• 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.

[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Ni - What the hell is it?

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
For me, Ni often manifests by showing me, in a sudden flash of insight, that the problem we have been trying to solve is in fact the wrong problem. By looking at it from a different perspective, especially by questioning or discarding certain assumptions, a workable solution becomes obvious.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Pronouns=/=functions. Then I say that the function Ni is a hypothosis. That seems to sum up the internal inspiration pretty well. However I don't know how to compare Ni with foresight which one with it is said to possess. Perhaps it's still a hypothosis?

To extend your metaphor, Ni is multiple hypotheses. Each context is a guess. Most of them don't work. Sometimes one works very well.

The moment one has a guess that works REALLY well, it also turns out to be predictive, sometimes extremely so.

The main thing to note is that it's kind of random, and scattershot, not really precise. It seems precise because INTJs filter what they say until they are sure it is correct.
 
R

ReflecTcelfeR

Guest
So does Te constrict Ni when it's being used?

To Uumlau: Do you think this randomnity is a good description for the foresight? I have to think about this question a little more... Actually would you say that 'scattershot' is a good description to describe the foresight? I mean to say that because you're amassing a great deal of plausibilities it's almost impossible for an insight not to occur.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
So does Te constrict Ni when it's being used?

Not constrict: it focuses. Ni without a judging function is extremely unfocused. Too many possibilities, no means of choosing a particular context. Fe also provides a context.
 
R

ReflecTcelfeR

Guest
I'll be back on soon. I'm getting into it because I think this is going somewhere.
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
So does Te constrict Ni when it's being used?

Aux Te serves as filter and apparently a less crazier filter than Ter Ti.

To Uumlau: Do you think this randomnity is a good description for the foresight? I have to think about this question a little more... Actually would you say that 'scattershot' is a good description to describe the foresight? I mean to say that because you're amassing a great deal of plausibilities it's almost impossible for an insight not to occur.

I disagree with what your hinting here. It's not about numbers. Ne can make as many ideas as Ni. It's about E vs. I. Or "where do you get ideas?".

Foresight is the result of preferring(and being good at) a function that looks for answers.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Ni is obviously that wormhole Donnie Darko talked about that allows you to see into the predetermined future.

frank-donnie-darko-9237.jpg
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
donnie darko is one hell of a Ni-ish movie.

thanks for the examples of Ni in action, uumlau. that was exactly what i was hoping to read about at some point. make a lot of sense, too. i better understand how foresight/"following a pattern through" is Ni, now. it's reiterating a pattern and filling in the blank to reach the answer.

Craft said:
Foresight is the result of preferring(and being good at) a function that looks for answers.

yeah. if i understand correctly, Ni hones in to produce an answer that should be clear from the existing pattern. maybe it'll take a couple test iterations, but once the answer presents itself, it will be most clear.
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
yeah. if i understand correctly, Ni hones in to produce an answer that should be clear from the existing pattern. maybe it'll take a couple test iterations, but once the answer presents itself, it will be most clear.

As much as I placed confidence in my statement, I'm still confused about how internally oriented ideation becomes prediction seeking pursuit. I understand that when you shift your perspective, you first arrive at a conclusion (a perspective). The process then acts wherein multiple perspectives are filtered through judgement and then you are left with the 'answer'. But answer is not necessarily foresight.

Ni utilizes its independence from the external to form 'unsituational', perception-oriented connections; this can occasionally manifest into prediction. I guess I've fallen prey to what I've preached as undesirable. haha. I don't think Foresight is directly related to Ni. An indirect, unintended result perhaps but not completely stemming from the function itself.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
I'm fairly sure that's Ne. It's finding new (objective) possibilities.

Ni instead finds the new perspective that explains why process X isn't working right.

Ne starts with kind of a home base that might be regarded as Si (I don't particularly mean the function, but rather as the other end of the Ne/Si dichotomy). There is an internal subjective point of view, "the box" if you will, and it works outward from that. Notice that the notion of "house" and "apartment" and "rent" and all the rest remained constant. You put the concepts together in a new way.

Here's an example of Ni from my perspective, of the "spooky" sort. I was once watching one of those corny Twilight-Zone-like shows back in the 90s [Tales from the Crypt, if I recall correctly], where there is always a twist in the plot, usually totally unexpected. This particular story was about an old man who has died, his pretty trophy wife, and his two sons. There is also another son who left long ago, estranged, and is only mentioned in passing. They're arguing about the inheritance, and the sons don't want the trophy wife to have a share. Without going over the entire story, which I barely remember, I'll tell you my Ni insight. I thought, "Oh, the wife is really the missing son, with a sex change," after watching it for about 5 minutes.

I was proven absolutely correct at the end of the show!

The "context shift" part is obvious: I replace "wife" with "son," which seems absolutely ludicrous, absurd.

What went on inside my head is how the context shifts happen. I'm given elements A, B, C, D, and formula f(A,B,C,D), which is unknown. f(A,B,C,D) is the context. I switch from f() being the story in its context to the context of "what would I want to do to give this story a twilight zone flavor with elements A, B, C and D?" Remember, one of the rules is that they have to tell you everything you need to know, so that they can point back at it and show how you were looking at it all wrong. At this point, the missing son was highlighted as a problem element in the story. He was mentioned too much. In a typical story, he might show up in the finale, and reconcile with everyone, including the trophy wife. But that option I rejected as too normal. The most "elegant" solution was that the missing son was already present, and the only way for the missing son to be already present was for him to be the trophy wife.

I think the reason it seems absurd is because it's so twisted. When you deliver a statement like that, it's as though you've created entirely new details to be woven into the plot, and those details just "happen" to be the case. But, epistemologically, you were given all of the data and you shifted the way you looked at it. You saw past the facade. Here's a question I have for you, though. When you experience a perspective shift, do you consider it to be an absolute truth, or an alternative speculation that holds just as much weight?

From the sound of your post, it seems more like you're looking through a facade. That's not because you claim your insights to be true, but you recognize the inconsistencies within the impression of the circumstances. You knew something wasn't quite solved with the Twilight episode, and similarly, something was atypical about the long name.

In my experience with the forumers here, Ni users always foresee escalating future events through observance of slightly atypical circumstances. Like, let's say that a new member with a particular character joins the forum. An Ni user may instinctively know that there may be a rash of similar forum members to usher in the future. Would you say this is true?
 

Mondo

Welcome to Sunnyside
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
1,992
MBTI Type
EsTP
Enneagram
6w7
Ni, for me, makes it easy for me to see the whole picture of a situation.
I don't consider myself a particularly creative person but, at the very least, I can think fifty steps ahead.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Ni, for me, makes it easy for me to see the whole picture of a situation.
I don't consider myself a particularly creative person but, at the very least, I can think fifty steps ahead.

I think this is the quintessential Ni Te characteristic. Ni sees the future, as though it was linear and vertical, while Te is poised for any external contingency. Te also seems to be applied to hard, fast, and broad rules, whereas Ti is much more particular in its sequencing. Once Ti grasps the essence of a theory, it can sequence the next appropriate step through a priori analysis.

This makes me exceptionally curious about how INFJs experience premonitions.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Ladies and Gentlebeans,

I find your lack of faith uninspiring. It seems you're sufficiently unfamiliar with "The Long View" that you've come to engineer ways to be assured other people be unfamiliar with it too. "Ni is just...", pfft. Ni is just Yo Momma, the long view you don't have.

If you would like to define Ni, consider not equating it with inadequate versions of your own functions. Or we can do your perception functions next.


Se: snacks.
Si: snacks from last week.
Ne: filling the crossword puzzle with more blanks.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
To Uumlau: Do you think this randomnity is a good description for the foresight? I have to think about this question a little more... Actually would you say that 'scattershot' is a good description to describe the foresight? I mean to say that because you're amassing a great deal of plausibilities it's almost impossible for an insight not to occur.


Almost. It's scattershot with a filter, e.g., Te. Without the filter, you just end up with a gazillion possibilities. Te or Fe judge the potential results of the scattershot internally, and only a very few (or even no) possibilities emerge.


I think the reason it seems absurd is because it's so twisted. When you deliver a statement like that, it's as though you've created entirely new details to be woven into the plot, and those details just "happen" to be the case. But, epistemologically, you were given all of the data and you shifted the way you looked at it. You saw past the facade. Here's a question I have for you, though. When you experience a perspective shift, do you consider it to be an absolute truth, or an alternative speculation that holds just as much weight?
For me, it was a "that's probably true" insight. It just bubbled up in my head, really, and I compared it to what was going on, and it just "seemed right" even though it was absurd. However, I also know that I don't know 100% for sure, I just know that it's a very likely guess.

Remember, we Ni-doms have to be a bit skeptical of our intuition, or we start turning out crackpot theories. It is by comparing our intuition to reality that we learn which insights are useful.

With such practice, I've become fairly good at predicting plot twists, and there are only a few writers that challenge me in that regard, e.g., Joss Whedon. Sadly, it makes a lot of movies terribly boring for me, as I know exactly what is going to happen. Sometimes though, predictable books/movies can be fun if I feel like my talent for prediction is at least being moderately challenged, or if I approve of how artistically/dramatically the plot "surprises" flow.

From the sound of your post, it seems more like you're looking through a facade. That's not because you claim your insights to be true, but you recognize the inconsistencies within the impression of the circumstances. You knew something wasn't quite solved with the Twilight episode, and similarly, something was atypical about the long name.
Yes. It isn't just seeing through the facade so much as a habitual way of looking at things. I want everything I observe to make sense to me, but rather than going to books and looking things up, I would guess for myself. Back before I understood relativity, I was making guesses as to why it was true, e.g., photons are massless, therefore they go at the speed of light, because if they had mass, it would be infinite. (That's really circular reasoning, I know - but none of my high school physics teachers were equipped to explain it to me, so I was stuck with my own guesswork, and didn't happen upon any books that explained it based on the classical laws of electromagnetism. My readings all focused on the "gee whiz" time dilation and such, without explaining why, so I was left with guessing why.)

So whenever I look at something, and it doesn't work the way I think it should, I know I have something wrong (or it has something wrong). I compare what is essentially a dynamic model in my mind (Ni) with the real thing (Te). My models says that thus-and-such should be true, but it obviously isn't. So I unconsciously switch perspectives (hypotheses) until I have an internal model that does predict the real thing. That new hypothesis tells me exactly where to look for what is broken and fix it, if the problem is with the real thing. Or the new hypothesis provides my prognostication a great deal more accuracy, since it corrects for something I didn't know before.

It's kind of like doing science experiments in my head, before I actually tackle the thing in real life.

In my experience with the forumers here, Ni users always foresee escalating future events through observance of slightly atypical circumstances. Like, let's say that a new member with a particular character joins the forum. An Ni user may instinctively know that there may be a rash of similar forum members to usher in the future. Would you say this is true?

I'd be more likely to say "selection effect."

One of the main tools I use to make sure I don't come up with nonsense models is understanding logical fallacies and poor observational techniques. That is to say, I need to know how to look at things with Ni, and not simply just accept the first thing that pops into my head.

Also, because I'm Te, not Fe, I don't see the people patterns as easily as INFJs do. I can study an individual and gradually be able to predict the kind of behaviors/responses I'll get in any particular situation, but that knowledge is hard-earned for me. More objective phenomena, the more it's about things and not people, the more fast and accurate my predictions are.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
Ni, for me, makes it easy for me to see the whole picture of a situation.
I don't consider myself a particularly creative person but, at the very least, I can think fifty steps ahead.
Fifty steps? That's a lot of steps considering that most often, there's no hard eventuality unless you personally, force it through. And even then, specific outcomes aren't predetermined if external influences are out of your control. If you had stated that you can see multiple outcomes where your actions can change the direction of the outcomes, this would be more understandable.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
^ a fair point, and an interesting one. I was chatting the other day with an INFJ about the thin line between seeing the future and creating it. Do all Ni groovers have this: where you sometimes want to avoid saying too clearly to someone what the future will be because them knowing, and adopting, your formulation will taint the outcome, quite literally alter what the future was going to be, and turn it into something you don't know anymore? This happens worst when other people aren't conscious of what they intend to do but are willing to use formulations supplied from outside though this won't actually stop them from doing whatever it was they were going to do. In short, they mess with the Te or Fe pillars. They undermine external verities and we get chaos not just inside but now also outside and the future stops being seen.

Possibility. Possibility is for the internal world. The external world is for order and construction. This is how Ni can function. Other people are supposed to be verifiable. And it was interesting talking to the INFJ. We both agreed that we like telling people what to do but dislike being told what to do.

So, Ni, what the hell is it? It's something that works with something else.



But I don't know about seeing the multiple outcomes. That's just otiose.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
Otiose? I wouldn't say so. Planning for best/worst outcomes using an internal yes/no flowchart or interconnected flowcharts, allows you to always be ahead of the game when it matters, specifically work related. But this might be an illustration of Te/Ni working together.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Well, it's that line between seeing the future and creating it: you can exclude outcomes by taking first steps. Indeed, without steps of some kind, there isn't much future to see at all. There's all the steps other people have been taking, so there's that set of conditions at least, but too much of that and we're getting too far into Te territory. But Ni blasting off in all directions... that seems like it'd induce a paralysis of some kind. In fact it does. I find for myself there's a tension between mentally wandering off wherever and mentally being vacuous. Gotta have one, prefer to skip the other.

I find for myself that external conditions (and externalising techniques) provide the structure (or are made into the structure) and internal musing provides the content (or is an interpreter of the content). What's possible, what's going to come, what's meaningful given some conditions.

But...

if I am to feel alive and lively, then what is going on in my head has to be able to stretch out beyond the confines of too many demanding conditions. There has to be an expansion, and a connection of that expansion to something bigger. There's a satisfaction in seeing the larger picture, and a dissatisfaction at seeing merely uh larger picture.

Perhaps I am describing a creative tension between extroverted judging and introverted perceiving. The idea of seeing all the possibilities is... unpleasant. Seeing all the possibilities that can come true... that's better.

(It's interesting, I couldn't write that last sentence in the way I wanted: if I said "all the possibilities that will come true", I have a contradiction, but if I say "all the possibilities that can come true" I have a tautology... I need to be able to say something like: all the possibilities distilled into eventuality. And, kablammo, we're seeing the future! Unless I just made all that up. Which is possible too.)


That part, the distilling part, is the i of Ni, I reckon. Something like that.
Or maybe it's the t of Te.
It's interesting again, the image of actually knowing the future, of distilling all possibilities into one eventuality, is unpleasant. Confining. I wonder why.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
Maybe the difference in our perceptions is "all outcomes" versus "multiple outcomes". I agree that Ni gone wild would be counterproductive. But if you put all your eggs in a single basket of outcomes, it limits potential and also leaves you flat-footed if there's no room for deviance with uncontrollable elements. A way to hedge your bets.

The more we discuss this, the more it appears to crystallise into Ni being heavily influenced by Te and possibly even an ounce of shadow Ne thrown in.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Arguably, you're saying we have to leave room for Se.

When events shoot off in some direction unforeseen by the All-See Ni (!!!), we can still jump on that runaway train and drag on the brake handle.

Perhaps the true story of Ni is the story of Ni-Se. Having extroverted judging in the story has maybe complicated it, but arguably there has to be some "e" in the story. It is perhaps to be presumed that no function exists without there being some dynamic balance somewhere to support it.

Or not, I dunno. We can see white without seeing black, but can we understand it? The sound of one hand clapping is the buzzing of a fly.
 
Top