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

[Oaky]

To put it briefly:
Ni tries to 'see through the facade'. Analysis of why something happens rather than how it happens. It looks for reason.
Ne tries to see how things are played out whether it's 'how it happened' or 'how it will happen'. It looks for the connections from one thing to another.

I want to rephrase,

Ni tends to form in the manner an individual sees a scenario or situation. It is the abstract understanding that is subjective to the individual. This formulates the basis of perceptions and how it alters. So for example: An Ni user may see the idea of a dangerous man as a misunderstood man.

Similarly, Si is the sensorial understanding or experience that is subjective to the individual. This will formulate in the senses and how it is altered upon the individual. So for example: An Si user may see a baby as a beautiful object that incites a pleasant subjective sensory experience.

Ne however, is the formulation of a scenario or situation in an abstract form without the subjective alterations of how the individual sees it. This would mean that if an individual were to see an object or scenario, it formulates connections with other objects or scenarios. The perception would not be altered. So for the example of the dangerous man: An Ne user may see the dangerous man and the backstory to how the dangerous man became dangerous. (His past history, psychology, etc.) The dangerous man is still dangerous.

Similarly, Se is without the subjective alterations of what Si is. It is pure and unchanged sensory information that the body itself is biologically exposed to feeling. It is not altered by the subjective mind. So for the example of the baby: An Se user will see the baby as it is and would more often than not (without the judging functions), experience no appeal in it.

 

[five sounds]

 

[Coriolis]

True. My description of Ni is actually a description of Ni-Aux; it's how an ENTJ would use their Ni.

Matter of fact, my description of Ne is actually a description of Ne-Aux; it's how I use my Ne (I'm an INFP).

Still, I think the examples that I provided are valid in terms of pointing out the main points of differentiation between Ne and Ni: Brainstorming and thinking outside the box by pinging on what's happening around oneself (Ne) vs. juggling a matrix of multiple variables in an internal laboratory (Ni). My use of Auxiliary versions of the two functions kind of simplifies things, for purposes of illustrating the functions.

The functions do differ in use based on where in someone's preferences they fall. It is interesting to note these differences. Fundamentally I see Ne as divergent: brainstorming in many directions from a central point, need, goal, or question. Ni, by contrast, is convergent: pulling in related tidbits to form a single conclusion or vision.

 

[Ene]

An analogy for me is: (building on what @Coriolissaid ) Two people look at an object. Let's just say a bicycle. Ne sees a wheel and generates a million possibilities about what it could be and how it could be used; it takes one idea and spits out multiple possibilities. It needs to keep options open and ideas generating to operate at peek effeciency.

Ni looks at the bike,instinctively absorbs all of the parts in order to see the whole and formulates a single notion derived from the absorbtion of a multitude of stimuli. It takes in its surroundings, data, etc, unfiltered then syntesizes the information to gain an understanding. It needs to produce something as an end result.

In theory (mine, of course) if an Ne dominant individual and an Ni dominant individual were working together, Ne might initially generate loads of theories, tons of ideas, then Ni would absorb them all and generate a singularity that tied them all together and the combined efforts of both individuals could theoretically create something outstanding.

I don't think Ni is the big mystery that so many people make it out to be. it's the hunch we get, the gut feeling, the unexplained understanding. here are some thoughts. With Se it could absorb physical surroundings and accurately derive a conclusion to a natural event, a sports event or even weather pattern. It could allow a mechanic to instinctively gage what is probably wrong with a vehicle, a fighter to anticipate his opponents moves, etc.

With Fe it could take into account the emotional state of others and possibly predict a person's reaction and even navigate socially to diffuse intense situations prior to escalation. It could allow a writer to engage a reader with characters that feel real. It might allow a counselor to absorb details about a patient that she didn't know she was absorbing and to make an accurate diagnosis.(In some individuals, it could be used to manipulate and control.)

With Te it could assimilate, effortlessly, large amounts of external information to arrive at the most logical, efficient and effective means of achieving a goal. It could assist a doctor in making an accurate diagnosis for patients, a scientist in formulating a theory based on data that has been assimilated without real intent. So a person ends up "knowing" without recalling where they learned. Ni absorbs, sorts and formulate like a computer program that is running without the PC user consciously being aware that it's running.

 

[Avocado]

An analogy for me is: (building on what [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]said ) Two people look at an object. Let's just say a bicycle. Ne sees a wheel and generates a million possibilities about what it could be and how it could be used; it takes one idea and generates multiple possibilities. It needs to keep options open and ideas generating to operate at peek effeciency.

Ni looks at the bike,instinctively absorbs all of the parts in order to see the whole and formulates a single notion derived from the absorbtion of a multitude of stimuli. It takes in its surroundings, data, etc, unfiltered then syntesizes the information to gain an understanding. It needs to produce something as an end result.

In theory (mine, of course) if an Ne dominant individual and an Ni dominant individual were working together, Ne might initially generate loads of theories, tons of ideas, then Ni would absorb them all and generate a singularity that tied them all together and the combined efforts of both individuals could theoretically create something outstanding.

What function is blankness followed by sudden insight?

 

[Coriolis]

What function is blankness followed by sudden insight?

I don't know if that describes any function well. Ni is more like meaninglessness followed by sudden insight. Sort of like dumping all the puzzle pieces onto the table in a jumble, then suddenly knowing what it all is going to look like when put together. The view isn't blank at the outset, it just doesn't have any obvious meaning or coherence.

 

[prplchknz]

I don't know if that describes any function well. Ni is more like meaninglessness followed by sudden insight. Sort of like dumping all the puzzle pieces onto the table in a jumble, then suddenly knowing what it all is going to look like when put together. The view isn't blank at the outset, it just doesn't have any obvious meaning or coherence.

I relate to this I think. I get a lot of aha! moments, but unless i think really hard and reflect i won't know where they came from. usually i'll sit there and figure out where the aha! came from. Unless you're saying something completely different. then no i don't relate. well maybe because i could still relate but i wouldn't know I related because I don't know what the correct interpretation of what you said is if my interpretation is wrong.

 

[Ene]

I don't know if that describes any function well. Ni is more like meaninglessness followed by sudden insight. Sort of like dumping all the puzzle pieces onto the table in a jumble, then suddenly knowing what it all is going to look like when put together. The view isn't blank at the outset, it just doesn't have any obvious meaning or coherence.

Yes! Great explanation.

[MENTION=18694]Magic Qwan[/MENTION] just now I edited and when I hit "save" my iPad seemed to freeze or be doing nothing. Yet, it was only inactive on the surface. It was actually doing more than I care to put into words. Ni is much like that. The blankness occurs when "the program" is running. Often the Ni user cant put into words whats happening. There really should be a " Please Wait" sign that appears on our foreheads when this is happening!

 

[Avocado]

I don't know if that describes any function well. Ni is more like meaninglessness followed by sudden insight. Sort of like dumping all the puzzle pieces onto the table in a jumble, then suddenly knowing what it all is going to look like when put together. The view isn't blank at the outset, it just doesn't have any obvious meaning or coherence.

Yes, THAT is my experience.

 

[Avocado]

Yes! Great explanation.

[MENTION=18694]Magic Qwan[/MENTION] just now I edited and when I hit "save" my iPad seemed to freeze or be doing nothing. Yet, it was only inactive on the surface. It was actually doing more than I care to put into words. Ni is much like that. The blankness occurs when "the program" is running. Often the Ni user cant put into words whats happening. There really should be a " Please Wait" sign that appears on our foreheads when this is happening!

Hence why I frustrate people. They interrupt the process and I never get to the insight part. I've found that if a task is really really important, I should work on it ALONE. My emotional side draws me out to want to help people and want to make them feel better and not hurt. Then my then my logical side can find the best way to reach that goal after a deep analysis of all the facts.

 

[uumlau]

Everyone gets those "a ha!" insights. That isn't Ni or Ne. It's just human.

The way to differentiate the perceiving functions is to understand what they're typically looking at. Se is looking at concrete reality in the moment, aware of it to a point that would amaze non-Se types if it could be fully conveyed. Si types are looking at their internal understanding of concrete reality, to the point that they experience that internal concrete reality far more strongly than the external version. Ne types look at the patterns in the external world; not at things so much as how the things are organized, what they connect to. Ni instead looks at internal patterns that (to Ni) describe all that is important about external reality.

In practice, Ni does one thing very well that the other perceiving functions don't do: it synthesizes ideas. It is in fact the results of this synthesis that the Ni type remembers as "the truth". The reason that Ni ends up seeming so much more odd than the other functions is that these synthesized ideas are not easily articulated (i.e., conveyed in words); rather, pieces of these ideas can be conveyed as they manifest in the real world. For instance, an Ni physicist doesn't typically memorize formulas, but rather remembers how things fit together in a non-verbal sort of way, and uses formulas to convey those "how things fit together" ideas in specific instances.

The part that Coriolis is talking about above is the act of synthesis: you look at something, it doesn't make sense, but you keep on looking, juggling what you seen in your head, and suddenly something clicks and it all makes sense. And the resulting "makes sense" isn't some sort of factoid understanding, but a kind of understanding that necessarily implies a whole bunch of other truths that are not immediately visible. E.g., suddenly understanding the concept of gravity as not only a force that makes things fall to the ground, but also the force that makes the planets go around the sun, makes a pendulum operate, makes rivers flow, and even the force that makes helium-filled balloons fall up, and so on. Another way to look at it is that while all types get "a ha!" events, Ni types seem to be very skilled at making them happen, by habitually synthesizing ideas.

Interestingly, we Ni types can detect other Ni types via this synthetic understanding: we only need to explain a couple of essential parts of an idea, and the other Ni types instantly understand all the implications. Non-Ni types don't respond that way. Even Ne types who understand the basic idea don't respond that way, but instead branch out on tangents an Ni type wouldn't follow. This isn't to say that there is something inherently smarter or more intelligent in Ni types, just that the connection in terms of understanding ideas is clear. (And, like the Babel Fish, such mutual understanding doesn't really guarantee that the Ni types get along.)

 

[Evo]

I want to rephrase,

Ni tends to form in the manner an individual sees a scenario or situation. It is the abstract understanding that is subjective to the individual. This formulates the basis of perceptions and how it alters. So for example: An Ni user may see the idea of a dangerous man as a misunderstood man.

Similarly, Si is the sensorial understanding or experience that is subjective to the individual. This will formulate in the senses and how it is altered upon the individual. So for example: An Si user may see a baby as a beautiful object that incites a pleasant subjective sensory experience.

Ne however, is the formulation of a scenario or situation in an abstract form without the subjective alterations of how the individual sees it. This would mean that if an individual were to see an object or scenario, it formulates connections with other objects or scenarios. The perception would not be altered. So for the example of the dangerous man: An Ne user may see the dangerous man and the backstory to how the dangerous man became dangerous. (His past history, psychology, etc.) The dangerous man is still dangerous.

Similarly, Se is without the subjective alterations of what Si is. It is pure and unchanged sensory information that the body itself is biologically exposed to feeling. It is not altered by the subjective mind. So for the example of the baby: An Se user will see the baby as it is and would more often than not (without the judging functions), experience no appeal in it.

This is similar my understanding of the perceiving functions. I like how you have worded everything.

 

[Avocado]

Everyone gets those "a ha!" insights. That isn't Ni or Ne. It's just human.

The way to differentiate the perceiving functions is to understand what they're typically looking at. Se is looking at concrete reality in the moment, aware of it to a point that would amaze non-Se types if it could be fully conveyed. Si types are looking at their internal understanding of concrete reality, to the point that they experience that internal concrete reality far more strongly than the external version. Ne types look at the patterns in the external world; not at things so much as how the things are organized, what they connect to. Ni instead looks at internal patterns that (to Ni) describe all that is important about external reality.

In practice, Ni does one thing very well that the other perceiving functions don't do: it synthesizes ideas. It is in fact the results of this synthesis that the Ni type remembers as "the truth". The reason that Ni ends up seeming so much more odd than the other functions is that these synthesized ideas are not easily articulated (i.e., conveyed in words); rather, pieces of these ideas can be conveyed as they manifest in the real world. For instance, an Ni physicist doesn't typically memorize formulas, but rather remembers how things fit together in a non-verbal sort of way, and uses formulas to convey those "how things fit together" ideas in specific instances.

The part that Coriolis is talking about above is the act of synthesis: you look at something, it doesn't make sense, but you keep on looking, juggling what you seen in your head, and suddenly something clicks and it all makes sense. And the resulting "makes sense" isn't some sort of factoid understanding, but a kind of understanding that necessarily implies a whole bunch of other truths that are not immediately visible. E.g., suddenly understanding the concept of gravity as not only a force that makes things fall to the ground, but also the force that makes the planets go around the sun, makes a pendulum operate, makes rivers flow, and even the force that makes helium-filled balloons fall up, and so on. Another way to look at it is that while all types get "a ha!" events, Ni types seem to be very skilled at making them happen, by habitually synthesizing ideas.

Interestingly, we Ni types can detect other Ni types via this synthetic understanding: we only need to explain a couple of essential parts of an idea, and the other Ni types instantly understand all the implications. Non-Ni types don't respond that way. Even Ne types who understand the basic idea don't respond that way, but instead branch out on tangents an Ni type wouldn't follow. This isn't to say that there is something inherently smarter or more intelligent in Ni types, just that the connection in terms of understanding ideas is clear. (And, like the Babel Fish, such mutual understanding doesn't really guarantee that the Ni types get along.)

This makes sense. Ni sounds like [MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION], lol.

 

[prplchknz]

Everyone gets those "a ha!" insights. That isn't Ni or Ne. It's just human.

The way to differentiate the perceiving functions is to understand what they're typically looking at. Se is looking at concrete reality in the moment, aware of it to a point that would amaze non-Se types if it could be fully conveyed. Si types are looking at their internal understanding of concrete reality, to the point that they experience that internal concrete reality far more strongly than the external version. Ne types look at the patterns in the external world; not at things so much as how the things are organized, what they connect to. Ni instead looks at internal patterns that (to Ni) describe all that is important about external reality.

In practice, Ni does one thing very well that the other perceiving functions don't do: it synthesizes ideas. It is in fact the results of this synthesis that the Ni type remembers as "the truth". The reason that Ni ends up seeming so much more odd than the other functions is that these synthesized ideas are not easily articulated (i.e., conveyed in words); rather, pieces of these ideas can be conveyed as they manifest in the real world. For instance, an Ni physicist doesn't typically memorize formulas, but rather remembers how things fit together in a non-verbal sort of way, and uses formulas to convey those "how things fit together" ideas in specific instances.

The part that Coriolis is talking about above is the act of synthesis: you look at something, it doesn't make sense, but you keep on looking, juggling what you seen in your head, and suddenly something clicks and it all makes sense. And the resulting "makes sense" isn't some sort of factoid understanding, but a kind of understanding that necessarily implies a whole bunch of other truths that are not immediately visible. E.g., suddenly understanding the concept of gravity as not only a force that makes things fall to the ground, but also the force that makes the planets go around the sun, makes a pendulum operate, makes rivers flow, and even the force that makes helium-filled balloons fall up, and so on. Another way to look at it is that while all types get "a ha!" events, Ni types seem to be very skilled at making them happen, by habitually synthesizing ideas.

Interestingly, we Ni types can detect other Ni types via this synthetic understanding: we only need to explain a couple of essential parts of an idea, and the other Ni types instantly understand all the implications. Non-Ni types don't respond that way. Even Ne types who understand the basic idea don't respond that way, but instead branch out on tangents an Ni type wouldn't follow. This isn't to say that there is something inherently smarter or more intelligent in Ni types, just that the connection in terms of understanding ideas is clear. (And, like the Babel Fish, such mutual understanding doesn't really guarantee that the Ni types get along.)

ok thank you, I was wondering though for me I'll be like this is a bad idea or blah blah is wrong and I'll know they're wrong but I don't know why they're wrong and I end up being right about them being wrong. but I don't argue or say anything because they won't listen unless i have concrete proof but I do think I'm using Ne because it's like I'll remember something but only remember 1% about it or not enough to prove that what I know is true. Oh I'm not making sense forget it.

 

[Mole]

This makes sense. Ni sounds like [MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION], lol.

Mole is Ni.

Who knew?

 

[uumlau]

Mole is Ni.

Who knew?

Darn. I was hoping that Mole was Chicken.

Then we'd have Chicken Mole, which is quite yummy.

Ni, however, is about 58.69 gm/Mole, and not nearly as yummy, as it tastes kind of metallic.

 

[Eilonwy]

Darn. I was hoping that Mole was Chicken.

Then we'd have Chicken Mole, which is quite yummy.

Ni, however, is about 58.69 gm/Mole, and not nearly as yummy, as it tastes kind of metallic.

Ni humor!

 

[melebula]

Dominant Ni to me feels like "haze" in the brain. It's constantly running and analyzing, but the thoughts and images it brings up is abstract. Sometimes I will analyze a situation and detect a hidden pattern or meaning in it, out of nowhere, but it's abstract. It can be concrete, but I won't consciously know what made the connection. I will then subconsciously associate this pattern with an image, and it will "feel" right to me, but if you asked me to put it in words, you'd think I belonged in the loony bin, because it will make no sense. A lot of it is subconscious thought garbage, unless it's grounded by Te or Se.

Other times, it's a sense of "just knowing" how things will turn out, because you've already intuited it in your mind without doing the work. The Ni images are being projected onto the outside world - they become "one", in a sense. This abstract idea connects with that abstract idea, and boom, you suddenly "know".

You don't "use" it, it's just something that runs in the background, but it guides you. It's like a map through which you navigate.

To clarify how it works in the real world, in developing a new skill, I will have a sense of "knowing" what is required of me without being directed or reading instructions, and I'll pick it up fairly quickly.

Other times, I will interpret the things people say or do to mean something that seems totally far-fetched, but I'm usually right. I met a girl who told me she was heavily into photography - and from this I came to the conclusion that she had a crippling personality disorder. As time went on and we got to know one another, she became extremely clingy and attempted to destroy my friendships.

 

[Mal12345]

Dominant Ni to me feels like "haze" in the brain. It's constantly running and analyzing, but the thoughts and images it brings up is abstract. Sometimes I will analyze a situation and detect a hidden pattern or meaning in it, out of nowhere, but it's abstract. It can be concrete, but I won't consciously know what made the connection. I will then subconsciously associate this pattern with an image, and it will "feel" right to me, but if you asked me to put it in words, you'd think I belonged in the loony bin, because it will make no sense. A lot of it is subconscious thought garbage, unless it's grounded by Te or Se.

Other times, it's a sense of "just knowing" how things will turn out, because you've already intuited it in your mind without doing the work. The Ni images are being projected onto the outside world - they become "one", in a sense. This abstract idea connects with that abstract idea, and boom, you suddenly "know".

You don't "use" it, it's just something that runs in the background, but it guides you. It's like a map through which you navigate.

To clarify how it works in the real world, in developing a new skill, I will have a sense of "knowing" what is required of me without being directed or reading instructions, and I'll pick it up fairly quickly.

Other times, I will interpret the things people say or do to mean something that seems totally far-fetched, but I'm usually right. I met a girl who told me she was heavily into photography - and from this I came to the conclusion that she had a crippling personality disorder. As time went on and we got to know one another, she became extremely clingy and attempted to destroy my friendships.

Borderline personality disorder.

How does your tertiary guide you?

 

[uumlau]

Borderline personality disorder.

Please explain how a personality disorder that describes how one mishandles emotions applies to what melebula wrote.