• 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.

Is Ni like Fi?

IZthe411

Carerra Lu
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
2,585
MBTI Type
INTJ
The main similarity is that Ni and Fi are the two most subjective functions of their respective domains (i.e., Judging and Perceiving).

Agreed; with Si and Ti you can kind of 'see' what's behind them.
 
R

RDF

Guest
This is a question that I had wondered awhile ago but was reminded of it again by someone bringing it up recently in this thread.

In looking at a bunch of old threads, I noticed that there were several people (all dom/aux/tert Fi-users) independently saying that Fi (or Fi/Ne) was like Ni. Because several people are saying this, there must be something there. But I'm not understanding it. They have similarities that all introverted functions have, but I don't see it beyond that.

My concept of Fi is that it has to do with the personal values and feelings of the person using it, and that it identifies what values are at play in a given situation.

Ni on the other hand has nothing to do with values or feelings, and is as impersonal as a computer spitting out data.

So I'm obviously lacking in some understanding of what Fi is.

What do you think about this? What am I missing about what Fi is? Does anyone have any theories about how Ni and Fi (or Fi/Ne) are similar? Or how they work differently?

Yeah, I can see that, maybe.

To me, Fi is made up of a bunch of “stories” or ideals that I’ve constructed in my head over time: For example: Poor underdog being abused by more powerful people; drug-addled homeless dude; hard-working salt-of-the-earth type who can’t get a break; and so on.

I have hundreds of these little stories in my head, some very detailed, and some kind of vague and generalized. As I go through my day, I’m constantly checking the outside impressions that are coming in via Ne against the Fi “stories” or ideals in my head. At the simplest level, those “stories” or ideals give me quick context with which to make quick judgements: I like that guy, I pity that guy, I hate that guy; or that's unfair, that's fair, etc.

(IOW, as I understand it we Fi-users don’t really empathize directly with people. Instead we have favorite ideals or stories or models in our head, and we connect with various individuals in the world around us to the extent that the individuals appear to match those ideals or stories already in our head.)

Anyway, things get more complex when I have to rework one of my Fi “stories.” For example, I meet some guy and he’s handsome, well-off, etc., i.e., not normally a candidate for pity or compassion from me. But then I get to know him better and find out that he’s got some wasting disease. And then suddenly I have to rework my “story” about him, and maybe even rework a more generalized story about privileged people as well (“everyone has their secret problems...”)

Anyway, how does that tie in to Ni?

Well, my understanding of Ni is that it works like a matrix or a spiderweb. The Ni-user collects factoids and data in their Ni matrix, sees how they all connect together, and then churns the matrix and rearranges the factoids and data into new combinations. He compares the new combination against the old, churns again for more combinations, and thus cranks out plans and back-up plans and more back-up plans, until a solution is worked out.

I had a job where I occasionally had to work in this mode, i.e., I had to take a number of data elements or categories and put them into different combinations in my mind and compare the results. That is I repeatedly shook up the matrix and generated new combinations until I got as near a perfect combination as possible for those particular data.

Anyway, to get back to the starting topic: Yeah, my Fi “stories” or ideals kind of feel like my Ni matrices to me. I can go through lots of Fi “stories” or ideals just by sitting in a park, people-watching, imagining who they are and what their life is about (Ne), and then thumbing through my Fi catalogue of ideals and "stories" to see how I feel about them. Similarly, I can go through lots of Ni matrices when working with a difficult problem, shaking up that starting matrix over and over in order to see new combinations of the main elements.

The two (Fi and Ni) feel different in that each Fi “story” or ideal was basically “constructed” at some point in the past, sometimes very painstakingly. Whereas Ni is more like shaking a cupful of dice and seeing what new combination falls out.

But I still get the same rough feel with both, when using them in the moment: That is, they both feel like I'm thumbing quickly through lots of self-generated possibilities or constructs in my head in order to provide context (or solutions) for what’s happening in the world.

(Just brainstorming a bit here.)
 

Thursday

Earth Exalted
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
3,960
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Similarities of Ni and Fi:
Both subjective functions (Introverted and Personal)

Differences:
Ni is a perception
Fi is a judgement function

Ni is irrational
Fi is rational
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Similarities of Ni and Fi:
Both subjective functions (Introverted and Personal)

Differences:
Ni is a perception
Fi is a judgement function

Ni is irrational
Fi is rational

But my Ni makes judgments, being my dom function. It decides what stays. It decides ultimately what truth is for me. I call that judgmental.

And F is just irrational. How can F be 'rational' when you are dealing with feelings?


I know those are strict Jungian/MBTI terms, but they just really need to be revised, don't they?
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
But my Ni makes judgments, being my dom function. It decides what stays. It decides ultimately what truth is for me. I call that judgmental.

And F is just irrational. How can F be 'rational' when you are dealing with feelings?


I know those are strict Jungian/MBTI terms, but they just really need to be revised, don't they?

I think in Jungian terms, introverted perception, especially Ni, isn't even that aware of how differently it sees the same things. I think it takes it's own peculiarity for granted. The rationals Fi and Ti otoh are intent on distancing (judging).

As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and -- in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle.
 
R

RDF

Guest
But my Ni makes judgments, being my dom function. It decides what stays. It decides ultimately what truth is for me. I call that judgmental.

Technically, your Ni just generates possibilities. It's why you sometimes sit up half the night replaying things in your head; that's your Ni at work churning out different combinations of elements. Eventually your Fe decides that you have Ni'ed the problem long enough, and your Fe chooses which of the possibilities works best (i.e., "what is truth"). Hence, N is perceiving and F is judging.

And F is just irrational. How can F be 'rational' when you are dealing with feelings?

I know those are strict Jungian/MBTI terms, but they just really need to be revised, don't they?

I sympathize with you on this point. I never really understood the distinction that Jung was trying to make on the irrational/rational spectrum.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think in Jungian terms, introvert perception, especially Ni, isn't even that aware of how differently it sees the same things. It takes it's own peculiarity for granted. The rationals Fi and Ti otoh are vent intent on distancing (judging).

I think Ni is very aware. It has the ability to turn things and look at what it wants, from what angle etc. I don't doubt it uses all other functions as its slave to do this, and I also don't doubt that it is primarily motivated to perceive in its unique way. But I believe it is fully in charge, navigating, positioning, deciding, and ultimately gate-keeping on what my personal psyche locks on to.

In talking about it with you right now, I think there is another layer (and probably more) to what Jung first identified with functions. Just as in what I'm describing here. I think Ni outwardly seems to be perceiving-dominant, but, in a dominant role, it also judges.

I'd say it's fairly obvious that Si doms judge. :) Haven't thought it through yet with the other types.


If Ni didn't judge, why would Ni doms be so strategical (intj) and good with people (infj)? It ain't all about Fe and Te, esp in an aux role. We attribute too much to that, that I know isn't what is happening inside myself (for example).

As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and -- in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle.

I know others say this, but it's not what I experience in myself.

That 'intensification' thing just sounds like a loop. And, yes, I can get caught in thinking/feeling loops, but I also can come back to reality in order to function well in society, and within my 'groups.'


Thoughts?
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
But my Ni makes judgments, being my dom function. It decides what stays. It decides ultimately what truth is for me. I call that judgmental.

And F is just irrational. How can F be 'rational' when you are dealing with feelings?


I know those are strict Jungian/MBTI terms, but they just really need to be revised, don't they?

I don't think they need to be revised. Rational, in this case, means via reason, not logic or exclusively impersonal reason. Personal reason (F), or impersonal reason (T). Deconstructing established terminology is sure to confuse people who actually take interest in cognitive functions, whereas just using the terminology that's already underscored by Jung's reasoning (hah), is likely to confuse many people until they dig deeper down the rabbit hole. Who needs to revise a theory when you can come out the other side and develop your own from scratch?... unless, of course, someone really wants to cling to Jungian thought instead of digesting it.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I :heart: how non-Ni-doms try to tell me how Ni works. :dry:
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
I :heart: how non-Ni-doms try to tell me how Ni works. :dry:

Here, I'll illustrate more. Since you love it. :wink:

I'd contrast a intro perceptual person making a music album as someone with a unique approach or theme but doesn't even realize just how different it is. They might even come off innocent about it in interviews or something. It just naturally comes to them. The dom judger could be unique too, but it's often a more conscious or conceptual critique. You might read an interview where an ISTP might say what he intended to do with the latest album, what direction he decided to go in, what issues he wanted to shit on. It's all very conscious. He's looking clearly at the "object" and placing judgement.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I don't think they need to be revised. Rational, in this case, means via reason, not logic or exclusively impersonal reason. Personal reason (F), or impersonal reason (T). Deconstructing established terminology is sure to confuse people who actually take interest in cognitive functions, whereas just using the terminology that's already underscored by Jung's reasoning (hah), is likely to confuse many people until they dig deeper down the rabbit hole. Who needs to revise a theory when you can come out the other side and develop your own from scratch?... unless, of course, someone really wants to cling to Jungian thought instead of digesting it.

Good Point. Then I found this:

Not grounded in reason. (Compare rational.)
Jung pointed out that elementary existential facts fall into this category-for instance, that the earth has a moon, that chlorine is an element or that water freezes at a certain temperature and reaches its greatest density at four degrees centigrade-as does chance. They are irrational not because they are illogical, but because they are beyond reason.

In Jung’s model of typology, the psychological functions of intuition and sensation are described as irrational.

Both intuition and sensation are functions that find fulfilment in the absolute perception of the flux of events. Hence, by their very nature, they will react to every possible occurrence and be attuned to the absolutely contingent, and must therefore lack all rational direction. For this reason I call them irrational functions, as opposed to thinking and feeling, which find fulfilment only when they are in complete harmony with the laws of reason.[Ibid., pars. 776f.]

Merely because [irrational types] subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite wrong to regard them as "unreasonable." It wouldbe truer to say that they are in the highest degree empirical. They base themselves entirely on experience. ["General Description of the Types," ibid., par. 616.]


And I'm like, even further confused. That the earth has a moon seems like quite a rational thought to me. At least in our present time. Perhaps in Jung's day it was irrational (i did not double-check to see that that was a direct quote of his, or the author's creation).

I just think his whole rational/irrational categories are more confusing than clarifying.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Here, I'll illustrate more. Since you love it. :wink:

I'd contrast a intro perceptual person making a music album as someone with a unique approach or theme but doesn't even realize just how different it is. They might even come off innocent about it in interviews or something. It just naturally comes to them. The dom judger could be unique too, but it's often a more conscious or conceptual critique. You might read an interview where an ISTP might say what he intended to do with the latest album, what direction he decided to go in, what issues he wanted to shit on. It's all very conscious. He's looking clearly at the "object" and placing judgement.

Well, but you are talking about a consciousness about the process. That doesn't mean that the dominant perceiver's dominant perception is not judging....it's just doing it at a deeper level that isn't as obvious. Locking onto songs for an album is quite a judgmental process. Hell, anything that gets done involves judgment. And you can't tell me it's all attributed to aux functions in dom perceivers!
 

Trunks

I'm not Trunks
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
333
I didn't know much about cognitive function, I just know Ni dom is for INTJ and Fi dom is for INFP, I read about INFP, they seems good reading people minds. I don't have that talents, I'm very visual person, I need to do lots of observation and study their body languages, facial expression and etc..
 
Top