## User Tag List

1. I guess Ni and Ti can only work when one is deferring to the other (a la ISTP or INFJ) but would not be able to work together as equals (hence the usual friction between INTJs and INTPs).

2. Hmmm I think Ni and Ti can work together so long as one understands the need for the other.

The ISTP - INFJ is a good example. sometimes

As to the friction between INTJ and INTP. I will say you need to look into auxiliary functions.

INTJ - Ni Te
INTP - Ti Ne
Namely... Ni crashing into Ne and Ti crashing into Te. You don't get this with ISTP - INFJ.

3. But what about when there is no friction between an INTJ and an INTP?

I've seen it happen. I've seen this pair talking to one another, yet having two different conversations.

With this I say Ni and Ti kind of just stay out of one another's way.

The INTJ might use some kind of a metaphor, I guess to allow Ni to do what it wanted while still presenting itself as if it were attending the same subject as the INTP who 'leads' the conversation more directly.

4. Originally Posted by nightning
Hmmm I think Ni and Ti can work together so long as one understands the need for the other.

The ISTP - INFJ is a good example. sometimes.
Yet since Ni and Ti are the teritiary for the two aforementioned, they would actually hold the types back, ie ISTP doesn't trust their intuition and INFJ finds analyzing a problem to be arduous. Again they both enjoy complexity, but will work through it differently with similar results.

5. My problems with Ni is that Ti needs a stable frame of reference in order to build something, while Ni automatically jerks the rug out from underneath -- "What you say, Ti, makes sense if you look at it from THAT angle... but what if you look at it from THIS angle?"

You build a house (Ti) in one dimension, the house does not exist if you bamf into a different one. Or the rules of nature that exist in one dimension might not exist or exist differently in a different one.

So Ni can easily *invalidate* any structure Ti creates, without offering anything in its place.

(This struggle was highly pronounced in faith/spiritual issues for me. I based on my faith on Ti thinking for a long time, despite some friction, but eventually stepped outside of the the assumptions I had needed to make in order to build that spiritual edifice and suddenly had NOTHING to stand on. Anything Ti built seemed arbitrary.)

So Ne helped Ti for the INTP to see connections and know "where to dig" ... but the inverse Ni says, "It doesn't matter what you dig up, there are endless meanings and so you cannot derive any true meaning from your finds."

There is ultimate reality that can be defined to some degree vs there is no ultimate reality, it's all a matter of what you're focusing on.

One way I use them together is to connect with or understand others. I can leap into the shoes of someone else (see the world through their framework = Ni) and then use Ti to immediately crunch through, based on the assumptions, the ramifications of their view. It's helpful that way. Ni is used to orient, then Ti is used to make sense of what I'm seeing.

6. Originally Posted by Jennifer
My problems with Ni is that Ti needs a stable frame of reference in order to build something, while Ni automatically jerks the rug out from underneath -- "What you say, Ti, makes sense if you look at it from THAT angle... but what if you look at it from THIS angle?"

You build a house (Ti) in one dimension, the house does not exist if you bamf into a different one. Or the rules of nature that exist in one dimension might not exist or exist differently in a different one.

So Ni can easily *invalidate* any structure Ti creates, without offering anything in its place.

(This struggle was highly pronounced in faith/spiritual issues for me. I based on my faith on Ti thinking for a long time, despite some friction, but eventually stepped outside of the the assumptions I had needed to make in order to build that spiritual edifice and suddenly had NOTHING to stand on. Anything Ti built seemed arbitrary.)

So Ne helped Ti for the INTP to see connections and know "where to dig" ... but the inverse Ni says, "It doesn't matter what you dig up, there are endless meanings and so you cannot derive any true meaning from your finds."

There is ultimate reality that can be defined to some degree vs there is no ultimate reality, it's all a matter of what you're focusing on.

One way I use them together is to connect with or understand others. I can leap into the shoes of someone else (see the world through their framework = Ni) and then use Ti to immediately crunch through, based on the assumptions, the ramifications of their view. It's helpful that way. Ni is used to orient, then Ti is used to make sense of what I'm seeing.

I like the way you think.

Premise 1) "Ni automatically jerks the rug out from underneath -- "What you say, Ti, makes sense if you look at it from THAT angle... but what if you look at it from THIS angle?"

Premise 2) Ni says, "It doesn't matter what you dig up, there are endless meanings and so you cannot derive any true meaning from your finds."

Conclusion) So Ni can easily *invalidate* any structure Ti creates, without offering anything in its place.

But...

"There is ultimate reality that can be defined to some degree vs there is no ultimate reality, it's all a matter of what you're focusing on."

Ti reasserts itself with a vengence!

If it were impossible to derive true meaning, then even this statement would be meaningless. But, despite Ni's shennanigans, Ti asserts that at least one meaningful distinction can be made. What are the prerequistes that make this distinction possible, and, once they are in place, what are their implications?

7. Originally Posted by Owl
"There is ultimate reality that can be defined to some degree vs there is no ultimate reality, it's all a matter of what you're focusing on."

Ti reasserts itself with a vengence!

If it were impossible to derive true meaning, then even this statement would be meaningless.
Sigh. I guess we can try to cover our trail, but the fingerprints and forensic evidence still remains.

I can use Ni, but it's not my natural frame ... Our basic approach to the problem is still always rooted in our natural perception/style of thinking. I'm still framing Ni within Ti, even while I'm saying Ti is constantly being encompassed by Ni.

Nice catch.

But, despite Ni's shennanigans, Ti asserts that at least one meaningful distinction can be made. What are the prerequistes that make this distinction possible, and, once they are in place, what are their implications?
I'll need more time to consider this, but if anyone else would like to take a shot at it... well, the more, the merrier.

8. Originally Posted by "?"
Yet since Ni and Ti are the teritiary for the two aforementioned, they would actually hold the types back, ie ISTP doesn't trust their intuition and INFJ finds analyzing a problem to be arduous. Again they both enjoy complexity, but will work through it differently with similar results.
Yes, that can happen. Hence my qualifier... "sometimes".

Originally Posted by Owl
Premise 1) "Ni automatically jerks the rug out from underneath -- "What you say, Ti, makes sense if you look at it from THAT angle... but what if you look at it from THIS angle?"

Premise 2) Ni says, "It doesn't matter what you dig up, there are endless meanings and so you cannot derive any true meaning from your finds."

Conclusion) So Ni can easily *invalidate* any structure Ti creates, without offering anything in its place.
From the Ni dominant perspective, it's a given that there's is no sensible way you can analyze something from every angle. Therefore you must derive the truth from patterns you see based on the angles you did look at. Perhaps that's the main difference between the use of Ni from INXJs compared to IXTPs. Trust in its use.

If it were impossible to derive true meaning, then even this statement would be meaningless. But, despite Ni's shennanigans, Ti asserts that at least one meaningful distinction can be made. What are the prerequistes that make this distinction possible, and, once they are in place, what are their implications?
I'll be waiting to hear the answers from the IXTPs.

9. I like working with Ti Ne people because they come up with lots of stuff for me to work with. As long as they have faith in my Ni to discern whether it will work, and trust when I try to use Te to explain my Ni, it usually works really well.

Besides, they understand my sense of humour and usually have a better one than I do.

10. Originally Posted by nightning
From the Ni dominant perspective, it's a given that there's is no sensible way you can analyze something from every angle. Therefore you must derive the truth from patterns you see based on the angles you did look at. Perhaps that's the main difference between the use of Ni from INXJs compared to IXTPs. Trust in its use.
?

But how do you know when you have looked at enough patterns?

That the patterns you have seen are representative of the infinite number of patterns possible?

Is there a way to do that, or is that just a personal choice?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO