How Good Is Sim's Ni Definition?

[simulatedworld]

Translation: I'm perennially pissed off at Ni doms and auxs for their ability to see things from many perspectives, and not having ever experienced Ni, I don't really know whether it's true, but I know that it bothers me when they put me down and say I'm not seeing the whole picture.

/truth

Actually I think the translation is more like, "It bothers me that NTJs (and really it's just NTJs here, I find that NFJs are generally not half as arrogant) presume that they see the whole picture when in reality no one sees the whole picture because no one sees every perspective."

Of course, a lot of NTJs are smart enough to recognize the limitations on the powers of their own Ni, like say, Kalach (who I still think is one of the smartest posters on the whole forum.) Note how he doesn't run around claiming that he's good at all four NT functions--his perception is strong enough to recognize that it has blind spots (unlike yours.)

It's just some of you that delude yourselves into believing Ni somehow magically encompasses all other functions and gives you a complete view of everything. (Your poor comprehension of Ne/Ti reveals otherwise, though.)

/truth

It's this kind of self-important bullshit that really gets on my nerves. This one word says it all, in regards to NTJ arrogance. You think you're the only one clever/perceptive enough to see "the real truth" and that everyone else has only fragmented perceptions of "the real truth" without access to Ni.

You're gonna need to accept that Ni is not any better (or worse) than any other functional perspective in order to get over this.

 

[SillySapienne]

Translation: I'm perennially pissed off at Ni doms and auxs for their ability to see things from many perspectives, and not having ever experienced Ni, I don't really know whether it's true, but I do know that it bothers me when they put me down and say I'm not seeing the whole picture.

/truth

Grrr, this is hard to accept, considering how Ne is always lending itself to see different patterns, perspectives, connections.

Ni is inherently subjective, whereas Ne is well, it's still subjective but much less so.

This is where I believe the root of the cause lies, the cause being Ni doms to truly believe that their perception/s of reality are the truest/realist.

 

[simulatedworld]

Grrr, this is hard to accept, considering how Ne is always lending itself to see different patterns, perspectives, connections.

Ni is inherently subjective, whereas Ne is well, it's still subjective but much less so.

This is where I believe the root of the cause lies, the cause being Ni doms to truly believe that their perception/s of reality are the truest/realist.

+1, great post

Ne is actually objective, because it's focused on the object, not the self. Ne's objectivity balances Ti's subjectivity, and the same goes for Te and Ni, or any combination of I+E functions.

If an idea is not precise, then would this not prevent someone from accessing the truth of it? Forget Ne. This sacrifices the quality of an idea for the quantity of it's dissemination. In doing such a thing, you let bad ideas spread like wildfire instead of refining them and sharing them with a select few. Is it not possible to refine them and then spread them? Wouldn't that make them more appealing to some?

Everything you say here is absolutely true...from an introverted perspective. The idea is to accept that there are situations where breadth is preferable to depth, rather than always letting introversion dominate your perspective/assuming that depth is always the best approach.

Obviously it goes both ways; if we always choose extroversion then we'll neglect depth, which is equally bad.

The problem is that if we insist on complete depth at all times, it becomes impossible to communicate our ideas meaningfully to others because they're so inseparable from our own subjective perspectives. Balance is the goal.

No, it's not. Extraversion entails that one prefers external criteria over internal criteria. One may still have depth in external criteria, and one may still have breadth in internal criteria. Just because someone prefers external criteria does not mean that accuracy is mitigated. Accuracy of a statement depends upon the reasoning behind a statement, rather than the typology of the person making the statement.

Actually it's both. Extroversion, by nature, sacrifices depth and specificity in order to achieve more practicality through broader applicability. "Accuracy of a statement depends upon the reasoning behind a statement" = introverted perspective. That's certainly true, but when we want to take an idea and apply it to a wider range of external situations, moving it outside the bounds of our own subjective interpretation requires the sacrifice of a certain degree of precision. That is the nature of extroversion, and failing to account for the value in this perspective is the #1 mistake I constantly see from all the introverts I discuss typology with on the internet.

Read up on extroversion vs. introversion and breadth vs. depth plz, kthx.

Why are you referring to these criticisms as introverted? A criticism is a judgement (using analysis and evaluation). Just because a criticism comes from an introverted person does not mean that it has an introverted quality about it. Nor does it mean that one should dismiss it because it makes them feel uncomfortable.

I'm not dismissing it. It's a valid point; it's just that it only takes one side of the coin into account. There are times when introversion's depth is clearly preferable, and other times when extroversion's breadth is.

And uh, coming from an introverted person implies that an idea is influenced most heavily by an introverted perspective (in most cases), as the introvert's dominant perspective is, by definition, an introverted one.

The same applies to extroverts; we have a natural tendency (at least in regards to our dominant process) to choose breadth over depth, and we have to work on the auxiliary to balance that out.

I am referring to those criticisms as "introverted" because I feel that they fail to take into account the value of extroversion/breadth and thus continually insist that no precision can or should ever be sacrificed for the sake of broader applicability.

The Ti+Ni ISTP from Per-C that I mentioned is largely against inductive reasoning. You can think of introversion as deductive (because it is precise, complete, and certain) and extroversion as inductive (because it sacrifices precision/completeness in favor of wider applicability.) I wrote a post about inferring the types of others based on their behaviors; he found this completely unacceptable as it required use of inductive reasoning.

He said something to the effect of, "Guessing is not certainty." That's certainly a valid point--the problem is, it's a purely introverted perspective that doesn't take into account the relative value of breadth. The idea is to get to a point where we recognize that breadth and depth are equally important, and that which is preferable is context-dependent.

 

[SillySapienne]

Actually I think the translation is more like, "It bothers me that NTJs (and really it's just NTJs here, I find that NFJs are generally not half as arrogant) presume that they see the whole picture when in reality no one sees the whole picture because no one sees every perspective."

Of course, a lot of NTJs are smart enough to recognize the limitations on the powers of their own Ni, like say, Kalach (who I still think is one of the smartest posters on the whole forum.) Note how he doesn't run around claiming that he's good at all four NT functions--his perception is strong enough to recognize that it has blind spots (unlike yours.)

It's just some of you that delude yourselves into believing Ni somehow magically encompasses all other functions and gives you a complete view of everything. (Your poor comprehension of Ne/Ti reveals otherwise, though.)




It's this kind of self-important bullshit that really gets on my nerves. This one word says it all, in regards to NTJ arrogance. You think you're the only one clever/perceptive enough to see "the real truth" and that everyone else has only fragmented perceptions of "the real truth" without access to Ni.

****You're gonna need to accept that Ni is not any better (or worse) than any other functional perspective in order to get over this***.

I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded statements.

 

[Zarathustra]

Actually I think the translation is more like, "It bothers me that NTJs (and really it's just NTJs here, I find that NFJs are generally not half as arrogant) presume that they see the whole picture when in reality no one sees the whole picture because no one sees every perspective."

Of course, a lot of NTJs are smart enough to recognize the limitations on the powers of their own Ni, like say, Kalach (who I still think is one of the smartest posters on the whole forum.) Note how he doesn't run around claiming that he's good at all four NT functions--his perception is strong enough to recognize that it has blind spots (unlike yours.)

Sim, I didn't respond to your post from last night cuz Silly and I were out with friends and we woke up hungover this morning, but this little nugget is hilarious.

It seems that the inaccuracy of your writing is only matched by the inaccuracy of your reading, cuz if you look at what I've said about my usage of Ne and Ti, I've said it's spotty at best, and shows up intermittently and largely out of my control in certain situations as my shadow ENTP.

Keep harping on this deluded point, though.

Whatever you need to do to feel you're right.

It's just some of you that delude yourselves into believing Ni somehow magically encompasses all other functions and gives you a complete view of everything.

Your problem here is that you take it too far, thus setting up a straw man, which is all you can really defeat in this argument.

See, a good Ni user (not a crackpot, bottom-of-the-barrel conspiracy theorist) has good reason for making a claim, a lesser claim, but a claim nonetheless, that resembles what you have written.

There is a reason for it.

It is what Ni does.

It looks at the underlying assumptions of different perspectives, so that it understands why those perspective see things the way they do.

Then it looks at another perspective on the same topic, and does the same thing to it.

And another.

And another.

And another.

It then synthesizes these disparate perspectives to come to a more global, encompassing view.

Now that view is not necessarily ALL encompassing, as new information can always be presented to the Ni-user, which he/she will listen to, consider, come to understand its underlying assumptions, and, after having accomplished these tasks, incorporate into the framework.

As such, there is a reason why Ni doms, the people whose primary and continuous process is doing exactly the above, who are making the claim that others are not seeing the issue at hand from all the necessary, important perspectives, and are thus missing out on a significant amount of the material required to properly understand the subject at hand, are perfectly sensible in saying so: more than any other function, the purpose of Ni is to look at a subject from as many possible perspectives in order to most accurately comprehend its essence.

Now, to say that Ni-doms are all-seeing, all-knowing on all subjects is ludicrous, and it's the straw man you build up to try and tear Ni down.

/truth

(Your poor comprehension of Ne/Ti reveals otherwise, though.)

Please, provide me evidence other than your own opinion that I have a poor understanding of Ne/Ti, as, after making this claim for the 50th time, you've still never provided a single piece of evidence or argument other than "this is what simulatedworld thinks".

It's this kind of self-important bullshit that really gets on my nerves. This one word says it all, in regards to NTJ arrogance. You think you're the only one clever/perceptive enough to see "the real truth" and that everyone else has only fragmented perceptions of "the real truth" without access to Ni.

You're gonna need to accept that Ni is not any better (or worse) than any other functional perspective in order to get over this.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

The plot thickens.

 

[SillySapienne]

Ne is actually objective, because it's focused on the object, not the self. Ne's objectivity balances Ti's subjectivity, and the same goes for Te and Ni, or any combination of I+E functions.

Absolutely.

Ne has no focus, no objective, the following functions Ti and, or Fi do, however, Ne itself just takes in information, processes it, and categorizes it, and integrates it into its database.

Ne used in conjunction with F/Ti however is more focused, Ne consumes, it's an eye, it's just open to what's out there, (although a distinction should be made between Se and Ne, Ne is more presumptuous, i.e. it will see and take leaps between a to g, it is also a more nuanced lens, or rather, a lens that captures nuances, and it's receptive to "things" an Se dom might miss).

But, as I was saying, my Ne + Fi work together to find patterns specifically with regards to human behavior and the human condition, that's my personal Fi focus/bent.

It makes perfect sense that all subjective introverted functions need to work as anchors to their dom objective extroverted "focus-less" functions, and in turn that extroverted functions need to act as *reality checks* to their dom subjective introverted functions.

This makes a balanced individual.

Fi is my heart, my soul, my guide, but I wouldn't even be able to acquire my Fi model if I did not have an Ne means of extracting pertinent data.

Someone who is all Ne with no Ti or Fi to stabilize it is a humorous, pattern processing schizo, who probably would suffer from apophenia.

Someone who is all Ni with no Te or Fe to stabilize it would think they were God, or the messiah, or something to that effect.

Sorry for the long post.

 

[Zarathustra]

Grrr, this is hard to accept, considering how Ne is always lending itself to see different patterns, perspectives, connections.

Ni is inherently subjective, whereas Ne is well, it's still subjective but much less so.

This is where I believe the root of the cause lies, the cause being Ni doms to truly believe that their perception/s of reality are the truest/realist.

See my edit.

Translation: I'm perennially pissed off at Ni doms and auxs for their ability to see things from an encompassing perspective that incorporates as many disparate perspectives as possible, and not having ever experienced Ni, I don't really know whether it's true that they do this, but I do know that it bothers me when they put me down and say I'm not seeing the whole picture.

/truth

 

[Ace_]

I love these threads. Full of philosophers.

 

[Zarathustra]

Absolutely.

Ne has no focus

This I can agree with.

 

[sculpting]

Um, I guess I'll disagree with some of the INxJ posters in this thread who disliked sim's definition of Ni, as the blip I quoted here really resonated with me, in terms of how I see my internal workings, in a much greater way than the majority of the voodoo-mystical-predicting-'zoinks, a-ha' crap that most people focus on when trying to say how they utilize Ni or view Ni in others.

Is This because he is using his Ti system to describe Ni....which would be easier for you to innately understand given your tert Ti? (please assume no insult at all!!!! I just think of this comparison as I find INTJs much easier to understand due to my tert Te than INTPs for instance, and I will find their descriptions resonate more strongly as being closer to my perception of a situation)

 

[SillySapienne]

Taken from here...

Introverted Intuition

Ni is a way of knowing (or at least thinking you know) that bypasses reason, facts, evidence, the expected or intended interpretations of signs, or anything you can point to, simply giving you an awareness or belief that seems indisputably true to you, period. You can't tell by introspection how you got this idea. There is no thought process. There is only tuning into this form of awareness and just knowing.

^See, I get this feeling too, a lot, I dunno if it's because of my Fi, or that I also have quite a bit of Ni.

But the fact remains, as humans we are fallible.

It is true in that it is possible for someone to have some capacity to know things despite having proof, or knowing why they know.

Interestingly enough, the aforementioned description of Ni is something I can identify with a lot, however, I will hold the belief in my head, or often vocalize it, and whaddya know, what I just knew, was actually right.

Let it be known that this "power" or "gift" of mine works best with people, I am and have always been a ridiculously good judge of a person's character, from a brief encounter I can and do conjure a lot of information about this person, I think there is something to it though, perhaps I have an exceptionally good processor/decoder when it comes to non-verbal human communication.

This also happens in other situations, where I just know something before I have "real" evidence for knowing it.

If one studies intuition outside of typological/MBTI definitions this makes a lot of sense.

But, I do believe that there is a transcendent reality that no one has the capacity to completely know and understand.

Also, I have been wrong about people before, very wrong, (whenever this happens I become fascinated with the subject, they are "special" and need extra attention, they don't fit any of my preconceived molds/models of human behavior, I love when this happens ) though, I'd say over 90% of the time I tend to be right about someone, i.e. I know when someone is a shit bag, when they are lying, when they are sincere, when they are intelligent, when they are sensitive, etc.

God, I lost my train of thought.

Anyhow, sometimes one just knows, and sometimes one is wrong.

When I was with my ISTP it took forever until he finally conceded that I had this gift, he needed evidence, and finally I turned a hardcore skeptic into a believer, (as in, he believed I was "exceptionally talented" in this arena).

But, it was comforting and agitating at the same time to have to prove my "irrational" beliefs to a Ti dom, it definitely made my head explode on occasion, but it certainly sharpened my ability to explain what I once thought was the unexplainable.

Sorry, I forgot where I was going with this.

 

[Zarathustra]

It makes perfect sense that all subjective introverted functions need to work as anchors to their dom objective extroverted "focus-less" functions, and in turn that extroverted functions need to act as *reality checks* to their dom subjective introverted functions.

This really needs to be reworded.

There's truth there, obvious truth, but...

Ne used in conjunction with F/Ti however is more focused, Ne consumes, it's an eye, it's just open to what's out there, (although a distinction should be made between Se and Ne, Ne is more presumptuous, i.e. it will see and take leaps between a to g, it is also a more nuanced lens, or rather, a lens that captures nuances, and it's receptive to "things" an Se dom might miss).

You ever seen those movies where the child, or character (the character is always essentially in the role of a child in this situation), is in a dark, murky forest and is looking around, feeling like the eyes of the forest are all looking at it, knowing what is happening, while the child does not.

Well, for Ni-doms, Ne-doms are like that child, and the Ni-dom is the forest.

For the sake of clarifying the analogy, Ne-doms obviously aren't going around fearful, that is not the point.

But they are that child, walking around the forest, and the connections they're making while looking outward are vastly finite relative to the forest looking in at them.

 

[Zarathustra]

Nice: Orobas is up in this biatch.

It's like the whole gang's here!

 

[Zarathustra]

Been too long guys, been too long...

(Blame the mods for that)

 

[Zarathustra]

Where's uumlau?

Maybe he'll want to actually come back and post again since the forum isn't boring as shit anymore.

 

[SillySapienne]

Is This because he is using his Ti system to describe Ni....which would be easier for you to innately understand given your tert Ti? (please assume no insult at all!!!! I just think of this comparison as I find INTJs much easier to understand due to my tert Te than INTPs for instance, and I will find their descriptions resonate more strongly as being closer to my perception of a situation)

Admittedly, I have read very little of this thread, until I saw something, and then had to put my two cents in.

But, I dunno, Ne + Ti makes sense to me, (when I have the interest to read it )

Though, I have very little use of my Te, and regarding thought processing, I use Ne, Fi and Ti.

Some INTJs say shit and I'm like, holy fuckasaurus, you know what's up, and other times I'm like...

 

[Zarathustra]

Is This because he is using his Ti system to describe Ni....which would be easier for you to innately understand given your tert Ti? (please assume no insult at all!!!! I just think of this comparison as I find INTJs much easier to understand due to my tert Te than INTPs for instance, and I will find their descriptions resonate more strongly as being closer to my perception of a situation)

That was certainly one of my thoughts...

 

[sculpting]

it only thinks about how to change *the way we interpret* the outer world. Ni leads you to try and see "through the smoke and mirrors" to what is REALLY going on below the surface, that other people are not perceptive enough to pick up on...so in its unhealthy form, it turns into conspiracy theories, a la Dale Gribble from King of the Hill.

Thus you combine it with tert Se...thats how Ni doms change the world I would suggest...Ni alone wouldnt do the trick....

Strong Ni users like being the person behind the scenes who pulls all the strings (even better if most people don't even realize it) and understands the dynamics of everything on a deeper level than everyone else. They are threatened by the idea that there might be any perspective or angle they cannot see, and as such they sometimes overestimate their own ability to fully grasp and work around the attitudes of others.

INTJs-can you speak to the truth or falsehood of the first sentence-italics?

It seems-from what I have observed, all silly stories of course, that INTJs and INFJs will both freeze up in the first scenario. They recognize they dont have enough knowledge? Thus will keep gathering info and remain silent, crosschecking endlessly. By the time they speak up they are 98% certain they are correct. Typically they are correct.

But they cant see Fe unspoken signals and unspoken convos.

INTJs cant see Fe. It isnt that the underestimate other's attitudes. I suspect people are a system that is treated with Te rules like anything else. They assume Te rules are in play, thus when they fail, typically it is the result of not gaining proper input information due to an Fe omission or missing unspoken Fe signs of impending doom-at least in corporate america....

On a side note: Ni appreciates definitional freedom (and thus is often annoyed by Ti) in the same way Ne appreciates freedom to change its plan of action abruptly (and thus is often annoyed by Te.)

The Ne sentence in bold is incorrect and only fits ENTPs. (But hey, enfps are a bunch or thoughtless morons anyways huh?) Ne appreciates freedom to change its internal model-Ti or Fi as needed. This will be limited by Te or Fe respectively depending on the type under discussion. Interestingly ...in youth Ne doms will rebel the most against our tert functions...An ENFP will fight "the man" aka Te, while ENTPs fight social conventions aka Fe.

Ti users will tend to frame debates by first assigning precise definitions to terms, but Ni often objects to this by wondering: "How are we unconsciously limiting our understanding by assigning such rigid definitions in the first place?"

Funny.
I have seen the Ti issue as my entps trained me to set definitions as the first part of a debate. So I find myself doing this at times, and it does generate an odd response from INTJs.

But I would suggest even more so, Si feels limiting to Ni. Si traps the Ni dom into one specific context-prevents context shifts-thus they will immediately dismiss Si evidence unless they have seen Se experience of the particular evidence themselves. So I would replace Sim's last sentence with "How are we unconsciously limiting our understanding by assigning such rigid contexts in the first place?"

I'd say this is seen in Ti users as TiSi....

 

[simulatedworld]

Sim, I didn't respond to your post from last night cuz Silly and I were out with friends and we woke up hungover this morning, but this little nugget is hilarious.

It seems that the inaccuracy of your writing is only matched by the inaccuracy of your reading, cuz if you look at what I've said about my usage of Ne and Ti, I've said it's spotty at best, and shows up intermittently and largely out of my control in certain situations as my shadow ENTP.

Keep harping on this deluded point, though.

Whatever you need to do to feel you're right.

Uh, I recall you saying that you're proficient in all four NT functions. But okay.

Your problem here is that you take it too far, thus setting up a straw man, which is all you can really defeat in this argument.

See, a good Ni user (not a crackpot, bottom-of-the-barrel conspiracy theorist) has good reason for making a claim, a lesser claim, but a claim nonetheless, that resembles what you have written.

There is a reason for it.

It is what Ni does.

It looks at the underlying assumptions of different perspectives, so that it understands why those perspective see things the way they do.

Then it looks at another perspective on the same topic, and does the same thing to it.

And another.

And another.

And another.

It then synthesizes these disparate perspectives to come to a more global, encompassing view.

Now that view is not necessarily ALL encompassing, as new information can always be presented to the Ni-user, which he/she will listen to, consider, come to understand its underlying assumptions, and, after having accomplished these tasks, incorporate into the framework.

As such, there is a reason why Ni doms, the people whose primary and continuous process is doing exactly the above, who are making the claim that others are not seeing the issue at hand from all the necessary, important perspectives, and are thus missing out on a significant amount of the material required to properly understand the subject at hand, are perfectly sensible in saying so: more than any other function, the purpose of Ni is to look at a subject from as many possible perspectives in order to most accurately comprehend its essence.

Now, to say that Ni-doms are all seeing, all-knowing on all subjects is ludicrous, and it's the straw man you build up to try and tear Ni down.

/truth

If only Ni types (actually just NTJs, once again, NFJs aren't half as arrogant) would accept that Ni is still just one perspective, not the meta-perspective synthesizing all other perspectives that you want it to be. I understand that that's what you're trying to do; the problem is that you vastly overestimate your own success rate with it. A lot more of you are "crackpot, bottom of the barrel conspiracy theorists" than are able to recognize it about themselves.

Many of you think you've synthesized every perspective into one perfect meta-perspective; many of you think you're the only one perceptive enough to see "the real truth", etc. etc. Every type overestimates its ability with its dominant function; for Ni, this translates into exaggerated belief in one's ability to "read between the lines" to "see the real truth" or whatever it is that gets you guys off.

To be fair, a lot of the time you do use this perspective to great effect and come up with something really insightful. But you need to remember that Ni represents only a value system that leads you to desire this sort of meta-understanding--by no means does it guarantee any real ability to see it.

Truly brilliant NTJs (Kalach, uumalu, etc.) tend to come off as very humble because they possess the depth of perspective to recognize how much they don't see. It's just the poorly developed ones who come off as arrogant pricks because they think they've got it all figured out and that everyone is a complete idiot totally unworthy of their presence (*cough*, Lex Tali-retard, *cough*.)

You've described Ni in the past as "The most important function of all", which illustrates the problem with the way you're looking at it. You say it "understands why those perspectives see things the way they do"; well, in my experience it's more that Ni wants to understand why other perspectives see things the way they do, but fails far more often than the user is aware of or willing to admit. Since "I understand all perspectives better than almost everyone" is built so heavily into your self-image, though, you respond with hostility every time anyone suggests that this meta-perceptual ability isn't nearly as all-encompassing as you want to believe.

The biggest one is how you guys consistently fail to understand how anyone could be looking for different things out of life than you are. I get really tired of the implicit "LOL THAT GUY IS A RETARD, HE HAS NO ECONOMIC INFLUENCE OR OVERARCHING POWER AT ALL ROFL" whenever NTJs want to belittle someone, as if you're completely incapable of recognizing that most types aren't even trying to build that and are totally uninterested in devoting their lives to it. That's not their primary goal and you continually evaluate others' performance in life as if it is. Listen to NTJs talk about "stupid people"--listen to the values implied by the way they deride people they consider lesser than themselves. It's almost always based on this economic power/influence elitism, and very few of you will openly admit it.

You may understand that others are not out for the same things you are, but many of you are a total loss as to why. You're confusing what Ni wants to understand with what it actually does understand.

Please, provide me evidence other than your own opinion that I have a poor understanding of Ne/Ti, as, after making this claim for the 50th time, you've still never provided a single piece of evidence or argument other than "this is what simulatedworld thinks".

Anyone proficient in Ne and/or Ti will be able to discern this from reading any of your posts, so I don't really feel it necessary to prove it. You'll either figure it out for yourself or you won't get it; nothing I say is going to convince you.