• 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?

Affably Evil

New member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
73
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
And why do Ni doms always change the subject in mid conversation....

Ni doms tend to be interested in fluid, unrealized meanings — at the simplest level, once it has solidified into a form and meaning, it becomes less interesting. Because its internal possibilities have reached a singularity.

...Unless you can elude that "locking in" and find new sets of implications and possibilities within the subject. So while Ni may often be about pinpointing that meaning, it might also involve relocating or reinterpreting that meaning — and attempting to foresee successive implications and meanings. Whatever depths of (new) possibility within the subject one might see.

The following might be running into the NiFe area or e5, I have no idea. But for myself, being a metaphysical construct is essential to my conception of self (allowing many possibilities and meanings). That then makes me very wary about how many facets of myself I choose to expose to others — and therefore might make me harder to get to know. I think this is where the perception that INFJs enjoy their mysteriousness probably comes from. It comes down to wanting to shelter those fluid meanings and abstract possibilities. By keeping a part of my interior world separate and in reserve, it can protect my true self against others trying to map meanings or expectations and therefore limiting the kinds of possibilities I might embody.

Personally, I find most objective systems tend to have a termination point for my interest, whereas individuals — alone or in concert with societies and groups — can have infinite variety and meaning in their external and internal worlds and successive driving possibilities. Always, always interesting.

Though to be honest, I haven't noticed Ni doms changing the subject randomly, unless I did just now. :huh: ;)
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Ni vs Si memory recall: an explanation of Ni "context shifting"

To explain "context shifting," I shall introduce a database analogy to demonstrate how Si vs Ni "remembers" things. It's not a perfect analogy, since human minds are far more sophisticated, but it should hold for this limited instance.

Database tables have what are called "indexes": an index allows a very fast lookup of any particular data in the table that references that particular index. Often, if a query is running slow, the indexes aren't set up in a way that helps the query, and can be reworked a bit.

The analogy: consider a typical "memory" as being something that stores a "noun" and a "verb" and other miscellaneous properties such as adjectives, and so on. I shall focus on the "noun" and "verb" fields.

Si has an index on "noun" but not on "verb"; Ni has an index on "verb" but not on "noun."

How does this play out? I'll give a simple example using "cellphone" and "access the internet" as examples to describe the behavior; this is not to indicate that either cognitive ability is incapable of understanding either side, but is kept simple so that one can observe the "kind" of data and "kind" of lookup being done.

Si can do a "name" lookup on "cellphone", and immediately know what a cellphone is and does. (Ni does, too, for something so simple as a cellphone, this is just to be illustrative, not definitive.) Si would find under "cellphone": make phone calls, call 911, call my best friend, send text messages, and maybe connect to the internet and send emails and so on. What is stored is all the experiences one has had with a cellphone, and those cumulative experiences are an understanding of what the cellphone is for and how it can be used. This is a very fast lookup for Si.

Ni can do a "verb" lookup on "connect to the internet", and immediately generate a list of possible ways to connect to the internet, such as computer, router, wireless connection, cell phone, VPN, ISP, DSL, cable, and so on. This is a fast lookup for Ni. Si can do it, too, but it's not the same thing, it's not "fast," especially when one gets to obscure topics/activities.

When faced with a particular issue, Si immediately knows what "it is" (noun lookup), and works from there. "What it is" is constant, and does not change, and one's experiences with "it" determines the options available.

Ni, when faced with a particular issue, will have a particular "verb" or "action" or "goal to achieve" in mind, and internally look up on that basis. The goal, the task is the constant, not the thing, the "it." One's experiences with accomplishing similar tasks is what determines the options available.

So let's say one needs to send an email, but one's computer is failing to connect to the internet. Si will tend to consider the problem to be one of fixing the computer so it connects to the internet: some aspect of "the computer" is incorrect, and correcting it will make it work right. Ni, on the other hand, will often consider the problem to be one of "I need to connect to the internet to send an email." Obviously, if there is some requirement that specifies fixing "this computer" to connect to the internet, then one is constrained to do so within the computer, but in this case Ni regards the goal as sending the email. Ni does a lookup on "I need to send an email," and the computer is offline, Ni will pull out the cell phone, in a pinch, without even having to think about it, because this is where Ni's mind lives: it remembers multiple ways of accomplishing the same thing. (Si won't dismiss the option if mentioned, but may become preoccupied with fixing the computer instead of resolving the send-an-email task that prompted the observation that the computer didn't connect.)

As powerful as Ni might seem from this example, there are drawbacks. For example, I remember that there is a tool to sync databases, and I know exactly how to access it and run it, but for the life of me, I cannot remember its name. I know the name is correct when I hear it, but I don't think of it in terms of its name, it's noun, but in terms of what it does, in terms of what it is used for, its purpose. (It's meaning, perhaps?) In general, most of life's problems don't require the flexibility of the Ni approach: the Si approach is more direct, and will usually find a solution faster for any issues with which one has had experience. In my "send an email" example in the prior paragraph, it might actually be faster and more efficient to fix the computer's connectivity problem (it's already booted up and running, after all), which might just be a matter of a few practiced mouse clicks, and one can send an email no problem, rather than slowly type out a long email on the limited cellphone keypad. An alternative method is not necessarily better than the straightforward approach.

My main point isn't which one is better, but rather how their typical approaches differ. Each has practiced remembering things in a different way, and the speed at which the memories appear is dependent on how the entities of the memories are "indexed." One's understanding of the entities isn't lesser or greater: rather, the "shortcuts" one uses to get the right information for the task at hand differ.

Now, about context shifting (yes, that was a long analogy): Ne/Si will tend to hold names/definitions/what-it-is to be constant, but allow for rearranging such entities into a new configuration; Ni/Se will tend to hold verbs/actions/purposes/goals/problem-to-be-solved/what-I-need-to-do to be constant, and switch out "what-it-is", or especially in the Ni case of trying to figure out "what it really is", keeps on "redefining" "what-it-is" without explicitly saying so, based on a constant understanding of how it needs to "work."

So Ni/Se will regard Ne/Si as "changing the topic," because Ne will bring in new items not previously under discussion. Ne/Si will regard Ni as "context shifting," when Ni switches around entities or definitions to suit our understanding of the behavior involved, especially in a highly abstract, theoretical topic for which Ni's understanding is undergoing rapid development. It seems like "changing the topic" or "context shifting" because the underlying thought processes are "fast," often making decisions or references "without conscious thought", so explicitly explaining why one considers one's statements as relevant to the original topic can be difficult.

I'm still working on refining this analogy/explanation, so others' thoughts and contributions are quite welcome.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
Ni doms tend to be interested in fluid, unrealized meanings — at the simplest level, once it has solidified into a form and meaning, it becomes less interesting. Because its internal possibilities have reached a singularity.

...Unless you can elude that "locking in" and find new sets of implications and possibilities within the subject. So while Ni may often be about pinpointing that meaning, it might also involve relocating or reinterpreting that meaning — and attempting to foresee successive implications and meanings. Whatever depths of (new) possibility within the subject one might see.

The INFJ perspective fascinates me and more NiFe perspectives would be delightful to hear. :) If I understand you correctly, the formation of the singularity lessons interest. Do you find that sometimes, just to keep things interesting a continuation of the fluidic Ni analysis will occur, just to prevent boredom? Is there ever a fear or energetic barrier related to formation of a locked down singularity...ie things become much harder to keep doing once the meanings are locked down?

For myself, the more certainty there is in the singularity, the more freedom I have in the Ne global pattern matching. To try and Ne connect two "object" which are themselves under modification and change, is to create a flawed Ne linkage. I recognize this, thus will resist mid linkage redefinitions. It is especially disruptive in well established patterns. I have heard several older ENFPs say "I have seen this pattern before". Once we have locked a pattern down, to have parts of it evolving can be angst inducing.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
Both of those quoted passages are perhaps something other than you think.

No, nor was I looking for the explanation; and I do appreciate you sharing more deeply on the thoughts, but I was taking another tangent here. I am pointing out to you a few nuggets that could be interpreted as being patronizing to the home audience. Perhaps you choose your words to maximize obfuscation, or to connect more with Ni-users, and being understood by anyone other than yourself bears less relevance. But, if you are opting to participate in a global discussion with a goal towards comprehension, perhaps choosing your words with more specificity and less obliqueness would be not only helpful, but wise.

Go on, admit. People hype their own functions. And in a sense they have to, because literally how does anyone get by without promoting their own fundamental imperatives? The cool trick of typology is the observation that not only does everyone have cognitive imperatives, but that they can and do have different cognitive imperatives AND THEY"RE (sic) STILL NORMAL!

I do agree with this paragraph; what's to disagree with? :)

Understanding is so ephemeral at times; at times as close as a whisper but generally as far away as the expanse of the sea.



When faced with a particular issue, Si immediately knows what "it is" (noun lookup), and works from there. "What it is" is constant, and does not change, and one's experiences with "it" determines the options available.

Ni, when faced with a particular issue, will have a particular "verb" or "action" or "goal to achieve" in mind, and internally look up on that basis. The goal, the task is the constant, not the thing, the "it." One's experiences with accomplishing similar tasks is what determines the options available.

I appreciate the analogies. :) Perhaps a better contrast would be "cellphone" as the noun and "make phone call" as the "verb" ..... then you could draw the lines more cleanly between the two.

But regardless, using this example, Si and Ni thus have inherent limitations; Si for knowledge, and Ni for experience. Correct?

When I add Ne to the mix, Ne says, "There must be more ways to do this that I don't know about yet. Get out there, research and look at all the possibilities."

When you add Se to the mix, what does Se say?

So let's say one needs to send an email, but one's computer is failing to connect to the internet. Si will tend to consider the problem to be one of fixing the computer so it connects to the internet: some aspect of "the computer" is incorrect, and correcting it will make it work right.

Yes, but Ne will quickly assert that there's more than one possible problem here and more than one way to send an e-mail! :laugh: It's why I have computers (plural), run several different platforms, have a back-up ISP if my primary is down, have more than one e-mail account, have a fax machine (if a fax would work in the situation) etc. The Si memories of having to address an urgent situation in the past prompt me to make plans to address such potential shortcomings in the future, and be ready for them (as much as possible.)

Heck, I've driven to the library in a pinch, or even bought a new computer rather than wait for the old one to get fixed LOL!

But, I get your point. As a function in isolation, one tends to gravitate to the first thought ... Si: fix the computer. Ni: send the e-mail. But the Ne voice kicks in so rapidly ... and yet, I likely would try to fix the problem first, but wouldn't get fixated on it.

Ni, on the other hand, will often consider the problem to be one of "I need to connect to the internet to send an email." Obviously, if there is some requirement that specifies fixing "this computer" to connect to the internet, then one is constrained to do so within the computer, but in this case Ni regards the goal as sending the email. Ni does a lookup on "I need to send an email," and the computer is offline, Ni will pull out the cell phone, in a pinch, without even having to think about it, because this is where Ni's mind lives: it remembers multiple ways of accomplishing the same thing. (Si won't dismiss the option if mentioned, but may become preoccupied with fixing the computer instead of resolving the send-an-email task that prompted the observation that the computer didn't connect.)

For me personally, the analogy is falling apart here, only because functions don't exist in isolation. I suppose the key is in noting the inherent strengths and weaknesses of one's one tendencies. Thus you can problem-solve more effectively and efficiently.

My main point isn't which one is better, but rather how their typical approaches differ. Each has practiced remembering things in a different way, and the speed at which the memories appear is dependent on how the entities of the memories are "indexed." One's understanding of the entities isn't lesser or greater: rather, the "shortcuts" one uses to get the right information for the task at hand differ.

Indeed.

EDIT: we need an Si dom here for a better comparison.
 

Affably Evil

New member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
73
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
For me personally, the analogy is falling apart here, only because functions don't exist in isolation. I suppose the key is in noting the inherent strengths and weaknesses of one's one tendencies. Thus you can problem-solve more effectively and efficiently.

I don't think he was necessarily trying to propose concrete examples here, only create analogies for how Ni and Si initially approach information and problem-solving and therefore being able to differentiate between the two. Naturally, using more than one function in concert with each other (aux et. al.) will allow for you to open up more options or overcome more obstacles once you've reached the limitations of your dominant function. I definitely agree with you that you can't rely on a singular function alone.

But in the interests of defining Ni processing against Si processing, I found the analogy to be very interesting and useful.

EDIT: we need an Si dom here for a better comparison.
I would also be interested in an Si dom's perspective on this.

Edit: Ni bias, wow I see you there. My apologies, PeaceBaby. You're right that if the analogy starts breaking down for you at a certain point it may require fine-tuning of the specifics. For myself I liked entertaining it — but my bias is for the possibilities within the abstract model.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
Now, about context shifting (yes, that was a long analogy): Ne/Si will tend to hold names/definitions/what-it-is to be constant, but allow for rearranging such entities into a new configuration; Ni/Se will tend to hold verbs/actions/purposes/goals/problem-to-be-solved/what-I-need-to-do to be constant, and switch out "what-it-is", or especially in the Ni case of trying to figure out "what it really is", keeps on "redefining" "what-it-is" without explicitly saying so, based on a constant understanding of how it needs to "work."


PB:
Yes, but Ne will quickly assert that there's more than one possible problem here and more than one way to send an e-mail! It's why I have computers (plural), run several different platforms, have a back-up ISP if my primary is down, have more than one e-mail account, have a fax machine (if a fax would work in the situation) etc. The Si memories of having to address an urgent situation in the past prompt me to make plans to address such potential shortcomings in the future, and be ready for them (as much as possible.)

Heck, I've driven to the library in a pinch, or even bought a new computer rather than wait for the old one to get fixed LOL​

PB-Is the stuff in red Si-ish in nature? Previously established generalized Si solutions which Ne connects together as needed?

AE:
I don't think he was necessarily trying to propose concrete examples here, only create analogies for how Ni and Si initially approach information and problem-solving and therefore being able to differentiate between the two. Naturally, using more than one function in concert with each other (aux et. al.) will allow for you to open up more options or overcome more obstacles once you've reached the limitations of your dominant function. I definitely agree with you that you can't rely on a singular function alone.​

AE, Is the word in blue the Se component which PB asked about her her post?

( i really have no idea, just blatantly speculating...)
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The INFJ perspective fascinates me and more NiFe perspectives would be delightful to hear. :) If I understand you correctly, the formation of the singularity lessons interest. Do you find that sometimes, just to keep things interesting a continuation of the fluidic Ni analysis will occur, just to prevent boredom? Is there ever a fear or energetic barrier related to formation of a locked down singularity...ie things become much harder to keep doing once the meanings are locked down?

This was kind of discussed at length earlier on in the thread, but for myself it's hard to say one way or another, or whether things become more interesting or less after locking down on something, or there's less energy or more. Locking down has huge, huge benefits, and personally I love reaching that decision point and clarity. As several of us mentioned earlier on, there can be a level of anxiety/discomfort associated with continued analysis and not finding that 'singularity' (personally some of these terms are a little unfamiliar to me but I'll roll with it as I think I know what's being talked about), and depending on the time constraints or outside expectations (or whatever), for me at least, being in that ambiguous Ni-exploratory zone can be stressful, especially if I really want and need to reach closure and resolution soon. On the other hand, it was also discussed that that 'Waiting' process - the fluidity - can be extremely exhilarating and 'exciting' too. Honestly it just depends on the context. So yes, on a certain level things remain quite interesting and intoxicating and energetic in that limbo state, but also can be quite unpeaceful. Reaching that singularity can bring about the peace and closure, but yes, then boredom can set in.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I get the idea of Ni shifting the internal context, as far as seeing it contrasted with Ne, which seeks to shift the external context. This is why new info, new experience, & general exposure to new external elements are inspiring; it doesn't even need to be related to the problem at hand. Just new scenery can spark an idea for me, one unrelated to the scenery itself.

The tendency of Ni to change the internal context seems to add to the overall NiJe external structure/composure that appears, as all the change is being done internally.

It reminds me a bit of what my INFJ aunt said once; it threw me, as far as typing her (she has been officially typed though...MBTI workshop & all) . She said she is not creative as far as coming up with wholly original ideas, but she's good at perfecting what exists, as in taking an existing system and re-working it internally. To me, this sounded like Si or something, but then I thought about what she really meant & her overall personality (in general terms, not MBTI ones), and I realized that she creates something new within an existing structure. It is wholly original, but it works within the confines by seeing the confines differently. I guess it's the oft-repeated, Ne goes outside the box and Ni works within it by changing perspective on it. I think Ne people just want to tear up what exists & build up from nothing, and Ni people may see that as unnecessary; they just remodel what exists. In this sense, NiJe people can seem more efficient. I think this is why they seem to function better in very SJ environments; their creativity can be appreciated more where the NeJi mindset seems threatening to destroy what exists (because it is!).

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36241&p=1369948&viewfull=1#post1369948
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Forever_Jung

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,644
MBTI Type
ESFJ
I realized that she creates something new within an existing structure. It is wholly original, but it works within the confines by seeing the confines differently. I guess it's the oft-repeated, Ne goes outside the box and Ni works within it by changing perspective on it. I think Ne people just want to tear up what exists & build up from nothing, and Ni people may see that as unnecessary; they just remodel what exists. In this sense, NiJe people can seem more efficient...their creativity can be appreciated more where the NeJi mindset seems threatening to destroy what exists (because it is!).

I agree.

Ni starts with a design. Then it tries to twist the materials to best realize this design. The object is twisted to the subject's whim.

Ne starts with the raw materials. Then it tries to twist the design to best use the materials. The subject is twisted to the object's whim.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
No, nor was I looking for the explanation; and I do appreciate you sharing more deeply on the thoughts, but I was taking another tangent here. I am pointing out to you a few nuggets that could be interpreted as being patronizing to the home audience.

Pfft. The home audience can hurrumph and rearrange their bulk in indignation for what they haven't seen in what is there to see. Along with all the putatively accurate descriptions of Ni in this thread, there are also displays of in what and how the users value the function. "The understanding of everything," for example. This phrase, pretentious and sadly uncowed by other people's inabilities, surely denotes a thing unlikely to be acquired. Plainly therefore, if Ni people think that's where they're going, then "understanding" and "everything" have been given new, subjective definitions. Nonetheless, the phrase, and all the other mystical, spiritual, fantasmagorical voodoo that Ni users and fans are likely to spout in relation to what the function does or is, carry content. Content frequently misinterpreted as concrete or overly focused or having bearing on only some curtailed topic, and yet the users keep calling it "everything". And you require it translated too? Pfft.

But y'all caught that, right? In amongst all the technical definiery the subjective importance and utility of the function has been announced. What the users think they do is determine the meaning of everything.

You are welcome to say that Ni doesn't do what the users think it does.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
E = P + J
I = - (P + J)

Introverted P is a dichotomy of J.
Vice versa.

Post intermediate: The quotient turns around.
Check: Declension order.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
It reminds me a bit of what my INFJ aunt said once; it threw me, as far as typing her (she has been officially typed though...MBTI workshop & all) . She said she is not creative as far as coming up with wholly original ideas, but she's good at perfecting what exists, as in taking an existing system and re-working it internally. To me, this sounded like Si or something, but then I thought about what she really meant & her overall personality (in general terms, not MBTI ones), and I realized that she creates something new within an existing structure. It is wholly original, but it works within the confines by seeing the confines differently. I guess it's the oft-repeated, Ne goes outside the box and Ni works within it by changing perspective on it. I think Ne people just want to tear up what exists & build up from nothing, and Ni people may see that as unnecessary; they just remodel what exists. In this sense, NiJe people can seem more efficient. I think this is why they seem to function better in very SJ environments; their creativity can be appreciated more where the NeJi mindset seems threatening to destroy what exists (because it is!).

I recognise the kinds of things your aunt said, and I recognise it as being the influence of an extroverted judging function. Extroverted judging imperatives lead one to regard external things as solid or accurate or "true". If it's written somewhere that the world is "a box", then that's something one takes into account. (Or laughs at because there were two other better books or a bunch of experiences that explained the world is a sphere.) And the next step is to wander off internally and reimagine the nature of all things. The extroverted judgments, or the claims found in the extroverted world, can be starting points, or boundary points, but it's not guaranteed they'll be respected. They will be (to a degree) if they form some particular box we wish to explore.

This exploration is aided by maintaining some boxes as boxes, and as such the exploration is into the meaning of that box with respect to.... um, "everything else"? There is some benefit in accepting curtailment of exploration by conforming it to external world fixed points, but.... [something that doesn't apply to Ni outside a dominant role].

"The meaning of the box with respect to everything else"... this sounds like what people call "shifting context", quickly changing the terms under (or over) which the box is considered as a box. And the purpose of such change is... well, entertainment, mostly. It's a perception function, not judgment. But what it does is key into useable aspects of interpretations of objects. A lot. Blah blah blah... extroverted judgment priorities seeping into the description again.

Ni combines perspectives according to subjective criteria. It's like when the stars align. It could be this, it could be that, but add all the coulds together and you get..... some coulds rejected but not via judgment, just disinterest because exploration fails; and some coulds exulted, because they open up connectivity options; and some coulds merged and used as foundations for others. Merged, they move closer to being extroverted judgments. They're accepted as more solid, more real, more... likely? No, not likely. More determined. They align with "reality". Or with the reality as it "will be".

Pffft. You try making a subjective function sound like it's not talking out of its ass.
 

Mr. Sherlock Holmes

Consulting Detective
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
1,450
MBTI Type
JiNe
Enneagram
5W4
I've just read Uumalu's analogy for Ni and Si and I think it has actually been very helpful. The idea that Ni recalls based on goals or actions, while Si on objects, seems a very good way to explain the Ni "Drive" that makes them more J-like. Like with INTP and INTJ (This is the easiest for me as it is what I am most familiar with), the INTP has Ne, which isn't terribly direction oriented, and Si, and thus we base our knowledge on stored knowledge and sometimes branch out to use that knowledge for a specific purpose, but it is not the natural inclination, so we tend to be lessgoal oriented. Whereas the INTJ has dominant Ni, whixh means while they place less importance on static information that an Si user would be interested in, they are better inclined to make imaginative ideas of what plan of action to take based on a goal they have in mind, giving them more of a drive in some particular direction.

So... Ni is a memory recall system of generating ideas based on certain goals and decides based on efficiency.
 

Random Ness

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
270
@ OrangeAppled: I agree 100%. I've never understood why people call Ni-dominants creative because I've never thought of myself as particularly creative. Now I know why.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
This quote strikes me as Ni-ish-

“The more I study mythology and folklore, the more I come to the same
conclusion that people from every age of this world have come to: myths are the
most precious treasures bequeathed to us by generations long past. It has become
very fashionable to look down on mythology and other narratives that feature elements that are seen as “supernatural” or which border on the “irrational” as though they represent failings of human reason in the face of the unknown, but it is my opinion that the true “failing” is found in people who cannot think multi- dimensionally about the things they experience.
”

—Robin Artisson
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
I suspect the fixity people see in Ni and mistake for Si, since fixity is Si's role in an Ne world, is in fact the presence of extroverted judgment. Rather than the speculation being so truly inclined to merely restricted maneuvering, instead judgment is there making the frame on which to hang the speculation. The speculation itself takes rather more the form of .... something else.

Se and Ni go together, and Si isn't anywhere to be seen. The speculation performed by Ni does NOT need to be founded on data sets or factoids or concrete reliables. The speculation is instead a world in its own right, from time to time hurriedly rolling into line with the world as it is, which alignment allows movement, a run using up breath in the rain along the road down to another point of entry back into the other worldly world, Ni, picking up information along the way.

Should the above description prove, however unlikely this outcome should be, uninformative.... the speculation performed by introverted intuition knits meanings together. I wish to keep making this claim until someone actually hears it. It isn't a linear collection of whatifs. It's a collection of whatifs that sometimes start again with parts of the earlier whatifs maintained and parts of them discarded. And the selection process is merely one of interest as against disinterest. What if this whatif was whatiffed into this new direction? Would it disclose powerfully descriptive content or would it be mundane and merely confused? And what if these other whatifs were added in, would the scope of the whatif increase or disappear? What if someone actually described what was going on? Would anyone give a damn? Aren't there a built in collection of agendas in every attempt to understand making them into attempts to misunderstand? What if someone gave a damn? What would happen then?

And those what if questions are themselves speculation in an agenda laden way. I already have some idea of the answers. Therefore the speculation is interesting and grows more informative the wider I can reach out to draw in content. But content from where, I hear you cry, animated with an earnest and upsetting enthusiasm to understand. Why, surely content from inside! Other goddamn things I have speculated upon previously and grown more impressed by, things that have made the sometime runs through the real world that much more meaningful and eye-opening.

Etc.

Or not. Whadddya want, I'm just speculating. I make up forms and shapes. And then they come true.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
Just say no to "frameworks".

tl;dr

Other goddamn things I have speculated upon previously and grown more impressed by, things that have made the sometime runs through the real world that much more meaningful and eye-opening.

what are "things"? would connections of Ni contexts be micro-usage of Ne within an Ni dom?
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
tl;dr



what are "things"?

Ah, sadly, a good question. That particular language tick--identifying one's subject matter as "Of Things and Stuff"--comes from the extroverted judgment function. "Other things I have goddamn speculated upon previously" would perhaps be more accurately, or at least less collaboratively, be rendered as "other goddamn speculations"--stories, narratives, content holders of some kind that were put through some imaginary paces meant to show up the nature of the content they hold by relating it in one form or another to other content.

(This inclusion now of words suggesting movement and action is, I presume, an Se infection: an indication of how the speculations are founded, on change and alternation, movement within the world. This perhaps is a theme, but is it defining? One doesn't currently know.)

In any case, naming Ni-objects as "speculations" is still a deployment of an extroverted judgment function: I'm still rendering Ni as an object filled with other objects related by some mechanism.

would connections of Ni contexts be micro-usage of Ne within an Ni dom?

Just say no to "contexts".
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
I think what bothers me most about "contexts" and "frameworks" as tools for understanding what Ni is alll about is the absence of a description of context shift. What is the shift? What's its purpose? If one has contexts, why would one shift them?

The archetypal Ni question is "What's really going on here?!" So even if it happens that Ni is chock full of contexts and frameworks, it seems likely that at some point an Ni person is going to turn around and look at their understanding of the world and say, "Waaaiiiitttaminute...." It seems like this would turn contexts and frameworks on their heads. And is this a rare occurrence or a defining feature?

I can't help but notice that extroverted perceiving functions are meant to live in the moment and people using them will, within the context of their kind of perception, seek novelty. There is, it seems to me, a sense of movement, from this point to that point, and turning off into the unknown to explore. So if the actual perceptual contact with the objective world Ni users make is conceived in Se terms, then shift and movement seem natural.... well, themes anyway.

Connection?
 
Top