• 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

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
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
I'm :zzz:

But, I have to say, that as a dom Ne user, but not an uber-extrovert, I wholeheartedly agree with Ne, and in my case, Ne + Fi having a fluidity about them, the Ne can be impatient, but the Fi anchor can be exhaustingly vigorous in its need to figure things out.

Due to my tiredness, I haven't even read this thread, or its posts, I just pseudo-scanned it.

Ne wants to know everything about every thing, but Fi wants to know everything about one thing.

There is a holistic hunger for truth, or rather a hunger for holistic truth.

Dating an Ni dom, and observing them from my interactions with them via this forum, I will be the first to admit that I am still quite mystified by this function.

I dunno, I just view N-ness as N-ness, and I guess this intuitive proclivity manifests itself differently depending on whether someone is inherently an extrovert or an introvert.

Sorry if this post lacks detail or insight. :/

I just felt like sharing.

:blushing:
 

InvisibleJim

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,387
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 negative marginal returns from additional functional usage.

In my view you are making a slight error in reasoning. You are assuming that Ti does thinking and Fi does morals. This is in a wide part false; there is always an interaction of functions at play. You are also assuming that they develop at a measurable rate.

They are more like an operating system your mind uses to bridge the gap between the internal conscious and the receiving and transmitting senses.

By using Ni-Te-Fi-Se I use Ni as a preference, I rest on my internal perceiving conscious (Pi), then I receive and relay information via extroverted critical thinking (Je), then I relieve my primary function via morals and belief in conclusions generated by my subconcious (Ji) and I aspire to eventually have done enough of these things to simply sit and appreciate the sensory inputs I receive (Pe).

This brings me back to the topic at hand. The reason that Ni is overwhelmed by Ne is that Pi and Pe are opposed aspects; Pe reaches out to Pi but finds that Pi wishes to use Je as a route to maintain its isolation which then assumes that is what Pe wants - Fi (Ji) internal justifying Ni (Pi) for relief; but Pe simply wants to engage as often as possible and it views via Ji that the Pi user is not engaging with them and therefore, this is dislike - relief via Fe (Je) what it sees externally.

There is a reason the secondary function is labelled support and the tertiary relief in how the preference causes cognitive interaction spontaneously and at the same time (one does not simply pick up and use Ni in isolation).

I don't think that marginal returns applies unless one experiences a mental breakdown (see shadow functions). When it becomes subconciously realised that the mode of living is simply a disaster, however, it is generally more than cognitive function that is temporarily scrambled during such a time.

Apologies to the hard of seeing, I used a lot of acronyms above for efficiency.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
In the name of efficiency I'll assume I'm capable of answering everyone at once with a single idnunastan'!

I'm taking as fundamental the claim that preference exists as a matter of cognitive survival. It's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of what the machine is capable of once direction has been effected. Such a position does not rule out the existence of Ne and Ti in INTJs. It does however indicate that perhaps there's a lot more to be said about the mechanism that gave rise to Ni and Te in the first place and therefore what amounts and purposes this rogue Ne and Ti exist in and for.

That's to say, it seems we can all agree that functions exist, and perhaps that functions are layered in more or less the way standard type theory suggests, but we're differing on the import of orientation in the sustained existence of personality. I seem to be saying orientation is as important as dominance, and you guys wish to allow that function orientation has... um, a subordinate role in the maintenance of personality?
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
I do hope that you guys know that this is just one tiny facet in/to understanding human psychology.

That's all.

:bye:
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Ni just like Si is "chart the course". It means that Ni will create a path based off of the concpet. Si will create a path based off of the details. When Ni gets access to detail it first has to reason it, then it can create the path from point A to point B by internalizing it. When Si gets concepts it has to have a sepcific instance so it has access to the detail. So Ne will submit itself to situations so it can work out the detail. But for Ne to do this it has to slow down. It has to pull into Fi/Si instead of constant Ne/Te.

Ni path is based solely on the accuracy of the concept that is understood. If the accuracy is off so is the path. It doesnt mean that the calculations are wrong, it means they started with incorrect/incomplete data/concepts. So to Ni once the path is charted, the path is correct no matter how much more time Ni spends processing it. Unless the understanding of the concept changes then the path will stay the same. This is when internalizing will become unhealthy, and insane as you would end up repeating the same thing over and over again hoping for different results, but get nothing because you have closed yourself off from what you need to change the path.

Ne on the other hand constantly gets fed data, constantly moves. It faces the opposite problem. It doesnt sit enough in Si to piece together the details to really chart a solid path. This doesnt mean that it cant follow through or stay focused, but that the path its going down is not solid. It has detours, rest stops, turn arounds, etc. When the SiFi begins to seep in it finds itself going back to the same places, it stops searching just to search as much and starts to slow down because it wants to.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Good post, Poki.

I'd never really thought of it this way...

I would add that TeSe is what keeps an Ni dom INTJ on the "right path" (i.e., "accurate concept", or "being true to pragmatic/empirical reality"), a la FiSi in an ENFP ("being true to their feelings/memory"), or TiSi in an ENTP ("being true to their thinking/memory").

In the Pi doms, it's the objectivity of their aux loop that keeps them on the "right path", while for Pe doms it's the subjectivity of their aux loops that keeps them on the "right path".

This difference makes it very clear why Pi doms would be Js, and Pe doms would be Ps (by MBTI's definition): Pi doms stay "grounded/balanced" by referring to and engaging with the external world in order to balance out the inwardly-focused/subjective nature of their dominant function, while Pe doms stay "grounded/balanced" by referring to and engaging with their subjective internal world in order to balance out their outwardly focused/objective dominant functions.

Interestingly enough, this once again points back to the problematic difference between the labeling of Jness and Pness between MBTI and Socionics.

For ENTJs, they need to stay grounded/balanced by referring to and engaging their inwardly focused/subjective aux loop (NiFi), while INTPs need to stay grounded/balanced by referring to their externally focused/objective aux loop (NeFe).

Interestingly enough: the NTJs seem to fall on the extremes of objectivity (TeSe) and subjectivity (NiFi) when it comes to their loops, while the NTPs seem to have more of a mixed bag/fall more in the middle when it comes to their dom and aux loops (NeFe andTiSi).

Te+Se = SOO+OOO = 5-0/1-S = most objective loop
Ni+Fi = OSS+SSS = 1-O/5-S = most subjective loop

Ti+Si = SOS+OOS = 3-O/3-S = balanced loop
Ne+Fe = OSO+SSO = 3-O/3-S = balanced loop

I wonder whether this difference in loop extremity might be visible in the personality traits of these types...

/ thinking out loud

Note: in the narrative, I was using the terms "objectively" and "subjectively" rather (too, really) loosely/sloppily. In the equation part near the bottom, i move to the more precise terminology, which takes into account the tripartite meaning of objective/subjective in function theory.
 

1487610420

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
6,431
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?

I wasn't explicitly trying to imply it to be Ni usage, althought, someone may find it fit, and I can understand the concept. It isn't something, for me, done as natural tendency, but more as a need, in order to maintain order [no pun intended].

It can be used/useful to allow for the evaluation of either an plausible hypothesis, or a totally, otherwise considered, singular ridicule proposition, or entire fictional framework; size is irrelevant, as Ti will categorize it, regardless. But again, this is only used on a need basis, as a tool, not a dependency.

EDIT:
I do hope that you guys know that this is just one tiny facet in/to understanding human psychology.

That's all.

__________________
I do hope you know everyone realises that your participation, was merely a deliberate atempt for allowing of the admiration of your ridiculously hawt avatar pic :coffee:
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
EDIT:

I do hope you know everyone realises that your participation, was merely a deliberate atempt for allowing of the admiration of your ridiculously hawt avatar pic :coffee:
Like... oh mah gawd nooooooooo!!!!!

I like have oodles and ooodles of pritty pritty pictures.

(Z wants me to post a sexay nude of me when I was 20, blame it on his inferior Se)

God, what a cult full of dolts!!!

:shrug:

kk,

bai bai

:hifive:
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
hehe, it's funny to hear Ne doms described as such extraverts. we're not, really. or i should say, we are, but not necessarily with people. i really see this as a vast misconception. i like interacting with people to a certain extent, but a lot of times i would much rather get my ideas from art or writing or nature or theoretical systems. also i think Ni dom/aux revel in Ni's mysteriousness :tongue:

Ne types will prefer to receive and give stimulus as is their preference
Ni types will prefer to have and give space as is their preference.

:yes: i do agree with this. and i think it comes out especially when the types are stressed.

one more thing - this thread stands in very interesting contrast to a previous one about how Fi users are more likely to simply drop off the planet for a while, whereas Fe users are more likely to expect constant and regular contact.

combining the two, do we get to Ni-Fe types tending to prefer regular but not overwhelming amounts of contact while Ne-Fi tend to prefer more sporadic but intense bouts of contact? i would personally adhere to this.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
I wonder if Ne and Ni are not invisible to one another.

In this introvert, Ni is an inner world. It takes points fixed by extraverted thinking (and introverted feeling) and sets off on some journey down paths, up alleys, refining, rephrasing, diverting, providing content. Extraverted thinking-whether weak or strong--gets a lot of its "logic" from pathways presented by introverted intuition. And introverted feeling goes all curly and moribund if left too long in that pathways place. And the whole thing shuts down (at least as far as consciousness is concerned) when sensing is properly engaged.

(Note as a tangent: probably none of these functions are usefully thought of as basic input channels. I mean for primitive data input. For example, you see with your eyes, not with your sensing, though what you see is attended to by your sensing, which I think is probably different, though fairly immediately connected. Whatever actual mechanism exists for allowing information to arrive in the Ni world, it's a dimly low level process. He says, with an air of apparent certitude.)

But Ne... one presumes it operates in sweeps. Perhaps like a radar of sorts, passing over the world as it is and pinging back the connections between what is there and what is formally the same as what is there. ("Formally the same" is an N-term for "is connected to" or "shares the same meaning content".) One however doesn't know if this is truly the way it (consciously) works. Is it connections or forms? In any case, the process is practiced. Content is acquired in sweeps. The function matures over years and over many thousands of millions of sweeps, accumulating facility with the joining of things.

Assuming this is true, what does an Ne sweep of an Ni utterance produce? Can it produce the same set of connections that went into the Ni structure? Any Ni-originated utterance is the next best thing to gibberish the tip of an iceberg and owes most of its meaning to that iceberg. So what does an Ne sweep see of an Ni utterance?

And for that matter, how does Ne appear to the inner world of Ni?

Invisible, that's what it appears as. Not there. The content that appears more obviously is whatever judgment function is going on behind the Ne sweep.

Others may experience it in other ways. I may be saying no more than I am not accustomed to attending to extroverted intuition products in myself or in others.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I wonder if Ne and Ni are not invisible to one another.

In this introvert, Ni is an inner world. It takes points fixed by extraverted thinking (and introverted feeling) and sets off on some journey down paths, up alleys, refining, rephrasing, diverting, providing content. Extraverted thinking-whether weak or strong--gets a lot of its "logic" from pathways presented by introverted intuition. And introverted feeling goes all curly and moribund if left too long in that pathways place. And the whole thing shuts down (at least as far as consciousness is concerned) when sensing is properly engaged.

(Note as a tangent: probably none of these functions are usefully thought of as basic input channels. I mean for primitive data input. For example, you see with your eyes, not with your sensing, though what you see is attended to by your sensing, which I think is probably different, though fairly immediately connected. Whatever actual mechanism exists for allowing information to arrive in the Ni world, it's a dimly low level process. He says, with an air of apparent certitude.)

But Ne... one presumes it operates in sweeps. Perhaps like a radar of sorts, passing over the world as it is and pinging back the connections between what is there and what is formally the same as what is there. ("Formally the same" is an N-term for "is connected to" or "shares the same meaning content".) One however doesn't know if this is truly the way it (consciously) works. Is it connections or forms? In any case, the process is practiced. Content is acquired in sweeps. The function matures over years and over many thousands of millions of sweeps, accumulating facility with the joining of things.

Assuming this is true, what does an Ne sweep of an Ni utterance produce? Can it produce the same set of connections that went into the Ni structure? Any Ni-originated utterance is the next best thing to gibberish the tip of an iceberg and owes most of its meaning to that iceberg. So what does an Ne sweep see of an Ni utterance?

And for that matter, how does Ne appear to the inner world of Ni?

Invisible, that's what it appears as. Not there. The content that appears more obviously is whatever judgment function is going on behind the Ne sweep.

Others may experience it in other ways. I may be saying no more than I am not accustomed to attending to extroverted intuition products in myself or in others.

I believe that many of the differences ascribed to Ne and Ni are more truly matters of the kind of traits one has when one lives Ne vs lives Ni. After all, the "P" and "J" personality traits with which Ne and Ni are associated respectively are fairly distinct. It is certainly possible for one to be very familiar, while the other can be sparingly used or even alien, but both are the same kinds of perception, with mirror-image attitudes.

Let's say one wanted to write a story, and had a core plot, but so far not much else. Ne and Ni would do very similar things to fill in the story, but in different directions.

Ne would take the core plot and expand it outward: it would find other things that could also happen that would be interesting, with extra sub plots and characters and events. Ne will answer the question, "What else could happen?"

Ni would take the core plot and fill in the background, doing character development, explaining why people do what they do, or (in fantasy or sci fi) explaining why magic or science works the way it does. This background material is usually of a sort that the author knows it fairly explicitly, but it is often hidden from the reader, only to be slowly revealed or inferred as the story progresses. Ni answers the question, "Why did this happen?"

In this sense, Ne and Ni can productively work off of each other. Ne can say "It would be really cool if this happened," and Ni can look at that and say, "Yeah, that'd be really cool, but it makes no sense ... oh waitaminute, if so-and-so were really from Boston, and not New York, then he could have ... and yeah, that could make it all work and fit in."

Both Ne and Ni are speculative in nature, they just speculate about complimentary qualities. In each instance, there is some sort of ground, some sort of "known fact," which is a building point from which the speculation launches. If it launches into explaining "why" the grounded entity is the way it is, how it has come to be, it is Ni. If it instead explores beyond the grounded entity into realms beyond that entity, it is Ne.

This is of course just an analogy, and real Ne and Ni are more complicated (cf. my alternative "switching boxes" analogy for Ni), but this should at least suffice to explain how they are closely related and not alien to one another.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
I believe that many of the differences ascribed to Ne and Ni are more truly matters of the kind of traits one has when one lives Ne vs lives Ni. After all, the "P" and "J" personality traits with which Ne and Ni are associated respectively are fairly distinct. It is certainly possible for one to be very familiar, while the other can be sparingly used or even alien, but both are the same kinds of perception, with mirror-image attitudes.

Let's say one wanted to write a story, and had a core plot, but so far not much else. Ne and Ni would do very similar things to fill in the story, but in different directions.

Ne would take the core plot and expand it outward: it would find other things that could also happen that would be interesting, with extra sub plots and characters and events. Ne will answer the question, "What else could happen?"

Ni would take the core plot and fill in the background, doing character development, explaining why people do what they do, or (in fantasy or sci fi) explaining why magic or science works the way it does. This background material is usually of a sort that the author knows it fairly explicitly, but it is often hidden from the reader, only to be slowly revealed or inferred as the story progresses. Ni answers the question, "Why did this happen?"

In this sense, Ne and Ni can productively work off of each other. Ne can say "It would be really cool if this happened," and Ni can look at that and say, "Yeah, that'd be really cool, but it makes no sense ... oh waitaminute, if so-and-so were really from Boston, and not New York, then he could have ... and yeah, that could make it all work and fit in."

Both Ne and Ni are speculative in nature, they just speculate about complimentary qualities. In each instance, there is some sort of ground, some sort of "known fact," which is a building point from which the speculation launches. If it launches into explaining "why" the grounded entity is the way it is, how it has come to be, it is Ni. If it instead explores beyond the grounded entity into realms beyond that entity, it is Ne.

This is of course just an analogy, and real Ne and Ni are more complicated (cf. my alternative "switching boxes" analogy for Ni), but this should at least suffice to explain how they are closely related and not alien to one another.

Those suggestions, however, seem to allow Ne to operate independent of external stimulus. If Ne is focused on providing content for some story, how is it that the writer, aside from riffing on the "real" world of the story, isn't also blowing their own mind seeing what it means to be sitting in some room writing some story--and thus potentially saying to themselves, "Goodness, this is not a game of soldiers! I shall go outside and play"? Literally in that case asking what else could happen different from sitting in a room and writing. Doesn't sitting still and developing some piece of fiction kind of starve Ne?

And personally I think Ni would take the core plot and try to generate that one clean sentence that somehow tells everything at once. Ni writers have to be careful to actually include detail. (Love Cormac McCarthy, but have only ever made it through The Road.)


If the above aspects of the analogy hold, it would seem we have (or I've included) the corollaries that Ni can't do Ne without hurting itself, and Ne can't do Ni without going blind.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Those suggestions, however, seem to allow Ne to operate independent of external stimulus. If Ne is focused on providing content for some story, how is it that the writer, aside from riffing on the "real" world of the story, isn't also blowing their own mind seeing what it means to be sitting in some room writing some story--and thus potentially saying to themselves, "Goodness, this is not a game of soldiers! I shall go outside and play"? Literally in that case asking what else could happen different from sitting in a room and writing. Doesn't sitting still and developing some piece of fiction kind of starve Ne?

And personally I think Ni would take the core plot and try to generate that one clean sentence that somehow tells everything at once. Ni writers have to be careful to actually include detail. (Love Cormac McCarthy, but have only ever made it through The Road.)


If the above aspects of the analogy hold, it would seem we have (or I've included) the corollaries that Ni can't do Ne without hurting itself, and Ne can't do Ni without going blind.

There's a reason I'm differentiating the functions from the personalities. The Ne dom personality lives for external stimulus, because of the new ideas it generates. The idea-generation, however, is wholly inside one's head: in fact, an external stimulus leads to an idea, but then that idea itself acts as a stimulus for other ideas, and then those ideas lead to still other ideas. So, there is no requirement, per se, that Ne thought patterns necessarily begin as an external stimulus. For INxP types, I've observed that they seem to start not from external stimuli the way the ENxPs do, but rather start from an Fi or Ti core, and extrapolate from there: INxPs use Ne to extrovert their introverted judging, and don't focus so much on external stimulation since they're not extroverted overall, and don't lead with an extroverted function. Einstein (INTP) didn't go around seeking external stimuli for ideas, but sat and thought (Ti) and used Ne to figure out where things logically went. He did "thought experiments." His relativity theories are entirely logical extensions of three core principles (constant speed of light, the equivalence principle for frames in constant motion with respect to each other, and the equivalence principle of gravity and acceleration).

As for Ni, I doubt one would try to be that concise. The Ni-ishness of what I described is that many of the Ni-speculated ideas would simply remain unmentioned, held in reserve, the same way INTJs have their reputation for contingency plans.

As for "personally," I personally use both Ne and Ni in various ways, leaning more on Ni than Ne. Ne is more obvious to most people, so I'm not too worried about trying to explain it better, but there are so many weak and misleading descriptions of Ni out there that I try to make it less mysterious, so that others can understand it, too. I'll admit that my Ni author example here is very simplistic, but it's a good 1st-order explanation of Ni. Real Ni (and for that matter, writing a real book) is a far more complex process, but the more elaborate descriptions aren't useful for those who lack a personal familiarity with Ni. Since people mostly seem to understand Ne, I try to use that as a bridge to help others understand Ni.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
There's a reason I'm differentiating the functions from the personalities. The Ne dom personality lives for external stimulus, because of the new ideas it generates. The idea-generation, however, is wholly inside one's head: in fact, an external stimulus leads to an idea, but then that idea itself acts as a stimulus for other ideas, and then those ideas lead to still other ideas. So, there is no requirement, per se, that Ne thought patterns necessarily begin as an external stimulus.

Ones eyes are very nearly wholly inside ones head, and yet they see very little, practically nothing of what is inside the head. I get that the ideas happen inside ones head, but for an e function the benchmark for genuineness or attention or "what is the content we are looking for today" is "does it match the outside world?" (With "match" having different meanings according to which e function is in question.) All stimulus is officially external, will be treated as external, whether it is in fact wholly concrete or wholly abstract or somewhere in between.

Is orientation genuinely defining or not? Does one become competent at intuition per se or at oriented intuition? But how does a function exist without orientation? In the absence of orientation there is no definition for content. Does some cognitive function literally without defined focus actually do anything? Is it or is it not a furphy to say that as a given orientation matures, the person naturally begins to look further afield, seeking to enliven what they've gone before and will if they've been i start down an e road for interests sake? To dabble in the opposite orientation of a given function is NOT to undermine the given function? Etc and so on. Einstein didn't Ni.

Did you know, almost no one describes how functions work. They constantly describe what functions produce, but not how they produce. Thus, claiming swinging function parties is somewhat premature. It may be nothing more than a wine and cheese night.
 

1487610420

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
6,431
Claims of use of Ne and Ni puzzle me. It is said that we all have the same functions, but not the same preference, or proficiency at using them; Thus, and following the general function development chronology, one only usually reaches Tertiary development around 30's, Quaternary I have no idea, 40's or more? I do know I use Si and how I use it, but it's pretty much a single purpose use: Learning from the past. So, Ni, for me, would be "buried" under a pille of functions, hence how can I access it? By being given lectures of how it works and then trying to recreate the process?

While I can, upon understanding something, try to recreate it, e.g. : after being given an algorythm of how Ni works, and identifying the core principles it uses and understanding how they are applied, I can try to follow the same steps and apply the same logic, still, anything that I do will be done using my own skills in their prefered order, NeTiFeSi and so own. One can at best, call it emulation, but it doesn't seem like it will be the same thing. I can however, understand that environmental stimulus and practice can help develop certain habbits, like how the military training, or daily industry practices can help developt practicality i.e. Te, when I find myself spewing out such directives, it is never in my natural way of being to put it in practice. I can try to consciously force myself to do it, but at any moment, the NeTi core will be at work, doing it's thing, as a background noise. It never feels like I'm using my skills but rather just something I learned to do for whichever reason or purpose. And I should add, that it always feels exhausting and depleting.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Ne would take the core plot and expand it outward: it would find other things that could also happen that would be interesting, with extra sub plots and characters and events. Ne will answer the question, "What else could happen?"

Ni would take the core plot and fill in the background, doing character development, explaining why people do what they do, or (in fantasy or sci fi) explaining why magic or science works the way it does. This background material is usually of a sort that the author knows it fairly explicitly, but it is often hidden from the reader, only to be slowly revealed or inferred as the story progresses. Ni answers the question, "Why did this happen?"

In this sense, Ne and Ni can productively work off of each other. Ne can say "It would be really cool if this happened," and Ni can look at that and say, "Yeah, that'd be really cool, but it makes no sense ... oh waitaminute, if so-and-so were really from Boston, and not New York, then he could have ... and yeah, that could make it all work and fit in."

This is an interesting comparison of Ne and Ni. And from your definitions, I would CERTAINLY have Ni, not Ne.:wtf:

I give up. Really.

Are you sure this is Ne vs. Ni?
 

Wonkavision

Retired Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,154
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w8
As an Ne-dom, I can assure you, it is very difficult to stay inside my head for any amount of time.

Pretty much the only time I'm not scanning the environment is when I'm asleep.

And I really don't sleep that much (on average, about 4-5 hours a night, and still have plenty of energy).


It seems like some people can't accept that Ne REALLY IS an EXTRAVERTED function.

Why is this?



Also---Isn't it the combination of Ne and Ji (Fi or Ti) that generates ideas in Ne-doms, rather than Ne itself?
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
This is an interesting comparison of Ne and Ni. And from your definitions, I would CERTAINLY have Ni, not Ne.:wtf:

I give up. Really.

Are you sure this is Ne vs. Ni?

If it is, I fall in the category as well (granted, I've done little except brainstorm stories at this point, but I know that is how I think.. one story I have barely has a plot, let alone subplots. It's all conceptualization of background, costumes, belief systems, class structure, etc.. It's like I have to build a little stage before a good idea in terms of plot develops. In one particular case, I anthromorphized some of the animal kingdoms in the Amazon and Africa. A bit passe, I guess.. but it was only after that that I noticed a better plotline to play with them).

I've always envied the other process (if it's Ne, so be it). "The only thing you can do on TV that you can't do in film is make a continuing story - which is so cool!" -David Lynch (he's probably an extreme example though. He just pushes forward almost any random idea or subplot. It's funny.).
 
Top