[MBTI General] Ni in xNFJs? =\

[SoraMayhem]

I feel as though a lot of what people are ascribing to Ni can also seem a lot like Ji plus Ne. When I learned about cognitive functions, I felt as though I might be Ni dominant although I'm nearly 100% P. Any other XNXPs care to chime in on this?

 

[Ribonuke]

[MENTION=12341]SubtleFighter[/MENTION]

Yeah, a lot of what you say makes sense, especially when you're unable to make a hunch because you don't have enough data; it's almost like a function in algebra where you need to solve for y to find out the range of a chart! Dx

I feel as though a lot of what people are ascribing to Ni can also seem a lot like Ji plus Ne. When I learned about cognitive functions, I felt as though I might be Ni dominant although I'm nearly 100% P. Any other XNXPs care to chime in on this?

I apologize for the fact that I'm not Ne-user, but I thought I just might want to share my perspective on this question; I have an INFP friend who took the test and figured he was an INFJ like I am. However, I had my doubts, due to some subtle but still striking differences in the way we processed things, and the fact that he resembled another of my INFP friends, and had NONE of the sort of "objective" side I'd seen in myself and fellow INFJs. I can see how it might be confused; Ji + Ne combining together to form a desire or vision of the future could easily be mistaken for Ni, due to the piecing together of within and without. However, one needs to realize that Ni is, as a perceiving function, largely objective; we have no 'involvement' in what we observe, as it merely comes to us. We don't need to 'look inside ourselves' to really understand Ni-observations. (Sorry if this isn't more coherent; I'm a little nervous, since there's a thunderstorm happening right now.)

Question about Si/Ni...do you think Pi-users are more prone to being afraid of things? Like, for instance, certain kinds of thunderstorms? Is it because we associate it with past experiences (or possible occurrences)?

Let me give you an example of what was going through my mind a few minutes ago; I just heard of a derecho occurring in DC. Next thing you know, we have a thunderstorm, where the clouds are thick enough to be tinted green-ish. Now, since it's still tornado-season, I began mentally visualizing what would happen were a tornado to strike my house: I thought of grabbing my computer first, but then I wasn't sure about my gecko; I was imagining the sadness we would feel if we found my gecko's cage missing, knowing that she surely would've perished in the sky. However, in the off-chance she lived and might've safely landed in a ditch somewhere, then she'd still be lost to us, considering she has no means of identification on her cage or on her. Perhaps then another person might find her, and then be able to take care of her. Or she might be eaten by a predator.

Does this sound like Ni? Coz it seems like I followed HER existence instead of branching off with more Ne-based ideas.

 

[Kalach]

xD oops, guys, I meant "obvious", not "honest", that was a typo.

IN A FREUDIAN WORLD THERE ARE NO TAKE BACKS!!!

 

[Kalach]

Ni is pretty future-focused. It's like . . . over the course of a lifetime, someone using Ni takes in all the information that they've ever received or encountered through study or through living life (Se data) and then tries to make universal principles out of it.

I think functions are cognition as the approach consciousness. And since Se is way down in the conscious order, it's pretty important to make a distinction between attending to information from the senses and attending to concepts abstracted from sensations. The first is Se, the second is Ni beating Se to the punch. When Ni is going to town on sensory data, the physical nature of the data is NOT attended to, so no Se to speak of is going on....

/might not be true

I want to add too that Ni isn't all about finding "one possibility." Since it's a perceiving function, it's always working to refine itself. And looking at multiple perspectives is also a big part of what Ni is. It's like looking at something through different lenses and believing that all of these lenses are valid and needed in order to see the complete picture. For instance, if you're looking at a novel, you might examine it through the perspective of characters, and then through setting, and then through theme, etc. Or if you're an English major, it might be through gender theory, New Criticism, deconstruction of binaries, etc. Someone using Ni would believe that all of these perspectives (and many others) are needed to fully understand the novel (the object) completely, and they could shift talking from one perspective to another perspective and still feel like they're still talking about the same whole object, even if one perspective seems to contradict the other. But this is different than multiple possibilities.

Imma call Ti on this too. (I'm not sure why, though.)


Seems like judgment functions really do make for different focuses of attention.

 

[SubtleFighter]

I think functions are cognition as the approach consciousness. And since Se is way down in the conscious order, it's pretty important to make a distinction between attending to information from the senses and attending to concepts abstracted from sensations. The first is Se, the second is Ni beating Se to the punch. When Ni is going to town on sensory data, the physical nature of the data is NOT attended to, so no Se to speak of is going on....

/might not be true

I think both scenarios can happen. Ni can come with conclusions from seemingly out of nowhere, but in other cases the Se data is obvious. For instance, if you’re looking at a group of charts about demographics, and then you start drawing conclusions based on them. Although these conclusions would also be influenced by previous Se data that had been analyzed and made into principles/conclusions beforehand, and that would be less conscious.

Imma call Ti on this too. (I'm not sure why, though.)


Seems like judgment functions really do make for different focuses of attention.

I'm surprised--I’ve heard other INTJs talk about what I’m describing in that paragraph, but maybe the way I'm describing it is influenced by Ti. Are there specific parts of it that seem particularly Ti to you?

 

[Kalach]

I think both scenarios can happen. Ni can come with conclusions from seemingly out of nowhere, but in other cases the Se data is obvious. For instance, if you’re looking at a group of charts about demographics, and then you start drawing conclusions based on them. Although these conclusions would also be influenced by previous Se data that had been analyzed and made into principles/conclusions beforehand, and that would be less conscious.

Imma call Ti on yer demographics too.

And also say that a group of charts about demographics does not constitute Se data. It's data presented in a physical format. People without Se in their system can see it too.

Se data if it is anything is the fleeting physical details you spot in a stream of physical sensation. If you're drawing out enduring themes and reference to patterns you already recognise, then you're doing Ni.

/still might not be true.

I'm surprised--I’ve heard other INTJs talk about what I’m describing in that paragraph, but maybe the way I'm describing it is influenced by Ti. Are there specific parts of it that seem particularly Ti to you?

Nope. But this idea of needing to consider all analytical perspectives before you can analyse adequately seems a product of introverted judgment. If, say, I were asked what I feel about the content of some novel, then it seems like I'd have to invoke billions of interpretations and be prepared to sift through all the nuanced tags each one got. But merely interpreting the thing would be a matter of invoking a preferred interpretation perspective that I'd already built up from experience in reading or working in a literature field.

/might be even less true

 

[Fidelia]

Indeed. And add Ti into the mix, and every detail is even more relevant. That's why I had to train myself to be really Te when writing an essay (not to mention this is the way that English teachers want essays to be formatted).

Yeah, I learned a lot from having a Te dom boyfriend. He was a master at effective essay writing. I also have found that I am much better at teaching people how to write according to an outline and figuring out what details are relevant in their work than I am with stuff that I'm emotionally involved with.

 

[SubtleFighter]

Imma call Ti on yer demographics too.

And also say that a group of charts about demographics does not constitute Se data. It's data presented in a physical format. People without Se in their system can see it too.

Se data if it is anything is the fleeting physical details you spot in a stream of physical sensation. If you're drawing out enduring themes and reference to patterns you already recognise, then you're doing Ni.

/still might not be true.

I'll have to think some more about what you're saying about Se . . . although I would think that charts about demographics would be more Te than Ti.

Nope. But this idea of needing to consider all analytical perspectives before you can analyse adequately seems a product of introverted judgment. If, say, I were asked what I feel about the content of some novel, then it seems like I'd have to invoke billions of interpretations and be prepared to sift through all the nuanced tags each one got. But merely interpreting the thing would be a matter of invoking a preferred interpretation perspective that I'd already built up from experience in reading or working in a literature field.

/might be even less true

*looks back at original post in question* I'm sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean that effective analysis can't be done without first knowing all the perspectives. Someone can do a great analysis of something from just one perspective. I just meant that in order to see the whole object and know the whole object in question, all perspectives are valid and needed. (not sure if this is saying it differently than before, but I don't know how else to say what I mean, but I think there's some kind of miscommunication . . . although it's entirely possible that my Ti is affecting my viewpoint in some way)

 

[SubtleFighter]

Yeah, I learned a lot from having a Te dom boyfriend. He was a master at effective essay writing. I also have found that I am much better at teaching people how to write according to an outline and figuring out what details are relevant in their work than I am with stuff that I'm emotionally involved with.

You teach people how to write essays too? Well, I'm a tutor, not a teacher, but still. Awesome! I actually think that people who did not have essay-writing come naturally to them make more effective teachers of it because they were conscious of the whole process. It's harder for me to teach people things that just come to me (like how to choose a topic), but it's easier to teach how to outline Te-style because I had to consciously work at figuring out how to do it myself, so I know the steps to doing it inside and out. And I can give people who it doesn't come easy to tips that I know work in real life because they worked on me . . . (okay, now I'm just rambling... )

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I agree that the difference with Ni (mentioned a few posts back) is that it’s like stories unpack themselves instantly- possible reasons for why people say or do what they say or do surface in a way that feels like it has nothing to do with judgment (the ‘stories’ unpack before we have any sort of feeling about them or feel like there’s any judgment about them)……BUT it is, in fact, ‘judgment’ that puts these stories together. It isn’t the kind of judgment that assigns a value, necessarily, but judgment is what assembles the pieces and INFJs can believe pieces ‘fit together’ when they actually don’t. [I think a big difference between INFJs and INFPs is that INFJs can make the mistake I just mentioned when they get stuck- but when INFPs get stuck it’s like they get offended by something that isn’t really there (it can seem like they’re transferring negative emotions onto something and targeting some straw man to be offended by, but an INFJ’s straw man usually involves believing the person is up to something they aren’t…..without necessarily being offended, but still believing some ‘story’ that isn’t true).]

And overall I get the impression that, with FiNe, it’s more like stories/possibilities are more consciously built around ideals, like FiNe comes up with possibilities to illustrate how they believe things ‘should be’; the effort is spent in building up the possibilities/stories from scratch (kinda), like putting paint to canvas? But NiFe works in the other direction; it’s like being flooded with the story, and the effort is spent in figuring out the ideal. With NiFe the stories/possibilities surface constantly of their own accord and we have to sort through them- figure out what’s acceptable to us, what isn’t acceptable to us, why there are things that are acceptable to others which don’t seem acceptable to us (and vice versa)- and how to make an ‘ideal’ balance/understanding out of all of it.

FiNe will instantly think, “This seems dodgy, what’s the possible story here?” (?) And NiFe will instantly think: “This seems to be the story, so why do I think it sounds dodgy?” The first clause is the automatic part that happens on its own- the part that gets taken for granted most easily. But both- as NFs- are distracted by idealistic visions/possibilities of how people can be, how people can treat each other and such.

(?)

 

[CuriousFeeling]

I'll speak on my own behalf of how I experience Ni. It may apply for other NFJs here on the board.

I have a preference to use Ni along with Fe and Ti to solve problems and to make sense of the world around me. It could be just about anything from theory to dealing with people. A lot of my closest friends have said that I read people well. I think it's related to Fe, putting myself in the other person's shoes, their needs and interests, and then making a sudden conclusion about who they are and what they may have experienced. One person I had met, I didn't even know much about them other than their name and common personal interests. But I made a conclusion without effort about the environment that they are drawn to as a symbolic expression of who they are. I could tell in the person's gaze that they were also an introverted personality. I really don't put in a lot of effort to come up with these conclusions. Sometimes I can be off, but most times I am convinced that my intuition is right, and in most cases it has been.

Like what SubtleFighter has stated about Ni being future oriented, it's definitely true. I think I plan things ahead too much, but I am often desiring and designing a plan for the future, which direction I want to go. When I was 12 I knew where I wanted to be when I got into my 30s. I often knew what I wanted and how I was going to get there, and I didn't like it when others stood in my way to get from point A to point B. Ni visions drive me towards where I want to be in my life. A lot of my goals are attached to improving the world, making it a better place, helping others, inspiring other people. I get a feel for what is a person's natural aptitudes and figure out a gameplan to get them to learn the material. I seek to fuse connections between what is being observed to my own inner concept of a theory, for instance.

And, I often find myself drawn to paradoxes in general. I even see myself as a paradox. I'm lucky if I really understand myself completely. When I see things that don't quite mesh with my inner logical concepts of things, I first think, "This doesn't make sense." But then after mulling it over, thinking about the things that a concept has in common with another concept, examining it from different angles, it ends up becoming clearer to me. I often find myself analyzing things to the point I am not even present to them. While details may overwhelm me, I end up providing way too many details to explain my thoughts. I think each angle of a concept is important to truly explain it. I think this may be an example of Ni working with Ti. Overanalysis to the point I'd need a cooling fan in my brain. I want to come down to a conclusion about what I am studying or analyzing. I don't like being left up in the air. "I think this is what the story means. Is it the correct interpretation of the story? Why do I think and feel this way about it? Does this make sense? What course of action should be taken to find out what the story really means?" Similar to what ZBuck posted.

 

[Glycerine]

Ni is the reason I suck at telling people about movies I saw or why I have difficulty sticking to an outline on an essay. Every detail is relevant and it's hard to hit the high points because everything is interconnected. I never realized that until a little while ago.

On the other hand, I've also been surprised to realize that Ni is the Look-Down-The-Road function that allows one to usually predict where a course of action may likely lead a person to. I have been frustrated and surprised that this is not as self-evident to other types, but finally noticed that the other people who do this are Ni users. It also has helped me to undesrtand that I am not being rude or insulting by explaining the whole thought process behind the conclusions I have reached, and in fact people feel frustrated or confused when I don't. While it is not 100% infallible, it is correct enough of the time, that I have found this trait quite useful in decision making.

Oh my gosh! Outlines are the absolute worst for me. I have always been able to mentally structure and organise my papers because everything has to work together in a bigger framework.

Fe for is like a people information bank and Ni helps me to piece together the context and nuances. I think the ability to piece together information looks like the "psychic" thing. I am fairly good at reading people pertaining to piecing together information. It usually seems quite obvious to me because the information just seems to click in the big general framework. My Fe is about as strong as my Ni.