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

[Mal12345]

I don't know why this thread was "stickied," or why understanding Ni was singled out for this. Si is also difficult to understand, perhaps more so than Ni.

Ni is the function of mystical revelation. Historically, Ni types are found with the astrologers, fortune-tellers, and other paranormalists. With the growth of the sciences, Ni doesn't appear as prominently in society as it once did. You still see astrologers and fortune-tellers of course, but in this skeptical age many of them have entered the scientific disciplines while hiding their mental abilities and their beliefs from their peers in order to avoid being outcast. A prime example of this would be astronomer Carl Sagan who, at least two hundred years ago, would have found a very suitable profession as an astrologer or other kind of sooth-teller, prophet, etc. Actually, he did very well for himself considering what an oddball he was.

Ni-aux adds a holistic methodology to thinking and a dilettantish interest in out-of-the-ordinary ideas.

Ni-tert brings out the "crank" in the ISFP and ISTP types. They don't care for out-of-the-ordinary concepts, although there may exist a passing fancy with religious and/or supernatural notions. But whatever those may consist of, there is no questioning them, they are held in the mind of those types in a completely dogmatic fashion. Also, as slightly frightening in aspect, they lend a tinge of paranoia to their thinking processes when it comes to influences that are beyond their control. These are monolothic and fearful entities, such as corporations and governments that seem to wield omnipotent and unwavering power that is beyond human comprehension, much like a supernatural entity. When these entities (seem) to bear down on the will of the ISFP or ISTP, these types lash out in uncomprehending and ineffective fear and anger.

Ni-inferior is most disagreeable for the ESFP and ESTP types, but only intellectually so. They just regard Ni, at best, as interesting but weird, and at worst, laughable or unimportant, the product of Hollywood movies and fruitcakes who believe in nonsense.

 

[á´…eparted]

I don't know why this thread was "stickied," or why understanding Ni was singled out for this. Si is also difficult to understand, perhaps more so than Ni.

I agree. In my opinion I think Si is the most difficult to understand, define, and misunderstood of all the functions. For some reason it doesn't pique the interest of anyone either, so it's unfortunately ignored. Ni gets more attention because it wrongly seems "mystical", and it's more common of a function in MBTI circles.

 

[Mal12345]

I agree. In my opinion I think Si is the most difficult to understand, define, and misunderstood of all the functions. For some reason it doesn't pique the interest of anyone either, so it's unfortunately ignored. Ni gets more attention because it wrongly seems "mystical", and it's more common of a function in MBTI circles.

That's true. When Jungian typologists first wrote about the type it would have been considered mystical and still should be, but not in every case. In today's sense, one could better say that Ni is in touch with the mysterious.

 

[uumlau]

A lot of the "Ni = mysterious" comes directly from Jung's writings on introverted intuition. Frankly, I think he just didn't understand it, which is perhaps the best argument for him not being an INxJ himself. By "didn't understand" I don't mean that he couldn't see it and analyze it, but rather that he found it difficult to discuss in concrete terms (like pretty much anyone else), and was stuck using words like "mysterious". I've tried in this thread to make it clear how it isn't all that mysterious, but that it's just a mindset that makes certain truths very obvious, but because they're so obvious, explaining them in terms of some sort of objective derivative logic isn't impossible so much as inapplicable. How do you prove that an apple is an apple? (That's the Se version, which is obvious to everyone. The Ni version is "how do you show that <abstract concept that defies words> is true?"

 

[WALMART]

A lot of the "Ni = mysterious" comes directly from Jung's writings on introverted intuition. Frankly, I think he just didn't understand it, which is perhaps the best argument for him not being an INxJ himself. By "didn't understand" I don't mean that he couldn't see it and analyze it, but rather that he found it difficult to discuss in concrete terms (like pretty much anyone else), and was stuck using words like "mysterious". I've tried in this thread to make it clear how it isn't all that mysterious, but that it's just a mindset that makes certain truths very obvious, but because they're so obvious, explaining them in terms of some sort of objective derivative logic isn't impossible so much as inapplicable. How do you prove that an apple is an apple? (That's the Se version, which is obvious to everyone. The Ni version is "how do you show that <abstract concept that defies words> is true?"

What have you read of Jung's?

He gives many anecdotes on Ni, and Ni types, and Ni manifest in types that aren't Ni types.

I would say a lot of "Ni = mysterious" comes from facile assessments of his writings.

 

[uumlau]

What have you read of Jung's?

He gives many anecdotes on Ni, and Ni types, and Ni manifest in types that aren't Ni types.

I would say a lot of "Ni = mysterious" comes from facile assessments of his writings.

 

[WALMART]

What have you read of Jung's?

obligatory characters

 

[uumlau]

obligatory characters

You want to play "dueling sources". I don't. Deal with it.

From the video, Jung can clearly describe Ni, but he admits that he cannot explain what it "really is". That's the entire source of the "mystery." I endeavor to describe what it "really is", the thought process behind it, not the magical/mystical "oh, I just realized something is true." I can describe an apple, but describing what an apple is "really like" is quite another thing. One can be conveyed by words, the other only by experience. Articulated vs unarticulated knowledge. Jung goes as far as he can with words, but is thus limited by them.

 

[WALMART]

You want to play "dueling sources". I don't. Deal with it.

From the video, Jung can clearly describe Ni, but he admits that he cannot explain what it "really is". That's the entire source of the "mystery." I endeavor to describe what it "really is", the thought process behind it, not the magical/mystical "oh, I just realized something is true." I can describe an apple, but describing what an apple is "really like" is quite another thing. One can be conveyed by words, the other only by experience. Articulated vs unarticulated knowledge. Jung goes as far as he can with words, but is thus limited by them.

No, I wanted to know the basis of your claims regarding Jung's 'interpretation' of Ni (given it's no longer Jung's, it's whatever whoever wants it to be.)

But you wanna play the rational game. You'd think I'd be more into that, as a Ti type...

 

[Geonat]

I don't know why this thread was "stickied," or why understanding Ni was singled out for this. Si is also difficult to understand, perhaps more so than Ni.

Ni is the function of mystical revelation. Historically, Ni types are found with the astrologers, fortune-tellers, and other paranormalists. With the growth of the sciences, Ni doesn't appear as prominently in society as it once did. You still see astrologers and fortune-tellers of course, but in this skeptical age many of them have entered the scientific disciplines while hiding their mental abilities and their beliefs from their peers in order to avoid being outcast. A prime example of this would be astronomer Carl Sagan who, at least two hundred years ago, would have found a very suitable profession as an astrologer or other kind of sooth-teller, prophet, etc. Actually, he did very well for himself considering what an oddball he was.

Ni-aux adds a holistic methodology to thinking and a dilettantish interest in out-of-the-ordinary ideas.

Ni-tert brings out the "crank" in the ISFP and ISTP types. They don't care for out-of-the-ordinary concepts, although there may exist a passing fancy with religious and/or supernatural notions. But whatever those may consist of, there is no questioning them, they are held in the mind of those types in a completely dogmatic fashion. Also, as slightly frightening in aspect, they lend a tinge of paranoia to their thinking processes when it comes to influences that are beyond their control. These are monolothic and fearful entities, such as corporations and governments that seem to wield omnipotent and unwavering power that is beyond human comprehension, much like a supernatural entity. When these entities (seem) to bear down on the will of the ISFP or ISTP, these types lash out in uncomprehending and ineffective fear and anger.

Ni-inferior is most disagreeable for the ESFP and ESTP types, but only intellectually so. They just regard Ni, at best, as interesting but weird, and at worst, laughable or unimportant, the product of Hollywood movies and fruitcakes who believe in nonsense.

Hi Mal12345 - I can certainly relate to the anger re unfounded convictions of an unchecked Ni, but isn't this a general flaw of underdeveloped thinking? This is all justifed critique but how do you transform all this to something constructive and humane? Some of us "sp/sx" and "sx/sp" are drawn to forums like these because they give us a chance of developing our often suppressed or underdeveloped "so" in a setting that gives us time to reflect on matters instad of having to think on our feet.

 

[Mal12345]

Hi Mal12345 - I can certainly relate to the anger re unfounded convictions of an unchecked Ni, but isn't this a general flaw of underdeveloped thinking? This is all justifed critique but how do you transform all this to something constructive and humane? Some of us "sp/sx" and "sx/sp" are drawn to forums like these because they give us a chance of developing our often suppressed or underdeveloped "so" in a setting that gives us time to reflect on matters instad of having to think on our feet.

If you come to these forums because you don't like to think on your feet, then you need to learn how to think on your feet.

 

[Geonat]

Haha ok, good point.

 

[Geonat]

...but today's test at yeghors poll revealed that I apparently have changed to so/sx/sp so I'll stay

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Carl Jung on Ni (Introverted Intuition)
April 3, 2014 at 11:32pm
9. The Introverted Intuitive Type

The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition. As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and -- in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle. [p. 509]

If an artist, he reveals extraordinary, remote things in his art, which in iridescent profusion embrace both the significant and the banal, the lovely and the grotesque, the whimsical and the sublime. If not an artist, he is frequently an unappreciated genius, a great man 'gone wrong', a sort of wise simpleton, a figure for 'psychological' novels.

Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely æsthetic into the moral sphere. A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its æsthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive. The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world? The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception. He, therefore, finds the moral problem unintelligible, even absurd, and as far as possible forbids his thoughts to dwell upon the disconcerting vision. It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further æsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in some way inter-related with his vision, that [p. 510] it is something which cannot just be perceived but which also would fain become the life of the subject. Through this realization he feels bound to transform his vision into his own life. But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'.

The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character. The unconscious personality may, therefore, best be described as an extraverted sensation-type of a rather low and primitive order. Impulsiveness and unrestraint are the characters of this sensation, combined with an extraordinary dependence upon the sense impression. This latter quality is a compensation to the thin upper air of the conscious attitude, giving it a certain weight, so that complete 'sublimation' is prevented. But if, through a forced exaggeration of the conscious attitude, a complete subordination to the inner perception should develop, the unconscious becomes an opposition, giving rise to compulsive sensations whose excessive dependence upon the object is in frank conflict with the conscious attitude. The form of neurosis is a compulsion-neurosis, exhibiting symptoms that are partly hypochondriacal manifestations, partly hypersensibility of the sense organs and partly compulsive ties to definite persons or other objects. [p. 511]

Chapter 10 of Carl Gustav Jung's work "Psychological Types" (1921):
[ Web Source: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm ]

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Out of curiosity, does anyone perhaps believe "anchoring" to be correlated with introverted intuition? I've heard people link the two before.

Anchoring is usually described as focusing one's vision on a specific point to think extremely deeply, concentrate, or indulge the self in fantastical daydreams. Unsurprisingly, the object being blindly stared at is called the anchor due to its somewhat fixed nature, and this fixation allows the self to gaze inwardly upon the self and ideas generated by and cultivated by the self without having any external distractions. Anchors can be anywhere from specific points on a wall to bottles of water sitting out, to a street pole in the distance, but they are usually fixed (though some can be slightly moving) and small, but what makes it an anchor is the hyperfocus that accompanies it, with it seeming like the peripherals of the vision completely blurring until the point where even the anchor goes unnoticed due to how deep one retracts into the mind. Introverted intuition is often described as looking inwardly toward oneself, a vortex that sucks the mental focus into the mind, blurring the outside world in favor of mental imagery.

Thoughts?

 

[Eugene Watson VIII]

Ni is like looking beyond what is apparent and seeing it in other ways; rewiring perception itself. People don't just go to the mall just because, they go there because there are luxuries everywhere else (mainly) hasn't got. Or something like that. That's probably a bad example, but it's like you look at a state of something, begin brainstorming (in a focused way, tho) what else is really going on and then ending up with the cards backs face down. But it keeps going; Ni keeps looking at the patterns and usually hones down to one. The thing about Ni is that it flips the conventional upside down and reveals an exciting and fresh take on what we see and take for granted, and being the opposite of Se it gives a deeper meaning to everyday life. It's like Ne, but it doesn't multiply and expand, it instead pierces and shatters a frilly girly picture of a little child reading a book surrounded by daisies and brings out the taboo, the dark- maybe even nightmares. It is inferior to Ne though (completely biased, yes).

Of course I was stuck on Ni for a while until I was watching the butterfly effect with an INFJ friend. I've already seen it somewhere before, but lots of words that are thrown around to describe it on the net merely cheapen it. I will have to search the internet again for this brilliant description I've found on it.

Out of curiosity, does anyone perhaps believe "anchoring" to be correlated with introverted intuition? I've heard people link the two before.

Anchoring is usually described as focusing one's vision on a specific point to think extremely deeply, concentrate, or indulge the self in fantastical daydreams. Unsurprisingly, the object being blindly stared at is called the anchor due to its somewhat fixed nature, and this fixation allows the self to gaze inwardly upon the self and ideas generated by and cultivated by the self without having any external distractions. Anchors can be anywhere from specific points on a wall to bottles of water sitting out, to a street pole in the distance, but they are usually fixed (though some can be slightly moving) and small, but what makes it an anchor is the hyperfocus that accompanies it, with it seeming like the peripherals of the vision completely blurring until the point where even the anchor goes unnoticed due to how deep one retracts into the mind. Introverted intuition is often described as looking inwardly toward oneself, a vortex that sucks the mental focus into the mind, blurring the outside world in favor of mental imagery.

Thoughts?

I can agree that it ends up arriving at one (maybe vague) idea, if that's what you mean. It's all hazy until it receives that moment of clarity, I guess.

 

[Geonat]

I can relate to that and a few years ago i saw some program on tv where they had found that people with PTSD could be made to temporarily feel better just by moving their eyes consciously. Sometimes I get stuck in that mode, when trying to think about a problem until it yields, my vision blurs and then it is kind of a relief to start looking at the eight corners of the room or something like that just to snap out of that dizzy and strange state.

 

[Geonat]

I can relate to that and a few years ago i saw some program on tv where they had found that people with PTSD could be made to temporarily feel better just by moving their eyes consciously. Sometimes I get stuck in that mode, when trying to think about a problem until it yields, my vision blurs and then it is kind of a relief to start looking at the eight corners of the room or something like that just to snap out of that dizzy and strange state.

Blind-folding my right (dominant) eye also helps and gives a much less intense and more of a warm/fuzzy/optimistic feel to the outside world. Could this have something to do with left-brain/right brain information processing of some kind? I don't do this in public, and not even in private It's weird.

Edit: Incidentally,
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/soundgarden/searchingwithmygoodeyeclosed.html
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/soundgarden/roomathousandyearswide.html

 

[Little_Sticks]

Space Cadets

 

[Geonat]

Space Cadets

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=space cadet
Haha, well thank you very much then, especially under the heading "words related to" in the link above