• 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?

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I've submitted several posts to this thread, explaining what Ni is. The enduring confusion makes me feel like it's trying to explain quantum mechanics.

Ni is simple, but people try to make it mysterious because it doesn't fit in their view of how functions work, or because they've read too much about how Ni "taps into the unconscious" (which is just a way of saying, "it's a mystery").

Both Ne and Ni as part of one's type mean that one thinks in terms of patterns instead of concrete things and experiences (which would be Se and Si). ("Patterns" is a more down-to-earth way of saying "abstract thinking".) So where Se seeks out new experiences and Si remembers/savors experiences, Ne seeks out new patterns while Ni remembers/savors patterns. That's it. It is no more complicated than that. Any further explanation is window-dressing, and not typology, per se.

It's this "remembering of patterns" that can be interpreted as "tapping into the unconscious". Well, it sort of is, because remembering concrete things and experiences things is a largely unconscious process: you either remember or you don't, it just happens, you "just know". Same thing for remembering patterns. You either remember or you don't. It just happens. You "just know". So Ni "just knows", because Ni types think in terms of patterns and remember patterns and apply patterns on the fly. When an Si type can remember something and informs others of those memories or their implication, no one wonders, "How did he know that?!?!" No one is mystified by someone remembering concrete facts/details/experiences. When an Ni type remembers patterns, and informs others of their implications, there are no words to describe the patterns*. Because the Ni type is just stating conclusions, e.g., "we need to do Y instead of X", the reasoning is along the lines of "because X won't work", and not "Remember last time we did X? It didn't work." So people wonder why X won't work, and often times the Ni type can't explain why, because they remember the pattern, that "this pattern of things doesn't work, or usually doesn't work". Worse, in the Ni type's head, one isn't even calling them "patterns", but just "intuitively" realizing that X won't work (due to the remembered patterns), but it takes a lot of effort to turn that understanding into a concrete explanation. That dynamic is what makes Ni seem mysterious, even though it really isn't.

*Without words, without a common language to convey the patterns, it seems very mysterious. In some professions, however, there ARE WORDS to describe the patterns. Engineering and computer science have jargon that describes "design patterns", while in physics, the laws of physics are the "design patterns". In these fields, you CAN actually say why you think X won't work and Y will. For these reasons, it can be easy to mix up Ni and Si types in engineering, because they have language and words to talk about abstract things clearly and definitively.

That's a very clear explanation, yet people still complain that they don't understand Ni despite 83 pages on the topic.

Of course I haven't read all 83 pages. Who has? Maybe you have? Then where are the examples here?

The idea of "tapping into the unconscious" comes from Jung who was obsessed with the unconscious because he was trying to explain his own thinking method to himself. Using the term "unconscious" was his particular idiom, his theory on the topic. He believed he had a special insight into the collective unconscious of mankind because he was an INFJ. Jung was one of those people who "just knows," but he wanted to theorize about how he knew it - by tapping into the collective unconsciousness of mankind which is the sum-total of all the archetypal symbols representative of humanity throughout history.

Your take on Ni is more psychological, less mystical than Jung's. But it doesn't get to the heart of what Jung was trying to say, it only describes a cognitive process.

I saw a movie a long time ago about a group of well drillers. In one of the scenes, most of the well drillers were standing around a table looking at a drawing while they tried to figure out some well drilling problem. But the odd one, the one that stands out as being different from the rest of the group, was taking a nap in a cot off to the side. While the guys were arguing about what to do, the oddball woke up a little, lifted his head up, and said, "use water." Then he went right back to sleep. The other workers stared at each other in amazement as they collectively realized that he had, somehow, produced the solution.

THAT'S what I mean by an example. Although it doesn't explain Jung's take on the topic, it explains why Ni is represented as mysterious.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I believe that, by giving examples not explanations, it gives people a chance to form their own patterns and make their own decisions. Learning tends to be easier that way.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
"Intuition and concepts constitute...the elements of all our knowledge, so that neither concepts without an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without concepts, can yield knowledge." Immanuel Kant.

The problem with this thread is that it doesn't "yield knowledge" because it presents concepts about Ni without any "intuition" (perceptual examples). All I read here is "unconscious" this and "patterns" that. There's no reality to give it substance.

I read intuition...its Ni intuiting its right...lmao. if you understand what drives the talk of subconcious, etc. Thats Ni...its an internal pattern based conceptual system based on beliefs. Its puts data together and finds beliefs...aka...truths(internal).

Si does the same thing with detail.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I read intuition...its Ni intuiting its right...lmao. if you understand what drives the talk of subconcious, etc. Thats Ni...its an internal pattern based conceptual system based on beliefs. Its puts data together and finds beliefs...aka...truths(internal).

Si does the same thing with detail.

Do you have any examples?
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Here's another Ni example, a real one this time, about Henri Poincare:
"He never spent a long time on a problem since he believed that the subconscious would continue working on the problem while he consciously worked on another problem."
Henri Poincare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the other hand, there is Ne taking the opposite approach - the thought experiment:
Einstein's Most Famous Thought Experiment
"...From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how should the first observer know or be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion?..."
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
That's a very clear explanation, yet people still complain that they don't understand Ni despite 83 pages on the topic.
I've mostly been getting messages in thread and reps that people found my explanation helpful. There are some people chiming in negatively in a joking way here in thread, but I'm not seeing the confusion that you see, at least not in this thread after the post you quoted.

Of course I haven't read all 83 pages. Who has? Maybe you have? Then where are the examples here?
I've been in this thread since about 3 days after it started in 2010. My explanations of Ni appear every few pages or so as the thread would get kicked alive again. I think my explanations have gotten a lot more clear and less tending towards mysterious/mystical over the years. That's on purpose by the way.

Why are people confused about Ni despite 83 pages on the topic? Because Jung was horribly vague about it. Heck, he was kind of vague about all of the functions, and certified Jungian counselors use a very different version of Jung's typology than MBTI and function theory practitioners. For example, a Jungian would likely type me as an introverted thinker, not an introverted intuitive. But any INTP or ISTP can tell that I don't think like they do.

So I try to clear away all of the cruft, all of the ideas that got crammed into Ni from so many sources and look at it more from first principles. Now, one might argue that Jung is rightly the source of these first principles, and I would not deny that, but I fully admit that I am using DIFFERENT first principles than Jung, and this is nothing new under the sun. MBTI is only loosely based on Jung, as is function theory, as is Keirsey, and so on. But now MBTI has, for better or worse, become part of the popular culture. It is easy to find people who have been tested, and it is easy to test people if you're curious, and once you have been exposed to the typology for a few years, it is often-but-not-always easy to type people when you meet them.

So what I am describing is what those individuals who have been typed as INTJ or INFJ would generally experience as "Ni", assuming that the MBTI instrument is reasonably good at singling out this dominant function, this "INxJ" pattern. And I'm trying to explain it without referring much to "mysterious" or "unconscious" processes, and I refer to those only to point out how I would map my explanation to the explanations of others who indulge more in that unconscious mystery metaphor, to explain why many people SEE IT as mysterious or unconscious, even though it isn't that mysterious nor particularly any more unconscious than any other cognitive processes.

The idea of "tapping into the unconscious" comes from Jung who was obsessed with the unconscious because he was trying to explain his own thinking method to himself. Using the term "unconscious" was his particular idiom, his theory on the topic. He believed he had a special insight into the collective unconscious of mankind because he was an INFJ. Jung was one of those people who "just knows," but he wanted to theorize about how he knew it - by tapping into the collective unconsciousness of mankind which is the sum-total of all the archetypal symbols representative of humanity throughout history.
I think he had a lot to contribute to psychology. In fact, I think his focus on the unconscious was far ahead of its time, to the point that only in the last few decades are psychologists taking the idea of an unconscious seriously. Our mind is comprised of many parts, and "the unconscious" describes a few of them. And that unconscious mind has several traits that might be described as being part of a "collective unconscious" though I might describe it more as a very human version of "instinct", where certain kinds of unconscious traits have been selected by the evolution of civilization and culture.

Your take on Ni is more psychological, less mystical than Jung's. But it doesn't get to the heart of what Jung was trying to say, it only describes a cognitive process.
I would note that for the purposes of function theory, "only describes a cognitive process" applies to all eight functions. ;)

I don't think Jung was "wrong" about Ni: he conceived the idea. I would assert, however, that if he had the opportunity to collaborate with others to flesh out his ideas, they'd arrive at something at least sort of like modern function theory. That's what modern function theory is, really - the collaboration of lots of people trying to flesh out Jung's primary ideas. Jung had his own personal understanding that I think he conveyed as well as he could, but he didn't spend that much time on the typology, and considered introversion and extroversion to be the primary traits, while intuition, sensing, feeling and thinking were all secondary to him. It says something that he coined the words "introversion" and "extroversion", and they've stuck with us both in terms of psychology but normal modern language to describe people - his other typological ideas really only stuck around due to MBTI.

For example, I saw a movie a long time ago about a group of well drillers. In one of the scenes, most of the well drillers were standing around a table looking at a drawing while they tried to figure out some well drilling problem. But the odd one, the one that stands out as being different from the rest of the group, was taking a nap in a cot off to the side. While the guys were arguing about what to do, the oddball woke up a little, lifted his head up, and said, "use water." Then he went back to sleep. The other workers stared at each other in amazement as they collectively realized that he had, somehow, produced the solution.

THAT'S what I mean by an example. Although it doesn't explain Jung's take on the topic, it explains why Ni is represented as mysterious.

Heh, that sounds like something I'd do, and it's typical of how an Ni dom has to operate. One thing we tend to learn early on is that if we try to express our ideas right away, we end up becoming part of the argument, which is really tedious. It turns out to be much easier to let people argue out the problem themselves for a while, and THEN, when they're really feeling frustrated, propose the solution. Why? They don't know the ins and outs of the problem until they've argued it out, at which point the tradeoffs start to become obvious, when they were anything but obvious before. By chiming in at this point, the Ni-statement is a huge relief - because it clearly addresses the trade-offs to everyone's satisfaction - whereas early on in the conversation it would seem entirely nonsensical.

So to give you another concrete example based on your example, this is also an example of Ni synthesis. I would not be surprised if the oddball was listening to all of the arguments, not really caring about it, but having heard all of the arguments could create a model in his head of what was going on, the model being a synthesis of the thoughts of the people arguing. Take everything that is consistent and make sure it is in the model, and take the contradictions and use their resolutions to complete the model. This does go back to the "remembered patterns" stuff I was talking about before, too, but synthesis is how those patterns are used, because we are usually not using just a single pattern, but a bunch of patterns, and using those patterns and building blocks for an overall model.

It seems mysterious because things that are synthesized often do not resemble the things they come from. A cake doesn't look anything like stalks of sugar cane, grains of wheat, or eggs. And the process to create the cake involves a lot of activity other than just plopping the cane, the wheat and eggs in a pile and turning them into a cake. But if you understand the process and the transformations involved, you understand that particular synthesis. It's just that if you're doing that synthesis inside your head, how the hell are you going to explain it to people? You can demonstrate turning sugar cane into sugar, turning wheat into flour, and eggs and flour and sugar and water into batter, and baking that batter long enough to create a cake, and thus demonstrate that the cake didn't come "from nothing". But for ideas? I can only use words, and there are no words to describe the process in a literal step-by-step sort of way. Even in technical fields where the language allows for the communication of patterns of ideas, a lot of the time ideas just seem to appear from nothing as their pieces just slide into place inside someone's head.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
A couple days ago I was pondering some examples of Si, and I realize now that, considering that Si examples are numbered 100:1 over Ni (I estimate), there's no question in my mind that this thread is important to help understand Ni. Si is everywhere around us because it consists of concretes. If I call someone an idiot, that's probably Si in some way. Ni and Si have in common a spontaneity of thought. I experience something, I react based on something subjective either based in experience (consciously or unconsciously) - this is Si. Or I experience something, and it causes the proverbial light-bulb to suddenly turn on in my head. Or perhaps I dream it, fall into a trance-like state and experience it that way, or take drugs and allow the creative process to come forward. Intuition in general is creative, and it is often the case that Ni and Ne work in tandem as with the Poincare example I gave a couple posts back.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I've mostly been getting messages in thread and reps that people found my explanation helpful. There are some people chiming in negatively in a joking way here in thread, but I'm not seeing the confusion that you see, at least not in this thread after the post you quoted.

I've been in this thread since about 3 days after it started in 2010. My explanations of Ni appear every few pages or so as the thread would get kicked alive again. I think my explanations have gotten a lot more clear and less tending towards mysterious/mystical over the years. That's on purpose by the way.

Why are people confused about Ni despite 83 pages on the topic? Because Jung was horribly vague about it. Heck, he was kind of vague about all of the functions, and certified Jungian counselors use a very different version of Jung's typology than MBTI and function theory practitioners. For example, a Jungian would likely type me as an introverted thinker, not an introverted intuitive. But any INTP or ISTP can tell that I don't think like they do.

So I try to clear away all of the cruft, all of the ideas that got crammed into Ni from so many sources and look at it more from first principles. Now, one might argue that Jung is rightly the source of these first principles, and I would not deny that, but I fully admit that I am using DIFFERENT first principles than Jung, and this is nothing new under the sun. MBTI is only loosely based on Jung, as is function theory, as is Keirsey, and so on. But now MBTI has, for better or worse, become part of the popular culture. It is easy to find people who have been tested, and it is easy to test people if you're curious, and once you have been exposed to the typology for a few years, it is often-but-not-always easy to type people when you meet them.

So what I am describing is what those individuals who have been typed as INTJ or INFJ would generally experience as "Ni", assuming that the MBTI instrument is reasonably good at singling out this dominant function, this "INxJ" pattern. And I'm trying to explain it without referring much to "mysterious" or "unconscious" processes, and I refer to those only to point out how I would map my explanation to the explanations of others who indulge more in that unconscious mystery metaphor, to explain why many people SEE IT as mysterious or unconscious, even though it isn't that mysterious nor particularly any more unconscious than any other cognitive processes.


I think he had a lot to contribute to psychology. In fact, I think his focus on the unconscious was far ahead of its time, to the point that only in the last few decades are psychologists taking the idea of an unconscious seriously. Our mind is comprised of many parts, and "the unconscious" describes a few of them. And that unconscious mind has several traits that might be described as being part of a "collective unconscious" though I might describe it more as a very human version of "instinct", where certain kinds of unconscious traits have been selected by the evolution of civilization and culture.


I would note that for the purposes of function theory, "only describes a cognitive process" applies to all eight functions. ;)

I don't think Jung was "wrong" about Ni: he conceived the idea. I would assert, however, that if he had the opportunity to collaborate with others to flesh out his ideas, they'd arrive at something at least sort of like modern function theory. That's what modern function theory is, really - the collaboration of lots of people trying to flesh out Jung's primary ideas. Jung had his own personal understanding that I think he conveyed as well as he could, but he didn't spend that much time on the typology, and considered introversion and extroversion to be the primary traits, while intuition, sensing, feeling and thinking were all secondary to him. It says something that he coined the words "introversion" and "extroversion", and they've stuck with us both in terms of psychology but normal modern language to describe people - his other typological ideas really only stuck around due to MBTI.



Heh, that sounds like something I'd do, and it's typical of how an Ni dom has to operate. One thing we tend to learn early on is that if we try to express our ideas right away, we end up becoming part of the argument, which is really tedious. It turns out to be much easier to let people argue out the problem themselves for a while, and THEN, when they're really feeling frustrated, propose the solution. Why? They don't know the ins and outs of the problem until they've argued it out, at which point the tradeoffs start to become obvious, when they were anything but obvious before. By chiming in at this point, the Ni-statement is a huge relief - because it clearly addresses the trade-offs to everyone's satisfaction - whereas early on in the conversation it would seem entirely nonsensical.

So to give you another concrete example based on your example, this is also an example of Ni synthesis. I would not be surprised if the oddball was listening to all of the arguments, not really caring about it, but having heard all of the arguments could create a model in his head of what was going on, the model being a synthesis of the thoughts of the people arguing. Take everything that is consistent and make sure it is in the model, and take the contradictions and use their resolutions to complete the model. This does go back to the "remembered patterns" stuff I was talking about before, too, but synthesis is how those patterns are used, because we are usually not using just a single pattern, but a bunch of patterns, and using those patterns and building blocks for an overall model.

It seems mysterious because things that are synthesized often do not resemble the things they come from. A cake doesn't look anything like stalks of sugar cane, grains of wheat, or eggs. And the process to create the cake involves a lot of activity other than just plopping the cane, the wheat and eggs in a pile and turning them into a cake. But if you understand the process and the transformations involved, you understand that particular synthesis. It's just that if you're doing that synthesis inside your head, how the hell are you going to explain it to people? You can demonstrate turning sugar cane into sugar, turning wheat into flour, and eggs and flour and sugar and water into batter, and baking that batter long enough to create a cake, and thus demonstrate that the cake didn't come "from nothing". But for ideas? I can only use words, and there are no words to describe the process in a literal step-by-step sort of way. Even in technical fields where the language allows for the communication of patterns of ideas, a lot of the time ideas just seem to appear from nothing as their pieces just slide into place inside someone's head.

You've pulled an "introverted" kind of thing and tried to relate yourself to the oddball in my example. But I'm pretty sure he was asleep, although of course he was only acting because he was an actor, but in the scene he was supposed to be asleep. Then he said "use water" (very sleepily, by the way) and fell right back asleep again. He was autistic or something (the movie didn't say), like a rainman type. When he spoke, it.was.like.this, and the speech was very monotonic.

When you say you wait for everybody to stop arguing before pulling the thread that unravels the sweater, that's not Ni. It's how an introvert uses Te. (Edit - more accurately, it is how INTJ uses Te.)

As for "but having heard all of the arguments could create a model in his head of what was going on, the model being a synthesis of the thoughts of the people arguing," it could be Ni if the model was an idea or concept created subconsciously, as with my Poincaré example. You are trying to explain something mysterious using psychological terms to make plain what is not plain.

And that's why I favor using examples. Because the examples themselves are plain. I intuitively (viz, from experience) understand Jung dreaming about something represented metaphorically that came true. I don't however understand it. Calling it a synthesis doesn't explain it.

Ni is mysterious, thus this thread.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
And so you will say I disagree with your examples. But you haven't given any. You've given your psychological spin on Ni. I don't disagree with your examples because they don't exist. I disagree with trying to explain Ni because it can't be explained without relying on some kind of mysticism, as with Jung. People have flashes of insight, and we don't know why. You can call it a synthesis, but it doesn't explain the cause.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Sometimes Si types can see themselves as creative, as with the example of this ISTJ veterinarian who claimed that he invented a uterine pump for cows. But then he admitted that he didn't invent it, that these things had been around for a long time, and that he had only built his own version of one.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
One good way to understand Ni (or any function for that matter) is by friending people on Facebook, obviously the active ones in order to see what they post.

I had friended an Ni for a long time but I finally got tired of his obtuseness and unfriended him. But during our time together I chatted him up quite a bit. This guy was not interested in psychology per se, in Jung, and didn't care for typology at all. So he was naive as to introverted intuition.

He claimed on many occasions that nobody could understand him, and that he is unique. He would sometimes post pictures depicting himself as going his own way while the crowd went another way. For example:
37961030-On-the-crossroads-people-choosing-their-pathway-with-one-person-going-in-different-direction-Taking--Stock-Photo_zpsxph5atta.jpg


He posted prolifically but it was mostly mysticism. I never decided if he was INFJ or INTJ. (Probably INFJ.)

His work consisted of leading a monastic lifestyle on a communal farm in upstate New York. He posted a lot of stuff about naturopathy.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So if you want to know what Ni is - it's that guy, or that gurl, or whatever examples you can think of. But not in a stereotyping way, it's in the mode of living and the belief system.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Do you have any examples?

Read what uumlau wrote...alot of it not even in this thread. Its not easy to quote on phone. His beliefs are Ni, his words dont always say what Ni is from a definition, etc. But the underlying data stems from Ni.

For example i know an Ni who went through her husbands email...she is technology iliterate and found porn emails everywhere. She ripped into him because she didnt know about spam and he must have been requesting them. Her Ni was so confident its a stromg belief that is FACT...unshaken until proven by someone else in this case.

Intuition...should be used to dig in further, not speak truth. And NO mad scientists shit...let it go. Its not healthy. Dig, but dont become MAD.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Read what uumlau wrote...alot of it not even in this thread. Its not easy to quote on phone. His beliefs are Ni, his words dont always say what Ni is from a definition, etc. But the underlying data stems from Ni.

For example i know an Ni who went through her husbands email...she is technology iliterate and found porn emails everywhere. She ripped into him because she didnt know about spam and he must have been requesting them. Her Ni was so confident its a stromg belief that is FACT...unshaken until proven by someone else in this case.

Intuition...should be used to dig in further, not speak truth. And NO mad scientists shit...let it go. Its not healthy. Dig, but dont become MAD.

How is that an example of Ni? Women always go through a guy's phone. That's female nature.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
:doh: i give up...you miss the point for the trees.

My point is that there are no examples. There are explanations, but no examples.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
My point is that there are no examples. There are explanations, but no examples.

Well, it isn't as if there are any examples along the lines of, "I had my consciousness plugged into the mind of an Ni dom, and you'll be amazed at what happens next!"

I mean seriously, we're trying to communicate across cognitive differences. The BEST you can hope for is a "good description" to spot Ni types and a general idea of what they're good at and a vague idea of how they do it.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, it isn't as if there are any examples along the lines of, "I had my consciousness plugged into the mind of an Ni dom, and you'll be amazed at what happens next!"

I mean seriously, we're trying to communicate across cognitive differences. The BEST you can hope for is a "good description" to spot Ni types and a general idea of what they're good at and a vague idea of how they do it.

You're Ni-dominant, apparently. If you want to explain Ni, then describe yourself.

Now that I've had some time to ponder your example above, waiting for people to stop debating and then jumping in with a thread-puller is a great example of Ni applied in a Te kind of way. Ni within the mind operates by sudden insight, but it often has to wait for the mental hubbub to calm down first and then brings order out of chaos (Te). It operates the same way outside the mind.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
My point is that there are no examples. There are explanations, but no examples.

For you, there is no examples. Your minds current position will not see them. Had nothing to do with "women looking through (insert item)". Nor is any one example gonna be 100 percent ONLY possible through a Dom Ni user or a user with Ni in MBTI 4 function stack. Until you accept this you will fight every example due to your mindset, not due to the example. Again...i give up, its hopeless with your mindset at this time. May change in the future...who knows...even after this post, but my guess is someone else is gonna have to explain it in words that you can see better.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
For you, there is no examples. Your minds current position will not see them. Had nothing to do with "women looking through (insert item)". Nor is any one example gonna be 100 percent ONLY possible through a Dom Ni user or a user with Ni in MBTI 4 function stack. Until you accept this you will fight every example due to your mindset, not due to the example. Again...i give up, its hopeless with your mindset at this time. May change in the future...who knows...even after this post, but my guess is someone else is gonna have to explain it in words that you can see better.

I gave two of my own examples just above this post, and also accepted Uumlau's example as something indirectly related to INTJ.
 
Top