I am certainly Te and e5 biased but I will try to remove their influence as much as I can. .
I could write more but this is already too big in a way for now it is best that it stay only on this. Especially since this might be difficult to read.
The very idea that you will try to define Ni with a definition that has 2 or 3 lines means that you will probably miss the point or get the wrong picture about it.
Also I disagree that Ni (dom Ni) is hard to notice ….. if a person is truly a Ni-dom it will stick out almost all of them time in the group of 10 people.
The problem is that Ni is not a thinking function it is a perceiving function, despite the fact that it is often perceived my others in that way. The core of the problem is that unlike other perceiving function it has no ….. I would call it a “Constant approachâ€. All other functions have this well defined perspective: Se sees the world directly, Si stands more as a concrete database, Ne is usually just an explosion of possibilities in all directions.
But with Ni it is not that simple because Ni is actually your awareness of your own perspective. (plus some other things) So instead of just perceiving the data you also can clearly perceive the way how you perceive and visualize the data/information.
Have you even seen the how the light works in the clubs at night? You have a few parallel beams of the same color and you have a few of those reflectors with different colors.
Now when the atmosphere heats up (analyzing starts) the reflectors start to jump and/or some to of them start to blink fast or slow.
What means you have perspective 1 and perspective 2 that is turned off when perspective 1 is active. Then you have the perspective that is the other way around 2 is active 1 is inactive. Then you exchange them a few times just so that you perceive all of the differences between the two perspectives. (already mentioned perceiving about perceiving) After that you might try to exchange them really fast and see if something else will bubble out from beneath the surface. (usually there is nothing)
After that you turn the perspective 3 and then you go through this all over again and after that the 4th one. However if the problem is trivial you will probably want to stop here because this is enough perspectives and it is better to start solving the problem, especially since the optimal solution is obvious. (since it is a simple problem)
Also you might want to turn all perspectives on and allow them to move just as club reflectors and in a second there will probably all merge in one point in the darkness of the club finding out the object that wasn’t observable if all perspectives are not active, since you need them to lighten the object from all sides. (so you can study it)
And that is why INTJs (and INFJs) are often concerned that there might be something more in the equation that we can’t directly observe since the perspective must be complex or multiple for you to notice the x object in the dark ….. while others around you are just enjoying their Friday night.
But I am afraid that it is not that simple … to define Ni.
The catch that all of this can just be a perspective 1. So you might to try a different approach like sorting out the things and then choose the perspective that would in your opinion have the biggest effect. For example will you sort out things as pieces of a cake or you will use the pile method. But since you have a lot of to show maybe it is better to use the piles because the ratios are more visible since the height represents the amount while on the cake model the elements that are rare would be hard to notice.
Plus if you used this way of showing the data you have one more thing you could do. Let’s say you have the 10 piles on your graph that is showing the actual state. However then you can again change the perspective. In other words there is no need that the piles on your graph should be seen in so static way as they are represented. For example you can move all of them in one direction for one place. (the last will become first and others will me moved for one place)
This is pretty useful tool because it allows you to have a picture of something that does not exist but in theory it is possible …. And to make things more complicated you can move the whole thing for a number of place, you can even change the …. 3 and 7th pile and 9th and 6th.
Literally you can swap them or you can rename them so they keep their original value
Thus creating a new model which could be useless or it can be exactly what we need to maximize or what we want to maximize. And this is where people usually start to freak out because their logic is much more static, everything should be as it is presented and that is it. If we are creative we will try to find some patterns and that is it …. and if we are paranoid we will think about did the counter count everything right. But the overall model is static since the order and definitions are constant. I personally never understood why this is the case but that seem to be working for them.
For me IQ tests never make any real sense, what is the point of pattern that does not represent anything. If it is a line, line, line why I am intelligent if I add another line? Why can’t I place a circle? The outcome is the same. May be the circle is exactly what is needed, after all the circle provides at least some balance if we presume that we need a balance or everything must be a in a prefect pattern. What is pretty dumb idea in my opinion.
Also in my opinion Ni is often directly in confrontation with Fi and does not allow for Fi to become permanent or static and developing a stabile belief system.
1, It eats a lot of inner space so Fi does not manifest
2. Makes everything mobile so there is not right atmosphere to develop something completely static as rigid as a belief system.
Sometimes it makes since to feed a child and sometimes makes more sense to about millions of them in pregnancy. Purely on situation it depends which is a better and more optimal option.
Once on this site a person asked me how can I sort 20 scenarios and courses of actions in a few seconds. The funny thing is that I am pretty sure that the person never even realized how 20 scenarios are actually simple as a model.
But of course the person’s Ne is doesn’t allow the proper perspective.
The Ne logic would be a dot and 20 arrows in all directions, without and obvious end since they are possibilities. Plus there is no strong judgment that would sort this.
But in my head it goes a little bit differently. You have s starting dot (let say on the bottom of the paper) above that you have 4 dots (a1,a2,a3,a4) , above that you have 3 dots (b1,b2,b3) and at the top of the paper you have 2 dots (c1,c2) And from the bottom of the paper to the upper side goes the flow of time.
First choice: I can go anywhere concerning that 4 dots, once I got there I have 3 choices and then I will have 2. But the trick is that the possibilities are multiplied since they are all possible and sorted in layers. What is 4x3=12x2=24 …….and here you go more than 20 scenarios decided in a few seconds.
So if you place this in a everyday world that means: What I will do first ? Hmm, I am hungry should I go to Chinese restaurant, the McDonalds’s, Italian restaurant or I will just buy a Hot dog on that the corner. After that I can either go to see what it is in x bookstore, or drink a coffee somewhere or I can just take a walk …… and in the end I will either go home or to may fiancé’s place and see if he is at home.