Ni - What the hell is it?

[Sniffles]

Allow me to paraphrase one ENFP on the differences between Ne and Ni:

Ne seems to operate within time
Ni seems to operate outside time


I often notice that Ne-doms seem to very adept at punditry. By pundit, I mean in the manner it's traditionally understood as "someone who offers to mass-media his or her opinion or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis, the social sciences or sport) on which they are knowledgeable." As we even see with pundit shows, a vast range of topics are discussed, and it's often very fast-paced. Yes it often can be loud too(but not necessarily).

By contrast, speaking for myself at least - I don't thrive in such an enviroment. I tend to prefer a more calm in-depth discussion on certain themes. I say themes because there maybe a wide range of angles and topics involved, but there's still an underlining theme involved. Here's an excellent example of what I'm talking about from a scholar I have great respect for:

[youtube="_99ZCeO7wfU"]Ni at work?[/youtube]
FYI, I often classify ^^ as INFJ, but he definately is Ni-dom.

[Kalach]

Ni, I insist, isn't frameworks, plural. It's the conglomeration of frameworks. The framework of frameworks. Ni is The 42. The activity of Ni is the reinvention of frameworks to generate The 42. As such "seeing the future" is a byproduct. We should say that frameworks come and go, but parts of their content stay and, frequently, are altered. It's a perception function after all, and restless, meaning any given framework provides much too static a vision of things and isn't enough, however ironic this should sound against the assertion that Ni is the 42. "The 42" is all possible 42s merged into 42, and is an end state where all things implode into One. Naturally, I metaphorialise, seeking once again the new single description of the many. That is the 42 at work.

The goal is the one single unifying framework. The practice is the invention of multiple frameworks. And these two things are not contradictory. There must after all be some guiding principle in the creation of frameworks, or these frameworks would be as content-free as the next wild surmise.

But still, what is a framework? Shall I hedge and say a framework is a perspective? Or shall I say a framework is (not identical to but embodied by) an act of interpretation?

Such frameworks as appear in the functioning of introverted intuition are (embodied by) those acts of reinterpreting common data. The goal is to show how those common data are part of the 42. And there is a tension between "showing" and mere "seeing". On that point one ought to note that there is some Yin/Yang relationship between a common datum and the re-interpretation of that common datum, but that relationship is more exactly the province of some extroverted function. The 42 seeks only to re-imagine what exists until it all fits into the re-image of the everything, and one can finally settle into nothingness.

It is, after all, an introverted function.

[Polaris]

Ni is an unwavering singular vision - that singular vision can be awesome and correct, or it can be paranoid or even batshit insane. And by "vision" I don't mean psychic vision. I mean VISION - like I SAY THIS WILL BE, for example a successful business, a brilliant film, a social solution, the very foundation of Christianity...or Nazi Germany, and religious cults. It gives Ni users a kind of focus (at least if they're using their Fe or Te fully) to manifest something new.

Rather than a singular vision, I would say that Ni has a certain confidence about how a whole range of things could or will pan out. What these things are depends on what Ni is focusing on at a particular moment, and 99% of the time, it's something extremely mundane like a successful career (which you mentioned) or (as Eric mentioned, via Berens) avoiding a certain kind of pet because it's occurred to you what will happen if you don't. These visions aren't precisely unwavering, either. At the time that I'm caught up in them (I can't speak for others), they have a lot of definiteness about them, yes, and if you were to ask me about them, you would come away thinking that I'm dead set on seeing them through. At the same time, though, I'm always receptive to new visions, some of which might supplant the old ones. Those visions have to be my own--I resist any kind of external input--and that's probably what creates the impression of someone who is rigidly set in their ways.

Ni is also a penetrating intuitive evaluation of the person or situation. It can be scarily spot on - like wow! - or bizarrely out of left field and ...not.

It's a kind of creativity and imagination that springs from within - I think one of the reasons I recognize myself as an Ne user is because I collect things to make something new, like a collage. Or I see patterns in divergent things or ideas. On the other hand, I think Ni users seem to come up with things that seem PURELY IMAGINATIVE. Like sometimes I feel like Ni users are more creative than me, because I can recognize how I've collected things from other sources and pieced them together into something new. But their creativity can at least appear to be...singularly unique...because it comes from their inner intuition instead of extroverted intuition.

Yes, this is spot-on for me, so good job.

[IZthe411]

I don't think future and past are that useful in explaining the difference between the two. Intuition is simply abstract thought, and you can think of a spectrum of that thought as having internally driven on one side and externally driven on the other. Ne, being externally driven, will think abstractly about what's currently going on (including where the conversation is, what the social assumptions are, where the user is, etc.). Ni, being internally driven, will think abstractly about whatever is going on in their own heads (including the output of the last Intuition).

(I italicized 'about' because the distinction between the two functions is only based on what they look at, not what the mechanism is.)

So Ni can feed off itself (and other introverted functions) without once referencing the outside world. Ne can only feed on itself if the environment is affected. This makes Ne users more adaptable -- anything that comes at them can be thought of without the weight of past thoughts. It also means Ni users think more deeply about fewer ideas. They both have their pros and cons -- there is a tradeoff between integrating new information and processing information you already have.

What's here, especially the bottom portion is a very good way to explain it.

[Billy]

Simplest way to look at it, Ni is just connecting the dots of random data into an answer. It boils the random data which seems unconnected, connects and boils it down into an answer. Ne is more about taking a single issue or bit of data and following it outward to other possibilities or tangents.

[IZthe411]

When dealing with the external world, Ni involves getting perceptually outside of a system, usually in order to take a shortcut or avoid a pitfall that everyone who plays by the rules is oblivious to. You might be wandering through a maze, for example, when it suddenly occurs to you that you don't need to weave your way through the halls and corridors; you can climb over the walls or dig a tunnel under them instead, and reach your goal in a more direct fashion.

Ni will often see ways to take advantage of the assumptions it detaches from. For example, an Ni user may realize that there is a certain style of speech, a certain carriage, a certain overall way of presenting oneself that creates the mere impression of authority; and that Ni user will by the same stroke learn how to make themselves appear authoritative to others, who for the most part, won't be perceptive enough to question appearances.

So Ni is essentially about playing the game instead of letting the game play you. This becomes possible only through an attitude of detachment toward the world, an attitude that regards the world as a place made up of people carrying out actions in an uncritical and almost mindless fashion. To the extent that an Ni user continues to develop that sense of detachment, they'll eventually seek a perspective that transcends the world and even conception itself, discarding them both as mere appearances. What is left is Ni at its purest, and linguistically, this purity of intuition can only be described as a kind of silence or nothingness, not because those words are at all accurate but because they don't mean anything: they erase language and lay bare the essence that Ni seeks.

That essence is the silent truth within us--the clear vision, the lucid knowledge, the "just knowing" that constitutes Ni at its purest. That knowledge may take the form of a certain future, an insight into another person's behavior, or any number of things. What is essential to this knowledge is its irrationality: it doesn't come from anywhere or take an instant to arise, nor does it spring from any line of reasoning.

What's bolded is Pi- introverted perception, in general.

And Ni can't be about shortcutting. It can have the appearance of it, because it's taking whatever information it has at that point and leaping to conclusions/basis with it. Comparatively , Si has the ability to 'leap', but their conclusions/basis are related to what they've experienced in the past, while Ni's may or may not. Unlike Si, experiences aren't heavily relied upon. I'd say, compared to Si, Ni gets you there faster but with more risk of inaccuracy.

[Night]

Of all the functions, this is probably the hardest to understand what it means.

I mean you read a description and it's like "Knowing thins instinctively" and "Experiencing Premonitions" and it's just like WTF? It's hardly an explanation of how a mental function works. Does anyone have a better explanation? I can almost never tell definitively in characters if what they are using is Ne or Ni, since both are abstract idea generators and pattern connectors, supposedly.

It's a little more concerted than a vague, oceanic feeling of certainty.

Ni is the quiet accumulation of ostensibly unrelated items, often spanning various fields. It's an assembly line of different parts collectively configured to be something meaningful; something once hidden.

Think of how a car is made in a factory. Each part is independently sharpened to perfection before joining the central engine block. By themselves, the parts hold less value - it's only when all are cohesively formulated does meaning emerge.

Such is Ni.

[OrangeAppled]

Seriously..the more I read about Ni, the more it resembles my Fi-process...or at least part of it

Seriously....using FiNe makes Ni seem rather unimpressive to me. The demi-god status of it 'round these parts makes me roll my eyes. I like the simple descriptions, as there's no pretense of mystery or superiority. They actually make sense & ring true to me because of it. Of course, I hate having my Fi oversimplified, so I can understand why Ni-doms become all poetic in describing their precious thought process. :P

[Aleksei]

Simplest way to look at it, Ni is just connecting the dots of random data into an answer. It boils the random data which seems unconnected, connects and boils it down into an answer. Ne is more about taking a single issue or bit of data and following it outward to other possibilities or tangents.

What? No; Ne is about finding hidden patterns. Taking unconnected data and forming theories out of them is a very Ne skill.

[Ginkgo]

It is very important that people understand that a cognitive function does not a personal behaviour make.

Ok, master.