Signs of Ni

[Reverie]

[MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] Well thank you for your comprehensive answer (though ironically the delivery could have been less rude).

 

[Zarathustra]

ironically

Precisely

 

[FemMecha]

My understanding is that Ni is extremely big picture thinking and so many of the traits associated with it come down to different ways of trying to process what exceeds comprehension. One way to do this is to be open to an overall vague sense of things and waiting for an impulse of thought to crystallize. Another approach is to work to distill ideas down to core concepts which are malleable and able to be reapplied in many contexts. Using metaphor also attempts to capture the incomprehensible. I think Ni requires a lot of time to reflect upon and involves both the conscious and unconscious mind because it is like peering over the precipice and so continually deals with the feeling of clinging to the cliff's edge while becoming willing to let go to the vast uncertainty of reality.

I tend to see people as using Ni based in part on their interests, but even moreso the reasons they are interested in it. I have a lifelong interest in astronomy and psychology because at their core both are incomprehensible. Fully comprehending something makes me feel claustrophobic in idea space, and so I seek out topics without hard boundaries.

This is just my perspective and understanding of the concept.

 

[Reverie]

Precisely

I suppose the most obvious answer is the right one when it's obvious enough. ;D There is actually a marked lack of what I'd call compassion in his work that i can't relate to but I think I'll leave the cookbooking for now. I think my particular area of expertise is more untangible anyway.

At the risk of running into a wall in the process of thinking about Nietzsche and the whole functions thing I did actually begin to think about what I was good at since I have such a different "flavor" to the kind of crisp preciseness I get from following the comments on this thread.
I was thinking back to my late teens/early twenties and how around that time I felt a very strong pull to relate with people. There was a marked change in wanting to connect and I did become very social at the time which was really an outward impression of an inner need to form a kind of an intimate emotional rapport with different types of people and immerse in the vast scale of human experience. It was in some sense like collecting experience and understanding of what it is that goes on in the hearts of us human beings. I still have a vast array of acquaintances from varied walks of life as a result which seems to be unusual compared to most people. That and also being involved with music and performing which is again connecting to the emotional aspect for me.
I suppose the type of "analysis" that I do is being able to in a way find some key human motivations and gain some kind of an understanding of how we work. Also in relating to people on an emotional level it underlines the similarities we have despite our talents or intellect. It's where we are all equal in a sense. Which does make one compassionate.
I think if other reported INFJs have a similiar type of experience this skill would particularly come in handy in the areas you need an understanding of people's inner landscapes like counseling, psychology, spiritual professions, crafting believable fictional characters and to be able to move people emotionally as an artist.

My understanding is that Ni is extremely big picture thinking and so many of the traits associated with it come down to different ways of trying to process what exceeds comprehension. One way to do this is to be open to an overall vague sense of things and waiting for an impulse of thought to crystallize. Another approach is to work to distill ideas down to core concepts which are malleable and able to be reapplied in many contexts. Using metaphor also attempts to capture the incomprehensible. I think Ni requires a lot of time to reflect upon and involves both the conscious and unconscious mind because it is like peering over the precipice and so continually deals with the feeling of clinging to the cliff's edge while becoming willing to let go to the vast uncertainty of reality.

I tend to see people as using Ni based in part on their interests, but even moreso the reasons they are interested in it. I have a lifelong interest in astronomy and psychology because at their core both are incomprehensible. Fully comprehending something makes me feel claustrophobic in idea space, and so I seek out topics without hard boundaries.

This is just my perspective and understanding of the concept.

The malleability and being able to apply chime true. Once you hone in on a subject matter or collection of experiences different qualities begin to come forth and in a way subconsciously organize into something comprehensible. I write songs so my process is literally starting to notice a set of symbols, articles, pieces of conversation, dreams and other nebulous things. They begin to catch my attention and in time I begin to consciously notice a theme is evolving while I go about my daily business. Usually I look for pictures, find material on things that for some reason begin to interest me, think about some personal experiences people have shared with me and I kind of let them soak in and float around in them like in a pool of water. Then when I'm doing something completely different, like running errands (usually far from any recording devices) a song with lyrics starts playing in my head and It' pretty much done. All I have to do is fill in the blanks and make it physically happen (play, record it). It's not 100% complete but pretty much there.
At times I start with nothing and fiddle about spinning ideas until something begins to form and that's more "doing" than the other type of composing which is like having a radio begin playing in your head.
I do know from talking to musicians that most don't "receive head radio transmissions". I've seen my husband compose a song in 5min at a backstage ready to go on and he's an ENFP but he couldn't relate to my description of the way I feel I'm not an active part (logically I know I am, but it doesn't always appear to be so) in the songwriting process sometimes.
As an adult I find I'm more in command of the process and can direct it to produce results.

 

[Coriolis]

I suppose the type of "analysis" that I do is being able to in a way find some key human motivations and gain some kind of an understanding of how we work. Also in relating to people on an emotional level it underlines the similarities we have despite our talents or intellect. It's where we are all equal in a sense. Which does make one compassionate.

An interesting perspective. I never thought of emotions or personal encounters like this before.

Then when I'm doing something completely different, like running errands (usually far from any recording devices) a song with lyrics starts playing in my head and It' pretty much done. All I have to do is fill in the blanks and make it physically happen (play, record it). It's not 100% complete but pretty much there.
At times I start with nothing and fiddle about spinning ideas until something begins to form and that's more "doing" than the other type of composing which is like having a radio begin playing in your head.

As an adult I find I'm more in command of the process and can direct it to produce results.

I do something similar, though I don't compose music (the closest I do is arranging sometimes). The best way for me to control the process is simply to feed it specific inputs. Otherwise usually no amount of direct, intentional fiddling with ideas will yield a satisfactory result. Solutions, plans, designs, etc. appear in my head more or less fully formed, though perhaps a bit sketchy in detail. That's when I can start to tweak them productively.

 

[Reverie]

Yeah, the way I try to be somewhat in control of the process is to somewhat consciously try to initiate it, and see if the dominoes start falling. Then there is a conscious effort to become more aware of the process itself so I myself can respect it's nature and allow space for it. I have been painfully aware of the fact that I worked differently to many of my colleagues and was in fact questioned if I work at all and I myself was confused too. Yet I had results that seemed to pop out of nowhere which also caused some bad blood because I was thought of as inept but coming up with quality work, which was confused with dumb luck. As I couldn't explain how I did things and also had no knowledge of it myself I was unsure wether it was dumb luck or skill. I felt that I worked but didn't know how exactly I worked.
It's not like there isn't any effort. It's more about exposure and awareness, some form of attentiveness: Making sure I'm exposed to things, observing the objects and feelings arising in my inner landscape and ready for action. A kind of a vigil. .
I suppose awareness of how it manifests is in some way what I'd call "managing the process" though indirectly. Also trying to have intent at producing.
...it's indirect.

 

[Ginkgo]

There was a point where I thought Kierkegaard was an INFP because his works were a bit more tangential, open, and his earlier works were pseudonymous. He also concealed much about his personal life with a sociable veneer, all of which suggested a "work behind the scenes" attitude. Now, after listening to a biography that mentioned how he could insert himself into the context of history and fiction, and how he consistently kept his intellect and character rather low-key to appease his father as a child with an inert acceptance that he would die early, I'm more convinced he preferred Ni and Fe; in retrospect, his analyses were very "meta". A "wise child".

 

[Cellmold]

Well, taking mushrooms and other psychedelics has been shown to cause a significant increase in a person's "Openness" score on the Five Factor Model, and that factor is the one correlated with iNtuition, so... it's not too far off.

How interesting, when I took the BBC's version of the big five I ended up low on everything but neuroticism, which was through the roof.

And I had taken the test in a spirit of optimistic fairness...when I think about it, it comes off as pretty damning of me as a person. Of course it might have been a flaw with how the questions were phrased or asked, or it could have been a flaw with how I answered them, but it is odd that I got such a negative outcome when I was actually optimistic, afterall mood always plays a large part in these tests.

This might suggest im not intuitive at all, an idea which ive always been completely open to, of course I shouldn't be open to it because I scored almost nothing on openess..../minor troll sentence

 

[animenagai]

Can someone please explain to me how Ni system building works?

 

[Ginkgo]

Can someone please explain to me how Ni system building works?

Ni isn't about building systems anymore than Ne is. Without a judging faculty, perceptions are about as systematic as play-doh. By Ni-Te, one is assumed to develop those perceptions by immediately coming to one's own abstract conclusions about received wisdom before implementing a more personally tailored wisdom in the world. The immediacy of the introverted, intuitive conclusion is reflected in the extraverted intuitive's immediate compulsion for imagining external change.

Ni-Fe... Fe can be systematically understood, but it's not about a rigorous understanding of systems anymore than understanding personal taste. So, Ni-Ti is about immediately coming to one's own abstract conclusions and organizing them with a holistic and rich understanding. However, as a standalone process, Ni-Ti would really only be capable of developing a body of understanding through a psychological "chink", perceiving the world but primarily retaining a sense of its underbelly, while piecemealing it into refined systems.

The former depends on the external world and extends to the external world more than the latter. The former prioritizes more implementation, and the latter prioritizes a cultivation of understanding.

 

[uumlau]

Can someone please explain to me how Ni system building works?

In simple terms, an Si system is built in terms of where the things should go in the system. An Ni system is built in terms of where the functionality should go in the system. An analogy might be a library's card catalog for Si, a system where you need to know what something (a book) is called in order to figure out where it is in the system, and a computer or smart phone, where you need to know what something (an application) does in order to figure out where it is in the system.

A more apt (but more technical) analogy is object oriented vs functional programming languages: Si is object oriented, where the code is centered on building things (objects) that have properties and methods, while Ni is functional, where the code is centered on building functionality than on building things. In C#, an object oriented language, every entity is an object: even integer, Boolean or string variables ... even functions are objects (when treated as a delegate). In F#, a functional programming language, every entity is a function ... even a "variable" is simply a function that is defined as taking no arguments and returning a specific result, and an "object" is simply a function that takes no arguments and returns the object.

As such, Ni systems will tend to center around modeling the dynamic behavior of things, while Si systems will center around the more static relationships between things. To Ni, the "things" are merely details of the system, while to Si, the functionality is merely one kind of detail of the "things" in the system.

These are just overall tendencies of course. Ni doesn't ignore the "things" any more than Si ignores the functionality, but there is definitely a preference on the part of each.

 

[pinkgraffiti]

^wow, you said the same thing 5 times.

In simple terms, an Si system is built in terms of where the things should go in the system. An Ni system is built in terms of where the functionality should go in the system. An analogy might be a library's card catalog for Si, a system where you need to know what something (a book) is called in order to figure out where it is in the system, and a computer or smart phone, where you need to know what something (an application) does in order to figure out where it is in the system.

A more apt (but more technical) analogy is object oriented vs functional programming languages: Si is object oriented, where the code is centered on building things (objects) that have properties and methods, while Ni is functional, where the code is centered on building functionality than on building things. In C#, an object oriented language, every entity is an object: even integer, Boolean or string variables ... even functions are objects (when treated as a delegate). In F#, a functional programming language, every entity is a function ... even a "variable" is simply a function that is defined as taking no arguments and returning a specific result, and an "object" is simply a function that takes no arguments and returns the object.

As such, Ni systems will tend to center around modeling the dynamic behavior of things, while Si systems will center around the more static relationships between things. To Ni, the "things" are merely details of the system, while to Si, the functionality is merely one kind of detail of the "things" in the system.

These are just overall tendencies of course. Ni doesn't ignore the "things" any more than Si ignores the functionality, but there is definitely a preference on the part of each.

 

[uumlau]

^wow, you said the same thing 5 times.

That means you understood what I said each time! Communication succeeded.

 

[Ginkgo]

Lol.

 

[Cellmold]

That means you understood what I said each time! Communication succeeded.

Well I didn't, explain it again! Of course I possess no understanding of programming so the analogy means nothing to me.

Ironically my parents often express exasperation at my refusal to go into a computer based career based on my amazing ability to look problems up on google and solve them on our pc's by copying what others have already done.

Really?

 

[uumlau]

Well I didn't, explain it again! Of course I possess no understanding of programming so the analogy means nothing to me.

Heheheh!

OK. Think in terms of LEGOs.

LEGOs of course have different shapes and sizes, and the little connector thingies that let you attach them however you wish. It's obvious that both the shape/size AND the connector thingies are important. But when figuring out how to put them together, Ni and Si tend to look at a different aspect, first. Si looks at shape/size, and thinks in terms of where all the pieces should go. Ni looks instead at the connectors, and thinks in terms of what other connectors fit with this connector. Given a little LEGO person, Si will put the arms where the arms go, the head where the head goes, and the legs where the legs go. Ni will see no problem, however, putting the arm on top of the head, or a leg on an arm, or giving him four arms. Why? Because the connectors fit! As long as the connectors fit it's a good system.

These seems nonsensical, of course: 4 arms isn't a good system if you need to walk, for example. But in real life, the connectors are more complicated; in real life, there are only very few ways they can fit together. LEGOs see connectors the way Si people see the connectors: a minor detail. Everyone knows where the arms go, right? Ni people see the connectors more like those of a jigsaw puzzle than LEGOs: it doesn't matter what the picture is on the puzzle; the pieces either fit together or they don't.

So an Ni system is comprised of figuring out how the connectors all work, and building around that. An Si system is more about connecting things together based on what they "are", and the connectors are secondary.

Thus an Si system is based on one's internal understanding of things and how they are classified and organized, which helps to explain its effective rigidity. An Ni system is based on the connectors, and thus can build things inconceivable in the usual Si sense, putting things in the "wrong place" because it's the connectors matching up, not the classification of the thing, that determines its place.

 

[Reverie]

There was a point where I thought Kierkegaard was an INFP because his works were a bit more tangential, open, and his earlier works were pseudonymous. He also concealed much about his personal life with a sociable veneer, all of which suggested a "work behind the scenes" attitude. Now, after listening to a biography that mentioned how he could insert himself into the context of history and fiction, and how he consistently kept his intellect and character rather low-key to appease his father as a child with an inert acceptance that he would die early, I'm more convinced he preferred Ni and Fe; in retrospect, his analyses were very "meta". A "wise child".

Very interesting. I definitely have had a similar childhood experience of muting myself in some sense. I come from a long line of people who were very versatile, intelligent and talented but who had few accomplishments, so being witty and talented was somehow perceived almost as a personal insult and an unpleasant reminder of a perceived failure so I think I internalized a lot of things and there was a definite theme of hiding your true self. Subsequently this life journey has definitely had a theme of conquering fear, unravelling binds and an unmasking of sorts. I don't know how it is for other INFJs and why a specific individual would respond in such a way. My other siblings are not INFJs.

 

[Ginkgo]

Very interesting. I definitely have had a similar childhood experience of muting myself in some sense. I come from a long line of people who were very versatile, intelligent and talented but who had few accomplishments, so being witty and talented was somehow perceived almost as a personal insult and an unpleasant reminder of a perceived failure so I think I internalized a lot of things and there was a definite theme of hiding your true self. Subsequently this life journey has definitely had a theme of conquering fear, unravelling binds and an unmasking of sorts. I don't know how it is for other INFJs and why a specific individual would respond in such a way. My other siblings are not INFJs.

Maybe that challenge was there to help you in the long run. I'm sorry to hear about the misunderstandings in your professional life.

 

[Cellmold]

Heheheh!

OK. Think in terms of LEGOs.

LEGOs of course have different shapes and sizes, and the little connector thingies that let you attach them however you wish. It's obvious that both the shape/size AND the connector thingies are important. But when figuring out how to put them together, Ni and Si tend to look at a different aspect, first. Si looks at shape/size, and thinks in terms of where all the pieces should go. Ni looks instead at the connectors, and thinks in terms of what other connectors fit with this connector. Given a little LEGO person, Si will put the arms where the arms go, the head where the head goes, and the legs where the legs go. Ni will see no problem, however, putting the arm on top of the head, or a leg on an arm, or giving him four arms. Why? Because the connectors fit! As long as the connectors fit it's a good system.

These seems nonsensical, of course: 4 arms isn't a good system if you need to walk, for example. But in real life, the connectors are more complicated; in real life, there are only very few ways they can fit together. LEGOs see connectors the way Si people see the connectors: a minor detail. Everyone knows where the arms go, right? Ni people see the connectors more like those of a jigsaw puzzle than LEGOs: it doesn't matter what the picture is on the puzzle; the pieces either fit together or they don't.

So an Ni system is comprised of figuring out how the connectors all work, and building around that. An Si system is more about connecting things together based on what they "are", and the connectors are secondary.

Thus an Si system is based on one's internal understanding of things and how they are classified and organized, which helps to explain its effective rigidity. An Ni system is based on the connectors, and thus can build things inconceivable in the usual Si sense, putting things in the "wrong place" because it's the connectors matching up, not the classification of the thing, that determines its place.

Interesting. Your understanding of Ni still makes no sense to me, but of course you could say this is my fault, however to me this is a good example of how people can understand and interpretate the functions in completely different ways.

Or maybe you do understand it in a similar way to me but I just do not understand the explanation.

In any case, to me when someone looks at something, (something being anything within whatever context you can imagine), using Ni all the potentials*, pasts and implications that can be connected to the object stream out from it in a complex web, these can then be formulated into part of a personal and internal system that produces something like an insight or new way of looking at something.

Si on the other hand....and those in vent with me today will have already heard this, but put simply my understanding is that it is just personal sense impressions used almost like a series of flashcards.

Two Si-doms could remember the same fact at the same time but from different prompts, because they have both experienced the context of this fact in a different way. Something prompts them and bam the brain shoots out something relevant because at some level it recalls an experience associated with whatever is being perceived.

Obviously one thing I do understand is the point of this possibly becoming a system built out of how things should be based upon these past experiences....not to be confused with memories although there is a connection there perhaps.




*Not to be confused with the idea potentials of Ne.

 

[Coriolis]

In any case, to me when someone looks at something, (something being anything within whatever context you can imagine), using Ni all the potentials*, pasts and implications that can be connected to the object stream out from it in a complex web, these can then be formulated into part of a personal and internal system that produces something like an insight or new way of looking at something.

I won't try to elaborate on Uumlau's explanations, but here's how I see it. I can't really look at anything with Ni, unless it is something rather open-ended like a problem, question, or creative opportunity. Ni is too indirect for looking at things that are concrete or well-established. Even though I may not look, though, I will see all sorts of things, but more through Ni than with Ni. Pasts and implications do not stream outward from these things. The things form connections with other things that may not even have been part of my conscious thought at the outset, and it is this whole that forms the web, an apt metaphor. The web is not a reaching out from all the things, it is rather a bringing together of the things into a single, meaningful pattern. When Ni is working well, this will reveal the solution to the problem, the answer to the question, or the fundamental form of the creative output required.