Finding Ti and Ni

[BlueSprout]

I have been looking at my actions and thought processes to identify and individuate the 8 functions, but am having trouble locating Ti and Ni. After reading lamp's 'Facets of Fi' thread, I'm wondering whether this is because what is written about them is geared toward describing them as dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior functions.

I have some understanding of Ti, but I can't identify the circumstances under which I use it. When I have to examine the validity of an argument, I go through a long and tedious process of collecting data, recognizing patterns, recategorizing the data according to the patterns and testing for incongruencies based on what I find. I rely on Si, Te and Ne to accomplish this. I find it nearly impossible to come to a quick logical conclusion when presented with new information and can't think on the fly.

Ni, on the other hand, is completely baffling to me. As neat as it sounds, I've never experienced that kind of near prescience in my life. Until I learned about MBTI, I didn't know such a thing legitimately existed.

It may just be that I hardly use Ti and Ni at all, but I wanted a little input before I gave up altogether. Does anyone else with Ti/Ni as shadow functions have trouble identifying or using them? If not, how do you understand or experience them?

 

[BlackCat]

Ni is pretty simple. It's just basically detaching from a situation mentally and seeing the different ways it could be seen. It sees different viewpoints of issues. Ni is also associated with future thinking, thinking of how something could develop or now things will be in the future.

Introverted iNtuition (Ni)

* Foreseeing
* Conceptualizing
* Understanding complex patterns
* Synthesizing and symbolizing
* Future

"This is how it will be."
"Aha, that's it!"

When Ni is a preferred process:

* You usually feel a certainty about what is going to happen, often without much detail and without being able to trace the actual data that would support the prediction.
* You focus on "what will be."
* You are energized by transformational visions of how someone can grow or of a completely original approach to get there.
* You are drawn to make those visions manifest.
* Frequently you experience flashes of insight that present themselves as very broad themes and complex whole patterns or systems of thought without being triggered by external events.
* Inner images come as a knowing that taps into universal symbols and with a certainty that they are true.

Introverted Intuiting is about Seeking Insights and Meanings

It focuses on:

* Identifying underlying meaning
* Identifying the inter-relatedness of data
* Synthesizing the information to reveal the "golden nuggets"

Its approach is to:

* Just state how or what action to take
* Rely on insight to develop vision for the future
* Envision without the need for tangible support

Introverted Intuiting's verbal communications are delivered in absolutes with a quest for meaning, i.e.:

* "Why?"
* Identifying the hidden meaning
* States what is going on behind the scenes

Introverted Intuiting's nonverbal cues are: reflective, serious, and confident; may appear complex, disengaged; could appear hesitant to respond.

To build rapport with introverted Intuiting, we can try:

* Providing a theoretical framework
* Using symbolic, conceptual language
* Relating concrete experience to theories
* Asking them to show you how they made their connections
* Asking for the long-term vision

 

[BlueSprout]

Ni is pretty simple. It's just basically detaching from a situation mentally and seeing the different ways it could be seen. It sees different viewpoints of issues. Ni is also associated with future thinking, thinking of how something could develop or now things will be in the future.

I guess it's maybe the language that's used to describe Ni. 'Envisioning', 'Inner images', 'Flashes of insight', 'Foreseeing', etc. When I realize possibilities, see different connections and rearrange them, it always has a Ne-ish feel.

 

[VagrantFarce]

I think people have a hard time getting their head around Ni, because no one has really found a good way of describing it (or really expressing it) without sounding like a pretentious psychic/mystic/ninja wannabe. So you tend to dismiss them as just that. For the longest time, I regarded Ni as little more than a cheap storytelling device. I didn't think people actually experienced that crap.

If you want a healthy dose of Ni in the movies, check out films by the Coen Brothers (especially stuff Like Barton Fink, that one has hundreds of "abstract symbols with seemingly a lot of meaning, but not really"):

[youtube=kKm-_VyNVoM]LOOK UPON MEEEEEE[/youtube]

 

[BlackCat]

I guess it's maybe the language that's used to describe Ni. 'Envisioning', 'Inner images', 'Flashes of insight', 'Foreseeing', etc. When I realize possibilities, see different connections and rearrange them, it always has a Ne-ish feel.

Yeah people LOVE to over complicate Ni.

If I were you, I'd honestly save what I quoted to your hard drive to refer to it. Because I had a hard time understanding Ni at first too (I used to think I was INFP, and Ni sealed the deal with ISFP).

I forgot to say what Ni is like to me. So here goes-

Basically the tertiary is a main response tool. You respond to situations with your tertiary. So Ni is triggered when I am subjected to something.

I tend to see other viewpoints, tackle the issue from another perspective, etc. When it's in a debate with other people I will bring up these perspectives. Oftentimes I'll unconsciously predict how a situation will play out.

I like it. I like the unique viewpoints. It adds to my awareness of issues and the world when it's triggered.

 

[BlueSprout]

I think people have a hard time getting their head around Ni, because no one has really found a good way of describing it (or really expressing it) without sounding like a pretentious psychic/mystic/ninja wannabe. So you tend to dismiss them as just that. For the longest time, I regarded Ni as little more than a cheap storytelling device. I didn't think people actually experienced that crap.

If you want a healthy dose of Ni in the movies, check out films by the Coen Brothers (especially stuff Like Barton Fink, that one has hundreds of "abstract symbols with seemingly a lot of meaning, but not really"):

Hmmm. I haven't watched many Coen Brothers movies (not much of a movie watcher in general). I think OBWAT, Fargo, TBL and Raising Arizona are the only ones I'm familiar with.

Just because I can't grasp the mystical qualities of Ni insight doesn't invalidate them. But I really, REALLY don't understand them when they are described in such terms.

Yeah people LOVE to over complicate Ni.

If I were you, I'd honestly save what I quoted to your hard drive to refer to it. Because I had a hard time understanding Ni at first too (I used to think I was INFP, and Ni sealed the deal with ISFP).

I forgot to say what Ni is like to me. So here goes-

Basically the tertiary is a main response tool. You respond to situations with your tertiary. So Ni is triggered when I am subjected to something.

I tend to see other viewpoints, tackle the issue from another perspective, etc. When it's in a debate with other people I will bring up these perspectives. Oftentimes I'll unconsciously predict how a situation will play out.

I like it. I like the unique viewpoints. It adds to my awareness of issues and the world when it's triggered.

Thank you for bringing the description of Ni down to an IxFP level a little bit. I noticed that you changed your type preference. Are you happy with it so far?

I can try to predict how a situation will play out, but I'm not at all good at it. I've noticed I'm much better at describing the present situation than anticipating specific future outcomes. I can't remember the last time I accurately predicted anything. It's a source of consternation, actually, since any number of (negative) outcomes are possible when I can't narrow them down to a few probabilities. I can only expand the possibilities with Ne and that gets tiring fast. It's not that I can't see and compare multiple points of view, it's just that doing so doesn't help me envision a single likely future scenario.

I guess that might be a helpful way to see Ni - to narrow down and refine instead of expand and elaborate (Ne)? Is this on the right track?

 

[BlackCat]

I noticed that you changed your type preference. Are you happy with it so far?

Oh yes. It fits me quite well. I enjoy it.

I can try to predict how a situation will play out, but I'm not at all good at it. I've noticed I'm much better at describing the present situation than anticipating specific future outcomes. I can't remember the last time I accurately predicted anything. It's a source of consternation, actually, since any number of (negative) outcomes are possible when I can't narrow them down to a few probabilities. I can only expand the possibilities with Ne and that gets tiring fast. It's not that I can't see and compare multiple points of view, it's just that doing so doesn't help me envision a single likely future scenario.

I guess that might be a helpful way to see Ni - to narrow down and refine instead of expand and elaborate (Ne)? Is this on the right track?

That's interesting. Ni and Ne work with opposite intentions, though they're still N functions.

I think that due to my practicality working with my Ni, I can predict realistic outcomes very easily. I basically just use Ni to come to a possible outcome. It seems like it just hits me. Then when I think about the actual possibility of the event I predicted happening, I think about all of the things needed to get there and I verify in my mind if that's realistic. It usually is. I'm pretty bad at getting original ideas though.

I don't do this anywhere near to the caliber that NJs do it, but I still do it a lot. It's more of a tool than a way of living life.

And yes you're on the right track. I see it like this- Ni starts at the top and heads to the bottom, Ne starts at the bottom and heads to the top-

It seems as though you want to know more, but I don't know what else to say. I'll be happy to answer anything you want.

 

[BlueSprout]

Oh yes. It fits me quite well. I enjoy it.

That's interesting. Ni and Ne work with opposite intentions, though they're still N functions.

I think that due to my practicality working with my Ni, I can predict realistic outcomes very easily. I basically just use Ni to come to a possible outcome. It seems like it just hits me. Then when I think about the actual possibility of the event I predicted happening, I think about all of the things needed to get there and I verify in my mind if that's realistic. It usually is. I'm pretty bad at getting original ideas though.

I don't do this anywhere near to the caliber that NJs do it, but I still do it a lot. It's more of a tool than a way of living life.

And yes you're on the right track. I see it like this- Ni starts at the top and heads to the bottom, Ne starts at the bottom and heads to the top-

It seems as though you want to know more, but I don't know what else to say. I'll be happy to answer anything you want.

I'm glad you're enjoying being an ISFP.

It's interesting to me that you explain Ni as a pragmatic function for daily use instead of a near gift of revelation. It's much easier for me to understand how it works when you describe it in those terms. It seems as though it would be incredibly useful if mastered. I would love to have my thoughts 'click' into place like that. On the other hand, I really treasure Ne's ability to multiply the possibilities. I'm not sure I would ever trade it for anything.

By the way, I love the illustration you made. It's a simple and elegant way to explain both functions.

I have a few other questions. Otherwise, this has been an incredibly clarifying exchange. Thank you for helping me out.

1. Do you have to have consciously thought about the problem or situation to have that moment of clarity? Or can a solution find you when you aren't looking for it?
2. Do you work on honing Ni? If so, how?

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think that Black Cat is simplifing since he is a ISFP.

Let me try.

Picture A is Ne. (basicly this is 3d version of what BC posted)


Picture C is Ni when it's job is finished. But in reality this is 3 dimensional picture. For example that third dimension can be time.

In theory you can connect all of the dots with all dots but that is impossible to create because that plan couldn't be placed into motion. (because of practicality I will skip the explanation why this is the case)


Instead my brain gives my exactly the right "order" of how dots should be connected. But the most important things is that all connection are made in two directions.


So the case that third dimension is time you can go up and down on this web. Up is future , down is past. I think you can imagine that there is layer upon layer od connected dots that look similar to each other and similar as a picture C. So when you create a connection between two layers you are forseing into the future or past. Also you can create an "artificial" level between levels where you can check if the connection is right / good.


What Ni allows you to pick up aare facts/events in the past and drive it through present into the future. So what Ni is trying to do is grasping a chain reaction of which other people are not even aware of.
When it is just a one series of events then people can grasp it but if there is 10 interconnected events that are not even geographically close or similar in nature most people will fail in grasping it. They will probably not even realize that there is a connection.
And since people can't grasp it they treat it as magic or something like that.


Of course this is Ni with alot of Te (just to be clear).




Basicly this is why Ni-doms tend to look so confused most of the time.
This is because you are not providing exact cordinated in that web with layers. By that I mean we have a huge problem placing things into the context since you are just providing facts that are not connected with anything. What means that if I give you my answer it would not hold any real value (to me of course) since it is not connected to the "web of reality" and as such it is just a "pointless" speculation.

 

[Eric B]

I think people have a hard time getting their head around Ni, because no one has really found a good way of describing it (or really expressing it) without sounding like a pretentious psychic/mystic/ninja wannabe. So you tend to dismiss them as just that. For the longest time, I regarded Ni as little more than a cheap storytelling device. I didn't think people actually experienced that crap.

That's funny; When I first learned of the functions, all of the other seven made sense, and I concluded Jung might have made Ni up, just to complete the "symmetry". In other words, all of the other functions have both introverted and extraverted variants, so something had to go into the Ni slot; so he fabricated this "seeing the future" stuff, which did not seem real (only the domain of kooks and fakes such as palm readers, shamans, etc, or, divinely inspired prophets, which is a gift, not a natural cognitive preference, and which no longer seem to exist as genuine).

I still try to sort through what is Ne vs Ni. Sometimes the descriptions seem to overlap.
But then again, there are really four functions, and the real difference between them is the orientation the ego uses them in.

As an INFP, using the archetypes, the OP should look for Ni to come up when being very critical and grumpy about stuff. Like perhaps the underlying meaning of life, or various situations the direction things are heading, etc. Ti would be something that might irritate you (impersonal analysis of the theories for its own sake, and not for understanding self/helping others?) And then you use it to try to undo others' Ti conclusions, like proving them inconsistent. (We could say, Victor is last-place Ti incarnate?)

 

[BlueSprout]

I think that Black Cat is simplifing since he is a ISFP.

My INFP self needed the simplified version first, quite honestly.

Picture A is Ne. (basicly this is 3d version of what BC posted)


Picture C is Ni when it's job is finished. But in reality this is 3 dimensional picture. For example that third dimension can be time.

In theory you can connect all of the dots with all dots but that is impossible to create because that plan couldn't be placed into motion. (because of practicality I will skip the explanation why this is the case)


Instead my brain gives my exactly the right "order" of how dots should be connected. But the most important things is that all connection are made in two directions.


So the case that third dimension is time you can go up and down on this web. Up is future , down is past. I think you can imagine that there is layer upon layer od connected dots that look similar to each other and similar as a picture C. So when you create a connection between two layers you are forseing into the future or past. Also you can create an "artificial" level between levels where you can check if the connection is right / good.


What Ni allows you to pick up aare facts/events in the past and drive it through present into the future. So what Ni is trying to do is grasping a chain reaction of which other people are not even aware of.
When it is just a one series of events then people can grasp it but if there is 10 interconnected events that are not even geographically close or similar in nature most people will fail in grasping it. They will probably not even realize that there is a connection.
And since people can't grasp it they treat it as magic or something like that.


Of course this is Ni with alot of Te (just to be clear).




Basicly this is why Ni-doms tend to look so confused most of the time.
This is because you are not providing exact cordinated in that web with layers. By that I mean we have a huge problem placing things into the context since you are just providing facts that are not connected with anything. What means that if I give you my answer it would not hold any real value (to me of course) since it is not connected to the "web of reality" and as such it is just a "pointless" speculation.

I recognize Ne right away, with the implied third dimension added. Ne is even a 4D experience for me - when I think deeply or shut out sensory stimuli, my inner world rapidly expands outward into a vast, new space - like the Big Bang. From there, thoughts and speculations branch out, cluster and multiply, continually knitting, unraveling and reknitting patterns across the expanding void. I really love it, but haven't learned to harness its potential.

Despite the fact that you've described my least used function in conjunction with my shadow function, this makes some sense to me. However, given the way Ne works for me, any sense of intuitive 'order' or directionality is still a challenge for me to grasp. Nonetheless, the 'chain of events' analogy helps me visually bridge the gap between the basic refining and narrowing function of Ni and its ability to 'see' future events. So Ni hones in on the most salient events (no matter when/where they occur), connects/relates them in the appropriate order/timeline and perceives their trajectory from there? I think I have a rough theoretical understanding, though I can still hardly relate to it.

It would be amazing to be able to just pluck these linear connections from my nebulous, amorphous Ne world. That said, the lack of (conscious) context must be frustrating when the reasons for your conclusions cannot be verbalized. Sometimes the certainty of the INTJs I know can be baffling to me when they don't adequately explain their reasons. Maybe I will give them the benefit of the doubt more often.

As an INFP, using the archetypes, the OP should look for Ni to come up when being very critical and grumpy about stuff. Like perhaps the underlying meaning of life, or various situations the direction things are heading, etc. Ti would be something that might irritate you (impersonal analysis of the theories for its own sake, and not for understanding self/helping others?) And then you use it to try to undo others' Ti conclusions, like proving them inconsistent. (We could say, Victor is last-place Ti incarnate?)

In that case, I feel both Ni and Ti related frustrations a lot. Thank you for illustrating how I 'experience' Ni. I guess I don't really notice its presence. Just its absence.

 

[cascadeco]

Jane, I really think the whole mystical/revelation/psychic slant of Ni in literature is a shame. I've written elsewhere that I think that 'aura' behind Ni descriptions doesn't do it justice, or lead to much credibility...and so many people, even here on the boards, latch onto just the 'mystical' element, as if Ni-users don't have anything to substantiate their perceptions. True, it may be really difficult for Ni-users to verbalize things, but that doesn't mean they just pull things out of thin air or they're constantly having revelations without knowing why.

I mean, the pure mystical/'revelation' piece doesn't even make sense, really, as a dominant process...that would be like the dom-Ni having his prime mode of being consisting of pure mysticism. I mean, it's not like dom-Ni users are having 'revelations' 24/7...that's silly...so what would the dom-Ni user be doing the other 95% of the time when he's not having a supposed revelation?

What Ni allows you to pick up aare facts/events in the past and drive it through present into the future. So what Ni is trying to do is grasping a chain reaction of which other people are not even aware of.
When it is just a one series of events then people can grasp it but if there is 10 interconnected events that are not even geographically close or similar in nature most people will fail in grasping it. They will probably not even realize that there is a connection.
And since people can't grasp it they treat it as magic or something like that.

I think this is good. I often view my thought process as more of a spider web - just linking stuff together, pulling from various sources with the aim being to hone in on something. I think Blackcat's illustration, although simpler, is appropriate, as is what Jane concluded about the differences between Ne/Ni...the general tendency for Ni to hone inwards -- pulling from many points with the desired goal to tie all of it together in some way or find some overall theme, vs. Ne's tendency to have a starting point and branch out from there.

And, as Blackcat says, Ni is really more about multiple perspectives and shifting. A very fluid inner world, but again, with a desire to tie all of it together somehow. And tying it all together can take quite some time, and it isn't always an 'active' process. But once we tie it all together, we have sort of a completed product, if you will. It's why when new information comes in, it might take a while to assimilate that new information into our overall 'vision' -- because you're dealing with a spider web in your mind and you have to reallign all of the connections; break apart some links created previously, to account for the new piece.

(I also added a few other comments on this topic here - http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nf-idyllic/25147-ni-infjs-3.html#post956157 - and you can review other Ni's viewpoints (some differing) as well)

 

[Nocapszy]

I think that Black Cat is simplifing since he is a ISFP.

Let me try.

Picture A is Ne. (basicly this is 3d version of what BC posted)


Picture C is Ni when it's job is finished. But in reality this is 3 dimensional picture. For example that third dimension can be time.

you're wrong about both.

in fact, picture A is Ni - a single focal point [a subject as it's known in typology] with many inlet points from various, [seemingly] unrelated places.

Ne dominant types won't focus on a single object in any case - neither making iNtuitive connections to the point, nor away from it.
the only way Ne is represented by picture A is when it's restrained and focused by Introverted Judgement.

picture B could depict both Ni and Ne, though in both cases, it does nothing unless you consider the influence of Judgement functions.

picture C has the most semblance of the work of Ne - no focal points. it's objective and has no preference for any one point. that is to say, where an INTJ would contract all of the information to learn a single subject/discipline, an ENTP spreads the information out to learn a little about everything.

 

[BlueSprout]

Jane, I really think the whole mystical/revelation/psychic slant of Ni in literature is a shame. I've written elsewhere that I think that 'aura' behind Ni descriptions doesn't do it justice, or lead to much credibility...and so many people, even here on the boards, latch onto just the 'mystical' element, as if Ni-users don't have anything to substantiate their perceptions. True, it may be really difficult for Ni-users to verbalize things, but that doesn't mean they just pull things out of thin air or they're constantly having revelations without knowing why.

I mean, the pure mystical/'revelation' piece doesn't even make sense, really, as a dominant process...that would be like the dom-Ni having his prime mode of being consisting of pure mysticism. I mean, it's not like dom-Ni users are having 'revelations' 24/7...that's silly...so what would the dom-Ni user be doing the other 95% of the time when he's not having a supposed revelation?



I think this is good. I often view my thought process as more of a spider web - just linking stuff together, pulling from various sources to hone in on something. I think Blackcat's illustration, although simpler, is appropriate, as is what Jane concluded about the differences between Ne/Ni...the general tendency for Ni to hone inwards -- pulling from many points with the desired goal to tie all of it together in some way or find some overall theme, vs. Ne's tendency to have a starting point and branch out from there.

And, as Blackcat says, Ni is really more about multiple perspectives and shifting. A very fluid inner world, but again, with a desire to tie all of it together somehow. And tying it all together can take quite some time, and it isn't always an 'active' process. But once we tie it all together, we have sort of a completed product, if you will. It's why when new information comes in, it might take a while to assimilate that new information into our overall 'vision' -- because you're dealing with a spider web in your mind and you have to reallign all of the connections; break apart some links created previously, to account for the new piece.

(I also added a few other comments on this topic here - http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nf-idyllic/25147-ni-infjs-3.html#post956157 - and you can review other Ni's viewpoints (some differing) as well)

Thank you for the links, cascadeco.

I should amend some of my previous post based on the clarification you provided. The language I used probably isn't the most appropriate to describing Ni as it truly operates. The idea that it is “plucked” without “conscious”ness is still implicit in my post above. The misleading descriptions of Ni are hard to shake, even if I am becoming increasingly aware of how inadequate they are.

It helps me visualize it somewhat better when you describe it as an 'active' process where links are constantly being added to the chain. The fluidity of thought isn't really a part of the descriptions I've read; you would think by reading them that the vision Ni provides is definite and static. But this wouldn't really be useful. I really hope Ni doms like you can help correct the misperceptions of Ni. I don't think many current descriptions make it easy to understand it as a tool rather than just a gift.

in fact, picture A is Ni - a single focal point [a subject as it's known in typology] with many inlet points from various, [seemingly] unrelated places.

I understand it was meant to be inverted. As a Ne user, the expansion outward makes sense to me.

Ne dominant types won't focus on a single object in any case.

I'm not Ne dominant or a typology expert, so I wouldn't know. But for me, there is almost always a starting thought or experience from which the intuitive branches spring. I may never return to it because of the vastness of the outward expansion, and it may be in some ways linked to other origin points, but that's how I 'visualize' and experience it.

 

[cascadeco]

It helps me visualize it somewhat better when you describe it as an 'active' process where links are constantly being added to the chain.

To clarify...while it is active in a sense, I don't think it's active in the sense Ti might be; often I find myself kind of floating around in my thoughts/impressions, allowing them to ripen/cement of their own accord, letting things settle in. That said, the 'active' piece is picking up things from these various sources...past, present, whatever. And, it's certainly active when I'm wanting to focus all of my energies on figuring something out..in which case I'll really analyze all of these elements...I suppose you're bringing in other pieces (Ti) to do this however. All of these little pieces that add to the big picture. I just used the word 'active' to try to get away a bit more from the whole 'magic' element, as if Ni users don't really DO anything in their minds.

I guess there's a reason Ni seems inadequately described...as I don't know that I'm able to describe it fully or accurately either.

The fluidity of thought isn't really a part of the descriptions I've read; you would think by reading them that the vision Ni provides is definite and static. But this wouldn't really be useful. I really hope Ni doms like you can help correct the misperceptions of Ni. I don't think many current descriptions make it easy to understand it as a tool rather than just a gift.

The final 'conclusion'/theme you're honing in on - what you're wanting to work towards - is static, I think, which is why new info can shake the Ni's inner world up and it might take time to reassemble. But prior to getting to this 'final point', on whatever subject it might be, there's fluidity and quite a bit of maneuvering room I think.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Just to be clear, just because I said what I said about Black at's post that does not mean that I think it is wrong. It is just that there is much more in my opinion.

you're wrong about both.

in fact, picture A is Ni - a single focal point [a subject as it's known in typology] with many inlet points from various, [seemingly] unrelated places.

Ne dominant types won't focus on a single object in any case - neither making iNtuitive connections to the point, nor away from it.
the only way Ne is represented by picture A is when it's restrained and focused by Introverted Judgement.

picture B could depict both Ni and Ne, though in both cases, it does nothing unless you consider the influence of Judgement functions.

picture C has the most semblance of the work of Ne - no focal points. it's objective and has no preference for any one point. that is to say, where an INTJ would contract all of the information to learn a single subject/discipline, an ENTP spreads the information out to learn a little about everything.

You are corrct. But to be hoesnt I think we have a misunderstanding here.

You are talking about I will dare to call "life philosophy" while I am talking about a line of "thought". So in each of this caregories the one looks like the other in other category.

 

[Matthew_Z]

Alternative theory, using the model provided by Anitsocial one:

Perception, by nature, starts with a point, whereafter another point is formed. (or realized, depending on your perspective) The two points are initially connected. Further points are created an attached to the initial focal point in the same manner. (creating A) After the initial focal point has been expanded, points connected to it become the next generation of focal points and slight reconfiguration of connections occurs, (creating B) although the synthesis of new points never fully ceased. (these points attach to the new foci, not the original one) After the period of reconnection, the process repeats, but during this repetition the number of focal points outnumber the non-focal points, allowing for the creation of a well dispersed web. (thus, figure C) Both Ni and Ne follow this process. The difference between the two lies on the rate of connection and the rate of point creation due to introversion and extraversion. Ne, relative to Ni, spends more energy in the act of point creation, thus leading the N model at any given time to resemble more of model A or B. By contrast, Ni focuses more on connections of points already or newly synthesized, leading it to resemble more of model C or B at any given time.

 

[BlackCat]

Just to be clear, just because I said what I said about Black at's post that does not mean that I think it is wrong. It is just that there is much more in my opinion.

No offense taken, even before I saw this.

1. Do you have to have consciously thought about the problem or situation to have that moment of clarity? Or can a solution find you when you aren't looking for it?
2. Do you work on honing Ni? If so, how?

I'm glad you got something out of my posts. Antisocial one did a good job of clearing up some other things I wanted to clarify about Ni and how it's used/I use it. Except the way that I use it isn't as ordered or organized mentally. I'm totally mentally disorganized when it comes to my Ni. This is because Pi (Si or Ni) without Je (Te or Fe) is like a leash without a dog. Nothing to lead it on. Since as an ISFP my Te is pretty bad, my Ni is disorganized. It's just basically insights that I get, and I'm not structured at all with the insights and with the "networking" side of Ni. There are some "networks" that I have; but those have taken a very long time to work out in my head. I'm guessing that this is because of bad Te.

To answer the questions-

1. Do you have to have consciously thought about the problem or situation to have that moment of clarity? Or can a solution find you when you aren't looking for it?

It varies. I think that when it just hits me, I see certain events happen in the actual world. These events trigger an unconscious connecting the dots process, and it just hits me. When I'm consciously thinking about the solution, that's when I know that there are missing pieces. Usually I identify what I would need to make an accurate prediction. "I won't be certain of X unless Y happens/I can grasp what Y is." So I find some way of making Y happen or grasping what Y is. Then usually I can be sure of the future after I find the missing pieces. But before then I can usually find a solution, but it's not as accurate as I'd be comfortable with it being. This is where S/N comes into play. I'm comfortable with exact things, things that are concrete, etc.

So basically for me to have these revelations I need to have all of the dots connected. When it just "hits me" I have them all in place, but I wasn't aware I was doing it. When I consciously think of it, it's basically an identification process of what I need to perceive to be certain about my predictions.

2. Do you work on honing Ni? If so, how?

Well it seems to sharpen itself. When I experience things, I've got it. That's Se. A lot of how I use Ni is very influenced by Se if you haven't noticed. So when I experience things and find patterns, and I experience a similar thing; I can more reliably make a prediction.

An easy way to understand this is that the 2nd function is called the "parent" function. The 3rd function is called the "child" function. The parent helps the child. Most of my Ni is very influenced by Se, it's perceiving actual things happening and making connections. This is why ISTPs are usually engineers, they can connect the dots and see if there will be a problem with the airplane, tank, car, etc that they are working on. Their Ti Ni combination can make them experts in fields like that. So then when said ISTP would see the problem first, he would be able to easily make the connection again to fix the same problems. That would be "honing" Ni from an IS_P perspective I guess. Except apply that to pretty much any situation it would be used in.

 

[BlackCat]

I think that what Wolverine does in the X-Men movies is a good example of Ni in IS_Ps (he's ISTP). Just getting that feeling that something isn't right, and then an actual event happens and it all hits him like a wave of realization. Also he just gives off that general feel to me. He also does that "connecting the dots" thing a lot.

 

[BlueSprout]

Matthew:

The difference between the two lies on the rate of connection and the rate of point creation due to introversion and extraversion. Ne, relative to Ni, spends more energy in the act of point creation, thus leading the N model at any given time to resemble more of model A or B. By contrast, Ni focuses more on connections of points already or newly synthesized, leading it to resemble more of model C or B at any given time.

I wanted to acknowledge your point. I can't speak to Ni, but my Ne initiates point creation so rapidly that connections are lost as quickly as they are made. Therefore, it almost always resembles model A, and only model B when there is a great deal of energy put into maintaining connections. For model C (synthesis) to occur, I must visually chart my points and rearrange them to find coherence. I only ever do this when writing a paper - it is not a natural function for me and requires the help of Si and Te. So it seems probable that A resembles Ne, B (because it requires the organization of points) can be either Ne or Ni and C best illustrates Ni.

BlackCat:

Except the way that I use it isn't as ordered or organized mentally. I'm totally mentally disorganized when it comes to my Ni. This is because Pi (Si or Ni) without Je (Te or Fe) is like a leash without a dog. Nothing to lead it on. Since as an ISFP my Te is pretty bad, my Ni is disorganized. It's just basically insights that I get, and I'm not structured at all with the insights and with the "networking" side of Ni. There are some "networks" that I have; but those have taken a very long time to work out in my head. I'm guessing that this is because of bad Te.

I just described above how difficult it is for me to maintain thoughts and insights as well (because I have inferior Te). As soon as I have one, new possibilities emerge and I find it hard to track my thoughts and conclusions. But you have a similar experience using Ni with inferior Te. Now I'm not sure what the distinction is. I thought that Ni was supposed to offer coherence and clarity.

It varies. I think that when it just hits me, I see certain events happen in the actual world. These events trigger an unconscious connecting the dots process, and it just hits me. When I'm consciously thinking about the solution, that's when I know that there are missing pieces. Usually I identify what I would need to make an accurate prediction. "I won't be certain of X unless Y happens/I can grasp what Y is." So I find some way of making Y happen or grasping what Y is. Then usually I can be sure of the future after I find the missing pieces. But before then I can usually find a solution, but it's not as accurate as I'd be comfortable with it being. This is where S/N comes into play. I'm comfortable with exact things, things that are concrete, etc.

So basically for me to have these revelations I need to have all of the dots connected. When it just "hits me" I have them all in place, but I wasn't aware I was doing it. When I consciously think of it, it's basically an identification process of what I need to perceive to be certain about my predictions.

I'm sorry if it's getting redundant at this point, but that sounds amazing. Whenever I'm 'hit' with a partial solution, I never know what is missing OR have the 'dots' in place. If I stumble upon a 'truth', I refine it/test it/complicate it/look for internal inconsistencies/challenge the language I use to express it until it is in tatters. Worse, in the process, Ne continues to create more possibilities. At a certain point, I have to commit to a single idea but again, thankfully, this is only necessary in my academic life. In my everyday life, Fi simply picks the best feeling 'truth' for me.

Well it seems to sharpen itself. When I experience things, I've got it. That's Se. A lot of how I use Ni is very influenced by Se if you haven't noticed. So when I experience things and find patterns, and I experience a similar thing; I can more reliably make a prediction.

An easy way to understand this is that the 2nd function is called the "parent" function. The 3rd function is called the "child" function. The parent helps the child. Most of my Ni is very influenced by Se, it's perceiving actual things happening and making connections. This is why ISTPs are usually engineers, they can connect the dots and see if there will be a problem with the airplane, tank, car, etc that they are working on. Their Ti Ni combination can make them experts in fields like that. So then when said ISTP would see the problem first, he would be able to easily make the connection again to fix the same problems. That would be "honing" Ni from an IS_P perspective I guess. Except apply that to pretty much any situation it would be used in.

So Se compensates in a way for Te's inability to provide structure. Is your experience of the connections themselves tangible/visual/spatial as well? I'm not a big user of Se, so I'm curious to know how it works in conjunction with an intuitive function.