[Ni] Ni doms facts

[Turi]

Interesting. For comparison, as an Ne dom, my first question was "Which Harry Potter?" even though it is obvious which you meant. Still as dom intuitives we both had a first instinct to open up the problem by questioning parts of it rather than just accept it. I instinctively went for the external question of who and looked to create uncertainty where there really was none, whereas you've delved deeper into the meaning of real and questioned what/which reality, which I might have done further down the track once I'd questioned and verified the context. I actually quite like your approach because it shows an insight that even the concept of "reality" isn't something set in stone.

This of course would have absolutely nothing to do with Intuition and is instead best reflective of Thinking, if anything.

 

[BlueScreen]

This of course would have absolutely nothing to do with Intuition and is instead best reflective of Thinking, if anything.

Tertiary Te vs auxiliary Te? Or Fi considering the seemingly irrelevant and making progress over "don't reinvent the wheel" types by doing so? 😄

 

[Lib]

This of course would have absolutely nothing to do with Intuition and is instead best reflective of Thinking, if anything.

Like the rest of posts in the thread

 

[Coriolis]

Tertiary Te vs auxiliary Te? Or Fi considering the seemingly irrelevant and making progress over "don't reinvent the wheel" types by doing so? 😄

I agree with your initial assessment that it is a good example of the difference between Ne and Ni. Of course T would also be involved as no function operates in a vacuum but that isn't highlighted here.

 

[Turi]

Tertiary Te vs auxiliary Te? Or Fi considering the seemingly irrelevant and making progress over "don't reinvent the wheel" types by doing so? 😄

No, I'm saying nothing in the post I quoted has anything to do with intuition.
Feel free to read about intuitive types in Jungs Psychological Types - a simple search of "what is intuition?" will also suffice for a general understanding of what it is.

 

[1487610420]

cray af

 

[Lib]

No, I'm saying nothing in the post I quoted has anything to do with intuition.
Feel free to read about intuitive types in Jungs Psychological Types - a simple search of "what is intuition?" will also suffice for a general understanding of what it is.

You might wanna cite actual facts about Ni that you have read not your personal flawed interpretation of such.

Jung considers the intuition our unconscious perception, which is naturally influencing all other perceptions and judging functions because it's closer to the instinct for survival and therefore is much more superior. The logical outcome is that a Ni dom has the highest potential to make the realistic connection between oneself and the environment.

Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. Carl Jung

 

[Peter Deadpan]

cray af

Is this a confession?

 

[1487610420]

Is this a confession?

 

[BlueScreen]

No, I'm saying nothing in the post I quoted has anything to do with intuition. Feel free to read about intuitive types in Jungs Psychological Types - a simple search of "what is intuition?" will also suffice for a general understanding of what it is.

I looked and it says insights and other possibilities straight up in the intro (with Jung quoted). How does seeing there are other possibilities in this situation not relate to that? I'm guessing a sensor with the same judging functions might have just taken the question at face value.

Also, if you look at dominant judgers, they tend to just give answers without providing reasoning. I rarely see them entertaining these types of thoughts like an ENXP or INXJ would. For example, I'd be far more likely to discuss the things in my post with another ENXP or an INXJ than an INXP or an ENXJ. My INTP Dad would probably wonder why I was even bothing to consider such irrelevant possibilities.

Or were you saying that the differences that I highlighted weren't Ne/Ni specific? Which follows that they may not be Jung specific at all seeing that Coriolis and I prefer the same judging functions (although in a slightly different order - Te/Fi vs Fi/Te).

 

[Turi]

Interesting. For comparison, as an Ne dom, my first question was "Which Harry Potter?" even though it is obvious which you meant.

This is Thinking, Thinking is the function that seeks to understand the context of a thing (what it means, to quote Jung).

Still as dom intuitives we both had a first instinct to open up the problem by questioning parts of it rather than just accept it.

This is the product of a rational function. Irrational functions (Sensation and Intuition) are the ones that accept things as they come, as they observe and don't judge or question (in isolation, of course, which never happens - merely providing an example).

Rational functions (Thinking and Feeling) are what set out to determine what things mean or what their value is - seeking to question things is absolutely not intuition or sensation at work. It can't be. Asking questions is bound by the laws of reason. Which means, Thinking and Feeling.

I instinctively went for the external question of who and looked to create uncertainty where there really was none, whereas you've delved deeper into the meaning of real and questioned what/which reality, which I might have done further down the track once I'd questioned and verified the context.

None of this speaks to any irrational function. All rational - both perspectives. Thinking and Feeling again - you're talking about "verifying the context" here which is what Thinking seeks to do (understand what things mean - it can't do that, without being able to understand everything in context, from the start).

I actually quite like your approach because it shows an insight that even the concept of "reality" isn't something set in stone.

This is Feeling - noting you "like" the approach is Feeling - Feeling is what determines whether one likes or dislikes something, whether it is agreeable or disagreeable - you also provide a reason as to why you like it, which demonstrates some kind of differentiation of that Feeling.

There is nothing about what you provided that hints even remotely at intuition.

 

[Turi]

You might wanna cite actual facts about Ni that you have read not your personal flawed interpretation of such.

Jung considers the intuition our unconscious perception, which is naturally influencing all other perceptions and judging functions because it's closer to the instinct for survival and therefore is much more superior. The logical outcome is that a Ni dom has the highest potential to make the realistic connection between oneself and the environment.

Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. Carl Jung

Cite my "personal flawed interpretation" of Ni and explain why it is flawed.

Please note - I don't actually believe "Ni" is really a thing, from a Jungian perspective - and assuming you actually know what you're talking about, neither should you.
Rather, it would simply be an introverted type (as opposed to extraverted) that is also intuitive (as opposed to Sensation, Thinking and Feeling) - Ni itself isn't a function, as I'm sure you're aware.

So now if you'd kindly provide where exactly I provided a "flawed interpretation" of "Ni" - that'd be great.
Might be a tough one to find, as I don't think "Ni" is a function in and of itself.

 

[rav3n]

Irrational/perceiving functions (Ni, Ne, Si, Se) inform decision making functions (Ti, Te, Fi, Fe).

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Stress induced frantic masturbation.

This was one of young Freud's (get it?) hypotheses.

 

[Turi]

Still waiting, [MENTION=35676]Lib[/MENTION].

 

[Lib]

Cite my "personal flawed interpretation" of Ni and explain why it is flawed.

Please note - I don't actually believe "Ni" is really a thing, from a Jungian perspective - and assuming you actually know what you're talking about, neither should you.
Rather, it would simply be an introverted type (as opposed to extraverted) that is also intuitive (as opposed to Sensation, Thinking and Feeling) - Ni itself isn't a function, as I'm sure you're aware.

So now if you'd kindly provide where exactly I provided a "flawed interpretation" of "Ni" - that'd be great.
Might be a tough one to find, as I don't think "Ni" is a function in and of itself.

Well, you supported someone's flawed personal interpretation, which is essentially the same. The person in question described his use of an aux Ni and concluded it as a fact about how Ni works.

Jung attempted to describe unconscious perceptions, which he referred to as intuition, as a part of our overall perceptions that is a blind spot to us. Ni doms are therefore the ones who get in touch with this perception, turning the blind spot into a visible one. I find this observation of his true regardless of some of his theories about common unconsciousness being regarded as flawed by contemporary psychology.

I don't mind your speculating with ideas but don't understand why you refuse to take into account the basis of Jung's observation and perspective on Ni and their extension, true or not.

If everybody is allowed to speculate, what problem do you have with the rest of people speculating?

 

[Turi]

Well, you supported someone's flawed personal interpretation, which is essentially the same.

No, wrong, also there's no such thing as an "Ni dom" if we're going by Jungs work, as I outlined earlier.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Lib]

No, wrong, also there's no such thing as an "Ni dom" if we're going by Jungs work, as I outlined earlier.

Thanks for playing.

So Jung doesn't talk about introverted intuitive types? Are you sure?
Conversations with Carl Jung on the "Intuitive Extrovert" and "Intuitive Introvert."

 

[Turi]

So Jung doesn't talk about introverted intuitive types? Are you sure?
Conversations with Carl Jung on the "Intuitive Extrovert" and "Intuitive Introvert."

Worlds biggest stretch - "Ni dom" and "introverted intuitive type" are not the same thing at all - "Ni" isn't a function.
Feel free to read Psychological Types or anything else Jung wrote on type.

An "introverted intuitive type" is someone that is predominantly introverted over extraverted, and prefers intuition over sensation, thinking and feeling.
It's not a function in and of itself and is arguably best represented in the MBTI world as "INxx" as opposed to anything "Ni".

If you don't understand the difference, again, read the book.

I've read the conversation you posted before - I like how Jung portrays intuition as precisely what it is and is understood as being by the wider, non-MBTI community, in that it is essentially knowing something without knowing how you know (see: hunch), which is vastly different to the absolute nonsense that is forced onto "Ni" and "Si" by the MBTI community due to a forced attachment to the "J" dichotomy (it has absolutely nothing to do with planning, organizing, thinking up ideas, understanding concepts etc).

It's a great conversation - if you still feel I'm somehow, supporting a "flawed interpretation" of Jungs work - feel free to read the link you provided.

 

[Jaguar]

No, wrong, also there's no such thing as an "Ni dom" if we're going by Jungs work, as I outlined earlier.

Thanks for playing.

You don't have to "Bible it up" and strictly adhere to what someone wrote almost 100 years ago. It is your choice to do so.