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

[Alea_iacta_est]

I had considered "dynamic/static" for S/N not too long ago (based on the Fundamental Nature of the MBTI site, which represented S products as static dots and N as the connections between them), but that wasn't simple enough apparently.
What I'm going with regarding the functions now, I've just spelled out here: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...604-taking-top-root-defintions-functions.html

I'll think on what you've just described. Did you get that from somewhere?

I acquired it from my time with Socionics. The Reinen Dichotomy of Static-Dynamic is a fairly useful one in determining type, but falls short in that the whole theory has been pretty much constructed by Alpha NTs (Static types), and thus draws the simplified conclusion that Dynamics involves generality, the general motion of things, which it does, but that isn't necessarily a good counter-perspective to Statics. Realistically, dynamics see the effects objects have on each other, while statics perceive the objects themselves and their placement in space.

Here are some excerpts of footnotes from one of my threads over on the Socionics forum that explains and

* =/= change over time (consequence of Socionics being constructed by Alphas), but rather comprises a deeper understanding in what is actually happening in the physical world, not what appears to be happening. Things are not always as they seem to be, there is always something more going on, or there is something that produces a deeper yet intangible or almost invisible effect on everything around it. Predictions are a natural consequence of this perspective, as types are always scanning the essentials of the dynamics of the environment around them (much like how types are always grasping the essentials of static ideas and making them easier to understand, types are always grasping the gists of moving situations and making them easier to understand).

**The Socionics Misconception about is that it is always related to comfort or internal bodily sensations, but that is not so. can be a cognizance of the mechanical effects objects produce on the environment around them, what their presence does for the entire physical system. Driving over one specific spot in a road, for instance, will produce an effect on the road physically, it will wear it down in that one spot. A person struggling with the basic construction of a structure, nailing in planks and boards, for instance, will lead to a less-than-adequate framework that may reduce the structural integrity of the building, and it may be susceptible to collapse.

Now, do note that also deals with the internal experience, how objects have an effect on those experiencing them. Many types, usually SEI, are noted for their aesthetic "taste", and "taste" is considered to be an aspect of - the ability to see how certain colors affect each other (do they clash? do they complement?), the ability to see how comfortable people are or how comfortable they themselves are, and a myriad of other functions all having to deal with physical effects.

The Extroverted Perception elements are much easier to comprehend, as they are focused on the features of objects.

 

[Eric B]

How could I forget Socionics. Someone was recently explaining that dichotomy to me, and I knew I had seen the terms somewhere else.
I like how they have everything categorized and named, though I'm not sure about some of the concepts and definitions/[interpretations of Jung]. I like how western theory is catching up with that stuff, like in Cognitive Styles, Type Logic, etc.

 

[Belle of Kilronan]

Excerpts from Personality Types: An Owners Manual by Lenore Thomson:

"Whatever types we happen to be, we use all four means of Perception in one way or another. For example, imagine we are spending a day at the beach:

• Extraverted Sensing would prompt us to go with out sense impressions as they occurred: to lie in the sun, play in the surf, listen to the gulls piping overhead.
  
• Introverted Sensing would move us to stabilize our sense impressions by integrating them with facts we knew to be consistent. We might bring our favorite book, or snorkel and flippers, a bag of snacks, extra towels because someone will probably forget one, and a watch to make sure we beat traffic at home.
  
• Extraverted Intuition would move us to unify our sense impressions with their larger context, thereby creating new options for meaning and response. For example, as we lie on our blanket in the sun, perhaps we hear music in the distance. Someone passing by mentions a great restaurant in town. Suddenly we're thinking: Hey, there must be an amusement park nearby. If it's on our way to tow, we can check out the rides before look for that restuarant that passerby was talking about. In fact, maybe the guy knows other places we should consider. Where'd he go?
  
• Introverted Intuition would prompt us to liberate our sense impressions from their larger context, thereby creating new options for perception itself. For example, we might find ourselves wondering why people feel so strongly about getting a new tan. We remember reading somewhere that before the Industrial Revolution, being tan marked one as a manual laborer, because it suggested work outdoors. After the Industrial Revolution, it was pale skin that suggested manual labor, because it indicated work in a poorly lit factory. Such correlations aren't relevant today, but a good tan is still considered attractive. Why is that? We consider raising the question as a topic of conversation, but we're pretty sure our friends will think we're observing a situation rather than enjoying it." (This is the story of my life, btw. -_-)

Some other quotes from the same book that might be helpful:

"Extraverted Intuition versus Introverted Intuition

Extraverted intuitives are right-brained types who deal with their sense impressions by unifying them into larger outward patterns. Am ENxP physician, for example, may realize, with sudden insight, that several unexplained symptoms are actually part of a single disease. As an extraverted type, the physician has no doubt that the disease syndrome really exists. The pattern was always there, waiting for someone to discover it. What's important now is telling others about the discovery--getting people to see that the new model offers more options than the old.

Introverted intuitives don't think this way. For INJs, patterns aren't "out there" in the world, waiting to be discovered. They're part of us--the way we make sense of the riot of information and energy impinging on our systems. A disease syndrome is a useful construct, but that's all it is--an aggregate of observations attached to a label, telling us what to see and how to deal with it.

Given their real-life consequences, mental constructs don't strike INJs as imaginary or irrelevant. They're merely arbitrary, derived from a particular view of life. For this reason, they can trap us into holding that view--say, that physicians are in the business of cure rather than prevention--without being aware of its effects."



And finally, another tidbit of interest:

"Most types rely on [Ni] to contend with ambiguities of meaning and perception--that is, to see that a situation can be interpreted in more than one way. We may use it, for example, to acknowledge the possibility of both scientific and religious positions on life after death, or to deal with incompatible experiences of self and solidarity at work, home, and among friends.

It may seem peculiar, therefore, to depend on this function for one's primary understanding of reality. If INJs are seeing things from many (sometimes conflicting) perspectives, on what basis would they ever take action?

It should be emphasized that INJs are very much like ENPs in this respect. Where [Ne]s see many behavioral options, INJs acknowledge many conceptual standpoints. They experience no need to declare one inherently better than the other. Indeed, these types have a disconcerting habit of solving a problem by shifting their perspective and defining the situation in some other way."


I really recommend this book for anyone trying to understand Jungian types on a theoretical/conceptual level. =)

This was actually helpful. Thank you.

 

[Alomoes]

Well, here's how I think it works.

Ni thinks in lines of thought.

Ne also does.

Difference is that Ne lines are shorter, and thus there can be more of them.

Key thing you'd notice with an Ni user is that he/she is very pensive. At least with me, I tend to look up and to the right when I think. And this is for the heavy thinking, like when I am trying to find an answer I don't know, or that is hard to understand. Of the T Ni users, I don't know how they perceive it.

Don't know about Ne.

 

[htb]

The best way to understand Ni is to have it described by those who use it primarily or often enough. The best way to understand how Ni contributes to human behavior is through real-life examples.

In my experience Ni's a conclusion assembled from knowledge and memory in the subconscious.

It emerges as an insight, interpretation, vision, premonition, etc. Some constituent parts can be guessed at by the individual, especially if new data is obviously involved, but the amalgamation is broad and I doubt all parts could ever be identified, let alone explained, let alone justified to others. I certainly have never succeeded.

As a professional in a creative field, I've seen my own Ni placed in sharp relief against Ne, corroborating online descriptions. Ne is a bush grown from a root. Ni is that, upside-down; an ultimate convergence of lines. In a business environment where conflicting parties seek influence, and management happens to be dominated by perceiving types, Ne is much more valuable because it aids negotiation with options, in the form of ideas, as plentifully as it's exercised. Ideas good, bad and in-between can be shuffled and mixed; often with successful creative results and surely to the political benefit of the user thanks to a hedging of bets. Brainstorming sessions are pure Ne; I hate them, because they seem desultory and contrived to me. I think that's because Ni produces a single idea in about the same time it takes Ne to produce just a few, but with a high level of detail and degree of depth apparent instantly and cultivable after only a short period. Whether it's the exhaustion of Ni or pride surrounding its use, I swiftly eliminate other big-picture alternatives and commit to an idea. As you might expect, that's a lot to gamble on. Don Draper's sweeping gestalts work most of the time because Mad Men's writers know he's Don Draper.

 

[Cellmold]

[MENTION=6466]Stanton Moore[/MENTION]

Ni - take one thing, build a solid future from it, which looks flimsy until it actually happens.

Yeah I don't know either.

*EDIT*

Wait I got another: Ni is a memory of the future.... ooooooooo!

 

[Eric B]

Looking back over other stuff Lenore said, what she meant by “patterns are in us” is in comparison to Ne, which takes them for granted, the key phrase is that Ni sees them as merely “arbitrary”. Hence, her description of freeing sense impressions from their larger contexts (i.e. the memorized external patterns everyone takes for granted. And again, we may associate "memory" wth Si, but the pattern is taken in through the external world, and the only way to be able to reference it; to compare other patterns, is through memory. Since we're dealing with mental constructs and not physical items, "location" works very differently, and it can still be "external", though technically internal).
The data is then filled in from an internal sense of other possibilities, “new perspectives”; or “what's missing” from the pattern. This is what was then attributed to the “unconscious”, and what then will suddenly come up as the proverbial “aha moment” when it does enter consciousness.

 

[Mademoiselle]

Introverted intuit is generating all thoes ideas that can't be expressed reasonably yet makes sense.
Just like how feelings can't be expressed verbally..

 

[Luke O]

Pbd

 

[infinium]

For me,

Ne : Knows something about everything.
Example: Brainstorming - look for possibilities, other outlets, branches, when you watch TV Series and able to predict several ways to END it (or several ways of HOW the END should be)

Ni : Knows everything about something.
Example: Summarizing - from every angles, directions, cost/benefit calculations, you deduced to that one 'piece of mind' that "clicks".

 

[PeaceBaby]

Whenever I see this thread come up I want to do this:



So I'm doing it!

 

[ObnoXious]

Ni's biggest facet is its pattern recognition. It collects information from the outside. It takes in new information and seeks connections to the older that it has already formulated and internalized. Once that is done it begins to evaluate the new information and see whether the connection makes sense or does not. If it does not, Ni gives the way to the extroverted judgement to deal with it (pretty much disqualifying the information at easiest and tearing it apart at hardest). If it does resonate with Ni, it will accept the information and instead will change its entire worldview to match it. Ni experience constant conflict between the outside and the inside perceptions. This is why it takes longer for Ni to fully grasp and embrace the new. Once it does, however, Ni allows the new information inside its system and, by connecting it to other dots in the system (even some of the more distant ones), Ni becomes much more insightful in using that information than majority of others who would take years to get where Ni just made a sudden leap. Because Ni cannot help but connect things, this is why it is so prone to recognizing patterns, generalizing and becoming wise within a shorter span of time. Ni ponders over many things, but, while doing that, it tries to resolve many existing problems by connecting different dots within its system together. This is why Ni is so strong in its vision and ability to predict.

 

[laurapants08]

Ni's biggest facet is its pattern recognition. It collects information from the outside. It takes in new information and seeks connections to the older that it has already formulated and internalized. Once that is done it begins to evaluate the new information and see whether the connection makes sense or does not. If it does not, Ni gives the way to the extroverted judgement to deal with it (pretty much disqualifying the information at easiest and tearing it apart at hardest). If it does resonate with Ni, it will accept the information and instead will change its entire worldview to match it. Ni experience constant conflict between the outside and the inside perceptions. This is why it takes longer for Ni to fully grasp and embrace the new. Once it does, however, Ni allows the new information inside its system and, by connecting it to other dots in the system (even some of the more distant ones), Ni becomes much more insightful in using that information than majority of others who would take years to get where Ni just made a sudden leap. Because Ni cannot help but connect things, this is why it is so prone to recognizing patterns, generalizing and becoming wise within a shorter span of time. Ni ponders over many things, but, while doing that, it tries to resolve many existing problems by connecting different dots within its system together. This is why Ni is so strong in its vision and ability to predict.

Someone once made reference to my personal Ni flow was it's constantly looking at a grid. It's as if the pattern is perceived but unfortunately there's trouble with expressing externally. The only way it comes out is in short patterns for someone else to figure out the pin points.

This comment came from an intj.. I hope he wasn't judging me [emoji24] [emoji23] [emoji13]

 

[Frosty]

Isnt Ni like being pulled in to something. A function that captures you and makes you want to understand everything about a topic?

So Ni is more of a pull and Ne is more of a push?
I guess that could be said about the relationship between any introverted and extroverted function though.

What is Ni actually like for those who use it? Anyone from INTJs to ESFPs...

 

[laurapants08]

Isnt Ni like being pulled in to something. A function that captures you and makes you want to understand everything about a topic?

So Ni is more of a pull and Ne is more of a push?
I guess that could be said about the relationship between any introverted and extroverted function though.

What is Ni actually like for those who use it? Anyone from INTJs to ESFPs...

My friends and I are rather mysterious when it comes to what functions we use and our types. Its almost like a giant guessing game. I have what I call 'advisors" I have three go to people when I really want to untie the strings to my brain and let my thoughts hang out. What that has to do with anything right now I'm not sure but l'll continue you. If that's not a intuitive sign of friendship I dont know what is. Let's just say we all have taken the Myers/Briggs test but only myself and one other released out types. Tangent. Back to center.

Ni I'll conclude as a pull. Its like being driven or directed to obtain, in my case some kind of knowledge. I'm constantly craving information on all kinds of subjects, either my choice or by suggestions. If someone says "hey this made me think of you' I'm going to look into the subject and see if it grasp my attention. Here's a quick example of me following the pull of Ni. The artist perspective

Ignore spelling errors in the second photo is only a draft. Hopefully this answered something. This has been a not so evil pants moment.

 

[uumlau]

For the record, there is no "5th dimension" in standard relativity. There are a lot of competing unified field theories, the only ones of which that remain standing today aren't specific enough w/r to real physical phenomena to distinguish between them. In string theory, I believe most of the 10 or 11 dimensions are spacial, not timelike. It is arbitrary whether a particular dimension is spacelike or timelike.

Also, I personally believe that it might be an accident that describing gravity as a 4-dimensional curved space-time is a "coincidence" of the principle of equivalence. A similar issue occurs in quantum mechanics with the notion of wavefunction "collapse". In both cases, people (even experts) tend to think that the math is the reality, where in my view, the only truth is that the math describes the reality in a consistent quantitative way. For instance, QM makes use of infinite-dimensional vector spaces to describe QM behaviors. That doesn't imply that the physical world is comprised of an infinite number of dimensions. It's just a convenient mathematical tool.

As for Ni, I stand behind my prior descriptions in this thread. (There are several, but I'm partial to the most recent.)

 

[laurapants08]

For the record, there is no "5th dimension" in standard relativity. There are a lot of competing unified field theories, the only ones of which that remain standing today aren't specific enough w/r to real physical phenomena to distinguish between them. In string theory, I believe most of the 10 or 11 dimensions are spacial, not timelike. It is arbitrary whether a particular dimension is spacelike or timelike.

Also, I personally believe that it might be an accident that describing gravity as a 4-dimensional curved space-time is a "coincidence" of the principle of equivalence. A similar issue occurs in quantum mechanics with the notion of wavefunction "collapse". In both cases, people (even experts) tend to think that the math is the reality, where in my view, the only truth is that the math describes the reality in a consistent quantitative way. For instance, QM makes use of infinite-dimensional vector spaces to describe QM behaviors. That doesn't imply that the physical world is comprised of an infinite number of dimensions. It's just a convenient mathematical tool.

As for Ni, I stand behind my prior descriptions in this thread. (There are several, but I'm partial to the most recent.)

Can you quote me your first response?

 

[windoverlake]

My understanding and experience of Ni is that it's like a haphazardly incomplete mathematical proof. Ni can't/won't proceed line by line. 99% of the time the answer appears and Ni has no interest in proof itself, because it has the answer. It's agonising to have to go back and explain the reasoning line by line. In most cases Ni cannot provide the proof that leads to the answer, so it won't. Only when the Ni truly cares about the answer will it seek to find some proof, and the proof-seeking methods will very likely be unorthodox, random, and probably illogical to some degree.

The other thing about Ni is it can link and connect the most maddeningly granular of details and somehow create/access relevance or elucidation therein. The detail itself is so granular it may as well be invisible, to the point that, good luck verbalising it.

A question for MBTI experts: Would any fellow INXJs consider Ni as absolutely dependent upon (a) context? Is the nature of Ni intertexual?

 

[uumlau]

A question for MBTI experts: Would any fellow INXJs consider Ni as absolutely dependent upon (a) context? Is the nature of Ni intertexual?

Yes. Ni is very contextual. Ne is cross-contextual.

The reason Ni loses the "detail" is that Ni isn't thinking in terms of building an intricate structure of logic. Rather, it has a huge library of manuals describing how everything (that you've experienced) works. When you see something that appears to work like something in your library, the answer "just appears". There aren't any words for it because most people don't use Ni, and there are no useful common words to specify "kinds of ways in which things work". The closest thing in the real world is the concept of "design patterns" which apply for things like engineering and software design, where the patterns classify kinds of problems and their typical solutions. For an INFJ, the real world analogy would be the DSM: if you see a bunch of behavioral traits, you know what the rest of the traits are. Typology is also similar: if you see the pattern of a type, you can predict several other elements of the type's behavior.

Ni types, however, can occasionally seem to have huge leaps of logic like Ne types, but the way it happens is different. Ne types ALWAYS hop to other contexts. Ni types generally don't hop, but sometimes a pattern that applies in one context happens to be very apt in a different context, hence you'll occasionally see the hops in Ni types, too.

 

[windoverlake]

Yes. Ni is very contextual. Ne is cross-contextual.

The reason Ni loses the "detail" is that Ni isn't thinking in terms of building an intricate structure of logic. Rather, it has a huge library of manuals describing how everything (that you've experienced) works. When you see something that appears to work like something in your library, the answer "just appears". There aren't any words for it because most people don't use Ni, and there are no useful common words to specify "kinds of ways in which things work". The closest thing in the real world is the concept of "design patterns" which apply for things like engineering and software design, where the patterns classify kinds of problems and their typical solutions. For an INFJ, the real world analogy would be the DSM: if you see a bunch of behavioral traits, you know what the rest of the traits are. Typology is also similar: if you see the pattern of a type, you can predict several other elements of the type's behavior.

That's a great analogy.

Ni types, however, can occasionally seem to have huge leaps of logic like Ne types, but the way it happens is different. Ne types ALWAYS hop to other contexts. Ni types generally don't hop, but sometimes a pattern that applies in one context happens to be very apt in a different context, hence you'll occasionally see the hops in Ni types, too.

I can't help but feel the Ne-hopping is oftentimes too playful and distracting. It does have the power to get me out of ruts, but sometimes I wish they'd give me some warning, just enough time for me to put paperweights on a few things.