Introverted intuition

[Werebudgie]

I don't think Ni can be understood intellectually since doing so requires some kind of reasoning.Ni are sort of like the Zen koans which required the subject to suspend all kind of reasoning and instead reconcile contradictions in order to reach an intuitive understanding of the nature of reality.

Yes yes yes freaking yes.

Jung stated that introverted irrational functions(Si,Ni) were the hardest to explain to others since it stand in glaring contrast to our current mode of operation that values logical and rationalistic processes.

How useful that Jung took the larger cultural context into account. (And as I understand it, both feeling and thinking are considered rationalistic processes in the cognitive function model.)

From their lives, and not the least from what is just their greatest
fault, viz. their incommunicability, we may understand one of the greatest errors of our
civilization, that is, the superstitious belief in statement and presentation, the immoderate
overprizing of instruction by means of word and method.

Go Jung! This puts words to something very important IMO.

Ni/Ni-Se perception does yield action: that is, if we allow it freedom to be what it is, it would show in how we how we move and act in our lives. Ni/Ni-Se perception doesn't yield F or T narrative: rationalistic explanations in words and related forms of communication - rationalistic narratives. By trying to assimilate ourselves into a cultural system requiring us (Ni-doms) to apply such narratives to our perception in order not to be [alone, crazy, wrong, etc etc etc, all the threats about what will happen if we don't assimilate], we can undermine and/or block how it actually works, and it seems to me that we often do it with the assumption that it's for our own good to do such a thing.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Thanks for sharing that example, Hard. The problem I am having is that I think every human being can relate to this example of feeling. So, is it about frequency, do you have these feelings all the time? Or, is it that when anyone feels this sensation it is Ni?

Appreciate any extra thoughts you might have on that. Or another example?

This is always my reaction in these threads about Ni. All of a sudden, Se & Si seem massively more interesting & exotic.

I don't think Ni can be understood intellectually since doing so requires some kind of reasoning.Ni are sort of like the Zen koans which required the subject to suspend all kind of reasoning and instead reconcile contradictions in order to reach an intuitive understanding of the nature of reality. Jung stated that introverted irrational functions(Si,Ni) were the hardest to explain to others since it stand in glaring contrast to our current mode of operation that values logical and rationalistic processes.

It's interesting how people often apply this "difficult to grasp" aspect of Pi to Ni, and less so to Si. People are very comfortable accepting simplistic explanations of Si (perhaps because Si is more common in people), but seem very disappointed when Ni is explained simply. Yet time & again, I see Ni-doms explain themselves rather simply. And other people (including me) are like, "huh, that's IT?". I suppose it's because the Ni type is often touted as something so mysterious & complex, yet it jives more with my experience of them that there's a kind internal blankness there.

Any complexity in Pi types, from the way they describe their inner experience, is more in the results (often because of the contradictions which defy logic yet reflect reality) than the process, perhaps because so much of it is unconscious.

 

[Susurrus]

yet it jives more with my experience of them that there's a kind internal blankness there.

Yes, there's this sort of blankness with Ni doms, I've noticed too. That's a good way of putting it. Kind of like a blank canvas that constantly gets smudges of ink and out of nowhere an image takes shape. The shape may mean nothing but for the subject the shape transforms it into something that has meaning to that individual.

To be fair, though, I don't think that Ni has anything mystical or mysterious about it. It's very simple, in fact. It's just that it becomes hard to explain. Akin to explaining to someone the process of breathing with your lungs. Simple, yet difficult to articulate.

On the subject of Si, I don't think most people know the intricacies of Si that well. You're right, most people brush off Si as being too simplistic and less interesting than the other functions mainly because of the way it has been portrayed in type descriptions as relating to detail, memory and tradition. Nevertheless, it's a fairly interesting process if studied deeply.

 

[PeaceBaby]

This is always my reaction in these threads about Ni. All of a sudden, Se & Si seem massively more interesting & exotic.

Indeed. It seems like we're conflating two definitions of intuition here.

I mean, I can touch a scratch lottery ticket and tell if it's a winner. I'm at a cash register buying something unrelated, no intention to buy a ticket, see a ticket, know it's a winner. Touch it, and it feels like a winner. When I know it, it is. (Wish that happened for a biggie win lol!)

An Ni user would say it's Ni though?

..... it jives more with my experience of them that there's a kind internal blankness there.

Yes, I feel it too, rather, I feel nothing too. I have explored the depths of that inner realm many a time. They don't live there. I used to think I just had to go deeper. By my late twenties, I knew that wasn't the case.

 

[Avocado]

Indeed. It seems like we're conflating two definitions of intuition here.

I mean, I can touch a scratch lottery ticket and tell if it's a winner. I'm at a cash register buying something unrelated, no intention to buy a ticket, see a ticket, know it's a winner. Touch it, and it feels like a winner. When I know it, it is. (Wish that happened for a biggie win lol!)

An Ni user would say it's Ni though?



Yes, I feel it too, rather, I feel nothing too. I have explored the depths of that inner realm many a time. They don't live there. I used to think I just had to go deeper. By my late twenties, I knew that wasn't the case.

internal blankness?

 

[Susurrus]

I mean, I can touch a scratch lottery ticket and tell if it's a winner. I'm at a cash register buying something unrelated, no intention to buy a ticket, see a ticket, know it's a winner. Touch it, and it feels like a winner. When I know it, it is. (Wish that happened for a biggie win lol!)

An Ni user would say it's Ni though?

Ah you see, you're indeed not describing Ni in that example but a hunch. Hunches and Ni are not the same thing, you seem to be describing the former not the latter. Hunches have this gut feeling involved that something is going to happen while Ni is a vision/realization of unrelated events colliding into one possibility.

 

[Werebudgie]

Yes, there's this sort of blankness with Ni doms, I've noticed too. That's a good way of putting it. Kind of like a blank canvas that constantly gets smudges of ink and out of nowhere an image takes shape. The shape may mean nothing but for the subject the shape transforms it into something that has meaning to that individual.

This makes a lot of sense to me, though I never thought about it that way. It seems to link into the mode of a perceiver, or maybe specifically an introverted perceiver. (Possibly quite puzzling or otherwise notable for anyone looking for a presence/self defined by the standard of, say, dominant Fi).

eta: [MENTION=18694]Magic Qwan[/MENTION], does it make sense to you to see it as a lack of the kind of self that would be defined if using Fi as a standard for "something there"? (basically an introverted-judging take on introverted-perceiving inner realm)

 

[Werebudgie]

Ah you see, you're indeed not describing Ni in that example but a hunch. Hunches and Ni are not the same thing, you seem to be describing the former not the latter. Hunches have this gut feeling involved that something is going to happen while Ni is a vision/realization of unrelated events colliding into one possibility.

But Ni can communicate through visceral sense (I call it a sense-metaphor, the use of the body's visceral sense to communicate unconscious information), so maybe it gets confusing in description.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Yes, there's this sort of blankness with Ni doms, I've noticed too. That's a good way of putting it. Kind of like a blank canvas that constantly gets smudges of ink and out of nowhere an image takes shape. The shape may mean nothing but for the subject the shape transforms it into something that has meaning to that individual.

To be fair, though, I don't think that Ni has anything mystical or mysterious about it. It's very simple, in fact. It's just that it becomes hard to explain. Akin to explaining to someone the process of breathing with your lungs. Simple, yet difficult to articulate.

On the subject of Si, I don't think most people know the intricacies of Si that well. You're right, most people brush off Si as being too simplistic and less interesting than the other functions mainly because of the way it has been portrayed in type descriptions as relating to detail, memory and tradition. Nevertheless, it's a fairly interesting process if studied deeply.

I notice many Eastern philosophies promote that form of meditation where one clears out the mind & lets realizations come to them. It seems like these approaches come from Ni-dom - coaching people to adopt their mentality.

It is hard to comprehend such perpetual blankness as the default state, as opposed to an occasional method. It's a paradox of being complicated in its simplicity, mainly cuz you just cant believe it's so simple.

Ne is almost quite opposite - it's FLOODING. And then with Ji you have to tangle it out & harmonize the inconsistencies. And there are lots of sudden insights & connections, but it's from filling up the mind & using stuff as springboards for entirely new concepts, not emptying out the mind.

 

[Werebudgie]

Ne is almost quite opposite - it's FLOODING.

*nods* makes sense. But at the same time ... if I understand it correctly, Ne also has a "perceive and go with the flow" quality that's like the other side of the coin. (the metaphor of currents flowing like on a river and perceiving or following them somehow). In feel, it seems like it's a similar kind of thing as the Ni blankness but just from some other angle or something. Same category, different specifics. I could be wrong. eta: or maybe its more of a mirror image: Ni combines blankness and active approach to action, Ne combines flooding and passive approach to action. Or maybe neither of these things.

 

[Susurrus]

This makes a lot of sense to me, though I never thought about it that way. It seems to link into the mode of a perceiver, or maybe specifically an introverted perceiver. (Possibly quite puzzling or otherwise notable for anyone looking for a presence/self defined by the standard of, say, dominant Fi).

Yes, I may note that Ni users have this detached perspective of the self(I certainly do). There's no definite solid self, just a dynamic-liquid process that change from one moment to the next. Ji users on the other hand(Fi, Ti) seem to have a more firm grasp that there's an definite essence inside that anchors them to some sort of an identity. INPs out there could perhaps shed some light on this matter, these are just my observations.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Ah you see, you're indeed not describing Ni in that example but a hunch. Hunches and Ni are not the same thing, you seem to be describing the former not the latter. Hunches have this gut feeling involved that something is going to happen while Ni is a vision/realization of unrelated events colliding into one possibility.

That's what I just said, is it not? You've reiterated my point to an unknown purpose.

I asked for an example of Ni and was offered what I would interpret as a hunch, a flash of intuition. If you have an example of what you propose as a definition (bolded) that would be interesting to read.

 

[Zarathustra]

This is always my reaction in these threads about Ni. All of a sudden, Se & Si seem massively more interesting & exotic.

It's interesting how people often apply this "difficult to grasp" aspect of Pi to Ni, and less so to Si. People are very comfortable accepting simplistic explanations of Si (perhaps because Si is more common in people), but seem very disappointed when Ni is explained simply. Yet time & again, I see Ni-doms explain themselves rather simply. And other people (including me) are like, "huh, that's IT?". I suppose it's because the Ni type is often touted as something so mysterious & complex, yet it jives more with my experience of them that there's a kind internal blankness there.

Any complexity in Pi types, from the way they describe their inner experience, is more in the results (often because of the contradictions which defy logic yet reflect reality) than the process, perhaps because so much of it is unconscious.

It's because of the open-endedness of Ni.

It can go anywhere, be anything, is always open for new information, an entire reinterpretation.

As someone who comes from an all SJ household, I can assure you, Si is mind-bogglingly simplistic next to Ni.

Same goes for Ne and Se. And that's not even a value judgment. I love Se. Some times. But it is undeniably more simplistic than Ne.

(well, until you get into how Ni subconsciously fuels it, cuz that part is actually kinda cray cray)

(and then you come to realize the functions don't simply work solo)

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Z Buck McFate, What does the "urge to be fair" mean for you - like, how does it show up in practice or could you expand on that some more? (I want to make sure I understand what you mean)

I’m not quite sure how to sum it up, there are so many different ways it can be applied. As HollyGoLightly hit on in her post- sometimes it’s incredibly difficult to understand why someone is tripping my internal alarms (why something seems ‘off’). I want to make sure I’m not just throwing vitriol at someone because I’m feeling bad myself. There are times in the past when I was truly clueless in the moment- though in retrospect, it will sorta blow my mind how clear it 'should' have been. When I'm in the middle of feeling some negative emotional charge- all I can think about is disengaging from the source of it until the negative emotional charge has passed, because I can't even start processing it until that storm blows over.

Or even if I’m pretty certain I’m right- like the 'dust has settled' and it's clear to me that someone was dishing out their own issues at me- sometimes still it’s just unkind to point stuff out just because I can, and I regret it in retrospect. Because we all do the best we can with what we know. If it isn't helpful to the person, then it ultimately doesn't make me feel any better. I like to strive for kindness, but if I can’t quite cut ‘kind’ (because something ‘off’ has built up and it’s too distressing) then I want to make sure I’m as reasonable as I can handle being.

Or I guess a big part of it is making sure I’ve spent at least a little bit of effort considering what the other point of view might be, so that I’m not throwing a lot of emotional work at someone (making them do the work of explaining to me why their position is understandable- when it would have taken only moments for me to figure that out on my own).

It think it's related to something that's been bubbling just under the surface for me. I don't know if I'll be able to describe it but will try:

Ni/Ni-Se information can very usefully guide my movements, one movement to the next. It can give me a very accurate sense for the best (most centered/aligned) action for me given my environment. But there seems to be a lot of external pressure, in my case legitimized and internalized via Fe-aux, for me to do something else with that Ni-Se information - something like creating a narrative to explain what's going on and through that process, trying to get other people's permission or validation before I can act on my perception. Basically assessing Ni-Se information with an extroverted judging function and interacting with that perception on Je terms.

But such judging narratives aren't part of Ni/Ni-Se perception. Letting go of those externally imposed standards - the imposed requirement that I have to be able to apply judging functions to Ni-Se perception before I can act on the perceptual information - is an interesting experience for me. To the extent that I can allow myself to do so, letting go of those imposed requirements feels like a relief to me, feels like I have been trying to do something to Ni/Ni-Se perception that has distorted it. Letting go of the distortion feels really viscerally right to me. The problem comes in communicating with others from that perceptual space. I can try to use words for attempted description of what I perceive, but it's usually in metaphor, images, visceral/gut feel. Most often, that stuff either won't make sense to other people or will be pulled by them into being a judging narrative to the point where the narrative takes center stage and the actual information is distorted beyond usefulness for guiding action (when for me, the point of the words would be a "best description at the moment/best I can come up with in words right now" for functional communication, and not a judging narrative).

I’m not sure what you mean by “Ni/Ni-Se perception”, but the bolded resonates. If you can get your hands on a copy of his book, I think you’d really like it. It’s a quick read- took me maybe 3 or 4 days. [I'm going to have to read through that^ again a couple times, to see if I can understand what you're getting at.]

Overall, there seems to be a lot of push push push, both subtle and explicit, for people with strong Ni to second-guess that perception, to publicly and perhaps repeatedly acknowledge it can be crazy and/or wrong, to try to justify it in terms that other people can understand, etc. Basically to experience and interact with our own perception from the default assumption that it is crazy or wrong (crazy or wrong until/unless proven not so), and then deal with it from that vantage point. This leads to all sorts of distortions IMO.

eta: And now I'm thinking that there can be a sort of overarching feedback loop, something like: The distortions caused by applying Je narratives to Ni/Ni-Se perception appear to "prove" the default assumption that Ni/Ni-Se information should be suspect (crazy/wrong) unless proven otherwise, thus supporting the presumed need for more Je narratives, thus causing more distortions, and on and on.

Do you mean specifically within this forum? Or just in general? I do think I've always felt a push within myself to make sure I'm making sense (as others have already described).

This is interesting, to be sure, and I know there are times when I have not listened to my initial gut instinct, and have regretted it, only to learn later I should have paid attention to that, and made a mess of rationalizing it after the fact, denying myself/something.

However. I can throw out an equal number of times where I've thought/felt something, and been wrong.

So... I guess.... I'm not sure where that in the end leaves me, in terms of what I think of that books' suggestion.

Suppose it's about learning yourself and really, really being aware of the nuances of when your personal emotions come into play? Knowing when you're tricking yourself, vs. not? Tricky business.

You know, the funny thing is- in the first chapter (or introduction, can’t remember) Gladwell states something along the lines of “…and I’ll show you when you can trust this initial impression and when you should doubt it…” I clearly remember thinking, “Yeah, right.” I’ve always been very dubious of the whole ‘trust initial impression’ shtick because there’s little I hate more than someone imposing their half-assed beliefs on me. And it smacked of the usual ‘self help’ tone that I usually have an aversion to (so much of it just sounds so airy-fairy to me). But the thing is- he explained it REALLY well. Lol. I wish I had a copy of the book to refer to right now, so that I could try to paraphrase some of the things he said.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Speculation:

I finished playing chess with some people a few hours ago, and I think I realized how Ni operates.

I would look at the position of a piece, and instantly know where it was probably going, without any forethought, and I think that is picked up from sensory details telling me what squares are being threatened by that piece and its relation to all of the other pieces on the board. In one instance, I was completely stuck on a move that was perilous, with my opponent's queen in a painful position, and I couldn't figure out a move, but then, I sort of realized out of nowhere that I had checkmate on the person in 2 moves with the way my pieces were oriented, it felt as though I had looked at the board from a different angle or perspective.

I've realized how unconsciously I play chess now; I often find myself having situated pieces in positions that cause ruin to the other player that I didn't even realize when placing them. I just went with the flow. Perhaps while functions like Se often go with the flow of the immediate environment, Ni goes with the flow of what's coming next.

 

[Opal]

Speculation:

I finished playing chess with some people a few hours ago, and I think I realized how Ni operates.

I would look at the position of a piece, and instantly know where it was probably going, without any forethought, and I think that is picked up from sensory details telling me what squares are being threatened by that piece and its relation to all of the other pieces on the board. In one instance, I was completely stuck on a move that was perilous, with my opponent's queen in a painful position, and I couldn't figure out a move, but then, I sort of realized out of nowhere that I had checkmate on the person in 2 moves with the way my pieces were oriented, it felt as though I had looked at the board from a different angle or perspective.

I've realized how unconsciously I play chess now; I often find myself having situated pieces in positions that cause ruin to the other player that I didn't even realize when placing them. I just went with the flow. Perhaps while functions like Se often go with the flow of the immediate environment, Ni goes with the flow of what's coming next.

Here's a slightly lamer anecdote that reinforces your point: I play first-person shooters very competitively (chess-like in many ways given solid muscle memory), and my understanding is thorough enough I feel the path of least resistance/most reward, so to speak. Cracks in the opposing team's positioning and their implications are often immediately clear. Chance is obviously a bigger player on a dynamic board, but the sort of real-time strategic foresight seems parallel.

 

[WALMART]

Speculation:

I finished playing chess with some people a few hours ago, and I think I realized how Ni operates.

I would look at the position of a piece, and instantly know where it was probably going, without any forethought, and I think that is picked up from sensory details telling me what squares are being threatened by that piece and its relation to all of the other pieces on the board. In one instance, I was completely stuck on a move that was perilous, with my opponent's queen in a painful position, and I couldn't figure out a move, but then, I sort of realized out of nowhere that I had checkmate on the person in 2 moves with the way my pieces were oriented, it felt as though I had looked at the board from a different angle or perspective.

I've realized how unconsciously I play chess now; I often find myself having situated pieces in positions that cause ruin to the other player that I didn't even realize when placing them. I just went with the flow. Perhaps while functions like Se often go with the flow of the immediate environment, Ni goes with the flow of what's coming next.

Yes, this phenomenon is well documented. It can be called "expertise".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

The ability does not make an Ni type. Same at you, [MENTION=20757]solipsists[/MENTION].

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Yes, this phenomenon is well documented. It can be called "expertise".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

The ability does not make an Ni type. Same at you, [MENTION=20757]solipsists[/MENTION].

Interesting about the actual psychological flow, though I do not believe that to be the case in my first example, as I was consciously searching for a solution to no avail until it became apparently obvious out of nowhere, as if it had simply appeared as a quick, easy solution.

 

[valaki]

It's not perfect. I'm an Ni-dom; I am limited in what I am able to do. I am simply trying to improve upon the skills I have and to make the best of it.

I like your attitude.

Thanks for sharing that example, Hard. The problem I am having is that I think every human being can relate to this example of feeling. So, is it about frequency, do you have these feelings all the time? Or, is it that when anyone feels this sensation it is Ni?

Appreciate any extra thoughts you might have on that. Or another example?

I'd also be curious to hear.

Metaperspective.

More?

The orientation leads to a tendency to try to tip things over in an attempt to figure out what's "really" going on. Sometimes, that orientation digs deep and finds gold beneath the surface; at other times, it mistakes dirt and gravel for gold.

It may lead to an attraction to symbols and signs due to the fact that they represent something--that there's something going on with them, almost by definition. It may also lead to confidence in a future trajectory, as the thing that's 'going on' often points to a process or trend.

It's often a subconscious and instinctual tendency, like anyone's natural orientation, and so it can give a "gut feeling" in its own way.

So every function in the dominant position is a subconscious and instinctual tendency producing gut feelings? Is this what you meant? That would kind of make sense, I find the idea of associating Ni and only Ni with unconscious automaticity - that is, mastery of something practice - a bad idea.

For example, I find my logical reasoning has very similar automaticity. And it's definitely about logic, not intuition, as the result it produces is a logical picture. I can even visually imagine a picture of it and that also only has logical elements in it. Yes it does make it very abstract but it's still a visual picture, summing up stuff so well and elegantly.

In Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink, he explains “thin-slicing”: how answers/insight can surface instantly from the unconscious and how/when to trust it. I think it’s excellent instruction for how/when to trust Ni.

Hey if you get to give us a few details on how/when to trust Ni insights, I'll be really curious to hear!

I think Fe actually pushes me to ignore it when/where I can’t effectively explain it- for the reason Hard mentioned (credibility) but also because the urge to be fair often overrides the urge to give it much weight where I can't effectively explain it. It’s taken me years to learn that ignoring it isn’t really an option- it never goes away and only gets stronger (ultimately becomes more of a problem) the more I try to ignore it (except on those occasions where it came from misunderstanding, in which case it does go away- but that’s more the exception than the rule).

I kind of relate to the fairness part of that. :/ I try to be fair so hard and explain my stance untiringly and all that and then the other party doesn't.

And I do sometimes get a feeling about certain attitudes of the other person's but I try to ignore it just like you and yep it just gets stronger. In quite a few other cases I don't really focus on this at all though, so no feeling of the intentions either or it doesn't get too conscious, it gets dismissively pushed back into the unconscious too easily by me. And then later BAM! stuff happens... and I wish I hadn't dismissed it so easily, the dismissal happens on a subconscious level too, btw.

In Gladwell’s book, he explains that when we question initial assessments- that’s where things can go wrong. We start confabulating reasons for why we think we know it, and that can lead us astray because we believe the confabulations. [I’ll try to come back with a better explanation later if/when I have time- but I second the point I think Werebudgie is trying to make. While I think being able to explain how we got from A to Q to other people is important, I also think there’s value in learning to trust something is *probably* true even when we can’t immediately explain it. It's a hard call- because I've dealt with batshit Ni in others (where they just *believe* their incredibly wrong insight) and I loathe the idea of being 'that person' myself.]

That thin slices thing, it sort of sounds like a way of judging, the wikipedia article even uses the word judge. I understang with jungian theory it's not judging but quite honestly this use of terminology is very confusing. If you make an initial assessment and are instantly convinced it's correct, that's a judgement in my book. How in Jung's view could it not be a judgement?

Most often, that stuff either won't make sense to other people or will be pulled by them into being a judging narrative to the point where the narrative takes center stage and the actual information is distorted beyond usefulness for guiding action (when for me, the point of the words would be a "best description at the moment/best I can come up with in words right now" for functional communication, and not a judging narrative).

How do you know all those people "pull" it into a judging narrative? See, you thought I was "judging", while I was exactly with it like you describe yourself : "best description at the moment/best I can come up with in words right now". Meaning, ready to be transformed further if needed.

I haven't dealt with batshit Ni in others, but I have a similar, though probably not identical, loathing related to not wanting to be crazy, deluded etc. It can be a very powerful self-policing function IMO.

See this was my point exactly in the previous dicussions: Ni isn't crazy.

Apparently you also do not want to see Ni as crazy... So why did you get upset about my point? .... Rhetorical question of course as I know you hate discussing stuff with me for god knows what reason.

This is interesting, to be sure, and I know there are times when I have not listened to my initial gut instinct, and have regretted it, only to learn later I should have paid attention to that, and made a mess of rationalizing it after the fact, denying myself/something.

However. I can throw out an equal number of times where I've thought/felt something, and been wrong.

Heh yeah. Have you ever noticed a difference in the intuitive feelings that proved to be correct vs the ones that proved to be wrong?

I don't have them all the time but I've observed them and so I can kind of put them on a "scale", at one end of the scale it's a very strong feeling and I trust it (I will still flesh it out more concretely though if I can and I usually attempt this and usually succeed). The other end of the scale, it's a much weaker feeling, like it's really hard to grasp it and hold on to it. And I will trust the weak ones much less, in the sense that it's easier to dismiss them back into the unconscious.

I haven't performed a refined analysis of the relationship between the strength of the feeling and the correctness of it but I believe the two are not the same. A weak feeling can still be very much correct and I'm not even sure if there's a difference in likelihood of it being correct compared to the strong ones.

As for how often they're correct, well, if the feeling is related to an area I'm particularly good in, they're usually correct. If not good in it, I will not really have the feelings or hunches much.

I've also had random hunches claiming random BS about what will happen etc. This is very rare though. And it's pretty much always wrong and I pretty much always know it's wrong. It feels like a "fabricated" hunch to me. It feels too magical and sometimes even superstitious and indeed it is. I can always tell, yup.

Btw when I say feeling for me it's not as truly visceral as to actually feel a physical reaction in my body, that's happened before but it's always a reaction to something else, not to an actual intuitive feeling.

Also note that some of these intuitive-like feelings actually end in a logical result as I already mentioned above.

But, then, I don't identify with Ni-dom-ness any longer. Perhaps Ni doms have a better track record at this? I wouldn't know. Though... it's tempting to look at all of the INxJ's in the world (well, all people...any type can do it), with their beliefs of what is true, and extrapolate from that that the act of believing one has the truth doesn't really mean much... not all of them are right, ha...

Lol true

I don't think Ni can be understood intellectually since doing so requires some kind of reasoning.Ni are sort of like the Zen koans which required the subject to suspend all kind of reasoning and instead reconcile contradictions in order to reach an intuitive understanding of the nature of reality. Jung stated that introverted irrational functions(Si,Ni) were the hardest to explain to others since it stand in glaring contrast to our current mode of operation that values logical and rationalistic processes.

Depends on how you define "intellectual understanding". Understanding can also just be a perception of how things are. And I guess to me it would be intellectual when this is an abstract perception or a perception of something that's hard to understand (logically or otherwise).

This is always my reaction in these threads about Ni. All of a sudden, Se & Si seem massively more interesting & exotic.

What's so exotic about Se to you?! I'm curious.

It's interesting how people often apply this "difficult to grasp" aspect of Pi to Ni, and less so to Si. People are very comfortable accepting simplistic explanations of Si (perhaps because Si is more common in people), but seem very disappointed when Ni is explained simply. Yet time & again, I see Ni-doms explain themselves rather simply. And other people (including me) are like, "huh, that's IT?". I suppose it's because the Ni type is often touted as something so mysterious & complex, yet it jives more with my experience of them that there's a kind internal blankness there.

Isn't everyone "blank" internally?

OK, sure, I know some people are pretty verbal. Me, I'm not verbal much. When I think it's usually in a non-coded way, not coded in words, not coded in images. You could call it blank, sure. Though I don't think I'm Ni-dom or Si-dom. I sometimes like to test people by asking them "can you think without words?" Some people will say NO, some will say yes. Lol so funny, the differences you can discover about people's minds.

Indeed. It seems like we're conflating two definitions of intuition here.

I mean, I can touch a scratch lottery ticket and tell if it's a winner. I'm at a cash register buying something unrelated, no intention to buy a ticket, see a ticket, know it's a winner. Touch it, and it feels like a winner. When I know it, it is. (Wish that happened for a biggie win lol!)

An Ni user would say it's Ni though?

Above in my categorization of hunches, I called this one the magical version. And I said it never works, for me anyway. If it once worked for you, you got lucky. I wouldn't call this proper refined Ni.

Yes, I may note that Ni users have this detached perspective of the self(I certainly do). There's no definite solid self, just a dynamic-liquid process that change from one moment to the next. Ji users on the other hand(Fi, Ti) seem to have a more firm grasp that there's an definite essence inside that anchors them to some sort of an identity. INPs out there could perhaps shed some light on this matter, these are just my observations.

Do you really mean that, Ti-doms having a firm grasp of self? Ti is often described as having no self. I'm sure Fi does have one though.

I certainly don't have a static self myself and I might even be Ti-dom (ISTP). Or at least I feel like a Ti-dom in some situations. It's not related to having any kind of sense of self whatsoever, for me.

Same goes for Ne and Se. And that's not even a value judgment. I love Se. Some times. But it is undeniably more simplistic than Ne.

(well, until you get into how Ni subconsciously fuels it, cuz that part is actually kinda cray cray)

Well, get into it. We are in the Ni thread after all

Or I guess a bit part of it is making sure I’ve spent at least a little bit of effort considering what the other point of view might be, so that I’m not throwing a lot of emotional work at someone (making them do the work of explaining to me why their position is understandable- when it would have taken only moments for me to figure that out on my own).

I really like your position. I guess I always have the patience to explain my position (and in turn, hear the other person's), it's just that quite a few other people don't have patience to hear it or even consider the idea of listening, let alone consider the idea of explaining their own position instead of just giving up too fast.

What I could learn better though is, how to figure out some positions of people in some cases, where it's possible to put it together from the data available. Really cool you try to do that.

Do you feel this limits your Ni too much though? Does it never turn out that it was a good idea trying to figure out what the other person's position REALLY was?

I do think I've always felt a push within myself to make sure I'm making sense (as others have already described).

I like this too. I like attempts at communication instead of just immediately judging the other party and consequently giving up. Oh yes it can require energy and patience. I don't mind.

Speculation:

I finished playing chess with some people a few hours ago, and I think I realized how Ni operates.

Heh [MENTION=15886]superunknown[/MENTION] already explained what it is before I could get to it haha

Here's a slightly lamer anecdote that reinforces your point: I play first-person shooters very competitively (chess-like in many ways given solid muscle memory), and my understanding is thorough enough I feel the path of least resistance/most reward, so to speak. Cracks in the opposing team's positioning and their implications are often immediately clear. Chance is obviously a bigger player on a dynamic board, but the sort of real-time strategic foresight seems parallel.

This is usually attributed to Se.

 

[WALMART]

Interesting about the actual psychological flow, though I do not believe that to be the case in my first example, as I was consciously searching for a solution to no avail until it became apparently obvious out of nowhere, as if it had simply appeared as a quick, easy solution.

I remember trying to solve a math problem once. I walked up to the prof, and as I formulated how I would present my problem, the solution just struck me.

It was almost as if by projecting the thought I primed the right nodes in my mind to recall the information.

I told a lengthy story the other day, a recantation of Jung's, and this is about in line with what Jung spoke of when he referenced intuition.

But I would still like to maintain we are speaking of the function, not the intuitive type.

This is usually attributed to Se.

Live with the flow, baby.