Ni v. Si - A Comparative Analysis

[teslashock]

You're working from the definitions of the terms a priori. If the definitions say they aren't the same, then they aren't the same.

Well, kind of. Conceptually, from an a priori stand point, the definitions cannot be proven the same, as they are defined to be different.

I understand, however, that the definitions being conceptually different does not lend them merit to the personality theory without actually witnessing some sort of cognitive differences among individuals. In other words, if we can't apply the concepts in practice, then the concepts are moot.

To make cognitive categories that have no basis in reality would be silly, I agree. It would be like extrapolating two subsets from the larger vegetable set and labeling these subsets as "vegetables that talk and don't walk" and "vegetables that walk and don't talk." Conceptually, the definitions of these categories logically necessitate that they be mutually exclusive, but considering that no vegetables walk and no vegetables talk, there's no point in really having these subsets in the first place, so they are kind of moot.

If I'm understanding you correctly, that's how you feel about Ne and Ni. You understand the definitions, and you understand that the definitions are different in theory, but you've never actually seen cognitive manifestations within an individual that correspond exclusively to Ne or exclusively to Ni, thus you see no reason for the N subsets.

I've seen N vs S. When I used to teach physics classes, I'd have to lines of patter, one aimed at "the memorizers" and one at "the thinkers" (an unfortunate name, but it's all I had at the time). For the memorizers, I'd just describe the kind of problem it is, and list the steps on how to solve it, and they'd understand it. For the thinkers, I'd say, "here's how it all works underneath the hood," and they'd just get it, without my having to get really specific.

By using both methods, I was able to get everyone up to speed pretty quickly. These days, I know that the memorizers are S, and the thinkers are N, at least insofar as MBTI typing is concerned. It really didn't seem to matter whether it was NT or NF, there was a common understanding of the intuitive picture.

I notice the same thing when I teach calculus and chemistry to students. I tweak my teaching style depending on the student.

Since you don't feel like you've experienced a notable difference among S-ers and N-ers, then I'll try to lend you a bit of my own experience with teaching (I tutor small groups and one-on-one), and maybe that will help you see that perhaps there really is a reason to create S subsets and N subsets.

Note: I'm offering a situational approach, rather than a theoretical/definitional one, because your main issue with functional theory is that you believe there's no empirical basis for it, due to the fact that you've never empirically witnessed cognitive differences within the S group and within the N group.

The example is a bit long-winded, and I don't really feel like streamlining what I've already written to make it more concise, so if you don't want to sift through the details, then just scroll down a bit to what I've bolded. That pretty much sums it up.

In calculus/math (as I'm sure you know, being a physics teacher), there are many different intertwining methods of describing a theory. Namely, we can show calculus theorems via graphs or via mathematical logic.

I have students, like you, who seem more keen on memorizing mathematical theories rather than understanding why the theory is true from a broader lens. They don't care about how the theory can be witnessed in a graph, nor do care about how the theory can be witnessed through logical statements. They also don't care about how subsequent theorems and mathematical operations that they learn are related to former theorems. They care to look at the mathematical statement and memorize what it says, word by word, symbol by symbol, and recall what it says for the test. They just want to deposit pieces of data into their recall bank, independently from each other, and withdrawal these independent pieces of data for assignments/tests.

Like you, I categorize these above students as sensors, but unlike you, I'd specifically label them as Si-ers, rather than the broader label of S (according to more traditional function theory). They learn by gathering details, memorizing details, and recalling details. They don't attempt to find connections between the details, how the details work, or ponder further on what the details imply; that's not how they learn, so that's not important to them.

I also have students that learn solely by understanding the spatial meaning of mathematical theories (graphically). They are not memorizing, per say, but they cannot fully understand the theory until they see how it makes sense on a graph, and they put their understanding into practice by revisualizing (experiencing again, mentally) the spatial meanings in their heads. They can't really explain the underlying features that make the graph what it is, from an intuitive approach, but they seem to just *get* it once they see the graph. They learn by soaking in the details of what they are doing/seeing/experiencing physically (not memorizing, thus different from what I label as Si-ers). They don't remember every detail of every graph; rather, they understand the mechanisms by which graphs are formed, and they can figure out how physical details of graphs and/or how different graphs are related, and they can utilize this information for subsequent mathematical challenges. Without understanding these spatial mechanisms, they would not learn the material. They have to see it, experience it, before they will truly understand how math works, and once they experience it, understanding comes to them almost immediately.

I would call these above students the Se-ers. They are sensing types, rather than intuiting types, because they learn from and value experiencing rather than conceptualizing. Yet, they learn differently from this other group of S's (the Si-ers) because they are not making a bank for future withdrawals; they are establishing a broad spatial frame of reference to which future challenges can be applied via their immediate experience with the space.

However, in regards to learning style, what I deem the Se-ers, like the other S-types, are still different from intuitives. They don't attempt to understand the abstract inner workings of the mathematical theorem (how the written math applies to the graphical theory, perhaps). The physical experience is enough for them to understand/learn. The intuitives (I'm not going to distinguish what I've noticed as differences among what I deem Ne/Ni learning styles here, as Se/Si should be enough for the discussion at this point), however, do not learn/understand through memorization or through the graphical approach. They need something bigger, something more underlying. They understand calculus by both how the written math works, how the graph works, and how the the written math and graph are related to each other.

I show the Si-ers an image of a graph, and they memorize every detail of it. (sensory details yield memorization yield learning)

I show Se-ers an image of a graph, and they analyze the details and the relationship between the details of the graph to figure out how/why the graph looks the way it looks. (sensory details yield further corollary analysis yield learning)

I show the Ns a graph, and it means nothing to them without further information, outside of the graph. (abstract information yields sensory details yield learning)

I can categorize these different learning styles however I want. I see that the first two learning styles are similar in that they both rely on sensory details, yet different from the third learning style that relies more on abstract concepts. Since the first two are similar, I'll give them both the same label: S, and I'll distinguish the third by giving it a different label: N.

However, the first two are still different enough to break them apart even further. I want to maintain the category that says they are the same, S, but develop a second sub-category, that shows they are different: e/i.

Thus, the analysis of my experience shows me that there are notable differences among two things that share qualities, and that's one way that I justify Se/Si.

(Personally, my experience with Se/Si does not give the basis for why I see merit in the function categories. I just laid that out for you to show that empirically, the categories can be witnessed some where.)

So you can "prove" yourself right based on the Jungian definitions, but I'd rather make observations and actually see whether there is a luminiferous aether through which light propagates: in fact, if it is well-defined enough, then it is fairly easy to demonstrate or disprove through observation/experiment.

Again, I was not trying to "prove" myself right (or prove you wrong). I was just asking for a more theoretical approach to justify your pet theory because the theoretical approach already in place makes sense to me from an a priori perspective, and that alone is enough reason for me personally to see merit in it. Thus, the way I personally saw fit for you to explain (and perhaps justify) your theory was via another good (or perhaps better) a prior theory. My request was based on nothing more than personal preference to how I approach/view typology.

(You, however, deem this a priori approach completely trivial, so my request for an a priori justification for your pet theory will not be obliged, as your pet theory comes from empirical observation.)

I think this represents a really great contrast between Ti (me) and Te (you).

Hey, I'm not trying to "prove" my ideas to anyone. It's just observations I've made, and skepticism of my own w/r to MBTI. My "pet theory" is just that: it's my best guess for right now.

I wasn't asking you to prove it to me. I just wanted to understand the basis of it; I was curious.

I'm not passing judgment on your theory (yet) or extrapolating information about you based on what I know of your theory. I just found your assertion interesting, and I wanted more information, not so I could establish value regarding your assertion, but merely because it's fun to hear your side of the story. I'm a P, remember? That's what we do.

If you can demonstrate what NeTe is like working together, with a good way to differentiate it from NiTe and NeTi, without asserting, e.g., that so-and-so is ENFP, therefore it has to be NeTe, because an ENFP doesn't have Ni, then we have something productive to discuss.

Really, all that we'd need to do for you to see merit in having two different N and S categories is show empirically that NiTi and NeTi (or SiTi/SeTi or SiFi/SeFi or NiFe NeFe, etc.) are cognitively different. I have absolutely no idea how to do that (I tried it with my math story, but that probably means very little to someone who values empiricism as much as you seem to), considering that typology is not an empirical science and that I share no experiences with you, but maybe somebody else is willing to take on the challenge.

One last food for thought:

[I believe I "use" both Ne/Ni] because I can follow SillySapienne's randomness of expression, Ne, on the fly, and can evoke the same should I wish. At the same time, I undeniably use Ni, in a much more focused way, with great accuracy.

Just because you can follow random connections/Ne and/or develop random connections of your own, doesn't mean you're "using" Ne.

It's about what led you to make those connections, not the act itself of making them.

Two different personality types can behave in the same way and think the same things. When they arrive at similar behaviors/thoughts, this doesn't mean that they are using the same functions, though, as the path they took to get to these behaviors/thoughts could be notably different. The path is the function(s).

So, rather than analyzing functions in terms of connecting them with what may be behavioral/mental manifestations of the functions, you should analyze the functions that define your cognition by analyzing how you think (rather than what you think) and how you arrive to your values (not what your values are).

 

[Fecal McAngry]

Thanks for this. This is pretty much how I perceive Si to work. Since it's such a mysterious function, would you care to elaborate more about what it's like? Or how you perceive it to work, especially in regards to T and F?

It's only mysterious to those who don't use it often...

''I think he has some sort of extreme muscle memory...Once he's done a scene and got it right, if you're shooting coverage, he'll do things that you thought were just completely spontaneous at exactly the same speed and energy as many times as you want.''
--Immortal Beloved director Bernard Rose on INFP Gary Oldman (and his use of Si)--

 

[BlueGray]

Yes, you're right, and that's the weaker part of the analysis. I wanted some description of where Ni acquires its seed concepts, but it seems I made Ni users sound Ne-capable. I guess it is more likely to be that Ni users are attracted less to the environment as a source of abstractions, and more to places where abstractions already begin to exist--books, intellectual discussion, stories. And they add to this using the very occasional rip of information from immediate Se.



That is interesting. This is memory of the thought or memory of having had the thought?

I don't really understand the question but here's a further description. Say someone is wearing a blue shirt. I won't remember the blue shirt. However, if I consciously thought "they are wearing a blue shirt" I'll remember that thought very clearly.

 

[Kalach]

I don't really understand the question but here's a further description. Say someone is wearing a blue shirt. I won't remember the blue shirt. However, if I consciously thought "they are wearing a blue shirt" I'll remember that thought very clearly.

So it would seem that Si is capable of "containing" more kinds of "things" than are normally casually referenced when talking of physical sense data. Memory of a thought is not memory of a stone or a birthday cake, for instance. And yet, there it is, apparently "in" Si. Now, I put "containing" and "things" in quotes in that first sentence, and "in" in quotes in that last sentence, because I personally needed something to gloss over what I don't understand too well, the actual Si mechanism, but it would seem that whatever that mechanism is, it can *in effect* perceive more than what I assume we'd call the merely physical. The range and variety of what counts as "physical data" would seem to be considerably larger and wider than we apparently normally suppose.

The question of was it a memory of the thought or a memory of having had the thought was meant to draw out what exactly was stored in Si: the thought itself or some bundle of sensory tags that referenced the thought.


Jeez, no, even that doesn't make sense..... if the stuff of Si is sensory record, then what's a thought doing in there? It's a discrete object or it's a bundle of tags that got joined to a lifetime's bundle of other tags which can be selected from later and named as if it were a single discrete object, rather like the tip of an iceberg is a discrete object........ I don't have enough ellipses to indicate just how much of an uncharted intuition this idea is........ WHAT IS MEMORY OF A THOUGHT DOING IN Si?!

 

[uumlau]

Continuing the discussion from before, rather than go in circles, I found this link from another forum.

I relate well to both Ne and Ni, as described here. I tend to think of them as the same thing with different foci. When I'm trying to solve a problem, figure something out, then it's Ni, all the way, and what Ni does is tell me "Hey, dude, you're looking at it all wrong. Look at it this way." I look at it that way, and suddenly it all clicks together.

Ne is more exploratory and patient. It's the same intuition, but it isn't demanding an answer, it's waiting for the answer to be revealed. It sees all the possibilities and probabilities, but it doesn't focus in and say, "Here, this is what is true."

Both versions of N shuffle through all of the possibilities. Ni focuses in order to eliminate possibilities. Ne focuses to expand possibilities.

I don't think there is any sort of dichotomy to having both attitudes. Just as everyone both feels and thinks, and intuits and senses, I see no reason to conclude that Ni should preclude Ne or vice versa. Of course, if I'm "using Ni" (intuiting to solve a problem), I'm certainly not "using Ne" simultaneously. That would be ridiculous. The direction is necessarily introverted or extroverted, eliminating possibilities or generating possibilities.

Within a person, though, I believe there is an aptitude or preference for "navigating possibilities" (or patterns, or abstract ideas, or any of the other general names for that which intuition processes), or not. If that aptitude/preference is strong, then one is intuitive, and it's this "language of possibilities" that Ni and Ne share. I believe it is far easier for intuitives to appreciate that language in each other, whether Ne or Ni, than it is to appreciate the sensor "language of 'what is and isn't'" (for lack of a better description).

This is why I regard Ni and Ne as "just N". I access both readily, with a distinct preference for Ni (I like solving problems), but with an aptitude for Ne (seeing all the places where an idea or feeling takes you, all on its own, without forcing it to be something in particular). I think it's why INTJs might experience Ne from others as "exciting" because the difficult part of Ni is that one can often run out of possibilities to eliminate, while ENFPs and other Ne types find Ni "calming" because it's often difficult to stop generating possibilities and settle upon a conclusion that resolves the matter.

I hope this clarifies my "pet theory".

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Continuing the discussion from before, rather than go in circles, I found this link from another forum.

I relate well to both Ne and Ni, as described here. I tend to think of them as the same thing with different foci. When I'm trying to solve a problem, figure something out, then it's Ni, all the way, and what Ni does is tell me "Hey, dude, you're looking at it all wrong. Look at it this way." I look at it that way, and suddenly it all clicks together.

Ne is more exploratory and patient. It's the same intuition, but it isn't demanding an answer, it's waiting for the answer to be revealed. It sees all the possibilities and probabilities, but it doesn't focus in and say, "Here, this is what is true."

I call this Ni too. I feel like Ni is very patient; I just sort of float along for months sometimes not really figuring a concept out, then one day *click* it all falls into place. In fact, I don't know that Ni works well with force. I perceive that to be more in line with Ne, scanning the environment for data to spawn thoughts to flesh out concepts or ideas.

Both versions of N shuffle through all of the possibilities. Ni focuses in order to eliminate possibilities. Ne focuses to expand possibilities.

I don't think there is any sort of dichotomy to having both attitudes. Just as everyone both feels and thinks, and intuits and senses, I see no reason to conclude that Ni should preclude Ne or vice versa. Of course, if I'm "using Ni" (intuiting to solve a problem), I'm certainly not "using Ne" simultaneously. That would be ridiculous. The direction is necessarily introverted or extroverted, eliminating possibilities or generating possibilities.

I like your intent of simplifying a preference. I know you are not just trying to simplify it; but that you feel this is how it works, but if you can say this about N, shouldn't you be able to say this about the other dichotomies as well? T/F/S? Do you not see much difference in different attitudes of the same function?

Within a person, though, I believe there is an aptitude or preference for "navigating possibilities" (or patterns, or abstract ideas, or any of the other general names for that which intuition processes), or not. If that aptitude/preference is strong, then one is intuitive, and it's this "language of possibilities" that Ni and Ne share. I believe it is far easier for intuitives to appreciate that language in each other, whether Ne or Ni, than it is to appreciate the sensor "language of 'what is and isn't'" (for lack of a better description).

I'm not following you here.....

This is why I regard Ni and Ne as "just N". I access both readily, with a distinct preference for Ni (I like solving problems), but with an aptitude for Ne (seeing all the places where an idea or feeling takes you, all on its own, without forcing it to be something in particular). I think it's why INTJs might experience Ne from others as "exciting" because the difficult part of Ni is that one can often run out of possibilities to eliminate, while ENFPs and other Ne types find Ni "calming" because it's often difficult to stop generating possibilities and settle upon a conclusion that resolves the matter.

I hope this clarifies my "pet theory".

I could call your description of Ne how I feel about Ni, for the most part; how I define Ni. It's all so very subjective in the end.

 

[Zarathustra]

I've been totally absent from this discussion for about a week (as I haven't been able to spend any time on TypeC), and I'm not 100% caught up on the thread (Tesla's made some seriously dissertation-length posts...), but I'm gunna just inject myself back in with this latest post (which I found intriguing):

I relate well to both Ne and Ni, as described here. I tend to think of them as the same thing with different foci. When I'm trying to solve a problem, figure something out, then it's Ni, all the way, and what Ni does is tell me "Hey, dude, you're looking at it all wrong. Look at it this way." I look at it that way, and suddenly it all clicks together.

Ne is more exploratory and patient. It's the same intuition, but it isn't demanding an answer, it's waiting for the answer to be revealed. It sees all the possibilities and probabilities, but it doesn't focus in and say, "Here, this is what is true."

Both versions of N shuffle through all of the possibilities. Ni focuses in order to eliminate possibilities. Ne focuses to expand possibilities.

Interesting... Intriguing... But true...?

Is that all Ni does? Focuses in order to eliminate possibilities?

How about the generation of new ones? Does Ni not do this at all? And then does Te not take those internally generated possibilities and trim/hack them down, eliminating those which are unrealistic or unhelpful to Te-related goals, thus helping the INTJ to be a "supreme strategist".

Is idea-elimination vs. idea-generation really the difference between Ni and Ne?

I don't know...

I much prefer Kra's delineation:

Imagine, if you will, a sphere looking out in all directions. To my understanding, that is somewhat how Ne works, moving from origin and examining all around.

Well, take the same sphere, and focus from the surface inward towards the core. That is Ni, attempting to see a single point from all possible sides.

Now, I can see how one might be tempted to say that the latter (Ni) takes off from this stance of surrounding the single point to eliminate possibilities that shouldn't actually exist... but, as I alluded to before, is that only Ni? Or is that Ni working in concert with other functions (in an INTJ's case, particularly Te or Fi, or even Se...)?

Furthermore, is that all Ni does? It might surround the object of perception like the walls of a sphere, looking at it from all sides, but is there really nothing more that Ni really does than eliminate possibilities?

What about internally sourced idea-generation?

I don't think there is any sort of dichotomy to having both attitudes. Just as everyone both feels and thinks, and intuits and senses, I see no reason to conclude that Ni should preclude Ne or vice versa. Of course, if I'm "using Ni" (intuiting to solve a problem), I'm certainly not "using Ne" simultaneously. That would be ridiculous. The direction is necessarily introverted or extroverted, eliminating possibilities or generating possibilities.

This I thoroughly agree with.

But here's a question for you, uumlau, that might have significant bearing on another thread I'm in the process of creating.

How well balanced is your J/P?

(Get back to me here, or, better yet, in a PM, cuz I'm of the growing belief that one's ability to use both attitudes of the same function is likely correlated with one's J/P balance, and, considering you believe you utilize both attitudes of N and T, you'd be a great addition to my [growing] observation set).

This is why I regard Ni and Ne as "just N". I access both readily, with a distinct preference for Ni (I like solving problems), but with an aptitude for Ne (seeing all the places where an idea or feeling takes you, all on its own, without forcing it to be something in particular).

I generally don't like the equating of two things that indeed have differences -- it's like saying two things are the same in one way, but different in another, so we'll just call them the same -- but you used quotations around "just N", just spent time delineating the two concepts, and obviously have a respect for what you believe to be their differences, so I can't fault you much.

I do still think, though, that such language tends to confuse things a bit...

I think it's why INTJs might experience Ne from others as "exciting" because the difficult part of Ni is that one can often run out of possibilities to eliminate...

Not to beat a dead horse, but...

I find this really interesting, because I usually think of Ni as generating possibilities...

I can see what you mean by "running out of possibilities to eliminate", but are you sure this is just Ni? This, to me, sounds more like Ni when anchored by Te or Fi...

The way I usually look at it: Ni generates possibilities, Te then cuts them down into what's useful for Te-related purposes, or Fi does the same for Fi-related purposes.

In my thinking, Ni isn't what's doing the eliminating...

See my point? Thoughts? Other INTJs?

... while ENFPs and other Ne types find Ni "calming" because it's often difficult to stop generating possibilities and settle upon a conclusion that resolves the matter.

Hmmm, but I do think you have an interesting point here.

Ne is definitely charmed by Ni in some way.

Whether it's for the reason you're saying, I'm not sure.

I'll have to ponder more...

As always, though-provoking post, uumlau...

I hope this clarifies my "pet theory".

It does.

I'm not sure whether I'm buying it, but it clarifies...

 

[Zarathustra]

I could call your description of Ne how I feel about Ni, for the most part; how I define Ni.

I felt the same way you did.

I'm not sure how I feel about uumlau's description of Ne as idea-generating vs. Ni as idea-eliminating...

Glad to hear another Ni dom user got the same sense of things.

It's all so very subjective in the end.

INFJs and your obsession with subjectivity...

 

[VagrantFarce]

Another crude, blind stab at succinctness:

Si is all about physical safeguarding: a need to take guard of sensations and compare external stimuli to what is known or familiar, thereby knowing in advance what is or isn't trustworthy. Stands against Ne, which is all about contextual dialogue: being in tune with a greater, already existing context and trusting to follow new connections wherever they go.

Ni is all about contextual frameworking: a need to identify and shift perspectives, thereby changing the meaning of symbols and knowing in advance the possibilities they suggest. Stands against Se, which is all about physical dialogue: being aware of and placing trust in one's physical relationship with the immediate environment, and simply reacting to things as they happen, in the moment.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I function talk, so I can't help but to jump in. Ignore me if you like.

Is that all Ni does? Focuses in order to eliminate possibilities?

How about the generation of new ones? Does Ni not do this at all? And then does Te not take those internally generated possibilities and trim/hack them down, eliminating those which are unrealistic or unhelpful to Te-related goals, thus helping the INTJ to be a "supreme strategist".

Well, it's both. But perhaps (just brainstorming) a better way to describe it is to say that Ni is about refining; through eliminating and generating, and Ne is about producing; through connecting and networking. ?

Now, I can see how one might be tempted to say that the latter (Ni) takes off from this stance of surrounding the single point to eliminate possibilities that shouldn't actually exist... but, as I alluded to before, is that only Ni? Or is that Ni working in concert with other functions (in an INTJ's case, particularly Te or Fi, or even Se...)?

Well, strictly speaking, N and S don't DO anything, but provide a way to perceive data, so that the judging functions can do their work. My latest idea is that an Ni dom would use Te/Fe (opposite orientations of the dom) to judge. Our perceiving function makes us biased because it is only lending an introverted or extraverted or intuitive or sensate flavor to our judging functions. As I process a thought via Fe, or grapple with a problem via Fe, Ni 'helps' in its biased way for me to interpret the best course of action. I keep running Fe data through my Ni processor to arrive at the best solution. If the situation changes, then I would return to the world via Fe, and continue to process, or add to it. Same with Te for me.

[[My new idea is that once these solutions are found, they solidify in my brain as Fi or Ti, because once I've found a particular solution to a particular problem, I am not going to want to do it again, and I want to catalogue it in my mind. Fi would be how I felt internally about some Fe issue. Ti would be what I figured out worked by using Te in a unique circumstance. I don't think I use S at all, except in the moment; but not enough to delineate attitude or assist my judging functions, but I'm still pondering all this, so.......]]

INFJs and your obsession with subjectivity...

Everyone's opinion is valuable, imo.

Another crude, blind stab at succinctness:

Si is all about physical safeguarding: a need to take guard of sensations and compare external stimuli to what is known or familiar, thereby knowing in advance what is or isn't trustworthy. Stands against Ne, which is all about contextual dialogue: being in tune with a greater, already existing context and trusting to follow new connections wherever they go.

Ni is all about contextual frameworking: a need to identify and shift perspectives, thereby changing the meaning of symbols and knowing in advance the possibilities they suggest. Stands against Se, which is all about physical dialogue: being aware of and placing trust in one's physical relationship with the immediate environment, and simply reacting to things as they happen, in the moment.

I think this is good.

 

[Zarathustra]

Everyone's opinion is valuable, imo.

That's just the Fe speaking...

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

That's just the Fe speaking...

:steam:

<Hey, can't you see the inTj?<

 

[Zarathustra]

:steam:

<Hey, can't you see the inTj?<

Ha!

Nice try...

 

[uumlau]

Is that ALL Ni does? Hell no. There's always information loss when trying to be succinct.

By eliminating possibilities, I mean "pattern-matching." If I'm focusing on solving a problem, there are initially several possible solutions.

Lets say you have a needle in a haystack. Gonna take forever, right? Ni pattern-matching finds the pattern that points out the needle. By "eliminating" I mean "tries then discards a pattern." The "search by hand" pattern fails. The "search by eyesight" pattern fails. But the "pull out the powerful electromagnet" pattern succeeds. Part of the game of focusing inward as Kra aptly describes is that one uses a library of patterns, trying to look up a specific pattern that is "correct" ... or more aptly, "useful."

Once we have that pattern, we tend to stick with it, though we might refine it a bit.

Ne, on the other hand, writes the library of patterns, on the fly. It's not interested in looking up a pattern: the assumption is that one doesn't know the pattern yet. One cannot settle upon a single pattern. Ne is hypotheses waiting to be explored. After exploring a pattern, one with preference for Ne will consider that subject finished and look for yet even new patterns.

Ni however, stores the pattern in its library, mostly subconsciously. One who uses Ni relies more on the stored patterns, and when focused will often ignore new patterns. One with Ne tends to ignore the stored patterns (they're there, but boring), and focus on discovering the new patterns.

Now ...

I notice how both Z and AGA think that my Ne description from my prior post feels like "Ni" to them.

Think about that for a moment.

OK, think a bit more.

One possibility is that I'm totally, completely wrong, and don't know a damn thing about N, Ne or Ni, and I'm mislabeling everything. I don't think this is the case, but it's possible.

Or, Z and AGA just made my point for me ... it's all just "N". It "feels like" N. Not "Ne" or "Ni". The preference and focus is different, but the "feeling" is very similar, and shared, between Ne and Ni. Ni, when it starts out, seems to generate a lot of patterns, hence the Ne-feeling of it. However, all those patterns are from the Ni-pattern-memory. Then it pares down and focuses on reality (as judged by Te or Fe), and that gives a focus on which patterns are useful and apply in context.

Ne starts out from an initial point and goes outward, generating new patterns that are considered and judged by Ti/Fi, exploring new truths that Ti and Fi possibly imply. The Ne in combo with Ti or Fi does eventually reach conclusions, but it is much slower, and is always searching to expand understanding, rather than drill down and make a single positive statement about a specific case.

One possible succinct simplification of this might be, Ni solves problems, Ne looks for problems to solve.

Another succinct simplification (with inherent information loss): N is "understanding the pattern language". Ne vs Ni is how you tend to use it. F is "understanding the feeling language", Fe vs Fi is how you tend to use it, and so on.

My "pet theory" is that for T and F, the e and i attitudes seem more "ingrained," that it's tough to switch from Fe to Fi or Ti to Te, and so on, but that our intuition/sensing doesn't seem to have the same "ingrained" feature. That an INTJ using Fi invokes Ne, and has kind of an "inner INFP" that is rather moody and often immature, but hidden ... it's definitely not an inner ESFP. That an ENFP using Te will be more likely to evoke Ni (all of this is assuming S vs N aren't about even in preference), and become more ENTJ? maybe? that isn't as mature as a real ENTJ. That the ENFP won't have an ESTJ vibe.

If it seems like I'm changing my theory on the fly, I'm really not ... I'm just collapsing the bigger idea into a limited amount of words. I choose different words each time in the hopes that the intuitive pattern I see becomes clear, as a show a but a single facet at a time, while the image in my head is an entire gem. I'll be satisfied if at the end of this process, my understanding is even better than it is now, even if I have to recut a few facets of the gem.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Ha!

Nice try...

that obvious?





*skips off to intj forum so i can be rude and get complimented for it*

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Now ...

I notice how both Z and AGA think that my Ne description from my prior post feels like "Ni" to them.

Think about that for a moment.

OK, think a bit more.

One possibility is that I'm totally, completely wrong, and don't know a damn thing about N, Ne or Ni, and I'm mislabeling everything. I don't think this is the case, but it's possible.

Or, Z and AGA just made my point for me ... it's all just "N". It "feels like" N. Not "Ne" or "Ni". The preference and focus is different, but the "feeling" is very similar, and shared, between Ne and Ni. Ni, when it starts out, seems to generate a lot of patterns, hence the Ne-feeling of it. However, all those patterns are from the Ni-pattern-memory. Then it pares down and focuses on reality (as judged by Te or Fe), and that gives a focus on which patterns are useful and apply in context.

Yeah, I thought about that. We really need an Ne dom to chime in though.

 

[VagrantFarce]

*skips off to intj forum so i can be rude and get complimented for it*

 

[Zarathustra]

that obvious?

*skips off to intj forum so i can be rude and get complimented for it*

You're cute...

 

[Zarathustra]

Is that ALL Ni does? Hell no.

Ok, good.

There's always information loss when trying to be succinct.

Very true.

By eliminating possibilities, I mean "pattern-matching." If I'm focusing on solving a problem, there are initially several possible solutions.

Lets say you have a needle in a haystack. Gonna take forever, right? Ni pattern-matching finds the pattern that points out the needle. By "eliminating" I mean "tries then discards a pattern." The "search by hand" pattern fails. The "search by eyesight" pattern fails. But the "pull out the powerful electromagnet" pattern succeeds. Part of the game of focusing inward as Kra aptly describes is that one uses a library of patterns, trying to look up a specific pattern that is "correct" ... or more aptly, "useful."

Once we have that pattern, we tend to stick with it, though we might refine it a bit.

Agreed.

I just think that the "honing down" part is actually Te (or another "anchoring" function)...

I think Ni comes up with these pattern possibilities seemingly out of nowhere (I think you are correct to say that, like the other Pi function (Si), it comes from our subconscious -- although, I believe the mystery can go a little further than that...), and then Te (or Fi, or Se, or even any of the other functions, depending on circumstance and an individual's ability and tendency to use another function in coordination with Ni) hones them down.

Ne, on the other hand, writes the library of patterns, on the fly. It's not interested in looking up a pattern: the assumption is that one doesn't know the pattern yet. One cannot settle upon a single pattern. Ne is hypotheses waiting to be explored. After exploring a pattern, one with preference for Ne will consider that subject finished and look for yet even new patterns.

Ni however, stores the pattern in its library, mostly subconsciously. One who uses Ni relies more on the stored patterns, and when focused will often ignore new patterns. One with Ne tends to ignore the stored patterns (they're there, but boring), and focus on discovering the new patterns.

Very good description.

I think you're spot on with this.

Now ...

I notice how both Z and AGA think that my Ne description from my prior post feels like "Ni" to them.

Think about that for a moment.

OK, think a bit more.

One possibility is that I'm totally, completely wrong, and don't know a damn thing about N, Ne or Ni, and I'm mislabeling everything. I don't think this is the case, but it's possible.

I don't think it's necessarily this or the other possibility you mention (below).

I do think there's a possibility that you're conflating different facets of Ni with Ne.

But I don't necessarily hold to that.

I think we may just be in the process of fleshing out exactly how you, I, and everyone else are thinking (and talking) about the subject.

Or, Z and AGA just made my point for me ... it's all just "N". It "feels like" N. Not "Ne" or "Ni". The preference and focus is different, but the "feeling" is very similar, and shared, between Ne and Ni. Ni, when it starts out, seems to generate a lot of patterns, hence the Ne-feeling of it. However, all those patterns are from the Ni-pattern-memory. Then it pares down and focuses on reality (as judged by Te or Fe), and that gives a focus on which patterns are useful and apply in context.

I also think you are accurate, here.

Ne starts out from an initial point and goes outward, generating new patterns that are considered and judged by Ti/Fi, exploring new truths that Ti and Fi possibly imply. The Ne in combo with Ti or Fi does eventually reach conclusions, but it is much slower, and is always searching to expand understanding, rather than drill down and make a single positive statement about a specific case.

Why exactly do you think Ne+Ti/Fi is slower than Ni+Te/Fe?

I have my idea, but I'm wondering what you think...

One possible succinct simplification of this might be, Ni solves problems, Ne looks for problems to solve.

An interesting notion.

I wonder how this might relate to this fact: that all Ns who possess Ni are Js, while all Ns who possess Ne are Ps.

Is there a relationship between solving problems, Ni, and Jness (at least for Ns), and looking for problems to solve, Ne, and Pness.

Quite the intriguing question...

My "pet theory" is that for T and F, the e and i attitudes seem more "ingrained," that it's tough to switch from Fe to Fi or Ti to Te, and so on, but that our intuition/sensing doesn't seem to have the same "ingrained" feature. That an INTJ using Fi invokes Ne, and has kind of an "inner INFP" that is rather moody and often immature, but hidden ... it's definitely not an inner ESFP. That an ENFP using Te will be more likely to evoke Ni (all of this is assuming S vs N aren't about even in preference), and become more ENTJ? maybe? that isn't as mature as a real ENTJ. That the ENFP won't have an ESTJ vibe.

Yeah, I've heard this pet theory in different iterations a number of times.

Why exactly do you think it's easier to "switch" the attitude for Perceiving functions?

I, personally, believe I use both Ne and Ti to a significant extent (although I'm sure Sim will take umbrage with this ).

There's always the question of whether Ni+Te is simply mascarading as Ti, and, to be honest, I'm not sure whether there exists a strong counter-argument to that hypothesis: all I know is that when I look at the cognitive processes test's descriptions, that it sounds like I use Ne and Ti to almost the same extent as Ni and Te, and that I think I might actually use Ti more than Te, which would seem odd, except for the fact that it fits perfectly into my own "pet theory" (that J/P balance causes increased utilization of one's shadow functions, and that at perfect J/P balance, the two different dominant functions [in the case of an INTx, Ni and Ti] would actually both be more highly represented in an individual's functional usage than the auxiliaries of both [Te and Ne], and that, if the same individual were to also have perfectly balanced I/E, then all four "attitudinal-functions" would actually find themselves equally represented in an individual's functional usage).

If it seems like I'm changing my theory on the fly, I'm really not ... I'm just collapsing the bigger idea into a limited amount of words. I choose different words each time in the hopes that the intuitive pattern I see becomes clear, as a show a but a single facet at a time, while the image in my head is an entire gem. I'll be satisfied if at the end of this process, my understanding is even better than it is now, even if I have to recut a few facets of the gem.

Trust me, my friend, I know EXACTLY what you mean.

Yeah, I thought about that. We really need an Ne dom to chime in though.

Tesla? Sim?

 

[uumlau]

But here's a question for you, uumlau, that might have significant bearing on another thread I'm in the process of creating.

How well balanced is your J/P?

(Get back to me here, or, better yet, in a PM, cuz I'm of the growing belief that one's ability to use both attitudes of the same function is likely correlated with one's J/P balance, and, considering you believe you utilize both attitudes of N and T, you'd be a great addition to my [growing] observation set).

On the test that I think had the best questions (one I paid to take), I scored 27% J, so while I'm "definitely J", I have plenty of P tendencies, especially insofar as Fi is concerned.

The same test gave 29% introverted, 40% intuitive, and 83% thinking. Based on my own self assessment, I'd raise that intuitive score and lower the thinking and introverted scores, especially as I've learned about myself over the past year since I took the test. The scores, of course, really don't mean that much, but they're interesting to keep in mind.

Personally, I believe that while I'm very strong with Te and Ni (both are about equal in the mostly-bogus cognitive process tests I've tried), Ne, Ti and Fi score moderately strong, not weak at all. This is why I think I feel an affinity for both Ne and Ni, and regard it as "just N." I can just switch mental gears and do it.

I think a lot of it came from my scientific training. Early on, I was very P, trying to get things as correct as possible, nailing down my understanding, but as I went through graduate school and started doing real science, I became much more J. (Some people argue that one doesn't change type. I think they're mistaken. People grow and mature, and when one is on the "border" between two types, can cross over given time and training.)

I get the suspicion that early on, due to immaturity, most all INTJs look very INTP-ish, until they realize that they like having their life a wee bit more organized and put forth the effort.

Around the 8th grade or so, I was your typical nerd who always loved learning something new, but I ran into something I couldn't quite get. My really cool math teacher could explain the math better than I could, even though I understood the math thoroughly. I could "explain" the math, but most people seemed puzzled by what I said. I realized that I might not actually know it as well as I might, and from about that point on, I made a very strong effort to always be able to explain what I know. If I couldn't explain it, how could I say I really knew it? How could it even be useful, if I couldn't explain it? So that's what I did.

After that, I finally started to learn to write well. Not just correct grammar, but actually forming paragraphs that others could read and comprehend without much difficultly. I endeavored to understand the topic well enough to explain it, and that if I couldn't explain it, then I couldn't really claim to understand it.

Looking back, that's where Te finally got its training. To this day, I habitually explain things to myself, listen to the explanation, and often respond to myself saying, "that's bullshit" and proceed to find a better understanding or more clear explanation.

You guys only see about half of what I type, and 10% of what I think, when I make a post.

I generally don't like the equating of two things that indeed have differences -- it's like saying two things are the same in one way, but different in another, so we'll just call them the same -- but you used quotations around "just N", just spent time delineating the two concepts, and obviously have a respect for what you believe to be their differences, so I can't fault you much.

I do still think, though, that such language tends to confuse things a bit...

Agreed. However, look at it from the "facets of a gem" picture I used. Ne is one facet of intuition, Ni is the other. OK, I guess it's a coin. Anyway, I think some people can only see one side of the coin or the other, while others can see the whole coin, and can flip it around at will. I believe that I am in the latter category. This "sides of a coin" image is a better description of what I mean when I say "Ne and Ni are really just the same single entity, N." Another similar would be the observation that an electron and a positron are the same thing, except the positron is an electron going backwards in time. I'm not saying that the "definition of Ne" should be the same as the "definition of Ni", but rather that the definitions only reflect pieces of a greater truth w/r to N.