Eric B
ⒺⓉⒷ
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,621
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 548
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/sx
This helps make it click a little better for me. I originally went with the whole time orientation expression (Se what is, Si, what was, Ne what could be, Ni what will be), because it was the easiest way to understand the functions in relation to each other. Yet the whole "future" orientation of Ni made it hard to really grasp as a normal cognitive process and not as some mystical power. The other descriptions then focused on stuff like "connections", "knowings", etc but then Ne was often described with similar language.I mean, the pure mystical/'revelation' piece doesn't even make sense, really, as a dominant process...that would be like the dom-Ni having his prime mode of being consisting of pure mysticism. I mean, it's not like dom-Ni users are having 'revelations' 24/7...that's silly...so what would the dom-Ni user be doing the other 95% of the time when he's not having a supposed revelation?
I think this is good. I often view my thought process as more of a spider web - just linking stuff together, pulling from various sources with the aim being to hone in on something. I think Blackcat's illustration, although simpler, is appropriate, as is what Jane concluded about the differences between Ne/Ni...the general tendency for Ni to hone inwards -- pulling from many points with the desired goal to tie all of it together in some way or find some overall theme, vs. Ne's tendency to have a starting point and branch out from there.
And, as Blackcat says, Ni is really more about multiple perspectives and shifting. A very fluid inner world, but again, with a desire to tie all of it together somehow. And tying it all together can take quite some time, and it isn't always an 'active' process. But once we tie it all together, we have sort of a completed product, if you will. It's why when new information comes in, it might take a while to assimilate that new information into our overall 'vision' -- because you're dealing with a spider web in your mind and you have to reallign all of the connections; break apart some links created previously, to account for the new piece.
(I also added a few other comments on this topic here - http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nf-idyllic/25147-ni-infjs-3.html#post956157 - and you can review other Ni's viewpoints (some differing) as well)
So then saying that Ne starts with a focal point and then makes multiple connections, while Ni starts with multiple points and then tries to focus them together makes more of a clearer distinction. Still trying to match this to the notion of Ni being "internally" focused rather than external. Both are looking at external objects, so I guess for Ni, it's the focal point that is internal, and thus that wherever the focal point is, is the orientation?