• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

How Good Is Sim's Ni Definition?

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
A man can devote his entire life to studying a rare species of moss, he eats, he drinks, perhaps he even has a wife and friends, but his obsession is to fully grasp, from every angle, and level the history, impact, and features specific to this rare species of moss, from macro-ecology to coevolotion, to its physiology, chemistry and even to the bryophyte's physics.

This man's not only a hardcore botanist, but he specializes in mosses and he is an expert, in fact the only expert on this one rare species of moss.

He writes scientific articles, conducts various studies all for the better and fuller understanding of this rare species of moss.

Now, the question is...

Is this hypothetical man deep?

Um, define deep please?

Does he deeply know and understand the moss in which he devoted his life to study, most likely, hell yes.

But is he deep?

I, for one, think that one can find a universal thread woven into each delineated "thing" within the the universe, in other words, study mice, study pens, study studying, study projectal geometry, study fine art, doesn't matter, one can find meaning, and through whatever subject one studies one can see the pattern of life and nature woven into it.

I digress.

My point is this.

Generalist, specialist, heterarchy, hierarchy, there is no better or worse, a specialist is NOT deeper than a generalist, nope, they just focus their energy more or less on one thing whereas a generalist will have multiple focuses, and who's to say that the generalist's focuses don't actually have a meta-focus under which all his/her focuses lie.

The setting of your lens is unimportant, if you prefer things at a more microscopic scale, then so be it, but don't hate on those who prefer to view things in a more macroscopic way. The only thing to judge is how accurate you perceive the things you see with your lens.

And by accuracy I mean how objectively true your observations can be.

/end rant

:)
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
onemoretime are you seeing Te and assuming it is absolute? It appears to be an utter assertion where in reality it is a statement that requests correction? (Granted somewhat grumpily at times) I also see INTJ to need reprocessing time when you correct their idea.

It's not really function-based behavior at all, I don't think. I mean, you see plenty of so-called "Ti-users" doing the exact same thing on this site all the time (guilty myself of it at points). However, take the following:

Depth and breadth... I say suck it up extroverts, you conform. To find out how to do things, you look at other people and see what they do. To know what to think, you look outside yourself. Us introverts do have you beat in terms of independence. But don't fret, you have us beat in terms of relevance. As per freaking usual however, it won't hurt to see which of the same terms we are all using differently.

The problem here is the ranking behavior. He's implying "I'm good at something, so I'm right." Let's take his assertion "Introverts are better at independence than extroverts". Notice (and now here's the Ti talking), that he never bothered to define what "independence" was. If he meant cognitive independence (which I'm guessing he did), how far is that going to go if you don't have any material support? Unless you're living entirely self-sufficiently on a farm hundreds of miles from civilization, you're going to require assistance from other people, which means you're going to need to use "extroverted" skills. So, outside of a very rare scenario, introverts are just as dependent as extroverts are. There's no need for ranking.

However, the attitude comes across as "I'm smarter than you, so I'm right." You know that pisses xNTPs off to no end (which is why Jag takes such delight at drowning SW with that attitude, even though he tones it back with most other members on the site), and always ends up in conflict, because everyone's then in a bad mood.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Temperament Part 2: The MBTI's 16 types and Cognitive Functions

I think the best way to identify Ni, instead of with big terms such as "meta-perspectives" or "different angles" is simply by referencing of archetypal templates.
An archetype is a model of a person, thing or event that can be used to guage a likely outcome of a situation. (The particular sort we use in cognitive dynamics, is just one kind of archetype).

Here's a new way I just thought of to describe it. Basically, types and temperaments themselves are archetypes. We make profiles of them, which are descriptions of a hypothetical model person of the type or temperament.
So when we discover a person is a particular type, we can reference those get an idea of how he might react in a situation. We can look at temperament needs and functional preferences. While it's not a definite "prediction", it does point to a likely pattern.

This is a very simple example of how Ni works. Of course, all of us here using type theory are engaging that process, but are not all Ni preferrers. So like seeing, remembering, thinking, feeling, etc. we all do it, but as Sim would point out, as a type preference, it would be the person's primary perspective or "world-view" of perceiving things.

And I notice a lot of dominant Ni types often use fictional characters as examples for things. These are archetypes, and often match familiar patterns.
So this can be done with events as well. Recurring storylines, basically.
I notice I use this very negatively at times. NJ's I'm sure can reference several of these "templates" and be better able to zero in on a likely outcome from following them to a common convergence point.

This makes it sound less like some mystical superpower or something.
Experiencing the current experience is Se, and conceptualizing from it is Ne. For both forms of Pi; you have taken in the information; and now it's inside. When you bring it up again from inside (memory), you are engaging Si. If, when you bring it up again from the inside, this time you conceptualize it, you are engaging Ni.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Temperament Part 2: The MBTI's 16 types and Cognitive Functions

I think the best way to identify Ni, instead of with big terms such as "meta-perspectives" or "different angles" is simply by referencing of archetypal templates.
An archetype is a model of a person, thing or event that can be used to guage a likely outcome of a situation. (The particular sort we use in cognitive dynamics, is just one kind of archetype).

Here's a new way I just thought of to describe it. Basically, types and temperaments themselves are archetypes. We make profiles of them, which are descriptions of a hypothetical model person of the type or temperament.
So when we discover a person is a particular type, we can reference those get an idea of how he might react in a situation. We can look at temperament needs and functional preferences. While it's not a definite "prediction", it does point to a likely pattern.

This is a very simple example of how Ni works. Of course, all of us here using type theory are engaging that process, but are not all Ni preferrers. So like seeing, remembering, thinking, feeling, etc. we all do it, but as Sim would point out, as a type preference, it would be the person's primary perspective or "world-view" of perceiving things.

And I notice a lot of dominant Ni types often use fictional characters as examples for things. These are archetypes, and often match familiar patterns.
So this can be done with events as well. Recurring storylines, basically.
I notice I use this very negatively at times. NJ's I'm sure can reference several of these "templates" and be better able to zero in on a likely outcome from following them to a common convergence point.

This makes it sound less like some mystical superpower or something.
Experiencing the current experience is Se, and conceptualizing from it is Ne. For both forms of Pi; you have taken in the information; and now it's inside. When you bring it up again from inside (memory), you are engaging Si. If, when you bring it up again from the inside, this time you conceptualize it, you are engaging Ni.

That makes a hell of a lot of sense.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
This makes it sound less like some mystical superpower or something.
Experiencing the current experience is Se, and conceptualizing from it is Ne. For both forms of Pi; you have taken in the information; and now it's inside. When you bring it up again from inside (memory), you are engaging Si. If, when you bring it up again from the inside, this time you conceptualize it, you are engaging Ni.

And, like, "DAMN!". That's how it's done. Clean, simple, to the point, comparative, and without bias in language use.

:nice:
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
^You make it look technical ;)

I figured Fi Si would manifest as... caution, more or less. I think it keeps the INFP indoors slightly more (figuratively or literally) than the ISFP too (but also, more idealistic).

hehehe, I dunno....that sort of diagram is how I picture everything in my mind honestly...it all gets abstracted. I sense extreme precision from INFPs. Si gives me a strong sense of conservative behavior...thus in tertiary in an INFP, I think FiSi is a very conservative but precise combination...:D

Why do you think it's not complete?

I would say that even when you dissect and give the cat it's model, then the model fails to essentially describe the cat in all it's glory. Hence, why even documenting an archetypal cat does not do it justice. Models can be broken down into more models, and can lead into an infinite spiral of dissection.

Sometimes it's better just to make the model simple or holistic to save yourself the effort.

Fi and Fe seem to be able to see many layers on top of simple patterns...

Oh, to clarify, I wasn't at all bothered by the suggestion, it's more that I have decided one can, with creativity and depending on ones focal point/perspective (haha..goes with the OP, lol), justify/ argue any variety of function orders for oneself. I mean, I like to think I know perfectly well how my mind works; what becomes cumbersome is trying to build preset cognitive functions into the already-existing structure of my mind.

I will say I identify quite a lot with Ti, even as a tertiary and as the theory goes. However, the reason I said I'd leave it up to you is because *I* have never fully been on board with, or identified with, the INFJ type. There are key aspects I think I diverge from. Neither do I fully identify with INTJ or any other type. In my early 20's I did, however, fully identify with INTJ.

My other point being... had I all along had 'INTJ' beneath my avatar, would you have interpreted my initial post in here differently? Rather than deciding the reason for my divergence from the views of a few of the INTJ's was due to the supposed Ti-slanted wording of the OP, would you have posed an alternative suggestion?

Hmmm....well maybe because I do use Te...I find it pretty easy to dissect and analyze my own mind..it is really easy to see the functions play out in myself and in others in a fairly straightforward way....that is all the evidence I need for my own purposes. If you had put INTJ under your avi I would have thought it odd as you dont follow the linguistic patterns of an INTJ, so I would have been left sort of inconclusive...You are an Ni dom, note the "density" of the language you use, but you dont have the Te blunt edge or cohesion of Te user. You sound like ragashree a touch, but closer to fidelia, except more pointed. It is very easy to see ragashree using Ti.

Jung did kinda leave most of the strict typology behind and talked in terms of more holistic things like ego, complex, shadow and so on. Now we are working sort in between the simple functions and the more complex term personality...and end up a little lost at times.

Think about advances in medicine, for example. To really help heal the human body, you need to see how all the parts function together, but you also need to understand how things work on a very minute and specific level.

Put another way, to write a book, you need to use words and know how words fit together on a very minute detailed level. Books are built out of specific words, spliced into good sentences, spliced into good paragraphs. Yet if you focus on the specifics too much and lose sight of the forest, all the dissected details don't lead to anything. To be truly transcedent, the author has to have a holistic sense as well.

How do you handle the gaps as you go from detailed to holistic? Are guesses sufficient if they still allow you to complete the task?
 

Noon

New member
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
790
This is a very simple example of how Ni works. Of course, all of us here using type theory are engaging that process, but are not all Ni preferrers. So like seeing, remembering, thinking, feeling, etc. we all do it, but as Sim would point out, as a type preference, it would be the person's primary perspective or "world-view" of perceiving things.

And I notice a lot of dominant Ni types often use fictional characters as examples for things. These are archetypes, and often match familiar patterns.
So this can be done with events as well. Recurring storylines, basically.
I notice I use this very negatively at times. NJ's I'm sure can reference several of these "templates" and be better able to zero in on a likely outcome from following them to a common convergence point.

This makes it sound less like some mystical superpower or something.
Experiencing the current experience is Se, and conceptualizing from it is Ne. For both forms of Pi; you have taken in the information; and now it's inside. When you bring it up again from inside (memory), you are engaging Si. If, when you bring it up again from the inside, this time you conceptualize it, you are engaging Ni.

Great! This is very helpful.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I personally didn't find Eric's description of Ni fruitful whatsoever...

Seems the Ti-users and a tert Ni-user do, though...
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
Breadth and depth...

An objective perspective takes the world as a given. In a sense the perspective hammers up against the world as it is, and splatters out sideways, collecting accuracies--mapping--as it goes.... breadth. A subjective perspective accumulates content over and again in the same spot, altering and varying without restriction to the object itself, making maps from subject to idiosyncratic subject... depth.

Neither of these can be said to reflect any personality if neither of them has some way of stepping back from their perspective. Breadth without something idiosyncratic is mere mirror. And depth without some accuracy is empty. So... the compensatory attitudes needed, are they automatically acquired by involving some other function? An e function contains no depth because there's some i function standing by, and likewise an i has no wider outreach than what can be provided by some e hanging around? The e will mirror and the i will tunnel into a hole? You HAVE to have more than one function to be a person? Or is there some accidental depth to every e and some incidental breadth to every i? A little bit of Fi in every Fe, a smidge of Ne in every Ni, a dollop of Xe leavening every Xi and some stain of Xi in the Xe? Or what?

Makes total sense for Ni, Si and Te, Fe. It breaks for the other functions.

The mirror/hole descriptions need to be swapped for an Ne dom. These are only suited to an Ni dom. Ne is a Funnel, an amplifying, modulating funnel....but a funnel that brings info outwards to inwards, much of that a connected meshwork. Ti or Fi is the mirror....the oversoul I have heard it called.

We "judge" by looking inward at the mirror....to see the outer world reflected...then compare to our inner Si world.

so Ni "depth" isnt really the same thing as Fi "depth"....Ni depth implies looking ever inward and around a particular focal point. Fi "depth"-at least FiSi-seems to be more wrinkles and resolution in our FiSi, thus we have more ways (WTF is a way? ) to process/judge. Ne breadth implies connecting everything to everything to allow internal mirroring by Ji...we dont smash against it like Te....we reshape it or see through it....Te breadth means collecting accuracies by trying to force something to change and it not changing?

The words are not meaning the same thing....(Hey was that Ti? Bwahahahahahaha!)
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I personally didn't find Eric's description of Ni fruitful whatsoever...

Seems the Ti-users and a tert Ni-user do, though...

Yeah, when I read it, I was like..uh..... :huh:

But, if others gain something from it and are able to grasp Ni better, I guess that's good? haha.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Makes total sense for Ni, Si and Te, Fe. It breaks for the other functions.

The mirror/hole descriptions need to be swapped for an Ne dom. These are only suited to an Ni dom. Ne is a Funnel, an amplifying, modulating funnel....but a funnel that brings info outwards to inwards, much of that a connected meshwork. Ti or Fi is the mirror....the oversoul I have heard it called.

We "judge" by looking inward at the mirror....to see the outer world reflected...then compare to our inner Si world.

so Ni "depth" isnt really the same thing as Fi "depth"....

It's just what Eric B pointed out above. Ne takes related information over time and seeks to create an archetypal framework for it, based on what preference the person has (Ti being objective, apersonal interactions, while Fi being subjective, personal involvement). Ni takes limited information and attempts to extrapolate its connection to an existing archetypal framework, based on what preference the person has (Te being objective, impersonal rules, while Fe being subjective, agreed-upon conventions).
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
It's just what Eric B pointed out above. Ne takes related information over time and seeks to create an archetypal framework for it, based on what preference the person has (Ti being objective, apersonal interactions, while Fi being subjective, personal involvement). Ni takes limited information and attempts to extrapolate its connection to an existing archetypal framework, based on what preference the person has (Te being objective, impersonal rules, while Fe being subjective, agreed-upon conventions).

:yim_rolling_on_the_

No typological bias to see here, people; keep on moving...
 

Noon

New member
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
790
I personally didn't find Eric's description of Ni fruitful whatsoever...

Seems the Ti-users and a tert Ni-user do, though...

Yes, I suppose it might have a lot to do with having tert Ni rather than dom. In any case, I like it because it's another way to look at Ni that I hadn't considered before. When combined with all of the others that I have already seen, I think it helps to expand my understanding. It also helps that it's more straightforward compared to many of the others.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Experiencing the current experience is Se, and conceptualizing from it is Ne. For both forms of Pi; you have taken in the information; and now it's inside. When you bring it up again from inside (memory), you are engaging Si. If, when you bring it up again from the inside, this time you conceptualize it, you are engaging Ni.

What gets confusing is that bringing it up from the inside could also be termed "externalizing" it as it begins from within which means it goes to the outside or it "extraverts"(abstract action).

While bringing it in could be internalizing it even though the initial perception starts from outside.

This is why perception is important even in understanding perception.
 

Oaky

Travelling mind
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
6,180
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Sim's definition is mostly fine. I don't find much wrong in it. There, however, may be a number of missed points that may be added to it.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
It's just what Eric B pointed out above. Ne takes related information over time and seeks to create an archetypal framework for it, based on what preference the person has (Ti being objective, apersonal interactions, while Fi being subjective, personal involvement). Ni takes limited information and attempts to extrapolate its connection to an existing archetypal framework, based on what preference the person has (Te being objective, impersonal rules, while Fe being subjective, agreed-upon conventions).

Now I is confuzid, sim and I said as much earlier yesterday. :unsure:

But, I do not approve of your description of Fi as being both subjective and involving personal involvement, I dunno why, lemme think for a sec...

KK, I understand from an objective point of view how Fi can be accurately perceived as a subjective function, but I dunno, "my" Fi is like a prescient, and omnipresent though mostly quiet voice that comes from within, it's a feeling, it's a presence, it's always there, always, ALWAYS, and you don't have to believe me but it's somehow separate from me yet an integral part of me. I am an agnostic technically, and an atheist by most people's standards including my own, but "my" Fi, shit, I don't even feel like it's mine, per se, but it's the closest thing to "God" that I believe in, perhaps it is usually a whisper because it is in my aux, but it tells me truths, truths that I don't even want to believe in sometime, truths that I ignore, but I can never hide from it, myself, that is.

Looking in the mirror, sitting, just being, I know when I'm doing right and I know when I'm doing wrong, this part of me, this Fi, the reason why I don't like calling it subjective is that usually when something is subjective it is prone to subjective bias, but BELIEVE ME, my Fi judges me, watches me, sees me just the same, if not more, than it does others.

I don't get special treatment, well, my Fi is flexible to understanding the reasons why people do the things they do, which is most often out of fear, and rarely out of sheer malice, but I'm constantly tormented by my own Fi Police, fo realz.

Granted, I am not working in full accordance with it, so that makes sense.

It is ego-less, it wants what's right for me just as much as it wants it for others, it wants what's right and just and good to prevail over human insecurity/fear/shame/self-loathing and misery.

It wants goodness, pure goodness, virtue within and without.

I dunno, I lost my point.

Fi is by far my "deepest" function.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Yes, I suppose it might have a lot to do with having tert Ni rather than dom. In any case, I like it because it's another way to look at Ni that I hadn't considered before. When combined with all of the others that I have already seen, I think it helps to expand my understanding. It also helps that it's more straightforward compared to many of the others.

Yeah, you see this often with tert-Ni users...

I would think that tert Ni would be so confusing to the user as it's developing, that they would just hope for a simple explanation to offer them some kind of understanding as to :wtf: is going on...

For Ni-doms, who are very facile with their Ni-use, these kinds of descriptions just sound rather shallow, clunky, and vapid.

Like a layman trying to explain how some aspect of an automobile works: his description might be more understandable to other laymen, but the auto-mechanics would probably find it very rudimentary, at best.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
^^Yeah, my Fi kicks my own ass too...Fi feels like you but feels separate from you...I recognize this.

Random ass thought 1:
No matter how hard we try when we describe these cognitive functions we will do so using the lens of our own cognitive functions.

Thus it seems time for a group exercise in which we form 16 separate little groups, each with it’s own definition of Ni, then regroup and we can observe how we each manage to perceive the function and taint whatever it is via our own internal projection and perceptions.

Random ass thought 2:
Anyways I forgot….INTJs at least will microfocus in on one “object/problem” and switch it through 470,000 different contexts, identify all the gaps in knowledge then try and refine the core to some ultimate simplistic truth-aka an archetype as Eric B suggested.

So I don’t have an issue with archetype, but the more important aspect in understanding Ni for me is how you get to the archetype-the Ni process. Where the Ti users simply latched onto the final product of the Ni, the archetype, as being most important, and disregarded Ni processing-which is the really interesting part....

ENFPs look at 470,000 different things, paying only slightest attention to each, linking all together, to find a consistent overarching theme-are we trying to create a single overarching context?

470,000 looks = 1 thing
470,000 things = 1 look

Anyways Ni...It makes you glow! :D

he-man-the-masters-of-the-universe-season-one-volume-one-20051019030645923-000.jpg
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Now I is confuzid, sim and I said as much earlier yesterday. :unsure:

But, I do not approve of your description of Fi as being both subjective and involving personal involvement, I dunno why, lemme think for a sec...

KK, I understand from an objective point of view how Fi can be accurately perceived as a subjective function, but I dunno, "my" Fi is like a prescient, and omnipresent though mostly quiet voice that comes from within, it's a feeling, it's a presence, it's always there, always, ALWAYS, and you don't have to believe me but it's somehow separate from me yet an integral part of me. I am an agnostic technically, and an atheist by most people's standards including my own, but "my" Fi, shit, I don't even feel like it's mine, per se, but it's the closest thing to "God" that I believe in, perhaps it is usually a whisper because it is in my aux, but it tells me truths, truths that I don't even want to believe in sometime, truths that I ignore, but I can never hide from it, myself, that is.

Looking in the mirror, sitting, just being, I know when I'm doing right and I know when I'm doing wrong, this part of me, this Fi, the reason why I don't like calling it subjective is that usually when something is subjective it is prone to subjective bias, but BELIEVE ME, my Fi judges me, watches me, sees me just the same, if not more, than it does others.

I don't get special treatment, well, my Fi is flexible to understanding the reasons why people do the things they do, which is most often out of fear, and rarely out of sheer malice, but I'm constantly tormented by my own Fi Police, fo realz.

Granted, I am not working in full accordance with it, so that makes sense.

It is ego-less, it wants what's right for me just as much as it wants it for others, it wants what's right and just and good to prevail over human insecurity/fear/shame/self-loathing and misery.

It wants goodness, pure goodness, virtue within and without.

I dunno, I lost my point.

Fi is by far my "deepest" function.

When I say Fi is subjective, I don't mean biased and self-serving. I mean that it integrally understands that you as the subject are involved, and compiles the information in this light. When I say Ti is objective, I don't mean that it's unbiased and empirical. I mean that it seeks to remove the subject from consideration of the information altogether.

In my conceptualization, the Ti perspective would hate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, or at the very least never think of it, because it operates as if the subject weren't inherently affected by the interaction with the object, or that it would be possible to observe such an interaction without having any physical impact upon it. A leads to B because of C, separate from O's observation. The Fi perspective would say "of course, you impact your surroundings and your surroundings impact you no matter the scenario". A leads to B because of C+D, and all variables are fundamentally altered by the interaction. The interaction of A and C absent D is inherently unknowable and also not B.
 
Top