Is Ni like Fi?

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I think Fi and Ti are more subjectively decisive. Means when they spit out analysis or facts they are pretty convinced about them being right and need hard counter facts to be convinced otherwise. Te is more objective and in combination with Ni it has a very detached and objective way to present facts and information. Can be easily convinced of the fact being wrong tho, if not multiple arguements prove them right. In that sense NiTe is more scientific in its approach, while NeTi or NeFi goes deeper, is more subjective and special to the case at hand.

If you could say that FiNe would resemble Ni, well then you wouldnt need 8 functions.

Not to beat a dead typec horse, but once Ni locks on to something, it's pretty convinced about it being right too.

 

[entropie]

Not to beat a dead typec horse, but once Ni locks on to something, it's pretty convinced about it being right too.

yea 'once'. Regarding dragging things on a personal level tho, I think TiNe or FiNe does beat NiTe anytime. While Fi would get emotional, Ti would deem the intercolutor as dumb rather instead of admitting they were wrong.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

yea 'once'. Regarding dragging things on a personal level tho, I think TiNe or FiNe does beat NiTe anytime. While Fi would get emotional, Ti would deem the intercolutor as dumb rather instead of admitting they were wrong.

Not really sure what you're saying. All functions have their purpose and place.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

yea 'once'. Regarding dragging things on a personal level tho, I think TiNe or FiNe does beat NiTe anytime. While Fi would get emotional, Ti would deem the intercolutor as dumb rather instead of admitting they were wrong.

Not really sure what you're saying. All functions have their purpose and place.

 

[entropie]

Not really sure what you're saying. All functions have their purpose and place.

Well if someone would ask me, who is more stubborn: intp or intj ? Or infp or infj ? I'ld usually go with the p-types. Since they have Ti or Fi it says about those functions that a subjective element is strong in them. Since T and F are the judging functions, they are the ones which decide from what was perceived. So while a INTJ could start seeing things on the World that just aint there or may are there but only he sees them, an intp could start to believe he is the only one to decide right about things cause the rest of the World is dumb.

Thats the difference I mean between subjective and objective function, I is subjective and E is objective. And while a Ne user is connecting the dots and forming images of understanding to process the perceived, a Ni user could be adding dots to perceive what he wants to perceive. While a Te user makes a list of pro and con, while a Ti user says 'I've been right on this for 10 years, why should I be wrong now?'.

Pretty hard to explain for me.

 

[Thalassa]

If Fi is similar to any perceiving function, it's Si.

i.e. "that's the way...I like it...uh huh uh...that's the way...I like it."

And others not in the know may be mystified of the strength of you preferring it that way.

 

[Elfboy]

If Fi is similar to any perceiving function, it's Si.

agreed. a subjective set of fervent yet vague standards that makes anyone who doesn't have it think "wtf?"

 

[Reverie]

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.

I think we become more aware that we have this tendency and can kind of begin to mould ourselves and our actions consciously by paying attention of what is paid attention to..but perhaps the conclusions, subsequent opinions and directions we take are actually governed by the aux fe. When there are so many ways to perceive things and so many different ramifications for actions to pick what is the best way to navigate in life I always consider the human impact of my views and actions and the not so apparent implications and how I think things would affect people as a whole. I would attribute that to Fe. No man's an island and ideas are powerful.

 

[RDF]

If Fi is similar to any perceiving function, it's Si.

i.e. "that's the way...I like it...uh huh uh...that's the way...I like it."

And others not in the know may be mystified of the strength of you preferring it that way.

agreed. a subjective set of fervent yet vague standards that makes anyone who doesn't have it think "wtf?"

I think Si works pretty much the same as Ni.

To spell it out, here’s how I described Ni in an earlier post:

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.

As I see it Si works the same in that it gathers data and factoids into groups and categories, juggles them around to check out their similarities and dissimilarities, and then extracts the best features or qualities or rules from that group or set. And then proceeds to the next group or category, or creates new sets and groups from older ones.

So it’s kind of like the churning of Ni, IOW, like putting a bunch of dice in a cup, shaking them up, and then spilling them out on a table to see what combination comes out. Except that where Ni is about matrices and juxtapositioning, Si is about aggregations and comparisons for similarities and dissimilarities.

In general I see Si as the use of various mnemonic/analytical/storage devices. A simple real-world example would be the Dewey Decimal System (the filing system used in libraries and bookstores), where books are first analyzed according to their qualities and features (their subject matter) and aggregated into categories and sub-categories accordingly; and only afterwards are they organized by alphabet within the categories. Storage of computer files often works this way on PCs: Use of folders and sub-folders to store material by subject category, and then by alphabet within the folder itself.

Scientists categorize plants and animals by analyzing their features and qualities and then aggregating them in taxonomies on that basis.

Another example: When I was translating, I often wouldn’t use the big universal dictionaries that students use. My best tools were glossaries on specific subjects, where terms could be defined in a tight context and compared with other terms in that same context. Again, the essense of a glossary is the aggregation of a subset of terms for a laser-like focus on that one particular category of terms.

As for my personal experience of Si: I haven’t done a lot of reading on Si, so I’m not sure how much this corresponds with typology canon. But it’s my tertiary function, i.e., one of my stronger ones.

Over time I have developed various mnemonic devices for comparing features of data in order in order to aggregate them for storage or memory; they allow me to keep track of large volumes of data and information and retrieve it quickly. Playing with these things seems to be something I’m naturally good at. When I explain those devices to others, they tell me I’m using my Ti or Te to develop an organizational structure. But Ti is my eighth and weakest function, and my Te doesn’t work on this kind of detailed level; with these Si-based mnemonic/analytical/storage devices, I get kind of an anal-retentive thrill that’s different from the Te organizational thrill.

I’ll also add that I *don’t* believe Si has much to do with simple memory (which every type has, of course) or with free association (like a taste or smell unexpectedly evoking a scene from childhood, and which happens to every type as well).

To sum up: I think Si is like Ni (more of a structured data-crunching and churning faculty) as opposed to being a simple mechanism like memory or free association.

 

[RDF]

Just to fill out the picture, I might as well extrapolate to Ti. That is, if Si is related to Ni, then Ti is probably related to Fi.

Concerning Fi, I said:

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.)

So presumably Ti-users would build a library of logical/analytical models and principles, some of them very painstaking and detailed. When an interesting problem comes up, they quickly thumb through their library of models and find the best match of logical principle or model to the problem at hand.

Of course their models would have to be updated frequently. As in the field of law, the principles remain the same but their application to real-world issues requires constant re-evaluation.

Ti is my weakest function, so I’m largely extrapolating from what I already said about Fi, Ni, and Si. But Ti-users are free to comment.

**************

As for the extraverted equivalents of all these functions: I would say that they are pretty similar to the introverted versions, but more ad hoc and freewheeling. The extraverted functions are like practical scientists operating in the field and working with whatever raw material comes to hand, whereas introverts take their work back to their inner lab and work on it in ideal conditions, away from the disruptions of real life.

 

[Oaky]

Fi is based on value constructs
Ti is based on logical constructs
Fe is based on value protocols
Te is based on logical protocols

Si is subjective sensing (distorted by subconscious appeal)
Ni is subjective intuiting (distorted by subconscious appeal)
Se is an objective sensing (undistorted by subconscious appeal)
Ne is an objective intuiting (undistorted by subconscious appeal)

Ni doesn't work like Fi and so doesn't look like it other than the general equality (often portrayal) of mysticism that may make them stand out among other functions. Then of course there is a more generally seen introverted sense of those dominant of an introverted function.

 

[highlander]

I can’t see much similarity between the two to be honest. Fi is at its core very judgmental. Ni is very much perceiving. Yeah, Ni does narrow down to some kind of belief as to what is true, which is where there is a similarity with Fi. Fi is far less flexible though. Ni is very open and subject to change based on new information. Fi is not. I see a lot more similarity between Ni and Si than I do between Ni and Fi.

I do like what @Southern Cross had to say though.

 

[Kalach]

It's a mistake to identify the two. But equally, in the context at least of NTJs and SFPs, it's a mistake to separate them too widely. Where Fi is actively being created, it--or the person investigating it--needs, like any person attempting the creation of structured decision, context. The active context will be inner perception. It supplies the images and image construction.

(Extroverted judgment and perception will be passively present, of course. Just like when extroverted judgment and perception are engaged more actively, Fi is present as pre-existing judgment.)

Analytically, the interesting cases for Ni and Fi (or any paired perception and judgment functions of the same orientation) are when one is more prominent than the other. (And analytically, that's every case.) In those cases, the more prominent function doesn't break free of its confines. It just operates as though those confines were sufficient to describe all available space and decision.

What makes it all really much more interesting than it appears is how not one of these functions when instantiated in a person is complete. They're all partial. And actually, it's really much better to speak not of functions, but of cognition with functional properties. (Or, at least, it's really much better to speak that way if you remember that type is still prior to conscious cognition.) That way lies people.

 

[SubtleFighter]

Thank you all for your replies! I didn't realize that Fi could have a burst of insight like Ni does, in which the source of this insight can seem to come out of nowhere (not that it is based on nothing, but that trying to view the sources is like a person with bad eyesight trying to look at the details of a room with their glasses off). I also didn't know that Fi had archetypes like Ni does. This helps a lot.

*waits for shitstorm*

Because you dared to compare Fi to the wonderous and all-powerful Ni? Nah, you won't get any of that from me . I was actually hoping that you'd respond to this because you were one of the people I'd seen in threads of old saying that they were similar. Your post is really insightful.

 

[SubtleFighter]

In Aphrodite's defense, it does seem like Ni makes judgments because it says things like "That's it! Do that!" or "Now things have changed; that won't work anymore." But I'm aware that this may be an influence of Fe and Ti.

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...”)

This does remind me of Ni in some ways. Not the value judgments, but the idea of having these stories. That's one of the ways that Ni makes predictions is that it has kind of like algorithms, and if it sees that some pieces of an algorithm are in play, it runs the rest of it. And these are based on lots of experience and trial and error and principles. And it is also refined in the same way that you describe in the last paragraph.

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.

Pretty much, except the part about more and more back-up plans doesn't ring true to me. Maybe this is more true for INTJs (and would be the influence of Te). It's more like you're always working toward getting one right answer. So you generate a combination, then reject it if it seems off, and so on, but once you find the right combination, you stop. (That is, until new data comes in and you have to churn things around again to fit it.)

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.

The archetypes and principles that these Ni combinations are based on are also painstakingly constructed at some point in the past.

 

[RDF]

This does remind me of Ni in some ways. Not the value judgments, but the idea of having these stories. That's one of the ways that Ni makes predictions is that it has kind of like algorithms, and if it sees that some pieces of an algorithm are in play, it runs the rest of it. And these are based on lots of experience and trial and error and principles. And it is also refined in the same way that you describe in the last paragraph.

[...]

The archetypes and principles that these Ni combinations are based on are also painstakingly constructed at some point in the past.

Thanks for the feedback, SubtleFighter. You raise some interesting points.

As for your point about your Ni having built-in algorithms or archetypes:

That's possible. OTOH, it also could be that your judging function (Fe) is working right alongside your perceiving function (Ni) and providing a lot of the structure for the search, i.e., by providing an idea of what the end result should eventually look like and then judging results as they appear and indicating whether Ni is getting warmer or cooler.

As I pointed out to Aphrodite, an INFJ's Ni is going to be pretty much unconscious and out of sight, whereas the INFJ's Fe is going to be more or less conscious. So you could be deriving a sense of those algorithms from your direct experience of your Fe.

As for my own INFP experience of Ne: My Ne function is pretty much conscious and even deliberate, and I don’t really get any sense of particular “search algorithms” or archetypes. My Ne just seems to jump around and suck in pretty much anything in sight to see if it will fit in as the missing piece of the puzzle. I get a sense of rightness or wrongness of the resulting combination, but that seems to be coming from my (unconscious) Fi, which is presumably providing some kind of vague model for the “ideal” combination that I’m trying to construct with my Ne. My Fi seems dead in the water when Ne is pursuing unproductive avenues; but then when Ne gets close to a good combination, it feels like my Fi starts lighting up like a pinball machine and goading my Ne to fresh exertions in that particular direction.

But again, the extraverted Ne may be more ad hoc and freewheeling than introverted Ni. So Ne may work a little differently from Ni on that point.

In any case, it’s an interesting point--that is, the possibility of Ni having its own built-in search algorithms or models--and I would certainly be willing to hear some more discussion on the subject.

Pretty much, except the part about more and more back-up plans doesn't ring true to me. Maybe this is more true for INTJs (and would be the influence of Te). It's more like you're always working toward getting one right answer. So you generate a combination, then reject it if it seems off, and so on, but once you find the right combination, you stop. (That is, until new data comes in and you have to churn things around again to fit it.)

I did indeed get the point about generating lots of plans and back-up plans from INTJs. But I also do the same thing with my own Ne (and my occasional uses of Ni). Sometimes there is no ideal combination, so I generate multiple combinations that approximate what I’m after and then use other criteria or means to make the final choice (such as calling in someone else for a second opinion and discussing the options with them, or sometimes just mentally flipping a coin.)

 

[cascadeco]

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.

I think my epic fail is that I often just churn and 'sift' things over and over, never ultimately concluding anything. Whenever I switch perspectives/what I'm focusing on, I switch conclusions; thus I may not be able to figure out which perspective is 'right'. Or it takes me forever to conclude, because it may take a long while to figure out what the 'truth' is, depending on the situation of course. So I recognize, absolutely, that my dominant 'mode' is one of not 'doing' much of anything, or concluding anything. I just exist and ruminate, much of it without many active thoughts whatsoever. tbh it's frustrating much of the time.

 

[RDF]

I think my epic fail is that I often just churn and 'sift' things over and over, never ultimately concluding anything. Whenever I switch perspectives/what I'm focusing on, I switch conclusions; thus I may not be able to figure out which perspective is 'right'. Or it takes me forever to conclude, because it may take a long while to figure out what the 'truth' is, depending on the situation of course. So I recognize, absolutely, that my dominant 'mode' is one of not 'doing' much of anything, or concluding anything. I just exist and ruminate, much of it without many active thoughts whatsoever. tbh it's frustrating much of the time.

Yeah, it seems like those occasions would represent a failure or breakdown of the judging function, in that the judging function isn't jumping in to provide any guidance for the perceiving function. The perceiving function is just running on autopilot, sometimes just going over the same old territory repeatedly. Pretty awful when that happens.

 

[SubtleFighter]

As for your point about your Ni having built-in algorithms or archetypes:

That's possible. OTOH, it also could be that your judging function (Fe) is working right alongside your perceiving function (Ni) and providing a lot of the structure for the search, i.e., by providing an idea of what the end result should eventually look like and then judging results as they appear and indicating whether Ni is getting warmer or cooler.

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I don't know, I see how Fe is influencing the subjects that I'm thinking about (although not everything I think about is Feeling-related), but I still think that the algorithms/archetypes are from Ni itself. From what I understand, Si is more about taking chunks of things that happened in the past and building principles off of these larger chunks and having an affinity towards having these chunks repeated. Ni is more about taking much smaller hints of things that happen in the present and trying immediately to construct principles out of this conglomeration of little bits and then these constructs become the universal principles which don't have an inclination for trying to keep things the way they've been in the past. So I believe these archetypes/algorithms are inherently a part of what Ni is. I see this difference too in the ISFJs that I know, who also have Fe-aux and Ti-tert.

As I pointed out to Aphrodite, an INFJ's Ni is going to be pretty much unconscious and out of sight, whereas the INFJ's Fe is going to be more or less conscious. So you could be deriving a sense of those algorithms from your direct experience of your Fe.

I agree that Ni is more unconscious than Fe, but I don't think it's so much as you're saying. Maybe if you have no knowledge of MBTI, it would be out of your radar, but when you learn what Ni is and start watching for its effects and processes in your thinking, it becomes more and more noticeable.

I did indeed get the point about generating lots of plans and back-up plans from INTJs. But I also do the same thing with my own Ne (and my occasional uses of Ni). Sometimes there is no ideal combination, so I generate multiple combinations that approximate what I’m after and then use other criteria or means to make the final choice (such as calling in someone else for a second opinion and discussing the options with them, or sometimes just mentally flipping a coin.)

I will do something similar to this, but I don't see it as my Ni. Sometimes my Ni does not give me a hunch about a situation, and then my Ti will kick in and start analyzing the situation to death, trying to work out a logical solution. This doesn't work as well as the Ni hunch, though, since it's only my tertiary, so normally I also find that discussing it with someone else is really helpful because it at the least gives my Ti something else to think about, or at the best it gives me new Se data to feed to my Ni to cause my Ni to actually give me a hunch that I can use. Also, because I'm a type 6, I will doubt my Ni hunches more often than others and do the Ti infinite-analyzing anyway

 

[011235813]

Woah. Slow down. Now we're getting into Ni territory. Suddenly I don't know where we are anymore.

Yes, you do. Repeat after me: "I hate everything!"

There.

Order has been restored.