[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Ni - What the hell is it?

[Mal12345]

Here is a great quote about John Maynard Keynes which expresses the INTJ mindset:

Roy Harrod: "Keynes [spoke] on a great range of topics, on some of which he was thoroughly an expert, but on others [he had] derived his views from the few pages of a book at which he had happened to glance. The air of authority was the same in both cases."

 

[uumlau]

I'll have to assume Jung's definitions anyway which could be entirely fantasy when they lack scientific investigation.

And if Jung is an Ni dom? Where does that put Ni, or all the rest of the functions, if it was just made up from whole cloth as you assert.

Here is a great quote about John Maynard Keynes which expresses the INTJ mindset:

Roy Harrod: "Keynes [spoke] on a great range of topics, on some of which he was thoroughly an expert, but on others [he had] derived his views from the few pages of a book at which he had happened to glance. The air of authority was the same in both cases."

Well, it sounds like we probably agree more or less on the validity of Keynes' analysis. For various reasons, however, I would currently type him as ISTP. The way he looks at equlibria and assumes that if they "aren't in equilibrium," that they need to be "fixed" is very Ti in its need for self-consistency (rather than supposing that like a swing, equilibria will always tend towards equlibrium without any outside influence).

 

[Mal12345]

And if Jung is an Ni dom? Where does that put Ni, or all the rest of the functions, if it was just made up from whole cloth as you assert.

From the whole cloth of Jung's unconscious mind, perhaps. Or wherever the cloth comes from. According to Kant (INTJ), the universe of our spatial perceptions could be said to be made up of a uniform and indivisible "cloth," or as he called it, a "pure intuition."

 

[grey_beard]

Neither does the definition of 'table.'

Mendeleev might beg to differ.

 

[Mal12345]

Mendeleev might beg to differ.

Not that kind of table.

 

[Thor]

A lot of people use both, therefore they have a difficult time telling which is which.. They are the same thing just going in different directions. They do the same thing except with a different emphasis ..

Ne is perceiving abstract patterns and connections in response to stimuli (either in the external world or in the mind. ) Ne generates new information starting from something existing. Ne focuses on future possibilities.

Ni is the creation of mental imagery independent of outer stimuli. Ni generates abstract structural images of a given problem domain that a person can view from different points of view at will. Ni focuses on the structure of things from a timeless point of view.

I've looked over many people's cognitive function tests, and I haven't found one that have been able to consistently tell people with Ni apart from people with Ne. Most questionnaires end up giving people scores where they are suggested to have 90% chance of having Ni, and 80% chance of having Ne, with very small percentual differences between the two. Socionics does a fairly consistent job of telling the two apart, but do so by generalizing on Ni and Ne to have personality traits that I believe are unrelated to the two functions.

I still like the definition provided here, in particular Ne being in response to stimuli, and Ni being independent of outer stimuli. Ni is activated by using top-down processing (which means looking at the world from a set of previously conceived beliefs, values, knowledge) so Ni always has a bias based on whatever is within their field of interest. Ni is found managing the working memory. Ne on the other hand, is responding to the outer world. Ne indicates looking at new information conceptually, as if it was a fantasy, while Ni (Se) looks at new information realistically, critically, as if there's potentially something wrong with everything new they see/hear. Ni is open-minded and conceptual about values, beliefs, and knowledge, able to synthesize, generalize, and play with their sense of self, their knowledge on a topic.

Both, I think, are focused on future possibilities, both enjoy and are motivated by discussing what could be. Intuitives have an amazing connection. They connect better with each others than with they connect with sensors, because they speak the same language. Ni and Ne just indicates that their interest in intuition is expressed differently, and experienced in different situations. For example, Ni-users will experience themselves being more open-minded when they are goal-oriented and determined, while Ne is more open-minded and creative mid-learning new information.

 

[Eric B]

I'm an exception, where Ne is high (strongest when I first took it, then moved to the accurate second place), and Ni was always my weakest. I believe this is because both Ne and Si are strong for me (Si also, accurately third place), so I simply have a greater clarity of preference for the "Inquiring Awareness" functions than for the "Realizing" ones. (Se was always next to last, as well).
Other N's who do not have as great a clarity, may just be strong in general "iNtuition" and score high in both (while for NP's, Si will be weak).

 

[the state i am in]

Ni vs Ne

intuition x operative orientation = intuition x (semantic vs episodic. semantic vs pragmatic (linguistics). phonological loop vs visuo-spatial sketchpad. top-down vs bottom-up. intentional vs extensional. purpose vs process/path. balanced perspective vs balanced path. object vs action. subject vs predicate. mind identifying with mind vs mind identifying with matter. conservative vs liberal (psychologically). ancestral vs offspring. transcendent vs immanent. ancient vs modern. atemporal vs aspatial (kant's forms of intuition, which one is the foundation for the other?). assumed vs experiential. generalization vs specification (albeit given the recursive N cross-contextualization process). hierarchy vs heterarchy. condition vs rule. integration vs derivation. identity vs difference. unity vs multiplicity. outsidedness vs insidedness. ontlogical vs ontic. inductive vs deductive (times abductive). external validity vs internal validity. language vs physics. structure vs process. argument vs explanation. map vs territory)

it's part of a flow of information. they're not things in themselves. they're directions. hell, i still think the left-brain/right-brain approximations are the best at capturing this. in yoga psychologies, they're often referred to as "channels."

 

[Eric B]

Just came to realize, that I described Ne as looking at a bunch of "objects" in the environment (like multiple patterns a given pattern can be compared to), but tI think Ni can look at multiple patterns in the environment also, the difference will be, and what Ni will do internally is choose one of them as the most possible, where to Ne they can all be "possible".

I recalled the definition of [all] introverted functions as all "abstracting" what's most relevant, and subtracting from it what isn't. So Ni and Ne will look at all the same data, but Ne will accept whatever is in the environment, while Ni will individually filter according to the unconscious impressions. For the Ne type to abstract what's most relevant, they will have to use their judgment (which will be the introverted preference), which will rationally do the sorting, where Ni will do the sorting irrationally, so rather than a [rational] true/false or good/bad determination of what's right, it will come out as a a "knowing" or the so-called "a-ha" (then the judgment will be used to handle the environmental aspect of the data).

 

[uumlau]

Just came to realize, that I described Ne as looking at a bunch of "objects" in the environment (like multiple patterns a given pattern can be compared to), but tI think Ni can look at multiple patterns in the environment also, the difference will be, and what Ni will do internally is choose one of them as the most possible, where to Ne they can all be "possible".

I recalled the definition of [all] introverted functions as all "abstracting" what's most relevant, and subtracting from it what isn't. So Ni and Ne will look at all the same data, but Ne will accept whatever is in the environment, while Ni will individually filter according to the unconscious impressions. For the Ne type to abstract what's most relevant, they will have to use their judgment (which will be the introverted preference), which will rationally do the sorting, where Ni will do the sorting irrationally, so rather than a [rational] true/false or good/bad determination of what's right, it will come out as a a "knowing" or the so-called "a-ha" (then the judgment will be used to handle the environmental aspect of the data).

I think this is an accurate depiction. For Ne types, the patterns spotted in the external environment are what is regarded as "true". This is the case for all extroverted functions, including Se (the details of the external environment are regarded as true), Te (the logistics of the external environment are regarded as true), and Fe (the emotional interactions of the external environment are regarded as true). And by "true", I mean, pun intended, "objectively true". When arguments happen, if you try to argue against what someone regards as objectively true, they'll think you're a complete idiot or ignoramus who can't see the obvious truth before your eyes. Which functions are extroverted is critical, as it determines the more or less commonly visible facts that an individual regards as true.

The introverted functions work similarly, but in this case, the "obviously true" thing is entirely subjective - even though the individual in question will often regard it as objective. So for the Ni dom, the internal patterns are regarded as true. For the Ti dom, the internal idealized logic is regarded as true. But these truths are never obvious to other individuals, and even other individuals of the same type will usually be blind to them, as they are often unique to a type. Only the extroverted functions provide a bridge, however indirect, to the internal psyche.

In the case of an INTJ, the internal patterns are "true", and the external logistics are "true". Putting these together, the INTJ takes the external logistics and looks for patterns. When a pattern is spotted that corresponds to an internally held pattern, the INTJ takes that internal pattern, overlays it on the externally spotted pattern (via Te), and that immediately makes visible all the inconsistencies of the pattern vs reality. There are three basic paths of thought:

1. There are no inconsistencies. The INTJ is "right", and fully understands what is going on (in a Te sense).
2. The inconsistencies indicate a problem with the Te pattern, and therefore making the Te pattern correspond to the Ni pattern will "fix it".
3. The inconsistencies indicate a problem with the Ni pattern. In this case, the Te pattern is correct, and is added to the Ni library of patterns.

The more introverted INTJ will tend to favor Ni over Te, and be more inclined to confirmation bias and conspiracy theories, and thus will tend to favor patterns (1) and (2), and regard (3) as not very likely. A more balanced/experienced INTJ will focus more on (3) as a possibility.

You can swap Te with Ne, and Ti with Ni in the above and you'll get a similar process with the perceptions and judgments are reversed. The logic in this case is internal and the patterns are external.

 

[the state i am in]

Just came to realize, that I described Ne as looking at a bunch of "objects" in the environment (like multiple patterns a given pattern can be compared to), but tI think Ni can look at multiple patterns in the environment also, the difference will be, and what Ni will do internally is choose one of them as the most possible, where to Ne they can all be "possible".

we just synthesize them. we move toward singularity. when focusing on Ni work, we find common denominators to integrate them. it's less story driven.

i liken it to going into a trance to remove the layers of noise. everything is a clue to get to the deepest concentratedness. how can you best know the eternity of something? decidedly unsequenced. there's no line em up press play multiplicity. there's simply IS. a stand-in placeholder driven disclosure of omnipresence. what holds this and everything else together? what is the weave itself made of? how can we better know the rules of space itself?

the Ne side is about the path and the way of moving along with and through it. it's not about the perfectly still silent suspendedness of all aliveness and the bias that such structures impose upon consciousness. it's diving into the stream.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Honestly, if you want to know Ni, just watch The Matrix - such a self-serious film that preaches "peeking behind" the curtain of reality.

"You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it - you've felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what is its, but it's there - like a splinter inside your mind, driving you mad."

I'd put money on one or both of the Wachowskis being Ni-dominant

 

[Eric B]

I may have earlier mentioned an example I was given, of looking at a map and realizing that something important exists beyond the frame. Whatever it is, it isn't drawn yet on the map; which just ends there. So the task is to locate within some sense of what's missing and find a way to bring it to language that others can hear and understand.
Lenore had said in her book “For INJ’s, the patterns aren’t ‘out there’ in the world, waiting to be discovered. They’re part of us [i.e. internal]—the way we make sense of the riot of information and energy impinging on our systems.” (p.225). I believe what this is saying is that what lies "beyond the map" for instance represents patterns that are inside of us, and thus knowable, but are not conscious, and thus will only come up as "hunches", which may be ignored by most types.
So when I was given the map example, I thought of two streets that are converging when the map ends, and figuring they must meet (but then realizing they might not). But that is actually looking at the object [in this case, the map], and thus Ne. (With the "correct"— according to individual deduction judgment, of Ti. And of course, Si would represent remembering seeing the next map, and thus knowing what was there, and Se would represent getting the next map and just look at it directly).

So I guess another comparison of Ni with Si would be Si remembering the simple facts of experience more clearly, where it is still images of tangible items, while Ni might also involve experienced stuff, but it's forgotten, and yet is still can come up and influence your perceptions of things in a more "abstract" way.
(What makes it difficult, is that Jung described iNtuition as "unconscious", but he also described introversion as an orientation as "unconsious" as well. So both Si and Ni ⦅and Ne⦆ will all be "unconscious" in one way and/or the other, and it's hard to place each function in relation to each other when labeled with that term).
So it would be like Se experieincing something, and simply reacting to whatever presents itself. Si experiences something, and "Stores" this for future reference. With Ni, the person has forgotten the experience, but bits and pieces of it reside in the subconscious, and he has a sense of the outcome, though he can't really put a finger on it or describe it well. (And then will often set out to employ symbols to describe things. And Ne will reference similar experiences and infer the outcome from that).

So would the Ni preferrers say that that fits their functional experience?

 

[Mal12345]

Hello dead forum,

I've just had an Ne moment about the Ni function as described by Jung.

Carl Jung described supernatural and psychic events as if they were synchronicity or manifestations of the collective unconscious. Therefore, his description of the Ni function - the function most aware of its unconscious content - is biased by his reduction of the supernatural to the psychological.

 

[Mal12345]

"In Boise, Idaho, I was an hour away from conducting an [paranormal] investigation of the Old Idaho State Prison when black storm clouds blew in from the west and the temperature suddenly dropped. That wasn’t significant by itself, but two gaping holes in the sky opened up over the prison like eyes looking down on us. It was a meteorological phenomenon, but it still gave me a feeling that something memorable was going to happen during the night." Zak Bagans, "Dark World."

Can there be any more beautiful example of the Ni function in action?

 

[uumlau]

Hello dead forum,

I've just had an Ne moment about the Ni function as described by Jung.

Carl Jung described supernatural and psychic events as if they were synchronicity or manifestations of the collective unconscious. Therefore, his description of the Ni function - the function most aware of its unconscious content - is biased by his reduction of the supernatural to the psychological.

I think there is something to that. He delved fairly deeply into various aspects of mysticism. It would make sense that he didn't entirely compartmentalize it, but integrated it into his analysis. Things like synchronicity and collective unconscious are really just things that are normally common, but they're so weird and personal people think it's something magical.

Sort of like this:

 

[andresimon]

I think there is something to that. He delved fairly deeply into various aspects of mysticism. It would make sense that he didn't entirely compartmentalize it, but integrated it into his analysis. Things like synchronicity and collective unconscious are really just things that are normally common, but they're so weird and personal people think it's something magical.

Sort of like this:

Better to describe what something (Ni) IS rather then describing its functions (Function in the mathematical sense not cognitive sense). They are not the same thing. Also, Ni can never be looked at in isolation. As 8 cognitive types use Ni for 2 different purposes. (Conceptual Actions and Conceptual Principles). INTJ's, INFJ's, ENFJ's, ENTJ's use Ni for Conceptual Principles. Models/Beliefs about the world through generalizations. While ESFP's, ESTP's, ISFP's, INFP's use Ni for Conceptual Actions. Or actions based on what they think will happen based on general situations.

Ask an INTJ how Ni works for actions and they won't be able to tell you. They use it to think of Conceptual Principles about the world and they use Te to take the most useful action based on those principles.

Now from the two sets of behaviors mentioned above SPAWN all types of behaviors, some often become very very different then what most people think of when they think of Ni. What's interesting is that an INFJ (most zoomed out all of types) may not use Ni the same way a INTJ does even though the purpose of the cognitive function is the same (Conceptual Principles). The reason is because the rest of the functions are different and so each cognitive iteration produces a different tilt. (Hence an INTJ may spend a lot of time on totally different thoughts then say an INFJ because each function feeds into the next and then it all comes around full circle). Combine that with the infinite number of inputs from the environment and you are going to find RADICALLY different behaviors for the same cognitive function. Trying to figure out your COGNITIVE function through behavior is OK so long as you realize you are going about it backwards and you can only at best hope to use behavior as a guide but not a rule. In short Behavior (the function) radically divorces itself from the cognitive function itself due to nonlinearities.

 

[VagrantFarce]

I know it's tacky to post songs & lyrics as illustration, but this nails it:

Observing the shades,
interpreting signs;
reporting the patterns
row by line.

Liturgical tales I live and tell,
infused and entwined like threads in the tapestry.

I am, therefore I do.
Explore, I am the Weaver.
I do, therefore become
a seer and believer.

 

[Mal12345]

I think there is something to that. He delved fairly deeply into various aspects of mysticism. It would make sense that he didn't entirely compartmentalize it, but integrated it into his analysis. Things like synchronicity and collective unconscious are really just things that are normally common, but they're so weird and personal people think it's something magical.

Sort of like this:

That's me. I dream that I'm trying to drive a car from a high height where I can barely see the lines on the road, and the car is losing control. It also explains why I like to eat gummy worms.

"...but it still gave me a feeling that something memorable was going to happen during the night."

Zak means memorable-weird or memorable-supernatural.

I want to distinguish Ni as something rather closely related to Si in terms of something that evokes a feeling-state in the perceiver. In this way the Ni function-description will be rendered less obscure than Jung's description.

 

[Bush]

... Mad Libs.