[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Ni - What the hell is it?

[SearchingforPeace]

This is such a NP thing to say.

In my experience Ni can create a model/plan in instant and this plan will be a prefectly workable solution. There is no step by step brainstorming and many doubts.
The only thing you have to pay attention to is that at the start of the process you have correct information that matches reality.

Boom, yes. The biggest problems with Ni are knowing if your base of knowledge is big enough and whether there is some sort of bias involved. If don't know you don't something very important related to your vision, then your vision will be wrong. If you are too biased to see clearly, then Ni will produce poor results.

It is like a pilot whose instruments are off just a hair. Such a small amount should seem meaningless. However, over time, that could mean an entirely different direction or running into a mountain or the ground.

I had a huge Ni explosion this spring. I resisted following it. I eventually realized it is 100% correct, but that my initial judgment was faulty and I didn't understand my vision clearly enough when I applied my judgment.

 

[westrom]

Ni vs Ne. lol.

Ne expand possibilities, Ni narrow them down. That explains why Ne users are not certain at times. Ni are usually certain, as there are less ideas in their idea, to choose from.

 

[Mal12345]

This is such a NP thing to say.

In my experience Ni can create a model/plan in instant and this plan will be a prefectly workable solution. There is no step by step brainstorming and many doubts.
The only thing you have to pay attention to is that at the start of the process you have correct information that matches reality.

But you don't know what matches reality without a judging function. Consider what Perceiving and Judging mean. The former brings in information and the latter judges the information. You can't know if the information matches reality without the Judging function.

 

[Mal12345]

Ni vs Ne. lol.

Ne expand possibilities, Ni narrow them down. That explains why Ne users are not certain at times. Ni are usually certain, as there are less ideas in their idea, to choose from.

Certainty or certitude are products of the Judging function. I don't know what you mean by "Ni are usually certain" since you could be referring to a function or a person.

 

[Poki]

But you don't know what matches reality without a judging function. Consider what Perceiving and Judging mean. The former brings in information and the latter judges the information. You can't know if the information matches reality without the Judging function.

You don't need to judge. It either fits your internal vision or not(vision meant as in N, just an internal mental idea whether it be logic, concept, pattern, etc.). If it doesn't then it's wrong...lol. or it ends to be morphed to fit your vision. Why do you think thier external perception is inferior.

 

[Mal12345]

You don't need to judge. It either fits your internal vision or not(vision meant as in N, just an internal mental idea whether it be logic, concept, pattern, etc.). If it doesn't then it's wrong...lol. or it ends to be morphed to fit your vision. Why do you think thier external perception is inferior.

I agree that there is a feeling of certitude, that is, conviction, that accompanies the Ni perception.

 

[Poki]

I agree that there is a feeling of certitude, that is, conviction, that accompanies the Ni perception.

I bet it's controlled by tertiary Ti or Fi

 

[westrom]

Certainty or certitude are products of the Judging function. I don't know what you mean by "Ni are usually certain" since you could be referring to a function or a person.

Ni are usually certain - they think they know something for sure

 

[Mal12345]

Ni are usually certain - they think they know something for sure

Introverted Intuition (Ni)

 

[Mal12345]

^ that's a pretty good page. I just think it needs some work:
"While not technically a judging function, Ni often functions in a convergent fashion, providing elegant answers and solutions to complex problems. As discussed above, Ni takes clues gathered by Se and unconsciously pieces them together toward a comprehensive solution."

No. Se is not "the perceiving faculty." Perception gathers information, but it is not a cognitive faculty, not JCF.

 

[FemMecha]

You don't need to judge. It either fits your internal vision or not(vision meant as in N, just an internal mental idea whether it be logic, concept, pattern, etc.). If it doesn't then it's wrong...lol. or it ends to be morphed to fit your vision. Why do you think thier external perception is inferior.

I would consider it a judgment to decide whether it fits the internal vision.

Let me give you a weird example from my experience that I've thought was Ni. Sometimes, when my mind wanders in a public setting like a restaurant, I'll see a stranger or acquaintance and my mind is momentarily flooded with images of how that person experiences every emotion from anger, sorrow to happiness. I get a vivid sense if they shut down and withdraw or lash out with anger. There is no setting or context, just an extrapolation from the gait of their walk and facial expression. I have no idea if that fits with my internal vision or not. I don't know if it's accurate or not. There is no way to verify it and I don't even know what to do with the "information". It is an abstract, intuitive perception that just happens. I could choose to declare myself a psychic and that I know emotionally personal things about a stranger. I could also say I am highly imaginative and like closure, so my mind invents these impressions to serve itself and it has nothing to do with reality. I could say that the subtleties of mannerism and expression contain the seed of truth about an entire person. I could also say that it is likely 20% correct because it is a mix of intuition and imagination. It doesn't fit my internal vision and it doesn't conflict with it either. It is just a weird experience that I have no idea what to do with. It hasn't happened in months, but it also represents my own internal struggle between perception and reason. For me the intuition perception (whether or not it maps to reality) can exist completely outside of judgment or internal frameworks. It is just incoming data that I generally file under "okay, that was weird" inside my head.

Edit: It could be interesting to hear specific examples of intuition and how they require or do not require a preconceived internal framework.

 

[Poki]

^ that's a pretty good page. I just think it needs some work:
"While not technically a judging function, Ni often functions in a convergent fashion, providing elegant answers and solutions to complex problems. As discussed above, Ni takes clues gathered by Se and unconsciously pieces them together toward a comprehensive solution."

No. Se is not "the perceiving faculty." Perception gathers information, but it is not a cognitive faculty, not JCF.

Please remove elegant and complex. Those are opinions and not facts. What is complex to one is simple to another. They create solutions, some of which I don't see is elegant and some of which can easily complicate simple matters. Yet they see as elegant and simple. In working with dom Ni I notice quite a bit of what I would consider a "hack" but it's a functional solution.

Both simple, elegant, complex, etc. Are in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Mal12345]

Ni vs Ne. lol.

Ne expand possibilities, Ni narrow them down. That explains why Ne users are not certain at times. Ni are usually certain, as there are less ideas in their idea, to choose from.

I'm just not buying into this certainty/uncertainty distinction between the two. Ne can and will have flashes of certainty. What you're not considering here, in making your distinction, is that the two functions are taking their information from totally opposite sources.

 

[Forever]

I think there is a misconception that Ni people are always certain, wouldn't that be nice? Ni focuses its ideas into a narrower field not necessarily getting less but more potent ideas, it's just our inclination. When I use Ni, I can still get confused or lost if I just keep going to the wrong source or not allow myself to get into a perspective shift, without the shift life can be confusing even if you have less topics that you're interested in. I sometimes get the feel I wish I could have Ne so I can do something fun like journalism, but I won't do journalism because that is just too broad.

Often we need our minds just as calm as everyone else if we want to know where to go in life. Uncertainty isn't always restricted to exclusively Ne dom/aux types.

P is a preference, not a determinant.

 

[Duffy]

I'm just not buying into this certainty/uncertainty distinction between the two. Ne can and will have flashes of certainty. What you're not considering here, in making your distinction, is that the two functions are taking their information from totally opposite sources.

Just because it can doesn't mean it's a significant chemical makeup of the type. Rather than attribute certainty towards Ni, I'd phrase it as more a catalyst for certainty. Ni is more singular in focus compared to Ne, seeking to refine ideas into a single entity. I think Ni users might find it more exhaustive to change opinions because everything is referenced in a sort of top down design. Changing opinions would mean tearing down everything. So what you see them doing is shifting perspective instead. Basically, this will look like certainty. I think when people attribute certainty towards Ni, what they are seeing is Ni in conjunction with a judging function, because when you observe people, you observe in a dynamic environment, not a vacuum.

I can see Ni users being indecisive when the person is envisioning a scenario where there's an "end game" not in their favor and not allowing their extroverted functions to "fact check" their "subjective" impressions. In a way, this is still certainty, because you are essentially writing off reality, and giving up in resignation out of "knowing" what will be, rather than what could be. The "will be" part is reinforced by an introverted judging function, most likely (Fi or Ti).

 

[Captain_Invincible]

Would it be fair to define Ni as definitive Intuition? Intuition which seeks closure from the intuition within the unconscious mind, where as Ne is explorative, and is constantly searching for intuition based around outer stimuli and has/wants never ending possibilties?

 

[Mal12345]

Just because it can doesn't mean it's a significant chemical makeup of the type.

Ditto on the idea that Ni possesses certitude. There is certainty and uncertainty in both types.

Rather than attribute certainty towards Ni, I'd phrase it as more a catalyst for certainty. Ni is more singular in focus compared to Ne, seeking to refine ideas into a single entity. I think Ni users might find it more exhaustive to change opinions because everything is referenced in a sort of top down design. Changing opinions would mean tearing down everything. So what you see them doing is shifting perspective instead. Basically, this will look like certainty. I think when people attribute certainty towards Ni, what they are seeing is Ni in conjunction with a judging function, because when you observe people, you observe in a dynamic environment, not a vacuum.

I can see Ni users being indecisive when the person is envisioning a scenario where there's an "end game" not in their favor and not allowing their extroverted functions to "fact check" their "subjective" impressions. In a way, this is still certainty, because you are essentially writing off reality, and giving up in resignation out of "knowing" what will be, rather than what could be. The "will be" part is reinforced by an introverted judging function, most likely (Fi or Ti).

Ni works from within an axiom-based conceptual system. Certainty is derived from these axioms, although it is rationalistic in nature, like mathematics. But the Ni type does not question them, or very rarely.

Ni also has flashes on intuitive insight. It is often from these that the axioms are born, and they exist either to support an existing system or a new system is created based on those axioms, those flashes of insight.

 

[VagrantFarce]

I found a nice juxtaposition from Lenore Thompson, regarding Ni & Ne:

ENPs are most visible in the first flush of discovery, when they're excited and optimistic. They aggressively seek feedback from the people around them, and they welcome others' involvement in formulating their Intuitions and carrying out their plans.

INJs are least accessible in the discovery process. Like the prince in the story of "Cinderella", they're solitary, sometimes obsessive, fitting Intuition to expressible terms like the glass slipper to potential brides. Until they've managed a good enough fit between their inner reality and an outward vocabulary, INJs may not even know what they're after, and they won't involve others in formulating their plans.

The goals these types posit are also inversely related. ENPs, as right-brain types, understand objects in terms of their larger context. They picture an integrated "whole" in which diverse people or diverse views are perfectly integrated - a global village, a unified theory, a consolidation of disciplines, a mind-body-spirit connection.

The left brain INJs understand context as a mental phenomenon, something that people bring to the outer world from within. Thus, they don't see "wholeness" as an integrated endpoint. Wholeness, for INJs, is the chaotic beginning - raw sensory input without meaning.

 

[uumlau]

ENPs might want to interact with people during their discovery process, but are actually very private about formulating and executing plans (Ti/Fi).

INJs don't interact much during their discovery process, but are remarkably public about formulating and executing plans (Te/Fe).

 

[Neshama]

This is what gave me such trouble in figuring out my type. The difference between Ni and Ne is often very vague in descriptions. I remember one article calling Ni basically more specific than Ne, as if there were some standard, objective notion of what's specific in regards to intuition.