Signs of Ni

[animenagai]

Alright, here's the dealio. I find most functions relatively easy to spot. There are some telltale signs of each function. However, though I understand what Ni is, I find it really hard to actually point it out. I pretty much never say things like "oh that guy's using Ni" though I can do it with the other functions. Can you guys point out some things that Ni specifically users say or do the should serve as clues to us?

 

[animenagai]

lol Really? Nothing?

 

[Sniffles]

I don't know what to say really. We're often as surprised as the next person to find out somebody is Ni-dom. I just found out one friend of mine is INTJ, and I never would've guessed it before, although it makes sense now.

 

[Ginkgo]

Sometimes I look for what's missing, not what's there.

 

[Fidelia]

I can't really tell. I mean, I think I could identify Ni like characteristics when discussing something in depth, but I don't think it's readily observable on a casual basis.

 

[SD45T-2]

Sometimes I look for what's missing, not what's there.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

In Basic Economics Thomas Sowell (INTJ would be my guess) says that in some cases the best way to undestand what a thing does is to look at what happens when it is absent. Are you saying that when someone is talking/writing in a very iNtuitive manner but not obviously using Ne, that is how you tell that it's Ni at work?

 

[Ginkgo]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

In Basic Economics Thomas Sowell (INTJ would be my guess) says that in some cases the best way to undestand what a thing does is to look at what happens when it is absent. Are you saying that when someone is talking/writing in a very iNtuitive manner but not obviously using Ne, that is how you tell that it's Ni at work?

Deduce from other functions that aren't as present.

 

[SD45T-2]

Process of elimination, in other words.

 

[Eric B]

I see that they often use a lot of symbolisms and archetypal patterns such as fictional characters (which often represent common archetypes).
These are the internalized conceptual blueprints that the Ni perspective often references.

 

[SilkRoad]

I think that there can be a tendency to use metaphoric language.

It seems to be very hard to pin down, though. There is little external visibility to its workings and I don't at all buy the sort of "the eyes have it" theories.

 

[Little_Sticks]

I think that there can be a tendency to use metaphoric language.

It seems to be very hard to pin down, though. There is little external visibility to its workings and I don't at all buy the sort of "the eyes have it" theories.

Supposedly, it has been said that a person's eyes convey a lot more about their internal state than any other emotion. Reading someone's eyes can be spiritual to some. What better way would there be to explain that spiritual essence, then to explain it in a metaphoric light? Wouldn't it stand to reason that someone who identifies with the Ni functional process, one of the most spiritual elements of human cognition, has a certain kind of presence in the way their eyes see the world?

Some describe Ni almost as being in a kind of intimate trance with the world; others think it reads between the boundaries of existence and finds a spiritual awe in everything. It's fun to imagine, isn't it?

 

[SD45T-2]

I see that they often use a lot of symbolisms and archetypal patterns such as fictional characters (which often represent common archetypes).
These are the internalized conceptual blueprints that the Ni perspective often references.

That sounds like a decent desciption. The way David Milch talks strikes me as having a lot of Ni. I think he's an ENTJ. One example that comes to mind is him explaining that Deadwood is an allegory about society and America in particular. The events in the community are symbolic.

 

[tkae.]

They deconstruct the rhetorical arguments and poetic possibilities of everything!

Cardboard box? Intricate patterns inside flimsy material shells, what's reality like in there?

It's annoying as hell. I can't even do it for more than a few seconds.

Ne just comes so naturally.

Cardboard box, homeless person, poverty.

Cardboard box, homeless person, ratty clothes, flannel, my flannel jacket, me being homeless, my home, my animals, my family.

Or take it and turn it into a story of me being homeless, my experiences as a fictional homeless person as related to me having a home. Something'll happen somewhere in the juxtaposition if I run those two ideas parallel, like sparks from electrical wires or that sound when a microphone gets close to a speaker.

See?

But where I go outwards, they go inwards.

So where I'm a bigger space cadet than John Glenn, Ni makes them... idk. They're just weird

 

[SilkRoad]

Supposedly, it has been said that a person's eyes convey a lot more about their internal state than any other emotion. Reading someone's eyes can be spiritual to some. What better way would there be to explain that spiritual essence, then to explain it in a metaphoric light? Wouldn't it stand to reason that someone who identifies with the Ni functional process, one of the most spiritual elements of human cognition, has a certain kind of presence in the way their eyes see the world?

Some describe Ni almost as being in a kind of intimate trance with the world; others think it reads between the boundaries of existence and finds a spiritual awe in everything. It's fun to imagine, isn't it?

Well... I am severely myopic (though fine with contact lenses or glasses). Probably related to this, I have what some might describe as big beautiful eyes (well, they are one of my good points!!) with a far-off look. It could be a little bit to do with me being INFJ. It probably has at least something to do with the state of my eyesight.

Somewhat like I'm not comfortable typing people on the spur of the moment as many typology fans seems to be...I could never imagine myself typing people, or seeing definite signs of Ni, by their eyes! Way, way, way too nebulous.

 

[uumlau]

Usually, I have to interact with someone for a while, so I can get an impression of how they think about things. Even then it can be difficult to tell whether it's Ni or Ne. I believe, however, it is easier for those who know MBTI to figure out that someone else is an Ni-dom than it is for one to see it in oneself, because the various book descriptions are so bad. Ni is described as as spooky or prophetic or as having strange insights: but to oneself, one's thoughts seem entirely commonplace, nothing spooky or prophetic or especially insightful.

Since the OP is typed as ENFP, I'll go over how to tell from that perspective. First of all, unless the ENFP is a very good chameleon, you can tell who the S types are: the Si types think you're weird, and the Se types think you're totally out to lunch (not present in the world). ENFPs can fairly easily make connections with other Ne types: the ideas bounce around in the same way.

And the Ni types? They're the ones who seem sensible, on the outside, and may even seem more present and active in the world than you (Te/Fe/Se), but they don't think you're weird at all. Yes, they might see you as flaky and perhaps undependable, but no, they don't think you're weird.

More abstractly, Ne types tend to internalize reality in a concrete way (Si), and their Ne-style ideas hop from concrete point to concrete point, finding patterns that "overlay" the world. They see the world in terms of those overlays. Ni instead takes a more timelike view of the world, where the present is concrete (Se), but it's always changing and becoming and morphing and doing things. Ni internalizes the dynamism: the specific behaviors and phenomena are constants, but the actors change.

A good example is to compare theories of gravity. Newton described gravity as a force between all objects that have mass. A single equation of gravity applies to all objects. The behavior of objects as a function of time is determined by their state at any particular Se moment, and then applying the force of gravity to all objects involved. This is a very INTJ way of looking at things.

Einstein (INTP), on the other hand, describes gravity as a curvature of spacetime. With this concept, he turns gravity into an almost timeless concept: time is just another "dimension", thus rendering it static, not dynamic. Gravity isn't a force that changes with distance, but instead there is no force: it is just spacetime. There is a single universal description of everything, everywhere, for all points of time and space. This isn't to say that one cannot convert Einstein's equations into a "3+1" perspective, and look at gravity as a "force" again; I'm just pointing out that this urge to turn gravity from a dynamic, timelike equation into a universal overlay (Ne) that hides the dynamics (Ni) is a very INTP thing to do.

 

[SilkRoad]

Ni is described as as spooky or prophetic or as having strange insights: but to oneself, one's thoughts seem entirely commonplace, nothing spooky or prophetic or especially insightful.

YES. This is an extremely good point, and one reason why (while I'm pretty certain I'm an Ni-dom) it is hard for me to put my finger on it or describe it in myself.

 

[sculpting]

I think that there can be a tendency to use metaphoric language.

It seems to be very hard to pin down, though. There is little external visibility to its workings and I don't at all buy the sort of "the eyes have it" theories.

I rule out other stuff. Typically it is pretty easy to get to IXTJ. quiet, reflective, structured, logical and so on.
Then I do use the eyes. Si looks backwards inside of the person. Se looks outwards and can feel slightly forceful. So you watch them to determine if the look inside or outside.

Ni doesnt really have a look!

ah-the switching!! They also switch stuff around all the time. and the puns (dear god, the puns).

 

[Esoteric Wench]

animenagai, all I can do it tell you how I do it.

First I decide if the person in S or N. This is really easy for me. It's a gut feeling. They are either speaking my N-language or they are not.
Next, I decide if they wear their N openly or they don't. In other words, the very fact that it isn't clearly expressed (like my Ne is) means that they are Ni. It is the lack of outward expression that's the major flag for Ni.

I think the above scenario works best with Ni doms, though. It'd be a lot harder to pick this up on Ni auxiliaries or tertiaries. But it works nonetheless. My beloved ISTP has strong Ni though it is his tertiary function. He rarely expresses it, but when he does... shazaam.

Hope this make sense.

 

[Nicodemus]

I see that they often use a lot of symbolisms and archetypal patterns such as fictional characters (which often represent common archetypes).
These are the internalized conceptual blueprints that the Ni perspective often references.

I love the way Richard Rorty (INTJ) writes in his own language, using famous philosophers, writers, artists as metaphors or simple means to evoke certain concepts, not even attempting to make it all clear in order to preserve the beauty of an idea. Another and odd case is Wittgenstein (presumably INFJ), in whose writings one can see the beauty of Ni ideas dismantled by ugly Ti rummaging. I believe it is the ugly part that has made Wittgenstein palatable to most philosophers - the Ti crowd.

 

[Zarathustra]

Thomas Sowell (INTJ would be my guess)

Ugh...

I've seen ENTP...

Whatever he is, he's obnoxious.

I see that they often use a lot of symbolisms and archetypal patterns such as fictional characters (which often represent common archetypes).
These are the internalized conceptual blueprints that the Ni perspective often references.

This.

There is little external visibility to its workings and I don't at all buy the sort of "the eyes have it" theories.

Supposedly, it has been said that a person's eyes convey a lot more about their internal state than any other emotion. Reading someone's eyes can be spiritual to some. What better way would there be to explain that spiritual essence, then to explain it in a metaphoric light? Wouldn't it stand to reason that someone who identifies with the Ni functional process, one of the most spiritual elements of human cognition, has a certain kind of presence in the way their eyes see the world?

Some describe Ni almost as being in a kind of intimate trance with the world; others think it reads between the boundaries of existence and finds a spiritual awe in everything. It's fun to imagine, isn't it?

I don't quite have anything to say about this, but I did find it an interesting post. I think a lot of this is a somewhat romantic description of Ni, but I don't think it's altogether inaccurate, either. The thing is, INTJs are one of the most likely types to be atheists, and a lot would probably try to reject any of this "spiritual" talk, trying to be hard-nosed "scientific"/"objective".

They deconstruct the rhetorical arguments and poetic possibilities of everything!

This is probably pretty true, at least of me.

But I got a degree in Rhetoric, so that probably exacerbates it.

They're just weird

Better weird than obnoxious.

Ni is described as as spooky or prophetic or as having strange insights: but to oneself, one's thoughts seem entirely commonplace, nothing spooky or prophetic or especially insightful.

I dunno.

My thoughts often seem prophetic or insightful.

Perhaps that has to do with my instinctual variant and the stuff that interests me as well.

I was one of those people talking about the financial crisis since 2004, and it wasn't cuz I always see the sky falling around the corner.

I wouldn't say my thoughts are often spooky, but I see why they could be described that way, and even feel that way a bit too myself sometimes, cuz I often will make predictions or inferences based off of scant evidence that end up being true. To other people, this comes off as me being incredibly insightful/penetrating. People often describe feeling like they can't ever hide anything around me. Like I see right through everything to the inner core of reality. I figure that could feel pretty spooky to them.

And the Ni types? They're the ones who seem sensible, on the outside, and may even seem more present and active in the world than you (Te/Fe/Se), but they don't think you're weird at all. Yes, they might see you as flaky and perhaps undependable, but no, they don't think you're weird.

Well, we might think they're weird, but we're not put off by it, and we see the same weirdness in ourselves.

They're not "differently" weird, or, perhaps better put, they're not like pigs eating from a trough.

/ instinctive use of symbolism, metaphor, archetypal patterns, fictional characters, etc.

More abstractly, Ne types tend to internalize reality in a concrete way (Si), and their Ne-style ideas hop from concrete point to concrete point, finding patterns that "overlay" the world. They see the world in terms of those overlays. Ni instead takes a more timelike view of the world, where the present is concrete (Se), but it's always changing and becoming and morphing and doing things. Ni internalizes the dynamism: the specific behaviors and phenomena are constants, but the actors change.

I'm glad you touched on this.

I've been thinking about the two recently, and wanted to hear some other peoples' thought, cuz I'd gotten myself into kind of a bind, as the two, in a certain way, are so similar to each other, but, at the same time, they're definitely very different.

It's like they're reciprocals of each other.

A good example is to compare theories of gravity. Newton described gravity as a force between all objects that have mass. A single equation of gravity applies to all objects. The behavior of objects as a function of time is determined by their state at any particular Se moment, and then applying the force of gravity to all objects involved. This is a very INTJ way of looking at things.

Yes, that is apt.

I do think of everything as having a sort of "physics" behind it.

Whether it be a business, a person, a country, an economy, a sports team, etc.

There are various forces (psychological, competitive, cultural, momentum, morale, et many many al) that will push the "object" where it's going to go. I kind of see a "streamer" quality trail behind the object just as you would in a rendering of a ball flying through the air, in which its past positions are marked by some sort of "tracer", or, as I said before, "streamer" -- basically, a marker of where this object has been that sort of dissolves the further it goes back -- it kind of just shows its recent direction, velocity, acceleration, and/or momentum. I should probably also note that, while this object does indeed appear in a sort of visual format, I do not mistake it with being the actual thing out there in the world. It's not like I walk through a world of objects with streamers. But I can retreat back into my mind, and, I guess I sort of take the world that's out there, and then form an internal concept, that includes an image of the object, and I've got the representation basically right there in front of me, in my mind. It's kind of an alternate reality where now I can look at things based on the fundamental underlying properties that will be pushing it along, and I can examine what those properties are, and how they will affect it. I do not necessarily know all the properties, there is sort of a guessing game, a scientific method, if you will, of observing, hypothesizing, testing, drawing conclusions, and repeating. Over time, I've probably figured out a lot of generalizable "forces" that I can then, depending on how well the circumstances and object fit, map those, to some degree, and in some manner, onto the new object, to predict how it will behave. Hmmm... that was interesting. Kind of a ramble, but I think it explained things pretty well.

I rule out other stuff. Typically it is pretty easy to get to IXTJ. quiet, reflective, structured, logical and so on.

Agreed.

ITJ is pretty easy to get to.

Then just look for INTJ vs ISTJ.

This completely ignores ETJs and FJs, though.

Then I do use the eyes.

I think there is something about the whole eyes thing.

I think we often have a rather blank expression, because our thoughts are not fully formed, or "crystallized", yet.

Si looks backwards inside of the person. Se looks outwards and can feel slightly forceful. So you watch them to determine if the look inside or outside.

See, while I see some value in this, cuz we do use Se, I mean, how valuable can this be, when, in reality, we're both Pi-doms, and so both spend a lot of our time looking inward. I mean, we look inward too... just, in a different way. I think Ni-doms and Si-doms will look a lot more like each other in this regard than not. With us, you'll just see flashes of Se, or maybe an underlying Se, but that is also gunna be heavily Te-based (TeSe), and that will probably be difficult to distinguish from an ISTJ's TeNe.

Ni doesnt really have a look!

Weren't you just in the INTJ blank stare thread yesterday talking about how various INTJ stares affect you?

ah-the switching!! They also switch stuff around all the time.

Yes, and the Si-users really can't stand it.

Their minds are so inflexible.

Almost J-like.

...and the puns (dear god, the puns).

Yes...

Those...

Another and odd case is Wittgenstein (presumably INFJ), in whose writings one can see the beauty of Ni ideas dismantled by ugly Ti rummaging. I believe it is the ugly part that has made Wittgenstein palatable to most philosophers - the Ti crowd.

Ugh, yes.

Not to mention the Fe.

"All language is public".