How Ni is a past oriented function

[Logic]

Contrary to popular belief on the INTP forum, Ni is also a past oriented function. Like Si it focuses on the past but it doesnt focus on the specific details but rather the relationships between them.

For example:

Si
You have a friend that is crying and feeling upset. You've seen this happen many times before so you know exactly whats wrong with your buddy. The sensations that you are noticing are consistent with your previous internalized bank of impressions and therefore you say to yourself that your friend has just been criticized by his aunt. The Si user here is very much in tune to all the individual details that lead him to believe such a specific answer. If it was in fact the father that had criticized her then the result would be different because the impressions would also be.

Ni
You have a friend that is crying and feeling upset. You've noticed this pattern many times before so you know exactly whats wrong with your buddy. The patterns that you are noticing are consistent with the previously internalized bank of pattern based impressions, and therefore you say to yourself that your friend has just been criticized by his aunt. The Ni user here is very much in tune to the the way all the specific details are related to one another and this comes to him as aha moments because the Ni function doesnt remember any of the details, but rather the intuitive connections.

Therefore
This way of looking at the Ni function seems so much more easier to understand. I pretty much have a general idea to all the functions, but the Ni function has always seemed a bit too mysterious to me. Using this understanding however it comes together much more nicely.

I may be wrong here, and im sure most of you guys will try to debunk me. However, if you are going to attack this idea, it should be directed to the Personality Nation site. They are quite impressive with their interpretations of the functions.

http://www.personalitynation.com/

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I think the Ni descriptions sound really mysterious too. When I first read the Ni descriptions, I was just like "ok, I have no idea what exactly this is saying, but I'm pretty damn sure I don't have it". On the other hand, I could sort of see myself using Si - except that I couldn't tell what the difference between Si, and just using memory in general was.

My memory is usually quite inexact. When I'm trying to remember something, I have to try and remember one thing I remember, and then from that another piece of information will emerge and so on, until I have a more complete picture. I don't know to what degree other people do this.

So, Si is about comparing something to a more clear, detailed store of impressions. When Ni is doing the comparison, it's to something far more abstract - a feel that can't easily be communicated. This difficulty in direct communication means describing the function is also going to be very difficult. Understanding the differences between each side of Pi is going to be very hard - Pe can more easily be seen, Ji can more easily be described, Je can more easily be seen and described.

 

[Logic]

I think the Ni descriptions sound really mysterious too. When I first read the Ni descriptions, I was just like "ok, I have no idea what exactly this is saying, but I'm pretty damn sure I don't have it". On the other hand, I could sort of see myself using Si - except that I couldn't tell what the difference between Si, and just using memory in general was.

Yea, I remember when I used to think that the pictures I saw in my head of past events was just normal memory.

My memory is usually quite inexact. When I'm trying to remember something, I have to try and remember one thing I remember, and then from that another piece of information will emerge and so on, until I have a more complete picture. I don't know to what degree other people do this.

I can only imagine the type of Si memory an ISXJ has. Probably like entire videos of events seen in vivid detail with each sensation taken into account in full. Something that I can only dream of, lol.

So, Si is about comparing something to a more clear, detailed store of impressions. When Ni is doing the comparison, it's to something far more abstract - a feel that can't easily be communicated. This difficulty in direct communication means describing the function is also going to be very difficult. Understanding the differences between each side of Pi is going to be very hard - Pe can more easily be seen, Ji can more easily be described, Je can more easily be seen and described.

I just want to note that Si and Ni are not making any comparisons themselves. Only when they are used alongside a judging function.

Yea, I'm glad that im not alone on that point either.

I feel somewhat compelled to explain it a little bit further though.

With sensing functions you are focusing on the details themselves and that is all you focus on. If at any point you start to create connections between those details, you have started to use an intuitive function.

With my Si function I usually have images of events that have taken place earlier today or maybe years into the past come to me sometimes. The sort of things that usually come to mind are things that I may have said or done that have in some way offended someone else in the past. So they are somewhat troublesome for me. I am sometimes led to feel as though I was acting like a very bad person, and so the memories are left to serve as a reminder as well as an event in time that I can use to extract more information from. It is difficult however, because when I start to use my Ti function I end up saying to myself that I didn't do anything wrong, and the person who was offended is in fact incorrect. However, I have learned to try and use my Fe to figure out how I can project myself better towards people so they dont take offense to my way of communication. Using Fe to do that is very difficult though, because it is just so incredibly beyond me sometimes, exactly what I may have done to upset the other person.

lol, I may have run along on a bit of a tangent there, but the idea is clear as to how Si works. I remember looking at a site that explained it very well using images. Imagine 6 dots that are placed in close proximity but none are touching one another and there is also nothing connecting them together either. This is the way you can visualize the Si function.

Ni is shown to be lines. They connect all the dots together but you dont see any of the actual dots. This is to symbolize the attitude of the Ni function. The details are not important but rather the relationships between them (relationships = intuition).

When an Ni user is trying to remember events by pulling out information from its Ni function, it takes a similar but fundamentally different approach. The Ni user would focus on the overall "plan" that was taken in during the events. They wont have any sort of sensing based memory that comes to mind like the way Si would. There are no images from which the person is extracting information from. With Ni the person is trying to recollect the relationship that is shared among all the individual events, and when it comes it is completely intuitive. So there are no details, but rather, the person has grasped the "connections". Which explains why Ni comes as an aha moment, while Si comes as a more retrieval of important facts.

I have a very easy way to help define the Sensing and Intuitive functions.

You have 2 balls of the same size, one is red and the other is blue. Each of those balls has specific details that make it specifically unique compared to the other ball. The red ball is heavier and also fuzzy, while the blue ball is squishy and hollow.

With the sensing functions, the desire is to always find the differences between ideas and objects. So the Sensor will focus on the individual characteristics of the balls. So it first sees that one ball is red while the other is blue. It then focuses on the heaviness and fuzziness of the red ball and the squishiness and hollowness of the blue ball.

Intuition however is trying to make connections and is relating the objects and ideas together, looking for similarities. So the Intuitive will say that they are both balls and they both have colors to them. They also both are the same size, and they also both belong to the same person.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Man, I don't even know what's real any more.

 

[Cogwulf]

This is a good way of looking at Ni, though I think it focuses too strongly on Ni as being a memory function, I think Ni just operates using memory. Ni pulls facts from memory and connects them to newly presented facts. It doesn't operate in the past, it just often uses the past for raw data.
Si is similar, it doesn't remember things, it just uses memory. Where Ni connects, Si compares.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'll just leave this here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective_memory

 

[Bird]

I have something to say about this when I have the time.

 

[Puffy]

Hmm, I guess I agree in a way.

I am an Ni dominant, if I was personally shown not to be one I would likely abandon the MBTI model as that I am a fixed INFJ is what allows me to make the most sense of typology in general.

If I was to describe how I use it to you it is basically on a level that direct sensation (Se) is what most tires me. I walk for many hours in a single day, some would presume it is to be in connection with my surroundings when really it is to detach. I need to detach myself to energise myself. Call it to an internal world, the imagination, whatever.

I don't feel this means people can not stimulate me but rather conversation will if it allows me to detach to my own internal world to communicate. I personally believe my internal world is mostly of abstractions. The ideas I communicate on and off forum are mostly images in my mind which my other functions help to externalise.

Now, I agree with your point and I don't agree with your point. It might just be a matter of semantics.

I am personally inspired by a quote from a book on social memory by Maurice Halbwachs: he wrote that dreams comprise of memories too mutilated to be recognised. It is like in a dream all your memories are collaged so that they are not independantly recognisable but form a complete image. This dream is created of the past (memories) but it is also a perpetual present structure. In a sense it is without time because there is no chronology to it, it is simply patterns of memory.

This is the structure of the Ni world, in my opinion. Certainly an Ni dominants one anyway. If this makes any sense at all I do not feel it is past orientated but that it is dream orientated. It is from these kind of patterns that the Ni world is collaged. How I recall dreams is a lot like how I sometimes view certain memories, abstracted into a mental painting.

I hope that doesn't make it sound too mysterious. But dreams are mysterious, Ni is mysterious.

 

[Puffy]

If you have read Neil Gaiman's Sandman think how Morpheus creates the dream world - that is the Ni dominant, in my opinion.

 

[Logic]

This is a good way of looking at Ni, though I think it focuses too strongly on Ni as being a memory function, I think Ni just operates using memory. Ni pulls facts from memory and connects them to newly presented facts. It doesn't operate in the past, it just often uses the past for raw data.
Si is similar, it doesn't remember things, it just uses memory. Where Ni connects, Si compares.

Not facts, but the principles.
Si, "I've seen this happen before"
Ni, "I've noticed this natural law before"

You can think of it as follows.

With Si your packaging the individual details that have taken place in the outer world and they are held within the Si Worldview.

With Ni your packaging the individual relationships that have taken place in the outer world and those are held within the Ni Worldview.

Ti likes to label everything because that is its nature. That is why we have names to help describe relationships between ideas and also the experiences that we feel. However our Intuition and senses are not capable of being defined entirely, because the mere act of naming something takes away the fluidity-like-characteristics of the data.

Ti still tries though lol, to capture the essence of what is out there, and define it fully. Without that, we wouldn't know how anything works. Ti provides that structure of understanding to work from.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ni

The Ni function holds onto a worldview that is focused on the future and how it can change the present, but Ni isn't capable of having these huge insights into the future that just come to them out of thin air without the Ni user ever having absorbed anything previously. The Ni worldview is constantly being re-shaped with new information and that is why it is also a past oriented function. It takes what it learned before and uses that to come to a better understanding, which will then be used to shape the future.

With Ni the person is absorbing the overall principles of what is going on. The cat jumping and eating the mouse is taken as an understanding that "the larger animal eats the smaller one" (notice the generalization). Natural law is what is internalized instead of each of the individual events. Anything that happens in the outside world is always going to hint towards some kind of overall pattern, which the Ni user is constantly on the look out for.

In the mind of an Ni user, all the "connections" that have been stored in the Ni function are bouncing around in the subconscious of the individual. At times the connections will come together to form "frameworks" that are then noticed by the Ni user as an insightful moment that helps them change their perspective on a previous idea by adding more principles. Doing this helps them come up with unrealized ideas because their perspective has been shifted allowing them to see situations from different angles. Realizing this new and improved way at looking at things motivates them to want to change how the world is functioning now into their improved upon world. Just to see their ideas come to fruition isn't enough in the long run because the Ni user may want to see if they can make an even more groundbreaking connection by adding more principles.

Si

(will finish this later)
​

 

[SkyWalker]

Logic> What do you think of this...


Ni sees the converging seed of it, Ti labels it

Ne sees the diversifying tree growing out of it, Te manifests it


Ti & Ni are similar in orientation
and Te & Ne are similar in orientation

The difference is that:
T is an active output function (for Te external logical action by muscles, including speech. for Ti internal logical categorizing)
and N is a passive input function (nerve signal input from the senses)

The input function works not only by direct nerve signal input, but the brain can also re-feed stuff back into the input function (e.g. visualization).

Since input can be re-fed into Ni/Ne, it seems like they "think" as Te/Ti, but it is a "thinking" that can only "see", and is never generating any output (action by muscles, or internal logical categorizing)

btw in my picture: 'applicable for output' = "applicable for Te / manifesting / muscle action"

 

[Logic]

Logic> What do you think of this...


Ni sees the converging seed of it, Ti labels it

Ne sees the diversifying tree growing out of it, Te manifests it

Well, Ti will label everything that it can, regardless of where it comes from, Ni Si Ne Se, are all able to be labeled by the Ti function.

Ni is hard to label however, because there is no way that you can label any sort of principle that Ni has come to understand. The reason is because there is no way for another person to understand the principles that Ni has captured within its Ni. All the principles or naturals laws or Intuitive connections (they all mean the same thing) are uniquely understood from only the Ni users subjective perspective.

Te is trying to manage the external world of protocols and dynamics. For it, it doesnt matter if the information came from an intuitive or sensing realm. Te only cares about using any sort of information to help it achieve what it wants.

Its why an ENTJ is able to accept help from an INTP and vice versa.

Ti & Ni are similar in orientation
and Te & Ne are similar in orientation

The difference is that:
T is an active output function (for Te external logical action by muscles, including speech. for Ti internal logical categorizing)
and N is a passive input function (nerve signal input from the senses)

The input function works not only by direct nerve signal input, but the brain can also re-feed stuff back into the input function (e.g. visualization).

Since input can be re-fed into Ni/Ne, it seems like they "think" as Te/Ti, but it is a "thinking" that can only "see", and is never generating any output (action by muscles, or internal logical categorizing)

btw in my picture: 'applicable for output' = "applicable for Te / manifesting / muscle action"

It reminds me of this picture.

"Nerve signal input from senses". Your saying that all information comes in from the senses, but the intuitive functions interprets the events and extracts the patterns from it. I dont think I can disagree with you on that point.

Ne and Ni make some mild sense to me, while Se and Si don't.

Shouldn't Ni and Si be grouped together for the Super task and Se and Ne be grouped for the Sub Task?

Care to explain on it further?

 

[Latent]

I just want to note that Si and Ni are not making any comparisons themselves. Only when they are used alongside a judging function.

I wish to ask if you have ever heard of this hypothesis before:
References: Do What You Are by Paul D. Tieger
http://www.personalitytype.com/


Each type has four functions> Thinking/Feeling Intuition/Sensing

Each type has an order of the four functions>

The INTPs for example are>

1st (Dominant)
Thinking

2nd
Intuition

3rd
Sensing

4th
Feeling


Each function prefers to be extroverted or introverted depending on the temperament>

INTP

1st (Dominant)
Thinking
Introverted

2nd
Intuition
Extroverted

3rd
Sensing
Introverted

4th
Feeling
Extroverted



ENFJ

1st
Feeling
Extroverted

2nd
Intuition
Introverted

3rd
Sencing
Extroverted

4th
Thinking
Introverted


The Judging/Perceiving traits appear in this way>

If the in the 1st or 2nd function the T or F is extroverted = the temperament is Judging.

&

If the in the 1st or 2nd function the T or F is introverted = the temperament is Perceiving.

Using this model in practice I am now convinced that, biologically speaking, there may be a thinking part of the brain, a feeling part of the brain, sensing and intuition part of the brain, but I believe that Judging and Perceiving are a simply a product of ones preference for introverting or extroverting ones 1st or 2nd functions.

Have you heard of this hypothesis before and what do you think of it?

I really like the descriptions and explanations of Si and Ni. When you mentioned a "Judging Function" I wanted to jump in and see what you thought.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Shouldn't Ni and Si be grouped together for the Super task and Se and Ne be grouped for the Sub Task?

I agree with this view.

I'd also like to ask, SkyWalker, if:
Ni is less applicable
Te is manifesting
Ne is more applicable
Ti is [connecting?]


What would you make of NiTe and TiNe?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

If the in the 1st or 2nd function the T or F is extroverted = the temperament is Judging.

&

If the in the 1st or 2nd function the T or F is introverted = the temperament is Perceiving.

Using this model in practice I am now convinced that, biologically speaking, there may be a thinking part of the brain, a feeling part of the brain, sensing and intuition part of the brain, but I believe that Judging and Perceiving are a simply a product of ones preference for introverting or extroverting ones 1st or 2nd functions.

Have you heard of this hypothesis before and what do you think of it?

You claim J/P may be byproducts in the psyche. Under Jung, the dominant function determines a types main attitude of introversion/extroversion and judging/perceiving.

Jung explicitly states that judging functions are Rational and perceiving functions are Irrational. This should be considered before adopting an arbitrary(yes, J/P is arbitrary, read your MBTI history) dichotomy and claiming it is separate from the functions.

Pe = P and Je = J was conceived for a career assessment questionnaire.

Perceiving types:
Ni - Irrational Intuitive Introvert
Si - Irrational Sensing Introvert
Ne - Irrational Intuitive Extravert
Se - Irrational Sensing Extravert

Judging types:
Ti - Rational Thinking Introvert
Fi - Rational Feeling Introvert
Te - Rational Thinking Extravert
Fe - Rational Feeling Extravert

 

[Anthile]

Nothing in this thread is true.

 

[Cogwulf]

The above post is true...

 

[SkyWalker]

It reminds me of this picture.

"Nerve signal input from senses". Your saying that all information comes in from the senses, but the intuitive functions interprets the events and extracts the patterns from it. I dont think I can disagree with you on that point.

Ne and Ni make some mild sense to me, while Se and Si don't.

Shouldn't Ni and Si be grouped together for the Super task and Se and Ne be grouped for the Sub Task?

Care to explain on it further?

About nerve signal input from senses:
yes it is also possible to re-feed this from within the brain (without the senses), e.g. visualization. (So you are right: I made the model too simple, but it was just a quick sketch to explain Ne/Ni.)

all extraverted functions go towards diversifying subtasks, all introverted functions go towards the converging supertask. so yes, si and se too.

 

[Logic]

Nothing in this thread is true.

The above post is true...

Nothing is glued down. I'm just trying to understand as much as possible, so if you guys want to explain yourselves then please do.

If the in the 1st or 2nd function the T or F is introverted = the temperament is Perceiving.

Using this model in practice I am now convinced that, biologically speaking, there may be a thinking part of the brain, a feeling part of the brain, sensing and intuition part of the brain, but I believe that Judging and Perceiving are a simply a product of ones preference for introverting or extroverting ones 1st or 2nd functions.

Have you heard of this hypothesis before and what do you think of it?

I really like the descriptions and explanations of Si and Ni. When you mentioned a "Judging Function" I wanted to jump in and see what you thought.

I actually believe that the 4 functions Ni Si Fe and Te are all part of the left hemisphere of the brain, which favor Structure, while Ti Fi Se and Ne are all on the right side favoring Free-form.

Judging just means the Thinking and Feeling functions, (makes decisions) and Intuition and Sensing mean Perceiving. (takes in data)

 

[Latent]

Perceiving types:
Ni - Irrational Intuitive Introvert
Si - Irrational Sensing Introvert
Ne - Irrational Intuitive Extravert
Se - Irrational Sensing Extravert

Judging types:
Ti - Rational Thinking Introvert
Fi - Rational Feeling Introvert
Te - Rational Thinking Extravert
Fe - Rational Feeling Extravert

Just to clarify abbreviations, Ni (meaning Introverted Intuition).

Ni temperaments would be the INTJ and INFJ correct? If so, why do both of these types have Js in them while they are catagorized above under "Perceiving Types."
The same could be said for the Si.

What am I missing here?

 

[SkyWalker]

I agree with this view.

I'd also like to ask, SkyWalker, if:
Ni is less applicable
Te is manifesting
Ne is more applicable
Ti is [connecting?]


What would you make of NiTe and TiNe?

Ni sees the less applicable deeper tasks (towards intent-supertask)
yes Te is manifesting or scheduling manifestation e.g. task scheduling, project management (logical answers to how questions)
Ne sees the more applicable superfiscial tasks (towards action-subtask).
Ti is categorizing (logical answers to why questions)


NiTe user > has inner-view towards the deeper supertasks, directly sees categories/connections/convergings. with that view it takes action towards manifestation.


NeTi user > has inner-view towards the superfiscial subtasks, directly sees how the perceived thing grows into diversifying subtasks, with that view it logically categorizes the super-task/intent of the perceived thing

And TeNi / TiNe would just be a preference of shorter N-viewing and faster T-action (J dominant)

this is the best metaphore ever: (C) SkyWalker
NiTe/TeNi is like rowing a boat, you are rowing (manifesting) to the front (Te), but your face (view) is to the back (Ni). So you dont see where your Te-actions lead to until after you have done it. You make all Te-decisions based on your view of the back (Ni)


Both NiTe/TeNi and NeTi/TiNe are view expanders (their T-actions expand the N-view), like in the "rowing a boat" example. they can get so far that the original viewpoint is lost (unless they have good memory)

 

[Latent]

I'd love to hear what you guys think.

Don't listen to them. It's typical INTP snark.

 

[SkyWalker]

Just to clarify abbreviations, Ni (meaning Introverted Intuition).

Ni temperaments would be the INTJ and INFJ correct? If so, why do both of these types have Js in them while they are catagorized above under "Perceiving Types."
The same could be said for the Si.

What am I missing here?

You are in the wrong thread. I guess you are still new to typology? You should really read chapter X of C.G. Jung's Psychological types. This is the root of
all modern typology. It's online as pdf somewhere

 

[Latent]

Are you new to it all?

I'm new to Jung's ideas of it. I know he's the grandfather temperament theory. I've been learning about it for 11 years now from Keirsy and Tieger. I'm mostly into applied temperament theory but I want to expand. Yes I know, I can't believe I never sought after Jung's work. I got it. Guilty.

 

[Latent]

You should really read chapter X of C.G. Jung's Psychological types.

Right here
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

Jung is obviously not writing so that the layman can understand.

Also there is no mention of how his ideas relate to the adopted four letter abbreviations, e.g. ESTJ, INFP etc., which is the comparison I was trying to clarify in post #20.

Chapter X, after reading several paragraphs, is certainly not concise and very difficult to follow. This is typical of people who are more interested wishing to sound legitimate to their peer and colleagues than planning on using their findings to teach humanity what they've learned and how we can better ourselves. I suppose he thinks that the latter is someone else's job.

I sure I can find a simple answer to my simple question somewhere else.

 

[SkyWalker]

Dont whine about chapter X, chapter X and XI are to the point and really useful. If you really want a shock go and read chapter 1-9 (I don't recommend that).

The 4 letter stuff is the MBTI shit that came after Jung duhhh, invented by mother and daughter meyers-briggs after reading chapter X of Jung. So read the books of these chicks if you want the root definitions of that model. But I guess you already know that after 11 years... But now the thread is off-subject!! agghhh!!!

 

[Latent]

Judging just means the Thinking and Feeling functions, (makes decisions) and Intuition and Sensing mean Perceiving. (takes in data)

Thanks. That makes complete sense.
Some people don't like climbing down from their tower to explain things to the peasants.

 

[Logic]

OK, I am going to take these ideas even more further.

I'm actually talking to Professor Yukawa of the Personality Nation Site, but he hasn't got back to me yet.

He says that both Si and Ni are focused on the past in terms of what data has been accumulated and they are also focused on the future because they are trying to anticipate it.

Personally I like this way of looking at it, but I don't completely understand how they "anticipate the future", so I'll get back to this when I get a reply message from the Professor. He also said that hes currently writing an article about Ni, so hopefully that will clear some stuff up.

Perhaps someone already understands this though, in which case I strongly urge them to speak about it and explain it, or make a link that leads to a place where it is explained.

The link below leads to the thread where I (Tharthi) am asking Professor Yukawa questions about the functions.

http://www.personalitynation.com/jungian-cognitive-functions/3337-function-questions.html

 

[viche]

I am personally inspired by a quote from a book on social memory by Maurice Halbwachs: he wrote that dreams comprise of memories too mutilated to be recognised. It is like in a dream all your memories are collaged so that they are not independantly recognisable but form a complete image. This dream is created of the past (memories) but it is also a perpetual present structure. In a sense it is without time because there is no chronology to it, it is simply patterns of memory.

This is the structure of the Ni world, in my opinion. Certainly an Ni dominants one anyway. If this makes any sense at all I do not feel it is past orientated but that it is dream orientated.

This is true, I'll only add a few corrections to this. Ni is not dream oriented - it is memory oriented. This is why people say that it seems to be psychic, originating out of nowhere, because it originates out of memories and you cannot see other person's memories. The details are erased so that you can compare these past memories to the present and identify similar processes. If the details were not erased then you'd get stuck on seeing the details and not be able to make the comparison - see the trees and not the entire forest (just like is happens to the Si doms).

Jung is obviously not writing so that the layman can understand.

Jung didn't fully understand his functional theories himself actually. This is why it is good to read variety of literature on jungian functions not just his original work.

 

[Limit]

Jesus. Look at all this discussion...

Not happening on PersonalityNation

It’s like everyone picks up our stuff and runs to another forum XD Breaks my heart. </3

I do love the in depth back and forth happening here though. You guys have some very intelligent posters.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Ni sees the less applicable deeper tasks (towards intent-supertask)
yes Te is manifesting or scheduling manifestation e.g. task scheduling, project management (logical answers to how questions)
Ne sees the more applicable superfiscial tasks (towards action-subtask).
Ti is categorizing (logical answers to why questions)

"Project management", sounds good.

However, Te is extraverted, and Ti is introverted. More than HOW, Te, I'd say, is more empirical. Whereas Ti, more than WHY, is more rational(in regards to Rationalism that is).

The rest I am okay with.

NiTe user > has inner-view towards the deeper supertasks, directly sees categories/connections/convergings. with that view it takes action towards manifestation.

So deep internal supertask-->externalization. Would you say NiTe is contextual?

NeTi user > has inner-view towards the superfiscial subtasks, directly sees how the perceived thing grows into diversifying subtasks, with that view it logically categorizes the super-task/intent of the perceived thing

So diverse external subtasks-->internal categorization?
Makes sense.

And TeNi / TiNe would just be a preference of shorter N-viewing and faster T-action (J dominant)

I would have liked an explanation. There must be consistency for clarity.

this is the best metaphore ever: (C) SkyWalker
NiTe/TeNi is like rowing a boat, you are rowing (manifesting) to the front (Te), but your face (view) is to the back (Ni). So you dont see where your Te-actions lead to until after you have done it. You make all Te-decisions based on your view of the back (Ni)


Both NiTe/TeNi and NeTi/TiNe are view expanders (their T-actions expand the N-view), like in the "rowing a boat" example. they can get so far that the original viewpoint is lost (unless they have good memory)

I'm not sure if I follow.

If Ni = Back View; Te = Action, wouldn't TeNi know where it's actions are leading? Or at least think it knows? Whereas NiTe, would be too focused on the view, and suffer from inefficient actions?

I'm not sure how to recreate the scenario for Ne+Ti.

Just to clarify abbreviations, Ni (meaning Introverted Intuition).

Ni temperaments would be the INTJ and INFJ correct? If so, why do both of these types have Js in them while they are catagorized above under "Perceiving Types."
The same could be said for the Si.

What am I missing here?

Okay I'll be all out and not partial to any view.

Like I said, under Jung, a dominant function determines both introversion/extraversion and perceiving/judging(same as Irrational/Rational).

So the temperament of dominant Ni is Introverted-Perceiving, under Jung.

MBTI works on the principle of Pe = P and J = Je.
As you can see, this makes all introverted types have flipped functions.

From:
Perceiving types:
Ni - Irrational Intuitive Introvert
Si - Irrational Sensing Introvert
Ne - Irrational Intuitive Extravert
Se - Irrational Sensing Extravert

Judging types:
Ti - Rational Thinking Introvert
Fi - Rational Feeling Introvert
Te - Rational Thinking Extravert
Fe - Rational Feeling Extravert

To
Perceiving types:
Ti - Rational Thinking Introvert
Fi - Rational Feeling Introvert
Ne - Irrational Intuitive Extravert
Se - Irrational Sensing Extravert

Judging types:

Ni - Irrational Intuitive Introvert
Si - Irrational Sensing Introvert
Te - Rational Thinking Extravert
Fe - Rational Feeling Extravert


True, Jung did not have a Four Letter Code, and to be strict, it's almost useless to use that fact in an argument, if it were not for temperaments.

If INTP means, Introverted-Perceiving temperament(IP), then that type is Jung's Introverted Intuitive type. Which means INTPs actually are NiTe.

Potentially partial view:
Myers-Briggs came after Jung and utilized his type attitudes for their own benefit. They were not analytical psychologists, they were not students of Jung. Why would Je = J; Pe = P take precedence over Jung's initial propositions? I, personally, see no reason to adopt this claim.

 

[passingby]

Ni/Te will subconsciously retain all info (intuitive/abstract info, I mean) it deems logical or valid to be added on to their own conceptual model of *whatever*. Days, months, or years after, something will spark a recollection of this long since buried idea/info, and it will suddenly crystalize. An 'aha!' moment where even the tiniest bit of info, after fermenting for a time, will suddenly have great and deep insight into the current thing that sparked this intuitive leap in thought in the Ni/Te user. The Ni/Te user often won't be aware of the knowledge they possess until this moment.

So yes Ni uses past experiences/thoughts, to conceptualize (though it may be a hard pill to swallow) an extraordinarily accurate prediction of coming events. While Ni is an irrational perceiving function, for the INTJ specifically the only info Ni has to work with has been deemed logically consistent with working models. The Ni/Te pair becomes increasingly impressive as the user of said functions IQ climbs.


That's my interpretation anyways.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Si+Ne = spatially rigid, temporally flowing

Ni+Se = temporally rigid, spatially flowing

 

[Logic]

Si+Ne = spatially rigid, temporally flowing

Ni+Se = spatially flowing, temporally rigid

Hmm... I think it would make more sense if I make a little change.

Si = spatially rigid
Ne = temporally flowing
Ni = temporally rigid
Se = spatially flowing

The intuitive functions are concerned with "time" where as the sensing functions are concerned with "space".

This is what you meant I'm sure?

Also I just want to ask if i can use this example to help with my thread on the personality nation site. I think it hits on some great points.

 

[SkyWalker]

More than HOW, Te, I'd say, is more empirical. Whereas Ti, more than WHY, is more rational(in regards to Rationalism that is).

different labels/words, same concepts:
with empiricism you mean applicable knowledge (HOW again)
with "your" rationalism you mean deeper understanding (WHY again).

NiTe: So deep internal supertask-->externalization. Would you say NiTe is contextual?

do you have another word/label or give me your definition of contextual please?

NeTi: So diverse external subtasks-->internal categorization?
Makes sense.

I would have liked an explanation. There must be consistency for clarity.

Switch over to Ni-dom for a few minutes you'll see it.

If Ni = Back View; Te = Action, wouldn't TeNi know where it's actions are leading? Or at least think it knows? Whereas NiTe, would be too focused on the view, and suffer from inefficient actions?

if you row a boat and you are facing the backview (Ni), but your actions/manifestations (Te) make the boat go forward (the other way), then you can still make intelligent decisions (Te), based on the back view (and the history/memory/movie/story of all your back views over time).
if you are in a river, you can still see if you are in the middle by just using the back view, you can also decide (Te) to go to the left or right etc with just the backview (Ni).
although you could "know" where you are heading (by intuiting it from the backview), you cannot SEE where you are heading You need Ne (front view) to SEE where you are heading.
Ni can intuit/anticipate the future using the backview (the past up to the current). So Ni can still anticipate/intuit the front/future (fill out the blanks by using info from the other side) but cant really see it.
Ne can actually see the front/future (it sees all possible futures instantly), but it anticipates/intuits the back that it cannot see.

This is why its called INTUITION, it fills out blanks from the side that you actually dont view. I dont think anybody realized this yet in topology. So thats why Ni is orientated to the past (e.g. from which super-task the current tasks came from), but it anticipates/intuits the future.

please bare in mind that only Ni-dom exists and not Ni-only. Ni-doms would still turn their head (turn their P function to Ne) once in a while, to see where their boat is heading. they would just not do that often and have their head turned mostly to the back (Ni). although they can turn their head, they just prefer back-view (something like....this is the way their neck feels most at ease).

 

[SkyWalker]

Hmm... I think it would make more sense if I make a little change.

Si = spatially rigid
Ne = temporally flowing
Ni = temporally rigid
Se = spatially flowing

The intuitive functions are concerned with "time" where as the sensing functions are concerned with "space".

This is what you meant I'm sure?

Also I just want to ask if i can use this example to help with my thread on the personality nation site. I think it hits on some great points.

i dont like rigid and flowing.
i think i know what you mean though:
rigid = distinct/categorized/digital
flowing = analog/continuous/fuzzy

when you sample flowing analog music you "converge" it into rigid digital values.
when you play a sine wave from a digital/rigid formula, you "diverge" it into a flowing analog sine wave.

can i update it once more?

Si = full reality converging spatially (& in the now in time, e.g. temporally flat)
Se = full reality diverging spatially (& in the now in time, e.g. temporally flat)
Ni = full reality converging temporally (& any/everywhere in space, e.g. spatially flat)
Ne = full reality diverging temporally (& any/everywhere in space, e.g. spatially flat)

----
my task theory again: SkyWalker (C)

temporally/N: is seeing where tasks are heading (diverse sub-tasks / possibilities) or coming from (converging super-task)

spatially/S: is seeing the current state of all competing tasks that hit your perception at this moment, and S rates (likes or dislikes) each one of these tasks for the state they are in NOW
- Se views the rating/value of a task based on where it leads/is-going (e.g. what to reap from it now). thus also about sub-tasks as Ne, but in a different now-value-kind-of-way.
- Si views the rating/value of a task based on where it came from (e.g. what to save from it now). thus also about super-task as Ni, but in a different now-value-kind-of-way

sensation = rating/value of tasks on a per-task basis and then (spatially) comparing them, e.g. whether the experience of the task at its current state gives you pain or pleasure at the extraverted or introverted side (depending on which kind of sensation, Si or Se).

so S is more on a per-task (e.g. spatial) evaluation basis, each task for itself, quick view of rating/value of where each is heading (Se) or coming from (Si), and then comparing all those tasks (spatially). ignoring the temporal, thus integration of the temporal, flattening it to the spatial domain only.

and N, on the other hand, is a spatial integration of current tasks, thus ignoring the spatial, flattening into the temporal domain only

 

[Logic]

i dont like rigid and flowing.
i think i know what you mean though:
rigid = distinct/categorized/digital
flowing = analog/continuous/fuzzy

when you sample flowing analog music you "converge" it into rigid digital values.
when you play a sine wave from a digital/rigid formula, you "diverge" it into a flowing analog sine wave.

can i update it once more?

Si = full reality converging spatially (& in the now in time, e.g. temporally flat)
Se = full reality diverging spatially (& in the now in time, e.g. temporally flat)
Ni = full reality converging temporally (& any/everywhere in space, e.g. spatially flat)
Ne = full reality diverging temporally (& any/everywhere in space, e.g. spatially flat)

Si = Individual literal experiences from Immediate realities being stored into a worldview.
Se = The focus of literal experiences from Immediate realities in the present moment.
Ni = Individual interpretations being stored into a worldview.
Ne = Brainstorming many different interpretations which branch off from a single idea.

Se and Ne both have no structure to them, just flow. There are no points of beginning or end. Si and Ni though, are structured, every point is being given a start and an end.

This explains why we need to have both Si and Ne or Se and Ni to operate properly.

Si is like a photo, just a detail of sensory stimulation. When activated, you feel all the sensations within the photo, from when you took it.

Si = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Think solid circles

Se can be thought of as a video with no beginning and no end, just an endless stream of continuous sensory stimulation.

Se = ***************************** Think solid line

Ni is time that has been "frozen", at the start there is a beginning to the plan, and at the end is the completion. Time is the value which is "captured" or "enclosed" within the circle.

Ni = o o o o o o o o o o o o Think hollow circles

Ne can be thought of as the flow of time itself, just an endless stream which has no beginning and no end.

Ne = ooooooooooooooooooooo Think hollow line

my task theory again: SkyWalker (C)

temporally/N: is seeing where tasks are heading (diverse sub-tasks / possibilities) or coming from (converging super-task)

spatially/S: is seeing the current state of all competing tasks that hit your perception at this moment, and S rates (likes or dislikes) each one of these tasks for the state they are in NOW
- Se views the rating/value of a task based on where it leads/is-going (e.g. what to reap from it now). thus also about sub-tasks as Ne, but in a different now-value-kind-of-way.
- Si views the rating/value of a task based on where it came from (e.g. what to save from it now). thus also about super-task as Ni, but in a different now-value-kind-of-way

sensation = rating/value of tasks on a per-task basis and then (spatially) comparing them, e.g. whether the experience of the task at its current state gives you pain or pleasure at the extraverted or introverted side (depending on which kind of sensation, Si or Se).

so S is more on a per-task (e.g. spatial) evaluation basis, each task for itself, quick view of rating/value of where each is heading (Se) or coming from (Si), and then comparing all those tasks (spatially). ignoring the temporal, thus integration of the temporal, flattening it to the spatial domain only.

and N, on the other hand, is a spatial integration of current tasks, thus ignoring the spatial, flattening into the temporal domain only

The concept of tasks seems a bit unnecessary and causing confusion from my perspective.

 

[SkyWalker]

Si = Reality converging into digital values that are then stored.
Se = Reality diverging from digital values that have been stored.
Ni = Time converging into digital values that are then stored.
Ne = Time diverging from digital values that have been stored.

Thanks for the post, but sorry, I really dont think it is all about storing.
Perception is only about seeing (whether directly from the senses or as a visualization re-feed).
And you can only store what you see.

Each of these 4 perception functions sees fulll reality in a different way. And after seeing it, your brain can store any of these 4.

you are saying that extraverted perception (Se & Ne) are mainly about recalling old memories, this is not the core of the concept.
you are saying that introverted perception (Si & Ni) are mainly about digitally storing analog information, which is not the core of the concept

and they are not values, they are tasks

also you changed the word spatial to reality? why? is the temporal domain not reality?? then at least you should call it "current reality" or "reality in the now".

 

[Logic]

Thanks for the post, but sorry, I really dont think it is all about storing.
Perception is only about seeing (whether directly from the senses or as a visualization re-feed).
And you can only store what you see.

Each of these 4 perception functions sees fulll reality in a different way. And after seeing it, your brain can store any of these 4.

Information is being stored in the Si and Ni function. They act somewhat like hard discs in the brain. However you can only feed a certain type of memory, it has to either be in the form of Si or Ni.

you are saying that extraverted perception (Se & Ne) are mainly about recalling old memories, this is not the core of the concept.
you are saying that introverted perception (Si & Ni) are mainly about digitally storing analog information, which is not the core of the concept

I'm saying that Se and Ne are the flow of time and immediate reality and Si and Ni is the accumulating worldview. Si and Ni both take in data from their own perceptions, and that is then held in the Si and Ni worldview.

and they are not values, they are tasks

I dont understand your model all that completely, which is why I think you are disagreeing with me. However I dont think you understand me as well.

Are you saying that Ni and Si are absorbing tasks? I use the term "value" to describe the pieces of data that SI and Ni take in.

btw in my picture: 'applicable for output' = "applicable for Te / manifesting / muscle action"

Hmmmm, So why are the functions outputting these "tasks"? What exactly are these tasks to begin with anyways?

I also think Ne and Se should both be grouped together for sub-task and Ni and Si be grouped towards the super task. I dont know though, You're going to have to explain your concept to me some more.

also you changed the word spatial to reality? why? is the temporal domain not reality?? then at least you should call it "current reality" or "reality in the now".

I agree, I'll use the term Immediate Realities, but spatial is fine too.

 

[viche]

Si+Ne = spatially rigid, temporally flowing

Ni+Se = temporally rigid, spatially flowing

True. You'll find that Si types are conservative with resources while Ni types are conservative with time. And that brings us to the fundamental question of what is space and what is time and how/why do the two oppose each other.

 

[SkyWalker]

He says that both Si and Ni are focused on the past in terms of what data has been accumulated and they are also focused on the future because they are trying to anticipate it.

Personally I like this way of looking at it, but I don't completely understand how they "anticipate the future", so I'll get back to this when I get a reply message from the Professor. He also said that hes currently writing an article about Ni, so hopefully that will clear some stuff up.

Perhaps someone already understands this though, in which case I strongly urge them to speak about it and explain it, or make a link that leads to a place where it is explained.

If you only look to the front, you can only anticipate/intuit the back.
If you only look to the back, you can only anticipate/intuit the front.

it is like this with all perception functions. lets say X and Y are opposite perceptions:
- when you are X-dom, then you see X and intuit/anticipate the Y-gap in your
perception.
- when you are Y-dom, then you see Y and intuit/anticiapte the X-gap in your perception.

So not only N-doms, also S-doms do a kind of anticipation/intuition thing on their missing gap. But it is a totally different kind of anticipation/intuition.

---

what i am also interested in is: what exactly is the opposite of each??

opposite of Si: is it Se or Ne?
opposite of Se: is it Si or Ni?
opposite of Ni: is it Ne or Se?
opposite of Ne: is it Ni or Si?

I am talking in this thread as if Ne is opposite to Ni, but I have read stuff of people who say Se is opposite to Ni (and Si is opposite to Ne) and I have some clues about this, but I wish to understand this more ? anybody here with an opinion on that matter?

 

[SkyWalker]

Information is being stored in the Si and Ni function. They act somewhat like hard discs in the brain. However you can only feed a certain type of memory, it has to either be in the form of Si or Ni.

I am trying to understand you, but you come off to me as if you think that Si & Ni are mainly memory functions and Se & Ne are mainly NOT-memory functions.

I am very sure actually that it is not like that!

@Logic > Please try to read this thoroughly, and I promise I will also try to read your replies thoroughly so we can try and understand each other to come to a better joined model.

--

Perception is not about memory, perception is just perception-only / input-only. (although i think it is true that each perception function leads to a unique kind of memory storage.)

the perception functions are about instant perception. yes, even the temporal N functions:
Ne = peeking from the now into the future without memory
Ni = peeking from the now into the past without memory)

they are not about memory, although memory is involved to constantly improve the internal worldview for whatever perception function.

a newborn baby without memory can still "see" with Ni & Si.

again the boat metaphore:

the Ni-baby's viewpoint is the back (Ni) of the boat moving forward. Even if it was born in the boat right now, it still has a view of the back. It can see the past view, even the part of it where it was not alive yet, although it is vague and distant (and blurry and mysterious): the baby can see it without memory of it.
It will see (using some kind of instinctual process) where each "thought/task/meme(/Logic's-value)" "comes from" INSTANTLY (because that is its viewpoint), even if it does not have memory of that past: it just sees that past instantly from the info of the now. (not in an exact detailed kind of way of course, but in some mysterious instinctual kind of way)


the Ne-baby's viewpoint is the front of the boat (Ne). It will see (using some kind of instinctual process) where each "thought/task/meme(/Logic's-value)" "leads to" INSTANTLY (because that is its viewpoint).

---

The Ni-baby will intuit the Ne-baby's viewpoint (because it is a gap in its perception)
And the Ne-baby will intuit the Ni-baby's viewpoint (because it is a gap in its perception)
Both will suck at predicting the gap in details, because they have no memory of reality yet, but they try and make some simplistic model anyway, which they will slowly update/improve in their lifetime.

If these babies are intelligent enough, they will eventually be able to be quite good predictors of their gap. And only THIS IMPROVING PREDICTION OF THE GAP is what requires memory

---

I also think that Ne/Ni are mixed-up (swapped the wrong way around) as a concept for a lot of people. Some think they are Ne-dom because they predict the future. But that would simply be Ni-dom: which sees the past but predicts the future.
your perception is your viewpoint orientation
your anti-perception/gap-intuition is the back of your viewpoint (the gap that you predict).

I am currently pondering whether Jung's conscious and unconscious sides of the psyche are actually a similar kind of concept as to what i just explained above. The facing viewpoint is conscious, the gap in your back is unconscious? Or did Jung mean it the other way around? These concepts swap quite subtly depending on your understanding of the definitions!

 

[passingby]

Ni/Te will subconsciously retain all info (intuitive/abstract info, I mean) it deems logical or valid to be added on to their own conceptual model of *whatever*. Days, months, or years after, something will spark a recollection of this long since buried idea/info, and it will suddenly crystalize. An 'aha!' moment where even the tiniest bit of info, after fermenting for a time, will suddenly have great and deep insight into the current thing that sparked this intuitive leap in thought in the Ni/Te user. The Ni/Te user often won't be aware of the knowledge they possess until this moment.

So yes Ni uses past experiences/thoughts, to conceptualize (though it may be a hard pill to swallow) an extraordinarily accurate prediction of coming events. While Ni is an irrational perceiving function, for the INTJ specifically the only info Ni has to work with has been deemed logically consistent with working models. The Ni/Te pair becomes increasingly impressive as the user of said functions IQ climbs.


That's my interpretation anyways.

On second thought did I describe Ne right here? It doesn't seem consistent with everyone else's perception of Ni.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

what i am also interested in is: what exactly is the opposite of each??

opposite of Si: is it Se or Ne?
opposite of Se: is it Si or Ni?
opposite of Ni: is it Ne or Se?
opposite of Ne: is it Ni or Si?

I am talking in this thread as if Ne is opposite to Ni, but I have read stuff of people who say Se is opposite to Ni (and Si is opposite to Ne) and I have some clues about this, but I wish to understand this more ? anybody here with an opinion on that matter?

These dichotomies feed into and complement each other:
Ne/Si
Se/Ni
Ti/Fe
Fi/Te

These dichotomies inhibit(monitor) each other:
Ni/Si
Ne/Se
Fi/Ti
Te/Fe

These dichotomies correct(disagree with) each other:
Ni/Ne
Si/Se
Fe/Fi
Te/Ti

This view isn't compatible with MBTI. So if that's your intent, it's useless.

 

[SkyWalker]

I made this drawing...Your opinion is appreciated...

@Logic: used your store/recall idea, but I flipped it

Ne <vs> Ni (big picture and how it fits in with the rest)

 

[Logic]

I feel the need to want to explain this diagram, for anyone that may be having trouble.

Ne

With Ne the single idea/object is being thought in many different possibilities, leading to different results for that single idea/object.

Let's take a look at this sentence. "The leopard was spotted". This is a typical example of a double meaning sentence. Contrary to what most people think about double meanings, they are actually Ne based rather then Ni. The word spotted has 2 possible interpretations to it. The first meaning can be that of the leopard having been sighted/located by someone, perhaps a forest ranger. The second meaning can be that the leopard has physical spots on its fur. If you were to interpret it in either possibilities it would would still make sense.

The word is the same, but the meanings are different.

Ni

With Ni the many different ideas/objects are all being thought in terms of a single possibility, leading to a single result from many ideas/objects.

I'll use another example with grammar to complement my previous one. There are many different languages that interpret the same things in everyday life but they sound different compared to the words we use to describe them in our mother tongue. The word red is called rouge in French, rosso in Italian, rojo in Spanish, RGB value of #ff0000 in hex code, etc. All these different words/codes are used to describe the exact same thing, the color red.

The meaning is the same, but the words are different.

 

[ked]

Understanding that Ne is visual and a function one works with in science, that's future oriented, and then seeing that Ni is the same as Ne but without visual, it being the Ne-type in rest - then he starts to deal with his own mind rather than with all the doings, works in about the outside world, then we see that Ni is dealing with just iNtuitive memory, and memory is past oriented. Ni uses there Te (sort of organizing function) rather than Ti (sort of thinking function).

 

[fizzix]

I may be a little late here, but I'm an Ni-user and I relate with Logic's descriptions of Ni the most.