# Thread: I know what Ni is now!

1. Originally Posted by valaki
I didn't say inductive logic was Ni. I suggest you re-read my post

But actually, I'll save you the trouble and will quote you the relevant parts:

"Do you think that Ti always does conscious step by step logical reasoning?"

"When I analyse data it's either done by looking at the specifics and inferring logical patterns/logical structure from that, that is, I'm being inductive, and I feel this is Ti for me"

So, what do you think?

Will you show me where that Ti definition is coming from? What is the source of this definition?
"Ti seeks precision, such as the exact word to express an idea. It notices the minute distinctions that define the essence of things, then analyzes and classifies them. Ti examines all sides of an issue, looking to solve problems while minimizing effort and risk."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTP

"Unlike Extraverted Thinking, which is conceptual and generalized, Introverted Thinking motivates strategic action in a specific situation. When ENTPs use it, they don't start with abstract rules and apply them, step by step, to bring about a goal. They recognize themselves as part of an ongoing process, and they keep adjusting their behaviors in terms of the whole picture. [the adjustments are the specific in the deductive general -> specific]"
- http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive...-thinking.html

Here's a Jung description that is way too long for me to read, but I know that somewhere in that description will be deductive logic. http://personalitycafe.com/istp-arti...-dominant.html

If you need more, I'll provide them. I have an entire arsenal.

As for your question, that inductive logic could easily be Ti, it's just that Ti's natural preferred way to deal with situations is deductive logic (as it is more accurate and has less chance for error than inductive logic). Anyone can do inductive logic. Remember that Ni isn't actually inductive, it simply works like it.

And no, step-by-step is closer to Te organization. Ti refines information and could care less how you refine it, so long as it gets refined.

2. Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTP

- http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive...-thinking.html

Here's a Jung description that is way too long for me to read, but I know that somewhere in that description will be deductive logic. http://personalitycafe.com/istp-arti...-dominant.html

If you need more, I'll provide them. I have an entire arsenal.
Now there's a big problem with that approach in my view. One of these sources is Lenore Thomson, another source is just a generic wikipedia article and another source is Jung himself. Where do you see these as being the same theories? They are not. Lenore had her own theory and it was clearly *not* consistent with Jung's theory.

Skipping past that issue, none of these sources states that Ti is deductive in the fashion you did. It's really too bad you didn't have the time or the attention span to read the Jung one, it says nothing about deductive logic at all. Lenore also doesn't really do that.

I'm going to quote:

Lenore: "p. 210: "Unlike Extraverted Thinking, which is conceptual and generalized, Introverted Thinking motivates strategic action in a specific situation. When ENTPs use it, they don't start with abstract rules and apply them, step by step, to bring about a goal. They recognize themselves as part of an ongoing process, and they keep adjusting their behaviors in terms of the whole picture."

How is this deductive logic?

I could quote a lot more from that article but you'd better just read through the whole thing...

Jung: "For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity."

Again, how is this deductive logic?

The wikipedia article also doesn't say anything about it.

So I'm still asking where you got the idea. Is this association of Ti with deductive logic your own conclusion after reading some stuff or are there any sources explicitly stating it in the way you stated it?

As for your question, that inductive logic could easily be Ti, it's just that Ti's natural preferred way to deal with situations is deductive logic (as it is more accurate and has less chance for error than inductive logic). Anyone can do inductive logic. Remember that Ni isn't actually inductive, it simply works like it.
Anyone can do deductive logic, too.

My preferred way to deal with situations really isn't deductive logic. It's a lot closer to what Lenore describes.

And no, step-by-step is closer to Te organization. Ti refines information and could care less how you refine it, so long as it gets refined.
Yes, could care less. So why did you associate it so strongly with deductive logic?

3. Originally Posted by valaki
Now there's a big problem with that approach in my view. One of these sources is Lenore Thomson, another source is just a generic wikipedia article and another source is Jung himself. Where do you see these as being the same theories? They are not. Lenore had her own theory and it was clearly *not* consistent with Jung's theory.

Skipping past that issue, none of these sources states that Ti is deductive in the fashion you did. It's really too bad you didn't have the time or the attention span to read the Jung one, it says nothing about deductive logic at all. Lenore also doesn't really do that.

I'm going to quote:

Lenore: "p. 210: "Unlike Extraverted Thinking, which is conceptual and generalized, Introverted Thinking motivates strategic action in a specific situation. When ENTPs use it, they don't start with abstract rules and apply them, step by step, to bring about a goal. They recognize themselves as part of an ongoing process, and they keep adjusting their behaviors in terms of the whole picture."

How is this deductive logic?

I could quote a lot more from that article but you'd better just read through the whole thing...

Jung: "For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity."

Again, how is this deductive logic?

The wikipedia article also doesn't say anything about it.

So I'm still asking where you got the idea. Is this association of Ti with deductive logic your own conclusion after reading some stuff or are there any sources explicitly stating it in the way you stated it?

Anyone can do deductive logic, too.

My preferred way to deal with situations really isn't deductive logic. It's a lot closer to what Lenore describes.

Yes, could care less. So why did you associate it so strongly with deductive logic?
(Apologies for the antagonistic stance right now, but I'm pissed off by something outside of this)

What do you actually think Ti is?

4. Originally Posted by valaki
It would be interesting to see Ni descriptions from ENxJ's and from ISxP's as well.
My Ni works like an assistant. Like here are some insights related to what's happening right now. It references a lot of things that are happening to my Ti database and makes spider web connections. I can be talking to someone and my Ni picks up all these indicators of a personality type from how they are acting or how another person of this type acted in the same way. It also does a lot of predicting but not very far into the future just what is happening in that moment. I'm also good at reading if someone is lying. So yea basically I can read peoples minds and do a lot of sherlock holmes stuff. I can know someone better than they know themselves.

On the down side to think about stuff in the future takes me a really long time sometimes. I have to keep coming back to it. I rely heavily on using Ti systems and experience to project far into the future. My Ni can also be super paranoid. It will give me flashes a couple seconds into the future of something going horribly wrong or all the possibilities of stuff that can go wrong in this situation. Sometimes shows me too many possibilities when it wasn't really needed over complicating things. I find it best to actively ignore it sometimes as I find it's a type of fear. It works best when stuff is in motion or I'm attacking a problem.

5. Originally Posted by valaki
That's an interesting way to see it. I don't think however that this is just culture, I mean, even though the sense perception isn't perfect, it's still more reliable than the N perception. Also it is more direct.

Do you disagree with that and if so why?
I'm finding myself deeply bored with this topic ^ ^ as you want to discuss it.

What does this Ni-Se integration look like for you?
I would like to correct that, Ni can make a guess based on whatever data, doesn't truly see through the curtain. Unless you say it's got a magical quality, which I don't believe it has.
I always appreciate it when someone who isn't a Ni-dom "corrects" me on what my dominant function operates for me. But sarcasm aside: It may seem magical to you, but that's a matter of a flaw in your perception or understanding. Not my problem.

And I'd try to share more about what Ni-Se perception is for me as a Ni-dom/Se-inf, but really don't feel like being corrected again by someone who doesn't share this configuration and the experience, but feels they know it better than I do.

The future certainly isn't inaccessible in the sense that you can speculate about it. It's just that often we can't know all factors that go into it. Sometimes it's possible though, at least with a high likelihood.
Or hey, you could simply have no idea what it's like to have a perceptual landscape in which time isn't primarily linear.

You're doing a lot of correcting about lived experiences you clearly haven't had.

You need to support your Ni perception with evidence. Or, at the minimum, provide the data that the conclusion eventually comes from. I know for me that's the only way to accept a Ni conclusion.
Wow, this is a great place for one of the emoticons that I saw when randomly browsing to see what's in the list:

======================================

I wish I had cause to use a cuter one, like:

or even

But alas, no.

(I have been reduced to using emoticons instead of words. What has become of me?)

6. Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est
(Apologies for the antagonistic stance right now, but I'm pissed off by something outside of this)

What do you actually think Ti is?
Hey no worries

As for Ti, I guess the official MBTI definition is pretty short and non-specific. I personally really like Jung's and Lenore's descriptions. Keeping it in mind that they are not the same, I like Lenore's the most. By "like", what I really mean is that these descriptions talk about something that I recognize in myself too.

As for which definition is "best", well I can't decide that as I can't pull objective evidence out of my ass to support my reasoning for you.

I still have my questions for you as above

My Ni works like an assistant. Like here are some insights related to what's happening right now. It references a lot of things that are happening to my Ti database and makes spider web connections. I can be talking to someone and my Ni picks up all these indicators of a personality type from how they are acting or how another person of this type acted in the same way. It also does a lot of predicting but not very far into the future just what is happening in that moment. I'm also good at reading if someone is lying. So yea basically I can read peoples minds and do a lot of sherlock holmes stuff. I can know someone better than they know themselves.

On the down side to think about stuff in the future takes me a really long time sometimes. I have to keep coming back to it. I rely heavily on using Ti systems and experience to project far into the future. My Ni can also be super paranoid. It will give me flashes a couple seconds into the future of something going horribly wrong or all the possibilities of stuff that can go wrong in this situation. Sometimes shows me too many possibilities when it wasn't really needed over complicating things. I find it best to actively ignore it sometimes as I find it's a type of fear. It works best when stuff is in motion or I'm attacking a problem.
Thanks for the description. So can you sum it up as to how do you differentiate between Ni and Ti? This does seem like they are really intertwined for you.

7. Originally Posted by valaki
Hey no worries

As for Ti, I guess the official MBTI definition is pretty short and non-specific. I personally really like Jung's and Lenore's descriptions. Keeping it in mind that they are not the same, I like Lenore's the most. By "like", what I really mean is that these descriptions talk about something that I recognize in myself too.

As for which definition is "best", well I can't decide that as I can't pull objective evidence out of my ass to support my reasoning for you.

I still have my questions for you as above

Thanks for the description. So can you sum it up as to how do you differentiate between Ni and Ti? This does seem like they are really intertwined for you.
I currently comprehend Ti as precision. Ti wants to organize all of the information it takes in and put it into little mental boxes to categorize each and every little detail to create the perfect system where each part in it is clearly defined.

8. Originally Posted by Werebudgie
I'm finding myself deeply bored with this topic ^ ^ as you want to discuss it.
You clearly misunderstood my intentions or something or you wouldn't have got so offended. I was honestly curious as to how you see these things, that is, why you think it's just a cultural thing etc etc.

I always appreciate it when someone who isn't a Ni-dom "corrects" me on what my dominant function operates for me. But sarcasm aside: It may seem magical to you, but that's a matter of a flaw in your perception or understanding. Not my problem.
It doesn't seem magical to me and you completely misunderstood what I meant.

I was just correcting your wording so it's more clear, not the content.

And I'd try to share more about what Ni-Se perception is for me as a Ni-dom/Se-inf, but really don't feel like being corrected again by someone who doesn't share this configuration and the experience, but feels they know it better than I do.
No, I didn't think I knew it better; and don't make assumptions about what I would be doing!

Or hey, you could simply have no idea what it's like to have a perceptual landscape in which time isn't primarily linear.
Time doesn't actually exist. So now what?

You're doing a lot of correcting about lived experiences you clearly haven't had.
Praytell where was I talking about lived experiences? Let alone correct them???

Wow, this is a great place for one of the emoticons that I saw when randomly browsing to see what's in the list:
Well it's not my problem if your head now hurts because you decided to get angry and self-destructive instead of first attempting to clarify what I really meant.

My intention with that suggestion was helpful; suggesting a way that will help you get your Ni perceptions more easily accepted by others. You didn't talk about what Ni-Se integration meant to you, in my interpretation what I suggested would exactly be that, integrating Se with Ni.

Also my suggestion comes from my own experience, I can sometimes have hunches but I do always try to clarify them with data first before relying on them. So, I assume it's helpful when explaining it to others as well.

9. Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est
I currently comprehend Ti as precision. Ti wants to organize all of the information it takes in and put it into little mental boxes to categorize each and every little detail to create the perfect system where each part in it is clearly defined.
I actually do that but this is a really complex topic to be honest I'm very critical of most of the actively used categories out there when comparing them to the idea of an ideal, that is, what a good category should be. I do have my own solutions to this issue though

Anyway I still ask you why that would be deductive logic...? I'm still curious if this was your own conclusion based on readings or if you actually saw this definition somewhere. Not that it matters too much but I can get really upset over it when it's not specified exactly which theory some statement comes from.

10. Originally Posted by valaki
I actually do that but this is a really complex topic to be honest I'm very critical of most of the actively used categories out there when comparing them to the idea of an ideal, that is, what a good category should be. I do have my own solutions to this issue though

Anyway I still ask you why that would be deductive logic...? I'm still curious if this was your own conclusion based on readings or if you actually saw this definition somewhere. Not that it matters too much but I can get really upset over it when it's not specified exactly which theory some statement comes from.
I don't remember the exact sources I got it from, but it is ingrained in my mind in such a way that it has to be external information.

The connection is that Precision is precisely (lol) how deductive logic functions. It starts out with a general principle, applies it, and gets a specific conclusion. Ti does near the same thing, it starts out with general information and gets a specific conclusion.

#### 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