• 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?

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Wow, your reading comprehension is terrible.

I don't see how, since I had a 35 on the ACT reading comprehension and a 3.9 as a Literature major.

Just because someone doesn't see things your way or understand doesn't mean their reading comprehension is poor. Maybe you should go hang out with TG.

And I'm not sure what's been up with the personal attacks ever since last night, but I re-instate that I implore you to find some sort of release for your personal tension.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
But the flashes from Ne come out of the blue, out of the ether as it were.

vs

As I expressed above to uumlau, waiting for me means ... waiting.

It's not really waiting. It's "sitting with". The process is on-going and constantly productive, but tends not to take part in deadlines, so finding out where one train of content is going, or even what the true nature of that content is, is in some sense not the priority. One "waits" on the answer. Meanwhile one is shaping it by seeing it take shape.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Ne patterns result in an end universal Si generalized rule. The ENFP will dance using Si, not Se. Ne patterns of movement practiced over and over and over again become Si muscle memory-Si generalized rules to dance by. Much like Ni, the Si will never be seen past the surface-yet it lies underneath.

Once in Si, it removes the need to think about what comes next-the subconscious memorized pattern dictates the next step. Thus the dancer becomes one with the dance.

Same result-different path.

I realize this is a metaphor, but there are not "Ne patterns of movement". That still sounds like Se. Those are tangible patterns. Or maybe it's just cuz I'm crap at dancing that I call foul here... :p
Seriously though, Ne devalues the object (external things) to see what it implies as opposed to what it is. That can involve patterns, but it's not all it amounts to, and it's often not considering literal, visible patterns. Tangible patterns are too obvious, & so they seem dull to observe & create. When it comes to music, for instance, the longer it takes for a clear rhythmic pattern to emerge, the more interesting I may find it. Instantly "catchy" music can get boring quickly. If it has to "grow" on you, then I'll probably like it more in the long run.

Si as backup amounts to understanding the past to AVOID it in the future. I suppose Ne sets trends, but it also seeks to basically destroy what is current and create something new for the sake of new; only Ji can give it "noble" motive & restraint. Ne opposes Si, which is why they exist within the same individual for balance. This is why Ne people like to test current concepts (ie. often appears as semi "rebellious") to see if they hold true, and why we tend to be far less externally structured than Je people. We're tearing the structure down to see what's really behind it. It's like...people say this is "true" or "good", but my Ji questions that, and Ne is sent forth to uncover the truth. I don't think this is really conscious either...only upon analyzing all of this did I even note how much it applies to my thinking.

I was thinking about how Jung says that Ni also devalues the object, but it's the inner object. So if Se values the external object, and Ne devalues it to see the invisible side of it, then Ni is basically devaluing the object Si values, or the images of the past, to see what they imply rather than what they are; and what the past always implies is the future (since it leads to it...). So Ni sort of converges impressions from different time periods (personal past & collective past), creating a picture of the inevitable for the future, and thus "predicting" it. I suppose all these images slowly form a composite in the unconscious, and the "aha" moment strikes when it's complete. Ne avoids the past & seeks to (in a sense) destroy the present to create something new from the possibilities it sees. So neither is really more future-focused (just as neither Fe or Fi is more empathetic, or Te or Ti is more logical).
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
OMG - I am not wierd. Other people do these things too

What a great thread. These comments are awesome!


Yes, this is how I think. Here's where it gets tricky: if I try to think, my thinking sucks. The information isn't there. I keep pushing the same bits of info around and they just don't fit. I can't do anything with it.

However, if I don't push, but instead just let the thoughts flow ... if I just "not-think", instead of think ... THEN I get results, and it feels like magic. The ideas/thoughts reorient themselves without my pushing, and suddenly they fit together. Sometimes this self-reorientation is comical, ludicrous, absolutely silly ... but sometimes it's a huge insight that gets me what I need. This is where the judging function comes in, especially the extroverted judging: the judging differentiates the nonsense arrangements from the insightful ones. The new insights are "insightful" precisely because my judging determines them to be so, not because Ni does something magical.

When I don't try to think, my thinking falls into place. If I try to think hard, it just doesn't. By "not-thinking," I get my best thinking done. And this attitude works in other aspects of one's life.

@bold: that's enough for me to work with, and all of your examples were great. I am not interested in picking them apart, so I have no questions of them. I do see aspects that have an Ne flavor, especially example 4. That's like having all the pieces of a puzzle in front of you, and to most they appear as a single color, yet you can still quickly assemble the puzzle and provide a solution.

I see what you mean about 4. I think there is a difference with Ne though. The Ne dom will tend to want to talk more about possibilities and options whereas the Ni dom will want to start writing the answer (or otherwise communicate it) and decide. The course of action can't be made real till it's clear. Ne is stuck with many possibilities whereas Ni chooses (with Fe/Te). It might be good to have both working on it together because the Ni user might eliminate good options too soon.

You are interesting to me Kalach ...

That's not fully resonating with me ... there's nothing linear by how I experience Ne anyway. I would agree Ne is about the concrete, about the real-world per se. But the flashes from Ne come out of the blue, out of the ether as it were. Something I may have been pondering weeks ago will be solved in a flash of insight prompted by a singular piece of real world data. Or I will see several pieces of seemingly unrelated data and fit them together. Just see the patterns between things. Unlike Ni, it doesn't provide inspiration to make a NEW thing, previously unimagined. Any insights of that nature for me revolve around Fi.

To use a metaphor, you're trying out various ingredients to see what new creation will be cooked up, what new flavors will be experienced. That is what is sounds like to me. It sounds alive.

Ne seems to like Metaphors more than Ni. It's a clue for me - if somebody uses lots of metaphors, it's a clue to Ne.

For Ni, Te/Fe is what gets our butts out the door and working on stuff. The dictum you relate about fishing is about e vs i.

So let me re-metaphor phor you.

Ni is the continuous thought stream. Underlying currents that indirectly contain everything we've ever observed or thought.

To fish, I could use a pole with bait, or I could use a spear, or even my hands, but none of these is close to what Te does. For me, Te is a fishing net. The fish that are too small pass through the net, the big fish are caught. I just need to wait.

Then when I've caught a few fish, I don't need all of them, just one. So I look for the best fish among the several I've caught. I may have also caught some sticks or rocks or ducks, determine that they're "nonsense" in terms of my Te search for fish, and toss them out without thinking about it.

So, your style of waiting has you drifting with your thoughts, which results in no action because Ne is your objective process, which you use to paddle through them. My style of waiting is to "let the river do all the work." I simply sort out what is in the river. My net is to simply frame the question and let it settle in my mind.

This was actually phenomenal, Seymour.

Very much in line with how my mind works.

Just a week or two ago, in describing to my girlfriend why I and other Ni doms sometimes have a somewhat "blank" look on our face, I said it was because my thoughts on the matter are still forming.

The stuff inside my head has still not congealed into any solid substance, it hasn't yet reached that crystallized state, the lightning has not yet struck. But then, all of a sudden, *boom* it's there. And I've got something in mind.

Any pushing or forcing, either by ourselves or by external sources, tends to cause whatever had been forming to now be perturbed and, in general, creates some perversion (in my case, often tinged with resentment and anger for having its natural process be disturbed) of what had already been forming, that is now less insightful and valuable then what had been forming in the first place.

I believe this explanation came in the context of asking her to just let me finish figuring out what it is that I had to say, with the necessary time and silence in order to do so.


This, of course, is only when I'm letting Ni drive the car.

If I want to to whip back with some quick response, or make sure I "have a look on my face", I can let Te or a TeSe loop do the driving, and they will be up for the task.

It's how I recognize Ni-ers IRL ... a certain look in the eyes, distant and not quite present. The flash that occurs when the thoughts are interrupted, like a hailing back to reality.

Do you set aside time especially so you can ponder / float without any intrusions? Is it easy to access your Ni space even when in the middle of a group of people?

It's why I don't mind driving - 3 hours just tonight to the middle of Illinois. There must have been a 45 minute stretch where I was zoned out thinking about something related to work.

Not in the middle, anywhere but the middle. We end up having to continually pull ourself back into reality and it is a constant effort not to phase out trying to keep up with what is going on. If its a large group one would prefer to pass through without contact and unnoticed; this has the same effect as being alone and is preferred. This is why only communicating with 1 or 2 people is ideal at any time, we can either stay with Ni or without because we aren't being 'overwhelmed' into Ni by just a few persons.

Someone just criticized me a few months ago for this very thing - or drifting off. I find it exceptionally hard in meetings. What do they say to you ? Hey! Stop thinking and listen??? It would probably work but nobody's ever done it.



:party: :party: :party: :party: :party:
 
Last edited:

InvisibleJim

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,387
Someone just criticized me a few months ago for this very thing - or drifting off. I find it exceptionally hard in meetings. What do they say to you ? Hey! Stop thinking and listen??? It would probably work but nobody's ever done it.

I usually doodle in a pad as if I'm taking notes. Gives me something to reorient against. Generally people complain because you give off signals that you don't look outwardly 'busy'. The same people won't say a word if someone brings a laptop into a meeting and sits typing through the whole thing.

It can be difficult to maintain the narrative however.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
I usually doodle in a pad as if I'm taking notes. Gives me something to reorient against. Generally people complain because you give off signals that you don't look outwardly 'busy'. The same people won't say a word if someone brings a laptop into a meeting and sits typing through the whole thing.

Hah! The pretense of note-taking is difficult though. I just doodle. It's a standard doodle too--variations on shaded circles. If I do doodle in this way, I find I can listen to long stretches of otherwise mundane procedural stuff I'd normally drift away from. If I don't doodle, my attention to what's going on fades in and out. It has often seemed to me that the doodling is a fairly literal aid to listening. I'll break off from the doodling when something noteworthy is said or some insight is important enough to jot down.

Sitting in front of someone and looking at them, along with all the smiling and nodding and interacting, I actually tend to end up having heard less of what they were saying, most particularly if I'm supposed to be interviewing them. It seems to me in such moments that the limited sensing resource is being used up in spotting, mimicking and maintaining conventional interaction cues and isn't serving as a source of input for the higher function. I actually don't get a chance to "think". Can't find the novelty and build on it.

This'll sound weird, I guess, but it is easier to hear an SP speak.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I usually doodle in a pad as if I'm taking notes. Gives me something to reorient against. Generally people complain because you give off signals that you don't look outwardly 'busy'. The same people won't say a word if someone brings a laptop into a meeting and sits typing through the whole thing.

Ah yes, the doodling. I did that all of the time in meetings. I don't know what I would have done without it. Mostly a series of 3D geometric shapes and such; just doing that sort of thing continuously. It also takes me back to junior high and high school.... I'd be doodling nearly the entire time for most classes - any class that didn't require my full attention (social studies and history..gah) - and would make elaborate maze/brain-like patterns on my folders, slowly filling them up week by week.

Kalach said:
Sitting in front of someone and looking at them, along with all the smiling and nodding and interacting, I actually tend to end up having heard less of what they were saying, most particularly if I'm supposed to be interviewing them. It seems to me in such moments that the limited sensing resource is being used up in spotting, mimicking and maintaining conventional interaction cues and isn't serving as a source of input for the higher function. I actually don't get a chance to "think". Can't find the novelty and build on it.

Ah, I can actually kind of relate to this. So much effort put into maintaining an outward demeanor, that that takes up the majority of my consciousness. I think it depends on the setting; I don't know that it's always a big problem but it's something that does happen.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
It's not really waiting. It's "sitting with". The process is on-going and constantly productive, but tends not to take part in deadlines, so finding out where one train of content is going, or even what the true nature of that content is, is in some sense not the priority. One "waits" on the answer. Meanwhile one is shaping it by seeing it take shape.

Thanks for the clarification. If I just maintain a "sitting with" posture, I'll just be sitting there forever. In stress, it's too easy for me to try to surround myself with Si comforts to crowd out Fi angst ... and it's not a bad thing, occasionally, in moderation. It's like a zoning out of sorts until one is reenergized and more ready to tackle the issue. But the key is Ne - to stir that space and get me out of that funk.

Si as backup amounts to understanding the past to AVOID it in the future. I suppose Ne sets trends, but it also seeks to basically destroy what is current and create something new for the sake of new; only Ji can give it "noble" motive & restraint. Ne opposes Si, which is why they exist within the same individual for balance. This is why Ne people like to test current concepts (ie. often appears as semi "rebellious") to see if they hold true, and why we tend to be far less externally structured than Je people. We're tearing the structure down to see what's really behind it. It's like...people say this is "true" or "good", but my Ji questions that, and Ne is sent forth to uncover the truth. I don't think this is really conscious either...only upon analyzing all of this did I even note how much it applies to my thinking.

I was thinking about how Jung says that Ni also devalues the object, but it's the inner object. So if Se values the external object, and Ne devalues it to see the invisible side of it, then Ni is basically devaluing the object Si values, or the images of the past, to see what they imply rather than what they are; and what the past always implies is the future (since it leads to it...). So Ni sort of converges impressions from different time periods (personal past & collective past), creating a picture of the inevitable for the future, and thus "predicting" it. I suppose all these images slowly form a composite in the unconscious, and the "aha" moment strikes when it's complete. Ne avoids the past & seeks to (in a sense) destroy the present to create something new from the possibilities it sees. So neither is really more future-focused (just as neither Fe or Fi is more empathetic, or Te or Ti is more logical).

Another thought-provoking post OA. Very interesting.

What a great thread. These comments are awesome!

Thanks to all for sharing their responses to make it a great thread. :)

I see what you mean about 4. I think there is a difference with Ne though. The Ne dom will tend to want to talk more about possibilities and options whereas the Ni dom will want to start writing the answer (or otherwise communicate it) and decide. The course of action can't be made real till it's clear. Ne is stuck with many possibilities whereas Ni chooses (with Fe/Ti). It might be good to have both working on it together because the Ni user might eliminate good options too soon.

Well, true, Ne won't discount the possibilities seemingly as quickly as Ni - that happens after a self-initiated Te-style smack-down ("ok, we can't do ALL of these things, and some make more inherent sense than others. Let's narrow this down to only two options.") Then in a work environment, this works well because one option will always be your personal fav, but the bosses always like to feel they are making the decision, so you present the pros/cons of each best option, you weight your presentations of course to your logical fav, and poof, the way ahead.

Ne seems to like Metaphors more than Ni. It's a clue for me - if somebody uses lots of metaphors, it's a clue to Ne.

That may be an Fi/Ne thing, I don't know. It's definitely a PB thing. :cheese:


I usually doodle in a pad as if I'm taking notes.

Hah! The pretense of note-taking is difficult though. I just doodle.

Ah yes, the doodling. I did that all of the time in meetings. I don't know what I would have done without it.

Doodling ... interesting. I used to doodle all the time. Had to break it off at work though; I get too many Fi signals from all around me that people are interpreting it as I'm not really paying attention. And I can't ignore the Fi input. So I just make note of the Fi input more keenly, and make some notes on that, and then some fake work notes, and use the fake-note making time as a way to get away from having to pay attention to everyone or make excessive eye contact when I am thinking.

Maybe this is an introverted thing?

Sitting in front of someone and looking at them, along with all the smiling and nodding and interacting, I actually tend to end up having heard less of what they were saying, most particularly if I'm supposed to be interviewing them. It seems to me in such moments that the limited sensing resource is being used up in spotting, mimicking and maintaining conventional interaction cues and isn't serving as a source of input for the higher function. I actually don't get a chance to "think". Can't find the novelty and build on it.

Ah, I can actually kind of relate to this. So much effort put into maintaining an outward demeanor, that that takes up the majority of my consciousness.

Interesting too ... I need eye breaks, or I get too much feeling input from the other person and can't forge a path forward naturally. Fi needs a moment or two to process, and process my own output related to conversational input. It's a reason why I use pauses, rephrase what the person said back to them to get a few seconds of rest, make sweeping hand gestures at times to force an eye contact break. I need eye space too.

Again, this may be an introverted thing, required by us each for different reasons?
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Again, this may be an introverted thing, required by us each for different reasons?

Oh, certainly. We're starting to veer off into specific behaviors, which aren't the same as cognitive functions, so people across the board mbti-wise might do/experience the same or similar, just for different reasons or motivations.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
I have heard you all say nothing can force Ni, that to even try to do so impedes that actual moment of insight.

But are there any things you do to try to feed your Ni? Are there any kinds of activities that facilitate Ni processing? Books, movies, recreation, meditation ... I am curious to hear what all of your thoughts might be on that.


(For example, I will wrap my head around trying to solve a problem, then feel weary of it, and say to myself, "That's it, I have to leave this to the subconscious for awhile ..." and deliberately put it out of my mind and continue on with other issues, or go for a walk, or watch a movie. Next time I pick the issue back up, an answer can formulate from that quickly, with much less effort. Other things though, I just beat on them with an Ne/Te hammer til I have a solution, I don't let myself retreat from it, until I get the Fi "ring of truth" for an answer.)

Compare / contrast ...
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I have heard you all say nothing can force Ni, that to even try to do so impedes that actual moment of insight.

But are there any things you do to try to feed your Ni? Are there any kinds of activities that facilitate Ni processing? Books, movies, recreation, meditation ... I am curious to hear what all of your thoughts might be on that.


(For example, I will wrap my head around trying to solve a problem, then feel weary of it, and say to myself, "That's it, I have to leave this to the subconscious for awhile ..." and deliberately put it out of my mind and continue on with other issues, or go for a walk, or watch a movie. Next time I pick the issue back up, an answer can formulate from that quickly, with much less effort. Other things though, I just beat on them with an Ne/Te hammer til I have a solution, I don't let myself retreat from it, until I get the Fi "ring of truth" for an answer.)

Compare / contrast ...

I have been believing for a while now that Fi is the "judgey" version of Ni. Both engaging in a fuzzy, holistic approach to problem solving. I'm a bit biased as an INTJ with reasonably balanced Fi, so I naturally feel like Ni and Fi go together, so I'm glad to have your non-Ni feedback on the matter.

I think this is a tactic that works for several types, and isn't specific to Ni users. I've often retreated from a problem where no solution was apparent, yet arrive back at it and look, there's a solution in my head, all ready to go. It works so well, I purposefully use it by breaking off as soon as I recognize my thoughts looping around to no purpose.

Also, I completely believe that it's Fi that you're using, and not Te or some other "brainy, more reasonable function." I've long held that Fi users are very smart, and to say that they use "feeling logic" belies the power of the approach. I'd say it's more like "fuzzy logic," in that it accounts for things that normal logic doesn't or cannot.
 

amazingdatagirl

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
95
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
6w5
I think this is a tactic that works for several types, and isn't specific to Ni users. I've often retreated from a problem where no solution was apparent, yet arrive back at it and look, there's a solution in my head, all ready to go. It works so well, I purposefully use it by breaking off as soon as I recognize my thoughts looping around to no purpose.
Agree - this property of Ni has mystified me. How can not thinking about the problem result in a solution? I think that the answer lies in the intrinsic nature of introverted dominant functions. The process is hard wired into our brains.

Think about it - an INTP Ti-dom doesn't learn to "feed" their introverted thinking. It is as natural as breathing. They express their Ti through extroverted intuition (Ne).

Ni-doms like INTJ and INFJ express their intuitive insights through their extroverted functions. A mastermind supports the introverted function through extroverted thinking. The Ni-Te loop strengthens and enhances both functions.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I have been believing for a while now that Fi is the "judgey" version of Ni.

I wholly endorse this sentiment.

Sometimes it becomes a bit hard to cipher between the two...

At what point did your subconscious come up with a new way to perceive the situation, and at what point did this lead to a judgment about it?

That's why I've come to believe in this idea of loops... both NiFi loops and TeSe loops make a lot of intuitive sense to me... I think I use functions in tandem a lot of the time...

Also, I completely believe that it's Fi that you're using, and not Te or some other "brainy, more reasonable function." I've long held that Fi users are very smart, and to say that they use "feeling logic" belies the power of the approach. I'd say it's more like "fuzzy logic," in that it accounts for things that normal logic doesn't or cannot.

Yeah, there's definitely an advanced logic to the F functions.

It's different than T logic, but it's logic nonetheless.

I think it's a logic that has more to do with one's personal values, though; not something inherent to the object itself necessarily, but inherent in your valuation of the object.

It's kinda like, in the absence of an objective, T-based axiom to use to come to a conclusion regarding a matter, F functions bring in a subjective axiom (one's personal F-based values) to arrive at a conclusion.
 
Last edited:

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I have been believing for a while now that Fi is the "judgey" version of Ni. Both engaging in a fuzzy, holistic approach to problem solving. I'm a bit biased as an INTJ with reasonably balanced Fi, so I naturally feel like Ni and Fi go together, so I'm glad to have your non-Ni feedback on the matter.

I think this is a tactic that works for several types, and isn't specific to Ni users. I've often retreated from a problem where no solution was apparent, yet arrive back at it and look, there's a solution in my head, all ready to go. It works so well, I purposefully use it by breaking off as soon as I recognize my thoughts looping around to no purpose.

Also, I completely believe that it's Fi that you're using, and not Te or some other "brainy, more reasonable function." I've long held that Fi users are very smart, and to say that they use "feeling logic" belies the power of the approach. I'd say it's more like "fuzzy logic," in that it accounts for things that normal logic doesn't or cannot.

I can agree with this. Fi is imaginative in the sense that it imagines an ideal (and both Fi ideals & Ni visions arise from the inner world, so Fi does not really respond to external stimuli like many think, so much as have a vision of the ideal fabricated from some innate place, or the collective unconscious), but being that it is ideal, there is a value attachment. It is a judgment of what should be rather than an insight into what could be. Ne presents an NFP with what could be, and then Fi judges which is closest to their image of the ideal. In an ISFP, with Se & decent use of Ni, you may see someone perceiving what are the immediate real options, but there can be an insight into which of those is most likely to lead to an ideal in the future. This is why I think INFPs & ISFPs are very hard to tell apart for many people. Since ESFPs have inferior Ni, they tend to be less inclined to see how their current choice will turn out down the road.

This is why Fi is really holistic - it doesn't break down things into parts to judge so much as have a whole vision to evaluate it against. Only when you realize you need to break it down into something you can communicate to others will you analyze the feeling (which is really what gets analyzed, not so much the external issue). Until then, it kind of just remains a feeling, which is vague & fuzzy, and too deep to define specifically without losing significance. When something hits on that image of the ideal, it is like a lightening strike also, or maybe an alarm going off. I think this is why NFPs may feel like they use Ni or they relate to descriptions of it. Frm what I understand of Ni, I don't feel I use it any major capacity, but FiNe sort of mimics it in a way.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
But are there any things you do to try to feed your Ni? Are there any kinds of activities that facilitate Ni processing? Books, movies, recreation, meditation ... I am curious to hear what all of your thoughts might be on that.
Every experience feeds Ni, not so much with facts, but with patterns. None of these prior patterns may ever correspond to a new situation; it's more like the cumulative experience of having perceived these paves the way for the new one. One of the best ways to feed, or rather to exercise Ni, however, is simply to use it. In a way, we are always using it, but apropos of your question about setting aside time to devote to it, Ni can be disrupted, interrupted, interfered with by an excess of interaction requiring the use of much different functions. To avoid this, I need to have large, uninterrupted blocks of time to focus. Sometimes, the insights I get are not even related to the subject of my focus, but that's just how it works.

I, too, will set aside problems that are proving difficult to solve. To me, though, it is not so much from a wish to revisit them with fresh eyes as from a realization that I am trying to solve them the wrong way. Usually I have been taking a direct Te-based approach, and see that it is too mechanical and "uninspired" to come up with a good solution, especially if I am trying to balance or maximize many competing variables. Setting it aside essentially turns it over to Ni to come up with a solution framework.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I have heard you all say nothing can force Ni, that to even try to do so impedes that actual moment of insight.

But are there any things you do to try to feed your Ni? Are there any kinds of activities that facilitate Ni processing? Books, movies, recreation, meditation ... I am curious to hear what all of your thoughts might be on that.


(For example, I will wrap my head around trying to solve a problem, then feel weary of it, and say to myself, "That's it, I have to leave this to the subconscious for awhile ..." and deliberately put it out of my mind and continue on with other issues, or go for a walk, or watch a movie. Next time I pick the issue back up, an answer can formulate from that quickly, with much less effort. Other things though, I just beat on them with an Ne/Te hammer til I have a solution, I don't let myself retreat from it, until I get the Fi "ring of truth" for an answer.)

Compare / contrast ...

One of the flaws is that you sometimes don't get enough external information before leaping to a conclusion.To "feed it", I think:
- Information and learning - of all kinds i think is the fuel - enough detailed disconnected related concepts, facts, stories, whatever - that helps to fuel the quality of the insights
- Practice - the more you use it in different situations, the better you get with it. for example, I use it all the time when interacting with people; i'm extraordinarily sensitive to minor body language, voice, intonation, reactions - Ni is a substitute for some other functions in this regard; i can over-interpret - that's one risk
- Quiet - this is key. It's why I actually don't hate driving a stick shift 90 minutes into work. i get to think. Not being busy
- Sleep - should be obvious but a mind without sleep is not particularly creative
 
Last edited:

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
There is an interesting book I've been reading, that appears to be a rather good "Fi manual," called The Fifth Agreement, by Don Miguel Ruiz and Don Jose Ruiz. Yeah, it's related to The Four Agreements I mentioned in an earlier post. I just ran across the following, last night:

If we just stop thinking, we no longer try to explain anything to ourselves, and this keeps us from making assumptions.

This is a rather good characterization of the "not-thinking" I was talking about, and which PB later described as something she occasionally did with Fi, so this isn't an Ni-exclusive thing. It is, however, a good summation of the Ni approach to things, and kind of explains how all this quiet time is capable of putting ideas together more efficiently than actively "trying to think."

When we actively think, we are employing our assumptions, including assumptions of which we are entirely unaware, because we necessarily believe all of our assumptions are true. When we go into "not-thinking" mode, the assumptions cease to have a role, or rather, they get applied after the fact, but they don't prevent an idea from emerging in the first place.

Note how bizarre the conclusions I had in my examples from a few days ago were. If I held onto my assumptions, I would be cognitively unable to reach the conclusions I did. By dropping my assumptions, I was able to make and not immediately reject several observations, which led to my discovering strange-but-true ideas. In the example of my SQLXml diagnosis, everyone's reaction, and I mean everyone's, was "no way, that cannot be true." It was such a strange result, even after being plainly told it is true, they chose to believe their assumptions rather than me. I had to demonstrate its truth, not merely tell them the truth. Their assumptions blinded them to a truth that was staring them in the face: they could see the effect of the truth, but could not believe the cause behind it - I might as well have asserted divine intervention as the cause, for all they believed me.

It's this same dropping of assumptions that lets the thoughts in my head "rearrange themselves" according to their own logic, instead of according to my logic.
 

TacEight

New member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INTP
I've been tracking this thread since day one, and found it very inspirational in the research I did over the last few days. Perhaps THIS will help others understand Ni vs Ne more, or if not you can advise me on my own perspectives.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Sorry to rehash, but I had completely missed this stuff before.

These are some of the best observations about Ni in this whole thread:

The most important aspect of Ni in this regard is that we don't disregard particular possibilities based conventional notions of likelihood, but rather we allow/disallow contexts based on whether they "work." As long as the context is self consistent (kind of like Ti), we'll keep an open mind about it. If it's the ONLY possible context, it sounds like we just predicted something magically, by "just knowing." It even feels like that to ourselves.

The above was absolutely phenomenal. Undoubtedly one of the best explanations I've ever read.

I know I've heard this from you more than anybody else, uumlau, and I completely agree with you about it, in that there is a similarity between Ti and Ni.

It's also one of the reasons I give Ti dom's and aux's so much flack (particularly the ones who bitch that Te dom's and aux's don't "get" Ti, or use sloppy Te-logic), because, ever since I was in elementary school, I remember the annoying struggle between NTJs and NTPs. NTPs think the Ni dom's or aux's aren't following a fully logical progression, simply because the message they receive comes from Te, and, so long as Ni knows that the progression makes logical sense, it doesn't really care about divulging each and every little premise used to get to the final conclusion. If it works, Ni knows it. If it doesn't, Ni will have seen that it doesn't work. We know so in an instant.

Now, that's not to say that Ni-users can't make mistakes and yada yada yada, but I can't tell you how many times I've had to deal with the nuisance of Ti dom's and aux's who won't simply accept that Ni knows that what it's saying is logical and makes sense, and that Te is just trying to explain it as quickly as possible, by jumping over what it feels are tacitly obvious enough assumptions that they need not actually be verbalized.

Ni sees the same logical thought-paths that Ti does, it just does so like an instant beam of light.

And when it sees that the path is good (i.e., that it "works"), then it wants to move forward.

Ti, however, wants to shine its flash light along the whole damn path for far-too-much-time for my patience, making sure there aren't any inconsistencies or problems anywhere.

And then, even if they think they've found one, I can Ni-up a whole slew of possible explanations to explain it away, the first of which will probably do the job, and the second and third of which might also provide reinforcement.

Then those thought-paths have to get checked over by Ti, which takes us away from the original thought-path, which was valid to begin with!

:doh:

Fuckin' NTPs!!! WASTING my time!!

:steam:

/rant

:cheese:

***

Also, with regards to the underlined, that is precisely why Ps' consistent accusations that Js are close-minded are totally bunk in my opinion.

How are we close-minded if we are open to non-conventional notions, so long as they are internally consistent?!?

That's like, the definition of open-mindedness...

In the more conventional arena, I use Ni to troubleshoot. The context shifting in this regard is to come up with a set of possible problems that could have happened, no matter how ridiculous they might seem. I investigate the most likely ones, and quickly find the real answer, which is often but not always my first guess.

:yes:


In one particularly odd case, a web page was crashing based on some weird SQL error. There was no way that anything was wrong. All the data looked correct. Everyone was puzzled. So I looked at the data for oddities. The main weird thing I saw was that the person's name as given in the data was very long, basically a sophisticated identifier for QA testing to sort results. I changed the name to "Joe Smith" and the bug went away.

At that point, I knew that something about the name (it turned out to be the length) was somehow corrupting the data. It took forever, though, to explain this to everyone else. Their reaction was always, "No way," and "That makes no sense at all." But I could point at empirical data to prove it, which isn't often the case for Ni. In spite of the empirical data, the conclusion was so odd, that it wasn't easy for others to absorb. My Ni attitude was of the "I don't know why it is true, but I know that it -is- true" and I knew that I would figure out why eventually, and didn't need to know "why" to communicate the problem. It turns out that Microsoft's SQLXml had a bug in it, and we needed to update to a new version of SQL Server to fix it.

This is how Ni relates to Se. The "singular vision" is often an Se-perspective of the matter, either we want to make the Se-perspective true (by understanding and controlling our environment via Ni) or we want to understand why the "Se-fact" is the way it is. This is entirely analogous to how Ne branches off of an Si-subjective understanding.

That is an awesome example.

I have a somewhat similar one from when I interned at HSBC over a summer in college, and after about a month or so of working with some system of theirs, I realized that several different processes which were all being done by different people, could essentially be automated and wrapped up into one much simpler, more efficient process.

I had to sit in a meeting as this 21-yr old punk explaining to all these 40-somethings how their system could be made so much more efficient.

After working through all their questions, they all agreed that it would work.

Have no idea whether they implemented it, though... probably could've made some of 'em obsolete.

:laugh:

I hope these anecdotes give others a good understanding of Ni. The results are weird, but all we're doing is admitting possibilities that others immediately discard, because they don't fit those others' context(s).

Do they even discard them, or do they just not consider them?

I really think that one of the great benefits of Ni is that it can be just lightning fast.

Its this potential for speed that allows us to consider so many different perspectives, cuz we can just slip into that context, immediately follow it down its logical progression, and then "feel" whether or not, or to what extent, it makes sense/fits the situation/is sound, etc.

Of course, the progression that it follows is only as apt as the mind of the Ni-user, so, if the Ni-user is an idiot, then that doesn't mean their flashes should just be trusted.

This is where learning to deftly use Ni, as well as having enough time to have progressed through many different contexts, comes in handy.

Practice makes perfect.

/ thinking out loud
 
Top