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

[k9a4b]

amount of white matter or synaptic connections in your brain

 

[Eric B]

I've been thinking another way to sum up the difference between Ne and Ni, Ne usually involves consciously making an inference from some sort of "object" (even if stored in memory; there are actually what are known as "inner objects"), while for Ni, the inference (or even just a random 'image') comes from within. Ne and Ni (as "iNtuition") are both described as "unconscious" because they're dealing with inferences and not hard items you "consciously" sense before you; but Ne (being extraverted) is consciously accessed, while Ni (as introverted) is less consciously accessed; it just "comes up".

 

[Mal12345]

I've been thinking another way to sum up the difference between Ne and Ni, Ne usually involves consciously making an inference from some sort of "object" (even if stored in memory; there are actually what are known as "inner objects"), while for Ni, the inference (or even just a random 'image') comes from within. Ne and Ni (as "iNtuition") are both described as "unconscious" because they're dealing with inferences and not hard items you "consciously" sense before you; but Ne (being extraverted) is consciously accessed, while Ni (as introverted) is less consciously accessed; it just "comes up".

Can you provide a concrete example of what you're describing here?

 

[Eric B]

Ne: looking at one personality type system, and comparing it to another, or imagining its potential
Ni: having a vision of personality and behaviors and [using Je], determining which one measures up the most to it.

 

[Eric B]

I've just seen, it's probably just simpler to go back to Jung's basic definition of the perception functions: S: "what it is"; N "where it's heading". "It" in this case, is the "object" itself.

If S=
Se what it is, from looking directly at the object
Si what it is from looking at the internal impressions of the subject

Then N=
Ne where it came from or is heading, from looking directly at the object
Ni where it came from or is heading, from looking at the internal impressions of the subject

 

[Norexan]

Ne -Intuition -> see A ------> B (C D E)
Ni - Time ---> see A --------> B


When Ni and Ne work with you:
Ni with Ti -> persisting.
Ni with Te -> forecasting.

Ne with Ti -> innovation
Ne with Te -> creativeness.


When Ni and Ne work against you:
Fe with Ne -> paranoia
Ti with Ni -> psychopathy

Fi with Ni -> OCD
Te with Ne -> speculations

 

[everdream]

I'm not much aware of Ni in the conscious way, but here's something from a type who use Ni in a more conscious way - ISTP; an ISTP used to describe his Ni to me as 'a sudden mental teleportation'. I think it's pretty accurate though.

 

[Eric B]

With perception basically answering "yes/no" (where judgment tells us if it's "right or wrong")

Ne yes/no (pattern of where it "could be" heading or not) determined by the objects involved themselves
Ni yes/no (pattern of where it "could be" heading or not) determined by internal unconscious

(Where Se is yes/no (what "is" or not) determined by whatever is physically before you, and Si is yes/no (what "is" or not) determined by whatever you remember physically experiencing).

Both Ne and Ni "fill in" things from a "big picture", but Ne lets the object or entire environment fill in its own big picture, where Ni looks within to access a wholly separate big picture, that others likely can't even be made to see.

Ne I find says "yes" to everything, because looking at an object, you can imagine anything for it. It's basically the judgment function or tandem-mate Si that would have to indicate an outcome is not tenable or viable.

Ni will say "yes" or "no" (and more often says "no", especially to things Ne takes for granted) based on a hunch, gut instinct, or image that just comes up. Then, Je will be used to verify the "yes" as "right", or "no" as" wrong".
This brings to mind an example I've used, in the debate as to whether functions are valid to begin with, and one INTJ insisting they aren't, often uses what's basically Te authority (psychometrics and "empirical" science) to debunk them. Other INTJ's accept functions, so what's the difference? One person's Ni is saying "no", and the others' are saying "yes". Both then use Te to verify their perceptions. It looked to me like this "no" had no basis, as long as Ne said "yes", and then Ti could verify it because it fits logically (and in other topics, such as religious debate, I would see parts of the opponent's arguments as often just "pulling things out of the air"), but it's Ni, behind the scenes just perceiving it as untenable not able to be held), for reasons that might not even be conscious.

I would say, any image or interpretive thought that comes up (that isn't a past concrete experience), that locks on to a "yes" or especially "no" to a possibility, regardless of what the involved object itself would allow, is likely Ni.
(It's "automatic-ness" is similar to Se, hence both functions in tandem fitting "Realizing Awareness", where Si and Ne are considered "Inquiring Awareness").

 

[Turi]

My uneducated opinion is that 'Ni' doesn't exist, it's just intuition (N) and a general introverted attitude of the conscious means that it's generally 'preferred', or, oriented towards ones self as opposed to being ordinarily oriented 51% of the time or more, towards the objective stimuli in the outer world (extraversion).

Considering intuition is merely a perception of unconscious information - the difference between 'Ni' and 'Ne' at least, insofar as they differ in terms of orientation (remember - both the same function) is that intuition in the introverted attitude perceives unconscious information from the psychic contents of the subject, ie ones own experiences, ideas, thoughts, perceptions etc - it's not actually 'ideas' or 'thoughts' so to speak, rather a 'perception' of those, arising from the unconscious - so the intuition is directed inwards, it produces perceptions related to ones own life experience and ones own subjective perspective.

Intuition in the extraverted attitude, then, is oriented towards outer stimuli which includes feelings drawn from outer stimuli - and so this produces perceptions of non-tangible information that are related or pertaining to the external world.

So when a person has a sudden 'aha' moment regarding something from the past, this would be intuition in the introverted attitude perceiving ones own psychic contents, when a person receives a sudden 'aha' moment regarding something current ie related to the conversation, people, things, feelings, literally anything external and 'current' then this would be intuition in the extraverted attitude.

I believe we all possess all functions, and we obviously all have both introverted and extraverted mechanisms, which means we all do indeed possess all possible combinations of function-attitudes.

To summarize, the 'difference' is no more than a general difference between introversion and extraversion - which is as outlined above, and this orientation is of course, due to a placement of higher value on ones own subjective self (introversion) as opposed to the outer world which is essentially devalued in comparison - and of course a reversal for extraversion, so a higher value placed on objects and content in the outer world (ALL content) than on ones subjective self - and so, essentially a devaluation of ones self in comparison to the outer-world contents.

 

[Dashy CVII]

Ne-Si vs Ni-Se

Ne-Si vs Ni-Se

Upon realizing many patterns in the types, it seems that the Extroverted functions quite literally take on the nature of Immersion, and the Introverted functions quite literally take on the nature of Reflection, and they do so by existing in a duality as two sides of the same process: Fi-Te, Ti-Fe, Ni-Se, Si-Ne.

We'll make a contrast first between the literally opposite perspectives, Ne-Si vs Ni-Se. Ni/Se types handle reality in a way that may seem stranger to Ne/Si, but it's all in perspective. Se takes a quite literal account of what's happening without any reading into a situation, so the Ni/Se type could find themselves often conceding to the Ne type, "You know, that might be what's happening, I didn't see that, you're probably right" or "I'm skeptical of jumping to that conclusion." Ni's aim has always been different from seeing patterns externally and in dynamics, as it receives raw data from Se without anything added, then retreats inwardly to reflect in an abstract unapplied way, sometimes for days, never acting as Ne/Si by making frequent hunches/assumptions of externals (Ne) or reading into things sometimes as an ingenious talent of External Intuition, then Si accessing memory to see if it really has been so or what external possibilities there could be extrapolated from experience (Si.) We use all 8 functions, but this exact latter process in a nutshell seems like it should be the default process of a human, to realize the explicit truth and workings of things happening, but it is actually the opposite process of an Ni/Se type, whose daily obsession is not about matching up abstract external hunches with a sea of inner concrete data/experience, but about finding implicit deeper truth and meaning from a reflection of raw sensation of reality.

Instead, Ni takes an enlongated, philosophical and impilcit approach to understanding reality, and Se sees and immerses fully into raw data as it is, so comfortably in-the-moment without wandering or putting much together but an appreciation of rawness (Se.) But once it latches firmly onto a big-picture concept that shocks oneself, it doesn't apply it specifically and say "See, here is the concrete proof of what's going on now (Ne/Si.) I solved it!" It instead solves a situation by interpreting it within its larger web of perception, "I solved what this means to me" or "what it could imply in a subject," Ni being out of context due to devaluing the external, as it retreats deeper into its ideations of what a certain reality might entail as a bigger idea or truth, as well as what personal lesson it takes away into the rest of its day's reflection (Ni.) We use all the functions each to a degree, but our preference makes up the individual type. Ni thus is not explicitly applied to solve or conceive of what's really happening, like Se does, or Ne through seeing external patterns and imagery. The Ne-Si type goes into reflection by accessing all concrete data and information they know to be true (Si) so precisely without muddling it with abstract leaps unrelated to the moment, like Ni does, and where they shine is through seeing what really is behind a moment (Ne), reading dynamics and minds, seeing so easily the underlying patterns, something Ni is disinterested/shied away from, as, for Ni, these ideas are not internal and general enough to be applied to a slow pace of reflection upon a bigger-picture conceptual philosophy, or lessons and generalities about subjects and life (Ni.) But where any human interprets, there exists all 8 functions in use.

The definitions of the processes Ne, Ni, Se, Si are precisely, Intuition of Immersion, Intuition of Reflection, Sensation of Immersion, and Sensation of Reflection. The interesting thing is that we already have the latter two accurately defined in MBTI function theory: Immersion (Se) and Memory (Si,) but we got it wrong on Intuition: Ne and Ni actually meet the same pattern as Se and Si do: Immersion vs Reflection. Thus the given definitions above. Neither four functions, nor eight in total, have anything to do with J vs P lifestyles. This is because Intuition is correlated to a P lifestyle (see eg., overlap studies on Big 5.) If any individual is Ni or Ne, they're more likely to be P due to the open-ended nature of what Intuition entails, compared to the straightforward nature of Sensation. Ni and Ne are very different from each other, but they're both as common.

Fi-Te and Ti-Fe work in this same pattern of duality, of internal reflection to external immersion, back-and-forth, as one function makes up the internal life, and the other makes up the external application. And we know, we also less frequently use the process opposite to ours, when we need to learn more, but it's not our default pose.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Ne-Si vs Ni-Se

Upon realizing many patterns in the types, it seems that the Extroverted functions quite literally take on the nature of Immersion, and the Introverted functions quite literally take on the nature of Reflection, and they do so by existing in a duality as two sides of the same process: Fi-Te, Ti-Fe, Ni-Se, Si-Ne.

We'll make a contrast first between the literally opposite perspectives, Ne-Si vs Ni-Se. Ni/Se types handle reality in a way that may seem stranger to Ne/Si, but it's all in perspective. Se takes a quite literal account of what's happening without any reading into a situation, so the Ni/Se type could find themselves often conceding to the Ne type, "You know, that might be what's happening, I didn't see that, you're probably right" or "I'm skeptical of jumping to that conclusion." Ni's aim has always been different from seeing patterns externally and in dynamics, as it receives raw data from Se without anything added, then retreats inwardly to reflect in an abstract unapplied way, sometimes for days, never acting as Ne/Si by making frequent hunches/assumptions of externals (Ne) or reading into things sometimes as an ingenious talent of External Intuition, then Si accessing memory to see if it really has been so or what external possibilities there could be extrapolated from experience (Si.) We use all 8 functions, but this exact latter process in a nutshell seems like it should be the default process of a human, to realize the explicit truth and workings of things happening, but it is actually the opposite process of an Ni/Se type, whose daily obsession is not about matching up abstract external hunches with a sea of inner concrete data/experience, but about finding implicit deeper truth and meaning from a reflection of raw sensation of reality.

Instead, Ni takes an enlongated, philosophical and impilcit approach to understanding reality, and Se sees and immerses fully into raw data as it is, so comfortably in-the-moment without wandering or putting much together but an appreciation of rawness (Se.) But once it latches firmly onto a big-picture concept that shocks oneself, it doesn't apply it specifically and say "See, here is the concrete proof of what's going on now (Ne/Si.) I solved it!" It instead solves a situation by interpreting it within its larger web of perception, "I solved what this means to me" or "what it could imply in a subject," Ni being out of context due to devaluing the external, as it retreats deeper into its ideations of what a certain reality might entail as a bigger idea or truth, as well as what personal lesson it takes away into the rest of its day's reflection (Ni.) We use all the functions each to a degree, but our preference makes up the individual type. Ni thus is not explicitly applied to solve or conceive of what's really happening, like Se does, or Ne through seeing external patterns and imagery. The Ne-Si type goes into reflection by accessing all concrete data and information they know to be true (Si) so precisely without muddling it with abstract leaps unrelated to the moment, like Ni does, and where they shine is through seeing what really is behind a moment (Ne), reading dynamics and minds, seeing so easily the underlying patterns, something Ni is disinterested/shied away from, as, for Ni, these ideas are not internal and general enough to be applied to a slow pace of reflection upon a bigger-picture conceptual philosophy, or lessons and generalities about subjects and life (Ni.) But where any human interprets, there exists all 8 functions in use.

The definitions of the processes Ne, Ni, Se, Si are precisely, Intuition of Immersion, Intuition of Reflection, Sensation of Immersion, and Sensation of Reflection. The interesting thing is that we already have the latter two accurately defined in MBTI function theory: Immersion (Se) and Memory (Si,) but we got it wrong on Intuition: Ne and Ni actually meet the same pattern as Se and Si do: Immersion vs Reflection. Thus the given definitions above. Neither four functions, nor eight in total, have anything to do with J vs P lifestyles. This is because Intuition is correlated to a P lifestyle (see eg., overlap studies on Big 5.) If any individual is Ni or Ne, they're more likely to be P due to the open-ended nature of what Intuition entails, compared to the straightforward nature of Sensation. Ni and Ne are very different from each other, but they're both as common.

Fi-Te and Ti-Fe work in this same pattern of duality, of internal reflection to external immersion, back-and-forth, as one function makes up the internal life, and the other makes up the external application. And we know, we also less frequently use the process opposite to ours, when we need to learn more, but it's not our default pose.

I'm trying so hard to understand this shit with newer, better approaches.

Would you say that Ne dom gathers patterns and uses Si data to verify/dismiss? And if so, how would you word it for the opposite orientation? Because it doesn't sound right to say that Ni dom verifies patterns FIRST and gathers data in an inferior manner.

Plaese halp muh brain.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm trying so hard to understand this shit with newer, better approaches.

Would you say that Ne dom gathers patterns and uses Si data to verify/dismiss? And if so, how would you word it for the opposite orientation? Because it doesn't sound right to say that Ni dom verifies patterns FIRST and gathers data in an inferior manner.

Plaese halp muh brain.

Perhaps you should try with out of the box approach: the functions are just empty theory and in the real world they don't really exist in the way as theory predicts them.


This is blasphemy but it could also be the closest you will get to the real truth.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Perhaps you should try with out of the box approach: the functions are just empty theory and in the real world they don't really exist in the way as theory predicts them.


This is blasphemy but it could also be the closest you will get to the real truth.

No thanks, not right now.

 

[Virtual ghost]

No thanks, not right now.

Ok.

However what I did there deliberately is evidently Ni/Se loop with Te. Throwing the convention/theory out of the mix due to lack of solid external confirmation.

 

[Dashy CVII]

I'm trying so hard to understand this shit with newer, better approaches.

Would you say that Ne dom gathers patterns and uses Si data to verify/dismiss? And if so, how would you word it for the opposite orientation? Because it doesn't sound right to say that Ni dom verifies patterns FIRST and gathers data in an inferior manner.

Plaese halp muh brain.

Sure. Note that it would seem senseless at first to come to the conclusion that Se senses the outside while Si doesn't, for Si is correlated to memory and not immersion, so how could an Ne-Si use their senses? However, we actually use and rely on all the functions, we simply prefer our differentiated order. An Si primary prefers Ne > Se, so their Pe function is indeed where most of their external information comes in from, Ne is excellent and sharp at external perception (Pe) as it overlaps with Se proficiency in the same way by taking in external details. However, Ne tends to 'tie things together' in an overall impression, and will overlook the raw facts of what happened, because to them sensation occurs as a broader revelation that unlocks opportunities for dynamics. It is the extro-verted Intuition. Purely raw perception and appreciation (Se) without intuitions attached, is preferred only after Ne, thus seeing things in the external environment as they simply are without deeper assumptions or impressions, is more difficult for an Ne-Si.

In the same sense, to answer your question, Se-Ni types don't prefer to see or notice these external patterns and impressions in specific reality circumstances (Ne). Patterns emerge from thinking for a while about the broad perspectives of life (Ni) and ruminating internally about things like overall truth and deeper meaning that aren't circumstantial: that don't value reading and solving external cues for situations (Ne.) So the flow you're looking for is Se --> Ni, as Ni doesn't go extraverted (or more aptly put, it forms something too deep and comprehensive that can't be quickly applied to every circumstance like Xe can, but begins to be firmly applied to the the overall outside as one's worldview. I think that is what you were asking. The flow of functions go like Xe --> Circumstance --> Xi --> Worldview.) An Ni primary for instance, is more tuned into raw Se perception and appreciation than they are Ne, but Ni primaries often forget their senses and constantly play around with broad expansive ideas and impressions in their mind that don't attempt to figure out the outside in a practical way (Ne), but in a subjective way: ie. "ignore Ne, what are the deeper meanings and essences in life and our thoughts?" Check out Lenore Thomson (INTJ's) book, she explains Ne and Ni in the same way. Ne is intuition of externals, relevant to the outside, Ni is intuition of broader internal expanse, unrelated to the outside. Ni is opposite to the Ne type who is always in their environment, engrossing in impressions for change and dynamics. As an INTJ I have Ne as my 5th function, after Se, and my perceiving functions are preferred in the order Ni > Se > Ne >> Si where Ni puts no value on dealing with externals, but like Ti and Fi, focuses into the broader spectrum of our understanding of reality. Si is the same way, as one's big enclosed world of concrete memory.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Sure. Note that it would seem senseless at first to come to the conclusion that Se senses the outside while Si doesn't, for Si is correlated to memory and not immersion, so how could an Ne-Si use their senses? However, we actually use and rely on all the functions, we simply prefer our differentiated order. An Si primary prefers Ne > Se, so their Pe function is indeed where most of their external information comes in from, Ne is excellent and sharp at external perception (Pe) as it overlaps with Se proficiency in the same way by taking in external details. However, Ne tends to 'tie things together' in an overall impression, and will overlook the raw facts of what happened, because to them sensation occurs as a broader revelation that unlocks opportunities for dynamics. It is the extro-verted Intuition. Purely raw perception and appreciation (Se) without intuitions attached, is preferred only after Ne, thus seeing things in the external environment as they simply are without deeper assumptions or impressions, is more difficult for an Ne-Si.

In the same sense, to answer your question, Se-Ni types don't prefer to see or notice these external patterns and impressions in specific reality circumstances (Ne). Patterns emerge from thinking for a while about the broad perspectives of life (Ni) and ruminating internally about things like overall truth and deeper meaning that aren't circumstantial: that don't value reading and solving external cues for situations (Ne.) So the flow you're looking for is Se --> Ni, as Ni doesn't go extraverted (or more aptly put, it forms something too deep and comprehensive that can't be quickly applied to every circumstance like Xe can, but begins to be firmly applied to the the overall outside as one's worldview. I think that is what you were asking. The flow of functions go like Xe --> Circumstance --> Xi --> Worldview.) An Ni primary for instance, is more tuned into raw Se perception and appreciation than they are Ne, but Ni primaries often forget their senses and constantly play around with broad expansive ideas and impressions in their mind that don't attempt to figure out the outside in a practical way (Ne), but in a subjective way: ie. "ignore Ne, what are the deeper meanings and essences in life and our thoughts?" Check out Lenore Thomson (INTJ's) book, she explains Ne and Ni in the same way. Ne is intuition of externals, relevant to the outside, Ni is intuition of broader internal expanse, unrelated to the outside. Ni is opposite to the Ne type who is always in their environment, engrossing in impressions for change and dynamics. As an INTJ I have Ne as my 5th function, after Se, and my perceiving functions are preferred in the order Ni > Se > Ne >> Si where Ni puts no value on dealing with externals, but like Ti and Fi, focuses into the broader spectrum of our understanding of reality. Si is the same way, as one's big enclosed world of concrete memory.

I'm still struggling to grasp Ni, perhaps because there doesn't seem to be any good examples.

I originally tested and typed as an INFJ, but when I realized that what I naturally do most is observe those around me and "figure them out", I started to wonder if I was actually extraverting my intuition. I can quietly watch a normal everyday interaction between two people for two minutes, and I can get a feel for what kind of person they are, and how I feel about them as a person. I've realized that I literally cannot observe or interact with people and not pick them apart. It has historically been something that my partners occasionally get frustrated with, because it turns out that people really don't like to be psychoanalyzed and then have their hidden fears and flaws flashed in front of their faces. I suppose though that that is a huge thing for The Scholar archetype as well.

So, I'm trying to understand what dominant Ni is really like for the user, and what it looks like outside. I guess, as you are explaining it, I understand it to be a strong preference for solitary and deep internal reflection on life, essentially, but I am having a hard time understanding the abstract nature of it. It's not clear thought? There aren't words to go with it??? Do the words only come from the judging functions???

There is this instrumental song I like that I've wanted to write a story for because the music evokes so many visions for me. It evokes this sort of rushing through life feeling. I picture people working on a railroad back in the day, then I picture a man leaving his home to go to work with a briefcase in hand. He represents all of us as we go through the daily motions of life, missing all the important stuff around us. In the background, there is this noise that sounds like a heart monitor, which evokes images of a loved one on their deathbed. Everything is tied together: The man is at work oblivious to the fact that his loved one is dying. Everyone is buzzing around like bees trying to make a buck. Then sounds reminiscent of whales or wolves come in, howling in the background, reminding us that the earth and life are so much more than just the daily grind. There is a strong sense of interconnectedness between all life on earth and a focus on the balance of light and dark, beauty and tragedy. The music gets a bit more frantic, as if the man is rushing to get to his loved one before the moment of passing. I have flashes of women giving birth, babies learning to walk, people kissing their lover goodbye in the morning, laughter, tears, etc.... pretty universal things. Simultaneously, the one on their deathbed is looking back at life both fondly and with regret, because both feelings are universal but usually only seen fully at the time of death. Then, it all closes with the man running into the hospital room just after the loved one passes.

Would that be Ni or Ne? Because as I am typing it out, I am like "oh, maybe this is actually Ni?" But if that's the case, how do I reconcile that with my tendency to constantly intuit my surroundings?

 

[Non_xsense]

I'm still struggling to grasp Ni, perhaps because there doesn't seem to be any good examples.

I originally tested and typed as an INFJ, but when I realized that what I naturally do most is observe those around me and "figure them out", I started to wonder if I was actually extraverting my intuition. I can quietly watch a normal everyday interaction between two people for two minutes, and I can get a feel for what kind of person they are, and how I feel about them as a person. I've realized that I literally cannot observe or interact with people and not pick them apart. It has historically been something that my partners occasionally get frustrated with, because it turns out that people really don't like to be psychoanalyzed and then have their hidden fears and flaws flashed in front of their faces. I suppose though that that is a huge thing for The Scholar archetype as well.

So, I'm trying to understand what dominant Ni is really like for the user, and what it looks like outside. I guess, as you are explaining it, I understand it to be a strong preference for solitary and deep internal reflection on life, essentially, but I am having a hard time understanding the abstract nature of it. It's not clear thought? There aren't words to go with it??? Do the words only come from the judging functions???

There is this instrumental song I like that I've wanted to write a story for because the music evokes so many visions for me. It evokes this sort of rushing through life feeling. I picture people working on a railroad back in the day, then I picture a man leaving his home to go to work with a briefcase in hand. He represents all of us as we go through the daily motions of life, missing all the important stuff around us. In the background, there is this noise that sounds like a heart monitor, which evokes images of a loved one on their deathbed. Everything is tied together: The man is at work oblivious to the fact that his loved one is dying. Everyone is buzzing around like bees trying to make a buck. Then sounds reminiscent of whales or wolves come in, howling in the background, reminding us that the earth and life are so much more than just the daily grind. There is a strong sense of interconnectedness between all life on earth and a focus on the balance of light and dark, beauty and tragedy. The music gets a bit more frantic, as if the man is rushing to get to his loved one before the moment of passing. I have flashes of women giving birth, babies learning to walk, people kissing their lover goodbye in the morning, laughter, tears, etc.... pretty universal things. Simultaneously, the one on their deathbed is looking back at life both fondly and with regret, because both feelings are universal but usually only seen fully at the time of death. Then, it all closes with the man running into the hospital room just after the loved one passes.

Would that be Ni or Ne? Because as I am typing it out, I am like "oh, maybe this is actually Ni?" But if that's the case, how do I reconcile that with my tendency to constantly intuit my surroundings?

That is probabily Ni , It's almost the same problem that i talk to my Intj father.
If you aren't an art students is fine , people talk about art in a very poor manner .... thinking that is mystical , unknow or whatever. The true there is a mental process in any work of art and the real mystical meaning of the music is more complex than that.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

That is probabily Ni , It's almost the same problem that i talk to my Intj father.
If you aren't an art students is fine , people talk about art in a very poor manner .... thinking that is mystical , unknow or whatever. The true there is a mental process in any work of art and the real mystical meaning of the music is more complex than that.

Perhaps, but I'm not exactly sure if it's Ni because what I'm doing is hearing a sound and thinking "what does this remind me of?" which seems Si. Then I'm thinking "what could this represent or connect to?" which seems expansive in nature.

I'd like to see what the poster I responded to says.

 

[Eric B]

Sounds like Ni (with Se), because most of the imagery being put together is just coming up from within (i.e. seemingly "out of nowhere"), rather than from the object (the song) itself.
A couple of points are hard to tell, like certain sounds evoking other sounds from real life that are memorized (which sounds like the "comparisons" of SiNe), but most of the imagery you're describing (which is quite expansive) is not connected to that. Inasmuch as those memorized sounds may be coming up as part of the unconscious patterns as well, that could be Ni working with the Se as well. Ne is more about looking at something and saying "what does this remind me of?", and then accessing memory. (And it's still hard to tell, because this question may be unconscious, and the connection still appears to come up on its own from within).

If either attitude of iNtuition is dominant, than the other will back it up, so there may be some "cross-talk" between the attitudes like that.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

[MENTION=36287]Dashy CVII[/MENTION] - I'd really like to hear your opinion on the above. I mean... I know you're having a blast and all in the Ni vs Ti thread, buuuuut I am a very impatient little lady and curiosity might just kill me. If I stay up for 3 nights studying and searching for the answer and subsequently die of dehydration, I will personally haunt you.