fe-Ti-Se (INFJ) or Ne-Ti-Fe-Se (ENTP).

Based on my apparent overuse of Ti, many people want to pin me as ENTP. But on the other hand, a lot of comparisons consist of "Ni-Te" vs "Ne-Ti" interactions - in debates and humour and so on, so it's hard to discern where Ti ends and some sort of N begins. I'd rather leave it up to a more general examination of Ni vs. Ne, because I feel like that's really the crux of the difference. In my case, I'm interested in the interactions of Ni-Fe, Ni-Ti, Ne-Ti, and Ne-Fe, but the inverse is probably relevant to some other people so by all means, go all-out.

For this reason, please don't just post "You seem [type/function] to me" unless it will help contextualize your explanation.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Ne is random, tangential, and follows it's own bizarre path through the shrubbery maze. Ne is the idea generator that comes up with hundreds, thousands, millions of possibilities. Ne likes/needs something else to play with it to be at its best.

Ni goes it alone. Walks into the swarming cloud of ideas and plucks one (at seemingly random to the Ne observer) and says, "This is the right one." And by gum, it usually is the right one.

 

[Lady_X]

it is hard to imagine not knowing if you were infj or entp...they seem sooo different to me....infjs are like the all knowing oracle...sitting there all poised with pure eloquence spilling from their lips...while ne doms are spazzy lil plate spinners telling jokes and doing tricks.

 

[INTP]

Ne

Intuition as the function of unconscious perception is wholly directed upon outer objects in the extraverted attitude. Because, in the main, intuition is an unconscious process, the conscious apprehension of its nature is a very difficult matter. In consciousness, the intuitive function is represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrating vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case, how much was [p. 462] 'perceived-into', and how much actually lay in the object.

Just as sensation, when given the priority, is not a mere reactive process of no further importance for the object, but is almost an action which seizes and shapes the object, so it is with intuition, which is by no means a mere perception, or awareness, but an active, creative process that builds into the object just as much as it takes out. But, because this process extracts the perception unconsciously, it also produces an unconscious effect in the object. The primary function of intuition is to transmit mere images, or perceptions of relations and conditions, which could be gained by the other functions, either not at all, or only by very roundabout ways. Such images have the value of definite discernments, and have a decisive bearing upon action, whenever intuition is given the chief weight; in which case, psychic adaptation is based almost exclusively upon intuition. Thinking, feeling, and sensation are relatively repressed; of these, sensation is the one principally affected, because, as the conscious function of sense, it offers the greatest obstacle to intuition. Sensation disturbs intuition's clear, unbiased, naive awareness with its importunate sensuous stimuli; for these direct the glance upon the physical superficies, hence upon the very things round and beyond which intuition tries to peer. But since intuition, in the extraverted attitude, has a prevailingly objective orientation, it actually comes very near to sensation; indeed, the expectant attitude towards outer objects may, with almost equal probability, avail itself of sensation. Hence, for intuition really to become paramount, sensation must to a large extent be suppressed. I am now speaking of sensation as the simple and direct sense-reaction, an almost definite physiological and psychic datum. This must be expressly established beforehand, because, if I ask the intuitive how he is [p. 463] orientated, he will speak of things which are quite indistinguishable from sense-perceptions. Frequently he will even make use of the term 'sensation'. He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision. They are selected by unconscious expectation. Not the strongest sensation, in the physiological sense, obtains the crucial value, but any sensation whatsoever whose value happens to become considerably enhanced by reason of the intuitive's unconscious attitude. In this way it may eventually attain the leading position, appearing to the intuitive's consciousness indistinguishable from a pure sensation. But actually it is not so.

Just as extraverted sensation strives to reach the highest pitch of actuality, because only thus can the appearance of a complete life be created, so intuition tries to encompass the greatest possibilities, since only through the awareness of possibilities is intuition fully satisfied. Intuition seeks to discover possibilities in the objective situation; hence as a mere tributary function (viz. when not in the position of priority) it is also the instrument which, in the presence of a hopelessly blocked situation, works automatically towards the issue, which no other function could discover. Where intuition has the priority, every ordinary situation in life seems like a closed room, which intuition has to open. It is constantly seeking outlets and fresh possibilities in external life. In a very short time every actual situation becomes a prison to the intuitive; it burdens him like a chain, prompting a compelling need for solution. At times objects would seem to have an almost exaggerated value, should they chance to represent the idea of a severance or release that might lead to the discovery of a new possibility. Yet no sooner have they performed their office, serving intuition as a ladder or a bridge, than they [p. 464] appear to have no further value, and are discarded as mere burdensome appendages. A fact is acknowledged only in so far as it opens up fresh possibilities of advancing beyond it and of releasing the individual from its operation. Emerging possibilities are compelling motives from which intuition cannot escape and to which all else must be sacrificed.

Ni

Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality. Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort. Naturally, in their per se character, these contents are, not accessible to experience, a quality which they have in common with the outer object. For just as outer objects correspond only relatively with our perceptions of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner object are also relative; products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function. Like sensation, intuition also has its subjective factor, which is suppressed to the farthest limit in the extraverted intuition, but which becomes the decisive factor in the intuition of the introvert. Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.

Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervation disturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content. Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades. In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects. For intuition, therefore, the unconscious images attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person.

Consequently, in the above-mentioned example, the introverted intuitive, when affected by the giddiness, would not imagine that the perceived image might also in some way refer to himself. Naturally, to one who is rationally orientated, such a thing seems almost unthinkable, but it is none the less a fact, and I have often experienced it in my dealings with this type.

The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive in respect to outer objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to the inner objects. Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself. Just as the world can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, so the world of images is never a moral problem to the intuitive. To the one just as much as to the other, it is an aesthetic problem, a question of perception, a 'sensation'. In this way, the consciousness of his own bodily existence fades from the introverted intuitive's view, as does its effect upon others. The extraverted standpoint would say of him: 'Reality has no existence for him; he gives himself up to fruitless fantasies'. A perception of the unconscious images, produced in such inexhaustible abundance by the creative energy of life, is of course fruitless from the standpoint of immediate utility. But, since these images represent possible ways of viewing life, which in given circumstances have the power to provide a new energic potential, this function, which to the outer world is the strangest of all, is as indispensable to the total psychic economy as is the corresponding human type to the psychic life of a people. Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel.

Introverted intuition apprehends the images which arise from the a priori, i.e. the inherited foundations of the unconscious mind. These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience, represent the precipitate of psychic functioning of the whole ancestral line, i.e. the heaped-up, or pooled, experiences of organic existence in general, a million times repeated, and condensed into types. Hence, in these archetypes all experiences are [p. 508] represented which since primeval time have happened on this planet. Their archetypal distinctness is the more marked, the more frequently and intensely they have been experienced. The archetype would be -- to borrow from Kant -- the noumenon of the image which intuition perceives and, in perceiving, creates.

Since the unconscious is not just something that lies there, like a psychic caput mortuum, but is something that coexists and experiences inner transformations which are inherently related to general events, introverted intuition, through its perception of inner processes, gives certain data which may possess supreme importance for the comprehension of general occurrences: it can even foresee new possibilities in more or less clear outline, as well as the event which later actually transpires. Its prophetic prevision is to be explained from its relation to the archetypes which represent the law-determined course of all experienceable things.

 

[Ginkgo]

I know the question of what distinguishes Ne from Ni comes up a lot and everyone has different perspectives, so if nothing else just post your own idea of what it is, and we can see about discussing and at least make sure everyone's perspectives are out there so we can pick what seems 'right' to us.

There are probably some older threads on the topic, but I looked through some pages and only saw more specialized discussions.

----

The reason I'm wondering about this is because I've pretty much 'locked in' that I use Fe with people IRL and Ti for analysis/debates/work/etc, regardless of what meaning I'm going by. And N has always been unquestionably tops. So that leaves either Ni-Fe-Ti-Se (INFJ) or Ne-Ti-Fe-Se (ENTP).

Based on my apparent overuse of Ti, many people want to pin me as ENTP. But on the other hand, a lot of comparisons consist of "Ni-Te" vs "Ne-Ti" interactions - in debates and humour and so on, so it's hard to discern where Ti ends and some sort of N begins. I'd rather leave it up to a more general examination of Ni vs. Ne, because I feel like that's really the crux of the difference. In my case, I'm interested in the interactions of Ni-Fe, Ni-Ti, Ne-Ti, and Ne-Fe, but the inverse is probably relevant to some other people so by all means, go all-out.

For this reason, please don't just post "You seem [type/function] to me" unless it will help contextualize your explanation.

Do you think that you're "overusing" Ti simply because your preference for it is atypical, or because it's not helping you grow as a human being?

---------------------------------

Intuition is concerned with possibilities. It possesses a subjective element in that it calls upon the energy of imagination, reading in between the lines, and toying with assumptions. Jung described intuition as a conduit between the conscious and the unconscious because it functions to perceive "random" ideas in spite of the already established.

The difference between introverted intuition and extraverted intuition is that... Well, this topic has been debated to the point of smoldering because intuition defies fixed perceptions and definitions.

I think Saturned has the right idea.

From Ne, we would island hop from one idea to the next, at times not even pursuing a single one to the very end. This is because Ne is so general that you're not going to stay on a single I'm going to go play Left 4 Dead 2 ...

The thing about Ni, and why it is so accurate, is that it's precise and that it abstracts:

Abstraction. A form of mental activity by which a conscious content is freed from its association with irrelevant elements, similar to the process of differentiation. (Compare empathy.)

Abstraction is an activity pertaining to the psychological functions in general. There is an abstract thinking, just as there is abstract feeling, sensation, and intuition. Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities of a given content from its intellectually irrelevant components. Abstract feeling does the same with a content characterized by its feeling-values . . . . Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous sensation, and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic intuition.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 678.]

Jung related abstraction to introversion (analogous to empathy and extraversion).

I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido.[Ibid., par. 679.]

To the extent that its purpose is to break the object's hold on the subject, abstraction is an attempt to rise above the primitive state of participation mystique.

So Ni is going to find diamonds in the rough. Personal significance through symbolism. Disregarding distraction, much unlike Ne.

 

[guesswho]

Ne is funnier.

 

[Ginkgo]

Ne



Ni

Thanks.

 

[Anew Leaf]

P.S. for what it's worth, you seem far more likely as an INFJ than an ENTP.

 

[Ginkgo]

Jung's definitions are excruciatingly pedantic. I don't think I would have the patience, though I admire the work.

So here's something interesting about Ni:

Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.

That means to Ni, objects themselves are essentially static. You uncover their meaning, mold them to your own vision and move on. Extraverted intuition would have the temptation to mold the object itself and discover the object's potential.

 

[Resonance]

Ne is random, tangential, and follows it's own bizarre path through the shrubbery maze. Ne is the idea generator that comes up with hundreds, thousands, millions of possibilities. Ne likes/needs something else to play with it to be at its best.

Ni goes it alone. Walks into the swarming cloud of ideas and plucks one (at seemingly random to the Ne observer) and says, "This is the right one." And by gum, it usually is the right one.

Hrm...but couldn't 'plucking one' also symbolize Ne-Ti or Ne-Fi - that is, thinking of as many possibilities as possible and picking the best one according to what they think the criteria are(T)/what their criteria are(F)?

it is hard to imagine not knowing if you were infj or entp...they seem sooo different to me....infjs are like the all knowing oracle...sitting there all poised with pure eloquence spilling from their lips...while ne doms are spazzy lil plate spinners telling jokes and doing tricks.

You'd think, but that's just the archetypes. In practice they are quite similar if their tertiary is developed - Ti-Fe for ENTPs, and Fe-Ti for INFJs. The difference is, supposedly, in 'how' their idea platform (N) works.

Intuition is concerned with possibilities. It possesses a subjective element in that it calls upon the energy of imagination, reading in between the lines, and toying with assumptions. Jung described intuition as a conduit between the conscious and the unconscious because it functions to perceive "random" ideas in spite of the already established.

The difference between introverted intuition and extraverted intuition is that... Well, this topic has been debated to the point of smoldering because intuition defies fixed perceptions and definitions.

haha, yes, I noticed >.> but still, I think we can get at it somehow, especially if many different people of different types share their experiences of it, so that we can get an all-angles view.

I think Saturned has the right idea.

From Ne, we would island hop from one idea to the next, at times not even pursuing a single one to the very end. This is because Ne is so general that you're not going to stay on a single I'm going to go play Left 4 Dead 2 ...

The thing about Ni, and why it is so accurate, is that it's precise and that it abstracts:

Abstraction. A form of mental activity by which a conscious content is freed from its association with irrelevant elements, similar to the process of differentiation. (Compare empathy.)

Abstraction is an activity pertaining to the psychological functions in general. There is an abstract thinking, just as there is abstract feeling, sensation, and intuition. Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities of a given content from its intellectually irrelevant components. Abstract feeling does the same with a content characterized by its feeling-values . . . . Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous sensation, and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic intuition.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 678.]

Jung related abstraction to introversion (analogous to empathy and extraversion).

I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido.[Ibid., par. 679.]

To the extent that its purpose is to break the object's hold on the subject, abstraction is an attempt to rise above the primitive state of participation mystique.

So Ni is going to find diamonds in the rough. Personal significance through symbolism. Disregarding distraction, much unlike Ne.

Jung's definitions are excruciatingly pedantic. I don't think I would have the patience, though I admire the work.

Oof. I've been told that Jung's Psychological Types isn't really useful outside the context of his whole bibliography, because a lot of these concepts like 'symbolic' and 'energic devaluation' are more rigorously explored and defined in his other books - this particular chapter which everyone references is full of idiosyncrasies that can lead us astray of his intended meaning :s

Would one say that Ni 'snags' on certain ideas? or is that again a combination of N with a judging function.

Ne is funnier.

vOv

P.S. for what it's worth, you seem far more likely as an INFJ than an ENTP.

Thanks :s

Do you think that you're "overusing" Ti simply because your preference for it is atypical, or because it's not helping you grow as a human being?

Because I don't really prefer it... I use it a lot because it's my main way of putting things into terms that others can understand, and of keeping my imagination in check. Fe is a lot more fun/interesting/natural to me, when I'm not a zombie. (lol did not see your L4D analogy before typing this)

 

[INTP]

also Ni(like all introverted functions) can do this:

Abstraction
A form of mental activity by which a conscious content is freed from its association with irrelevant elements, similar to the process of differentiation. (Compare empathy.)


"Abstraction is an activity pertaining to the psychological functions in general. There is an abstract thinking, just as there is abstract feeling, sensation, and intuition. Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities of a given content from its intellectually irrelevant components. Abstract feeling does the same with a content characterized by its feeling-values . . . . Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous sensation, and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic intuition.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 678.]"

Jung related abstraction to introversion (analogous to empathy and extraversion).

"I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido.[Ibid., par. 679.]"

To the extent that its purpose is to break the object’s hold on the subject, abstraction is an attempt to rise above the primitive state of participation mystique.

and Ne(like all extraverted functions) can do this:

Empathy
An introjection of the object, based on the unconscious projection of subjective contents. (Compare identification.)


"Empathy presupposes a subjective attitude of confidence, or trustfulness towards the object. It is a readiness to meet the object halfway, a subjective assimilation that brings about a good understanding between subject and object, or at least simulates it. ["The Type Problem in Aesthetics," CW 6, par. 489.]"

In contrast to abstraction, associated with introversion, empathy corresponds to the attitude of extraversion.

"The man with the empathetic attitude finds himself . . . in a world that needs his subjective feeling to give it life and soul. He animates it with himself. [ Ibid., par. 492.]"

 

[Ginkgo]

My Ne manifests itself usually in the form of imagining plausible dialogue between people. It's kind of like having a cushion between you, the observer, and the possibilities that lay out there over the rainbow. I imagine that cushion and those things in many different fashions, and can make assumptions based on what can be observed even elsewhere. It's all a fabric of teaming life. I frequently think globally; walking to the general store stokes imaginings of what shop keepers are keeping in their basements on the other side of the earth. Watching a presentation rouses suspicion about the motives of the people involved, what their underlying technique is, and how they came to be where they are. The audience consists of it's own demographic, meshed into the scheme of larger people, and ideas will surface about how these people relate. We speak. Communication winds around cognition and affect. What do they feel, why? How do they think? What images are recorded in their minds' eye? How drastically do they differ under different contexts? Where's the inspiration of a novel derived from? Contents; are they original? Is anything original? Is the colloquial "originality" just a rehash of so many particular recycled ideas that it's reshaped into the seemingly original? Why does that lady have a machine gun for legs? Are you insulting my intelligence by expecting me to be appealed by this nonsense? Do you have a messiah complex? Mister director, do you know what it's like being in this man-goat costume in 117 degree weather? It's like living in Gila Monster turd. Please, if you've had any experience being an actor, empathize with the crew here. I know I'm risking my job in being this upfront with you, seeing as you're an asshole and all, but it's for the good of the project. Fantasia Babes 4000 needs to be a blockbuster. I need this to put food on the table. Times are hard, and it's understandable that you have a stick clinging to the ribs of your colon, chaffing away at the tissue like a grain of sand chaffes at the vulnerable underbelly of a clam. We French don't listen to reason. I demand a refund.

And so on.

 

[the state i am in]

Ne = cut and paste, quoted responses
Ni = very selective or just responding holistically

 

[Lady_X]

well that's not true at all really is it?