• 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?

Ene

Active member
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
3,574
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
5w4
But once you realize it's just pattern recognition, it's a lot easier to be able to tell how likely it is that one is right or wrong.

True, except sometimes, the pattern we see flies in the face of what we wish for and then we seem to lose the ability to access clear insight.
 

great_bay

New member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
987
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
541
Ni foresees implications. Ni pretty much tells a person what's going to happen.
 

Forever

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
8,551
MBTI Type
NiFi
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
What's gonna happen is that an actual registered member will post on this thread.

Ni is patient. It is timeless.

It's ok. I don't require payment.

In addition: in it will be the NEXT post. That's how confident I am.

ETA: On point.
 

the state i am in

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,475
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Some thoughts, because I like thinking about this:

  • At its base, it's pattern recognition. But because it isn't extroverted, it isn't tied to any particular time or place.
  • So what you're apprehending are just abstract patterns, without a particular home to attach themselves to. Images help to "fill in" the details, but only toward the end of clarifying the pattern itself.
  • To see something through Ni is to see it guided by invisible hands. It feels passive & fatalistic. This is where it differs from Ne, which is characteristically active, circumstantial and indeterministic.
  • Sometimes, when feeling particularly stubborn, you "just know". But convincing other people can be difficult, especially if they're equally stubborn. "Oh, you'll see. Just you wait."


  • not sure about all the details here, esp the attitude brought to the experience, but i think the bolded is excellent. and i don't know if it's Ni or the whole process of projecting it into the world, which is kind of Je, where it is like a rainbow we follow to the pot of gold at the end. that sense of half-way teleological, predictive, purposive aim-ness that undergirds intentionality more generally. its like, well fuck, the pattern creates this bending worm/rabbithole that we can follow (when present!!) but otherwise simply starts to merge things (black cat matrix style for others), as if it turns space-time inside out in some strange way as to placentally weave together that extra dimension that can't really be experienced or explained directly. it's different than Ne in that it's about programming the conditions of possibility for the experience to exist, rather than actually fully exploring it. bc we are making the channel thru us, not finding the way to and thru it in the world outside of us (this might be Ne reductionistic--not sure; it seems maybe more like borrowing time against space or vice versa). there's this great word in the work of the german philosopher heidegger's work of "disclosure." just like finding and sowing the seeds of possibility, made up of the little bodies of interconnected conditionality to start a new series of sim-spaces. to engage this kind of inverted play to derive the essential functionalities by watching how the differences have emerged under relatively bounded samenesses and symmetries.

    Ne is about dancing through the games of emergence whereas Ni is about architecting/bounding useful versions of it. and like relating thru upward or downward pressure.

    It can make you deeply perceptive when right, and deeply deluded when wrong. The latter happens more often than anyone would likely want to admit.

    it's an act of cognition. it's a very small piece of reality, aimed at apprehending big pieces of it at maximum compression.
 

ChocolateMoose123

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
5,278
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]

Ti wants "to hammer in the stakes of a tent that offers the best shelter for others" [i.e. in my own way of framing it "This is the TRUTH (T), and since I realize it (i), then I think others would want this truth as well" ("subjective" perspective projecting onto others)], but the Ni type is "usually cutting a hole in the side of a tent to peer into the dark and make out something else that's moving on a distant landscape."

I think this was one of your quotes. Not sure as I read through a lot. But if it is, I like it. It hits accurately.
 

Blaaarghh

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
4
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I have had the impression that Ni is essentially what many people call 'vision'. It is the instinct to make real the things you imagine.

I am thinking that some of you will come in and say "Well that can't be true, I am not Ni dominant and I have vision": Of course you do. Everyone does. It is a part of everyones psyche. Consider that we all have Se. But for those who have Ni dominant, it is as important and as real as the objective reality Se might observe. For Ni dominant, everything they do is in service to the vision they have, the things they want to create, and all of their functions are there to serve that end for them. Nothing is more satisfying than making it happen. For Se dominant types, Ni (their vision) serves to help them create experiences they might enjoy. For Ni dominant types, Se serves their ability to precisely create that which they envision.

Comparing and contrasting with Ne, I think Ne is more about experimentation. Whereas Ni seeks to bring a specific end that is imagined, Ne likes to imagine to what ends something specific can go, and thus experiments. Ni wants to build a castle, and Ne wants to see what happens to that castle given the conditions it would be subjected to. Phrased another way, Ni is how you arrive at a specific instance of reality, and Ne is where you can go from a specific instance of reality, thus why Ni is dominant in Judging types and Ne in Perceiving types.


Made several edits to improve the phrases and elaborate on my thinking.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I've been reading a couple of psychology books by Jonathan Haidt (The Happiness Hypothesis and The Righteous Mind) which I find very helpful in pointing out demonstrable psychological principles and clears up a lot of confusion for those who follow the Jungian side of things.

The interesting thing that the author notes is that modern psychologists have been treating emotion and cognition as distinct things, as a kind of dichotomy, and he determined that this is a severe category error. In other words, Jung had it right about F vs T! ;)

Instead, emotion is a part of cognition just as reasoning is part of cognition. But while his categorical split aligns with Jung in some ways, it doesn't align in others. On the emotional side, he also places intuition and other automatic cognitive processes: all those things where we "see that" something is true. On the opposite side, he places all controlled processes such as conscious thought, all those things where we "reason why" something is true.

In some cases, these modes tend to align. You can give someone a moral dilemma and they both "see that" a particular resolution is true and can "reason why" that that resolution is true. But it's also possible to present dilemmas where these two different approaches yield different results. For instance, an experiment he wrote about was to ask someone to sign over their soul to the experimenter for $2. There was no mention of the Devil or anything religious like that, other than the word "soul" and giving it to the experimenter upon your death. The contract even said "This is just a psychology experiment and has no legal binding whatsoever." The experimenter said, "You can just tear up the contract after you sign it and keep the $2." The subject could even be an atheist (!) and they would usually absolutely refuse to sign over their soul. And those who refused could NOT explain why. They could "see that" they didn't want to sign over their soul, but they could not "reason why".

Similarly, you could show people a situation which violated some moral taboo (in this case, incest), but it added every possible condition that would make it OK: they were both adults, they both consented, they kept it secret (so they wouldn't hurt their family), they used birth control (to prevent a child with birth defects), it only happened once (and thus no fear of being discovered and thereby harming others by doing it habitually), and so on. All the "reasoning why" available indicated that incest was absolutely OK, but even with all of that, people would "see that" incest is "just wrong" but couldn't explain why, and all the moral reasoning available that made sure that no one was getting hurt and there were no victims of any sort couldn't justify it to them.

How does this relate to Ni, or functions in general? It doesn't map 100% to functions, but Ni is definitely on the "see that" side of cognitive processes. An Ni dom is "in tune" with that side and has trained oneself such that all their "see that" observations align with their "reasoning why" conscious understanding. Hence the connection to the unconscious that Jung observed about them.

In an INTJ, that training leads to intuitions about factual things. An INTJ will look at complicated math/science/logic problems and "see that" a particular solution is correct, intuitively avoiding all sorts of logical fallacies not by using logic but by knowing what all the fallacies "look like". Te plays the "reasoning why" role, here, where intuitions are compared with empirical evidence.

In an INFJ, that training leads to intuitions about emotional/people/social things, basically all the kinds of things that don't yield to strict logic and empirical evidence. There is much more "trusting one's gut" in an INFJ, because the Fe version of "reasoning why" doesn't provide a hard objective anchor to one's understanding: one can only see the effects that things have on people and work from there. So INFJs end up being extremely perceptive about people and certain kinds of complex systems, being able to intuitively "see that" certain solutions are true.

For completeness, I'll mention that INFJs are perfectly capable are intuiting logical/scientific/technical things and be very adept at it. The difference is that with Fe, they tend to learn these things more heuristically than analytically, so it will tend to be easier for INTJs to gain a logical/scientific intuition than for INFJs. Conversely, INTJs can develop a very adept social intuition that rivals that of an INFJ, but their approach to developing it is much more analytical, and people are much more easily heuristically evaluated (Fe) than analytically evaluated (Te), thus the INFJ has an advantage in such matters.

How does this map to the rest of the functions? I'm not sure, but my current guess is that the introverted functions (based on their overall tendency to be really stubborn and not lend themselves to verbalization) are part of the "see that" side of cognition in this model, while the extroverted functions are all on the "reason why" side of things. If this pattern holds, then for example it might mean that INTPs and INFPs aren't "intuitive because of Ne", but because Ti and Fi are particular kinds of intuitive/emotional approaches to cognition, and that ISFPs and ISTPs aren't "intuitive because of Ni", but because their dominant functions are introverted. It also implies that ISTJs and ISFJs rely very strongly on the intuitive "see that" approach, it's just a very "concrete" intuition as opposed to Ni's abstract intuition.

If I were to describe the functions such that these two models combine in a self-consistent way, I'd do so as follows

N = abstract reasoning
T = analytical reasoning
F = heuristic reasoning
S = concrete reasoning

Introversion (i) and extroversion (e) are NOT minor subsets of these, but essential overall categories, mapping directly to "see that" (i) and "reason why" (e). Or more aptly "unconscious reasoning" (i) that does not lend itself to words, and "conscious reasoning" (e) that very easily can be expressed with words.

Again, this is just speculation and playing with ideas on my part. I'm not trying to rewrite "official typology", whatever that means these days. I'm just trying to take different perspectives that arise from different kinds of observations, and synthesize them into a meaningful whole.
 

Forever

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
8,551
MBTI Type
NiFi
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] yes I am reading the righteous mind right now too. It's very fascinating. You said a lot of my thoughts so I believe I didn't need to elaborate why as much. I'm still reading.. so I can't have an official opinion but right now it's really pushing my meta-perspective out even further.
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I really enjoyed The Righteous Mind (a mini summary is included in this post). I think The Righteous Mind includes some very healthy pushback against the WEIRD/liberal perspective, although I'm not sure I buy all of his arguments 100%. I do agree that liberals and conservatives need the leavening of the characteristics of one another, otherwise things tend to run off the rails.

I think [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION]'s thoughts are interesting on mapping the functions, but not sure I agree 100%. I think partially because I don't think Ni (really N+J) is inherently more introverted than Ne (really N+P)... but NJ is more concerned with bigger patterns than arise and repeat over time, while NP is more focused on matching micro patterns moment to moment (given P vs J).... just like FJ is more concerned with consistent relationships over time, while FP is more concerned with harmonizing with the moment/specifics. Anyway, thanks for the post... good food for thought!
 
Last edited:

Kelly777

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
42
MBTI Type
Infj
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Some thoughts, because I like thinking about this:

  • At its base, it's pattern recognition. But because it isn't extroverted, it isn't tied to any particular time or place.
  • So what you're apprehending are just abstract patterns, without a particular home to attach themselves to. Images help to "fill in" the details, but only toward the end of clarifying the pattern itself.
  • To see something through Ni is to see it guided by invisible hands. It feels passive & fatalistic. This is where it differs from Ne, which is characteristically active, circumstantial and indeterministic.
  • Sometimes, when feeling particularly stubborn, you "just know". But convincing other people can be difficult, especially if they're equally stubborn. "Oh, you'll see. Just you wait."
  • It can make you deeply perceptive when right, and deeply deluded when wrong. The latter happens more often than anyone would likely want to admit.

Yep. I would equate NI to a gps system. But because it's subconcious, you're not really aware that you're using it. And, of course, NI users can seem spacy or self-absorbed because they have to turn inward to know what to do. It's scarily accurate very often. When it's wrong-it's a train wreck.
Extraverted intuitives that I've known seem to use intuition very differently. They always seem to bee scanning the horizon for new connections and opportunities.
 

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558
I like comparing a function to its opposite, so lets do that:

  • Orienting via Ni is to avoid being "led by the nose", so to speak - in other words, to avoid Se
  • You remove yourself from the intrinsic smells, touches, tastes etc. of what "is", and dive deep within yourself, in order to conceptualise alternatives and to look "around the corner" of things, or peer under-the-veil and witness the undertow
  • I've seen Ni associating with what's called paradoxical, or Janusian thinking - the idea of being able to look at something from multiple perspectives at once, thereby giving you an entirely new vantage point from which to reason about things
  • This obviously gives overwhelming strategic value - like multiple beams of light shining on one object, giving you a very "clear" picture of things
  • Ne differs from this in not being convergent or strategic - it's a lot like Se, in that you're being "led by the nose". In this sense, your intuition allows you to "discover" how things branch out in the objective world, rather than conceptualise a single focal point subjectively
  • Of course, to orient via Ni is to miss out on the messy moments of life - all those pesky imperfections and base instincts, that have a tendency to upend your thinking and make you lose perspective
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
I think partially because I don't think Ni (really N+J) is inherently more introverted than Ne (really N+P)... but NJ is more concerned with bigger patters than arise and repeat over time, while NP is more focused on matching micro patterns moment to moment (given P vs J).... just like FJ is more concerned with consistent relationships over time, while FP is more concerned with harmonizing with the moment/specifics. Anyway, thanks for the post... good food for thought!

Yes, I love that. It's about a moment-to-moment optimization, crafting this time to a particular vision, about getting the most from right now. If X is today's issue, how do we work with X, adapt to X, optimize, customize to the needs and wants surrounding us related to X. The recognition that this day added to every other this day is what is the sum of a life.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Yes, I love that. It's about a moment-to-moment optimization, crafting this time to a particular vision, about getting the most from right now. If X is today's issue, how do we work with X, adapt to X, optimize, customize to the needs and wants surrounding us related to X. The recognition that this day added to every other this day is what is the sum of a life.

How much of that is Ne as opposed to Fi or Ti?
[MENTION=8074]Seymour[/MENTION] How are you using the word "introverted"? In terms of the popular usage, I agree that Ni isn't "that much more introverted" than Ne. Both Ni and Ne doms are "live in their heads" types. But I see Ne as being extroverted as actively applying abstraction to the here and now, as you suggest, which implies conscious engagement with the environment. Ne dom/aux types tend to communicate in terms of Ne, whereas Ni types tend to hide this aspect of themselves.
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
How much of that is Ne as opposed to Fi or Ti?
[MENTION=8074]Seymour[/MENTION] How are you using the word "introverted"? In terms of the popular usage, I agree that Ni isn't "that much more introverted" than Ne. Both Ni and Ne doms are "live in their heads" types. But I see Ne as being extroverted as actively applying abstraction to the here and now, as you suggest, which implies conscious engagement with the environment. Ne dom/aux types tend to communicate in terms of Ne, whereas Ni types tend to hide this aspect of themselves.

So, I'm coming at things from a non-type-dynamics perspective (given that I've been convinced by Reynierse, et al, that there's no evidence whatsoever for type dynamics). Hence, I'm looking at things in terms of what "Ne" actually describes (which is mostly N+P, with perhaps a smudge of "E" thrown in--but only for extraverts).

So, if one then is describing the intersection and interaction N+P, then it makes sense that N+P isn't fundamentally more extraverted. It's more about the present moment than N+J, but that can be as focused inward as easily as outward. So it might be focused on exploring ideas in one's internal world or jumping from association to association internally. The present moment includes the present interior experience, as well as the present external one.

Still, I agree that N+J is more opaque and less tied to the current moment, because it is pattern matching across bigger timespans and contexts. Because its chunking mechanism produces bigger associations, it's more mysterious what goes into them.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
So, I'm coming at things from a non-type-dynamics perspective (given that I've been convinced by Reynierse, et al, that there's no evidence whatsoever for type dynamics). Hence, I'm looking at things in terms of what "Ne" actually describes (which is mostly N+P, with perhaps a smudge of "E" thrown in--but only for extraverts).
That explains things. Gotta love how one paper is enough to convince people (especially those invested in other typologies). I've read the paper and I'm not convinced. It's an argument from ignorance: "I can't find anything, therefore there isn't anything."

The main distinction I see is that type dynamics is a qualitative thing, not quantitative. You can measure people answering questions the same way over and over again, and that produces certain statistical correlations, some of which are meaningful. You can't measure people having an "in the grip" experience. You definitely can't measure unconscious things easily with tests aimed at conscious self-understanding. Modern psychology overall has a bias against looking at the unconscious, mostly because it's really difficult to measure. Jung's primary insights were into patterns of how the unconscious mind works, and are the essence of type dynamics.

So, if one then is describing the intersection and interaction N+P, then it makes sense that N+P isn't fundamentally more extraverted. It's more about the present moment than N+J, but that can be as focused inward as easily as outward. So it might be focused on exploring ideas in one's internal world or jumping from association to association internally. The present moment includes the present interior experience, as well as the present external one.

Still, I agree that N+J is more opaque and less tied to the current moment, because it is pattern matching across bigger timespans and contexts. Because its chunking mechanism produces bigger associations, it's more mysterious what goes into them.

Then we simply aren't using the words "extroverted" and "introverted" the same way, at all, which makes it difficult to determine where our observations intersect. I would also note that speculating about "Ni" while rejecting type dynamics is weirdly inconsistent. Not that you have nothing worthwhile to offer, it's just that differences of opinion are less interesting when two people are discussing things with entirely different frameworks.
 

Masokissed

Spoiled Brat 🍒
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
941
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
It's future-planning. NJs just like to make it sound like it's something special.
 

Forever

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
8,551
MBTI Type
NiFi
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
It's future-planning. NJs just like to make it sound like it's something special.

It's pattern recognition. Abstract concepts are taken from past experience and then recognized. Future planning is not a cognitive function. Sorry but it's your inferior so you don't need to really worry too much about it.

And it's the SJ's that make it seem special :p
 

Masokissed

Spoiled Brat 🍒
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
941
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
It's pattern recognition. Abstract concepts are taken from past experience and then recognized. Future planning is not a cognitive function. Sorry but it's your inferior so you don't need to really worry too much about it.

And it's the SJ's that make it seem special :p

Well, yeah, all perceiving functions perceive or recognize things. Ni uses it to perceive the path to a long term goal. Me? I'm just playing with the light coming off my phone on the walls.
 

Forever

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
8,551
MBTI Type
NiFi
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well, yeah, all perceiving functions perceive or recognize things. Ni uses it to perceive the path to a long term goal. Me? I'm just playing with the light coming off my phone on the walls.

Yeah. But did you know I only mentioned the active definition of Ni?

Passive definition is what is mostly used is intuition/past memories popping out of your head and it's quite like swimming in a pool of ideas/gists of memories. And imagination is used to further explore. But it is subjective imagination so it doesn't necessarily mean what you imagine is reality.

*turns on flashlight from phone and moves phone with wrists being turnt up*
 
Top