# Thread: Ne/Ni Jungian Cognitive Function Interaction

1. How does a Ni dominant "giving space" to someone he/she likes differ from "ignoring" or "avoiding" someone they don't like, then?

2. If I'm giving space and you try to contact me, I will let you; in other words, if you call, I'll answer the phone, or if you email, I will answer the email.

If I'm ignoring or avoiding, I don't answer anything.

3. Forget for a moment that Ne, Ni, Se and Si are cognitive functions. I've been thinking about these, too, and there are some analogies that help.

First note that Ne goes with Si, and Se goes with Ni, and for the moment consider only objective observations/judgments.

Ne builds upon an Si foundation.
Ni fills in the details of an Se foundation.

The direction is arbitrary. The nature of the foundation depends on whether it's Tx or Fx.

Consider thermodynamics at several levels. At the most basic, you have observed heat transfer. At a deeper level, you have a concept of entropy, which makes heat transfer equations work out. At an even deeper level, you have statistical physics, which explains why entropy exists at all.

From an empirical level (Te), you can start with heat transfer (Se) and use Ni to deduce entropy, and from entropy, deduce particle statistics.

From a Ti standpoint, you can start with particle statistics (Si) and Ne posit and logically derive entropy, and from entropy one can similarly derive heat transfer.

The scientific process necessarily uses both, eventually meeting in the middle like the great transcontinental railroad.

Here's the funny thing. Start with entropy. You can regard it either as an external, empirical concrete thing (Se or Te), and go in the Ni direction to deduce particle statistics, OR you can regard it as an internal concrete definition (Si or Ti) and derive heat transfer.

The reasoning works both ways. Ne and Ni are just a habitual perspective of going in one direction or the other. Personally, I prefer the Ni direction, but I've always found it easy to reverse and go in the Ne direction. It helps that I think in terms of objective matters, so that I know that I'm talking about the same thing whether the context is heat transfer, entropy or statistical physics. It's not nearly so easy to deal with subjective Fe or Fi matters.

Now let us go back to these being Jungian cognitive functions ...

Someone who prefers Ni is always going to take what is outside oneself, and then internally deduce what is "really going on." The actual results of the deduction are difficult to describe. Instead, either Te or Fe comes along and turns the Ni deduction into a nice pat explanation, but in practice, the explanation changes depending on context, and Ni is always shifting the context.

Someone who prefers Ne is always intuiting external patterns, and the judging functions (Fi or Ti) internalize observations. The intuitive process is visible for everyone to see, by its very nature. There is typically no pat explanation to others: the final deductions are internalized.

W/r to the OP, I don't feel the same difficulty with Ne vs Ni that the OP appears to. I find that they balance each other nicely. One takes a concept as "concrete" and builds the concept inwardly or outwardly, with Ne tending to build outward and Ni building inward. Ni will go "wow" at a new Ne building, and start deducing things from that, and Ne will take the new Ni concept and start deriving things from that. Both, in my experience, have fun due to the opposite polarity.

Personally, I have little difficulty reasoning in either direction, though I find much more naturally tend to the Ni. (Various cognitive function tests - unreliable, I know! - score me high in Ne and Ti, though Ni and Te are much higher, and Fi and the rest are lower.) I find myself getting into strange discussions on occasion, when I express this understanding of Ne, which should be a shadow, and I find myself surprised when other INTJs don't seem to get Ne, and xNTPs don't get Ni. They seem very much the same to me: not due to "confusion" of the concepts, but because I switch from one mode to the other with only minimal effort.

4. Originally Posted by Sytpg
How does a Ni dominant "giving space" to someone he/she likes differ from "ignoring" or "avoiding" someone they don't like, then?
I don't know, maybe I misunderstood Jim's post, but I interpreted what he was saying as, because WE appreciate and require space to sift through things, our natural response might be to assume the other person would need it in the same way. Of course, knowing about mbti stuff and how everyone's different, you might learn not to do this and you will learn the other person might not want/need the space, but we might initially, gut-reaction, give them the 'gift' of space because that's what we like to have. (You know, that whole projection concept.. having a hard time stepping out of our own selves and realizing that, hey, other people don't operate the way we do! Wow, what a concept! haha.)

So, if I'm 'giving space' to someone I like, and am in a relationship with them or something, it's as simple as, after hanging out or having a discussion, I'll let them have down time for a day or so and won't bother them. But, if they'd immediately want to chat or whatever, or discuss, or would want to meet up the next day, I'd be quite all right with that. I sort of put the ball in their court - or, at least, that's what I see it as, although they might see it differently of course.

Giving the gift of space to someone I LIKE means I'm already involved with them and they have an active part in my life - that's clear.

If I didn't like someone or was avoiding someone, they wouldn't really be in my life to begin with.

5. When you sit back and look at it, does it seem odd all of a sudden that we usually let the other person lead?

6. Originally Posted by uumlau
Forget for a moment that Ne, Ni, Se and Si are cognitive functions. I've been thinking about these, too, and there are some analogies that help.

First note that Ne goes with Si, and Se goes with Ni, and for the moment consider only objective observations/judgments.

Ne builds upon an Si foundation.
Ni fills in the details of an Se foundation.

The direction is arbitrary. The nature of the foundation depends on whether it's Tx or Fx.
The direction is not arbitrary, if that was the case in effect you would only require 2 types, observe:

Ni<->Se<->Ti<->Fe (some kind of ambivert with Internal Thinking leading External Instinct)
Ni<->Se<->Fi<->Te (some kind of ambivert with Internal Instinct leading External Thinking)
Si<->Ne<->Ti<->Fe (some kind of ambivert with Internal Thinking leading External Instinct)
Si<->Ne<->Fi<->Te (some kind of ambivert with Internal Instinct leading External Thinking)

This would make typology a lot more convenient, but infinitely less useful.

Originally Posted by uumlau
The cognitive functions are accepted in typology terms as cognitive 'preferences'. Thus one will prefer the primary function, support with the second, relieve with the third etc.

Consider thermodynamics at several levels. At the most basic, you have observed heat transfer. At a deeper level, you have a concept of entropy, which makes heat transfer equations work out. At an even deeper level, you have statistical physics, which explains why entropy exists at all.

From an empirical level (Te), you can start with heat transfer (Se) and use Ni to deduce entropy, and from entropy, deduce particle statistics.

From a Ti standpoint, you can start with particle statistics (Si) and Ne posit and logically derive entropy, and from entropy one can similarly derive heat transfer.

The scientific process necessarily uses both, eventually meeting in the middle like the great transcontinental railroad.

Here's the funny thing. Start with entropy. You can regard it either as an external, empirical concrete thing (Se or Te), and go in the Ni direction to deduce particle statistics, OR you can regard it as an internal concrete definition (Si or Ti) and derive heat transfer.

The reasoning works both ways. Ne and Ni are just a habitual perspective of going in one direction or the other. Personally, I prefer the Ni direction, but I've always found it easy to reverse and go in the Ne direction. It helps that I think in terms of objective matters, so that I know that I'm talking about the same thing whether the context is heat transfer, entropy or statistical physics. It's not nearly so easy to deal with subjective Fe or Fi matters.
As a chemical engineer, what you say is sensible for thermodynamics (I'm not going to go into details as it will simply confuse people) but I think I can understand you are brandishing a concept at the problem.

Regardless as the system has preference people have cognitive preference to how they wish to use their mind; they will minimise the opportunity cost (or maximise entropy) this therefore leads to type behaviour.

You are describing the same concept but perhaps applying it too loosely. Entropy does not swing and there is always activation energy between states. If you can slip between states I would think there is something too loose that you aren't defining or I would suggest you study the cognitive functions more particularly the differential between Si and Ni (probably the worst understood area of cognitive functions).

Think of Si as a smokescreen and reacting to external input; you see the moon and see a face instantly because the features on the moon match past data and shapes from memory. Ni is more of a mindscape, one sees the moon, its the moon, Ni makes up a story about the moon looking like a man and having a wife and kids and taking a black umbrella to his job at the intergalactic insurance agency because it matches set iconology within the mind.

Originally Posted by uumlau
Now let us go back to these being Jungian cognitive functions ...

Someone who prefers Ni is always going to take what is outside oneself, and then internally deduce what is "really going on." The actual results of the deduction are difficult to describe. Instead, either Te or Fe comes along and turns the Ni deduction into a nice pat explanation, but in practice, the explanation changes depending on context, and Ni is always shifting the context.

Someone who prefers Ne is always intuiting external patterns, and the judging functions (Fi or Ti) internalize observations. The intuitive process is visible for everyone to see, by its very nature. There is typically no pat explanation to others: the final deductions are internalized.

W/r to the OP, I don't feel the same difficulty with Ne vs Ni that the OP appears to. I find that they balance each other nicely. One takes a concept as "concrete" and builds the concept inwardly or outwardly, with Ne tending to build outward and Ni building inward. Ni will go "wow" at a new Ne building, and start deducing things from that, and Ne will take the new Ni concept and start deriving things from that. Both, in my experience, have fun due to the opposite polarity.

Personally, I have little difficulty reasoning in either direction, though I find much more naturally tend to the Ni. (Various cognitive function tests - unreliable, I know! - score me high in Ne and Ti, though Ni and Te are much higher, and Fi and the rest are lower.) I find myself getting into strange discussions on occasion, when I express this understanding of Ne, which should be a shadow, and I find myself surprised when other INTJs don't seem to get Ne, and xNTPs don't get Ni. They seem very much the same to me: not due to "confusion" of the concepts, but because I switch from one mode to the other with only minimal effort.
There is a subtle oddity here with regard to what Ni does, Ni is internal perception; not internal judging, it is pondering on an idea and subconciously and internally stimulated.

Ni is imaginative, it is somewhat confusing because it perceives depth of ideas rather than breadth (Ne) by building symbology out of an idea building block and then melding ideas together perceiving possible solutions and paths between ideas.

It does provide a light internal judging mechanism as the internal idea structure of an Ni user may block out new thoughts and notions but in order to integrate new ideas into the psyche the Ni user needs to retreat to process these.

In effect an INTJ requires Te to engage directly with the world and to see the value of and to translate ideas from the external to the internal world or else the user is stuck with Ni rejecting ideas which may not fit its mode or worse the paranoid disorder of Ni-Fi looping when Te falls behind the Fi relief which may infact be part of a simply closed Ni loop rejecting all of the information and ideas that Te gathers as 'annoying and overpowering'.

7. Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
The direction is not arbitrary, if that was the case in effect you would only require 2 types, observe:

Ni<->Se<->Ti<->Fe (some kind of ambivert with Internal Thinking leading External Instinct)
Ni<->Se<->Fi<->Te (some kind of ambivert with Internal Instinct leading External Thinking)
Si<->Ne<->Ti<->Fe (some kind of ambivert with Internal Thinking leading External Instinct)
Si<->Ne<->Fi<->Te (some kind of ambivert with Internal Instinct leading External Thinking)

This would make typology a lot more convenient, but infinitely less useful.
"The direction is arbitrary" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

One can prefer a direction, and thus have a type, but still access both directions.

As a chemical engineer, what you say is sensible for thermodynamics (I'm not going to go into details as it will simply confuse people) but I think I can understand you are brandishing a concept at the problem.

Regardless as the system has preference people have cognitive preference to how they wish to use their mind; they will minimise the opportunity cost (or maximise entropy) this therefore leads to type behaviour.

You are describing the same concept but perhaps applying it too loosely. Entropy does not swing and there is always activation energy between states. If you can slip between states I would think there is something too loose that you aren't defining or I would suggest you study the cognitive functions more particularly the differential between Si and Ni (probably the worst understood area of cognitive functions).

Think of Si as a smokescreen and reacting to external input; you see the moon and see a face instantly because the features on the moon match past data and shapes from memory. Ni is more of a mindscape, one sees the moon, its the moon, Ni makes up a story about the moon looking like a man and having a wife and kids and taking a black umbrella to his job at the intergalactic insurance agency because it matches set iconology within the mind.
I suspect we have very different understandings of Ni vs Ne vs Si vs Se.

There is a subtle oddity here with regard to what Ni does, Ni is internal perception; not internal judging, it is pondering on an idea and subconciously and internally stimulated.

Ni is imaginative, it is somewhat confusing because it perceives depth of ideas rather than breadth (Ne) by building symbology out of an idea building block and then melding ideas together perceiving possible solutions and paths between ideas.

It does provide a light internal judging mechanism as the internal idea structure of an Ni user may block out new thoughts and notions but in order to integrate new ideas into the psyche the Ni user needs to retreat to process these.

In effect an INTJ requires Te to engage directly with the world and to see the value of and to translate ideas from the external to the internal world or else the user is stuck with Ni rejecting ideas which may not fit its mode or worse the paranoid disorder of Ni-Fi looping when Te falls behind the Fi relief which may infact be part of a simply closed Ni loop rejecting all of the information and ideas that Te gathers as 'annoying and overpowering'.
I'm not sure how your remarks here constitute a reply to mine. You seem to think I regard Ni as judging (though I never said such a thing), and then you discuss how it can appear to be judging.

I'm discussing an entire process, and if I become nitpicky with words, I shall end up writing 10,000 words instead of 100, and get a bunch of "tl; dr" replies. :p

My primary point is that Ne and Ni aren't so different. The attitudes behind them are different, and those who strongly prefer one attitude or the other seem to regard them as completely different. I just don't see the difference: I just switch contexts and reverse the processing. The processes are, in fact, complimentary.

If you try doing science without both of these processes, you will either understand the experimental or the theoretical, but not both. Individual scientists, of course, prefer to specialize in one or the other, and often find themselves annoyed by the other approach, since they don't usually think in that context, but are in the end perfectly capable of fully cognitively understanding both and validating both.

8. Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
I don't think your ENTP is using Si to come back with a new direction; he is likely using Ti to rethink the root of the problem, then once satisfied with his own logic he will meet you half way using Fe. Si is very low down the ENTP food chain and all it practically acts is as a smokescreen to spot errors or similarities of things in his minds eye against past experience.
Well what if you could get past the smokescreen and the ENTP then took the detail and processed it with his knowledge, not Ti knowledge, but the patterns that he knows, that he has learned and comes back to explain the pattern that best fits what you explained. In turn letting go of the smoke screen, in essence saying I trust you, here is where you should look to find more info on the direction you are going. Yes the direction I go affects him directly.

Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
With regards to this I think there is some confusion; I did not state that Ti will always wish a narrow path to be chosen, but it is by definition a preference and a tendancy of the function. Fi and Ti (Ji) are both highly subjective and wish to follow their own path especially in the dominant slot. I think that if a new idea or avenue is pitched into a workplace scenario where you have already settled in to the problem you will give it 100% of your focus to close it out by pulling in external visions (Se); if you find the idea is surprisingly useful once you check it against system benchmarks you are of course going to discard the old system as it is illogical, but you will be annoyed having two systems 'messing about' rather than one - This is a rather different approach to an INTP - Ne subordinate to Ti. It is important to view the secondary support function when thinking of the dominant; most especially when the dominant function is introverted.
In this case I would question the ability to determine if a "system" is logical. Doesnt sound like Ti and your wording is more Si (pulling in external visions). Stop "pulling in" if you wish to explain/understand Se

9. Uumlau, when you switch from Ni to Ne use, do you also flip the attitude of your T function (to Ti), or do you continue using Te? Or do you sometimes go with one, and sometimes the other?

10. p.s. When are we gunna discuss the results?

I already have my primary observation.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO