• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Ne/Ni Jungian Cognitive Function Interaction

InvisibleJim

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,387
Actually, Socionics gives INTjs a big fat Ti at the front...

MBTI's INTP = Socionics' INTj

Correct, I meant in the first two functions then didn't translate properly. The third and fourth functions are Fi and Se, interestingly it isn't a straight swapsies.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Correct, I meant in the first two functions then didn't translate properly. The third and fourth functions are Fi and Se, interestingly it isn't a straight swapsies.

Yeah, that's cuz of the way they define their four "blocks".

The 5th function in Socionics is still consistently the inferior function (4th) in MBTI, though...

And I believe the 6th function in Socionics is consistently the tertiary function (3rd) in MBTI...

(I put stuff in parentheses not for you, but in case any nooblets are reading...)
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Let me rephrase:

The following quality is often attributed to Ne:

spontaneously seeing/making/understanding connections (puns, metaphors, similes, etc.) between various objects in the real world right in front of your face

So, if an Ni-dom/aux is very good at seeing/making/understanding connections (puns, metaphors, similes, etc.) between various objects in the real world right in front of their face, do you believe this behavior more likely shows usage of Ni, or something else (Se+Ni? Ni+Te?)?

Oh. That.

Well...

Beats me.

But Ni, and any introverted function, has to do something, or have something done for it, to get the basic information inside there in the introverted space. If, perhaps, just making this up as I type, functions are not unlike filters or perspectives and they properly describe only how one categorises and begins to handle the splendid flood of raw, uncategorised information that we are daily assailed by, then how would one immediately and obviously distinguish between the direct step of Ne connection-making and the indirect step of Ni connection-making? If one goes kablam and the connection is made and it's objective and it's apprehended directly, how distinct is that from sucking in information, turning your back on the world to speculate alone, albeit briefly, and creating the connection for yourself, perhaps using some thinking step to give oneself a leg up on legitimacy? The same kind of connection could be made, the same kind of content could be appreciated, but the process that gives the person that appreciation is formally different.

The reason for insisting it's not a flip-flopping function but rather the same old function doing slightly more athletic things than usual is just the idea that personalities surely become psychically unstable if the person genuinely can switch the orientation of their cognition. How do they control the switching? What does the switching? If it is the person making some choice, then doesn't that mean the core personality resides somewhere other than in the functions, and "functions" is just another name for a more complex behaviorial product of some other entity? If it is the environment doing the switching, the person responding as circumstances dictate, doesn't that mean no one is genuinely an introvert?

If type is a mold we all impose on the vastness of the raw information that comes from being biological with a nervous system, and we do as literally the only option available for being conscious, then.... *cough* *gargle* *me me me meee*



THEN WE MUST HAVE ORDER!
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Ni can't deduce. It can compound.

The primary difference I find in communication between Ne and Ni is, literally, the objective/subjective divide. I know (intuitively--booyah) that when I articulate some vision, or make some joke, I'm delving into an inner world. It is, prima facie, an alternate vision of reality. And I know Ne people have trouble with it for exactly that reason. It's not real, they think, it's just a possibility. Which ignores all the compounding that's been going on for years. That alternate vision of reality is a compound vision, built up from years of perceiving inner worlds (and sometimes relating them to outer worlds).

I believe that in general to switch from Ni to Ne is to halt that compounding process. One cares less for collecting visions together and more for spotting what's actually going on right now. Compounding is over, ecstatic immediate insight is begun.

So, yeah, I think you're wrong about switching direction. I think you're probably describing some more sophisticated behavioral use of Ni resources rather than some change in basic cognitive functioning.



Why do Ne users never conclude? They have a judgment function. Why do they maintain an earnest innocence? A kind of seeming guilelessness. It's that openness crap. The openness to new information. So how do they actual learn anything? Ni does this compounding thing, it seems to me. But where do Ne users store their insights? Or do they store them? They must have something for Ne to work with. It does not come new and freshly formed to every new environment. They do grow in Ne ability. Where's it kept?

I think in some sense it's kept "out there". As they grow increasingly aware of the patterns that exist in the world, they recognise them more often (and move on to more sophisticated versions or to wholly different environments). They don't compound insights into new items so much as they map what's there. (And there'll be some Si library of some kind, but that's another story.) Or so I imagine.

With that kind of discussion in mind, I'd be saying that Ni and Ne, behaviourally speaking, can perform the tasks of one another. Cognitively speaking though, they're formed in different directions and seemingly by different processes, and it seems to me ultimately do end up with different content. But behaviorally.......



/thesis.

Basically to understand Ne dont pull in these Ni things and form them into something more. You had it right when you said that these things are "out there" for Ne users. They are always there in the world, Ne spots them and runs with them, over and over again. Repetition is the key to building things, not internalizing. It becomes instinct, it makes its way in, but not conciously. Its not pulled in, but somehow it finds its way through the cracks into the mind and when it stops it begins to seep out. Its like a river, cut off the running water and it begins to disappear, turn it back on and it fills right back up really quick. What we pull in is like a lake. It builds, compounds, and grows. With enough running water a river will grow wider. A lake will grow deeper.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,559
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
These two functional attitudes to interpersonal interaction are directly opposed which can lead to communication confusion between Ni and Ne users.

As a result it is very important to find some kind of type interaction balance between Ne and Ni users and an understanding of how the other shows affection is the flip side of what may be naturally expected.

Other than the question as to whether or not one person can flip back and forth between Ne and Ni or there is some sort of emulation going on, I think the core of the OP is about 1) communication gaps 2) conflict and 3) affection or appreciation - that is between types that prefer Ne vs Ni.

Is that correct or are those the right words?
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,559
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
These two functional attitudes to interpersonal interaction are directly opposed which can lead to communication confusion between Ni and Ne users.

As a result it is very important to find some kind of type interaction balance between Ne and Ni users and an understanding of how the other shows affection is the flip side of what may be naturally expected.

Other than the question as to whether or not one person can flip back and forth between Ne and Ni or there is some sort of emulation going on, I think the core of the OP is about 1) communication gaps 2) conflict and 3) affection or appreciation - that is between types that prefer Ne vs Ni.

Is that correct or are those the right words?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Highlander: what are you doing trying to be bring this conversation back to the original topic!?!
 

1487610420

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
6,431
FWIW

Regarding the OP:

Seems like a really good analysis, except for this:



I have no idea where you got that. It sounds absurd.


Also, I may be mistaken, but it seems like you're overestimating the Ne user's need/desire for stimulation from the particular person they are interacting with at a given time.

It's particularly hilarious that you seem to think Ne users find Ni users to be so engaging that they can't bear when the Ni user withdraws! (HUGE hardy-har on THAT one! :rofl1:) Frankly, you guys tend to put me to sleep more often than not.

To an Ne user, particularly a dominant Ne user, the attention does NOT generally rest for long on one thing. On the contrary, it tends to wander pretty easily and fluidly.

So, as incredibly stimulating as a conversation with an Ni user might be, the Ne user will have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER turning her/his attention elsewhere, should the amazingly engaging :)rolli: :D) Ni user decide to withdraw in contemplation.

I realize I may be reading the wrong tone in your statements, but I'm just telling you what it sounds like to me.

And I'm sure if I am wrong, you'll be more than happy to tell me. :rolli: :D

*hands over Fi chill pill prescription* :coffee:

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.

What resonates with me here, wuold be, how the Ne user would know the content of all the internal post-it's that advert to the status of things. Usually, interpesonal and social cues are derived from behavior external behavior, NOT mental notes. Unless one learns how to mind read.

On a more pratical approach, I identify an obstacle in measuring when the attention requests are desired or just being granted out of politeness, which, for me personally, the later would not be desired.

Why do Ne users never conclude? They have a judgment function. Why do they maintain an earnest innocence? A kind of seeming guilelessness. It's that openness crap. The openness to new information. So how do they actual learn anything? Ni does this compounding thing, it seems to me. But where do Ne users store their insights? Or do they store them? They must have something for Ne to work with. It does not come new and freshly formed to every new environment. They do grow in Ne ability. Where's it kept?

I think in some sense it's kept "out there". As they grow increasingly aware of the patterns that exist in the world, they recognise them more often (and move on to more sophisticated versions or to wholly different environments). They don't compound insights into new items so much as they map what's there. (And there'll be some Si library of some kind, but that's another story.) Or so I imagine.

With that kind of discussion in mind, I'd be saying that Ni and Ne, behaviourally speaking, can perform the tasks of one another. Cognitively speaking though, they're formed in different directions and seemingly by different processes, and it seems to me ultimately do end up with different content. But behaviorally.......

/thesis.
Ne looks into everything, simultaneously, and then, depending on the aux function, processes it to what's relevant. For Ti aux, if something isn't immediately understood, then Ti will try to break it down into smaller tangible obects that can be linked to the existing Ne network of knowledge. As new insights are realised, any related existing objects of whole network, and it's associated connections, can be updated, to try and adapt to the new data.

If something does not fit with the existing network, it can still be stored, in a fictional network of possibilities, that can still be built up like the main one, but doesn't have necessarily to reflect reality. In practice, it's all the same network, but some items just happen to have a particular label on them and at any point, they may become integrated in the "real object" category. Likewise, if something can't be immediately broken-down into intelligible peaces, it will be atempted to integrated it into a a contextual location, with an understanding of it's role or purpose, just to allow the continuity of the structure, as later on the contents can be learnt and understood and then reintegrated normally. :nerd::cool:
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,559
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Highlander: what are you doing trying to be bring this conversation back to the original topic!?!

Force of habit. Sometimes, I feel like I do this all day long. ;)
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
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?

I believe that I switch between Ti and Te. Sometimes I'm absorbing information, bouncing around and factually understanding things (Ne<->Ti), sometimes I'm juggling puzzles pieces that are outside of me, using their properties to determine how they fit together (Ni<->Te). The Ne/Ti mode is noticeably more difficult, but I can easily keep up with the xNTPs when I do it. The Ni/Te mode is entirely natural, and I can just look at something and "solve it" in a split second. It's possible that I am "using Ni or Te to 'emulate' Ti", though that begs the question of what Ti and Te "really are" and what constitutes emulation. I suspect that it is more likely a trained, deliberate expression of the Beebe shadow (by which theory NeTi is the shadow of INTJ), which introduces the possibility that the more negative version of that shadow is simply the untrained, inexperienced use of those "shadow functions".

Check out these wonderful videos of Feynman giving the Messenger Lectures from MS's Project Tuva.

I've posted this link before. If I hadn't read his autobiographies, and only had seen these videos, I'd swear he's INTJ. But he's ENTP, and you can sense the Fe vibes as he slowly starts his lecture and cracks a couple of jokes.

But when he gets down into the material, he's examining it both ways, Te and Ti (or Ne and Ni). He even has a section in there about "Babylonian" vs "Greek" mathematics. The Babylonian picture is very trial and error: they notice certain "empirical" mathematical truths and try to work them out and build a library of understanding. The Greek picture is the system we are more familiar with, starting with axioms and building the entire system of mathematics based on those few rules, building outward from a logical center.

In other words, he just described Te (Babylonian) and Ti (Greek) thought! And then he goes on to say that science, the study of physical laws, is necessarily in the Babylonian style - the Te style, and he's the archetypal ENTP scientist! - because it's putting together the puzzles pieces and trying to figure out what the rules are, while modern math "already knows the rules."

I stand by my statement that one needs to be able to think in both modes (Ti and Te) as usually characterized here and elsewhere. One needs to be able to look at evidence and deduce physical laws, and one needs to be able to take a formulation of physical law and derive other possible implications that may or may not contradict empirical experiments.

Perhaps it's this need to have both Te and Ti that makes scientific fields a rare occupation? Or perhaps the training in scientific fields necessitates developing (or at least emulating) whichever thinking function one doesn't prefer?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Wow. Phenomenal post uumlau, especially in concert with your first post in the thread...

As for what you said about a "trained, deliberate expression" of the Beebe shadow vs. a "more negative version" that "is simply untrained [and] inexperienced": I'm right with you...

I have been thinking about this topic for the last several months now, and we seem to have arrived at the same conclusion. (How's that for Te reverse-engineering?)

It could still just be Ni+Te mimicking Ne+Ti, but that just brings us back to your point as to what, in light of the potential "mimicry/emulation", Te and Ti "really are"...

I do have a question about one aspect of your diction, though: you say Te looks at evidence and deduces physical laws... but isn't that induction, not deduction?

(I believe I'm right here, but maybe I'm just missing something...)

And, in light of that construction, would it be accurate to say that Te thinking is essentially inductive reasoning, while Ti thinking is essentially deductive reasoning?
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Wow. Phenomenal post uumlau, especially in concert with your first post in the thread...

As for what you said about a "trained, deliberate expression" of the Beebe shadow vs. a "more negative version" that "is simply untrained [and] inexperienced": I'm right with you...

I have been thinking about this topic for the last several months now, and we seem to have arrived at the same conclusion. (How's that for Te reverse-engineering?)

It could still just be Ni+Te mimicking Ne+Ti, but that just brings us back to your point as to what, in light of the potential "mimicry/emulation", Te and Ti "really are"...

I do have a question about one aspect of your diction, though: you say Te looks at evidence and deduces physical laws... but isn't that induction, not deduction?

(I believe I'm right here, but maybe I'm just missing something...)

And, in light of that construction, would it be accurate to say that Te thinking is essentially inductive reasoning, while Ti thinking is essentially deductive reasoning?

Yeah, induction vs deduction sounds more accurate than deduction vs derivation. However, when I read the definitions (wikipedia) of inductive and deductive reasoning, it sounds more like Ne vs Ti than Te vs Ti, so I'm still don't think that's the best way to put it.

The main thing is that one mode is figuring out the rules/events that could have resulted in the currently observed outcome (Te), and the other is using those rules (Ti) to predict outcomes.
 
R

ReflecTcelfeR

Guest
I was thinking about how these two interact with each other. I came up with a way to explain, though I'm not quite sure if I'm on point here. Here it goes:

The main thing that we must consider is how far Ni and Ne will bend in order to satisfy the others needs (wants). This is how I see a relationship playing out. Ne comes up with an idea and logically explains it. Ni takes the pattern and accepts it (that is the key) and once he accepts to at least try to understand the connection or idea that Ne came up with he uses Te to see if it is actually plausible. I don't view it as a miscommunication between functions, but as a stubborness to cooperate with how each other thinks. This way no one has to look through the others eyes to see how they think, but rather approach the relationship as if you were doing trial and error. Everyone gets to use their functions in their entirity, while communciating as effectively as possible.

This is all to say that the functions each person used were used in their proper fashion (though that is under scrutiny in this thread as well).

As for relationships... I have no help there. I do like interaction and I get slightly restless when the other person doesn't feel like bouncing ideas I have been thinking about, but it is their choice to do so, not mine.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
If something does not fit with the existing network, it can still be stored, in a fictional network of possibilities, that can still be built up like the main one, but doesn't have necessarily to reflect reality. In practice, it's all the same network, but some items just happen to have a particular label on them and at any point, they may become integrated in the "real object" category. Likewise, if something can't be immediately broken-down into intelligible peaces, it will be atempted to integrated it into a a contextual location, with an understanding of it's role or purpose, just to allow the continuity of the structure, as later on the contents can be learnt and understood and then reintegrated normally. :nerd::cool:

Wild guess: that fictional network of possibilities, might the unwary, or perhaps the insightful, attempt to call that an Ne user's Ni?

What it sounds like is an evaluation category (and associated categorical structures) created by introverted thinking judgment, but being, I guess, the category "possibly true", could that be where Ne types get their impression of using Ni?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Wild guess: that fictional network of possibilities, might the unwary, or perhaps the insightful, attempt to call that an Ne user's Ni?

What it sounds like is an evaluation category (and associated categorical structures) created by introverted thinking judgment, but being, I guess, the category "possibly true", could that be where Ne types get their impression of using Ni?

For the sake of clarification: would you mind fleshing out how such a process would actually differ from Ni?
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
But when he gets down into the material, he's examining it both ways, Te and Ti (or Ne and Ni). He even has a section in there about "Babylonian" vs "Greek" mathematics. The Babylonian picture is very trial and error: they notice certain "empirical" mathematical truths and try to work them out and build a library of understanding. The Greek picture is the system we are more familiar with, starting with axioms and building the entire system of mathematics based on those few rules, building outward from a logical center.

In other words, he just described Te (Babylonian) and Ti (Greek) thought!

He did? Every e function is empirical and every i function is formally unlinked from the world and able to work only by asserting, or attempting to formulate, fundamentals.

My major complaint with flip floppers is not truly that they can't be pulling switcheroos. It's that the supposed reason for the existence of "preference" hasn't, it seems to me, been looked at closely enough yet. Function order and orientation, it is supposed, serves a purpose, or exists because of a need. And at least at first glance, flip flopping denies that that need exists.

Why does preference exist? Is it true that if you spend half of your time doing one orientation and the other half of your time doing the other, then you cannot be doing either with great competence?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Yeah, induction vs deduction sounds more accurate than deduction vs derivation. However, when I read the definitions (wikipedia) of inductive and deductive reasoning, it sounds more like Ne vs Ti than Te vs Ti, so I'm still don't think that's the best way to put it.

Uumlau, would it make more sense if we called Ni+Te thinking inductive reasoning and Ti+Ne reasoning deductive reasoning?

Perhaps 'called' is too strong a word; perhaps 'associated with' would be a better term...

Whatever the nomenclature: might Ni be the driver of induction and Te be the checker of that induction's accuracy, while Ti is the driver of deduction and Ne the presenter of new situations in which comparable deductions (based on certain accepted axioms) can take place?
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
For the sake of clarification: would you mind fleshing out how such a process would actually differ from Ni?

Ahmmm.... well, as phobik presents it, it's a Ti construct, which as far as I know means it's all about categories and category relationships. The content is ordered and... or, wait... the content is the order? The task is the ordering and re-ordering of stuff in light of new input, and the creation of new, more detailed orderings and categorisations... or something. I know not what the Ti people do, exactly.

But if there's some ordered network of possibles, this isn't Ni per se, right?

Jeez, I dunno. All introverted functions will have some similar forms. And they're distinguished by... something else.

:shrug:
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Why does preference exist? Is it true that if you spend half of your time doing one orientation and the other half of your time doing the other, then you cannot be doing either with great competence?

Focus can be a result of expertise, or it can be the very impediment to expertise.

Note that I used Richard Feynman, perhaps the preeminent physicist of the 20th century. (In obscure polls of scientists, he rates higher than Einstein or Hawking, for a variety of reasons.) I would suggest that such versatility, whether one is "emulating" the other functions, or actually using them, is more likely to be evidence of great cognitive skill than a weakness. In general, when reading various interpretations of types and functions by various authors, the "reason" often given for bad or immature behavior of any particular type is the lack of facility with other functions (e.g., one's auxiliary).

As for why the preference exists, I've observed that as one ages, it tends to vanish, such that typing older individuals becomes problematic. However, it's the positive traits that become confusing, indicating several possible types. The negative traits, however, tend to be consistent for a rather long time, especially the 7th and 8th in the typical ordering (e.g., Fe and Si for INTJ).
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
My major complaint with flip floppers is not truly that they can't be pulling switcheroos. It's that the supposed reason for the existence of "preference" hasn't, it seems to me, been looked at closely enough yet. Function order and orientation, it is supposed, serves a purpose, or exists because of a need. And at least at first glance, flip flopping denies that that need exists.

Why does preference exist? Is it true that if you spend half of your time doing one orientation and the other half of your time doing the other, then you cannot be doing either with great competence?

Kalach, I'm glad you brought up this point (again), cuz I've seen you resort to it often whenever this issue ("flip-flopping" as you've labeled it -- are you calling Uumlau John Kerry?) is raised, but I've never called you on it (yet).

First off, you teach business, right? So, obviously you know about the law of diminishing returns... Who's to say there's not a point where one uses too much of a function (i.e., is no longer benefiting from economies of scale), and actually starts seeing flat or negative marginal returns from additional functional usage?

Second, what if one, rather than spend the rest of their life developing a very limited number of functions (let's say only two) to 99 and 98, respectively (on a 1-100 scale; 100 being "perfect" usage), were to spend their time and energy getting their first two functions up to, let's say, just 95 and 94, and, by doing so, free up their surplus time and energy to develop their third and fourth functions (or even their shadow functions), and thus reap the benefit of greater marginal returns in developing these lesser developed functions? Wouldn't this person put themselves in a position to achieve greater total development (as measured by multiplying all 8 functions by their corresponding number on the 1-100 scale, and summing the results), than if they were to focus solely on developing their first two functions?

And third, who's to say we might not rather quickly (let's say, by 30) hit the "ceiling" for our own personal usage of our first two functions (i.e., flat marginal returns for both), and thus do ourselves much greater good to actually diversify and round out our functional development?
 
Last edited:
Top