Ne and Ni

[INTP]

I simply don't have time or patience for a giant wall of text that can be better explained in 20 words or less. Distilled down versions give me a better snapshot than a bunch of self important words being tossed in the air.

I thank Oaky and Sky for giving me the "Ne-Ni for Dummies" lesson I sorely needed.

i dont think it can be explained better in 20 words. dummie versions doesent explain the whole thing and to understand at least near the whole thing from dummie versions, you need to read alot more of them than what i posted.

ill try to cut things out of it.

Ne:
Intuition as the function of unconscious perception(opposed to Se, which is direct perception to conscious) is wholly directed upon outer objects in the extraverted attitude. Because, in the main, intuition is an unconscious process, the conscious apprehension of its nature is a very difficult matter. In consciousness, the intuitive function is represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrating vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case, how much was [p. 462] 'perceived-into', and how much actually lay in the object.
Intuition..which is by no means a mere perception, or awareness, but an active, creative process that builds into the object just as much as it takes out.
The primary function of intuition is to transmit mere images, or perceptions of relations and conditions, which could be gained by the other functions, either not at all, or only by very roundabout ways.
Intuition seeks to discover possibilities in the objective situation; hence as a mere tributary function (viz. when not in the position of priority) it is also the instrument which, in the presence of a hopelessly blocked situation, works automatically towards the issue, which no other function could discover. Where intuition has the priority, every ordinary situation in life seems like a closed room, which intuition has to open. It is constantly seeking outlets and fresh possibilities in external life. In a very short time every actual situation becomes a prison to the intuitive; it burdens him like a chain, prompting a compelling need for solution. At times objects would seem to have an almost exaggerated value, should they chance to represent the idea of a severance or release that might lead to the discovery of a new possibility. A fact is acknowledged only in so far as it opens up fresh possibilities of advancing beyond it and of releasing the individual from its operation.

Ni:
Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious.
Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things.
Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.
Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation.
Introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects. For intuition, therefore, the unconscious images attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images.
Just as the world can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, so the world of images is never a moral problem to the intuitive.
Reality has no existence for him; he gives himself up to fruitless fantasies. But, since these images represent possible ways of viewing life, which in given circumstances have the power to provide a new energic potential.. Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel.
Since the unconscious is not just something that lies there, like a psychic caput mortuum(Latin term whose literal meaning is "dead head" or "worthless remains"), but is something that coexists and experiences inner transformations which are inherently related to general events, introverted intuition, through its perception of inner processes, gives certain data which may possess supreme importance for the comprehension of general occurrences.


cant really make it much shorter and there would be stuff that id like to add, but then it would be too long. or is this too long already?

 

[INTPness]

Ni is now cooler than I ever imagined. I couldnt grasp it, no matter how much I read about it. Now the light bulb has gone off. Thanks to all who contributed to that. I have a new found respect for the processes of Ni. Not that I didn't respect my colleagues/co-workers before, but now I understand better why they are so focused and determined toward one conclusion, outcome, resolution. Whereas I'm like, "what about this? what about that? Have you considered this? Ohh, look, a bird. Ahhh, science is cool, but I also like art. Oh, what's on TV? I like seafood. What's your name? His name is Bob. I have a fishing bob. Have you ever gone fishing? Fishing = seafood = mmmm!" And the INTJ's are like:

 

[redcheerio]

Very interesting. So, what do you do once you find 'the answer' - once the problem at hand is resolved. Like, I work with INTJ scientists. They spend their whole lives working towards cures, answers, discoveries to very specific problems. What happens if they find the answer or finally solve the problem. Is it "mission accomplished - time to retire"? Or is it just simply, "move on to another problem"? Cuz, for instance, one of them truly believes that understanding one small bodily protein will unlock huge mysteries of the human body and health. He dedicates his entire existence to understanding this one object because he *knows* how important it is to overall human health. If he does make *the big discovery*, what would he do next? Just bask in his glory as a well-respected scientist? Or would he then "take up a new agenda"?

My husband is an INTJ scientist, but he does the numerical/computer programming side of science, so he gets to contribute to many scientific problems. My impression is that if he solved one major problem, he would take time out to celebrate the victory, and then move on to the next big problem. It's also how he deals with his daily work. He likes to focus on one problem at a time, and once he has finished one major task, he'll take a quick break and move onto the next.

yeah, that's kind of my problem with the Ni threads. i don't get what anyone's saying half the time. it took me until reading orobas' explanation of Ni - maybe a few months after first reading about Ni? - to finally start grasping it.

*will try to focus for once*

I have this problem, too. I find I "get" the explanations written by Ne users pretty much instantaneously, but with the Ni explanations, I have to really focus and read them a number of times to get them. I usually find myself skimming most of it for something that stands out. I also find it WAY more difficult if they don't put enough paragraph breaks in. :/

 

[INTPness]

I have always been kind of worried about really longterm relationships for this very reason. I like to think/hope/believe that I would be ok and satisfied and the relationship would just keep evolving/growing, but sometimes I do worry.

Haha. I didn't mean to make you worry. We're all capable of finding contentment in long-term r'ships. I think Ne users are just as vulnerable as Ni'ers, because we're always going to be like, "Honey, I know you just had 2 kids and we just bought this house, but can we move to the Bahamas now? I'm bored here." You guys are vulnerable because the intrigue wears off. We're vulnerable because we don't want to stop and sit down - we want to keep exploring ze new things (not new women!!!), but just new environments, new experiences, new scenery, etc.

 

[kyuuei]

i dont think it can be explained better in 20 words. dummie versions doesent explain the whole thing and to understand at least near the whole thing from dummie versions, you need to read alot more of them than what i posted.

Anything that cannot be summarized in 20 words or less isn't really worth saying or mentioning. The details may be off, yes, but people can create details as needed. Someone can create details, and then think, "I understand that will tie into all of this.. but what about x?" and simply ask for the details they are missing. Everyone's mind works differently, and walls of text aren't the best way of communicating. Ask Solitary Walker.

 

[INTP]

Anything that cannot be summarized in 20 words or less isn't really worth saying or mentioning. The details may be off, yes, but people can create details as needed. Someone can create details, and then think, "I understand that will tie into all of this.. but what about x?" and simply ask for the details they are missing. Everyone's mind works differently, and walls of text aren't the best way of communicating. Ask Solitary Walker.

but because this isnt so simple, you need to add some details to direct the other persons mind into creating the right details to form deeper understanding about the subject

 

[onemoretime]

i'm not sure i understand how what you are saying is different from what i am saying?

what is the difference between the object and its essential nature? is its essential nature not the object itself?

Not in the least bit. The object itself is the immediately perceptible symbol. It can be the visual data of an image, the kinesthetic data of a reaction to applied force, the auditory data that constitutes a word's sound, and so on. The perceiving functions ascribe meaning to this data.

Sensing functions largely concern themselves with the consequential and interactive meaning of information. In other words, what will happen because of a certain set of data points. Se mainly concerns itself with discovering consequences through interaction, while Si concerns itself with predicting consequences through the application of experienced interactions.

Intuition, on the other hand, focuses on the essential meaning of information. In other words, what exactly it is that the perceived symbol represents. Ne mainly concerns itself with recognizing an object's belonging within any of several broad essential classifications (or "models," "theories," etc.), and thus how the object can manifest itself in several different ways, because of existing within that classification. Ni mainly concerns itself with what the concurrent perception of one or many points of data means in and of itself, as a particular entity, and how the modification of that data changes that very meaning.

it would seem that the object and the essential nature are always the same. just like you can't ever not "be yourself", even though people like to say "be yourself". you are always being yourself.

Ne looks at that phrase, recognizes it as a substantively meaningless social phrase, a contradiction, and something that nevertheless works for some people, and then applies it to various hypothetical scenarios within a given category in order to perceive how the manifestation of the symbol changes, and whether the categorization is correct. Ni looks at that phrase, then the context of the statement, then the various contexts in which the statement often comes up, then the grammatical structure, then what it means to be oneself, then what it means to be, then what is meant by the self, and the deeper and deeper we go, the more abstractly symbolic the interaction becomes, as we deconstruct past the symbolism of language itself. Then, once this process ends, what's left is the fundamental, essential connection that phrase has with the rest of the universe.

Both approaches ultimately come to the same conclusion: the essential meaning of that phrase has nothing to do with a person reflexively existing.

what data point A needs? i am not sure what you mean. as in what is needed to make it "whole"?

That was a typo. I meant to say, "without those categories, there is no way of knowing what data point A already means."

it seems to me that Se data points indicate endings and beginnings for Ni to work with. time spans. processes. becomings. is this what you mean?

Perhaps, but I don't see it in linear terms such as those. Instead, Se data points are the extremely detailed, resolved bits of symbolism that Ni grasps upon to recognize fine distinctions in essential meaning. For example, a colorblind person favoring Si would understand that when the top light is illuminated, cars must stop, and when the bottom light is illuminated, cars may go, and that furthermore, the top light is called the "red light", corresponding with a certain color that others informed you of, and the bottom one the "green light", also so corresponding. If that person were favoring Ni, that person may also notice that the color distinction is meaningless: since in the absence of an Se color distinction, the essential meaning of the traffic light's symbols do not change, that distinction has no relevance to the light's essential meaning. Instead, it is the position of the illuminated light that carries the essential distinction. What's more, the two symbols could be any color, and still be called the "red light" and the "green light," because the phrases' essential meaning have nothing to do with color, and everything to do with people stopping or going in reaction to them. As long as "red light" means stop, and people stop in response to the illumination of the top lamp, that lamp could have any color whatsoever, and still be the "red light."

i think mostly i am confused by the differentiation of an object and its "essence".

Hope that helped.

 

[kyuuei]

but because this isnt so simple, you need to add some details to direct the other persons mind into creating the right details to form deeper understanding about the subject

Do you treat everyone like they are five? Katsu and Sky seemed to do it just fine. I understand you want people to be accurate in their details.. but not everyone really cares for accuracy. I'm sure someone appreciated the wall of text, truly. But there's a saying we use called KISS, where you keep things as simple as possible because simplicity is an art form in and of itself. Too many details distracts people from forming their own conclusions.. relying on your details could mean forgetting things that aren't their own, which defeats the purpose of teaching.

 

[onemoretime]

but because this isnt so simple, you need to add some details to direct the other persons mind into creating the right details to form deeper understanding about the subject

I think this is more of a Ti/Fi distinction than anything. Fi doesn't value definitional precision to the same level that Ti does.

 

[INTP]

I think this is more of a Ti/Fi distinction than anything. Fi doesn't value definitional precision to the same level that Ti does.

yep. but because this particular matter needs the precision(not to make sense in some level, but to fully understand it), if the precision is not appreciated, that means that the understanding between Ni and Ne is not appreciated enough to focus on the precision(like i mentioned before). maybe Fi needs more value for the matter to look into more precise descriptions, but that just shows that those Fi people who dont want the precision doesent value the deeper understanding about this enough. im ok with that, like i said, i dont mind if someone doesent want to read the whole text

 

[onemoretime]

yep. but because this particular matter needs the precision(not to make sense in some level, but to fully understand it), if the precision is not appreciated, that means that the understanding between Ni and Ne is not appreciated enough to focus on the precision(like i mentioned before). maybe Fi needs more value for the matter to look into more precise descriptions, but that just shows that those Fi people who dont want the precision doesent value the deeper understanding about this enough. im ok with that, like i said, i dont mind if someone doesent want to read the whole text

Not sure I agree with normative statements like "valu[ing] the deeper understanding about this enough." It may be that their deeper understanding of the subject is simply different from, and not inferior to, our own. At the same time, I'm not criticizing the "Ne-outward; Ni-inward" distinction solely because it's imprecise, but because that imprecision, to me, misrepresents the core of the essential meaning, and presents an image of Ne-dominance that drastically differs from my own experience of it. I don't "constantly seek possibilities" so much as I pick up fairly quickly that one thing means a whole lot of other things, and that those things could mean even more. I'm not always looking to the future; I'm also often looking to the past to make sense of how we got to where we are today, and what pieces of the puzzle I'm missing. Ne, for me, is playful, but it's not childish or childlike in the least bit, as portrayals often make it out to be.

 

[Lady_X]

absurd could be described as childlike tho and i do see many ne users who appreciate absurdity but it doesn't mean that is the only expression of it.

 

[INTP]

Not sure I agree with normative statements like "valu[ing] the deeper understanding about this enough." It may be that their deeper understanding of the subject is simply different from, and not inferior to, our own. At the same time, I'm not criticizing the "Ne-outward; Ni-inward" distinction solely because it's imprecise, but because that imprecision, to me, misrepresents the core of the essential meaning, and presents an image of Ne-dominance that drastically differs from my own experience of it.

see below

I don't "constantly seek possibilities" so much as I pick up fairly quickly that one thing means a whole lot of other things, and that those things could mean even more. I'm not always looking to the future; I'm also often looking to the past to make sense of how we got to where we are today, and what pieces of the puzzle I'm missing. Ne, for me, is playful, but it's not childish or childlike in the least bit, as portrayals often make it out to be.

this is exactly the point. you say that you dont constantly seek possibilities, but the reason why you say that, is because you dont understand the whole point what jung meant with 'constantly seeking possibilities'. its not merely trying to figure out what you can do with an action figure and matches, its what creates the essentials needed for the underlined parts. jung is talking about the essentials of pretty much everything(which effect the whole mind in many different ways and in order to have deep understanding abut his work, you need to understand the essentials correctly), not the things more in the "surface"(like the underlined).

not being precise enough about stuff this complicated is the reason why the misconceptions about words happen, like in your case with the 'constantly seeking possibilities'. without precise explanations words get their meaning from who ever is interpreting them and because jung is so precise on his wording, giving even slightly wrong meaning to some words could distort the meaning of the whole thing(or some essential parts of it).

 

[Anew Leaf]

yep. but because this particular matter needs the precision(not to make sense in some level, but to fully understand it), if the precision is not appreciated, that means that the understanding between Ni and Ne is not appreciated enough to focus on the precision(like i mentioned before). maybe Fi needs more value for the matter to look into more precise descriptions, but that just shows that those Fi people who dont want the precision doesent value the deeper understanding about this enough. im ok with that, like i said, i dont mind if someone doesent want to read the whole text

OR

We get "it" already and don't need a longer explanation.

Oaky's post + Sky's post + INTPness' visual aid = epiphany, understanding, and a bowl of mango slices.

 

[Lady_X]

the bunE has a point

 

[King sns]

Barely anyone who enters the thread will read it. Be slightly more tactful and summarise to allow those who do not understand to understand things in a more 'for dummies' way.


Most have Ne down correctly.
But as for Ni...
Ni is not: "poof" an idea, which appears out of nowhere.

It is the analysis of the object within different dimensions to be able to see what the object may or may not be.

Let us take an object:

Humans:

- Homosapiens
- Molecules
- Moving objects
- Assembly of organs
- Tools of war

All such thoughts are what humans could be. Note: Every thought is connected to the object.

Cartoon:

- Lines and colours
- Light
- Pleasing sensory perceptions
- Distorted beings
- Many pictures
- Surrealism

All the such thoughts are what cartoons are, in different perceptions. Again, every thought is connected to the object. Not move on tangents as Ne tends to do.

it seems like Ne and Ni move opposite. i've heard all the functions + attitudes described as "conveyor belts" which can be switched clockwise/counterclockwise before, and i can see this on an "N" belt.

Ne, clearly, moves outward. you start at one point and look out into all the things it could be.

Ni, as oaky has demonstrated, moves inward. it takes all the points and finds the least common denominator.

they both share the philosophy that all things are, in essence, one thing. for Ne, one thing can become many things. for Ni, many things are, when distilled, one thing.

Maybe something like this?

Well, yeah, Ni is about focusing/honing in on something. Sticking to an idea, building upon it, taking other seemingly unrelated (but related) things to build upon that same idea. Not branching out into multiple ideas. It's always honing inwards and focusing on something, and sticking to that - aiming to grasp that 'one thing'/'truth' relevant to the situation at hand. Wanting that closure/resolution/finality/'answer' to that thing.

Anyway, I think this is my all-time favorite Ni thread on the forums... http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-other-personality-matrices/36241-ni-what-hell.html

Thank you guys for the above posts. I had the Ne down, but Ni is always so vague and up for interpretation. This is all very applicable, I'm understanding a lot better now. (Posts all happen to compliment each other nicely too, each post helping the other- complete with pictures! )

 

[onemoretime]

absurd could be described as childlike tho and i do see many ne users who appreciate absurdity but it doesn't mean that is the only expression of it.

It's funny, because for me, a childlike view is to take the world for what it is, uncritically. It's only when you get older, and understand that things generally follow from one another, that a person can appreciate the absurd.

this is exactly the point. you say that you dont constantly seek possibilities, but the reason why you say that, is because you dont understand the whole point what jung meant with 'constantly seeking possibilities'. its not merely trying to figure out what you can do with an action figure and matches, its what creates the essentials needed for the underlined parts. jung is talking about the essentials of pretty much everything, not the things more in the "surface"(like the underlined).

The part you're not seeing, though, is that I do understand how Jung meant it. However, I'm also not in a discussion with Jungian experts, but rather, a bunch of lay people who are interested in learning more about themselves, and about others. So, while Jung might mean one specific thing when he wrote in German, I notice a lot of people interpreting it in another way in English.

Let's also return to the word itself: Möglichkeit. Yes, "possibility" is a common way to translate this word. However, one may also translate it as "option," "chance," "eventuality," or "capability." Indeed, it means all of these things wrapped up together. I would agree that my experience of Ne involves seeking one or all of these principles in any given situation. However, simply limiting it to the connotation and denotation of "possibility" prevents it from hitting the mark. Those options, chances, eventualities, and capabilities all arise from categorizations, after all.

not being precise enough about stuff this complicated is the reason why the misconceptions about words happen, like in your case with the 'constantly seeking possibilities'. without precise explanations words get their meaning from who ever is interpreting them and because jung is so precise on his wording, giving even slightly wrong meaning to some words could distort the meaning of the whole thing(or some essential parts of it).

Honestly, I think it's the language divide more than anything. German nouns, especially for the philosophical and the psychological, have such distinct differences in their shades of meaning compared to their English equivalents.

 

[Lady_X]

sure yeah i can agree with that maybe i misunderstood your meaning then??

 

[uumlau]

Ni is now cooler than I ever imagined. I couldnt grasp it, no matter how much I read about it. Now the light bulb has gone off. Thanks to all who contributed to that. I have a new found respect for the processes of Ni. Not that I didn't respect my colleagues/co-workers before, but now I understand better why they are so focused and determined toward one conclusion, outcome, resolution. Whereas I'm like, "what about this? what about that? Have you considered this? Ohh, look, a bird. Ahhh, science is cool, but I also like art. Oh, what's on TV? I like seafood. What's your name? His name is Bob. I have a fishing bob. Have you ever gone fishing? Fishing = seafood = mmmm!" And the INTJ's are like:

This is good. I like hearing what kind of explanation works for non-Ni people.

You probably won't like me for this, but there's an extra twist to the "one conclusion, outcome, resolution." The conclusion "wiggles."

We don't know what the "right conclusion" is, yet, so we kind of fire "tracer bullets" and see where they land. (This is totally inside our heads, but occasionally our friends will hear this stream of consciousness thought pattern if we feel safe enough to share.) When the bullets miss, it looks like we just totally changed topics, or that we're going after a different goal, which isn't the case at all. Rather, the goal itself is very simple, usually along the lines of "any concrete resolution that satisfies the following conditions," which can be any of several disparate targets.

It's why INTJs have the reputation for "contingency planning": something happens to make a target unachievable. We already have (or can quickly conceive of) several other targets that will satisfy the conditions, and we pick whichever one of those that looks most favorable and head towards it.

Oh, and the goal can wiggle even more, due to other possibilities. E.g., given the list of conditions, we aren't above deleting a condition and checking whether it makes easier targets appear. This is no different than noting that of, say 10 requirements, 9 of them take all of 3 minutes to accomplish, but the 10th would take about a week. Is it worth a week to achieve that last requirement? Is that requirement totally necessary? Is a 3-minute, 90% solution satisfactory? Very often, the answer is "yes." And, sometimes, the answer is no, and we're stuck slogging our way to the goal for a week.

 

[INTP]

The part you're not seeing, though, is that I do understand how Jung meant it. However, I'm also not in a discussion with Jungian experts, but rather, a bunch of lay people who are interested in learning more about themselves, and about others. So, while Jung might mean one specific thing when he wrote in German, I notice a lot of people interpreting it in another way in English.

but why not just read jung? i mean its the knowledge that you are after anyways

Let's also return to the word itself: Möglichkeit. Yes, "possibility" is a common way to translate this word. However, one may also translate it as "option," "chance," "eventuality," or "capability." Indeed, it means all of these things wrapped up together. I would agree that my experience of Ne involves seeking one or all of these principles in any given situation. However, simply limiting it to the connotation and denotation of "possibility" prevents it from hitting the mark. Those options, chances, eventualities, and capabilities all arise from categorizations, after all.

Honestly, I think it's the language divide more than anything. German nouns, especially for the philosophical and the psychological, have such distinct differences in their shades of meaning compared to their English equivalents.

i know this, but the translation is done by professional jungian analysts, not just some random folks who do translations for living. its translated by H.G. Baynes, he was jungs apprentice. it was translated 1923(two after original), so i bet jung has reviewed the translation before it was published. if you read the text, you will see that its not just possibility, its all that you mentioned.. this is just another reason why precision is needed.