[MBTI General] Ni vs Ne

[draon9]

How to differientiate ni and ne?
Ni is connecting ideas and dots and seeing what they believe will happen. Ne is seeing multiple possible outcomes in the future or seeing things that probably have happen.
Remember they are not logic base functions,they're more your intuition base functions. A good example of ni using is when rin tohsaka always say that she had a hunch something like this might happen especially in the fate stay 2006 version or Jimmy Kudo from Case Close always says I know who the murderer is,them aha moments. A good example of Ne would be the phrase anything is possible, or coming up with a new concept or idea, the idea of forcefields or shrinking people to microscopic sizes.Both of them are perception functions,not very decisive functions,but they go opposite ways. In short Ni users use their gut and coming up with scenarios in their head to see the clear outcome and Ne users are the idea guy and come up with good concepts

 

[lunalum]

Vision vs Potential is a very stripped down way I've been framing it lately. Those heavy in Ne would have a tendency to be frustrated when a single vision or insight is hastily taken as a truth, while I'd imagine that those heavy in Ni would be annoyed when someone does a "yeah but maybe it could..." to a solid in-depth insight. Would dismiss this approach as shallow (Ni as filtered through judging function?) But in an Ne mindset nothing is ever a closed case and it is foolish to think it is (also as filtered through judging function?). Yeah this may seem overly antagonistic but IMO ithey really are antagonists and this antagonism helps to see how they are different. Thank goodness for other functions to reign them in (Yes even Ni doms and Ne doms have other cognitive mindsets to keep these in check lol)

 

[Maou]

At this point, I think big picture, theory and possibility = Ne. Ni = reliance on fact, data, and hard knowledge, even if inaccurate in theory. Ni need data to proceed. Ne can use whatever, at any given point, to come to a conclusion.

 

[lunalum]

My suspicion is that the stronger intuition is in their cognitive stack, the more they are in tune and frustrated when they see "intuition done wrong." An extraverted intuitive may become disturbed at heavily-Ni influenced sentiments (like... very abstracted statement on the future without going into what and how the different things could change... remember Ne at heart is "objective" and outward-oriented) or undeveloped catastrophizing Ne-influenced sentiments (like ...what if 5G is what is poisoning us, must be effecting this that and that and we're all gonna die). And a similar dynamic for introverted intuitives. I suspect there is an ironic sort of certainty that can come from prioritization of an intuitive function and that is rarely taken into account.

Though I am rusty at JCF stuff so I could be a bit off the mark here. That and I have less experience/understanding of Ni so yeah would be good for someone who actually has that function in their top stack to elaborate on it

 

[lunalum]

At this point, I think big picture, theory and possibility = Ne. Ni = reliance on fact, data, and hard knowledge, even if inaccurate in theory. Ni need data to proceed. Ne can use whatever, at any given point, to come to a conclusion.

Really now? That must be why I failed as a Ne-dom lmao. My mind is always hungry for the info and needs lots of it to make things of it. Very frustrating to be expected to make something from nothing. Without solid springboard there is no jumping. So in your theory and experience... ENxP springboard is already solid by default?

 

[Maou]

Really now? That must be why I failed as a Ne-dom lmao. My mind is always hungry for the info and needs lots of it to make things of it. Very frustrating to be expected to make something from nothing. Without solid springboard there is no jumping. So in your theory and experience... ENxP springboard is already solid by default?

I'd be hesitant to say solid. Its like common sense vs experience. Ne-Ti makes do with what they know, till they know (with a higher probability of being wrong, but risk it anyways). Ni-Te doesn't usually act till they know for sure, but sometimes reacts on instinct if they think they know how it will play out. But hey, don't take my words too seriously lol. Not a lot of people agree with me on anything.

 

[Pionart]

I'd be hesitant to say solid. Its like common sense vs experience. Ne-Ti makes do with what they know, till they know (with a higher probability of being wrong, but risk it anyways). Ni-Te doesn't usually act till they know for sure, but sometimes reacts on instinct if they think they know how it will play out. But hey, don't take my words too seriously lol. Not a lot of people agree with me on anything.

There's truth to this in the sense that Ne goes for a wider range of guesses, and Ni tries to make a single, strong, comprehensive guess. Using the terms fact or data doesn't sound right though. Ni is very much based on guesses a lot of the time, and the word "theory" applies more to Ni than Ne I think because a theory is usually unified. I guess theory still applies to Ne but it's more a collection of inter-related guesses, rather than an underlying idea.

 

[RadicalDoubt]

At this point, I think big picture, theory and possibility = Ne. Ni = reliance on fact, data, and hard knowledge, even if inaccurate in theory. Ni need data to proceed. Ne can use whatever, at any given point, to come to a conclusion.

What you're describing as Ni here sounds more Te, or at least very xNTJ skewed. I find a weakness in high Ni on it's own, especially when unpaired with Te, is that it is often not entirely aware of the dataset that it's working with.

For Ni and Ne, I often use single minded and slow moving vs possibilities and ping ponging. I like vision as it is associated with Ni, even if the Ni user is indecisive, there seems to always be some sort of directional focus and relatively linear. There process comes across "mystical" and "abstract" only because their process of "intuition" is very unconscious and instinctual. Like Si, Ni runs it's abstractions and intuitions through their own perspective and sentiment, there's no reason for them to be possibility oriented because Ni (along side the J functions, the data set style you were mentioning) automatically has a feel for which abstractions work and don't. Especially dom Ni I've noticed tend to have a slow processing speed (not like... Thinking processing, but like environmental processing) and tend to be pretty deliberate regardless of secondary function. Regardless of secondary function, I notice high Ni either has paragraph explanations for everything or nonexistent explanations depending on how developed their ability is to understand where they are getting their "incites" (for lack of a better word).

I agree with what you said about Ne, Ne is really the archetypal version of intuition (kind of like Se is the archetypal version of sensing). It's theoretical, possibilities oriented, and abstract. Ne tends to be considerably more flexible and perhaps excessively open to possibility. All information is considered, and then it's categorized based on what or what doesn't make sense because Ne is all very.... Externally oriented. Ne tends to be mutable and adapting rather than certain and unchanging, even with more decisive versions of the type. Thinking is far less linear, especially with dominant Ne users who tend to ping pong ideas all over the place.