• 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.

Introverted intuition

hjgbujhghg

I am
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
3,333
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
This function evokes the most of the interest around people as I noticed and is bounded by a certain mystery. So what Ni realy is?
Jungs himself sad that Ni can't be really described and put into box, because it functions more like a "mind power." Jung describes the ablity of Ni to spot future happening out of the thin air, just based on hunches. Ni users don't know how they've come to the realization and often have troubles explaining this. The realizations of future happening and meanings happen sudden. The Ni user experiences these hunches and is led by them in his life.
Now time for a bit of thinking...Jung really described Ni users as freaks with super powers, that have magical hunches and believe them in real life. This way of viewing person with such visions as psychologically healthy seems rather controversial, more, when we realize that Ni users often fail to logically explain their visions, or proove them in sense of physics. So the type based on this description seems to rather suffer from schizophrenia, or other schizoid based illnes.
If we want Ni to sound less as a diagnose of shizophrenia and more as real cognitive psychological function, that can develope in mentaly healthy individual, the description could be further more descriptive about the real cognitive process.
The Ni can be seen as a function that allows the user to see patterns and symbols, that are hidden to other people, but this necessarily doesn't mean the pattern is not here. The Ni user with his ablity to see through objects, to its real core, might notice symbols and meanings within the object, but this doesn't have to happen consciously. The user can notice a lot of these meanings and symbols inside of the object unconsciously and process the realization of objects only latter, without knowing where the realization comes from.
This might make Ni to seem a bit less super-natural and more acceptable for people to understand it.
If anyone wants to add something, or correct me, feel free to share your informations.
 

grey_beard

The Typing Tabby
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,478
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
This function evokes the most of the interest around people as I noticed and is bounded by a certain mystery. So what Ni realy is?
Jungs himself sad that Ni can't be really described and put into box, because it functions more like a "mind power." Jung describes the ablity of Ni to spot future happening out of the thin air, just based on hunches. Ni users don't know how they've come to the realization and often have troubles explaining this. The realizations of future happening and meanings happen sudden. The Ni user experiences these hunches and is led by them in his life.
Now time for a bit of thinking...Jung really described Ni users as freaks with super powers, that have magical hunches and believe them in real life. This way of viewing person with such visions as psychologically healthy seems rather controversial, more, when we realize that Ni users often fail to logically explain their visions, or proove them in sense of physics. So the type based on this description seems to rather suffer from schizophrenia, or other schizoid based illnes.
If we want Ni to sound less as a diagnose of shizophrenia and more as real cognitive psychological function, that can develope in mentaly healthy individual, the description could be further more descriptive about the real cognitive process.
The Ni can be seen as a function that allows the user to see patterns and symbols, that are hidden to other people, but this necessarily doesn't mean the pattern is not here. The Ni user with his ablity to see through objects, to its real core, might notice symbols and meanings within the object, but this doesn't have to happen consciously. The user can notice a lot of these meanings and symbols inside of the object unconsciously and process the realization of objects only latter, without knowing where the realization comes from.
This might make Ni to seem a bit less super-natural and more acceptable for people to understand it.
If anyone wants to add something, or correct me, feel free to share your informations.

My earlier take on it (but read the whole thread):
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67695&p=2234762&viewfull=1#post2234762
 

hjgbujhghg

I am
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
3,333
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so

HollyGolightly

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
293
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
1w2
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Ni isn't as magical as people make out. Our inferior Se picks up on sensory data without us consciously realising. The ni processes this data really quickly and makes quick connections between things and reaches realisations and conclusions without being able to explain why. So it seems almost psychic. This is my understanding anyways. Feel free to disagree :)

Ni is very complicated. It takes zero effort for me to use. Fe takes effort for me to use so I can explain fe pretty well but not ni as I don't make a conscious effort to use ni so I'm less aware of how I use it...so then it's near impossible for me to explain. Ni for me feels very future focused and solution focused. I'll have multiple ideas and pick one and see that one through because I like to get to the end of something...whereas ne seems to be about multiple possibilities. I see possibilities but I like to choose one and work with it.

When I get a hunch about something, specifically a hunch that something is bad, I have a physical reaction. Like my tummy will feel funny or I even feel myself going into fight or flight mode. These hunches seem to cime from niwhere. Like I will get it when a person seems totally fine...maybe even wonderful. There's no evidence whatsoever that they are bad news...or that something bad will happen. I've been that way since childhood. I feel insanely uncomfortable if I know something isn't right. It's frustrating when I can't explain it...it's like my ni is processing whatever sensory data I've unconsciously picked up far quicker than I can understand in a way rhat can be verbalised.

Dunno if that makes sense. I'm over tired and typing on my phone so apologies for any weird typos.
 

Werebudgie

I want my account deleted
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
398
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
Starting with the assumption that Ni needs to be explained in a way that helps people (non-Ni-doms most likely) understand that it's not crazy .. in my view, that starting place can be a problematic foundation for cross-type dialogue.

That said, IMO this actually isn't bad:

The Ni can be seen as a function that allows the user to see patterns and symbols, that are hidden to other people, but this necessarily doesn't mean the pattern is not here. The Ni user with his ablity to see through objects, to its real core, might notice symbols and meanings within the object, but this doesn't have to happen consciously. The user can notice a lot of these meanings and symbols inside of the object unconsciously and process the realization of objects only latter, without knowing where the realization comes from.

It doesn't describe the actual lived experience of Ni as a dominant function (at least not for me) ... but is good as an external description. Seems to me that trying to describe it from the inside can either feed the unfortunate prejudice that Ni is crazy or simply be incomprehensible to others.

The one thing I would add is that the "subjective" nature of Ni (the introverted part of it) comes from Ni being specific to the perceiver's specific location.

Meaning (to pilfer from some of my other comments trying to describe this part): What Ni-doms perceive is really there, for sure. Our perception is also shaped by our specific location. My Ni perception really is perception of an external (to me) landscape, but what I perceive with Ni is from my specific location/subject location in a larger environment. It is thus context-specific, not universalizable, and can get to considerable depth. I think that the Ni subjectivity within a larger landscape may sensitize our perception to the importance of specific location in affecting perception.
 

Werebudgie

I want my account deleted
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
398
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
Our inferior Se picks up on sensory data without us consciously realising. The ni processes this data really quickly and makes quick connections between things and reaches realisations and conclusions without being able to explain why. So it seems almost psychic. This is my understanding anyways

This resonates for me as well.

When I get a hunch about something, specifically a hunch that something is bad, I have a physical reaction. Like my tummy will feel funny or I even feel myself going into fight or flight mode. These hunches seem to come from nowhere. Like I will get it when a person seems totally fine...maybe even wonderful. There's no evidence whatsoever that they are bad news...or that something bad will happen. I've been that way since childhood. I feel insanely uncomfortable if I know something isn't right. It's frustrating when I can't explain it...it's like my ni is processing whatever sensory data I've unconsciously picked up far quicker than I can understand in a way that can be verbalised.

I don't use the word "hunch," but otherwise this ^ ^ fits my experience as well, including the physical reaction. And also, for me, I can also viscerally feel underlying alignment - meaning, when things are well. And the whole spectrum in between. I read somewhere that the gut is the "other brain" in human beings, and have wondered if Ni-Se, at least Ni-Se in INFJs, communicates information partly via that other brain. But I don't know if or how that would fit into the underlying assumptions of the cognitive functions model.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
Ni isn't as magical as people make out. Our inferior Se picks up on sensory data without us consciously realising. The ni processes this data really quickly and makes quick connections between things and reaches realisations and conclusions without being able to explain why. So it seems almost psychic.

This. I really really can't stand it when people think or assume that Ni is magic, magical, psychic. It's not, and it only fuels the self-important narcissists to think they are special little snowflakes with superpowers. Ugh... Ok I'll stop. Pet peeve.


One distinction I have always found interesting, is that a large portion of Ni-doms are quite self-aware individuals (disregarding the correctness of their self awareness; that's another matter). Yet, Ni is inheriently anti-self aware. I like describing it as going "from A, to Q, to fish, insteas of A, B, C". It doesn't make much sense, and there are a lot of major gaps. It goes against the ability of someone to be self aware. However, Ni is a pattern seeker to sort of make up for this lack of order. This drives a lot of Ni-doms to try and back-track and figure out what the gaps are, very often using Ni again, which finds the gaps, but creates more gaps. As you can imagine, this can lead to a really illogical person left unchecked and undeveloped. Ni doms can convince themselves they are super self aware and see "grand patterns" all the time, because Ni demands the individual do so. Hence, self-awareness is common. However, it does not mean they will do it correctly. This is why you can see a lot of Ni-doms get sucked in conspiracy theories, religion, etc..

I have put a lot of effort into trying to fill "the gaps" for a long time, as it leads people to take me more seriously. With time, I have sort of seen how Ni works, by being brought to seeing the things that Ni brings to my attention that I normally would not pick up on. In essence, Ni works really fast, and pulls things past our conscious processing; it bypasses filters. With time I've been able to see a pattern and reasoning behind this. Ni doesn't work in a vacuum. It actually pulls on information we have learned, or information from the environment and it is related to that. The reason many think it does work in a vacuum, is all of it's work is just simply not seen, and not needed to be aware of.

With practice, Ni can be made to seem more concrete.
 

Werebudgie

I want my account deleted
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
398
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
In essence, Ni works really fast, and pulls things past our conscious processing; it bypasses filters.

I think this is a pretty important part of how Ni works, at least for me as a Ni-dom.
 

valaki

New member
Joined
Jan 1, 2014
Messages
940
MBTI Type
SeNi
Enneagram
8+7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
This. I really really can't stand it when people think or assume that Ni is magic, magical, psychic. It's not, and it only fuels the self-important narcissists to think they are special little snowflakes with superpowers. Ugh... Ok I'll stop. Pet peeve.

Hey! I have the exact same pet peeve about Ni! :D


One distinction I have always found interesting, is that a large portion of Ni-doms are quite self-aware individuals (disregarding the correctness of their self awareness; that's another matter). Yet, Ni is inheriently anti-self aware. I like describing it as going "from A, to Q, to fish, insteas of A, B, C". It doesn't make much sense, and there are a lot of major gaps. It goes against the ability of someone to be self aware. However, Ni is a pattern seeker to sort of make up for this lack of order. This drives a lot of Ni-doms to try and back-track and figure out what the gaps are, very often using Ni again, which finds the gaps, but creates more gaps. As you can imagine, this can lead to a really illogical person left unchecked and undeveloped. Ni doms can convince themselves they are super self aware and see "grand patterns" all the time, because Ni demands the individual do so. Hence, self-awareness is common. However, it does not mean they will do it correctly. This is why you can see a lot of Ni-doms get sucked in conspiracy theories, religion, etc..

I have put a lot of effort into trying to fill "the gaps" for a long time, as it leads people to take me more seriously. With time, I have sort of seen how Ni works, by being brought to seeing the things that Ni brings to my attention that I normally would not pick up on. In essence, Ni works really fast, and pulls things past our conscious processing; it bypasses filters. With time I've been able to see a pattern and reasoning behind this. Ni doesn't work in a vacuum. It actually pulls on information we have learned, or information from the environment and it is related to that. The reason many think it does work in a vacuum, is all of it's work is just simply not seen, and not needed to be aware of.

With practice, Ni can be made to seem more concrete.

That's a really reasonable description of Ni IMO. I think of it very similarly.


Starting with the assumption that Ni needs to be explained in a way that helps people (non-Ni-doms most likely) understand that it's not crazy .. in my view, that starting place can be a problematic foundation for cross-type dialogue.

Well then what would be a better foundation? It's clearly not a "crazy" "magical" function. Assuming that would require us to assume existence of spiritual powers and that goes way beyond the framework of MBTI theory.

Even Jung himself didn't think of "collective unconscious" in a "magical" way. I checked one of his books to see what he really meant by that concept and it was pretty reasonable, he talked about a biological background mostly.


It doesn't describe the actual lived experience of Ni as a dominant function (at least not for me) ... but is good as an external description. Seems to me that trying to describe it from the inside can either feed the unfortunate prejudice that Ni is crazy or simply be incomprehensible to others.

Apparently that's not a necessary result of a Ni-dom attempting to describe Ni, as [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] and [MENTION=8691]HollyGolightly[/MENTION] have done it pretty well without making Ni sound crazy or incomprehensible.


I don't use the word "hunch," but otherwise this ^ ^ fits my experience as well, including the physical reaction. And also, for me, I can also viscerally feel underlying alignment - meaning, when things are well. And the whole spectrum in between. I read somewhere that the gut is the "other brain" in human beings, and have wondered if Ni-Se, at least Ni-Se in INFJs, communicates information partly via that other brain. But I don't know if or how that would fit into the underlying assumptions of the cognitive functions model.

What do you mean by "gut" when calling it the "other brain"? Gut sense is felt inside the brain, not somewhere else in the body.

Oh and it's funny, you still don't use the word hunch since I used it before ;) See it's pretty much standard though to describe intuition with the word "hunch".


I think this is a pretty important part of how Ni works, at least for me as a Ni-dom.

Well sure, how about dropping your filters about word usage too.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
This. I really really can't stand it when people think or assume that Ni is magic, magical, psychic. It's not, and it only fuels the self-important narcissists to think they are special little snowflakes with superpowers. Ugh... Ok I'll stop. Pet peeve.


One distinction I have always found interesting, is that a large portion of Ni-doms are quite self-aware individuals (disregarding the correctness of their self awareness; that's another matter). Yet, Ni is inheriently anti-self aware. I like describing it as going "from A, to Q, to fish, insteas of A, B, C". It doesn't make much sense, and there are a lot of major gaps. It goes against the ability of someone to be self aware. However, Ni is a pattern seeker to sort of make up for this lack of order. This drives a lot of Ni-doms to try and back-track and figure out what the gaps are, very often using Ni again, which finds the gaps, but creates more gaps. As you can imagine, this can lead to a really illogical person left unchecked and undeveloped. Ni doms can convince themselves they are super self aware and see "grand patterns" all the time, because Ni demands the individual do so. Hence, self-awareness is common. However, it does not mean they will do it correctly. This is why you can see a lot of Ni-doms get sucked in conspiracy theories, religion, etc..

I have put a lot of effort into trying to fill "the gaps" for a long time, as it leads people to take me more seriously. With time, I have sort of seen how Ni works, by being brought to seeing the things that Ni brings to my attention that I normally would not pick up on. In essence, Ni works really fast, and pulls things past our conscious processing; it bypasses filters. With time I've been able to see a pattern and reasoning behind this. Ni doesn't work in a vacuum. It actually pulls on information we have learned, or information from the environment and it is related to that. The reason many think it does work in a vacuum, is all of it's work is just simply not seen, and not needed to be aware of.

With practice, Ni can be made to seem more concrete.
[MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] wins, the show's over.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
Can you share a "real-life" example?

If I get an insight, idea, etc. out of nowhere, I take pause. I sit, wait, and think "where did this come from?". I think to see if it is valid, backable, etc. I don't just shout out an insight or something that comes to me without being able to see the threads of where it came from.

Here's an example. While I was playing Humans Vs. Zombies a few games ago (think of it like a game of hide n' seek + tag), I was walking along, and suddenly I had this overwhelming feeling that there was someone behind a wall hiding. I could not explain it, reason it, etc. I just *knew* it. However, there is absolutely no way that it could have come from nowehere. I must have seen, heard, felt. etc someone presence to be behind there moments before, and it simply bypassed my filters. It turns out I was correct, there was someone. However I didn't just leave it. I pondered it, and thought of what could have triggered this thought. I wasn't able to fully pinpoint it. However, after speaking with the guy who charged me (he missed), I surmized I must have seen him dart around the corner while I was scanning the area. There, I have some sort of solid evidence.

In essence, I train myself to look for the "why" behind these insights. I don't take them at face value, and I only accept "solid" things that I can observe and others can observe that would create something that Ni sees.

Edit: This also really highlights how terribly un-selfaware Ni is.
 

Werebudgie

I want my account deleted
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
398
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5

It seems to me that pausing on Ni (Ni-Se) information like that might have a downside in two ways:

1. Timing of response: Had that example not been a game but something more real, waiting to speak or act on that information could have been a problem. Seems to me that some situations and/or ways of moving function best as a sort of dance of response without cognition.

2. Sometimes the other information isn't available. In that example, you spoke with the guy who charged you and got additional information, but some situations don't offer that resource or other information that can help explain the perception. Lacking that additional information, the perception still perceived true and the information was still correct, but could or would have been discarded or at least downgraded in some significant way.

I guess it comes down to what side anyone chooses to err on. On one side, there's the "it could be wrong information" possibility, or something along those lines. On the other side, there's a loss of quick response time, possible loss of actual information, extra energy expenditure, and a loss of a certain elastic dancing flexibility that can come with moving in response to Ni/Ni-Se information without conscious understanding of - and/or ability to articulate to others and have them observe - its source or its why. I myself have spent decades erring on the "don't accept Ni/Ni-Se information I perceive as true until I and others can observe it in the external world" side, and am at the point where I have decided that for me, the cost of such a practice is now too high to continue it. I do wonder how many of us who are Ni-doms have decided to err on the side of default initial distrust of our own perception because of how non-Ni-doms respond when we speak or act directly from that space.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
It seems to me that pausing on Ni (Ni-Se) information until it can be seen cognitively might have a downside in two ways:

1. Timing of response: Had that example not been a game but something more real, waiting to speak or act on that information could have been a problem. Seems to me that some situations and/or ways of moving function best as a sort of dance of response without cognition.

2. Sometimes the other information isn't available. In that example, you spoke with the guy who charged you and got additional information, but some situations don't offer that resource or other information that can help explain the perception. Lacking that additional information, the perception still perceived true and the information was still correct, but could or would have been discarded or at least downgraded in some significant way.

I guess it comes down to what side anyone chooses to err on. On one side, there's the "it could be wrong information" possibility, or something along those lines. On the other side, there's a loss of quick response time, possible loss of actual information, extra energy expenditure, and a loss of a certain elastic dancing flexibility that can come with moving in respond to Ni/Ni-Se information without conscious understanding of its source or its why. I myself have spent decades erring on the "don't accept Ni/Ni-Se information I perceive as true until I and others can observe it in the external world" side, and am at the point where I have decided that for me, the cost of such a practice is now too high to continue it. I do wonder how many of us who are Ni-doms have decided to err on the side of default initial distrust of our own perception because of how non-Ni-doms respond when we speak or act directly from that space.

It's not perfect. I'm an Ni-dom; I am limited in what I am able to do. I am simply trying to improve upon the skills I have and to make the best of it.

I still do trust Ni in some cases (in particular when I am forced to, or it's truly implicit). The main point is, by training myself to look further, I am developing and growing as a person. I am not going to be binary and stick to one way or another though. I have been on the extreme a few years ago where I flat out rejected all Ni, like all of it. I started getting somatoform symptoms from the sheer mental pressure I put myself under. I backed off a lot. The best way is to adjust as needed be for any given situation. What ever will give the best results for what you are dealing with, is how one should operate.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
Here's an example. While I was playing Humans Vs. Zombies a few games ago (think of it like a game of hide n' seek + tag), I was walking along, and suddenly I had this overwhelming feeling that there was someone behind a wall hiding. I could not explain it, reason it, etc. I just *knew* it.

Thanks for sharing that example, Hard. The problem I am having is that I think every human being can relate to this example of feeling. So, is it about frequency, do you have these feelings all the time? Or, is it that when anyone feels this sensation it is Ni?

Appreciate any extra thoughts you might have on that. Or another example?
 
G

garbage

Guest
Metaperspective.

More?

The orientation leads to a tendency to try to tip things over in an attempt to figure out what's "really" going on. Sometimes, that orientation digs deep and finds gold beneath the surface; at other times, it mistakes dirt and gravel for gold.

It may lead to an attraction to symbols and signs due to the fact that they represent something--that there's something going on with them, almost by definition. It may also lead to confidence in a future trajectory, as the thing that's 'going on' often points to a process or trend.

It's often a subconscious and instinctual tendency, like anyone's natural orientation, and so it can give a "gut feeling" in its own way.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
In Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink, he explains “thin-slicing”: how answers/insight can surface instantly from the unconscious and how/when to trust it. I think it’s excellent instruction for how/when to trust Ni. Because I totally agree with this:


It totally manifests like this for me:


I think Fe actually pushes me to ignore it when/where I can’t effectively explain it- for the reason Hard mentioned (credibility) but also because the urge to be fair often overrides the urge to give it much weight where I can't effectively explain it. It’s taken me years to learn that ignoring it isn’t really an option- it never goes away and only gets stronger (ultimately becomes more of a problem) the more I try to ignore it (except on those occasions where it came from misunderstanding, in which case it does go away- but that’s more the exception than the rule).

In Gladwell’s book, he explains that when we question initial assessments- that’s where things can go wrong. We start confabulating reasons for why we think we know it, and that can lead us astray because we believe the confabulations. [I’ll try to come back with a better explanation later if/when I have time- but I second the point I think Werebudgie is trying to make. While I think being able to explain how we got from A to Q to other people is important, I also think there’s value in learning to trust something is *probably* true even when we can’t immediately explain it. It's a hard call- because I've dealt with batshit Ni in others (where they just *believe* their incredibly wrong insight) and I loathe the idea of being 'that person' myself.]
 

Werebudgie

I want my account deleted
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
398
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
In Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink, he explains “thin-slicing”: how answers/insight can surface instantly from the unconscious and how/when to trust it. I think it’s excellent instruction for how/when to trust Ni.

IMO that's really interesting!

I think Fe actually pushes me to ignore it when/where I can’t effectively explain it- for the reason Hard mentioned (credibility) but also because the urge to be fair often overrides the urge to give it much weight where I can't effectively explain it.

[MENTION=7842]Z Buck McFate[/MENTION], What does the "urge to be fair" mean for you - like, how does it show up in practice or could you expand on that some more? (I want to make sure I understand what you mean)

In Gladwell’s book, he explains that when we question initial assessments- that’s where things can go wrong. We start confabulating reasons for why we think we know it, and that can lead us astray because we believe the confabulations. [I’ll try to come back with a better explanation later if/when I have time- but I second the point I think Werebudgie is trying to make. While I think being able to explain how we got from A to Q to other people is important, I also think there’s value in learning to trust something is *probably* true even when we can’t immediately explain it.]

I've been trying to figure out a way to articulate that (bolded) point in writing, but haven't quite been able to. I appreciate you bringing it up and into visibility. It think it's related to something that's been bubbling just under the surface for me. I don't know if I'll be able to describe it but will try:

Ni/Ni-Se information can very usefully guide my movements, one movement to the next. It can give me a very accurate sense for the best (most centered/aligned) action for me given my environment. But there seems to be a lot of external pressure, in my case legitimized and internalized via Fe-aux, for me to do something else with that Ni-Se information - something like creating a narrative to explain what's going on and through that process, trying to get other people's permission or validation before I can act on my perception. Basically assessing Ni-Se information with an extroverted judging function and interacting with that perception on Je terms.

But such judging narratives aren't part of Ni/Ni-Se perception. Letting go of those externally imposed standards - the imposed requirement that I have to be able to apply judging functions to Ni-Se perception before I can act on the perceptual information - is an interesting experience for me. To the extent that I can allow myself to do so, letting go of those imposed requirements feels like a relief to me, feels like I have been trying to do something to Ni/Ni-Se perception that has distorted it. Letting go of the distortion feels really viscerally right to me. The problem comes in communicating with others from that perceptual space. I can try to use words for attempted description of what I perceive, but it's usually in metaphor, images, visceral/gut feel. Most often, that stuff either won't make sense to other people or will be pulled by them into being a judging narrative to the point where the narrative takes center stage and the actual information is distorted beyond usefulness for guiding action (when for me, the point of the words would be a "best description at the moment/best I can come up with in words right now" for functional communication, and not a judging narrative).

It's a hard call- because I've dealt with batshit Ni in others (where they just *believe* their incredibly wrong insight) and I loathe the idea of being 'that person' myself.

I haven't dealt with batshit Ni in others, but I have a similar, though probably not identical, loathing related to not wanting to be crazy, deluded etc. It can be a very powerful self-policing function IMO.

------------------

Overall, there seems to be a lot of push push push, both subtle and explicit, for people with strong Ni to second-guess that perception, to publicly and perhaps repeatedly acknowledge it can be crazy and/or wrong, to try to justify it in terms that other people can understand, etc. Basically to experience and interact with our own perception from the default assumption that it is crazy or wrong (crazy or wrong until/unless proven not so), and then deal with it from that vantage point. This leads to all sorts of distortions IMO.

eta: And now I'm thinking that there can be a sort of overarching feedback loop, something like: The distortions caused by applying Je narratives to Ni/Ni-Se perception appear to "prove" the default assumption that Ni/Ni-Se information should be suspect (crazy/wrong) unless proven otherwise, thus supporting the presumed need for more Je narratives, thus causing more distortions, and on and on.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
In Gladwell’s book, he explains that when we question initial assessments- that’s where things can go wrong. We start confabulating reasons for why we think we know it, and that can lead us astray because we believe the confabulations. [I’ll try to come back with a better explanation later if/when I have time- but I second the point I think Werebudgie is trying to make. While I think being able to explain how we got from A to Q to other people is important, I also think there’s value in learning to trust something is *probably* true even when we can’t immediately explain it. It's a hard call- because I've dealt with batshit Ni in others (where they just *believe* their incredibly wrong insight) and I loathe the idea of being 'that person' myself.]

This is interesting, to be sure, and I know there are times when I have not listened to my initial gut instinct, and have regretted it, only to learn later I should have paid attention to that, and made a mess of rationalizing it after the fact, denying myself/something.

However. I can throw out an equal number of times where I've thought/felt something, and been wrong. ;)

So... I guess.... I'm not sure where that in the end leaves me, in terms of what I think of that books' suggestion.

Suppose it's about learning yourself and really, really being aware of the nuances of when your personal emotions come into play? Knowing when you're tricking yourself, vs. not? Tricky business.

But, then, I don't identify with Ni-dom-ness any longer. Perhaps Ni doms have a better track record at this? I wouldn't know. Though... it's tempting to look at all of the INxJ's in the world (well, all people...any type can do it), with their beliefs of what is true, and extrapolate from that that the act of believing one has the truth doesn't really mean much... not all of them are right, ha...
 

Susurrus

New member
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
21
I don't think Ni can be understood intellectually since doing so requires some kind of reasoning.Ni are sort of like the Zen koans which required the subject to suspend all kind of reasoning and instead reconcile contradictions in order to reach an intuitive understanding of the nature of reality. Jung stated that introverted irrational functions(Si,Ni) were the hardest to explain to others since it stand in glaring contrast to our current mode of operation that values logical and rationalistic processes.

Carl Jung said:
From an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men.
But, viewed from a higher standpoint, such men are living evidence of the fact that this rich and
varied world with its overflowing and intoxicating life is not purely external, but also exists
within. These types are admittedly one sided demonstrations of Nature, but they are an
educational experience for the man who refuses to be blinded by the intellectual mode of the day.
In their own way, men with such an attitude are educators and promoters of culture. Their life
teaches more than their words. From their lives, and not the least from what is just their greatest
fault, viz. their incommunicability, we may understand one of the greatest errors of our
civilization, that is, the superstitious belief in statement and presentation, the immoderate
overprizing of instruction by means of word and method.
 
Top