Ni Adrift

[FemMecha]

The following is an attempt to encapsulate the inner world of Ni as experienced by the INFJ. There are ready misperceptions about what an INFJ looks like on the outside. Perhaps connecting momentarily to their inner world will shed some light. The infj doesn't always look like much at all externally.

Ni is a vast expanse of internalized perceptions and paradoxes. Extroverted Feeling and Sensing are absorbed readily and exhaustively filling an ocean of impressions. Nothing is discarded. It is like going through an old attic, but resisting throwing anything out - I might need this later. There is an instinctual drive onward towards completing the entire pattern, and so the mind works piecing together one by one every fleeting image and idea. There is little distinction between self and other in this immediate nuanced perception of the outside world. The mind is the sea drawing in rivers from every source. There is no initial process of dismissal. Everything is embraced.

The INFJ has two conflicting sources to negotiate this expanse: the first is Ni, the second Ti. These present an underlying conflict. Ni does its work in silence, unaware, piecing, realigning, examining, projecting, viewing every angle to how these endless impressions may become coherent. When this succeeds and a vast store of things align, the impression is powerful, arresting the attention. It can however, be in err. Ti is safer but requires elements of dismissal. It can dismiss something necessary for the unknown pattern. This creates a powerful internal conflict as neither approach can adequately deal with this sea of paradox.

Because of these processes, the INFJ tends to be outwardly withdrawn and easily overwhelmed. At the same time there is an underlying strength that has come to terms with every possible scenario.

 

[Athenian200]

This is strange. I'm sort of like this, but not exactly. For one thing, I do dismiss some things initially. First, I dismiss the impossible. Then, I get rid of what's irrelevant to the context. Then I examine the remaining possibilities within the context, and choose whichever seems most likely, or whichever seems best, depending on the situation. I do tend to keep a lot of information, and lack a strong sense of self in several situations, though. I just tend to see myself as "another student, another citizen, etc."

The point is, I feel that I'm a lot more ordered and stable in my perceptions, while yours are very tentative and constantly changing, mine are only that way at certain times, when I have insufficient information, and feel paranoid.

I really think your description is interesting, though. How different is what I described, in your opinion, from your own experience of your perceptions? What might have caused this difference?

 

[The Ü™]

Well, I don't think that all INFJs have to be that way, but the way their functions are wired up, I would suspect that an INFJ can either be modest or daring, depending on the person.

Ni feels the motivation to express itself in a unique way and coming up with new ways of thinking or doing. The auxiliary Fe is more concerned with the reactions of other people -- and so when Ni wishes to express an internal vision, it will be in terms of other people -- such as through entertaining or shocking. This would therefore make the INFJ good at performing as well.

I think that I would more likely label Robert DeNiro an INFP than anything, because the INFP is indeed more perceptive of other people's feelings, because their perception function is directed outward and more aware of the possibilities of other people.

The INxJ is more aware of their internal visions. The INFJ uses their Ni to manipulate other people's feelings, through the use of Fe.

 

[Totenkindly]

The INxJ is more aware of their internal visions. The INFJ uses their Ni to manipulate other people's feelings, through the use of Fe.

I don't like the word "manipulate" -- it's too negative.

Te manipulates circumstances and settings, so it can also be manipulative... but also very productive and affirming depending on how it is used.

Fe is simply aware of the rules of relationship and knows how to accurately convey its commitments and intentions to others in the conventional social language. In that sense, it is NOT being selfishly manipulative at all.

The INFJ has two conflicting sources to negotiate this expanse: the first is Ni, the second Ti. These present an underlying conflict. Ni does its work in silence, unaware, piecing, realigning, examining, projecting, viewing every angle to how these endless impressions may become coherent. When this succeeds and a vast store of things align, the impression is powerful, arresting the attention. It can however, be in err. Ti is safer but requires elements of dismissal. It can dismiss something necessary for the unknown pattern. This creates a powerful internal conflict as neither approach can adequately deal with this sea of paradox.

I agree with this. Ni sees everything, it WANTS to see everything and explore it, it HAS to see all the various perspectives without shutting one out -- for that is Truth. Ti, however, excludes things that don't fit the most "sensible" pattern -- its goal is to distill the best Truth out of the mix. Ni's truth is that "All is truth"; Ti's truth is that, "There is a best Truth... or not all truths are equal."

 

[The Ü™]

I don't like the word "manipulate" -- it's too negative.

Te manipulates circumstances and settings, so it can also be manipulative... but also very productive and affirming depending on how it is used.

Fe is simply aware of the rules of relationship and knows how to accurately convey its commitments and intentions to others in the conventional social language. In that sense, it is NOT being selfishly manipulative at all.

I didn't mean manipulate in a negative way, but basically, that's what the judgment functions directed outward do. Ni mixed with Fe could have the motivation to entertain, so in essence, entertaining others is manipulating their emotions, for better or for worse.

 

[FemMecha]

The process of absorbing the world, drawing people in, is opposite of reaching out and impacting others through the projection of self into the concrete world.

 

[The Ü™]

The process of absorbing the world, drawing people in, is opposite of reaching out and impacting others through the projection of self into the concrete world.

Absorbing the world seems much more IxFP.

The Ni will envision themselves a certain way, and extravert that vision from the self using judgment.

The Ne will envision possibilities in the external world. This involves coming up with new ideas.

The Se sees what is in the external world. It seeks to experience and adapt, but not to change like the Ne would.

The Si is the most self aware. They are realistically aware of how they're feeling, their personal limits, their inner realities -- their introverted sensations. They don't idealize themselves or experience, they just are.

 

[TaylorS]

Based on what I've read about Ni, and from my experience with xNxJs my understanding is that Ni is about an inner vision of the ideal, of how things SHOULD be. The xNxJ desires to change the the world to fit his/her inner visions.

 

[The Ü™]

Based on what I've read about Ni, and from my experience with xNxJs my understanding is that Ni is about an inner vision of the ideal, of how things SHOULD be. The xNxJ desires to change the the world to fit his/her inner visions.

That's part of it. It's also about imagining how things might happen or seeing things the way the Ni wants to see things.

Si sees things as they're normally supposed to be -- Si is quick to point out mistakes about things that aren't obvious to other types.

 

[FemMecha]

I agree with this. Ni sees everything, it WANTS to see everything and explore it, it HAS to see all the various perspectives without shutting one out -- for that is Truth. Ti, however, excludes things that don't fit the most "sensible" pattern -- its goal is to distill the best Truth out of the mix. Ni's truth is that "All is truth"; Ti's truth is that, "There is a best Truth... or not all truths are equal."

It's helpful to hear something well thought out that fits the pattern. :hi:

The fear of dismissal is because any dismissal could potentially distort the pattern. If you are given a mountain of puzzle pieces and begin sorting, sure there may be pieces that don't fit the current project, but who is to say they won't help complete another picture yet unknown. If given such a task can you see the hesitation to throw anything away? I find an instinctual assumption that everything is interconnected in some way - the search for truth is the search to understand the true nature of these connections. Even the absurd emerges from some place. It either stands as a metaphor for something real, or it may explore the opposite of the real. This doesn't mean that everything is accepted at face value - more accurately nothing is accepted at face value. It means everything is placed in limbo as potentially finding its future connection to the whole. It is a deep sort of agnosticism and skepticism because the task is so comprehensive and beyond reach, and yet it still drives forward.

There may also be an instinct towards a kind of 'unified theory'. I do find within myself the assumption that everything is connected to a whole, a singular concept. The underlying goal of finding the pattern is to find its core. There are glimmers of such occurring. For example, most violating behaviors can be traced back to an inflated sense of entitlement. Whether it is rape, murder, theft, insult, anything, these all result from the same spring, the same basic assumption in the individual. Once these unifying systems are discovered, it brings great freedom because it is reduced back to its essence, or principle, which has the ability to be reapplied in any context.

 

[Athenian200]

There may also be an instinct towards a kind of 'unified theory'. I do find within myself the assumption that everything is connected to a whole, a singular concept. The underlying goal of finding the pattern is to find its core. There are glimmers of such occurring. For example, most violating behaviors can be traced back to an inflated sense of entitlement. Whether it is rape, murder, theft, insult, anything, these all result from the same spring, the same basic assumption in the individual. Once these unifying systems are discovered, it brings great freedom because it is reduced back to its essence, or principle, which has the ability to be reapplied in any context.

That's unusual, even more perplexing. I really don't think that way. For me, it's more like I start with several possibilities related to the subject at hand, but then as I determine the context, I start to methodically eliminate them, until I see exactly what remains, and decide that it makes sense for that context. However, I keep myself open to alternative perspectives, because what's reasonable in one may be different in another. What I do is keep track of all the possible accumulated contexts that interest me, and remember what seems to make sense from within each of them. When I create a new context, I start over again from scratch at deciding what makes sense within it.

For instance, if I were to discuss "Ni", for instance, that could mean anything. However, when people use it in practice, it could be the first two letters of the word Night, it could be a transposition of the word "in", it could be an unusual way of spelling "nigh" in a riddle, It could be the shorthand for the element Nickel, or it could be shorthand for Introverted Intuition. To determine which it is, I would eliminate possibilities. First, I would see if the surrounding sentence structure made more sense if the letters were transposed. When it doesn't, I eliminate that. While noticing that, I also notice that the sentence is not intended to be a riddle, and eliminate that. That leaves the two shorthand ones. Since this is an MBTI forum and not a chemistry website, I presume that Ni is unlikely to be Nickel. Even if it weren't, the context created by all the other words in the post would have given it away. I also decide that the sort of Ni you discuss is the MBTI definition of Ni, not the Socionic one. In the midst of all this, I'm actually trying to determine exactly what Ni is within that context, and as yet I only have vague, mutable ideas that aren't quite precise enough, but I continually try to refine and explain them, but never knowing how accurate I am, because there are too many differing opinions, and no way to know which is right.

Also, the amusing thought just crossed my mind that some chemist might have stumbled onto this site, and wondered for a moment why we were all discussing the behavior of Silicon, Nickel, Neon, Selenium, Iron, Titanium, Tellurium, and whether Fi was a new element, and what on earth they had to do with the situations we were discussing.

Note that I usually don't have to step through all this sequentially in my mind, it usually happens a lot faster and with less work, this was to illustrate my thought process.

 

[FemMecha]

Cool post athenian200

For instance, if I were to discuss "Ni", for instance, that could mean anything. However, when people use it in practice, it could be the first two letters of the word Night, it could be a transposition of the word "in", it could be an unusual way of spelling "nigh" in a riddle, It could be the shorthand for the element Nickel, or it could be shorthand for Introverted Intuition. To determine which it is, I would eliminate possibilities. First, I would see if the surrounding sentence structure made more sense if the letters were transposed. When it doesn't, I eliminate that. While noticing that, I also notice that the sentence is not intended to be a riddle, and eliminate that. That leaves the two shorthand ones. Since this is an MBTI forum and not a chemistry website, I presume that Ni is unlikely to be Nickel. Even if it weren't, the context created by all the other words in the post would have given it away. I also decide that the sort of Ni you discuss is the MBTI definition of Ni, not the Socionic one. In the midst of all this, I'm actually trying to determine exactly what Ni is within that context, and as yet I only have vague, mutable ideas that aren't quite precise enough, but I continually try to refine and explain them, but never knowing how accurate I am, because there are too many differing opinions, and no way to know which is right.

That is a useful example. An example of a unified theory that can be extrapolated from this very example is that these many unrelated concepts, all represented by the letters N-i, implies that humans are at home with representations of ideas that are basically arbitrary in nature. This sheds light on a core aspect of human thought and language. It also bring into question its limitation for meaningful representation. Humans don't have many effective ways to represent an idea that has a strong enough relationship to that idea without an understanding of its context.

 

[Totenkindly]

That's unusual, even more perplexing. I really don't think that way. For me, it's more like I start with several possibilities related to the subject at hand, but then as I determine the context, I start to methodically eliminate them, until I see exactly what remains, and decide that it makes sense for that context. However, I keep myself open to alternative perspectives, because what's reasonable in one may be different in another. What I do is keep track of all the possible accumulated contexts that interest me, and remember what seems to make sense from within each of them. When I create a new context, I start over again from scratch at deciding what makes sense within it.

That reminds me a bit of my description of the "mental identification database" that I use to type people, similar to a fingerprint database, into which I map the key points. I'm comparing to theory AND also to past example/manifestations of type I've witnessed. And I use a tree structure to avoid going through the WHOLE database, I'm drilling down rather than just running a simplistic full-database comparison.

Meanwhile, once I see something that seems like a potential match, I'm "spinning everything around" in my head to see what contexts exist for the behavior/traits in question and what best explains what I'm looking at. And the more data points I have, the more I can "hone" in. But I am simultaneously looking at a plethora of data points and "spinning them" to see them from all sides, and then finding the solutions that overlaps them all.

 

[Athenian200]

Cool post athenian200

That is a useful example. An example of a unified theory that can be extrapolated from this very example is that these many unrelated concepts, all represented by the letters N-i, implies that humans are at home with representations of ideas that are basically arbitrary in nature. This sheds light on a core aspect of human thought and language. It also bring into question its limitation for meaningful representation. Humans don't have many effective ways to represent an idea that has a strong enough relationship to that idea without an understanding of its context.

That's a very insightful observation, but my point was that I don't usually try to infer a general principal from all the perspectives (although I can if I need to), but rather try to "zoom in" on one perspective out of of several perspectives, and determine as much about the things within that context as I can. You seem to be applying inductive reasoning, while I seem to be applying deductive reasoning.

 

[Kyrielle]

Hmm. I can relate a lot to what Toonia has been saying, particularly the unified theory bit. I'm always working to try to get all my ideas to branch off this one underlying idea. I think most of my mental processing time is spent running around in my head tying all the lines to one boat....which can take a while. I mean, I know it's not terribly efficient, but it's just easier to go through every single idea and look at it carefully. Because sometimes I might take part of the idea and not the whole thing...and you never know what's underneath it or inside it. I might miss something! and that would be terrible.

It's not like my brain is very organised either. I think everything's sort of...scattered everywhere. And it's not as if I'm too lazy to organise, it's that it can't be organised. Nothing can be categorised because every thought is connected, in some way, to every other thought. I just need to make sure everything is tied down so it doesn't float away before I can get to it. Unfortunately, that can cause me to burn out quickly when I'm faced with too much input--information comes in so fast I don't have time to tie it to something. I think that's why I'm forgetful most of the time...there's just too much stuff coming into my brain.

 

[cafe]

My mind is like a spider web and my consciousness climbs around looking for what I want, but sometimes it finds something shiny in there and gets distracted. My spider-self will sit there holding an idea up to the light and examining the facets from different angles. Then reality intrudes and I realize that I really need to pee.

 

[Mycroft]

I envision myself walking along the shore of the ocean of Ni, looking for what nice things have washed up today.