Why is it difficult to describe Ni?

[garbage]

One thing that I've noticed is that Ni can overexplain simple things, yet given something terribly complex, can give a simple explanation (via Te/Fe) that yields new understanding to others

Thank you.

 

[Thisica]

Love this thread in its dissection of Ni down to core and explainable components. It's like myth busters!

Yes! I also love the Mythbusters show
We're, in effect, trying to do the seemingly impossible of describing Ni. I've tried, of course, but it turned out metaphorical--so it doesn't quite fit the bill.

 

[Thisica]

Ooo! I like that description of Ne - "an idea is defined [Si] by how it interacts with other ideas [Ne]"

So for Ni, it would be, "an idea is understood by its functionality [Ni] in the real world [Se]." Does that sound right?

That seems right. It sounds like Ni is a function-generating machine, 'seeing' the relationships between events, things and people via abstraction.

 

[Thisica]

Synchronicity.. Is it just a coincidence.?? An intuitive mind rarely thinks so.

Before I was really aware of what Typology was and I certainly had little education as far as the functions go..

I described it as having access to your subconscious.. Everybody does.. or rather your subconscious has access to your conscious mind.
it's probably a little of both. Your subconscious does not speak a particular language..It's knows the languages you know, and might even know every language ever spoken, but when it speaks, It speaks in metaphor , symbolism and mysticism. Even the words it uses when it does speak in a language, are just symbols. Your Subconscious sees more, feels more, hears more, smells more, processes and KNOWS more than your conscious mind does.

SO what if the bridge between your subconscious , which is a realm of limitless potential, infinite ideas and where anything is possible, can be crossed more easily for some? What if the conscious mind in some people, just has a capacity or is more willing, for more reception to the messages the subconscious is sending, 24/7.. Even when we sleep the subconscious does not.
I feel most Ni is just that; Communication between the conscious and subconscious mind.
Some people just listen, can listen, or are more willing to listen, than others.

One thing for certain, trying to explain or even remembering a dream* can be near impossible. But it has left it's emotional and intellectual impressions on you anyway.
Then one day something triggers that impression and connections start being made.. Often very vague connections. often indescribable connections.
It's at this point for the Ni user that something emerges (AH HA!), while for others, it is dismissed. This itself might not even be a conscious decision.

*Dream, being conscious or unconscious, and just a word I am using to describe a "kind" of communication between the subconscious and conscious minds.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but our human imagination is indeed finite: It has its contours, thanks to our natural history on this planet. Thus, there's a limit to what we can theoretically imagine.

 

[Jaguar]

FWIW, in that quote, you did come across like someone who was merely sick of symbolism, rather than someone who was devoid of it

No one said someone was devoid of symbolism.
Thanks for missing the point of my entire post.

 

[Arclight]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but our human imagination is indeed finite: It has its contours, thanks to our natural history on this planet. Thus, there's a limit to what we can theoretically imagine.

Please listen very carefully.. You lost me at "sorry to burst your bubble"
This is because No one is going to tell me what my bubble is .. let alone burst it.
I appreciate that you have an opinion and it might even be valuable, The problem is ,, you have no manners from my standpoint and I refuse to deal with people who don't.
This is tragic in the sense, that had you communicated with a little humility, and perhaps asked me to have a look at what you think, without riding in some high horse and your guns blazing, you might have something worth hearing.
But I am not going to hear it.
That is your loss BTW, not mine.. since my bubble remains very intact.

Thank You

Arc.

 

[garbage]

No one said someone was devoid of symbolism.
Thanks for missing the point of my entire post.

The single word "devoid" threw you off of what I meant? Who's missing the points of whose entire posts?

 

[Jaguar]

You know what- it's not worth it.

 

[Poki]

Anyone who "fucking hates symbolism" or thinks "Assigning greater meaning to things or events is fucking annoying" is in my opinion, the last person on earth with a preference for Ni. What the anti-Ni comments do suggest, is someone who prefers to take information and events "as is," which is Se.

Yes and someone with aux or tert Se/Ni is a conflicted soul who cant determine if they want to stick with meaning or just take events as is. It sucks I tell you...it really sucks.

 

[uumlau]

For someone to claim to be an Ni type while simultaneously decrying meaning and symbolism is probably the most obvious sign a person does not have a preference for Ni. Ni assigns meaning and symbolism as readily as breathing in and out.

...

Anyone who "fucking hates symbolism" or thinks "Assigning greater meaning to things or events is fucking annoying" is in my opinion, the last person on earth with a preference for Ni. What the anti-Ni comments do suggest, is someone who prefers to take information and events "as is," which is Se.

I do not believe your conclusion follows from your observation.

In particular, I don't see INTJs as being oriented towards symbolism, per se. The "meanings" or "symbols" with which INTJs deal are predominantly technical in nature, and I don't have a difficult time believing that a technically-oriented INTJ might say, "Assigning greater meaning to things or events is fucking annoying." Fuzzy-wuzzy touchy-feely symbols and "greater meanings" would be very suspect - if not repellent - to most INTJs.

Symbolism doesn't have an "if and only if" one-to-one relationship with Ni. It's a subset of the many expressions Ni can take.

 

[Craft]

So for Ni, it would be, "an idea is understood by its functionality [Ni] in the real world [Se]." Does that sound right?

Excellent. "Functionality", if defined, relates to "Meaning"(which also relates to Purpose) which relates to "Answer" which relates to "Perspective" which relates to "Introverted Intuition." I know there is relationship between ideas but I cannot defined how yet.

The "real word" relates to a "stagnant world" hence a "non-intuitive world" hence "non-ideas" hence "Extroverted Sensing."

In other words, yeah...

...Ne-Si often considers ideas as having one function. (Either due to a lack of focus on "point of view" or the "Sensing" attribute of the "point of view - function".)

 

[uumlau]

...Ne-Si often considers ideas as having one function. (Either due to a lack of focus on "point of view" or the "Sensing" attribute of the "point of view - function".)

Ah! Ni regards most ideas as overloaded functions. The arguments to the function determine which version of the function is used. This is analogous to words having multiple meanings, and the particular meaning is determined by its usage in context.

 

[Craft]

Ah! Ni regards most ideas as overloaded functions. The arguments to the function determine which version of the function is used. This is analogous to words having multiple meanings, and the particular meaning is determined by its usage in context.

How does Se play a role in this? On what criteria is the function or meaning determined? How is "context" identified?


---

1k posts. woot.

 

[Thisica]

Please listen very carefully.. You lost me at "sorry to burst your bubble"
This is because No one is going to tell me what my bubble is .. let alone burst it.
I appreciate that you have an opinion and it might even be valuable, The problem is ,, you have no manners from my standpoint and I refuse to deal with people who don't.
This is tragic in the sense, that had you communicated with a little humility, and perhaps asked me to have a look at what you think, without riding in some high horse and your guns blazing, you might have something worth hearing.
But I am not going to hear it.
That is your loss BTW, not mine.. since my bubble remains very intact.

Thank You

Arc.

Apologies for sounding a little harsh I just know that the idea of a limitless imagination makes no sense to me...but I didn't realise [when I was typing that message up] that other people wouldn't see it that way. Bubbles are, after all, quite flexible.

 

[Jaguar]

In particular, I don't see INTJs as being oriented towards symbolism, per se. The "meanings" or "symbols" with which INTJs deal are predominantly technical in nature, and I don't have a difficult time believing that a technically-oriented INTJ might say, "Assigning greater meaning to things or events is fucking annoying." Fuzzy-wuzzy touchy-feely symbols and "greater meanings" would be very suspect - if not repellent - to most INTJs.

Symbolism doesn't have an "if and only if" one-to-one relationship with Ni. It's a subset of the many expressions Ni can take.

Symbolism was everything to Jung and his entire body of work which spanned more than 60 years. It's not as if it's a secret that only a select few know. Some have even speculated Jung was INTJ. My, how "repellant."

The only alleged INTJ you can speak for, uumlau, is yourself. Not 10, 20 and certainly not "most." If symbolism doesn't appeal to you, personally, that's fine. To think you can claim what most INTJs would find "repellant" is a bit pretentious. For the record, there are INTJs with Literature and Psychology degrees. Symbolism, and understanding it well, plays a large role in both.

As far as INTJs in this forum, you're not going to catch Z, who is an INTJ, taking an anti-symbolism stance. Google: Symbolism in thus spoke Zarathustra. The only thing I can suggest is you do more reading on Ni. Its connection with symbolism and meaning is well-known. By the way, this thread is about Ni, not INTJs.

Ni - How is Intuition experienced when it is turned inward?

Introverted Intuition reflects on patterns, relationships, symbols, meanings, and perspectives on matters from complex phenomena to magical connections to practical problems. The Introverted Intuitive mind typically creates a unique vision and arrives at unique insights about things, phenomena, or people. It strives to discover the essence of things and fill in the missing pieces of a puzzle. Introverted Intuitive types frequently will have complex visions or perspectives that they are unable to explain with clarity to others.

http://www.personalitypathways.com/16-personality-types2.html

Proposed definition #4: Just knowing

Ni is a way of knowing (or at least thinking you know) that bypasses reason, facts, evidence, the expected or intended interpretations of signs, or anything you can point to, simply giving you an awareness or belief that seems indisputably true to you, period. You can't tell by introspection how you got this idea. There is no thought process. There is only tuning into this form of awareness and just knowing.

For example: You've been interviewing candidates for a job. One of them has all the credentials, and scored the highest on all the company-defined criteria for the job. Another of them was pretty good but not in the same league. You have a sense about the high-scorer, though, that he's bad news, and that the "so-so" one will work out well. You can't point to anything that's let you to this conclusion, you can't justify your belief, but you have this sense just the same. To trust this unjustifiable idea is to orient by introverted intuition.

http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exegesis/Introverted_Intuition

Introverted iNtuition (Ni)

* Foreseeing
* Conceptualizing
* Understanding complex patterns
* Synthesizing and symbolizing
* Future

"This is how it will be."
"Aha, that's it!"

When Ni is a preferred process:

* You usually feel a certainty about what is going to happen, often without much detail and without being able to trace the actual data that would support the prediction.
* You focus on "what will be."
* You are energized by transformational visions of how someone can grow or of a completely original approach to get there.
* You are drawn to make those visions manifest.
* Frequently you experience flashes of insight that present themselves as broad themes and patterns or systems of thought without being triggered by external events.
* Inner images come as a knowing that taps into universal symbols and with a certainty that they are true.

Introverted Intuiting is about Seeking Insights and Meanings

It focuses on:

* Identifying underlying meaning
* Identifying the inter-relatedness of data
* Synthesizing the information to reveal the "golden nuggets"

Its approach is to:

* Just state how or what action to take
* Rely on insight to develop vision for the future
* Envision without the need for tangible support

Introverted Intuiting's verbal communications are delivered in absolutes with a quest for meaning, i.e.:

* "Why?"
* Identifying the hidden meaning
* States what is going on behind the scenes

Introverted Intuiting's nonverbal cues are: reflective, serious, and confident; may appear complex, disengaged; could appear hesitant to respond.

To build rapport with introverted Intuiting, we can try:

* Providing a theoretical framework
* Using symbolic, conceptual language
* Relating concrete experience to theories
* Asking them to show you how they made their connections
* Asking for the long-term vision

http://books.google.com/books?id=aU72zjdGckIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[ThatGirl]

In these references it seems that Jung is speaking about "symbols" as a type of abstract language.

Which is a lot different than assigning meaning to something that it doesn't have to begin with.

Perhaps my use of the word symbolism was inaccurate. I was speaking about people taking a rock, saying this is the rock of life, and giving universal meaning to it. At the end of the day, it is still just a rock.

It would be far more accurate to find the meaning of the rock and how it pertains to life, and give that the title.

I have no inability to grasp symbolic language, meanings, or patterns.

Just like the Emperor's New Clothes, just because someone says this is the most wonderful and fashionable outfit in the world, and other people buy it, doesn't mean that actually is.

Nor should it be fought over, worshiped, or given any other special attention.

 

[Kalach]

Well for you it was a car, for me it was a picture.

Both happen upon a glance.

I just looked at the hand and instantly knew this was a sensitive, and artistic person, who was a bit of a perfectionist, and probably overly judgmental of others, though is likely to govern themselves by the same standards, and picky as hell, with an eye for detail.

Synthesize that information together, and you have a pretty good idea who the person is, and even more so, how they are likely to interpret certain situations. By this time, you are taking the next action, or making the next comment, you already have an idea of 1 of 3 ways the person will feel or act from that point. Each bit of information just re-tweaking the existing model into a bigger and bigger in depth understanding. Verifying much of what you already knew was true, and throwing out the parts that were just general assumptions. Then you have a complete perspective, and that ahh moment.

Thats when they say the next sentence..... and suddenly you realized the conversation has only progressed two sentences worth. Lol.

That is usually when I smile. And look at the person with utter amusement. They are like....what?

Thats how it works for me. If that isn't Ni wtf is it?





Yes

Really? Ni is extroverted now?

Whatever you're talking about here, and it could easily be Ni, is filtered through something extroverted dominating it.





And potentially, that's why describing Ni is difficult: because most people describe something filtered through own dominant perspectives and imperatives, or reject descriptions that fail to satisfy same.

There's something odd hidden away in there about different consciousnesses being like different dialects, some more or less mutually understandable, some not. It's odd because it demonstrates claims something about consciousness itself.

 

[Thisica]

We endow the things we care about with meaning. For me, this is obvious. To others, not so much. Hence the symbolism. But this symbolism need not be mysterious.

 

[Jaguar]

I was speaking about people taking a rock, saying this is the rock of life, and giving universal meaning to it. At the end of the day, it is still just a rock.

Is that the best you can do?

 

[ThatGirl]

Really? Ni is extroverted now?

Whatever you're talking about here, and it could easily be Ni, is filtered through something extroverted dominating it.





And potentially, that's why describing Ni is difficult: because most people describe something filtered through own dominant perspectives and imperatives, or reject descriptions that fail to satisfy same.

There's something odd hidden away in there about different consciousnesses being like different dialects, some more or less mutually understandable, some not. It's odd because it demonstrates something about consciousness itself.

I don't think we make up the information that we work with. Part of Ni, in my opinion, is recognizing all relevant factors.

I also agree on why you think Ni is hard to define. Those factors are going to be subjective, unless universally taken in by the same receptive function.

Since Ni happens in the mind, and not in the environment, people are skipping a step from A-Z.

The process by which we take in information.

From this conclusion it may be that Ni users are excellent perceivers of minute, otherwise unrecognizable, sensory detail.

This whole thing is the chicken or the egg. With the answer being in where you spend most of your time. Gathering, or synthesizing. I tend to gather quickly, and synthesize slower. Due to the amount of information I need.

As compared to say, an Ne Ti user, who would gather more information (slower due to the mechanics of volume), then synthesize it quicker, if at all. They spend more of the meta second taking in more, more, more, information than understanding it. If anything they rework it to see what else they can make.


That was probably a stupid thing to say, just a theory. I never read Jung or anyone else. As a matter of fact the only thing I have read was Keirsy's Please Understand Me. Forgive my lack of specific knowledge.