Do You Trust Your Ni?

[Jaguar]

"You've been interviewing candidates for a job.
One of them has all the credentials, and scored the highest on all the company-defined criteria for the job.
Another one of them was pretty good but not in the same league.
You have a sense about the high-scorer, though, that he's bad news, and that the "so-so" one will work out well.
You can't point to anything that's led you to this conclusion, you can't justify your belief, but you have this sense just the same."

1. Do you trust this unjustifiable idea?
2. Which one would you hire?
3. How certain are you of your decision?

My answers:
1. Yes
2. The one I sensed would work out.
3. 100%

 

[simulatedworld]

Unfortunately this would require direct experience with real people in this situation.

The decision would depend entirely upon how those particular people affect me, so I don't think most people can give a meaningful answer here without directly experiencing this for themselves.

After all, my Ni (if I even have any, that is) might not get the same idea yours does. As you've said, how does Ni really "know" anything?

 

[Lethe]

1. Not in this lifetime. I need evidence to support my claims.
2. None, until I do a thorough background search on the applicants.
3. I'm only certain that I feel paranoid about the high-scorer and I must look before I leap. My eyes could deceive me... or save the company. Either way, I should balance my visions with the existing reality.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Isn't that the point of Dominant Ni, though? A deep feeling of "knowing" something without being able to explain it? It's directly opposed to Se, where something is validated in a very obvious in-your-face way. I suppose an unhealthy INJ is very willing to go with whatever Ni tells them, without using their auxillary or inferior to confirm it.

I wonder how dominant Ni compares to auxillary, tertiary and inferior Ni; does that same feeling of "knowing" occur, or is it more easily doubted or dismissed?

 

[Haphazard]

If I had a really bad feeling about the first guy I'd go searching for proof to back that feeling up.

There's got to be a reason for that feeling.

 

[Lethe]

Does that same feeling of "knowing" occur, or is it more easily doubted or dismissed?

For myself, it's not that my Ni is easily doubted or dismissed, it's more due to Ni that I can see (or "know") all the possible ways this could end. This will now be up to my judgment to determine which vision is in the best interest of the company. Ni has been a very neutral function in my world.

I suppose an unhealthy INJ is very willing to go with whatever Ni tells them, without using their auxillary or inferior to confirm it.

I've seen it happen many times over and over, including the ISPs and ENTJs.

 

[NewEra]

Keep in mind my Ni is very low but here goes...

1. Do you trust this unjustifiable idea?

No, never. I would have to get some kind of tangible proof that he would be a good employee.

2. Which one would you hire?

The one with the better credentials.

3. How certain are you of your decision?

Eh, not positive, I guess we'll have to wait and see. But for now, I made the best decision I could.

 

[BlackCat]

If I had a really bad feeling about the first guy I'd go searching for proof to back that feeling up.

There's got to be a reason for that feeling.

This is what I'd do.

 

[/DG/]

I dunno. I'd probably answer different if I had actually met people like this, but I think I'd probably do what Haphazard said.

 

[Jaguar]

Isn't that the point of Dominant Ni, though? A deep feeling of "knowing" something without being able to explain it? It's directly opposed to Se, where something is validated in a very obvious in-your-face way. I suppose an unhealthy INJ is very willing to go with whatever Ni tells them, without using their auxillary or inferior to confirm it.

I wonder how dominant Ni compares to auxillary, tertiary and inferior Ni; does that same feeling of "knowing" occur, or is it more easily doubted or dismissed?

Is a Dom Ni or an Aux Ni more likely to trust their Ni?

Lenore Thomson wrote an interesting piece about the invisible dominant,
and "preaching the secondary."
She asserted that many people get their Dom/Aux backwards.

So could it be possible that what we think is our leading function, is not?
Who says our dominant function is what we are most skilled at?
It's just a preference.

There are no right or wrong answers here.

 

[Ozz]

Keep in mind my Ni is very low but here goes...

No, never. I would have to get some kind of tangible proof that he would be a good employee.

The one with the better credentials.

Eh, not positive, I guess we'll have to wait and see. But for now, I made the best decision I could.

My Ni (and Ne), according to the CognitiveProcesses.com test is also very low. Yes, I would do the same thing. If it turned out wrong, I'll be able to justify it so I won't feel too bad (and I'll have my backside covered).

 

[Thalassa]

"You've been interviewing candidates for a job.
One of them has all the credentials, and scored the highest on all the company-defined criteria for the job.
Another one of them was pretty good but not in the same league.
You have a sense about the high-scorer, though, that he's bad news, and that the "so-so" one will work out well.
You can't point to anything that's led you to this conclusion, you can't justify your belief, but you have this sense just the same."

1. Do you trust this unjustifiable idea?
2. Which one would you hire?
3. How certain are you of your decision?

My answers:
1. Yes
2. The one I sensed would work out.
3. 100%

1) yes
2) the one I had a better "sense" about
3) about 75% because of my propensity for self-doubt, but I'd still go with the hunch, I just would

 

[Lethe]

Who says our dominant function is what we are most skilled at?
It's just a preference.

Agreed. And I think VagrantFarce was also aiming for a comparison of how individuals using a specific preferential level of Ni impacts their approach; it's not necessarily how well this method serves their purpose.

 

[Jaguar]

1) yes
2) the one I had a better "sense" about
3) about 75% because of my propensity for self-doubt, but I'd still go with the hunch, I just would

I figured you would say that.
Now you know why I make comments about people being well-developed in both Ne and Ni.

If you are interested in the source of my "what-if" scenario,
it's from here:

Introverted Intuition

Proposed definition #4: Just knowing

Ni is a way of knowing (or at least thinking you know) that bypasses reason,
facts, evidence, the expected or intended interpretations of signs,
or anything you can point to, simply giving you an awareness or belief that seems indisputably true to you, period.
You can't tell by introspection how you got this idea.
There is no thought process. There is only tuning into this form of awareness and just knowing.

 

[pippi]

1. Not in this lifetime. I need evidence to support my claims.
2. None, until I do a thorough background search on the applicants.
3. I'm only certain that I feel paranoid about the high-scorer and I must look before I leap. My eyes could deceive me... or save the company. Either way, I should balance my visions with the existing reality.

The type under your name is wrong.

Isn't that the point of Dominant Ni, though? A deep feeling of "knowing" something without being able to explain it? It's directly opposed to Se, where something is validated in a very obvious in-your-face way. I suppose an unhealthy INJ is very willing to go with whatever Ni tells them, without using their auxillary or inferior to confirm it.

I think it would be the opposite, an immature or unbalanced INxJ would rely too heavily on their judging function and ignore their Ni. Trusting Ni takes experience and recognizing that you will never have full information to make all your decisions.

I wonder how dominant Ni compares to auxillary, tertiary and inferior Ni; does that same feeling of "knowing" occur, or is it more easily doubted or dismissed?

If Ni were inferior it would be more likely to be doubted.


To answer the question in the OP, sure, I'd trust my instinct and hire the "so so" applicant.

 

[Aerithria]

1. Yes.
2. The one I sensed would do well.
3. 90%. I tend to read people very accurately, but I'd always have some doubts.

 

[Thalassa]

I figured you would say that.
Now you know why I make comments about people being well-developed in both Ne and Ni.

If you are interested in the source of my "what-if" scenario,
it's from here:

Introverted Intuition

Proposed definition #4: Just knowing

Ni is a way of knowing (or at least thinking you know) that bypasses reason,
facts, evidence, the expected or intended interpretations of signs,
or anything you can point to, simply giving you an awareness or belief that seems indisputably true to you, period.
You can't tell by introspection how you got this idea.
There is no thought process. There is only tuning into this form of awareness and just knowing.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Lethe]

(Lenore Thompson Wiki)
Proposed definition #4: Just knowing

Ni is a way of knowing (or at least thinking you know) that bypasses reason,
facts, evidence, the expected or intended interpretations of signs,
or anything you can point to, simply giving you an awareness or belief that seems indisputably true to you, period.

I think I just died inside. Intuition comes first, but I do not prefer to have it bypass reason, facts, evidence when they clearly show that my perceptions are false. On the other hand, if those factors do not sufficiently debunk the Ni, then I'll keep hold of it.

You can't tell by introspection how you got this idea.

I'd usually get the idea before I have the words to explain it.

There is no thought process. There is only tuning into this form of awareness and just knowing.

Yes, it's random. There's no other way to describe my Ni.

==================================

The type under your name is wrong.

Feel free to analyze this yourself, though I will not respond. I have already been through this process (gladly), and I no longer desire to put forth any energy or time to negotiate viewpoints and evidence.

recognizing that you will never have full information to make all your decisions.

It would be impractical to assume that one will have complete information before a decision. However, it will be pragmatic to consider the actual evidence while keeping the available time in mind. If the interviewer is short on time or in need of workers, then research is not an option. Their best bet is to handle the problems as they arise.

 

[VagrantFarce]

I think it would be the opposite, an immature or unbalanced INxJ would rely too heavily on their judging function and ignore their Ni. Trusting Ni takes experience and recognizing that you will never have full information to make all your decisions.

I always assumed an unhealthy type is one that relied too much on their dominant and tertiary functions, in which case an INJ would regress from reality and, being a J, make decisions very quickly without any external input. What you described seemed to be more of an unhealthy ENJ trait, one that is unwilling to trust Ni and would rather focus on external judgement only (Se as tertiary and either Te or Fe as a dominant).

 

[Lauren Ashley]

To the title: Yes, of course. Why wouldn't I? It's alwaaayyysss right.

My answers:
1. Yes
2. The one I sensed would work out.
3. 100%

Same.

Who needs facts, evidence, and "reality" when you have Ni?