Ni and Ne

[A22]

I've been reading about MBTI and this came up:

A person whose dominant function is extraverted intuition, for example, uses intuition very differently from someone whose dominant function is introverted intuition.

What is this big difference? And what does it means to have an extraverted intuition?

 

[GYX_Kid]

EN*Ps intuitively perceive the environment (like INTPs but more), and IN*Js intuitively perceive whatever's going on inside of themselves, I guess.

 

[snafupants]

This was a pretty interesting and useful, if juvenilely didactic, way of viewing the eight dominant functions. The example relates to how each type would approach erecting a fence. You mileage may vary on what you take away from this little thought exercise.

Spoiler

Ne - I want to design the fence.

Ni - Why do they want to do this and what is the deal with fences anyway? Is this necessary?

Se - I want to decorate the fence and make sure that it looks stylish and appealing

Si - I’ll take care of looking at the instructions and making sure that we follow the established guidlines.

Te - Is doing this cost effective? Will it be useful?

Ti - I want to analyze the structure and placement of the fence.

Fe - How will it affect the neighborhood, and what will the neighbors think?

Fi - I want it to be my own special fence that I can share with others over time

 

[Cosmic]

from my own interpretation, it's depth vs. breadth, where Ni is partial to different perspectives of the same reality to achieve a more solid understanding of an idea. Ne is its ADD counterpart that goes from one idea to another stringing things together and picking up on patterns and connections.

not sure if this is a very good explanation; the Ni vs. Ne thing has eluded me for the most part and i'd love to read other peoples' input

 

[A22]

Thanks GYX_Kid, IDK why I didn't see it that way, huh...

Thanks for your answer too, Cosmic.

This was a pretty interesting and useful, if juvenilely didactic, way of viewing the eight dominant functions. The example relates to how each type would approach erecting a fence. You mileage may vary on what you take away from this little thought exercise.

Spoiler

Ne - I want to design the fence.

Ni - Why do they want to do this and what is the deal with fences anyway? Is this necessary?

Se - I want to decorate the fence and make sure that it looks stylish and appealing

Si - I’ll take care of looking at the instructions and making sure that we follow the established guidlines.

Te - Is doing this cost effective? Will it be useful?

Ti - I want to analyze the structure and placement of the fence.

Fe - How will it affect the neighborhood, and what will the neighbors think?

Fi - I want it to be my own special fence that I can share with others over time

lol, I'm definitively an Ni.

 

[Dapper Dan]

This was a pretty interesting and useful, if juvenilely didactic, way of viewing the eight dominant functions. The example relates to how each type would approach erecting a fence. You mileage may vary on what you take away from this little thought exercise.

Spoiler

Ne - I want to design the fence.

Ni - Why do they want to do this and what is the deal with fences anyway? Is this necessary?

Se - I want to decorate the fence and make sure that it looks stylish and appealing

Si - I’ll take care of looking at the instructions and making sure that we follow the established guidlines.

Te - Is doing this cost effective? Will it be useful?

Ti - I want to analyze the structure and placement of the fence.

Fe - How will it affect the neighborhood, and what will the neighbors think?

Fi - I want it to be my own special fence that I can share with others over time

I feel like both of the N entries apply to N's in general. From what I understand, both are good for designing, and both can be pretty critical. The difference is that an Ne will try to design an interesting/cool fence, whereas an Ni will try to make the best fence. An Ne's criticism will be "Why? Your yard is already surrounded by your neighbors' fences," whereas an Ni's will be "If you don't reinforce this thing, the wind will knock it over."

At least, that's my understanding. Admittedly, Ni is the function I have the most trouble getting grips on. And I might be getting my Ti in your Ne.

 

[snafupants]

I feel like both of the N entries apply to N's in general. From what I understand, both are good for designing, and both can be pretty critical. The difference is that an Ne will try to design an interesting/cool fence, whereas an Ni will try to make the best fence. An Ne's criticism will be "Why? Your yard is already surrounded by your neighbors' fences," whereas an Ni's will be "If you don't reinforce this thing, the wind will knock it over."

At least, that's my understanding. Admittedly, Ni is the function I have the most trouble getting grips on. And I might be getting my Ti in your Ne.

When in doubt, go back to the source text, Psychological Types.

 

[katkeyron]

I feel like Ni is more similar to Si than Ne; and that both Pi functions are more like databases (the entirety of what you know) and both Pe functions are what gathers that information

 

[Essence]

My ENFJ Friend described Ni as having a system in his head. Ni throws a wrench into the gears and breaks it, then shows the way to fix the system so that whatever stopped it from working is negated before it can become an issue.

Theres a good link on PerC

http://personalitycafe.com/articles/84275-cognitive-function-ne-vs-ni.html

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

they use it differently because one is a P and one is a J. that means in an NJ the intuition will be styled in a J way, in NPs in a P way.

of course they are still very similar, because they are both N (the idea behind having two variants of four basic functions is that each respective pair is looking for the same basic thing, and require each other to reach the full experience of their world)

 

[BigApplePi]

8 CFs-Fence Erection

Eight CF's in fence erection:

Ne - I want to design the fence.

Ni - Why do they want to do this and what is the deal with fences anyway? Is this necessary?

Se - I want to decorate the fence and make sure that it looks stylish and appealing

Si - I’ll take care of looking at the instructions and making sure that we follow the established guidlines.

Te - Is doing this cost effective? Will it be useful?

Ti - I want to analyze the structure and placement of the fence.

Fe - How will it affect the neighborhood, and what will the neighbors think?

Fi - I want it to be my own special fence that I can share with others over time

Pretty good snafu.

 

[Puffy]

Ni fence: "I don't like fences, they're a symbol of separation. We should abolish fences altogether."

Se: "Lets go tear down some fences then!"

Ni: "Meh. Too 'hands on' for me."

 

[BigApplePi]

Ne / Ni: Fence Me In

I feel similarly [about] not being able to get Ne versus Ni. Let's try this.

Ne is about objectivity; Ni about subjectivity but so what? What does that mean and how do we compare on equal terms?

Both try to pull something together and see something whole (intuition), but what? Answer (after a dozen rewrites):

Ne starts with some theme or motive. It goes "out there" to the objective world, collects data and pulls on it all to form something whole. The data is already out there. The whole is put together [to within the self]. Example: When we build a fence now we can tell who and what goes where.

Ni starts with some theme or motive. It consults one's inner subjective self, pulls its data from that and forms something whole. The data is not seen by others. The whole put together appears new [and directed outside the former self]. Example: I have a great idea! Why not build a fence?

 

[Minuend]

Without reading the thread at all; Ni people are crazy and obsessive. Ne people are weird.

Ni will try to influence your opinion. Ne will just run around in circles looking for wheat

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Re: Ne / Ni: Fence Me In

Ni is in a way a sense of what you -don't- know to be possible, what you can't "see". (In a sense, once Ni thinks something can be done it stops doing anything with it.) It can work in top down envisioning because it is able to clear away what it can't understand and so break down procedures until they are in a form where everything is known; then it rests.

Ne is bottom-up creation - it is a set of possibilities, assumed to be possible since they are synthesised from other things it believes to be possible, tempered by ruling out what it knows not to do.

I feel similarly not being able to get Ne versus Ni. Let's try this.

What do you say to be the difference between adaptive functions and directive functions in general?

 

[Dapper Dan]

Re: Ne / Ni: Fence Me In

I feel similarly not being able to get Ne versus Ni. Let's try this.

Ne is about objectivity; Ni about subjectivity but so what? What does that mean and how do we compare on equal terms?

Both try to pull something together and see something whole (intuition), but what? Answer (after a dozen rewrites):

Ne starts with some theme or motive. It goes "out there" to the objective world, collects data and pulls on it all to form something whole. The data is already out there. The whole is put together. Example: When we build a fence now we can tell who and what goes where.

Ni starts with some theme or motive. It consults one's inner subjective self, pulls its data from that and forms something whole. The data is not seen by others. The whole put together appears new. Example: I have a great idea! Why not build a fence?

Aren't objectivity and subjectivity supposed to be the realm of T and F?

 

[AureliaSeverina]

This was a pretty interesting and useful, if juvenilely didactic, way of viewing the eight dominant functions. The example relates to how each type would approach erecting a fence. You mileage may vary on what you take away from this little thought exercise.

Spoiler

Ne - I want to design the fence.

Spoiler

Ni - Why do they want to do this and what is the deal with fences anyway? Is this necessary?

Se - I want to decorate the fence and make sure that it looks stylish and appealing

Si - I’ll take care of looking at the instructions and making sure that we follow the established guidlines.

Te - Is doing this cost effective? Will it be useful?

Ti - I want to analyze the structure and placement of the fence.

Fe - How will it affect the neighborhood, and what will the neighbors think?

Fi - I want it to be my own special fence that I can share with others over time

LOL. According to this, I use Ni, Te and Ti, but not Ne. (I'm an INTJ).
But, how is "I want to design the fence." related to intuition/ abstraction? It sounds more like an Se thing.
Anyway, I quite like the following definition from keys2cognition:

Ne:
basic (passive) use: notice abstract patterns as they emerge
developed (active) use: Shift a situations dynamics and explore imaginative potential possibilities
Ni:
basic (passive) use: Receive "ah-ha" insights and realizations
developed (active) use: Persue a greater level of awareness to transform who you are and how you think

The description of the developed use of Ne sounds a lot like what my INTP friend does. E.g. as soon as I tell him about some problem that I see as a big nuisance or insurmountable obstacle, he immediately comes up with an alternative without any effort. But I don't think he has "ah-ha" insights at all ... it takes him ages to understand anything new in real-time situations, probably because he uses Ti to get "insights"? As for the active use of Ni..... I can't see him doing that at all. To transform who he is and how he thinks would first of all require him to be interested in himself as a person. He seems to float around in abstract spheres so much that anything remotely personal/ to do with himself is puzzling to him.
My best friend is an ESFJ, so she should have Ne as her tertiary and she can't relate to the definition of Ni at all. She doesn't even understand what it's supposed to mean.

 

[BigApplePi]

To AT & DD. After what you two guys are saying, I'm at sea again. You guys are rocking the boat. I'm looking for foundations, simplicity and consistency. Another try:

What do you say to be the difference between adaptive functions and directive functions in general?

Adaptive functions give direction from outside the self to the self; directive functions give direction from the self to outside the self.

Aren't objectivity and subjectivity supposed to be the realm of T and F?

DD, I got the objectivity/subjectivity thing from here, independent of intuition, hoping that would distinguish extroversion from introversion for all of N S T F. DD I vaguely recall the T and F thing but not where that was from.

Ni is in a way a sense of what you -don't- know to be possible, what you can't "see". (In a sense, once Ni thinks something can be done it stops doing anything with it.) It can work in top down envisioning because it is able to clear away what it can't understand and so break down procedures until they are in a form where everything is known; then it rests.

Ne is bottom-up creation - it is a set of possibilities, assumed to be possible since they are synthesised from other things it believes to be possible, tempered by ruling out what it knows not to do.

Ni is in a way a sense of what you -don't- know to be possible, what you can't "see". [Ni brings from the unconscious to consciousness] (In a sense, once Ni thinks something can be done it stops doing anything with it.) [Do you mean Ni stops or everything stops? Do you mean it stops formulating but still can push its theme? Why can it keep going?] It can work in top down envisioning because it is able to clear away what it can't understand and so break down procedures until they are in a form where everything is known; then it rests. [What arrives at consciousness comes from bottom-up. Once it hits consciousness it is free to act, top-down. Is that okay to say?]

Ne is bottom-up creation - it is a set of possibilities, assumed to be possible since they are synthesized from other things [bottom up from objective data. Ni is bottom-up also but from the unconscious. Unconscious sources don't qualify as cognitive.] it believes to be possible, tempered by ruling out what it knows not to do.

[Ni like Ne both integrate and formulize (bottom-up). It's just that their sources are different. Once they integrate, they have the option of pushing their theme (top-down).]
============================

Amusing note. This post is an Ne post. I did use Ni but that is minor and I have little idea how my unconscious works, don't care, and it says nothing for this post. On the other hand I stole ideas (sources for ideas) left and right, up and down from other people, especially directly from Artsu Tharaz, Dapper Dan, Adymus and possibly even my own past.

Apologies if you got duplicate emails. I finally deleted the dupes on this thread.

 

[crippli]

You mileage may vary on what you take away from this little thought exercise.

I was given a spiral-stair for free. It works fine as it is. But I'm redesigning it. Reduce the circle( use less space), and remove the rail. It will be dangerous to climb, but I think it'll be stylish. The danger will be restricted to the climbing. Structural I would like this to hold. It wont be used much. Just to a storage room.

Spoiler

Ne - I want to design the fence.

Ni - Why do they want to do this and what is the deal with fences anyway? Is this necessary?

Se - I want to decorate the fence and make sure that it looks stylish and appealing

Si - I’ll take care of looking at the instructions and making sure that we follow the established guidelines.

Te - Is doing this cost effective? Will it be useful?

Ti - I want to analyze the structure and placement of the fence.

Fe - How will it affect the neighborhood, and what will the neighbors think?

Fi - I want it to be my own special fence that I can share with others over time

I could sign out 3 functions on your list. That's about it. The rest will have some degree of influence. The biggest hindrance for realization will be to do the physical work.

I'm restricted in design though, as I'm not free to do this from scratch. That is annoying. I would like the center column also to spiral, and everything unevenly. Would unfortunately be a lot of work. Maybe give it to someone else before I ruin it, that's also an option. I've just gotten to the structural part yet, without the rail.

Spoiler

 

[ObliviousGenius]

Without reading the thread at all; Ni people are crazy and obsessive. Ne people are weird.

Ni will try to influence your opinion.

I will not be satisfied until the other party at least hears what I'm trying to say. If after they've heard and still don't take on my point of view then so be it. But you will hear me out. This has to be taken into consideration. I also ask "What's the point" all the time. My catch phrase is "This is pointless".

My Ne says "What if I did it this way?" or "Maybe you should think about..." or "We could always just... instead of..."

 

[BigApplePi]

Am I different or the same way?

I will not be satisfied until the other party at least hears what I'm trying to say.

One party is cut off from the other. The isolation is troublesome.

If after they've heard and still don't take on my point of view then so be it.

Is it the sender sending a garbled message or is it the receiver who is deaf?

But you will hear me out. This has to be taken into consideration.

Say it again ... and again.

I also ask "What's the point" all the time. My catch phrase is "This is pointless".

The grapes are sour?

My Ne says "What if I did it this way?" or "Maybe you should think about..." or "We could always just... instead of..."

Even if it's pointless, I have a point.

 

[katkeyron]

Ne gathers information from the outside world via connections, and Ni synthesizes information it already has. The part that makes this hard to differentiate when maybe looking at your own functions is that Ni-stored information is often stuff you're not necessarily "aware" of, vs Si where it's clearer where all this data originated.

 

[scorpiomover]

Ni and Ne differ, by which world they analyse for patterns.

Ni examines his/her own personal experiences, weighting how important each experience is, by how important it is/was to the person who experienced it, the theorist. Ni is thus highly consistent with the experiences of the theorist, because he knows them well, and so to him/her, appears to be completely true. On any one issue, it is highly consistent with the experiences of the theorist, because he knows them well, and so on any one issue, that rules out most N-patterns, leaving only 1 Ni pattern on any one issue. Equally, because it relies on data that is so well-known to the theorist, on any issue, it becomes very easy to find such a pattern. Ni can start off any theory, any time, about almost anything, because it relies on the data of the theorist, which he always has.

Ni: I hate driving. Too much traffic. I'd much rather another way to get there. What about a flying car? How to build it? I saw a lot of films with flying cars that had jet engines or rocket engines on the back. I know that rockets engines are on spacecraft, and jet engines are on fast planes. Sounds like a really great idea.

Ne examines other people's personal experiences, weighting how important each experience is, by how important it is/was to the person who experienced it, other people. It often will not reflect the personal experiences of the theorist, and is based on data that other people have, that he doesn't totally have. So Ne is often very unsure. The lack of data, allows for many Ne possibilities, on any one issue. However, checking which of those possibilities, is valid, can take some time. Some prefer to take a chance, like ENTPs. Some prefer to wait until they are sure, like INTPs. Ne can only take that which is already there, in the external world, to either inspire it to a different area, or to inspire it to improve the existing object. So Ne requires some inspiration from the real world, but that inspiration may be activated later on, by memories of events from the real world.

Ne: I don't like driving in traffic. But it's just the way things are. Wonder what other people think about driving in traffic? Don't mind it? Oh. OK. Don't like it? Oh. Perhaps you'd like another type of vehicle? Perhaps a teleportation system, or a flying car? Of the flying car, what type of engine should it have? Jet engine, rocket engine, helicopter blades, propellors, VTOL? Jet engine and rocket engine are better for high speed. Propellors are better for medium speed. Helicopters and VTOL engines are the only ones that can stay in the same place. What's most important to you? Or do you think the cost of such a vehicle would be too prohibitive, and would rather stick with land-based vehicles?

 

[SkyWalker]

its actually depressing that you guys are so many months/years on this forum discussing jungian knowledge and you still cannot do better than those vague descriptions of Ne and Ni that suck all the way!

sorry but it really is like that

 

[snafupants]

its actually depressing that you guys are so many months/years on this forum discussing jungian knowledge and you still cannot do better than those vague descriptions of Ne and Ni that suck all the way!

sorry but it really is like that

Perhaps you would like to elucidate and enlighten Mr. Walker? The source text by Carl Jung in Psychological Types is quite ambiguous and almost flimsy, so that's really the benchmark, and everyone is trying their best for the most part.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

To AT & DD. After what you two guys are saying, I'm at sea again. You guys are rocking the boat. I'm looking for foundations, simplicity and consistency. Another try:
Adaptive functions give direction from outside the self to the self; directive functions give direction from the self to outside the self.

Don't pay attention to it. The stuff which confuses you is probably wrong. ; ]

DD, I got the objectivity/subjectivity thing from here, independent of intuition, hoping that would distinguish extroversion from introversion for all of N S T F. DD I vaguely recall the T and F thing but not where that was from.

The introversion/extroversion correspondance is the correct one, assuming it's correct.

Saying something is subjective because it relates to emotion, or objective because it relates to logical fact is I believe incorrect usage.

Ni is in a way a sense of what you -don't- know to be possible, what you can't "see". [Ni brings from the unconscious to consciousness] (In a sense, once Ni thinks something can be done it stops doing anything with it.) [Do you mean Ni stops or everything stops? Do you mean it stops formulating but still can push its theme? Why can it keep going?] It can work in top down envisioning because it is able to clear away what it can't understand and so break down procedures until they are in a form where everything is known; then it rests. [What arrives at consciousness comes from bottom-up. Once it hits consciousness it is free to act, top-down. Is that okay to say?]

Well, I meant Ni, as an introverted function, works in a negative way. So rather than trying to gain something it tries to avoid loss (perhaps this means losing the opportunity to bring some aspect of the world out of the unconscious). So it stops in the sense that once a thing is conscious it is no longer being brought from the unconscious, and so no more loss to avoid.

Ni communicates with Te/Fe, and these are what provide the action part of the directive functioning, such as the 'push' of a theme, or the creation of the top-down structure. The directive judgement function is providing the Ni with a job to do.

Ne is bottom-up creation - it is a set of possibilities, assumed to be possible since they are synthesized from other things [bottom up from objective data. Ni is bottom-up also but from the unconscious. Unconscious sources don't qualify as cognitive.] it believes to be possible, tempered by ruling out what it knows not to do.

[Ni like Ne both integrate and formulize (bottom-up). It's just that their sources are different. Once they integrate, they have the option of pushing their theme (top-down).]

Perception = bottom up, Judgement = top-down then? So a subjective directive will be more focused on the bottom up, but will externalise something top-down. Adaptives will form top-down models in their head, but deal externally in a bottom-up way.

============================

Amusing note. This post is an Ne post. I did use Ni but that is minor and I have little idea how my unconscious works, don't care, and it says nothing for this post. On the other hand I stole ideas (sources for ideas) left and right, up and down from other people, especially directly from Artsu Tharaz, Dapper Dan, Adymus and possibly even my own past.

Apologies if you got duplicate emails. I finally deleted the dupes on this thread.

 

[BigApplePi]

its actually depressing that you guys are so many months/years on this forum discussing jungian knowledge and you still cannot do better than those vague descriptions of Ne and Ni that suck all the way!

sorry but it really is like that

Hi Sky.

its actually pleasing to me that after so many months/years on this forum bumping into MBTI that there is the opportunity to refine those vague descriptions of Ne and Ni that have baffled me all the way!

sorry but I am really like that

I hope this resonates with you.

 

[AureliaSeverina]

its actually depressing that you guys are so many months/years on this forum discussing jungian knowledge and you still cannot do better than those vague descriptions of Ne and Ni that suck all the way!

sorry but it really is like that

Hum, seeing as both Ni and Ne are intuitive, it might not be possible to describe them in a more concrete/ less vague way. Maybe we cannot break them down into smaller bits, because that would be an Si/ Se thing and they just don't translate into anything more detailed. Just a thought.

 

[katkeyron]

SeNi and NeSi work in tandem. I find it easiest to explain/understand one function in terms of how it differs from others.



Se: lol fence

Ni: That is a fence and these are all the meanings and implications a fence and its aspects may represent

-

Ne: hey a fence--how do we make it cooler? Like, a 100x more awesome. How should we change it or what else can we use it for?

Si: These are all the fences I have ever encountered

 

[Auburn]

Yes, as @katkeyron said, Ne is more similar to Se, and Ni more similar to Si.

Ni and Si are mapping/anchoring functions.
Ne and Se are exploration functions.

If we wanna use a metaphor: One holds the map, the other goes indiana jones style into new territory. And they can't be described well without one another, so indeed they work in tandem.

• NiSe holds an abstracted map, but does literal exploration.
• SiNe holds a literal map, but does abstract exploration.

What that means, practically, is that Ni has a mental spider web of intangible patterns which govern the causality of the universe.

Se uses this map to travel through the present tangibly, sensationally, and each literal experience undertaken is transformed into an abstract and stored into the intangible paradigm - broadening the person's understanding.

Si has a mental paradigm of tangible correlations which dictate the laws of the world. Specifics like what times things occur, in what sequence and due to what events.

Ne uses this solid map to quest through the present, intangibly and imaginatively, using concretes as anchor points from which to being a new exploration and expand the map.

***
​

A note about the difference of these maps:

The Ni map operates more like Fractal Art. It converts a pattern into a formula, and multiplies it at infinitum to fill in the gaps of unknown territory.

The Si map operates more like a Matrix. It fills in it's map like a collection of independent experiences. The experiences are not connected via a formula like Ni's map. They are simply all catalogued into a matrix.

It is Ne that does the connecting of Si's map. Ne takes that matrix of experiences and dabbles with the data to form cross-contextualizations. Those connections weave the paradigm together.

For Se, it needs not do what Ne does because the connections are already made, it merely flows within those connections, those fractal-tangents, in the real world. And doing so allows Ni the opportunity to view reality to identify more governing formulas.

A note on the Why of the pairings:
​

The Ni map would be disturbed by Ne's process since it is non-synthesizing. Having Ne and Ni would make both useless. Ni needs the concrete exploration of Se in order to extract it's formulas. And Ne needs some concrete lego blocks to create new connections.

Ne cannot use Ni's data because it's abstract like itself. A fire cannot burn from a fire, it has to burn from the coals.

And vice versa: two coals are useless if they don't create fire. There would be no point in Se exploring Si's map because it is already known. Ne is the one who needs to hold the finite Si map and identify, at infinitum, the places where more exploring is necessary.


(But a lot of this won't make much sense unless it is experienced firsthand.)
​

 

[katkeyron]

^I agree that this (very nice) explanation makes more sense with personal context, though even knowing one of your P functions makes it easier to understand the others so I doubt it reads like nonsense to anyone here

in addition to you Se/Ne using Ni/Si maps, the Ni/Si web/matrix is composed of things your Se/Ne has picked up, albeit more subconciously for some than others (depending on the ordering of your P functions)

 

[snafupants]

Yes, as @katkeyron said, Ne is more similar to Se, and Ni more similar to Si.

Ni and Si are mapping/anchoring functions.
Ne and Se are exploration functions.

If we wanna use a metaphor: One holds the map, the other goes indiana jones style into new territory. And they can't be described well without one another, so indeed they work in tandem.

• NiSe holds an abstracted map, but does literal exploration.
• SiNe holds a literal map, but does abstract exploration.

What that means, practically, is that Ni has a mental spider web of intangible patterns which govern the causality of the universe.

Se uses this map to travel through the present tangibly, sensationally, and each literal experience undertaken is transformed into an abstract and stored into the intangible paradigm - broadening the person's understanding.

Si has a mental paradigm of tangible correlations which dictate the laws of the world. Specifics like what times things occur, in what sequence and due to what events.

Ne uses this solid map to quest through the present, intangibly and imaginatively, using concretes as anchor points from which to being a new exploration and expand the map.

***
​

A note about the difference of these maps:

The Ni map operates more like Fractal Art. It converts a pattern into a formula, and multiplies it at infinitum to fill in the gaps of unknown territory.

The Si map operates more like a Matrix. It fills in it's map like a collection of independent experiences. The experiences are not connected via a formula like Ni's map. They are simply all catalogued into a matrix.

It is Ne that does the connecting of Si's map. Ne takes that matrix of experiences and dabbles with the data to form cross-contextualizations. Those connections weave the paradigm together.

For Se, it needs not do what Ne does because the connections are already made, it merely flows within those connections, those fractal-tangents, in the real world. And doing so allows Ni the opportunity to view reality to identify more governing formulas.

A note on the Why of the pairings:
​

The Ni map would be disturbed by Ne's process since it is non-synthesizing. Having Ne and Ni would make both useless. Ni needs the concrete exploration of Se in order to extract it's formulas. And Ne needs some concrete lego blocks to create new connections.

Ne cannot use Ni's data because it's abstract like itself. A fire cannot burn from a fire, it has to burn from the coals.

And vice versa: two coals are useless if they don't create fire. There would be no point in Se exploring Si's map because it is already known. Ne is the one who needs to hold the finite Si map and identify, at infinitum, the places where more exploring is necessary.


(But a lot of this won't make much sense unless it is experienced firsthand.)
​

Breaking your post down into three chronological parts, the first part hearkens back to earlier discussion in this thread on introverted intuition and certainty; the second part talks about the egalitarian and inclusive mappingesque function of introverted sensing working in tandem with the manic-like extraverted intuition; and, finally, the third part touches on how introverted and extraverted intuition need fundamentally different, even mutually exclusive, fuel; this is all fine. My caveats, cavils, whatever are thus: we (/everyone) already have (/has) both introverted and extraverted intuition, however, they tend to be spaced far apart; you say that extraverted intuition needs concrete lego blocks to create new connections, and imply that this phenomenological information could not be gleaned from extraverted sensing, which, perhaps, in not terra firma; finally, from my own reading, Jung actually seemed to focus on the vagueness and error-prone inductiveness of introverted thinking, and in conjunction with the concomitant error-proneness of and dependence on introverted sensing, we could be in for a bumpy ride kids: better hope extraverted intuition is stable in the INTP because, if not, all s/he really has to rely on is extraverted feeling a few rungs down. Ask God for mercy on that one, say Amen.

 

[Dapper Dan]

Auburn, that seems like a really good analogy to me.

If you give an NiSe some assembly instructions, they will probably throw it off to the side and figure it out themselves. The map is in their head, and the exploration is concrete.

If you do the same with an NeSi, they'll probably read the instructions and figure out what they will be doing before they even begin. The map is concrete, and the exploration is in their head.

 

[snafupants]

Auburn, that seems like a really good analogy to me.

If you give an NiSe some assembly instructions, they will probably throw it off to the side and figure it out themselves. The map is in their head, and the exploration is concrete.

If you do the same with an NeSi, they'll probably read the instructions and figure out what they will be doing before they even begin. The map is concrete, and the exploration is in their head.

Both primarily intuitive types would perhaps be apt to throw away or downplay the instructions; if introverted intuitive folk do that more than their extraverted intuitive counterparts it might be because sensing is such a low function for the latter group, and not necessarily because of some inborn difference separating the type of sensing. I agree, however, that Auburn generally did a good job at elucidating the topic and steering our thinking towards tandem-functions.

 

[katkeyron]

^ that's correct in that both dichotomies, with a higher iNtuitive function, would be apt to throw away the manual and just build it. However, NeSi's process is more like "it's okay, I know I need a [specific joint, Si] for those corners and then, well, it's a shelf. I'll figure it out as we go" and NiSe is more like "okay well, this part should look like [general image, Se] therefore I should be putting this and that together and I'll need those pieces later." Rather than one of Ne or Ni being less concrete-dependent.

 

[Words]

Everyone likes their analogies and metaphors, I prefer concise definitions/relations.

Ni is a type of Pi function. Pi functions are about Perspectives. To Ni is to look for "counter-intuitive" perspectives and to Si to look for "intuitive" perspectives.

Ne is a type of Pe function. Pe functions are about uhm... the data that's used in the formulation of a perception. To Ne is to scan for general relationships and to Se is to scan for specific, most often sensory, relationships.

The latter definition may not be so concise but the main idea that I'd like delivered is that Ni is closer to Si than Ne is to Ni, in terms of the internal process and the opposite in terms of the external object. Alright, maybe that wasn't so clear...

 

[Auburn]

Breaking your post down into three chronological parts, the first part hearkens back to earlier discussion in this thread on introverted intuition and certainty; the second part talks about the egalitarian and inclusive mappingesque function of introverted sensing working in tandem with the manic-like extraverted intuition; and, finally, the third part touches on how introverted and extraverted intuition need fundamentally different, even mutually exclusive, fuel; this is all fine. My caveats, cavils, whatever are thus: we (/everyone) already have (/has) both introverted and extraverted intuition, however, they tend to be spaced far apart; you say that extraverted intuition needs concrete lego blocks to create new connections, and imply that this phenomenological information could not be gleaned from extraverted sensing, which, perhaps, in not terra firma; finally, from my own reading, Jung actually seemed to focus on the vagueness and error-prone inductiveness of introverted thinking, and in conjunction with the concomitant error-proneness of and dependence on introverted sensing, we could be in for a bumpy ride kids: better hope extraverted intuition is stable in the INTP because, if not, all s/he really has to rely on is extraverted feeling a few rungs down. Ask God for mercy on that one, say Amen.

Hmm, well I partially feel like I should be insulted, but can't quite feel it! 0:
Perhaps it was sarcasm..

Um.. I use all my functions in the formation of my deductions. o.o;
Well, what books tell you can never rival what your eyes show you..

[SIZE=-1]Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing from experimental psychology. He would be better advised to abandon exact science, put away his scholar's gown, bid farewell to his study, and wander with human heart throughout the world. - Carl Jung[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]I think what descriptions say about Introverted Thinking (Ti) or any other process should just be a starting point; a general idea for you to start looking in the right direction. But nothing will be properly understood until you find it in reality and see the thousands of things it is and isn't for yourself. Semantic arguments over what a function is becomes entirely irrelevant when you know what it is for yourself... o_o

I don't think I base my understanding on unfounded Ne speculations, or one-directional Ti logic. It's taken me a lot of time to map out what I know, since perception's not my forte, but I dislike making assertions I cannot support and only make them if I've mapped it properly in my Si. Otherwise I usually use loads of disclaimers.

But this is one thing I'm confident about. :P
I can't go much further with words, but if you (general you) are curious I can try and *show* you the functions. Just let me know in PM.

 

[snafupants]

Hmm, well I partially feel like I should be insulted, but can't quite feel it! 0:
Perhaps it was sarcasm..

Um.. I use all my functions in the formation of my deductions. o.o;
Well, what books tell you can never rival what your eyes show you..

[SIZE=-1]Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing from experimental psychology. He would be better advised to abandon exact science, put away his scholar's gown, bid farewell to his study, and wander with human heart throughout the world. - Carl Jung[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]I think what descriptions say about Introverted Thinking (Ti) or any other process should just be a starting point; a general idea for you to start looking in the right direction. But nothing will be properly understood until you find it in reality and see the thousands of things it is and isn't for yourself. Semantic arguments over what a function is becomes entirely irrelevant when you know what it is for yourself... o_o

I don't think I base my understanding on unfounded Ne speculations, or one-directional Ti logic. It's taken me a lot of time to map out what I know, since perception's not my forte, but I dislike making assertions I cannot support and only make them if I've mapped it properly in my Si. Otherwise I usually use loads of disclaimers.

But this is one thing I'm confident about. :P
I can't go much further with words, but if you (general you) are curious I can try and *show* you the functions. Just let me know in PM.

Like I said in a follow-up post, I felt you did a great job and definitely moved our collective understanding forward. If I was being critical of anything it was Carl Jung's slippery use of words. That's a wonderful Carl Jung quote, though, and it relates back to Schopenhauer, whom Jung admired. Most great minds ironically eschew book learning once they've made it, intellectually and publicly. Well, more specifically regarding experimental psychology, even today the flaws are crippling. I get so frustrated hearing something caused something else when there are hundreds of variables unaccounted for in the study. Just reading some of the studies in Time magazine causes instant cringing.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

A note on the Why of the pairings:
​

The Ni map would be disturbed by Ne's process since it is non-synthesizing. Having Ne and Ni would make both useless. Ni needs the concrete exploration of Se in order to extract it's formulas. And Ne needs some concrete lego blocks to create new connections.

Ne cannot use Ni's data because it's abstract like itself. A fire cannot burn from a fire, it has to burn from the coals.

And vice versa: two coals are useless if they don't create fire. There would be no point in Se exploring Si's map because it is already known. Ne is the one who needs to hold the finite Si map and identify, at infinitum, the places where more exploring is necessary.


(But a lot of this won't make much sense unless it is experienced firsthand.)
​

So then, interpersonally, it's not that Position 1 Ti seeks Position 1 Te; rather it seeks the position 8 Fe that it implies. (?)

 

[katkeyron]

^ that's actually really interesting. but I think there's some truth to Ti->Te directly as well? The example might not be a great analogy with J instead of P functions but the alternative perspective the difference in orientation offers is probably attractive because you can't use both. Using both Ne and Ni, by yourself, to approach something would render both useless (a sort of "canceling out") but hence it's not physically possible--so when the perspective you don't have is offered elsewhere, it's interesting.

Do you mean by seeking pos-8 of the opposite function that you're trying to get as far from it as possible?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

^ that's actually really interesting. but I think there's some truth to Ti->Te directly as well? The example might not be a great analogy with J instead of P functions but the alternative perspective the difference in orientation offers is probably attractive because you can't use both. Using both Ne and Ni, by yourself, to approach something would render both useless (a sort of "canceling out") but hence it's not physically possible--so when the perspective you don't have is offered elsewhere, it's interesting.

I thought basically this too. Auburn was talking intrapersonally, so the inferrence was likely invalid.

Do you mean by seeking pos-8 of the opposite function that you're trying to get as far from it as possible?

Sort of. The idea would be that a given strong function needs a weak dual function - there's a trade off in how complex each can be. You can simulate this in yourself (modulating), but if someone else is providing the necessary feedback unconsciously, then everything runs much more smoothly.

I don't know much about how the 4 'unconscious' functions work though.

 

[Auburn]

@snafupants - Ah. Awesome then.

So then, interpersonally, it's not that Position 1 Ti seeks Position 1 Te; rather it seeks the position 8 Fe that it implies. (?)

Hmm..
To be honest the relationship between Te & Fi is something I have not mapped out properly yet. But I can share some thoughts on Ti and Fe? Agreed. The metaphor I used for the perception functions does not apply to the discernment functions..

The theme of the perception functions is Navigation.
The theme of the discernment functions is Principle.

​

Navigation: Map + Traveler
Principle: Balance + Execution


The former is fluid, stream-like. That is to say, your perception is something that you absorb without much conscious thought or intent. Images, feels, senses and data synthesizes itself in your mind as situations unravel around you. The formation of Ni's Fractal Map occurs in realtime as new data is taken in or old data re-pondered, altering, shaping the map constantly. The same applies To Si's Map with the aide of Ne's brainstorming.

The latter is static, stone-like. The judging functions don't flow. They are deliberate and operate with conscious direction. They are discriminating functions, primarily motivated in extracting from the data presented by the perception functions - an axiom/principle of truth (whether moral or logical) to stand upon.

A note on Pi and Pe
​

Ti & Fi operate as balance-scales. They do the calibration of the pile of data, sorting it into one scale or the other, depending on what principle is being used as the criteria. A finely calibrated Ti/Fi scale will have a 51/49 quality to it that allows it to make the right decision given a difficult set of options when others may not see it.

Te & Fe are executive functions, meaning once the Ti/Fi verdict is called, they are the ones who handle the practical aspect: What Shall Be Done About This.

Logos & Ethos
​

I dislike the words Thinking and Feeling. There is a hell of a lot of thinking in feeling functions, and there is feeling in the thinking functions. And Logic vs Values still doesn't work because there are Values in Logic, and there is Logic in Values.

The dichotomy can be much better defined as Logos & Ethos, which are merely two alternate philosophies of Reason. Equally valid, but different approaches to making judgments.

Note on the why of the pairings
​

I actually don't understand perfectly why they are paired as they are. However, I understand how Ti & Fe collaborate in myself and create a balance that is extremely useful.

This is just a hypothesis, but I suspect that if an individual had both Ti & Te at the expense of any ethic function, the deductions they'd come to would (ironically) be illogical. This is because lacking the human element from the equation creates a reasoning that is unrealistic.

A large part of the causality of our world involves the causality of human dynamics. A Ti-Te individual would be completely blind to all of those dynamics. Such an individual would be utterly confounded by these creatures they cannot predict or understand because they'd have no knowledge into their inner hearts/workings.

As practical and efficient as their plans would seem to them, they'd only be useful with non-living things. As soon as they touched into human territory, they'd almost certainly face grave hostility due to their soul-less logic.

And in contrast, I suspect that if an individual had both Fi & Fe at the expense of any logic function, they would lack the capacity to predict reality properly. They would be unable to bring the moral purity they invision into the world, because they lack the understanding of dispassionate causality. They would become frustrated that the universe doesn't immediately comply with their moral truth simply because it is true.

They would be incapable of forming realistic ideals/principles because the creation of morals is intimately tired to the actuality of our world and need to accommodate to it.

***

​

Once Fi has figured out the moral truth, it needs a practical way to manifest that in the world. Te is the function that makes that moral truth a reality.

Once Ti has figured out a logical truth, it needs a way to transplant that into other humans. Fe is the function that makes that logical truth a culturally respected reality.


But again.. please take this post with a grain of salt. c.c
I'm not entirely sure about a lot of this. Te in particular is a function I don't quite understand properly..
​

 

[GYX_Kid]

The judging functions don't flow. They are deliberate and operate with conscious direction. They are discriminating functions, primarily motivated in extracting from the data presented by the perception functions - an axiom/principle of truth (whether moral or logical) to stand upon.

Once Fi has figured out the moral truth, it needs a practical way to manifest that in the world. Te is the function that makes that moral truth a reality.

Once Ti has figured out a logical truth, it needs a way to transplant that into other humans. Fe is the function that makes that logical truth a culturally respected reality.
​

I sure <3 moral axioms based on a rigid SJ understanding, or a self-righteous Ni-Fi delusion.

FP tries to prove love or some other universal moral code, TJ wants to prove its own power and superiority according to something it values.
TP deems them laughable and ridiculous, and based fundamentally on emotional wishes.

Ti & Fi operate as balance-scales. They do the calibration of the pile of data, sorting it into one scale or the other, depending on what principle is being used as the criteria. A finely calibrated Ti/Fi scale will have a 51/49 quality to it that allows it to make the right decision given a difficult set of options when others may not see it.

Is this a hypothetical person with a balance of Ti and Fi, with the ability to be all-understanding?

they'd almost certainly face grave hostility due to their soul-less logic.

Who is that?

 

[Auburn]

That is Kyuubey.

And I meant that description applies to both Ti and Fi - not a person who has both Ti and Fi.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Once Fi has figured out the moral truth, it needs a practical way to manifest that in the world. Te is the function that makes that moral truth a reality.

Once Ti has figured out a logical truth, it needs a way to transplant that into other humans. Fe is the function that makes that logical truth a culturally respected reality.

Terms I use for the judgement functions are:

Fi/Te: stance/enforcement
Ti/Fe: model/enactment

(for perception:

Si/Ne: impressing/filling in
Ni/Se: deconstructing/viewing)

not sure how accurate these are

Logos & Ethos


I dislike the words Thinking and Feeling.

What, then, is Pathos?

--

A note on the why of the pairings:

Ni, Si, Ti and Fi are designed to not interfere with Ne, Se, Te and Fe respectively. Hence they could not both work in the mind unless they were kept apart from each other.

 

[yogurtexpress]

But, how is "I want to design the fence." related to intuition/ abstraction? It sounds more like an Se thing.

Just because there is a physical entity doesn't mean the example is constricted to Se. It's about the approach. If you're questioning the reason for the fence in the first place (Ni) that is abstract, not concrete; you would have to go into the history of fences, study the way different cultures approach fences, and maybe even come up with your own psychological theory for why fences make humans feel secure. Therefore, you're building around the fence (Ni: connecting the dots, identifying patterns, analyzing events, exploring motives) rather than the fence itself (Se: aestheticism, physical construction, hands-on, in-the-moment).

And Ti measures the fence, Te figures out how to build it, Si makes the sign (NO TRESPASSERS), Fi makes it special...bit of an oversimplification, but I think the fence example is overall the best. When you think about it long enough, you start to understand what separates the functions, and why each one is so necessary for something as simple as building a fence.

 

[snafupants]

So let me put these results out there and see what you guys come up with. I'm quite curious to hear your opinions. And please refrain from saucily calling me a narcissist/schizoid based on the results.

Spoiler

Te (Extroverted Thinking) (33%)
your valuation of / adherence to logic of external systems / hierarchies / methods

Ti (Introverted Thinking) (68%)
your valuation of / adherence to your own internally devised logic/rational

Ne (Extroverted Intuition) (54%)
your valuation of / tendency towards free association and creating with external stimuli

Ni (Introverted Intuition) (77%)
your valuation of / tendency towards internal/original free association and creativity

Se (Extroverted Sensing) (28%)
your valuation of / tendency to fully experience the world unfiltered, in the moment

Si (Introverted Sensing) (55%)
your valuation of / focus on internal sensations and reliving past moments

Fe (Extroverted Feeling) (31%)
your valuation of / adherence to external morals, ethics, traditions, customs, groups

Fi (Introverted Feeling) (75%)
your valuation of / adherence to the sanctity of your own feelings / ideals / sentiment

 

[Reluctantly]

So far no one here has shown they understand what introversion means in relation to extroversion.

So far no one has shown how they understand the functions as a cognitive process.

So far no one has shown a deeper relationship between the conscious and unconscious, except to take it for granted that certain relationships exist and explain the function pairs as if they are.


What do these things mean? How do they affect and define a psychological type? What are the limits of these methods? i.e. how can type change and why?


Does this help direct the discussion?

 

[snafupants]

So far no one here has shown they understand what introversion means in relation to extroversion.

So far no one has shown how they understand the functions as a cognitive process.

So far no one has shown a deeper relationship between the conscious and unconscious, except to take it for granted that certain relationships exist and explain the function pairs as if they are.


What do these things mean? How do they affect and define a psychological type? What are the limits of these methods? i.e. how can type change and why?


Does this help direct the discussion?

Why not tackle my last post and show that prowess yourself?

 

[yogurtexpress]

So far no one here has shown they understand what introversion means in relation to extroversion.

Simple. Introversion = energy inward (yourself), Extroversion = energy outward (the world). So to use the thinking function as an example, Ti = what makes sense to me, Te = what makes sense to everyone.

So far no one has shown how they understand the functions as a cognitive process.

Cognition is just the processing of information, and the functions explain specifically how we process it. What's not to understand?

So far no one has shown a deeper relationship between the conscious and unconscious, except to take it for granted that certain relationships exist and explain the function pairs as if they are.

The unconscious isn't in the realm of MBTI. The functions are conscious by nature, unless you want to go into how they're used in dreams, in which case I don't believe they're being used so much as recharged.

What do these things mean? How do they affect and define a psychological type? What are the limits of these methods? i.e. how can type change and why?

In theory, it's apparent what the functions mean. Their order defines the type. In practice, God knows what the limits are. That's why the theory is constantly being learned and revised by so many people. Its practical application is still highly questionable.

As for how can type change, it doesn't. Personality can change, but psychological type is something you're born with.