How would you pick up that someone is using Ni?

[Athenian200]

Personally, I think the only way that you can pick up that someone else is using Ni, is through using Ni. In other words, it takes one to know one. Ni users can detect one another pretty well after spending enough time with each other. The first impression can be wrong (though not usually), but it's almost always corrected over time.

I think my most obvious observations of Ni in my boyfriend (an INTJ) is in his explanations of his most fundamental opinions. As an example, he holds the opinion that when it comes to looks, what people should strive for is to have their "outer self" look as much as their "true, inner self" as possible. The closer someone is to this goal, the more beautiful they are. (I think this could indicate Fi too, though.)

Aww! What a beautiful sentiment and ideal. Not very practical, but beautiful. It's really more Ni-Fi than Ni by itself, though.

 

[skylights]

to someone who is not in the Ni know - piercing gaze that looks "through" things.

i am 100% serious.

i think you would have to be relatively close to someone to get to see this enough to be sure of it, though. one of my close friends who's ENFJ, she doesn't do it in a very obvious way, but sometimes she'll do a sort of Fe push - like push people away for a minute so they're not paying attention to her - and sometimes you can see her just STARING through something for a few seconds. it's like she's trying to set it on fire with her eyes.

and then she'll snap back, and say something really insightful but that jumps WAY down the line in terms of a -> b -> c. she'll jump straight to z. and it's usually not about something we've talked about recently, it'll be something from a while back that she's obviously just been playing with in her head for a while, and suddenly zoomed down the pattern line to an insight. i don't think she shares these things with everyone much because they'd probably have no idea what the hell she's referring to, since it doesn't happen in linear timeflow - plus she has greater privacy of thought than me in general - but it's pretty interesting when she does it.

i suspect that is Ni at least. or maybe she is just crazy.

They get lost in their own thoughts in the middle of a conversation.

yeah. Ne does this too, but usually in a more open, tangential way. i feel like Ni users escape into themselves while Ne users just tug you along on their crazy little string.

 

[IZthe411]

I kind of back into the Perception function. I work with the dichotomies, so I'll look for the judgement function first, then see the perception function next. With Ni, I try to look for the basis behind their conclusions; the connections they have made. if they are more prone to give credit to something generally accepted or known, or they disregard information they are not familiar with, I'll initially conclude whether it's Ni/Si. I don't think this is foolproof, because depending on the issue a Ni dom can be 'sold' on something that's widely held and accepted, and if they are convinced, they will disregard what I'm saying, Like a Si user can challenge the gold standard information.

The best way to learn a person IMO, is a discussion of something new to the person. The discovery process says a lot. I think the Ni vs Si becomes very clear then.

Ni vs Ne....I'm working on my words to explain this, but in short Ni is more deep where Ne is wide.

 

[highlander]

to someone who is not in the Ni know - piercing gaze that looks "through" things.

i am 100% serious.

i think you would have to be relatively close to someone to get to see this enough to be sure of it, though. one of my close friends who's ENFJ, she doesn't do it in a very obvious way, but sometimes she'll do a sort of Fe push - like push people away for a minute so they're not paying attention to her - and sometimes you can see her just STARING through something for a few seconds. it's like she's trying to set it on fire with her eyes.

and then she'll snap back, and say something really insightful but that jumps WAY down the line in terms of a -> b -> c. she'll jump straight to z. and it's usually not about something we've talked about recently, it'll be something from a while back that she's obviously just been playing with in her head for a while, and suddenly zoomed down the pattern line to an insight. i don't think she shares these things with everyone much because they'd probably have no idea what the hell she's referring to, since it doesn't happen in linear timeflow - plus she has greater privacy of thought than me in general - but it's pretty interesting when she does it.

i suspect that is Ni at least. or maybe she is just crazy.

yeah. Ne does this too, but usually in a more open, tangential way. i feel like Ni users escape into themselves while Ne users just tug you along on their crazy little string.

That sounds exactly right. One other thought that just occurred to me is that when I zone out like that and come back, sometimes I'll communicate without laying sufficient context which can confuse the other person because they cannot see a direct or linear correlation with the topic at hand. You are skipping too far ahead. Once people get to know you, it's fine. Initially though, people can act a bit dumbstruck - like what is this person talking about, how is that related or significant, ignore it, or whatever. I believe I project this habit (of not setting context) onto others by being critical when they have not laid adequate context when they communicate.

Ni vs Ne....I'm working on my words to explain this, but in short Ni is more deep where Ne is wide.

Yep. One converges. The other diverges.

 

[Tiltyred]

What's really fun is when the other person can shift just like you can, so you zone out and then say the thing that went to Z on a subject not currently being discussed, and the other person knows exactly what you're talking about and picks up the conversation.

 

[cascadeco]

What's really fun is when the other person can shift just like you can, so you zone out and then say the thing that went to Z on a subject not currently being discussed, and the other person knows exactly what you're talking about and picks up the conversation.

Yeah, it's why I enjoy my Ni-dom friends immensely. They'll say something - like, points a and b, and then I'll say, 'So yeah, then that means Z' (because we all tend to think about a lot of these subjects the same way), and she'll say 'Exactly', and then we've 'conversed' in a matter of seconds what would have taken.... a lot longer or not even happened with someone else.

I'd go so far a to say the unspoken gaps/leaps are understood and implied, with two Ni's talking together - the leaps usually make sense.

Re. zoning out - I zone out and *pause* and go inward a LOT during conversation. I think it's fair to say I'm 'zoning out' a lot more than I'm actually talking - and this is when *I'm* doing the talking. And of course I listen far more than I 'Talk'.

 

[Uytuun]

You just know.

duh

What's really fun is when the other person can shift just like you can, so you zone out and then say the thing that went to Z on a subject not currently being discussed, and the other person knows exactly what you're talking about and picks up the conversation.

+1...quick shifting is fuuun...and what Cascade said about the gaps

Sometimes such a wealth of connections and possibilities and metareactions and further shiftings is created or activated in a split second...that it's just really difficult to articulate, and then having another Ni user around is awesome because they will generally grasp what can't be articulated, the totality of it...

Ne doms are better about this than Fi or Ti doms...they're faster with what's slung at them, more open...shiftier.

 

[Craft]

Eyes. Literally. Physically. "Piercing" and "Beady" might be good to describe it. But I am not sure.

 

[gromit]

Eyes. Literally. Physically. "Piercing" and "Beady" might be good to describe it. But I am not sure.

AHHH... roommate's fiance (the one I suspect is INFJ) looks at me like this sometimes when I am talking and I feel so nervous/self-conscious, I start stuttering, I can't maintain eye contact, I forget what I was even trying to say... it's a total mess! Not beady, but definitely piercing.

 

[uumlau]

Eyes. Literally. Physically. "Piercing" and "Beady" might be good to describe it. But I am not sure.

I'd go more with "piercing" than "beady." Piercing eyes are the Te, and Ni makes them even more piercing (the "death gaze") as they seem to look through you.

"Beady" is more of a Ti trait: they stare, but not piercing or penetrating, but rather "at" in an almost emotionless way. Think Data from ST:TNG.

 

[Craft]

I'd go more with "piercing" than "beady." Piercing eyes are the Te, and Ni makes them even more piercing (the "death gaze") as they seem to look through you.

Interesting. I got the notion most extensively from an ENTJ.

"Beady" is more of a Ti trait: they stare, but not piercing or penetrating, but rather "at" in an almost emotionless way. Think Data from ST:TNG.

I'm thinking we're talking about different "beady"'s. Because I associate beady with penetrating. "The thinner, the sharper."

 

[skylights]

AHHH... roommate's fiance (the one I suspect is INFJ) looks at me like this sometimes when I am talking and I feel so nervous/self-conscious, I start stuttering, I can't maintain eye contact, I forget what I was even trying to say... it's a total mess! Not beady, but definitely piercing.

NFJs can make you want to cry with their stares.

Fe can make you feel very alone and very watched and Ni just bores holes in you.

NO I DON'T KNOW THIS FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

 

[proteanmix]

Agreed since Ni's not linear. If a Ni-dom or aux were to try to articulate the bombardment or extraction of information as it's happening, it would be impossible to understand.

Just to piggyback on this, I typically type myself as ExFJ.

If I'm a Ni-aux, I don't feel like Ni is impossible to explain, communicate, or understand. The way I experience Pi (and like I said I don't know whether this is descriptive of Si or Ni) it's like a digital signature. I don't ever believe the encryption is impossible to break or decode, it's just up to the person to decide how far willing they are to decode it. When I try to decode and communicate, I'm very adamant about finding evidence to support myself. I don't want to come across as a loose cannon, pulling things out of the air without any support for why I believe what I believe. I don't feel like that's a way to establish trust with people and I certainly don't expect anyone to trust or believe me on some unverifiable hunch or belief, or hell strong delusion that only I can see. This ain't the movies, if someone says, "Just trust me on this," my automatic response is "Why should I?"

Now as far as "the bombardment" is concerned, internally that feels like being on a beach or desert full of sand with my metal detector just combing around. Yes, that does begin on a hunch and I guess that's what people believe is Ni. I don't really believe in hunches I believe a spark or something occurred in The Real World that was picked up on a subconscious level and it keeps poking at you until you look at it. Then I pull out my metal detector listening for this occasional beep, not very strong but still there. As I get closer and the beeping goes wild, that's the spot I know to start digging because there's my answer. All of this depends on turning on my internal and external metal detector and listening for it.

The times I've been the most wrong and embarrassingly loudest is when I didn't stop to verify and search for my whys and went off absolutely sure of something and then having to clean the crime scene, issue apologies and tuck my tail between my legs. Not all of these sparks amount to anything.

I think perhaps INJs have more difficulty with this because Se is their inferior and they don't trust it as much but it's still incessantly poking them. They either listen or disregard it and the INJs that have learned to pay attention to it in a mature way are the ones whose judgment I trust without much proof. I'm willing to go there with them until they gather more proof

Now what I am hesitant to do is say anything to anybody until I'm pretty sure myself and the people I do say something to in those initial, nebulous stages know I'm not one to pull things out of my ass unless I really think something. And quite frankly, sometimes I'm wrong. I think people like to believe Ni is typically right and accurate, but that's not true.

The way I think I pick up on someone is using Ni is I feel like they're searching more. I tend to more easily identify the "digger/searcher Ni" than the "mystical/magical Ni." I'm a Battlestar Galactica geek and there was a storyline with Lucy Lawless's character D'anna. She kept shooting herself in the head in order to catch glimpses of the Final Five. She absolutely would not stop until she figured out who they were. Each time she killed herself and downloaded into a new body, it was more and more painful but she had to know who they were. It wasn't enough for her to just have the vision once and believe what she saw. She didn't necessarily think what she saw was untrue, but she needed more confirmation. I contrast this with Laura Roslin who had the vision once and didn't need to constantly revisit it in order to believe, it was seared into her the first time.

 

[Totenkindly]

For me personally, one way I recognize Ni in people is by a "blank spot" I can't see through with my rationality. I try to rationalize what's going on inside and just come up empty, again and again. That's because fully formed intuition cannot be broken down into a linear rationality, the tool I am using to grasp someone (what drives what, etc) -- you either see it or you do not.

(I get Si people far more easily because I can observe both their behavior and words, and compare that to the environment and see where many of those ideas came from or what they've been established in. IOW, I can analyze everything and "recreate" their view in my head as a model, and then totally follow without trouble where they're coming from.)

I think this is one of the hardest functions to recognize. I'm still getting better at it, but generally, I will look for someone who does the following things:

- steps back and looks at the bigger picture; seems to synthesize a lot of things and communicates a perspective based on those things
- provides depth of insight on a problem with an orientation towards what is going to happen in the future
- tends to be conceptual in nature

If I were to contrast it with Si, I think Si provides a perspective based on things that have happened in the past and if you ask questions, it will be obvious that the person's perspective is very driven by this. Ni is driven more by what is going to happen in the future. Both Ni and Si can look at past, present, and future, but the Ni perspective is shaped by a picture or vision of the future more than what happened in the past. Also, an Si user seems to be better at articulating their logic for their perspective - it's based on facts or concrete things that have happened before, so it is easier to understand. The Ni person won't be as able to explain it as well. They just think they know what will happen.

The trickier differentiation for me is Ni vs Ne. I can mistake one for the other. I guess the big difference to me seems to be that Ne is less decisive, more focused on options vs. conclusions, is shorter term in orientation and is somehow more connected to the current reality. Again, to me, the Ne user seems to be more articulate in explaining things verbally. I have wondered why this is and have speculated that it might be because Ne is more oriented towards present reality which is easier and more concrete to explain and comprehend.

Bold is very true.

With Ni, too, what I find is not just that they can come at abstract things with conviction but also that they're good at seeing the underlying frames of where people are coming from -- hence, how they "know" things about people's motivations and goals without being told. This tends to show up in the Ni primaries AND the auxiliaries.

When Ni is in the tertiary, it tends to be of a limited-use "bullshit" meter that gives an understanding that everyone has an angle and things might not be what they seem on the surface; however, the effectiveness of it depends on how confident the primary is in itself. If the primary isn't confident, it tends to try to use the tertiary to buttress itself... which can leads to distortion and potential paranoia. (The primaries in these cases would be Ti/Fi, so basically wherever the Ji feels it is vulnerable or being crossed, the Ni tries to project that anxiety by presuming another's bad intent.)

Ni as undeveloped inferior can lead to wild speculation, seeing things in people that are not there if the primary feels opposition/threatened, extremely unrealistic pictures of the future, crazy/immature ideas about self-actualization and what's possible, etc.

One other thought that just occurred to me is that when I zone out like that and come back, sometimes I'll communicate without laying sufficient context which can confuse the other person because they cannot see a direct or linear correlation with the topic at hand.

Yeah, I do a lot better with Ni people who can reverse-engineer/explicate their vision via a reasoning process, and then I get it and feel like they get me. But otherwise in the worst situations it's like seeing a train appear in the middle of a desert without any tracks. How did that get there? Why did it get there?

@protean: still reading...

 

[proteanmix]

I'm curious to know the circumstances and situations that people recognize Ni in use. What's going on when you see it in action? I feel like these threads are never really fleshed out to my satisfaction. Of course, that could mean I don't get it and if I don't get it then I may not have it.

When I have conversations with my NJ friends, I feel like they can almost always say why.

For example, an ENTJ friend of mine got a tip that a job was opening in a department she wanted to get in to. When I asked her about the outcome she told me she believed they already had someone in mind to hire and only announced the job to comply with employment policies, not to really look for candidates. I, of course, asked why she thought this. After doing some researching, these are the reasons she gave me:

1. They announced the job publicly for two weeks on the nose. This was the bare minimum they must post the job announcement according to their policy and she applied before it was publicly posted.
2. The person they hired began the third week on the nose after the job was posted publicly. How'd they review candidates/applications, interview, and get them in so quickly?
3. She went to the organization's website to see how long they have the job announcements open and averaged out one month.
4. Her biggest clue was the person who told her about the position knew the person they hired was a consultant that department used before.

I'm not saying this the best example of Ni, or if it's Ni at all. If it's not, then I'd really like to know some real world examples. I don't think Ni only focuses on things on a global, all-encompassing level. The way I'm understanding how Ni is used is knowing from the outset, when she applied, whether or not she would get the job. At the very least, she has decent deductive reasoning skills and I don't know if reasoning ability is connected to a typological function.

I just don't believe Ni lacks traceability. I really think it depends on the ability of the NJ zero in on what triggered them. The less able they are to ID the triggers, the more "they just know." Yes, that looks very non-linear but it doesn't mean it is. Is Ni impervious to metacognition? It being hard or difficult shouldn't be a deterrent I think.

As far as the leaping and shifting is concerned, does this tend to happen with people you know well or within a shared context? Is easily and quickly following the leaping/shifting context dependent? The problem I have with the Indescribable Ni is if you never really have to focus in and explain it, it can be anything you want it to be. Nothing, something, everything, whatever and a lot of miscommunication can occur in the gap between. Everyone thinks they understand it similarly, but you never really dug in enough to see if you did. I hope that makes sense.

Here's another example I can think of. The financial crisis we're slowly emerging from has had people from at least 20 years ago saying the way we're moving isn't sustainable, this is going to break at some point. They weren't getting this from an oracle, they were looking at hard numbers, reports, deregulation, projecting forward. Is that Si because they used current (at the time) data and numbers? They weren't getting this information in a vacuum, but nor were they taken seriously at the time. Is that an example of Ni or something else? If you see the writing on the wall, there's got to be some writing on the wall to begin with, right? Evidently, not everyone sees it, and if they do, they don't assign the same significance or interpretation to it. What is that?

 

[cascadeco]

^ I've always maintained on these boards that Ni IS traceable and that I can explain my thoughts/perceptions/opinions if I really wanted to. For myself, it can be hard to verbalize it, and nearly impossible sometimes to articulate on-the-spot if I'm asked to, say, explain my views on religion (I like to use that as an example because to fully explain WHY I've concluded what I've concluded, it would involve articulating 70 pages of single-space writing that I wrote at one time, and that writing itself isn't organized in a way that would be presentable - all of the 'pieces' are there, but I haven't connected them. For me, the sum of the pieces = my vague statement, as they automatically tie in my mind, but to explain them together, in a more logical format - to others - would be more challenging). But complex topics aside, generally it's why I prefer the written format vs. talking - it's just easier because I have all the time I need to gather and present what's in my mind - in far more detail than I tend to give in speaking. But yeah - if asked, I'll do my best to explain, always.

Sometimes I am not immediately aware of why I feel or think the way I do, but yeah, if I spend time I can figure out why and articulate that. But, sometimes for me it can take TIME to sort through all of that, and it may too involve a good number of questions if I realize I am in need of more information.

But I hate, hate the whole 'voodoo' association with Ni. It's not magic. I think for Ni-doms especially though, the articulation piece is a little more challenging, and with some, there might therefore be a tendency towards laziness or just 'not seeing a point' in articulating all of the details. But to be fair too, I think a lot of times our vague statements or assertions seem 'Obvious' and we forget that it's not obvious others, or we might wrongly assume it's not necessary to explain everything that led us up to the assertion, because we might think others will have made all of the steps we made in our heads to get there. Or something.

Also, for myself at least, I need *reasons* for thinking or believing what I believe. If things don't make sense, if there isn't logic there, if it isn't supported by reality, I won't believe it in the first place. I don't believe or think 'just because' or without substantiation. That's almost abhorrent to me. So I don't just pull things out of thin air. I might have a nagging something-or-other that starts things off, but I then dig and figure out what's going on and go from there. So in my head I have reasons; the disconnect is my maybe not automatically articulating this stuff -- but this is what I described above.

 

[rav3n]

Just to piggyback on this, I typically type myself as ExFJ.

If I'm a Ni-aux, I don't feel like Ni is impossible to explain, communicate, or understand. The way I experience Pi (and like I said I don't know whether this is descriptive of Si or Ni) it's like a digital signature. I don't ever believe the encryption is impossible to break or decode, it's just up to the person to decide how far willing they are to decode it. When I try to decode and communicate, I'm very adamant about finding evidence to support myself. I don't want to come across as a loose cannon, pulling things out of the air without any support for why I believe what I believe. I don't feel like that's a way to establish trust with people and I certainly don't expect anyone to trust or believe me on some unverifiable hunch or belief, or hell strong delusion that only I can see. This ain't the movies, if someone says, "Just trust me on this," my automatic response is "Why should I?"

Now as far as "the bombardment" is concerned, internally that feels like being on a beach or desert full of sand with my metal detector just combing around. Yes, that does begin on a hunch and I guess that's what people believe is Ni. I don't really believe in hunches I believe a spark or something occurred in The Real World that was picked up on a subconscious level and it keeps poking at you until you look at it. Then I pull out my metal detector listening for this occasional beep, not very strong but still there. As I get closer and the beeping goes wild, that's the spot I know to start digging because there's my answer. All of this depends on turning on my internal and external metal detector and listening for it.

The times I've been the most wrong and embarrassingly loudest is when I didn't stop to verify and search for my whys and went off absolutely sure of something and then having to clean the crime scene, issue apologies and tuck my tail between my legs. Not all of these sparks amount to anything.

I think perhaps INJs have more difficulty with this because Se is their inferior and they don't trust it as much but it's still incessantly poking them. They either listen or disregard it and the INJs that have learned to pay attention to it in a mature way are the ones whose judgment I trust without much proof. I'm willing to go there with them until they gather more proof

Now what I am hesitant to do is say anything to anybody until I'm pretty sure myself and the people I do say something to in those initial, nebulous stages know I'm not one to pull things out of my ass unless I really think something. And quite frankly, sometimes I'm wrong. I think people like to believe Ni is typically right and accurate, but that's not true.

The way I think I pick up on someone is using Ni is I feel like they're searching more. I tend to more easily identify the "digger/searcher Ni" than the "mystical/magical Ni." I'm a Battlestar Galactica geek and there was a storyline with Lucy Lawless's character D'anna. She kept shooting herself in the head in order to catch glimpses of the Final Five. She absolutely would not stop until she figured out who they were. Each time she killed herself and downloaded into a new body, it was more and more painful but she had to know who they were. It wasn't enough for her to just have the vision once and believe what she saw. She didn't necessarily think what she saw was untrue, but she needed more confirmation. I contrast this with Laura Roslin who had the vision once and didn't need to constantly revisit it in order to believe, it was seared into her the first time.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it can be decoded but only afterwards. If you notice, I was also piggybacking off highlander's comment about only seeing the end result of the Ni process in action. But I do stand by my comment that if you attempted to explain Ni as it's happening, the random nature of the extraction or sourcing of data would give someone a headache trying to sort through it.

Imagine a random run-on sentence with many, many decision points of data being material or immaterial. It's not magical but it's most definitely not linear.

I was chatting with another member about Ni and how particularly Te/Ni-ers will consolidate all that Te/Ni has gone through, into one short sentence. When asked to explain, it's not that we can't but that we don't even think about doing so since it's potentially something that should be obvious. Not condescension but if you were to say the sky is blue, you wouldn't expect to have to explain why it's blue every time.

 

[uumlau]

I was chatting with another member about Ni and how particularly Te/Ni-ers will consolidate all that Te/Ni has gone through, into one short sentence. When asked to explain, it's not that we can't but that we don't even think about doing so since it's potentially something that should be obvious. Not condescension but if you were to say the sky is blue, you wouldn't expect to have to explain why it's blue every time.

Yes.

It is easy to forget that Ni is a perceiving function. Thus, when Ni is involved, that which is not obvious looks obvious. That's how it tends to flummox Ti (in INTPs for example), where the sounds as if the conclusion was stated without proof or foundation, and that the INTJ (for example) has to go and backtrack and prove that which the INTJ regards as obvious.

 

[onemoretime]

Yes.

It is easy to forget that Ni is a perceiving function. Thus, when Ni is involved, that which is not obvious looks obvious. That's how it tends to flummox Ti (in INTPs for example), where the sounds as if the conclusion was stated without proof or foundation, and that the INTJ (for example) has to go and backtrack and prove that which the INTJ regards as obvious.

In other words, "I know this is right. I don't know how I know this is right, and I can't explain it to you right now, but give me some time, and I'll see if I can come up with something that explains it to you the best I can."

 

[uumlau]

In other words, "I know this is right. I don't know how I know this is right, and I can't explain it to you right now, but give me some time, and I'll see if I can come up with something that explains it to you the best I can."

Or more like, "I see this is right." I actually can explain it on demand, but the explanation is often odd. Usually, I will cite evidence, along the lines of how Oro describes Se being involved, and say that the evidence implies my conclusion. The problem (and this is where the Ne vs Ni confusion comes in) is that there is some Si-assumption on the others' part, such that my evidence implies no such thing as I describe. So we end up delving into our various assumptions until something arises that makes it clear where the crosstalk is happening.

The point of my post is that, to Ni, it isn't always clear that the Ni-observations require explanation. It's obvious, after all.