• 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
Good Afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen,

I decided it was time to introduce something that hasn't been discussed on depth in any of the major mbti type forums that I've frequented over the past year. It's one of my particular pet topics which people often come to ask me about in various guises. I've talked about it in some depth before but I thought it may be time to document it for posterity.

One of the great complications on this type of interaction is that people often have their own definition of what Ne and Ni are; therefore it is best to start by letting you know how I have come to define and understand these cognitive functions.

Ne Preference and Interpersonal Interaction

Ne is the easier to understand of the two; Ne has the attitude of preferring to extrapolate ideas from external stimulus. As the dominant Ne types you will see in ENTPs and ENFPs have a tendency to seek out stimulating ideas from interaction with others.

These types often lament that they feel like 'knowledge thieves' taking others ideas and seeing alternate uses for them; of course what they may not realise is that they have a greater ability to spontaneously modify this idea (sometimes wildly) and find a new idea that few others may have brought to fruition before.

This therefore teaches dominant Ne users that interpersonal reaction and stimulus giving is a 'good thing'. Thus if they feel they wish to improve their interactions with another person (shower them with love/make friends etc.) they will have a natural reaction of delivering large amounts of stimulus to that person and expect the same in return.

Ni Preference and Interpersonal Interaction

Ni has a more complex definition that I have failed to see anyone accurately define at all. Ni has the attitude of preferring to interpolate optimum systems from ideas based upon internal stimulus. This gives the dominant Ni types, the INTJ and INFJ's a focus on 'key symbolic ideas' which can be brought forward and optimized to build structure. Because Ni reacts to internal stimulus, these types will be external stimulus avoidant (sic. human interaction) as they would prefer space to help them solve whatever symbolic problem is running in their head.

In human interaction these types often appear acutely observant; although they may have phased out to deal with some lingering internal conundrum. The support function adds considerably more definition to interaction as it is the external aspect. INTJs when they flip from Ni to Te will appear critical, viewing ideas as systems to be interpolated and optimized to solve any outstanding problems or to develop their understanding of ideas, with Ni providing a symbolic focus on the key aspects. INFJs will appear giving, with Fe actualising a need to empathically share what they view are the iconic themes that are driving them; expect lots of subtle but powerful emotional gestures based upon others needs.

Therefore, dominant Ni users view intrapersonal thinking and blocking out external stimulus as the preferred opportunity available to them. If they they feel they wish to make friends or express love to another they will do so by interacting via. their secondary external aspect while dotting it with key iconic themes that their Ni prefers. They will then retreat to allow the other time to digest the concept as they would do themselves, regardless of the partner's preference. As they wish significant space and time to flex their Ni, they expect others also to wish it as a consequence.

Opposing Interpersonal Interaction

To summarise where we are at this point it is important to note that:
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.

These two functional attitudes to interpersonal interaction are directly opposed which can lead to communication confusion between Ni and Ne users.

I have often stressed that as a dominant Ni user I often feel that any interaction with an Ne user is immediately a loss. Because my preference is to sit and ponder and introvert to have a lengthy conversation with an ENxP I lose a large portion of my ability to do so while I feed their Ne. In effect, they love it, but I lose doing what I prefer to some degree.

The side effect of such positive interaction for the Ne dominant is that they may choose to like the Ni dominant so much that they shower them with attention, without realising that this makes the Ni dominant feel at even greater of a loss as opposed to allowing time for the Ni dominant to recover and ponder. They may then become offended because if the Ni user wishes to be friendly with them they may receed into their shell because that is the Ni preference.

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.

Personal Note

I have always had significant difficulty doing so in my own life; often having at least one ENFP around bombarding me with what I would view as mild dramas that I wish they would go away and solve themselves (and yes, they definitely have a lot more energy that I do to solve it!); of course this is my misunderstanding their ultimate sign of affection 'Look at this problem! Stimulus' without realising that it is a sign of belligerence to the Ni user. Also note that the Ni user shows love in a way the Ne does not necessarily reconcile 'I love you now I give you space!' they will say 'where is the interaction'.

Of course, we know from a development perspective that it would be foolish to ignore the interaction of this type as Ni users require this external stimulus to develop their supporting functions, therefore Ni users should seek out this type of interaction in a way they find manageable and Ne users should appreciate that the Ni user will require to retreat and introvert much more than they may be happy with.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Question: how do you think this dynamic would differ if you replaced the Ni-dom with a Ti-dom? Fi-dom? Si-dom?

It seemed you primarily addressed the nature of an introvert/extrovert relationship or dynamic; I'm curious to see how you think the dynamic would change, depending on what introverted function is in the dominant position...
 

InvisibleJim

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,387
Question: how do you think this dynamic would differ if you replaced the Ni-dom with a Ti-dom? Fi-dom? Si-dom?

This is off topic but lets see... I believe that you would see quite a similar effect with a Ti dom versus Ne, however it depends on the maturity of their Ne support function. The Ti dominant may not get so far into 'suffering' (for lack of a better term) Ne dominant interaction as they are so focused on the task at hand they may take what they wish from the Ne user then decide the rest of the interaction was a waste of time.

I cannot sympathise with the Si dominants as I really don't have a basis to work from. In past experience, Si dominants tend to be more willing to suffer people extroverting towards them than Ni dominants (the opportunity cost of relating is less) as the Ne user provides direct stimulus to the Si function often due to the flurry of activity an Ne user posses and this feeds into the smokescreen of Si that they use most prominently. An Si user could in effect see the energy of an Ne user as quite symbolic and therefore enjoy their company.

With regards to Fi dominants as their driving function is self defined belief and moral systems which are then related to the world using either Se or Ne they would likely find an Ni user quite dull after a while (not enough idea generation to judge) whereas an Ne user may be more stimulating, although potentially more offensive! The slow(er) idea generation and processing of Ni types often fixes the Ni user on a set internal path, therefore Fi dominant users can find this comforting or completely disagreeable.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
To summarise where we are at this point it is important to note that:
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.

I'm pinging around workplace meetings right now, but I'll have to revisit this thread.

The quote above definitely resonated -- I think the most pervasive issue I've had with Ni-primaries is feeling like they didn't like me, or that we weren't connecting, because instead of reaching out to engage and/or accept engagement, they would always pull back and disappear on me, like turtles going back into their shells, as soon as things got going, and I never knew how to read any of it. It was confounding, and meanwhile left me rather speechless since I did not want to misinterpret thing or intrude where I was not wanted. I just had no clue how to read it.

It's like they just lived inside a black box, in the typical sense of the word. I had no clue what was going on in there. I could only see the Je perspective, but to me that was just a "working costume/demeanor" and not really the core of who they were, which remained cloaked.
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm just having the realization that Fidelia talks about of "I need to reach out more," or "I need to initiate more." Huh.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It's like they just lived inside a black box, in the typical sense of the word. I had no clue what was going on in there. I could only see the Je perspective, but to me that was just a "working costume/demeanor" and not really the core of who they were, which remained cloaked.

I do live in a black box, so to speak. It's really challenging for me to articulate half of what's in my head; I'm so bad at elaborating in-the-moment. I've mentioned this in various threads on here before, but what all of you guys read here on the boards, in these threads, really doesn't see the light of day in real life. I simply cannot articulate all of my thoughts in the same way, verbally. Verbally things get reduced to summaries, vaguer statements, or one-or-two liners. A 'long' post of mine on here requires 15-20 minutes to compose, and that's with me fully concentrating. IRL, with another person looking at me, it's an impossibility -- for obvious reasons.

I think this does improve with practice - the more I socialize, the better I am able to articulate and express myself. Also it's improved with age -- I've made a conscious effort, through my 20's til now, to try to open up more and externalize some of this. But, for the most part, I'm *used to* just being in my own head and keeping all of it in there.

(Also, I by no means am saying all INFJ's experience this to the extent that I do, as I don't think they do. I think I'm a little extreme when it comes to this, and two of my INFJ friends and one INTJ that I know are pretty darn good at illuminating their inner thoughts.)

More to the OP - I definitely need to retreat and have my own space to formulate my thoughts, make sense of them, and reach conclusions.
 

InvisibleJim

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,387
I think this does improve with practice - the more I socialize, the better I am able to articulate and express myself. Also it's improved with age -- I've made a conscious effort, through my 20's til now, to try to open up more and externalize some of this. But, for the most part, I'm *used to* just being in my own head and keeping all of it in there.

From the behavioural economics standpoint the INFJ projects and relates to others with more ease as Fe is the Extroverted Judging function rather than Te which only sees value in relations with others when there is qualitative (not quantitative) value in doing so (or so it feeds back to Ni in the case of the INTJ).

With regards to quantitative value, INTPs are more likely to demand a discussion follows their line of inquiry although ideas which support this are allowed as Ne is secondary to Ti (in all occassions, Ti calls the shots).
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm pinging around workplace meetings right now, but I'll have to revisit this thread.

The quote above definitely resonated -- I think the most pervasive issue I've had with Ni-primaries is feeling like they didn't like me, or that we weren't connecting, because instead of reaching out to engage and/or accept engagement, they would always pull back and disappear on me, like turtles going back into their shells, as soon as things got going, and I never knew how to read any of it. It was confounding, and meanwhile left me rather speechless since I did not want to misinterpret thing or intrude where I was not wanted. I just had no clue how to read it.

It's like they just lived inside a black box, in the typical sense of the word. I had no clue what was going on in there. I could only see the Je perspective, but to me that was just a "working costume/demeanor" and not really the core of who they were, which remained cloaked.

I feel the same way with Si. Like it crawls back in its shell because I said something. The times they dont it comes across as critical. I notice this with ENTP at work and I started to use it as a sound board of integration ideas. Usually I end up walking off with a weird feeling about the way things went, then his Si puts stuff together and comes back with direction.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
From the behavioural economics standpoint the INFJ projects and relates to others with more ease as Fe is the Extroverted Judging function rather than Te which only sees value in relations with others when there is qualitative (not quantitative) value in doing so (or so it feeds back to Ni in the case of the INTJ).

With regards to quantitative value, INTPs are more likely to demand a discussion follows their line of inquiry although ideas which support this are allowed as Ne is secondary to Ti (in all occassions, Ti calls the shots).

When in Ti mode and troubleshoot I do guide, always. I make the call on whats relevant and whats not, but its not to say that I dont accept input or paths from others to judge what is relevant. I always welcome input on paths that I didnt look at or just providing more info. 90% of the time the questions I ask are strictly objective and not related to who you are. Whats common goes out the window to what could possibly happen and eliminating paths.

When I do decide to go down others path I generally dont see the relevance so I follow. I am not able to provide very many ideas as I dont see the relevence or paths.
 

InvisibleJim

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,387
I feel the same way with Si. Like it crawls back in its shell because I said something. The times they dont it comes across as critical. I notice this with ENTP at work and I started to use it as a sound board of integration ideas. Usually I end up walking off with a weird feeling about the way things went, then his Si puts stuff together and comes back with direction.

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.

When in Ti mode and troubleshoot I do guide, always. I make the call on whats relevant and whats not, but its not to say that I dont accept input or paths from others to judge what is relevant. I always welcome input on paths that I didnt look at or just providing more info. 90% of the time the questions I ask are strictly objective and not related to who you are. Whats common goes out the window to what could possibly happen and eliminating paths.

When I do decide to go down others path I generally dont see the relevance so I follow. I am not able to provide very many ideas as I dont see the relevence or paths.

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.
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
How does a Ni dominant "giving space" to someone he/she likes differ from "ignoring" or "avoiding" someone they don't like, then?
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

uumlau

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

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
When you sit back and look at it, does it seem odd all of a sudden that we usually let the other person lead?
 

InvisibleJim

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,387
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.

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.

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'.
 

uumlau

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

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.


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 ;)
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
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?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
p.s. When are we gunna discuss the results?

I already have my primary observation. :laugh:
 
Top