[Ni] Ni doms facts

[Lib]

Worlds biggest stretch - "Ni dom" and "introverted intuitive type" are not the same thing at all - "Ni" isn't a function.
Feel free to read Psychological Types or anything else Jung wrote on type.
An "introverted intuitive type" is someone that is predominantly introverted over extraverted, and prefers intuition over sensation, thinking and feeling.
It's not a function in and of itself and is arguably best represented in the MBTI world as "INxx" as opposed to anything "Ni".
If you don't understand the difference, again, read the book.

Jung's introverted intuitive types are equivalent to Ni doms - he uses the hierarchy of the functions after all. And one of Jung's cognitive functions is intuition which when in the introverted attitude is introverted intuition. I don't see a conceptual mistake from my part. Are you sure we talk about the same Jung?

I'm sorry if this upsets you but introverted intuition is much easier to substitute with Ni instead of writing the whole thing every time.

Honestly, do you really see a difference between a Ni dom and a introverted intuitive type who prefers to use intuition in the introverted attitude as a dominant function?

I've read the conversation you posted before - I like how Jung portrays intuition as precisely what it is and is understood as being by the wider, non-MBTI community, in that it is essentially knowing something without knowing how you know (see: hunch), which is vastly different to the absolute nonsense that is forced onto "Ni" and "Si" by the MBTI community due to a forced attachment to the "J" dichotomy (it has absolutely nothing to do with planning, organizing, thinking up ideas, understanding concepts etc).

Well, if someone knows about intuition and introverted intuition (Ni as a function or not) it should be Jung. For one, he described it first and gave it a name. What you have against the 'planing and organizing' thing? This sounds as a good description of intuition:
Intuition as a function of Perception~Carl Jung - Carl Jung Depth Psychology

In consciousness, the intuitive function is represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrating vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case, how much was [p. 462] ‘perceived-into’, and how much actually lay in the object.

How do you think it affects a person who constantly experiencing it? Preparing, executing, and in extroverted attitude, experimenting. Besides, an introverted intuitive type can't afford to get sucked into the uncomfortable external sensory world. Thus, one plans to avoid this. Got it?

 

[Turi]

Jung's introverted intuitive types are equivalent to Ni doms - he uses the hierarchy of the functions after all. And one of Jung's cognitive functions is intuition which when in the introverted attitude is introverted intuition. I don't see a conceptual mistake from my part. Are you sure we talk about the same Jung?

I'm sorry if this upsets you but introverted intuition is much easier to substitute with Ni instead of writing the whole thing every time.

Honestly, do you really see a difference between a Ni dom and a introverted intuitive type who prefers to use intuition in the introverted attitude as a dominant function?

Yes, it's a massive difference.
"Ni" isn't a function. There are introverted intuitive types, and there is no such thing as "Ni".

Read about his theories on the general attitude of consciousness and the importance of this distinction will be clear - it's very important to understand when people start rambling about Myers/Grant function-stacks etc.

Well, if someone knows about intuition and introverted intuition (Ni as a function or not) it should be Jung. For one, he described it first and gave it a name. What you have against the 'planing and organizing' thing? This sounds as a good description of intuition:
Intuition as a function of Perception~Carl Jung - Carl Jung Depth Psychology

If you're talking about Jung naming introverted intuition, you might do well to do some research.

Jungs work in Psychological Types and beyond that, that discuss introverted and extraverted people, is made up of analysing the work of many others before him who identified a similar separation in some people - despite coining the terms "introvert" and "extravert", what they actually mean is something that was "described" by many, many before him.

Now if we're talking about intuition, Jung neither described it "first" nor coined the term.

I've got Psychological Types and have read it numerous times - there's no need to link me to people copy and pasting from it.

The funny thing is, organizing and planning is actually something Jung notes is difficult for introverted irrational types (he specifies this in the Sensation area) - and it's on account of them lacking the rational Thinking and Feeling function as dominant. So these types actually *have trouble with planning and organizing* - it's complete nonsense to attribute these terms or any other such similar stereotypes etc to the irrational functions.

How do you think it affects a person who constantly experiencing it? Preparing, executing, and in extroverted attitude, experimenting. Besides, an introverted intuitive type can't afford to get sucked into the uncomfortable external sensory world. Thus, one plans to avoid this. Got it?

This is complete nonsense that you've made up - no, this does not manifest as someone preparing and executing and in extraverted attitude, experimenting. Complete and utter unsupported nonsense. This is an MBTI "J" version of intuition, and if there's one thing intuition is not, it's "J".

 

[Pionart]

[MENTION=33869]Turi[/MENTION] - the J is referring to the attitude of the predominant extroverted function. The Ni dominant type is associated with structure because that is how they deal with the external world - they primarily give it structure, whether through logical procedure or social maneuvering.

You may or may not find in Jung that an introverted intuitive type has a strong Te or Fe, but we know more about type now than we knew back then (although there is still a mass of confusion that needs to be cleared up).

 

[Turi]

[MENTION=33869]Turi[/MENTION] - the J is referring to the attitude of the predominant extroverted function. The Ni dominant type is associated with structure because that is how they deal with the external world - they primarily give it structure, whether through logical procedure or social maneuvering.

I'm aware of the absolute nonsense that is the "how we deal with the external world" the P/J dichotomy is about.

I'd like to highlight here that the MBTI is dichotomy only and speaks absolutely nothing of functions in attitudes. Therefore there is no support whatsoever behind say, INTJ meaning "Ni-Te" etc.

None.

I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that Jung never claimed the auxiliary functions attitude would be in the opposite direction to the dominant, following his theories on the general attitude of consciousness, I believe the stronger argument supports it being in the same direction which would further discredit the forced Te/Fe following Ni in the Granton or Myersian stack, which would then of course, further remove any such organizing or planning nonsense from the irrational functions.

You may or may not find in Jung that an introverted intuitive type has a strong Te or Fe, but we know more about type now than we knew back then (although there is still a mass of confusion that needs to be cleared up).

I disagree with this as Myers eternally destroyed a Jungs theories on the 60s when she and her buds failed to comprehend much of any of it.

 

[Lib]

Yes, it's a massive difference.
"Ni" isn't a function. There are introverted intuitive types, and there is no such thing as "Ni".

Read about his theories on the general attitude of consciousness and the importance of this distinction will be clear - it's very important to understand when people start rambling about Myers/Grant function-stacks etc.

If you say such stuff you have to explain it. How is it conceptually different?

If you're talking about Jung naming introverted intuition, you might do well to do some research.

Jungs work in Psychological Types and beyond that, that discuss introverted and extraverted people, is made up of analysing the work of many others before him who identified a similar separation in some people - despite coining the terms "introvert" and "extravert", what they actually mean is something that was "described" by many, many before him.

Now if we're talking about intuition, Jung neither described it "first" nor coined the term.

Who used it before him and in what context? If you understand it so well you must be able to cite right away.

I've got Psychological Types and have read it numerous times - there's no need to link me to people copy and pasting from it.

Don't get the impression that you understood anything from it. Time irrevocably lost for you.

The funny thing is, organizing and planning is actually something Jung notes is difficult for introverted irrational types (he specifies this in the Sensation area) - and it's on account of them lacking the rational Thinking and Feeling function as dominant. So these types actually *have trouble with planning and organizing* - it's complete nonsense to attribute these terms or any other such similar stereotypes etc to the irrational functions.

"I've got Psychological Types and have read it numerous times". Cite it then.

This is complete nonsense that you've made up - no, this does not manifest as someone preparing and executing and in extraverted attitude, experimenting. Complete and utter unsupported nonsense. This is an MBTI "J" version of intuition, and if there's one thing intuition is not, it's "J".

Why is it a complete nonsense?

In consciousness, the intuitive function is represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrating vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case, how much was [p. 462] ‘perceived-into’, and how much actually lay in the object.

How would a person described in such a way behave in your opinion?

 

[Pionart]

I'm aware of the absolute nonsense that is the "how we deal with the external world" the P/J dichotomy is about.

I'd like to highlight here that the MBTI is dichotomy only and speaks absolutely nothing of functions in attitudes. Therefore there is no support whatsoever behind say, INTJ meaning "Ni-Te" etc.

None.

Well, if you don't like equating INTJ with NiTe because they're differently defined or whatever, then just think of it as an NiTe (short for Ni-Te-Fi-Se-Ne-Ti-Fe-Si) and drop the INTJ label. I am used to using the terms interchangeably, and can't quite comprehend at the moment what it would be mean for there to be "support" for their equality.

I disagree with this as Myers eternally destroyed a Jungs theories on the 60s when she and her buds failed to comprehend much of any of it.

There have been many academics who have theorised about typology, and now we have typology forums where many amateurs theorise about typology. At the moment there is a sea of information on the subject, and some of it is good information. We have to figure out which parts are good and which parts are not, but we do not need to frame everything in terms of what Jung said on the subject 100 years ago, even if there is much to learn through his work.

--

Regarding the P/J dichotomy: it just so happens that all types whose top two functions are introverted perception and extroverted judgement share a particular quality. I don't think the MBTI and other dichotomy based tests and descriptions really capture this quality very well, but the quality nonetheless exists.

 

[Turi]

If you say such stuff you have to explain it. How is it conceptually different?

Feel free to read the book.

Who used it before him and in what context? If you understand it so well you must be able to cite right away.

Clarify precisely what you're talking about. Introversion or intuition.
If you'd read the book you'd understand how absurd your question here is.

Don't get the impression that you understood anything from it. Time irrevocably lost for you.

You wouldn't, you haven't read the book and it's clear as day. I'm not concerned with what impressions you get.

"I've got Psychological Types and have read it numerous times". Cite it then. Where in the book was that said and in what context?

Too easy, I'll go one up and also provide proof that organizing information (required, for planning anything) is attributed to Thinking and Feeling (they're the rational functions, ie, within the laws of reason).

In the same way that thinking organizes the contents of consciousness under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 400). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

So there's T and F organizing and arranging information.

In general, this type can organize his impressions only in archaic ways, because thinking and feeling are relatively unconscious and, if conscious at all, have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 366). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

The above is to do with the introverted Sensation type - it's noted they can only organize their impressions (literally what Sensation in the introverted attitude provides) in archaic ways due to Thinking and Feeling being relatively unconscious. In other words, the one thing that introverted Sensation provides, they can not even organize due to not being a dominant rational type.

I'm not sure what more you need - the same rule would apply to introverted Intuition.

You're free to actually read the book, it's a great read.

Why is it a complete nonsense?

I haven't got time for this, feel free to read the post I made about introversion and extraversion as this is covered in the thread.

How would a person described in such a way behave in your opinion?

It's essentially saying the person is led by inspiration and not any kind of rational thought (ie, organizing, planning etc).

 

[brightflashes]

I can see this has gone way past the initial question, but the "fact" of Introverted iNtuition that I find is this orientation toward apprehension which is based on a subjective understanding of the impressions a person has unconsciously (or semi-consciously) collected. The apprehension isn't to actual events, but perceived events and how they will affect the subject.

I don't know if this helps to make sense or if others will just gloss over this, but I think it's the simplest way I can put it while still staying true to Jung.

 

[Lib]

Feel free to read the book.

Clarify precisely what you're talking about. Introversion or intuition.

If you'd read the book you'd understand how absurd your question here is.

You wouldn't, you haven't read the book and it's clear as day. I'm not concerned with what impressions you get.

You're free to actually read the book, it's a great read.

Jung himself didn't make the illogical statements you made. Obviously, you like to use strong words without any substance. It's cheating.

How is any of what I said conceptually wrong? Feel free to be responsible for your own statements.

Too easy, I'll go one up and also provide proof that organizing information (required, for planning anything) is attributed to Thinking and Feeling (they're the rational functions, ie, within the laws of reason).

So there's T and F organizing and arranging information.

The above is to do with the introverted Sensation type - it's noted they can only organize their impressions (literally what Sensation in the introverted attitude provides) in archaic ways due to Thinking and Feeling being relatively unconscious. In other words, the one thing that introverted Sensation provides, they can not even organize due to not being a dominant rational type.

I'm not sure what more you need - the same rule would apply to introverted Intuition.

The only thing that's being said in the cited text is that the Si type is poorly organizing impressions. Let's say it has something to do with the Ni type too. How is that relevant to the planning and organizing skills in the external world? Impressions are not the same as goals and actions. In fact due to the lack of internal organization and clarity, the Ni doms or whatever you want to call them, tend to compensate with external organization. Drive >> ability.

In consciousness, the intuitive function is represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrating vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case, how much was [p. 462] ‘perceived-into’, and how much actually lay in the object.

This means interaction with the external world makes sense of the internal hunches and visions. All intuitive types long to implement or experiment, which is exhibited differently in the extroverted and in the introverted attitude but they always have the need to express it somehow. In the introverted attitude, one avoids external interactions, which makes them focus on how to minimize it, and planning is the only way to guarantee quality over quantity. It may be not an inherent ability, but always a necessity.

It's essentially saying the person is led by inspiration and not any kind of rational thought (ie, organizing, planning etc).

You mean motivation not inspiration, because this is much more powerful than you make it sound, it's like your vision is an inseparable part of yourself. Ability is a great thing but without motivation, no one would use it, if you get my point.

I can't agree with the notion that Ni is by definition unrealistic. Just because we don't know how it works, and it's more complex than what some people tend to call rational, doesn't mean it's irrational by nature. It doesn't make it rational either. It's irrational to call something you don't understand irrational.

 

[brightflashes]

[MENTION=35676]Lib[/MENTION]

I'm genuinely curious: what exactly do you get out of purposefully misinterpreting and insulting Turi?

 

[Lib]

[MENTION=35676]Lib[/MENTION]

I'm genuinely curious: what exactly do you get out of purposefully misinterpreting and insulting Turi?

It's not to insult him. I just disagree. Are you sure you're not misinterpreting me yourself?

 

[brightflashes]

It's not to insult him. I just disagree. Are you sure you're not misinterpreting me yourself?

No, I'm not sure. It seems as though you're frustrated by what he's saying, though, and I interpreted the energy of the way you were responding back to him as being a bit volatile. I could be completely misreading , though. In case anyone cares, I agree with everything he has said in this thread when it comes to his observation, understanding, and application of Jungian theory to Ni (ref: my brain).

When it comes to the other stuff, it really does appear that you have not read the book he's referencing (insisting that Ni is a function is an example - Ni is actually a function N + an attitude = Introversion). I have also read it several times (ref: my own memory) and I'm not understanding where you're coming from myself. But maybe there's some sort of underlying dynamic between you and Turi that I'm not picking up on or that doesn't translate easily online (maybe you're in love with Turi?)

I really do recommend the book, though. It's very helpful in understanding the 4 functions and the functions in attitude. : )

Edited to include citations as requested

 

[Lib]

No, I'm not sure. It seems as though you're frustrated by what he's saying, though, and I interpreted the energy of the way you were responding back to him as being a bit volatile. I could be completely misreading, though. In case anyone cares, I agree with everything he has said in this thread when it comes to his observation, understanding, and application of Jungian theory to Ni.

When it comes to the other stuff, it really does appear that you have not read the book he's referencing. I have also read it several times and I'm not understanding where you're coming from myself. But maybe there's some sort of underlying dynamic between you and Turi that I'm not picking up on or that doesn't translate easily online.

I really do recommend the book, though. It's very helpful in understanding the 4 functions and the functions in attitude. : )

And I really do recommend you back your statements with actual examples and citations, otherwise it seems to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

I could be wrong about all of the above, but nobody proved it to me so far.

 

[brightflashes]

And I really do recommend you back your statements with actual examples and citations, otherwise it seems to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

I could be wrong about all of the above, but nobody proved it to me so far.

lol WHAT!?

What statements did I say that you need me to back up!? List these things clearly and I'll back them up happily. : )

Edit to add: the only thing I can think of is that Jung mentions 4 functions - not 8. He does mention 8 types, but these types are the 4 functions in each attitude (Introverted or Extraverted). This is found in Psychological Types by Carl Jung. If you need a page number, I'll be happy to oblige, but I have no clue lol ...

Also, I entered this conversation because 1, I had something to say about Ni and 2, I was genuinely curious as to the dynamics between you and Turi. lol I didn't know I had to back that up with citations.

P.S. I backed up what I said with citations. If there's any additional confusion, I'll just point you in the direction of a book instead of having to cite every single thing I say to clarify where it's coming from. I thought I was browsing a forum, not writing a scientific report.

 

[Jaguar]

[MENTION=35676]Lib[/MENTION]

I'm genuinely curious: what exactly do you get out of purposefully misinterpreting and insulting Turi?

All I see is Lib engaging in normal debate.

 

[brightflashes]

All I see is Lib engaging in normal debate.

heh. I'm not as familiar with the people here as I am on other personality forums. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Lib]

lol WHAT!?

What statements did I say that you need me to back up!? List these things clearly and I'll back them up happily. : )

Also, I entered this conversation because 1, I had something to say about Ni and 2, I was genuinely curious as to the dynamics between you and Turi. lol I didn't know I had to back that up with citations.

P.S. I backed up what I said with citations. If there's any additional confusion, I'll just point you in the direction of a book instead of having to cite every single thing I say to clarify where it's coming from. I thought I was browsing a forum, not writing a scientific report.

There is no secret dynamics between us, it's just that I don't agree and I explained why. If you have any objection to what I posted, back it with reasoning not with the statement that you read the book, or stfu.

Edit to add: the only thing I can think of is that Jung mentions 4 functions - not 8. He does mention 8 types, but these types are the 4 functions in each attitude (Introverted or Extraverted). This is found in Psychological Types by Carl Jung. If you need a page number, I'll be happy to oblige, but I have no clue lol ...

Well, that's alright because I don't really talk about the types in their entirety as it is in MBTI but only address the use of certain functions as dominant, so there really is no conceptual mistake that I could see.

Hope it's clear that up to this point your interference is completely irrelevant and doesn't bring any new information, nor does it show that you have read what I posted.

 

[brightflashes]

If you have any objection to what I posted, back it with reasoning not with the statement that you read the book, or stfu.

hmm. You seem incredibly reasonable. I'll go a head and oblige. I had no objective so that might automatically make any response a waste of your time. However, I was curious about the dynamics between you and Turi. I honestly didn't believe that you were in love with him, though. I was trying to be funny. Maybe I wasn't adding to the conversation in a way that is acceptable to you, but by asking what was going on, I was hoping you might aid in my understanding. I don't see any reason to back that up with any references.

 

[Turi]

Probably shouldn't waste time on [MENTION=35676]Lib[/MENTION], clearly this poster has no idea what they're talking about and hasn't read Psychological Types.

You can tell by the complete nonsense posts that simply would make no sense to anyone that's even remotely knowledgeable.

Any and all discussion will turn into one person coming from the perspective of understanding the functions and attitudes, and [MENTION=35676]Lib[/MENTION] coming from some kind of "what I've hacked together from mbti people on the internet" perspective.

 

[Lib]

Probably shouldn't waste time on [MENTION=35676]Lib[/MENTION], clearly this poster has no idea what they're talking about and hasn't read Psychological Types.

You can tell by the complete nonsense posts that simply would make no sense to anyone that's even remotely knowledgeable.

Any and all discussion will turn into one person coming from the perspective of understanding the functions and attitudes, and [MENTION=35676]Lib[/MENTION] coming from some kind of "what I've hacked together from mbti people on the internet" perspective.

You make no sense, it doesn't matter how many books you've read.