[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Ni - What the hell is it?

[Zarathustra]

When I think of Ni, I think of the the Detective's monologue in V for Vendetta. I think it's a good example of how it can manifest.

I don't know if that helps anybody.

I think this is actually a very good example of Ni in action.

I remember watching it when it came out and thinking "that's what I do".

The best part is when the other guy asks if he knows what's gunna happen and he honestly says, "No, it was a feeling..."

"But I can guess...", as he goes on to describe exactly what happens.

Awesome scene.

The reason I think it's demonstrative of Ni (and most likely Ni+Te), is that it shows Ni "sliding along the time axis" -- as the Socionics descriptions are very keen to point out.

It's very similar to the Ni vision I spent an hour writing up the other day that got lost to the void, when I didn't foresee that, upon hitting submit, I was no longer logged in.

 

[TacEight]

It's very similar to the Ni vision I spent an hour writing up the other day that got lost to the void, when I didn't foresee that, upon hitting submit, I was no longer logged in.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/6984/

This has been one of the most anti-frustrating, useful, and outright computer-saved-being-thrown-out-a-window downloads of my life. Get it or continue to lose your Ni to stupid factors.

 

[Zarathustra]

Aye... thanks for the rec, but I use chrome...

 

[TacEight]

Aye... thanks for the rec, but I use chrome...

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/loljledaigphbcpfhfmgopdkppkifgno

Still in beta apparently

 

[Zarathustra]

Sweet. Thx

 

[Mr. Sherlock Holmes]

I find Chrome annoying.

 

[TacEight]

I find Chrome annoying.

Well hopefully you found at least something useful form your original post, hehehe. Kinda got off topic a few times.

 

[Mr. Sherlock Holmes]

Well hopefully you found at least something useful form your original post, hehehe. Kinda got off topic a few times.

Well I've only read about the first 10 or so pages and there was a lot of contradicting answers, but I think I got the jist.

Let's see if I can get this somewhat right.

Ne searches for external input and generates possibilities from recieving new information, coming up with many ideas.

Ni takes previous experience and looks at it from different perspectives until it finds one that fits it's unique vision, or contributes to shaping it.

Is that somewhat right?

 

[highlander]

Personally, I get a very "Ne" feel, from all of the "connections". It suggests an Ni perspective with the symbology (dominoes all falling in an orderly fashion, etc.).

I see Ne as being more of a "connect connect connect" seeing common objective/extroverted patterns that all relate to each other, suggesting an underlying order. Ni, on the other hand will just think, "Oh, it's this," and draw a conclusion, and Fe/Te will come along in a second pass and prove/disprove it.

Perhaps the clip can be regarded as Ne seeing the overall patterns of a partially-executed Ni/Te plan?

I don't know - you could be right but it seems like a decent example of Ni to me. There's a lot of talk about all the connections but the important thing I get out of it is the realization of "oh it's this" just as you describe. The key thing that I saw is the insight - the realization - which takes all these different things into account. He says he doesn't know what's going to happen and then goes along and says what's going to happen...

I think it's hard to find isolated functions in action because most of the time there are multiple ones at work in combination.

 

[Tamske]

The way I (at last) understand it: Ni belongs to a Judger, Ne to a Perceiver.
Ni is good for preparing things, for making plans. It will make all sorts of scenarios: this could happen, that could happen. It also works in the past: you could have done this instead and then...
When I'm preparing lessons, Ni can be very useful: "what if the students ask this? What if they start acting out? What if...?"
Ni is the reason why those _N_Js always seem to cover all bases. Well, they DO; they have thought out the possibilities beforehand. And if something goes wrong, they will incorporate this in their next plan.

This Perceiver's Ni comes up when I'm nervous. Then I can't think about anything but all sorts of disastrous scenarios. The problem is, in that case Ni is not helping at all. It doesn't generate scenarios in which solutions are present; which would make me better prepared indeed. Instead it's predicting "you'll fail" scenarios all night long. If I'm really rnervous, it's Ni which keeps me awake all night.

Ne? No, even a dominant Ne doesn't come up with solutions beforehand. That one comes up with ideas on the spot.
When preparing, Ne says: "Don't worry! We'll see! Let's do something fun instead."
Ni: "Whatever you prepare, the situation will be different and you'll fail!" (a better Ni probably comes up with more ideas than just "you'll fail", at least, I hope so for our Ni users out there!)
Ne: "You see? Preparation is useless. But you'll succeed, trust me."

To correct the extremely pessimistic view: even my Ni comes up with useful scenarios once in a while But it's the most thought-occupying when I'm in the "I'll fail anyway" mood. Well, Ni is supposed to be my "opposing" function in the archetype theory!

 

[TacEight]

Honestly I'd suggest that leans more toward utilizing what our N/S sees as either Te or Ti.

To me:

Ne is the broad sight of what many things could be, make up, or transpire to.

Ni is the brought sight of a thing could be, help facilitate, or transpire to occur.

Hmmm very difficult to put into words, but let's say if an Ne user and Ni user are asked to solve a problem: find a way for this village to maintain a self sufficient water system.

The Ni may begin by thinking of various water systems (perhaps the "previous experience" you were referring to), and how each one would come into play. (This one would cost too much to get, ruling it out. System B would take too many resources to keep it going, ruling it out. System C may work, but in 5 years the iron used will rust and need repairs. Fixing the current system may only last 8 years but will need to be completely replaced then.) The Ne person may not start as directly or focused: how can we reduce the need for water in the first place? Can we implement a system which would reduce the amount of water needed, and just fix the current system?

The Ne user may not see as many options as the Ni users right away, but would probably see them eventually if they had time to allow their subconscious to consider it. However the Ni user may see more, yet pick one which would not yield the better of the two results, as they see the initial implementation and promise, and were not focused on the long-term investment. Both could come to similar/identical conclusions if given enough time--but so could an Se or Si. It's the process in which it is viewed that is different, allowing for completely different perspectives.

Your question brought me to my research a few days ago, found here. Dunno if you saw it, but it helped me understand both much better, as I can use both but am more naturally focused on Ne.

 

[TacEight]

The way I (at last) understand it: Ni belongs to a Judger, Ne to a Perceiver.
Ni is good for preparing things, for making plans. It will make all sorts of scenarios: this could happen, that could happen. It also works in the past: you could have done this instead and then...
When I'm preparing lessons, Ni can be very useful: "what if the students ask this? What if they start acting out? What if...?"
Ni is the reason why those _N_Js always seem to cover all bases. Well, they DO; they have thought out the possibilities beforehand. And if something goes wrong, they will incorporate this in their next plan.

This Perceiver's Ni comes up when I'm nervous. Then I can't think about anything but all sorts of disastrous scenarios. The problem is, in that case Ni is not helping at all. It doesn't generate scenarios in which solutions are present; which would make me better prepared indeed. Instead it's predicting "you'll fail" scenarios all night long. If I'm really rnervous, it's Ni which keeps me awake all night.

Ne? No, even a dominant Ne doesn't come up with solutions beforehand. That one comes up with ideas on the spot.
When preparing, Ne says: "Don't worry! We'll see! Let's do something fun instead."
Ni: "Whatever you prepare, the situation will be different and you'll fail!" (a better Ni probably comes up with more ideas than just "you'll fail", at least, I hope so for our Ni users out there!)
Ne: "You see? Preparation is useless. But you'll succeed, trust me."

To correct the extremely pessimistic view: even my Ni comes up with useful scenarios once in a while But it's the most thought-occupying when I'm in the "I'll fail anyway" mood. Well, Ni is supposed to be my "opposing" function in the archetype theory!

Very fascinating observation. NJs use Ni, where NPs use Ne. S' may fluctuate but they use S primarily anyhow, and thus make the point much less tangible. This does indeed allow for some insight, in my opinion.

 

[Mr. Sherlock Holmes]

The way I (at last) understand it: Ni belongs to a Judger, Ne to a Perceiver.
Ni is good for preparing things, for making plans. It will make all sorts of scenarios: this could happen, that could happen. It also works in the past: you could have done this instead and then...
When I'm preparing lessons, Ni can be very useful: "what if the students ask this? What if they start acting out? What if...?"
Ni is the reason why those _N_Js always seem to cover all bases. Well, they DO; they have thought out the possibilities beforehand. And if something goes wrong, they will incorporate this in their next plan.

I think the 'on the spot' thinking is more Ne dominant than Ne in general. I've heard it may be because Ti Ne is a bit like Ni (maybe these functions can turn into each other and that's why types next to each other eg INTJ/P are so similar despite having totally different functions) but INPs at least tend to consider a lot, or at least more, possible problems than ENPs. What we lose in spontaneity and momentum we make up for in caution and preparation. I will often assess every possibility, or at least most, before taking an important action, but I am a Ti Ne user.

 

[Kalach]

The way I (at last) understand it: Ni belongs to a Judger, Ne to a Perceiver.
Ni is good for preparing things, for making plans. It will make all sorts of scenarios: this could happen, that could happen. It also works in the past: you could have done this instead and then...
When I'm preparing lessons, Ni can be very useful: "what if the students ask this? What if they start acting out? What if...?"
Ni is the reason why those _N_Js always seem to cover all bases. Well, they DO; they have thought out the possibilities beforehand. And if something goes wrong, they will incorporate this in their next plan.

This Perceiver's Ni comes up when I'm nervous. Then I can't think about anything but all sorts of disastrous scenarios. The problem is, in that case Ni is not helping at all. It doesn't generate scenarios in which solutions are present; which would make me better prepared indeed. Instead it's predicting "you'll fail" scenarios all night long. If I'm really rnervous, it's Ni which keeps me awake all night.

Ne? No, even a dominant Ne doesn't come up with solutions beforehand. That one comes up with ideas on the spot.
When preparing, Ne says: "Don't worry! We'll see! Let's do something fun instead."
Ni: "Whatever you prepare, the situation will be different and you'll fail!" (a better Ni probably comes up with more ideas than just "you'll fail", at least, I hope so for our Ni users out there!)
Ne: "You see? Preparation is useless. But you'll succeed, trust me."

To correct the extremely pessimistic view: even my Ni comes up with useful scenarios once in a while But it's the most thought-occupying when I'm in the "I'll fail anyway" mood. Well, Ni is supposed to be my "opposing" function in the archetype theory!

Si.

 

[Kalach]

The particular context/problem is the one of meditation and reaching of "spiritual enlightenment" and how this relates to jungian notions of the self, the ego and the jungian cognitive functions. A link which does a good job of outlining the stages, disregard the spiritual stuff :http://www.swamij.com/types-stages-meditation.htm

I am of the not especially humble opinion that most versions of meditation end up being variations on practices for reaching into the less conscious functions. One assumes the particular spiritual enlightenment that any given person suffers therefore differs in content and utility, but shares the same form of requiring all normal functioning to be stilled and waiting without expectation to see what happens next. And the enlightenment seemingly typically takes some form of finding wholeness or togetherness or the underlying meaning of everything you do, and given the supposed nature of the inferior function, that function--whichever that function is for you--and not "Ni" is the primo candidate for being the source of that enlightenment.

Observe also that if "spiritual enlightenment" is indeed some previously unreached Ni construction within your soul, then not only am I likely to be more spiritually enlightened than you, it also costs me next to no effort to reach the state. Booyah.

There are several stages in meditation which seem to be reaching for an Ni-ish perspective of the world. A single point focus on one object, an emotional detachment from the external world/past in order to study the object, perceiving the object in many ways-without words, an internalization of the object, a becoming of one with the object, rendering the object a "purer internal representation". Once there internal thoughts are regarding as passing things and disregarded-seemingly a bit like the stream analogy...

Sitting still in the midst of the thoughts that pass by? In Jungs' Pschcology and the East he mentions a man who looked deeper and deeper into that empty quiet space, peeling back layers and layers, going deeper and deeper to come face to face with the jungian "self"-which might be comparable to your "haemorrhoid of consciousness". Sounds painful.

i am interested in understanding if the quiet place of silence is actually Ni or if it is a place where external perception has stopped or been disregarded altogether-thus is a no man's land of jungian functions where no perception or judging occurs.

The dream of the land far far away where everything was beautiful and roses were roses.

Si.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Personally, I get a very "Ne" feel, from all of the "connections". It suggests an Ni perspective with the symbology (dominoes all falling in an orderly fashion, etc.).

I don't know - you could be right but it seems like a decent example of Ni to me. There's a lot of talk about all the connections but the important thing I get out of it is the realization of "oh it's this" just as you describe.

"I had this feeling that everything was connected ... I felt like I could see everything that had happened ... everything that was going to happen. It was like a perfect pattern ..." To me, the detective's monologue is Ne; but the montage of the clips is illustrative of Ni.

Ne looks toward the future too, and it does sound like this - "I don't know what will happen, but I can guess. Someone will do something stupid ..." Ne entertains more options moving forward, but doesn't narrow down as quickly to what is more or less probable; Ne focusses and focusses the closer we get to real time. This is where I see Ni being so different - this confidence in a single outcome. This ability to piece together and weed out and draw one conclusion rather than entertaining a wider scattershot of outcomes.

Hmmm very difficult to put into words, but let's say if an Ne user and Ni user are asked to solve a problem: find a way for this village to maintain a self sufficient water system.

The Ni may begin by thinking of various water systems (perhaps the "previous experience" you were referring to), and how each one would come into play. (This one would cost too much to get, ruling it out. System B would take too many resources to keep it going, ruling it out. System C may work, but in 5 years the iron used will rust and need repairs. Fixing the current system may only last 8 years but will need to be completely replaced then.) The Ne person may not start as directly or focused: how can we reduce the need for water in the first place? Can we implement a system which would reduce the amount of water needed, and just fix the current system?

The Ne user may not see as many options as the Ni users right away, but would probably see them eventually if they had time to allow their subconscious to consider it. However the Ni user may see more, yet pick one which would not yield the better of the two results, as they see the initial implementation and promise, and were not focused on the long-term investment. Both could come to similar/identical conclusions if given enough time--but so could an Se or Si. It's the process in which it is viewed that is different, allowing for completely different perspectives.

Hmm, I disagree with your example, at least from my own vantage point. I'd be flying off on a dozen tangents immediately, those you have attributed to Ni here ... I would seemingly though have to do extra work to narrow the options down, compared to a proficient Ni user. It seems to me Ni more quickly or expediently takes options off the table through this sense of "knowing" what will work better or not.

However, I suspect Ni limits itself at times if the process is rushed or forced or subject to the prejudice of the particular Ni-er using the function.

Just as zero is the number that is no number, so is Ni the understanding of all things. Oom.

Observe also that if "spiritual enlightenment" is indeed some previously unreached Ni construction within your soul, then not only am I likely to be more spiritually enlightened than you, it also costs me next to no effort to reach the state. Booyah.

Kalach, it's not hard to see why you rub some folks the wrong way. I feel a strong urge to give you an Fi schooling. But no doubt you already see it coming.

 

[Kalach]

Kalach, it's not hard to see why you rub some folks the wrong way. I feel a strong urge to give you an Fi schooling. But no doubt you already see it coming.

Both of those quoted passages are perhaps something other than you think. Using zero as the exemplar number hints at the nature of what the purest of pure Ni products may be: zip. Empty. Absent. The understanding of all things is the reduction of all things to zero. The most common of common factors. The one and only thing that all things share. Zero.

And the spiritual enlightenment blurb was what we call a counterfactual. That spiritual enlightenment is, as worldly experience will tell us, hardly spiritual nor enlightenment if it is available without even reflection, the suggestion that true spiritual enlightenment is something to do with introverted intuition is suggested not to be fact. Spiritual enlightenment may be pleasantly and useful imaged by comparing it to the more mystical of descriptions of Ni, but as Ne will fail to tell you, they won't be identical. Booyah.



Go on, admit. People hype their own functions. And in a sense they have to, because literally how does anyone get by without promoting their own fundamental imperatives? The cool trick of typology is the observation that not only does everyone have cognitive imperatives, but that they can and do have different cognitive imperatives AND THEY"RE STILL NORMAL! Live and let live, motorscooters, for you can see one eighth of the interlocking entirety of what is, far better than the other guy.

I think it's one eighth. My math may be off.

 

[sculpting]

"I had this feeling that everything was connected ... I felt like I could see everything that had happened ... everything that was going to happen. It was like a perfect pattern ..." To me, the detective's monologue is Ne; but the montage of the clips is illustrative of Ni.

Ne looks toward the future too, and it does sound like this - "I don't know what will happen, but I can guess. Someone will do something stupid ..." Ne entertains more options moving forward, but doesn't narrow down as quickly to what is more or less probable; Ne focusses and focusses the closer we get to real time. This is where I see Ni being so different - this confidence in a single outcome. This ability to piece together and weed out and draw one conclusion rather than entertaining a wider scattershot of outcomes.

Typically I dont do movie typing, as it is so confusing to try and decipher script from director from actor, assuming the author of the script even had a realistic picture of society in mind. Ayn Rand wrote novels that struck me as very surreal when I was young, as she left entire pieces of society out of her books. The same thing with novels by CH Chyrrah and the book "the Giver". All feel very surreal as they arent representing reality, but a very skewed sense of reality. V seems to be much like this as well. Thus any analysis is speculative, truth be told.

"No it was a feeling, but I can guess....
So much chaos, someone will do something stupid...
When they do things will turn nasty....
and then (suttler) will be forced to do the only thing he knows how...
At which point all V needs to do is keep his word...."​

The observations and predictions are very Fi based wrt to V and settler (?), an understanding of an individual's psyche, which are combined with a very rough, sketched out pattern based on an understanding of what the group will choose to do-a very NeTe sort of approach with an Fi underpinning. Would this sort of analysis and insight come naturally to an INTJ? Was Filch consistently portrayed as an INTJ in the story?

But the frumpy ones may have a point wrt to the way it is being recited-almost in a state of hyperfocus...Ni-ishly so. So I dunno, maybe some sort of Ni-ing of an NeFiTe pattern after the fact.

I am very intrigued by Z's mention of timelines, as time is not important in building a pattern, but only becomes important once the pattern is complete-then you can rock the NeTe pattern back and forth to measure past against present against future and make predictions....

 

[sculpting]

The dream of the land far far away where everything was beautiful and roses were roses.
Si.

We are so greatly tempted to turn everything into a purpose and a method that I deliberately express myself in a very abstract terms in order to avoid prejudicing the reader one way or the other. The new thing must not be pigeon holed under any heading for then it becomes a recipe to be used mechanically and it again would be a case of the "right means in the hands of the wrong man".​

-Jung

But if other people cannot understand the Ni vision, for the vision to be of use, it must be translated into something they can perceive and use as a tool.

And why do Ni doms always change the subject in mid conversation....

I am of the not especially humble opinion that most versions of meditation end up being variations on practices for reaching into the less conscious functions. One assumes the particular spiritual enlightenment that any given person suffers therefore differs in content and utility, but shares the same form of requiring all normal functioning to be stilled and waiting without expectation to see what happens next.

The question is not one of how to reach "spiritual enlightenment" (look Si!) or what spiritual enlightenment is (more Si!), but more an interest in what exactly (Si) is being achieved by the individuals who compile detailed descriptions (Si) of the sort in the earlier post (Si). It seems to parallel some parts of Ni descriptions (Si but only wrt to the early descriptions) in this thread (Ne), indicating the original authors may be innate Ni doms (Ne to Si).

One speculation is that the results of meditation may depend upon the starting dominant function of a given individual, thus final destination and progress/experience cognitively during the practice will differ. Given the variety of meditative techniques and the variety of individuals, it would be premature to conclude if those techniques are accessing the more unconscious functions or not.

And the enlightenment seemingly typically takes some form of finding wholeness or togetherness or the underlying meaning of everything you do, and given the supposed nature of the inferior function, that function--whichever that function is for you--and not "Ni" is the primo candidate for being the source of that enlightenment.

Again, the goal is not understanding enlightenment as a goal, but instead a better understanding of a specific aspect of certain meditative practices which cite an cessation of thought and an obsession with the object. However one could argue that enlightenment might equate to a balancing of cognitive functions, especially the top four, but perhaps others as well, into a more healthy level of functioning. The goal of enlightenment might well be only a reflection of what those functions seek, where an "enlightened" balance thus would be a type dependent result.

Observe also that if "spiritual enlightenment" is indeed some previously unreached Ni construction within your soul, then not only am I likely to be more spiritually enlightened than you, it also costs me next to no effort to reach the state. Booyah.

yes, i noted that. INTJs dont exhibit traits suggesting they are at peace with the surrounding world, so obviously for an Ni dom, more Ni may not be the solution.

Both of those quoted passages are perhaps something other than you think. Using zero as the exemplar number hints at the nature of what the purest of pure Ni products may be: zip. Empty. Absent. The understanding of all things is the reduction of all things to zero. The most common of common factors. The one and only thing that all things share. Zero.

perhaps there is value in this...Is this where Ni starts when there are no Ni contexts at hand that are applicable to the problem under study?

And the spiritual enlightenment blurb was what we call a counterfactual. That spiritual enlightenment is, as worldly experience will tell us, hardly spiritual nor enlightenment if it is available without even reflection, the suggestion that true spiritual enlightenment is something to do with introverted intuition is suggested not to be fact. Spiritual enlightenment may be pleasantly and useful imaged by comparing it to the more mystical of descriptions of Ni, but as Ne will fail to tell you, they won't be identical. Booyah.

addressed above. Si tells you, not Ne btw.

 

[Kalach]

We are so greatly tempted to turn everything into a purpose and a method that I deliberately express myself in a very abstract terms in order to avoid prejudicing the reader one way or the other. The new thing must not be pigeon holed under any heading for then it becomes a recipe to be used mechanically and it again would be a case of the "right means in the hands of the wrong man".​

-Jung

But if other people cannot understand the Ni vision, for the vision to be of use, it must be translated into something they can perceive and use as a tool.

Of use to them? Pfft. Visioneering isn't a service industry.

Like for example, quoting lengthy posts and appending merely one word, "Si." Am I indeed the one to tell people how to address the presence of their inferior function? If I am, you humble servants of right and wrong are seriously not paying me enough.


No subject is ever changed. All subjects are one.