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

[uumlau]

For me its rolling around words. Like repetitive rambling. No real path, it just goes wherever it goes. Its conceptual, nothing sensory. Thats my external function. When i write its given better direction, but i still fine tune as i go for clarity and go back over the same thoughts for clarity.

My sensory side is a method of pulling data in, lots of data. Would overwhelm to analyze it all to a deep degree.

You seem to want to Ni. You should. You should very much Ni.

I find that it's really useful to look at the types who have a function as tertiary, because it helps one better understand how the function also might work in the primary. This is part and parcel of the overall observation/pseudo-theory that each type sorta-kinda has an "inner type" based on the tertiary and inferior, hence INTJs have an "inner ISFP", ESTJs have an "inner ENFP", ISTPs have an "inner INFJ" and so on. When you see how the functions work in tertiary, their "inexpert" application helps to really define what characterizes that particular cognitive pattern of thought.

Why? Because it's much easier to spot types in terms of what they tend to do wrong, not what they tend to do right. So you're going to understand Fi, perhaps, a little better when you see how IxTJs use and describe it. Not that they use/describe it aptly, but that's the point. You end up seeing the process more easily, because it isn't nearly so adept as coping as when it is dominant. A dominant process generally copes very well, and having adapted to the real world, it is often difficult to distinguish because the person using it has learned to translate/communicate well.

Here's a personal example of mine, from back in the old days (has it really been that long?!): http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...ctions/30086-uumlau-answers-questions-fi.html

That's Fi as I understood it back then. [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION] has helped me refine my understanding of Fi, even as I've helped her refine her understanding of Ni. But as a broad brush, especially for other TJs, it's a good start for understanding what is/isn't Fi, even if it's kind of inept on my part.

So I find it fascinating watching [MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION] describe Ni. I don't think he's wrong about it - in fact I think he helps extend my understanding of it. This is beautiful and aptly put: "For me its rolling around words. Like repetitive rambling. No real path, it just goes wherever it goes. Its conceptual, nothing sensory." I know exactly what he's talking about, but he's saying it differently than I would, because it's not his dominant process. With Ti being dominant, he sees a different part of it than I do. He sees how it has no path, how it's like watching your thoughts without actively participating. Now imagine if "watching your thoughts without actively participating" were your primary mode of thinking. That's more or less how Ni feels, and being from an ISTP, a fellow Ti dom, this might be the most apt description for [MENTION=13589]Mal12345[/MENTION], describing Ni in terms of Ti.

And here is another personal example. I remember one time I was listening to a speaker describe her experiences with meditation, how it felt, what was difficult, what was easy, and how it should work. What she described as "meditation" was exactly how I always think. Her description was very much like Poki's description of Ni, watching your thoughts without participating. But what puzzled me was how she indicated that it was so difficult to achieve, that she'd get distracted or fall asleep or whatever. But Ni types don't fall asleep or get distracted - or rather, we don't consider it to be "sleep" or "distraction", but we're definitely not directing, not in control.

The Compleat Idiot’s Guide to the INTJ | INTJ Central

This has a great description of how INTJs think:

We live inside our heads.

We frequently zone out. We get lost in thought and spend much of our time inside our heads. If our immediate reality becomes boring, we will retreat into our minds, and you might have to shout our names repeatedly to get our attention so we will come out again. And no, sorry, but you can’t come into our heads with us. You wouldn’t last five minutes there. You’d be driven insane by the nonstop cacophony of overlapping voices madly free-associating from one idea to the next.

...

Q: Why doesn’t my INTJ ever show emotions or feelings?

A: Because he doesn’t have any. Actually, that’s not strictly true; it’s just that we tend to get emotional about things you might not appreciate. INTJs have been known to cry during the liftoff scene in “Apollo 13”, for example, and there are also many touching moments in some of the Star Trek movies. An INTJ may also smile or laugh at random for no apparent reason; probably one of the voices in his head just made a good joke.

...

Q: My INTJ keeps disappearing. Is this normal?

A: Yes. We need our “alone time” to recharge, more so than any of the other introverted MBTI types. Being around people for very long sucks the life force out of us, and we sneak off to be by ourselves whenever our “low battery” warning light starts to flash. (And in those cases where we can’t disappear physically, we will retreat into our minds.) Consequently we have great stealth capability; we can sit in a corner, observing while being unobserved, and we can escape, unnoticed, when we’re ready to move on.

...

Q: Why can’t my INTJ remember anything?

A: This is normal. Most of us INTJs are very forgetful. We have too much going on in our heads at any time to remember a lot of new stuff. Also, we zone out and go into autopilot mode quite frequently. We often won’t remember where we put our car keys because we weren’t “there” when we did it.

...

Q: Why does my INTJ just “shut down” at the end of the day?

A: Our minds are always buzzing with plans and theories, and we cannot voluntarily get it to stop. But even an Indy 500 car will coast to a halt after it runs out of gas. When we are very tired our brains slow down, and we become normal or even a bit retarded. If we start asking you to repeat what you just told us but more slowly this time, and/or if we can no longer perform simple routine tasks like computing an orbital transfer burn or finding a memory leak in 10,000 lines of C++ code, you know it’s time for us to call it a day.

Seriously, a lot of the time what we do isn't "thinking", it's more like "watching movies" of what-if scenarios. When we turn our minds to the real world, those what-if scenarios play out pretty quickly and result in problem-solving. The rest of the time, it's aimed at trivia such as, "Why don't I have a girlfriend yet?" This is where Ni with Fi quickly becomes very stupid.

So how's that for descriptions, Mal?

 

[SpankyMcFly]

"Why don't I have a girlfriend yet?" This is where Ni with Fi quickly becomes very stupid.

 

[violet_crown]

So I find it fascinating watching [MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION] describe Ni. I don't think he's wrong about it - in fact I think he helps extend my understanding of it. This is beautiful and aptly put: "For me its rolling around words. Like repetitive rambling. No real path, it just goes wherever it goes. Its conceptual, nothing sensory." I know exactly what he's talking about, but he's saying it differently than I would, because it's not his dominant process. With Ti being dominant, he sees a different part of it than I do. He sees how it has no path, how it's like watching your thoughts without actively participating. Now imagine if "watching your thoughts without actively participating" were your primary mode of thinking. That's more or less how Ni feels, and being from an ISTP, a fellow Ti dom, this might be the most apt description for [MENTION=13589]Mal12345[/MENTION], describing Ni in terms of Ti.

I'm not sure why I was quoted in this. I was ribbing [MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION] a bit, but didn't feel his descriptions to be invalid.

Regarding how well one can really understand one's tertiary function, I've always felt like my understanding of Se was pretty superficial, and strongly colored by the lens of Ni. I think there's an element of glamor around the tertiary for all types. Unlike the inferior which carries an element of threat in it, the tertiary is elusive enough to feel "other", but sufficiently in reach to know it's somewhere fun you can visit essentially at will. The tertiary is the function of "I'm not who you think I am."

In some definitions of the word, glamour is as much about excitement as it is deception. Our ease and familiarity with our tertiary can be as illusory as our demonization of the inferior. Listening to someone talk about their inferior is more interesting to me because any insight at all will be harder won. There's no real impetus to grow in the tertiary because there's no conflict there. As a Te-dom, listening to some EFP talk about their "Te Bitchslap" is like listening to the made for TV version of extraverted thinking. Yeah, there's some element of truth there, but that kernel is usually buried under so much over the top, Rambo-ish hyperbole that I think that it would take a Te-dom to pluck out what was real in it. To that extent, yeah, it can be oddly illuminating to hear what people of you in such an unfiltered way, but it always felt like a version of the truth to me.

And that gets to the point that you're making in your post. Is "watching your thoughts without actively participating" really all introverted intuition is for you? Does that description really draw someone into that moment of what you're doing? Or is that a limited, external view of what I know personally to be a much more robust process.

I thought that meditation example was one you could expand on, because at a very real level that's also my experience of introverted intuition. I've had moments where I let my mind go quiet and it's like...stepping into a stream of thoughts that's not mine. The thoughts come together in a way that I feel and see, but if I try to put it into words I will no longer see what's unfolding. I can feel that if I move this way or that way in the stream the whole understanding is going to change. I move around in the stream until it feels right in my body, and I know anything else is impossible. Then comes the nasty process of trying to put that into words. I'm trying to say something that I feel everywhere. And the best I can come up with is just one line that encapsulates what I've experienced on the most literal level, but leaves so much out.

If that's what I experience with Ni as an auxiliary function, I know that there's gotta be levels on that when it's the dominant.

 

[Poki]

That's a narcistic question...INTJ has a huge Narcisism side...*cough*...I mean intuition side

 

[uumlau]

If that's what I experience with Ni as an auxiliary function, I know that there's gotta be levels on that when it's the dominant.

Well, to use your "stepping into a stream of thoughts" analogy ...

Ni dom = "diving into a stream of thoughts"
Ni aux = "wading into a stream of thoughts"
Ni tert = "stepping into a stream of thoughts"
Ni inferior = "sticking your tow into a stream of thoughts and pulling it right out because it's too cold"


The thing is, as I mention in other threads about feeling and Fi for Te types, Te tends to push away those feelings and ignore them, but the truth is, those feelings are not only really your feelings, they're really you, just as much "you" as your thinking side.

That stream of thoughts you're stepping into really ARE your thoughts, that really is you thinking. It only feels alien because a lot of the thoughts in there are things that you will never, ever say. Your conscious mind edits those thoughts. But that doesn't stop you from thinking them.

 

[Poki]

From Beebe

HERO (dominant)
Ni (INxJ): Life must be "filled in" by my individual [subconscious] impressions

GOOD PARENT (auxiliary)
Te (IxTJ): Directing others to efficiently organize the environment
Fe (IxFJ): Instructing others on group ethics or values

PUER/PUELLA ("eternal child", tertiary)
Ti (IxFJ): Childlike exploration of logical frameworks
Fi (IxTJ): Find relief through internal harmony; personally relating to situations represents innocence
ANIMA (inferior, aspirational)

INxJ's might feel inferior with current practical, tangible experience.

How we project it onto others:
INxJ's Cling to dominant perspective. Criticize SP's as reckless
I imagine this might come out in the emotional images that surface when we think of a beautiful romantic day:
INxJ's enjoying rigorous tangible experience together, and extracting meaning from it.

OPPOSING PERSONALITY COMPLEX
What it is about, and which functional perspective it encases:
INxJ's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about emergent meanings and hypothetical possibilities

How we project it onto others:
INxJ's Probably think that multiple possibilities are absurd. The patterns point to one right conclusion.


WITCH/SENEX ("critical parent")
IxTJ's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about variable logical principles
IxFJ's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about personal ethics


IxTJ's Will often angrily hit others with logical "truth" or principles:
•I'M the authority on logical order. You are being totally illogical! [I subconsciously know my logic is not very deep with my external focus, and I project this onto you]
IxFJ's Can angrily hit others with individual personal or universal ethical "truth":
•I'M the authority on ethics! Your behavior shows a lack of personal integrity. [I feel I'm not living up to the personal (internal) side of ethics with my external focus, and I project it onto you].
TRICKSTER (bad child, clown)
IxTJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by aspects of social values, and use them to trap others into behaving or conforming
IxFJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by external logical order, and make mistakes trying to implement it themselves

IxTJ's might criticize others' social behavior to scare them by saying they are bringing rejection on themselves:
•HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me with social rules [I feel bound by social rules and project it onto you], so I'll bind you with agreed upon (conventional) social etiquette
IxFJ's see people organizing the environment logically as "bad children":
•HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me [I feel confused by externally set technical order and make mistakes with it, and project it onto you] so I'm going to bind you with technical order.
DEMONIC PERSONALITY COMPLEX
INxJ's The past is highly irrelevant, and likely haunting

 

[Poki]

And sense we delved into my perception of Ni. From Beebe as well

HERO (dominant)
Ti (IxTP): Life must make technical sense ["correct"] to my individual understanding
GOOD PARENT (auxiliary)
Se (ISxP): Aiding others in practical experiences
PUER/PUELLA ("eternal child", tertiary)
Ni (ISxP): childlike exploring of underlying significances
ANIMA (inferior, aspirational)
IxTP's might feel inferior in humane (personal, "soulish") matters (including one's standing in social groups).

And since I have my type on here as eSTP

HERO (dominant)
Se (ESxP): The environment must be scanned for tangible or practical experiences

GOOD PARENT (auxiliary)
Ti (ExTP): Teaching others according to logical truth

PUER/PUELLA ("eternal child", tertiary)
Fe (ExTP): childlike when connecting with others

ANIMA (inferior, aspirational)
Ni (ESxP) might feel inferior (spaced out) by hypothetical frameworks from the unconscious, such as archetypes and symbolism.

 

[that's not my name]

Since its my tertiary function it might work differently for me than for you INxJ types, but basically what happens to me is the sum of all my observations are subconsciously stored and analyzed and without purposefully using logic or reasoning I come to a conclusion using all the bits of information I've collected. It's almost like I don't have control over it, it just does what it does. What I can then do is think back through my day or through the relevant information I've collected to see how I got there, but I have to get there unconsciously first before I work my way back and figure out why. Note: this isn't the only or even main way I come to conclusions, but it is the way I come to my more profound and life-effecting ones.

Can any other ISTPs relate to this?

 

[Poki]

 

[Poki]

Well, to use your "stepping into a stream of thoughts" analogy ...

Ni dom = "diving into a stream of thoughts"
Ni aux = "wading into a stream of thoughts"
Ni tert = "stepping into a stream of thoughts"
Ni inferior = "sticking your tow into a stream of thoughts and pulling it right out because it's too cold"


The thing is, as I mention in other threads about feeling and Fi for Te types, Te tends to push away those feelings and ignore them, but the truth is, those feelings are not only really your feelings, they're really you, just as much "you" as your thinking side.

That stream of thoughts you're stepping into really ARE your thoughts, that really is you thinking. It only feels alien because a lot of the thoughts in there are things that you will never, ever say. Your conscious mind edits those thoughts. But that doesn't stop you from thinking them.

So...as a Ti dom I only step into my thoughts? I am so confused now. How exactly to I dive into them?

As a side note sometimes I wonder how many holes Ni has to fill in with inferior Se

 

[uumlau]

So...as a Ti dom I only step into my thoughts? I am so confused now. How exactly to I dive into them?

With Ti.

With Ni, it's like stepping into someone else's thoughts.

As a side note sometimes I wonder how many holes Ni has to fill in with inferior Se

Tell me about it.

It's a bit along the lines of REALLY having to rely on your peripheral vision. You're not exactly looking AT anything, so everything in your field of view is "peripheral", so to speak.

As some very funny cat videos show, peripheral vision can trigger some very instinctual reactions. Specifically, look up the cucumber vs cat videos. Cats will be SHOCKED to notice that big dark shadow that appeared from nowhere but is suddenly now there.

 

[Poki]

With Ti.

With Ni, it's like stepping into someone else's thoughts.

Got it, both are easy for me. Steeping into someone elses emotions are nigh impossible. Soooo... I have devised a logical frame work rto understand and that which I don't I smile and nod

Tell me about it.

It's a bit along the lines of REALLY having to rely on your peripheral vision. You're not exactly looking AT anything, so everything in your field of view is "peripheral", so to speak.

As some very funny cat videos show, peripheral vision can trigger some very instinctual reactions. Specifically, look up the cucumber vs cat videos. Cats will be SHOCKED to notice that big dark shadow that appeared from nowhere but is suddenly now there.

I don't get that as I see everything, it just so fast that its not really analyzed as an Si does. Like I have mentioned before, I was driving to training with an ISTJ. We both saw a wreck, he said I wonder what happened...I responded the guy hit the pole. The car was still up against the pole. I got accused of being a smart-ass avoidance of where I don't feel like going...I don't do group mentally masterbation with another man, especially not in a car. When things get good is when men run off into ditches.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Specifically, look up the cucumber vs cat videos.

Mkay

@ OP & THREAD

 

[violet_crown]

Well, to use your "stepping into a stream of thoughts" analogy ...

Ni dom = "diving into a stream of thoughts"
Ni aux = "wading into a stream of thoughts"
Ni tert = "stepping into a stream of thoughts"
Ni inferior = "sticking your tow into a stream of thoughts and pulling it right out because it's too cold"


The thing is, as I mention in other threads about feeling and Fi for Te types, Te tends to push away those feelings and ignore them, but the truth is, those feelings are not only really your feelings, they're really you, just as much "you" as your thinking side.

That stream of thoughts you're stepping into really ARE your thoughts, that really is you thinking. It only feels alien because a lot of the thoughts in there are things that you will never, ever say. Your conscious mind edits those thoughts. But that doesn't stop you from thinking them.

This is interesting.

I'm curious what is your general attitude towards Jung's descriptions of the unconscious. My read of it was that it was something that we participate in, rather than it being particular to any one of us. Or rather individual unconscious is an interface with some sort of greater whole.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Since its my tertiary function it might work differently for me than for you INxJ types, but basically what happens to me is the sum of all my observations are subconsciously stored and analyzed and without purposefully using logic or reasoning I come to a conclusion using all the bits of information I've collected. It's almost like I don't have control over it, it just does what it does. What I can then do is think back through my day or through the relevant information I've collected to see how I got there, but I have to get there unconsciously first before I work my way back and figure out why. Note: this isn't the only or even main way I come to conclusions, but it is the way I come to my more profound and life-effecting ones.

Can any other ISTPs relate to this?

Since its my tertiary function it might work differently for me than for you INxJ types, but basically what happens to me is the sum of all my observations are subconsciously stored and analyzed and without purposefully using logic or reasoning I come to a conclusion using all the bits of information I've collected. It's almost like I don't have control over it, it just does what it does. What I can then do is think back through my day or through the relevant information I've collected to see how I got there, but I have to get there unconsciously first before I work my way back and figure out why. Note: this isn't the only or even main way I come to conclusions, but it is the way I come to my more profound and life-effecting ones.

Can any other ISTPs relate to this?

Yeah. I relate to that. I know what I know. If you ask me how I know? I don't quite know how to give you directions from where I came. Grr. Don't force me to explain right then. Let me think on it. Don't rush me there. I'll falter or get frustrated.

I could explain but does that take large amounts of energy and time or what? Yes. It does.

Takes slowing down to piece together all the end bits to form the circle to be able to explain it in depth. Simple is easy. Sometimes it's not worth the time or trouble to explain because to what end do I need to explain?

I either want to or need to.

But when I was younger, I couldn't even get this far with Ni. I couldn't tap into it at all, recognize it. I just knew it was there. This forum is a good exercise for that because it forced me to put conscious thought into what I think. Ha ha. I can't talk out of my ass!

Well not so much anyway

 

[uumlau]

This is interesting.

I'm curious what is your general attitude towards Jung's descriptions of the unconscious. My read of it was that it was something that we participate in, rather than it being particular to any one of us. Or rather individual unconscious is an interface with some sort of greater whole.

These days, I tend to read what Jung wrote with an eye to how Haidt explains things in terms of the elephant and rider, that most of the unconscious isn't so much UNconscious as it is "other-conscious", which is why it feels like someone else's thoughts, sort of. Another analogy is "articulated" vs "unarticulated" knowledge. There are the things that we can understand and write about and explain to other people with words and books and pictures and so on. And then there are the things that we can only understand via experience. For example, you can read and read and read about dancing or motorcycles, but until you actually dance, you have no idea of all the expertise that comprises dancing, and until you actually ride a motorcycle, you have no idea of all the expertise that comprises riding a motorcycle.

I would argue that Ni types tend to naturally take advantage of this other-consciousness and even seem to live in it to a degree. I think Jung called it "the unconscious" because he couldn't get people to talk about it, to articulate it. He didn't have the methods that modern psychologists use to point at those aspects of thinking that cannot be articulated. My favorite example is his experiment of signing over one's soul to the experimenter for $2: surprisingly, a significant fraction of atheists refuse to comply, no matter how many stipulations the experimenter might agree to. It's clear that some inarticulate part of the subject strongly objects to signing over the soul, but the "conscious mind" (Haidt's "rider") cannot ultimately explain why.

For a long time, I believed that "the unconscious" was to psychologists as "dark matter" is to physicists. It's kind of a placeholder for something they really don't understand. There is clearly something there with no good way to measure/describe it, so it ends up being a repository for a good deal of junk science. "The unconscious" can be used to explain all sorts of things without explaining anything at all. I think what I've read in Haidt (he didn't discover it - it's a synopsis of a lot of modern discoveries) clarifies what this unconscious mind really is. It doesn't lack consciousness: it lacks the ability to articulate thought (put thoughts into words).

Jung's writings, in my opinion, suffer from the lack of this modern insight. He's stuck with "the unconscious". It's not his fault: indeed, he is to be credited with discovering it and writing down the first systematic thoughts about it. Even now, almost a century later, we see how his insights into the unconscious are still entirely valid. But they will always slightly fail in part because he was stuck at this "mysterious" conception of unconsciousness. It is possible to read and understand him within a proper modern framework, but his writings don't always translate into the modern idiom easily.

A lot of what I've tried to do in this thread is remove this "mysterious" label on Ni in the same way modern psychologists have shined more light into what comprises the unconscious mind. That's why I like the notion of it feeling like stepping into someone else's thoughts. I think most people can identify with that concept, even if most of us only get there through dreams and the like. It lets others know what it feels like even if they don't habitually think that way.

 

[Mal12345]

We live inside our heads.

We frequently zone out. We get lost in thought and spend much of our time inside our heads. If our immediate reality becomes boring, we will retreat into our minds, and you might have to shout our names repeatedly to get our attention so we will come out again. And no, sorry, but you can’t come into our heads with us. You wouldn’t last five minutes there. You’d be driven insane by the nonstop cacophony of overlapping voices madly free-associating from one idea to the next.

...

Q: Why doesn’t my INTJ ever show emotions or feelings?

A: Because he doesn’t have any. Actually, that’s not strictly true; it’s just that we tend to get emotional about things you might not appreciate. INTJs have been known to cry during the liftoff scene in “Apollo 13”, for example, and there are also many touching moments in some of the Star Trek movies. An INTJ may also smile or laugh at random for no apparent reason; probably one of the voices in his head just made a good joke.

...

Q: My INTJ keeps disappearing. Is this normal?

A: Yes. We need our “alone time” to recharge, more so than any of the other introverted MBTI types. Being around people for very long sucks the life force out of us, and we sneak off to be by ourselves whenever our “low battery” warning light starts to flash. (And in those cases where we can’t disappear physically, we will retreat into our minds.) Consequently we have great stealth capability; we can sit in a corner, observing while being unobserved, and we can escape, unnoticed, when we’re ready to move on.

...

Q: Why can’t my INTJ remember anything?

A: This is normal. Most of us INTJs are very forgetful. We have too much going on in our heads at any time to remember a lot of new stuff. Also, we zone out and go into autopilot mode quite frequently. We often won’t remember where we put our car keys because we weren’t “there” when we did it.

...

Q: Why does my INTJ just “shut down” at the end of the day?

A: Our minds are always buzzing with plans and theories, and we cannot voluntarily get it to stop. But even an Indy 500 car will coast to a halt after it runs out of gas. When we are very tired our brains slow down, and we become normal or even a bit retarded. If we start asking you to repeat what you just told us but more slowly this time, and/or if we can no longer perform simple routine tasks like computing an orbital transfer burn or finding a memory leak in 10,000 lines of C++ code, you know it’s time for us to call it a day.

So how's that for descriptions, Mal?

Those are all generic introversion examples.

 

[Forever]

Would Ni be related/attached to certain kind of thought disorders? (Psychosis)

 

[527468]

The role of Ni vs Ne

Look at the original roots of the words introverted and extroverted.

The reason Ni is often so misunderstood is because it's usually misapplied to the realm that Ne occurs in, but Ni is in the internal realm. It's intuition introverted. Jung called it the subject. So people actually do know its definition. What they're still wanting are the right examples, but examples won't tell you the real definition or essence of it--they break away from the fundamental cognition of what it simply means. The definition of Ni is as follows:

Ni is grasping the essence of things in thought. It focuses on the big picture while turning inward, while intro-verting. Ni types are not great at grasping the essence and nature of things going on around them, they don't have insight about reading the external situation like Ne types do. Ne on the other hand, grasps the underlying essence of things happening in the outside situation, the nature and big picture of what's occurring and being seen in the moment. This is why we ultimately use multiple functions, and this is where the confusion comes from. Similarly with Ti, we grasp the logic and rationale behind things in thought, in inward reflection and contemplation, while with Te, we grasp the logic and rationale of things as they happen in action and order, as we work with and utilize them. They're the same function "Logic," just applied to turning our mind either inwardly, or turning our mind outwardly towards things in their external form as they're happening. This is especially how Jung and the Socionicists recognize the functions. Ni is intuition of greater thoughts and insights about the big picture, while Ne attunes to the big picture of what's happening with external stimuli--it spots opportunities and potential, and intuitively grasps what's really happening behind a situation or moment, just like Se has a literal take on what's happening in a situation. We use multiple of these functions, but we tend to be most fluent in the one we prefer that type of information of that realm in, Introversion or Extroversion, and typically for instance, Ni types aren't usually that great with Ne, and Ne types aren't usually that great with focusing in on Ni (but it differs from person-to-person.) Ultimately Ni is attuned to a different topic and wavelength than Ne, and that is why it's a wholly separate function of cognitive proficiency. It does not reach out and perceive the outside with instinct, sharpness and ingenuity like Ne, but submerges deeply into visions and reflections of universal truths. Your most fluent function usually becomes most apparent to you when you either enter into deep thought (if you're an introvert), or when you enter into extroverted stimulation (if you're an extrovert.) In fact this is the best way to determine your primary function, if you're at all confused or think you use multiple functions, which ultimately we all do.

Another exemplary way of determining your primary function is to review your consistent test results. Intuitive primary types usually score the highest in intuition and are typically well-balanced in thinking and feeling, while other types, like thinkers, score their T much higher than other dichotomies. This emphasizes and suggests what their primary nature is focused on. One good example for consideration is the difference between the INxJ vs the INTP, because both these types introvert, they both go frequently into the internal realm of thought. One however, the Ni, is primarily submerged in thinking about the nature and main idea behind things, the generalities of life, while the other, the Ti, is primarily submerged in pondering the logic, rationale and workings behind things. It's a big difference. Neither Ni or Ti can view the nature or rationale of things as they're occurring outside, in real life. They think about them. This is what all introverts do, all the time. If you are properly discerning, it should start to click which function you yourself primarily attune to, and which of them you mostly attune outwardly with. While we use all the functions, your primary function is your inherent cognitive nature, it is something that purely cannot be disguised or reworded into something other than what it just is, for you. It is something you know principally above all, because it's the primary way you think about things.

If you're adhering mostly to a strict typology of preferences such as Keirsey Temperament Sorter, like J vs P, where J's intuition converges to a single decisive viewpoint, and P's intuition is open to possibilities, you're not going to be able to accurately grasp type via functions as they occur in individuals realistically. You may be utilizing a function other than the function your strict dichotomal type awards you. This is why newer theories like JCF in MBTI, and Socionics, have gained richer grounds in understanding peoples' real cognitive nature.

The extroverted realm vs the introverted realm: Extroverted functions deal with information as it comes in, while introverted functions deal with the cycle of thought.

 

[Abendrot]

Introverted Intuition:
- Prefers to converge to one view
- Seeks to reduce things to their essence and fit it into a big picture
- Adept at shifting paradigms

Pretty much everything else I've heard about it reeks of special snowflake syndrome.