Yet since Ni and Ti are the teritiary for the two aforementioned, they would actually hold the types back, ie ISTP doesn't trust their intuition and INFJ finds analyzing a problem to be arduous. Again they both enjoy complexity, but will work through it differently with similar results.Hmmm I think Ni and Ti can work together so long as one understands the need for the other.
The ISTP - INFJ is a good example. sometimes.
My problems with Ni is that Ti needs a stable frame of reference in order to build something, while Ni automatically jerks the rug out from underneath -- "What you say, Ti, makes sense if you look at it from THAT angle... but what if you look at it from THIS angle?"
You build a house (Ti) in one dimension, the house does not exist if you bamf into a different one. Or the rules of nature that exist in one dimension might not exist or exist differently in a different one.
So Ni can easily *invalidate* any structure Ti creates, without offering anything in its place.
(This struggle was highly pronounced in faith/spiritual issues for me. I based on my faith on Ti thinking for a long time, despite some friction, but eventually stepped outside of the the assumptions I had needed to make in order to build that spiritual edifice and suddenly had NOTHING to stand on. Anything Ti built seemed arbitrary.)
So Ne helped Ti for the INTP to see connections and know "where to dig" ... but the inverse Ni says, "It doesn't matter what you dig up, there are endless meanings and so you cannot derive any true meaning from your finds."
There is ultimate reality that can be defined to some degree vs there is no ultimate reality, it's all a matter of what you're focusing on.
One way I use them together is to connect with or understand others. I can leap into the shoes of someone else (see the world through their framework = Ni) and then use Ti to immediately crunch through, based on the assumptions, the ramifications of their view. It's helpful that way. Ni is used to orient, then Ti is used to make sense of what I'm seeing.
"There is ultimate reality that can be defined to some degree vs there is no ultimate reality, it's all a matter of what you're focusing on."
Ti reasserts itself with a vengence!
If it were impossible to derive true meaning, then even this statement would be meaningless.
But, despite Ni's shennanigans, Ti asserts that at least one meaningful distinction can be made. What are the prerequistes that make this distinction possible, and, once they are in place, what are their implications?
Yes, that can happen. Hence my qualifier... "sometimes".Yet since Ni and Ti are the teritiary for the two aforementioned, they would actually hold the types back, ie ISTP doesn't trust their intuition and INFJ finds analyzing a problem to be arduous. Again they both enjoy complexity, but will work through it differently with similar results.
From the Ni dominant perspective, it's a given that there's is no sensible way you can analyze something from every angle. Therefore you must derive the truth from patterns you see based on the angles you did look at. Perhaps that's the main difference between the use of Ni from INXJs compared to IXTPs. Trust in its use.Premise 1) "Ni automatically jerks the rug out from underneath -- "What you say, Ti, makes sense if you look at it from THAT angle... but what if you look at it from THIS angle?"
Premise 2) Ni says, "It doesn't matter what you dig up, there are endless meanings and so you cannot derive any true meaning from your finds."
Conclusion) So Ni can easily *invalidate* any structure Ti creates, without offering anything in its place.
I'll be waiting to hear the answers from the IXTPs.If it were impossible to derive true meaning, then even this statement would be meaningless. But, despite Ni's shennanigans, Ti asserts that at least one meaningful distinction can be made. What are the prerequistes that make this distinction possible, and, once they are in place, what are their implications?
From the Ni dominant perspective, it's a given that there's is no sensible way you can analyze something from every angle. Therefore you must derive the truth from patterns you see based on the angles you did look at. Perhaps that's the main difference between the use of Ni from INXJs compared to IXTPs. Trust in its use.
?
But how do you know when you have looked at enough patterns?
That the patterns you have seen are representative of the infinite number of patterns possible?
Is there a way to do that, or is that just a personal choice?
My problems with Ni is that Ti needs a stable frame of reference in order to build something, while Ni automatically jerks the rug out from underneath -- "What you say, Ti, makes sense if you look at it from THAT angle... but what if you look at it from THIS angle?"
You build a house (Ti) in one dimension, the house does not exist if you bamf into a different one. Or the rules of nature that exist in one dimension might not exist or exist differently in a different one.
So Ni can easily *invalidate* any structure Ti creates, without offering anything in its place.
second, i think if that were true then it would also have to be true that Te and Ne also would not work well together.
second, i think if that were true then it would also have to be true that Te and Ne also would not work well together.