• 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?

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
This is where Ni comes in: Ni looks at the same historical data that Ne/Si does, but instead of figuring out trends and handling special cases, Ni tries to internalize a "story" of how the changes take place. You can hear a simplistic version of this in stock market reports, where the newscaster says, "Stocks are up on news of <good market news>" or "Stocks are down on news of <bad market news>". (There is always good market news and bad market news, the story writers just insert the appropriate version of the "news" to "explain" why the market did well or poorly. And yes, this is a typical Ni (and Se) mistake, but Ni doms tend to make this mistake in less obvious ways.)

So in this case, for example, Ni has a "story" model of how market bubbles work, and knows what market bubbles "look like" (Se). So analysts such as Peter Schiff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schiff#Economic_and_Public_Policy_Views) see a housing bubble coming, even as most analysts do not. There are youtube videos where you can watch Schiff explain the coming crash to a bunch of skeptical fellow analysts, who scoff at his analysis. Why? There's nothing in the market data (Si) that says a crash is coming: everything is positive, people are making money, and there's plenty of room for growth.

But Schiff looks at the same market data in an Ni way, and the data to him is a retelling of the "bubble story". He sees real estate prices going up not because people need and want more housing for themselves, but investors are buying housing only to resell it at a higher price. On top of that, he sees the highly-leveraged zero-down-payment, no-interest loans (basically, you "buy" a house by "renting" it) as a typical example of the kind of too-easy credit that fuels bubbles.

Keep in mind, a lot of this is very obvious in retrospect: the story has been told many times and has become part of the narrative of the crash four years ago. But in 2005, it was not obvious to most people or most analysts. And this is where Ni comes in: it takes these kinds of narratives and sees how they apply to other situations. For example, an Ni analyst might say that we can expect a higher education bubble, as tuition prices rise to levels that no one can afford and don't justify the employment one might expect to find with the degree achieved. Education has a purpose: if it starts costing so much that people have to borrow more than they can realistically afford to pay for it, the bubble will burst and prices will go back to what people can afford.

I'm giving you this example showing Ni in a positive light because you requested it. The negative version of Ni would be using anecdotal evidence to arrive at incorrect conclusions, usually because the anecdote really doesn't contain the details necessary to apply it in general. In this positive case, it's still "anecdotal evidence" in that the reasoning is based off of "the asset bubble story", which isn't simply anecdotal evidence, but a fairly sophisticated cause-and-effect analysis.

The Ne/Ni crosstalk comes from Ne habitually rejecting the Ni story-based reasoning as lacking supporting data, while Ni rejects the Ne analysis as overly reliant upon statistical correlation and trends. Both can be very sophisticated and intelligent - and both can even be right. But even when they're both right, Ne and Ni believe that they're right for different reasons. To Ne, the statistical analysis with lots of data is convincing. For Ni, the story, the understanding of the "how" is what is convincing.

Yeah, this is really just getting at the meta-perspectivizing that Ni does.

The way I'v described it before is that we work "up the syllogism". What I mean by that is that we see, hear or read a conclusion, and then we start imagining the premises that would cause one to arrive at such a conclusion (and, it should be mentioned, that the possibilities we're able to come up with here tend to be limited, to some degree, by what we've come across in our lives [Se]), and then we evaluate whether such premises are true (via Fe/Te and/or Se), or whether we care about them (Fi/Ti[?]) and then we compare them against all the other premises we can imagine that would/could fit this scenario, and evaluate whether the conclusion stated and premises implied in the original construction are accurate in this case, the degree to which they're accurate, and (and here's where the part you were describing comes in) whether there are other premises that actually better fit the scenario, or that ought be taken into account in any comprehensive analysis of the issue at hand. These various sets of premises are the "boxes" that Ni is reputed for shifting between. Ne seeks to "get out of the box" (the box, in this case, having to do with Si, I believe [and, as such, while, in one sense, they seek to get out of the box {when suppressing Si, and "taking up" Ne}, in another sense, at other times {perhaps even at the same time?}, they seem to very much be comforted by, cling to, and depend upon the Si boxes they have stored in their subconscious]); Ni checks the various boxes on for "fit", shuffling between various options. As such, what you said at the end here very much rings true. NP types will often throw out possibilities based likely both on their (semi-[?])subconscious boxes, and their desire to reach outside of those boxes, and find new boxes that can eventually, if proven "worthy", be stored as "permanent boxes"; and, as an Ni user, when I watch them do this, sometimes they hit the nail on the head, or find a box that provides at least a partial explanation of the issue at hand, but, many other times, they seem to state these possibilities that, when they say them, it sounds like they're laying out this structure for these being the only possibilities, or the "core" possibilities, that are out there (admittedly, this is what it sounds like to me, not that, if asked, that they'd necessarily say, "these are the only possibilities to explain this phenomenon [although, in their defense of what they've allowed to become a permanent Si box, they often do have this defensive reaction, as that box is a bedrock of their psyche, and they do not like it to be tampered with {hence, the common NP complaint about about the alleged "shiftiness" or "unsettledness" or "lack of foundation" of NJs}]; they're probably just trying this new perspective on for size, breaking new ground, expanding their mental horizon out of their more settled-upon Si foundational box, possibly overstating its case in order to test whether it's something they could really believe [like trying on a novel {risky?} outfit in a fitting room {something which I think they often times enjoy, but sometimes might feel anxious about (especially if pressed on it?)}]), and I quickly examine it as one box, and then see a bunch of other boxes that could also fit the scenario, some just as well, if not much better, and I kinda just shake my head, and think to myself, "How does this person actually believe this? How could they actually find this a full/proper accounting of this issue??"

Those are very good ways of explaining it, that fills in the "what's been left out" I had been told (and couldn't quite place. There's more than one internal pattern being referenced, and "what's been left out" is from other ones that Ne obviously didn't take into consideration).
So Ne compares multiple external patterns (internalized only by Si) or patterns implicit in the object (and determines the best one by Ji), while Ni references multiple (directly) internal patterns and determines the most likely one (especially as judged efficient by Je).
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
This site: http://www.kiloby.com/writings.php?offset=20&writingid=263 discusses the shadow, and defines them (as well as the rest of our "dualistic" thinking) in the term "stories". "The separate self is a set of dualistic stories such as, 'I’m nice,' 'I’m a victim,' 'My life is incomplete,' 'I’m a successful news anchorperson,' or 'I’m unhappy.' This is the play of opposites playing itself out in our lives." "Your defensiveness is revealing that you are carrying a self-critical story around. You have a story that you are fat. You have a story that you are greedy."

Well, "stories" are basically "archetypes"--"ruling patterns" or models of events (as well as people, which we normally think of as archetypes); and as such are the domain of Ni.

Thinking upon this, in light of my own internal struggles, I realizes these were examples of "what's been left out". Like both my wife and even my counselor had recently been complaining that when I argue against certain aspects of Christian teaching on "growth", that I criticize a lot of arguments they didn't say, and [they say] they don't really believe in. But having studied all the doctrines for over 25 years, and participating in many online debates, I know that there is a lot of inference in many Christian doctrines, especially when it comes to God's nature and activity in salvation and our own "walk" with Him or "growth". Like The Trinity, for instance, is never spelled out in the Bible, but said to be "inferred" from various scriptures put together. These inferences often overlook other data.
Now, inference is a feature of iNtuition (focus on where things are heading, instead of just what they are). I've noticed, in many cases, a lot of Christians who are not really doctrinal experts will parrot the popular belief on something, but not realize its implications. So when I call those implications out, they feel I've "jumped the gun", and even "too black and white" (and as many black and white statements the Church makes on many things).

I realize that when people say things about God, especially as touching upon my own life, then a story or various stories emerge. Like if someone says that something painful was "God doing it for your own good", then a story emerges of Him singling me out and putting His own stamp on my problems (rather than helping me), and then, they're also telling me "submit to God", but it's becomes harder to do that with that story in the background. I also have trouble pontificating that something good was a particular act of Him, because that implies that the lack of good is also by Him, like what they call "permissive will". (And people then bow out and say "we can't understand His ways").
I then use all of this to "fill in what's missing"; that the person talking to me isn't even aware of. They then tell me "no, that's not what we meant"", and often put together a less critical string of meaning of the situation. But I "look at the trajectory" of "where the data wants to go", and what's "beyond the map" people are reading (As the person describing Ni told me), and it always seems to lead squarely to these negative conclusions. Conclusions which their rosy views of God's involvement in life "must leave out in order to remain intact".
This should have figured all along, when I was struggling to understand what I was told!

So I realized this was Senex Ni; the "critical" part of me that scans people's words looking for negative stories via inferences and implications.
Of course, for me, this is shadow, and very erratic, and I guess, often off-base, as the people are complaining. For Ni preferrers, it could be like this, in a negative situation (hence they're often characterized as "conspiratorial"), but it would also be used in a more mature fashin in good situations.

So can the NJ's here identify with this description?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
This site: http://www.kiloby.com/writings.php?offset=20&writingid=263 discusses the shadow, and defines them (as well as the rest of our "dualistic" thinking) in the term "stories". "The separate self is a set of dualistic stories such as, 'I’m nice,' 'I’m a victim,' 'My life is incomplete,' 'I’m a successful news anchorperson,' or 'I’m unhappy.' This is the play of opposites playing itself out in our lives." "Your defensiveness is revealing that you are carrying a self-critical story around. You have a story that you are fat. You have a story that you are greedy."

Well, "stories" are basically "archetypes"--"ruling patterns" or models of events (as well as people, which we normally think of as archetypes); and as such are the domain of Ni.

Thinking upon this, in light of my own internal struggles, I realizes these were examples of "what's been left out". Like both my wife and even my counselor had recently been complaining that when I argue against certain aspects of Christian teaching on "growth", that I criticize a lot of arguments they didn't say, and [they say] they don't really believe in. But having studied all the doctrines for over 25 years, and participating in many online debates, I know that there is a lot of inference in many Christian doctrines, especially when it comes to God's nature and activity in salvation and our own "walk" with Him or "growth". Like The Trinity, for instance, is never spelled out in the Bible, but said to be "inferred" from various scriptures put together. These inferences often overlook other data.
Now, inference is a feature of iNtuition (focus on where things are heading, instead of just what they are). I've noticed, in many cases, a lot of Christians who are not really doctrinal experts will parrot the popular belief on something, but not realize its implications. So when I call those implications out, they feel I've "jumped the gun", and even "too black and white" (and as many black and white statements the Church makes on many things).

I realize that when people say things about God, especially as touching upon my own life, then a story or various stories emerge. Like if someone says that something painful was "God doing it for your own good", then a story emerges of Him singling me out and putting His own stamp on my problems (rather than helping me), and then, they're also telling me "submit to God", but it's becomes harder to do that with that story in the background. I also have trouble pontificating that something good was a particular act of Him, because that implies that the lack of good is also by Him, like what they call "permissive will". (And people then bow out and say "we can't understand His ways").
I then use all of this to "fill in what's missing"; that the person talking to me isn't even aware of. They then tell me "no, that's not what we meant"", and often put together a less critical string of meaning of the situation. But I "look at the trajectory" of "where the data wants to go", and what's "beyond the map" people are reading (As the person describing Ni told me), and it always seems to lead squarely to these negative conclusions. Conclusions which their rosy views of God's involvement in life "must leave out in order to remain intact".
This should have figured all along, when I was struggling to understand what I was told!

So I realized this was Senex Ni; the "critical" part of me that scans people's words looking for negative stories via inferences and implications.
Of course, for me, this is shadow, and very erratic, and I guess, often off-base, as the people are complaining. For Ni preferrers, it could be like this, in a negative situation (hence they're often characterized as "conspiratorial"), but it would also be used in a more mature fashin in good situations.

So can the NJ's here identify with this description?

To be honest, reading it felt a lot like what [MENTION=9766]Juice[/MENTION] said of me recently.

Also, Eric, part of me just thinks you're Ti'ing the shit out of this stuff. You're looking for a logically complete system to explain God, and, the fact of the matter is, it doesn't exist. Your wife and counselor, on the other hand, don't demand the same level of logical coherence.

That being said, what you said about senex Ni was interesting, and will have me thinking a bit.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] you with that terribly detailed, precise, logical, categorical, and well defined explanation have definitively proven to me once and for all what an INTP really is and how their systems of reasonings contrast greatly with that of Ni types like ISTP and INTJ meaning I as well as the poster above me are not the same type as you for sure!

Now how do we tell the difference between ISTP and INTJ which are both introverted thinking types that specialize in the use of Ni?
 
R

Riva

Guest
Ni -

Sees / hears / etc
Waits
Eureka
Trusts

Does not think

Ti -

Thinks
Breaks
Segregates internally / Segregates according to internal standards
Thinks again
Eureka
Theorizes - makes mental note
Doubts
Thinks again

Does think

Ti thinks
Ni waits but think they think

When more information comes -

Ti - thinks again
Ni - it hits / eureka
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
It's Si with more attempted connections.

This actually isn't that horrible, tho.

I'd already forgotten, but I had a weird dream last night, during part of which, I was at a baseball game, explaining to an ISTJ (lol... he was an asian dude in his 30s, looked like he worked in accounting) how his mind was a lot like mine, just simpler. I really do think it's a decent explanation of the difference between Si and Ni. Si finds its one way, and it's sticking to it! Ni... shiyyyyit... the tried and true way can't be the only way... why is it even the tried and true way? what makes it so grand? I'm sure I could find something better... And this isn't even laden with a value judgment, really. I mean, yeah, I think mine is superior. But, honestly, theirs is way more practical. You won't find them trying to reinvent the wheel. You just, well, won't find them being as brilliant as Ni-doms in Ni-dom ways, either.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Good point

Here it is then -

Billy said:
Simplest way to look at it, Ni is just connecting the dots of random data into an answer. It boils the random data which seems unconnected, connects and boils it down into an answer.

Yeah, I think that actually is a good, simple way to look at it.

The question then becomes, tho, what's the difference between Ni in an NJ and Ni in an SP?

Wouldn't you rather just be an SP, if this Ni stuff is gunna figure out the connections, and you can still rock at Se?

To some extent, I think there's actually some truth to that, but, at the same time, it's simplistic. The truth is, SPs, I believe, tend to just trust whatever it is that Ni comes up with to explain the connections underlying all the otherwise meaningless (i.e., lacking connection to anything else -- almost how one would exist if one were in a permanent blacked-out state) sensory data, whether those connections are accurate or not. NJs, on the other hand, spend far more time ruminating on those connections, checking them, questioning them, testing them, verifying them (hence, part of the reason why I said not to listen to your explanation about Ni [which told a very different, very false story]). We don't just take them for granted (at least not nearly as much as SPs). But then, at times, we will instantaneously just "see" (btw, it's an extremely spatial awareness [which has even been shown in Nardi's eeg studies of our brain functioning] -- I once revealed to my likely INTP [and genius] college professor that I remembered things in terms of images, usually moving images, like a movie, after he said something along the lines of how people's memory is based off of words) the connection (the over-mentioned "aha!" or "eureka!" moment), and be absolutely certain that we're seeing the phenomenon the right way -- understanding the underlying reality connecting the otherwise meaningless sensory data. And, when we do, we are often right. Not all the time. But most of the time.
 
R

Riva

Guest
Yeah, I think that actually is a good, simple way to look at it.

The question then becomes, tho, what's the difference between Ni in an NJ and Ni in an SP?

Wouldn't you rather just be an SP, if this Ni stuff is gunna figure out the connections, and you can still rock at Se?

To some extent, I think there's actually some truth to that, but, at the same time, it's simplistic. The truth is, SPs, I believe, tend to just trust whatever it is that Ni comes up with to explain the connections underlying all the otherwise meaningless (i.e., lacking connection to anything else -- almost how one would exist if one were in a blacked-out state) sensory data, whether those connections are accurate or not. NJs, on the other hand, spend far more time ruminating on those connections, checking them, questioning them, testing them, verifying them (hence, part of the reason why I said not to listen to your explanation about Ni [which told a very different, very false story]). We don't just take them for granted (at least not nearly as much as SPs). But then, at times, we will instantaneously just "see" (btw, it's an extremely spatial awareness [which has even been shown in Nardi's eeg studies of our brain functioning] -- I once revealed to my likely INTP [and genius] college professor that I remembered things in terms of images, usually moving images, like a movie, after he said something along the lines of how people's memory is based off of words) the connection (the over-mentioned "aha!" or "eureka!" moment), and be absolutely certain that we're seeing the phenomenon the right way -- understanding the underlying reality connecting the otherwise meaningless sensory data. And, when we do, we are often right. Not all the time. But most of the time.

From what I have noticed Ni questions and questions and questions again - much like what you described. They seldom trust the answer at hand but simply question it. Then suddenly it hits them. What hits them they seem to trust.

So yes to what you said. Don't really see how contrasting it is with what I said earlier.

Ni -

Sees / hears / etc
Waits
Eureka
Trusts

Does not think

It does however is different from Ti. Ti keep on breaking things apart - metaphorically. Which requires more thinking. Ni probably questions whereas Ti probably thinks/analyses more.

Ti -

Thinks
Breaks
Segregates internally / Segregates according to internal standards
Thinks again
Eureka
Theorizes - makes mental note
Doubts
Thinks again

Does think

Ni questions and waits. The Eureka moment usually hits when it is not thinking too much. Though the continuous questions it asks itself probably led the subconscious mind to consider all the facts.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
[MENTION=6164]Riva[/MENTION]

How is questioning not a thinking act?

(putting aside the strict Jungian meaning of "thinking")

Also, the point was: your explication was overly simplistic for Ni.

And you were defining Ni in terms of how it was not Ti (i.e., "it does not think")

It certainly is thinking, it's just a different kind of thinking than Ti (and, remember, is often combined with Te/Fi/Fe/Ti).

There's some accuracy to what you said, and to your most recent post, but where is the constant questioning in your original explication?
 
A

Anew Leaf

Guest
I have had many Ni-ers trying to explain to me what Ni is. I sort of feel like it is a bit of a paradox in that to understand Ni you almost have to BE Ni. I keep trying to come at it with a relatable understanding that only touches a tiny fraction of what Ni is.

It's like I am a flat lander and my friend is a cube trying to explain to me how he may look like a square but in reality he is actually a cube. And I'm all, but you're a square!!

/feels inadequate.

screen-shot-2011-07-30-at-10-49-29-pm.png
 
R

Riva

Guest
How is questioning not a thinking act?

(putting aside the strict Jungian meaning of "thinking")

I'm only considering Jungian meaning of thinking here... Nah just kidding.

Ti bases its answers / meanings / understandings on the conclusions it arrives with its own deductions.
Ni bases its answers / meanings / understandings on the conclusions it arrives while it waits - not on its deductions.

Yes yes yes I admit my original post would have been more conclusive if I added Questions before waits.

Add to the former when I said thinking I meant conclusive thinking / deductions.

So let me edit -

Ni -

Sees / hears / etc
Questions Questions Questions again
Waits
Eureka
Trusts

Does not think
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I have had many Ni-ers trying to explain to me what Ni is. I sort of feel like it is a bit of a paradox in that to understand Ni you almost have to BE Ni. I keep trying to come at it with a relatable understanding that only touches a tiny fraction of what Ni is.

It's like I am a flat lander and my friend is a cube trying to explain to me how he may look like a square but in reality he is actually a cube. And I'm all, but you're a square!!

/feels inadequate.

screen-shot-2011-07-30-at-10-49-29-pm.png

Well, at least you're better than the people who outright deny the third dimension exists.

It's usually INTPs (altho some INFPs, too) who do as much.

(pro-tip: it's cuz their intuition is weak)
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I'm only considering Jungian meaning of thinking here... Nah just kidding.

Well, I'm not sure exactly which part you were "kidding" about, but I considered that possibility, which is why I followed two lines later with "you're defining Ni in terms of how it is not Ti." Either way, I had you. ;)

Ti bases its answers / meanings / understandings on the conclusions it arrives with its own deductions.
Ni bases its answers / meanings / understandings on the conclusions it arrives while it waits - not on its deductions.

Once again, you're defining Ni in Ti terms, which is why I said not to listen to you (and other non-Ni doms).

What you're not realizing is that Ni is doing something completely on its own, not just not doing Ti.

We're not simply "not doing deductive reasoning" -- we are doing inductive reasoning.

Hence the sitting around, waiting, listening, watching, and repeated questioning.

And, hence, why, once it comes to us, it's "aha!" or "eureka!"

Yes yes yes I admit my original post would have been more conclusive accurate if I added Questions before waits.

Along with, "questions more", "sits and listens more", and "questions even more" afterwards.

;)

Add to the former when I mean thinking I mean conclusive thinking / deductions.

Oh, so you weren't kidding.

;)
 
W

WALMART

Guest
Yeah, I think that actually is a good, simple way to look at it.

The question then becomes, tho, what's the difference between Ni in an NJ and Ni in an SP?

Wouldn't you rather just be an SP, if this Ni stuff is gunna figure out the connections, and you can still rock at Se?

To some extent, I think there's actually some truth to that, but, at the same time, it's simplistic. The truth is, SPs, I believe, tend to just trust whatever it is that Ni comes up with to explain the connections underlying all the otherwise meaningless (i.e., lacking connection to anything else -- almost how one would exist if one were in a blacked-out state) sensory data, whether those connections are accurate or not. NJs, on the other hand, spend far more time ruminating on those connections, checking them, questioning them, testing them, verifying them (hence, part of the reason why I said not to listen to your explanation about Ni [which told a very different, very false story]). We don't just take them for granted (at least not nearly as much as SPs). But then, at times, we will instantaneously just "see" (btw, it's an extremely spatial awareness [which has even been shown in Nardi's eeg studies of our brain functioning] -- I once revealed to my likely INTP [and genius] college professor that I remembered things in terms of images, usually moving images, like a movie, after he said something along the lines of how people's memory is based off of words) the connection (the over-mentioned "aha!" or "eureka!" moment), and be absolutely certain that we're seeing the phenomenon the right way -- understanding the underlying reality connecting the otherwise meaningless sensory data. And, when we do, we are often right. Not all the time. But most of the time.


A fair enough assessment.


I believe the difference in Ni emerges through the judging function. Te/Fe desires a concrete objective answer to the tangents of Ni while Ti/Fi is comfortable suspending judgement until further information is acquired.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
This site: http://www.kiloby.com/writings.php?offset=20&writingid=263 discusses the shadow, and defines them (as well as the rest of our "dualistic" thinking) in the term "stories". "The separate self is a set of dualistic stories such as, 'I’m nice,' 'I’m a victim,' 'My life is incomplete,' 'I’m a successful news anchorperson,' or 'I’m unhappy.' This is the play of opposites playing itself out in our lives." "Your defensiveness is revealing that you are carrying a self-critical story around. You have a story that you are fat. You have a story that you are greedy."

Well, "stories" are basically "archetypes"--"ruling patterns" or models of events (as well as people, which we normally think of as archetypes); and as such are the domain of Ni.
FWIW, these are more the domain of Ni-Fe than Ni-Te. Even taking into account an INTJ's Fi, the Fi-side analysis is more holistic, and doesn't really delve into specific "stories". Imagine Ni-Te as having physical/mathematical/procedural archetypes. Like software Design Patterns, or in physics, having to choose which realm of physics to use to study something. It's especially clear in physics, where there is overlap between quantum mechanics, statistical physics, and thermodynamics, but if you try to use quantum mechanics to model a car engine, you're not going to get as far as you would using thermodynamics. Quantum mechanics might be "more correct" in an overall abstract sense, but it's sufficient to demonstrate that it approaches normal thermodynamics as Plank's constant approaches zero, and use thermodynamics instead.

Thinking upon this, in light of my own internal struggles, I realizes these were examples of "what's been left out". Like both my wife and even my counselor had recently been complaining that when I argue against certain aspects of Christian teaching on "growth", that I criticize a lot of arguments they didn't say, and [they say] they don't really believe in. But having studied all the doctrines for over 25 years, and participating in many online debates, I know that there is a lot of inference in many Christian doctrines, especially when it comes to God's nature and activity in salvation and our own "walk" with Him or "growth". Like The Trinity, for instance, is never spelled out in the Bible, but said to be "inferred" from various scriptures put together. These inferences often overlook other data.
Now, inference is a feature of iNtuition (focus on where things are heading, instead of just what they are). I've noticed, in many cases, a lot of Christians who are not really doctrinal experts will parrot the popular belief on something, but not realize its implications. So when I call those implications out, they feel I've "jumped the gun", and even "too black and white" (and as many black and white statements the Church makes on many things).

Part of what you're missing, here, is that you're trying to build a "system" out of worldviews that are essentially "archetypes." It's as if you're trying to disprove thermodynamics by following the implications of heat beyond the point at which matter becomes plasma, and plasma physics works rather differently than thermodynamics at more normal temperatures. An engineer would say that you're jumping the gun, and being too literal or "black and white", to insist that his car engine take plasma physics into account. That is to say, your logic may be entirely correct, but also entirely inapplicable to the case at hand.

I realize that when people say things about God, especially as touching upon my own life, then a story or various stories emerge. Like if someone says that something painful was "God doing it for your own good", then a story emerges of Him singling me out and putting His own stamp on my problems (rather than helping me), and then, they're also telling me "submit to God", but it's becomes harder to do that with that story in the background. I also have trouble pontificating that something good was a particular act of Him, because that implies that the lack of good is also by Him, like what they call "permissive will". (And people then bow out and say "we can't understand His ways").
Yeah, that's known as the problem of evil, or "theodicy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy). Everyone has a problem with it, and it's a central issue of the Christian religion particularly because it espouses a single, all-powerful God that is inherently good, but if there's evil in the world, then He can't be that powerful or He cannot be that good, can he? It's self-contradictory. But it is not ignored by the Bible, and is a central theme of one of the most controversial books of the Bible, the Book of Job.

That said, it's not an easy question of religion, and it's a bit unfair to treat laymen as expert theologians to be debated. I'm not going to bother trying to answer the issue myself, since I believe you brought it up as an example; I'm just trying to point out that you have a lot of company when you ask these questions. They are not easy questions, and how you end up answering them ends up saying a lot about you and what you believe (and doesn't say that much about God and why He lets evil things happen).

I then use all of this to "fill in what's missing"; that the person talking to me isn't even aware of. They then tell me "no, that's not what we meant"", and often put together a less critical string of meaning of the situation. But I "look at the trajectory" of "where the data wants to go", and what's "beyond the map" people are reading (As the person describing Ni told me), and it always seems to lead squarely to these negative conclusions. Conclusions which their rosy views of God's involvement in life "must leave out in order to remain intact".
This should have figured all along, when I was struggling to understand what I was told!

So I realized this was Senex Ni; the "critical" part of me that scans people's words looking for negative stories via inferences and implications.
Of course, for me, this is shadow, and very erratic, and I guess, often off-base, as the people are complaining. For Ni preferrers, it could be like this, in a negative situation (hence they're often characterized as "conspiratorial"), but it would also be used in a more mature fashin in good situations.

So can the NJ's here identify with this description?

Sort of ... but it's not "senex Ni" so much as it is "trying to reach Ni-style conclusions using Ne and Si" (and not a little bit of Ti :) ). Why does it seem to miss the mark? It misses because Ni doesn't look for a trajectory of where the data wants to go beyond the map. It's more like having a treasure map with landmarks, but it's totally unfamiliar - the map is useless. So you pull out all your maps and photos that you do know, and start comparing them with the map, and eventually you spot a photo with a location where the landmark looks correct from the angle on the treasure map and *boom*, you know how to map your maps to the treasure map and back. (The treasure maps in Skyrim work like this, which is where I got the idea for this analogy.) Ni fills in what is missing not by following through on all possible logical paths (that's Ti-Ne!), but by trying out different maps, different "boxes", different "explanations", until one finds a map/box/explanation/archetype that points out where to look for the missing element. From your explanation, I read that you aren't trying out different maps/boxes: it's always the same map/box, but you're trying to look beyond the edges using pure reason.

So you're following a normal logical path, namely that if you include some things (in a category or set or whatever), you necessarily exclude other things. This is your Ti doing its normal duty. The negative stories always exist. The proper question, however, isn't whether they are true (is the glass half empty or half full? both are true). The proper question is, "What does it mean?"

How to answer "What does it mean?" Here's my answer. I have problems in my life, like anyone else. I have problems at work, I have problems at home, I have problems with my girlfriend, I have problems with kids. Does that mean my life sucks? Hell no! These are good problems to have! I have work! I have a home! I have a girlfriend! No matter what you have, no matter how good you have it, you will have problems. That's called LIFE! My life isn't "evil" because it has problems. Rather, my life is good, because I am capable of handling all of these "problems." I am capable of living and learning and growing and dealing with anything that comes my way. ... Oooorrrr, I could just go around complaining about how much my life sucks, because no matter what I do, I end up with more problems.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I have had many Ni-ers trying to explain to me what Ni is. I sort of feel like it is a bit of a paradox in that to understand Ni you almost have to BE Ni. I keep trying to come at it with a relatable understanding that only touches a tiny fraction of what Ni is.

It's like I am a flat lander and my friend is a cube trying to explain to me how he may look like a square but in reality he is actually a cube. And I'm all, but you're a square!!

/feels inadequate.

Eh, you're fine. You're forgetting all the things that you can see and do that Ni types cannot. It's kind of like many prophets/seers in fiction: they're blind, because it is the price they pay for being able to see the future.
 
Top