Ni: pushes aside or subdues anything that doesn't fit into its scheme, just to make a point. Ne: starts off good, but goes on trillion tangents and forgets what point it wanted to make.
The "Ni finding the one truth" thing is so true and as a Ne user it can annoy me like... because when the Ni-user feels we have finished a conversation I feel like we have just started to explore all the possibilities and for me nothing is ever "finished" - just left hanging.
8:56 The way you describe Ni with the red ballon, sounds far more like Ne to me. Its all about association; whereas Ni would be about finding the ballons "essence", it's significance and so on, not about connecting with other things to conjecture an idea/possibility. Ni, if I was taught correctly, seems far more concerned with necessity than with possibility
I identify as an INTJ and I really enjoy your videos for the reasons you described in this video. I generally try to get various sources for information so I can properly, to use your phrase, 'assimilate' the knowledge, but I always feel that your videos do a great job of providing the proper perspectives and objectivity that I feel is needed to truly grasp all the sides of an issue. Keep up the great work!
First of all. I really enjoy your videos. I (an ENTP) have just shared this one with an INFJ I am close with, haha. I think they're accurate descriptions of the functions from a very worthwhile perspective. But I've always found your comparison of Ne and Ni highly biased because of your obvious preference of Ni. I wouldn't say that Ni is necessarily more original than Ne. You're correct in your basic description of Ne, but Ne users still connect new data to previously aquired data. And with every individual person having aquired information within different environments and having their own, various, fields of interest, the eventual connections they make can be unique -- even though their attempt is to make objective sense of the data. The outcome of the connections is influenced by past experiences and past accumulated knowledge by the Ne-user. You forgot to mention, too, that Ne-users while not being focused on 'filling in blanks' still do it to a degree. Ne-users, often within debate, will debate using information they only find out is true after having debated it in the first place. It's not in the Ni-kind of way where it is about the blanks; but within the objective framework we build, we see how it could apply to a different situation and then fill in the blank. Furthermore, I think Ne is original in the "limitations force you to be creative" kind of way. Hip-hop and dance music producers in the early '90s were limited by the sampler's, the object's, capacity to only record a few seconds worth of music. To work around that, they sped up the music they fed into the sampler and then slowed it down. Meaning, originality within objective frameworks exists just as much as it does within subjective frameworks, but it takes a different route. An Ne user would call your process, through their own biases, less original, because they don't see any art in "just making stuff up" (as they see it). They, or well, we, through our own biases, think that anyone can just make up anything and there's no creative motor that forces them to think hard to make sense of disparate data. I am not suggesting that Ne is more original than Ni. I am however suggesting that Ne can be a very original, just as original process, as Ni. Just not when you've predetermined that Ni is original. In that sense, I think you're commiting a similar fallacy that many people commit when comparing, say, Ne-doms to Se/Fe-doms and call them "introverted extraverts". Ne is only "less extraverted" than, say, Fe, when you hold up Fe as the prime example of an extraverted function that any and all extraversion needs to be compared to. But it isn't, it's just a form of extraversion, that isn't fundamentally and objectively more "extraverted" than Ne, simply because its cognitive focus lies elsewhere. Anyway, that's all I really had to say. And my post being ripe with critcisms likely takes away how great and interesting the content was.
youcovered all the points i wanted to make! Well done! Yeah for me connecting dots come first but i do fill in the blanks! For eg, in my country a high profile suicide happened. I solved it by both connecting dots and filling blanks.
This isn’t bias he’s just saying from an outside perspective most people are gonna see Ni is more original because with Ne you can trace the idea from we’re it came from because Ne is focused on the object, while Ni is focused on the subject it’s going to create an idea that is an impression from the subject themself which it never makes sense to anyone, it’s like a lot of people wouldn’t find any of Ti reasonings correctly because it seems nonsensical but that’s because Ti is about the internal, but your right about it’s own original way of creativity when it’s limited I do agree with that
This is the best depiction of the differences between Ne and Ni on RU-vid. I've watched a lot of videos and have been studying typology for over 5 years and I sincerely mean this. Your Ni did good work here!
Thank you. Oh man. The red balloon Ni tangent. That characterizes many of my interactions with others. It is taking me a long time to realize that in order to effectively communicate I need to communicate the entire thread that got me from point A to point F. It is not that what I say makes no sense, and therefore can add no value to dialogue, it's that I have to realize how subjective the connections are and therefore need to communicate all of them. It is rewarding to do so and leads to deeper relationships and conversations. I still often forget the above, especially when tired.
This helps explain the frustion an Ne user can have when someone comes aroun and say " just believe in yourself man, be confident" it's like ARRRRGHHH! I CAN'T I need PROOF what I'm gonna do is gonna WORK! external proof.
Question for Ni-dominants: is your mind usually "empty?" As in, are you not actively thinking of anything, or only vaguely thinking of a few random things? The 'unconscious' part of Ni I'm trying to understand.
Hello, I am a Ni-dom! This might be a bad time to answer your query, as I have become somewhat of a hermit for the last couple of years, but perhaps you can get an idea of the mind of an unhealthy Ni-dom. To start off, I don't have control over alot of what my mind does. In times where it is most 'active' (when I am spaced out) it usually generates very strong associations with whatever it is that I'm doing. These crop up in the form of images, visions, one sentence, etc. a repetitive compulsion that is burned into my mind. This tends to be the 'result' of a concept, and whatever it is that has triggered said 'result' MUST be a piece within the puzzle. I know it sounds reckless, but I don't think I'm conveying how intense this sensation is. (my entire being is going; this is it! this is the one truth i am looking for!) I then try very hard to write down the 'pathway' that could have led to the formation of a concept, which HAS to be linear. (reality: nichijou episode 7 -> brian ferneyhough -> violin = a contemporary classical composition, where the playback has anime girls in it.)
For the next few days/weeks my brain will repeat the phrase "a contemporary classical composition, where the playback has anime girls in it!" until this is either realised or it seeps into my subconscious. More general things about being a Ni-dom (which sucks btw) - 1.) I am NEVER convinced with the definition of something. 2.) Although I find writing to be easy (similar to pathological lying) I HATE reading, because I can't figure out the reason why each book seems to have it's own set of rules as to how it utilises language. (i know, this is stupid.) 3.) I have very intense hyper-phantasia. 4.) I don't 'try,' because it makes me feel physically sick to divert from anything that isn't the perspective that is burnt in my mind. 5.) I cannot cope with 'mess.'
Thank you for these videos. I find them highly valuable. I love the ideas you're expressing in them. I like to listen to them over and over each time hearing something I missed. I'm an INTJ and I love hearing you distinguish the various distinctions in the Myers Briggs system. It helps me to deepen my understanding and develops my capacity for expressing these ideas to my friends and co-workers in a way thats logical and makes sense. To the point where they get their own breakthroughs and insights from the points of view I'm sharing with them. With the majority of what I'm sharing with them coming straght from the content in these videos. Thank you for the time and effort it's taking you to do this I'm getting tremendous value from it.
Hey micheal I want to see if I have my functions defined. I personally feel they are but I'm curious to hear over opinions. Se: Percieves the world through concrete perception. The world is what it is, it's real. These types trust what they see as real. They like enjoying themselves in the moment and feel living in the present will help them in the future. Si: perceives their inner world through subjective experiences they been through before. Their mind is rich with details of past experiences, it's meaning and how they felt. It's conservative and traditional. They perceive the subject and compares the subject to other experiences they had relating to the subject. Ne: perceive the outer world through curiousity and a search for different possibilities and meanings in the present moment. It's looks behind the lines of reality and searches for the inner meaning or possibilities of the object. These types love exploring the unknown and can catch patterns fairly easily in the external world. Ni: perceives the inner world through ideas and subjective meanings about the subject it perceives. Unlike Ne which searches in the external world for data, Ni uses the data at hand and creates ideas and meaning of the subject at hand. Ne-Si views the world through possibilities and prefers to get a wider scope of things. They don't delve in problems right away and prefer to see all options before interpreting the core. They explore the possibilities and use their subjective experiences to find truth. In this axis the world of ideas and patterns is objective while the actual experience of the world is subjective. Example: Look at all these different meanings and connections in the world(Ne) I'll use my own wisdom and experience to define which one I'll use and stick to(Si) Se-Ni views the outside world through concrete and real data. The world itself is real and sure. They then take the concrete information and make their own insights, ideas, theories and subjective meanings about the subject of the data. These types like to delve into problems much quicker than the other axis. Ne-si zooms out while Se-Ni zooms in. For Se-Ni the external world and experience is objective while the hidden meanings and the world of ideas is a subjective manner. Example: Here's the data I've been presented (Se) now let's look between the lines and make my own interpretation of the meaning or underlying theme of it (Ni)
Hello! INFJ here :D so basically Ni is all about the subjective idea behind something, while Ne is all about the objective idea (or ideas, in this case)? So Ni is more like an explosion of ideas coming from a single subject (but connected in a way, geared toward a singular, larger solution), while Ne is about finding an object and having multiple ideas from that object, creating many observations (more scattered sort of intuition process), according to what I got from the information here. Just wanted some clarification on that, but thank you so much as this explained a lot :) You got a subscription from me, dude! :D
That's good. In my opinion, Se collects all the present sensory data and messes around with all the pieces and then leaves abstraction for Ni to ponder on, while Ne directly abstracts patterns/impressions and seeks new perspectives and stores them symbolically in Si. Ni se is more productive and penetrating, Ne si is more general and everlasting.
I'm an INFJ, and I sooo know the feeling of ever ongoing associations in my mind, freewheeling like crazy. Like the example with the red balloon, I loved that.
This is good, during the parts were you were describing Ni I was going, "Yes! Yes! That's exactly me!" I actually used to think I was an xNTP but after watching your videos I found out I majorly mistyped. Your videos are very helpful.
I guess you are Ne valuing, right? Because you pretty much missunderstood Ni: We Ni-types in a way don´t believe in truth at all and are the most sceptic types! But also we except the most likely theory as a working hypothesis and act like it would be the truth. But deep inside we are always unsure and never trust our own assumptions, because of their highly theoretical nature. That´s why we always seek for Se-actualisation to test our theoryies... The thing is ENTJ and ENFJ don´t display their uncertainty, because it´s in the way of their goals (efficieny or harmony), while the other two are Introverts. But when you have deep talk with any of those types you could find out very quickly, that none of them believes in "the truth". At least that was the case for every other Ni-type I met. This last sentence is a good example for Ni-uncertainty :P
As an ENFJ, I agree with you 100%. Even as a Christian, although I believe firmly that God spoke His word in The Bible and I 100% believe in my heart that all of it is valid when interpreted well, I still leave space for in case someone disagrees to hear their perspectives and consider in my search for pinning down the truth of my faith but knowing I only have so much objective knowledge to believe it in my head as I do in my heart. If that makes sense. But, being that I want harmony, I do find myself not showing that uncertainty often as you said. That is because of my strong faith as well but yeah, also to keep my goal in line.
I feel like these are just mirror functions. I use both but I usually start with Ne and then I utilize Ni to pull ideas together, the only thing is once I reach that singularity I do not leave it as that, I always inspect that "conclusion" for flaws or exceptions and over time if the model or theory holds up, it holds up due to imperical testing of agressive Ne, but also the thing is...as my Ne branches out, they are also connecting to each other until that singularity occurs that is more big picture and impressionistic.
this is hard to explain and that's because I have the impression and idea in my head but I can't connect it in linear words...but this Ne Vs Ni preference doesn't make sense, you need both, I can only have an Ni idea after I have collected enough information via Ne to create the nodes to fucking connect in the first place lol
Thank you so so much, was having trouble understanding Ni & Ne, this was tremendously helpful. Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge, and the video was pretty relaxing too :)
Is it Ne when I see my phone I see the process that's how it is made like the African nation where the materials where gathered and the Chinese factory worker that assembled the raw pieces? what would the Ni user see, there own subjective associations of what phones mean
So I think there is a paradox in the way Ni and Ne work. They both make connections between things, and they both play the connect the dots game in their mind. You state Ni as being impressionistic, and Ne as being more objective. Im confused however, because the way humans see things is always impressionistic. Doesn't every human being have their own impressions of things, and therefore makes everything subjective for everybody? For instance, I will naturally make associations between things, which both forms of intuition do. How do I know which form of intuition I'm using? I mean the associations I'm making are related TO ME, but they might not be related to other people. Is there a way I can test which form of intuition I prefer?
The conscient knowledge of Ni brought me here, as being an INFJ. I used to use my Ni naturally, but developping my Ti (my bff being an intp :) ) I 'wish I could explain Ni but can't. Thank you very much for the explanations of both, it's clearer... thank you for your amazing videos !
You said that both Foucault's and Chomsky's philosophies are concerned with logical processes. Could you elaborate on this a little. I am not extremely familiar with either philosopher. Oh and great vid as usual.
Another awesome, informative video. I appreciate the work you put into updating your definitions for the many facets of type theory. With my Ni dominance I too find myself constantly updating and (in some ways) rerooting whole frameworks, but i'm often too afraid to share any when ideas are always evolving. Watching how you simply make additional videos is great, though, as videos on the same topic only help reinforce the central concepts between them. it's taken me a long time to admit it, but i see now how repetition really benefits everyone.
As an SeTi this is explains very well how my Ni functions to create/invent/synthesize all the info gathered (Se) and analyzed (Ti). Though it generally acts in the subconscious, for this ESTP (I think) it's where a lot of my inspiration comes from.
Thank you for this. Really helped me understand the difference between Ne and Ni. As a cognitive INFJ, the way you describe your process of video creation is spot on to myself going on tangents about things I want to learn about. You also explained why I lose interest in things which I've been wondering my whole life. When I feel like I have the complete picture, I lose interest.
Does introverted sensing also come to the same unification or singularity through multiple chain of associations? Or is it strictly introverted intuition function? I am trying to figure out whether I am Si or Ni dominant but I am having hard time telling them apart.
Hey Michael, I've been really curious about something and was wondering if you knew more about it because you're an Ni dom. I use Ni as well and have the ability to view images or diagrams in my mind and navigate around them, for instance I can close my eyes while playing the guitar and visualize an entire scale across the frets as I play. Another thing is hearing each distinct instrument of a song and it's frequency levels and create something like a visualizer, but in my head. What would you call this phenomenon? I have no idea what to research and it's so fascinating to me:(
Is my analogy correct? Ne can take a hammer and tell you all the ways the hammer can be used. Takes Si and expands it into Ne Ni can take a bunch of pieces and assemble them in a way the user chooses. Condense many Se into one Ni I would like to understand so if someone would share thoughts I would appreciate
Can we distill this down to: Ni wants to extract the insight or the essence, while Ne wants to make connections to other objects/events/etc ...?? [INTJ]
I am inclined to say the reason you believe Ni wants to extract the essence have also to do with the fact you have tertiary Fi. I mean, I am not negating that Ni is up to extract the impression as it indeed is (Ni with an opposing yet inherent immediate and raw aspect of Se), but to attribute a qualitaty calificative as essence of an impression also has to do with Fi. I say this because both Fi and Ti are systematizing functions that create frameworks for qualify and understand, both are deductive and both begin their frameworks with axioms. So, how is that Fi can formulate a consistent and not-contradictory system of values/understanding? They must adhere to a 'sense' of an essence to stablish their starting points.
I do this thing where I connect the different events in my mind. Like an example of a woman walking slow in front of me. I wanted to pass her but I didnt want to be rude so I waited. Then I was walking outside and a bird poop lands 5 feet ahead of me. It struck me intuitively that the bird poop would have landed on my head if I was rude and tried to pass the woman. So I guess I was saved by some sort of karmic grace. I see that as connecting the dots as Ne, but you were saying Ni connect the dots too, and so I was confused. What do you think?
I can figure stuff out by basing it on past experience and seeing things and my conclusions can be accurate. I don't see possibilities I see one clear vision but I can see what lead to it. I don't always trust intuition though I trust tangible reality. So is this NE I described or NE.
That's Ni because if you had Ne you wouldn't have one clear vision you would use one vision amd create ten more visions disconnected from the original vision since you say you prefer one clear vision (subjective) based on what you observe
I'm weakly infj. On the scales, I was always near the center, especially on the ei spectrum where I'm exactly 50/50 (been testing on various tests for 5yrs). I think I get what you mean by both. I love the Ni ability, where you get amazing flashes of insight- eg. A coworker mentioned a single word: "book" and forgot what it was called. I knew without a doubt based off Ni which book he referred to. But thinking about it, I also saw all the connections of how I came up with the answer. I feel like my Ne is more alive when I'm engaging a more 'thinking' part of my brain and completely detached from the subject. Of course, objectivity depends on the subject, and I'm able to make random fun associations with it. I can stay up for hours exploring ideas and possibilities. I might implement some, and I might just expand others for the sake of it. I know I'm not too strong of either. I guess I'm right around the middle.
+Apple Piesaregood I think you need more study. The tests don't even measure the same things the functions approach does - what test => INFJ means and what functions => INFJ means are very different things (that overlap a bit). It's also very common to associate doing some activity with using a function - this is not quite what a function is. A function is more an ingrained cognitive preference, a pattern of thought, a predilection, a tendency to do things a certain way, of focusing on and paying attention to certain things as the natural course of life. We all learn to do the things typically associated with certain functions - coming up with ideas, finding the essence or point of a thing, interacting pleasantly with others, paying attention to how things feel to experience... we can do the acts, but we're not necessarily wired to do them out of habit and that isn't necessarily fulfilling the way it is to an actual user of the functions.
Michael I really enjoyed your video. I'm an ENFP and have been making some rather semi-unsubstantiated connections regarding Ne and Ni. Ne seems to be a right brain dominant function. While to be a predominantly right brain function. Not to imply that folks with one preference over the other will not and do not use their entire brains when applying Ne or Ni. I mean this more with the programming and hardware of the brain. I believe an INFJ like yourself would also have a stronger larger grey matter. An ENFP like myself will have markedly less grey matter and more white matter. I would like to discuss this with you if you're interested? Much more where this came from.
Daniel Garcia According to Dario Nardi's brain scans (which are just preliminary, exploratory things atm, mind you), both Ni and Ne are whole brain affairs. Ni doms solving problems and Si doms practicing something or solving problems in an area they're pros at exhibit a harmonious pattern over the whole brain - a flow state, if you will. Ne is a scattershot fireworks show all over the brain across many frequencies.
+Komatik it's interesting because in all honesty, I have come to that very same conclusion by visualizing it without the use of a brain scan! It would be great to be able to study this. I am seriously considering the study of various typologies and function types in relation to brain scans (fMRI) for my thesis. I'm still compiling enough useful information before I decide where I would like to take my research. Thanks for bringing that up. It's very helpful.
Daniel Garcia I'm glad you liked it! That's a very interesting approach to me, especially because I am not nearly as familiar with the actual biology of the brain as it relates to typology, and would genuinely be interested in playing sound board for your thoughts, if you'd like. I can't do video however, for various reasons, if that's what you had in mind; I'm confined to this kind of back and forth. I hope that wouldn't stifle your thought process?
That would be perfect actually! It would help keep us on track haha (well me..lol). As long as you don't mind the fact that I am nowhere near as organized with my thoughts as yourself..initially. How would we go about doing a soundboard conversation then?
Daniel Garcia hey! So sorry I left you hanging there-- you can send me a message if you'd like, and ask any questions or just get your understanding out...sorry again for the delay, message is the best way though. anytime!
Although I agree with everything that was said about Ne (and the "settle down" part, really resonated with me) I actually really came to agree with your "core idea" bit at the last section of your video. I find myself wanting to find a common link between all these things, or "synthesize" them (if you will)- Well, I guess not really synthesize but find a common link because I would think it would be really cool to see how they are all interrelated and the super idea or "big picture" they present. I still, however, describe all the facets in full, pulling all the similarities separately when I am presenting to bring in many different perspectives of that one idea. However, inwardly I just "synthesized" all that for a more insightful big picture. I can say I am no Ni dom, but it's very interesting to see how I use Ni maybe? Or is it still Ne? recently retyped as an ENTP.
"A blank passage is a piece of emptiness in which words have been eliminated throughout" I had to try it for myself :P somewhat coherent.Ni feels to me as a way of simplifying things. Btw,i came across an article mentioning that Ni users collect things.i like to collect certain things myself so i got curious about this.Why do you suppose collecting would be related to Ni? Hmm,collecting is tying different objects into a uniform purpose,maybe?
are you sure all functions aren't used at different times and for different situations? also can not the circumstance or context wherein each may be used be also considered? take ti and te for instance - i tend to use ti to straighten out my preconceptions and te for in practical situations. maybe i've not yet properly understood typology.
Your remark about Foucalt left me thinking what is the most offensive thing to say to a cognitive function dominant? Foucalt, as a Ne dominant user, was upset about question which in his eyes implied that his viewpoint is polluted by some manifestations of his persona (as I understood from what you said in the video). For me (Fi dominant user), the most offensive idea I had to listen to was from lecturer of something called Social Pedagogy - he claimed that children have to be trained from early age to perform a pro-social behaviour and focus in upbringing should be on forming them in good part of a whole, an useful member of society. I couldn't stand the idea, such a manipulation was clearly heretical, but none of my classmate had so strong reaction to this. When I watched your Fi/Fe video, this situation was clarified to me, he was simply stating from Fe point of view. My question is - what is the most offensive thing to say to a cognitive function dominant? Sometimes one simply ask an innocent question and is very suprise by strong negative reaction. Could it be used as sign of his/her dom. function? I apologize for my language and punctuation, this topic is faaar beyond my active english skills.
So that's why books by Christopher Hitchens (INTJ) and Richard Dawkins (INTP) are completely different, even though they're both explaining the same concept
Daniel Cazcarro More than that - they don't have one function in common. INTPs and INTJs typically have similar interests but different approaches when you get down to it.
Komatik I agree. I (an INTJ) have a friend who's an INTP. We both share the same interest in psychology, but we both arrive in the same conclusion in 2 different ways
So I understand that this is a “vs” conversation but is it really a foundational philosophy is both sides aren’t working together to build a real outcome? That’s like using yang and forgetting the yin or blaming the reaction without blaming the initial action.
That is not a portrait of Kant. The portrait used in the intp video is not a portrait of Kant either. Fundamentally, none of this matters. Personally, it bugs me. On a positive, I like the thoughtfulness of your videos and you did pronounce Kant's name correctly. Thank you.
+Michael Pierce Would this be a valid example: If the two functions have a cup of coffee in front them (the object) and the possibility of the cup of coffee is "If I threw this cup of coffee on mom...," Ne might brainstorm possibilities like, she might yell, she might be silent and in shock, she might call dad or even throw some back at me whereas Ni might consider the fact that "She provides most of the funding for my high school newspaper so probably not a good idea if I want to have any chance at my desired resumé. By the way, hey, mom, don't worry about that I'll clean the house and wash your car and even fix you dinner today, okay?" The idea is that Ne is brainstorming more and more possibilities while Ni is subconsciously taking that possibility and relating it to its own impressions (the aspiration to lead a successful school newspaper) thus throwing the "launching coffee" possibility out as it harms it's ambition and even realizes a possible way of gaining more funds. Right?
May I ask? Is it possible to be both? Because my personality is an INTJ(Ni dominant function) and I still regard external world information reliable. I do still compare it with my experiences but I do that to make sure the information is fact and not biased in any way.
+RaZoR BLaDe That's a very good question, and I feel like you've hit on a deficiency in my explanation here, or at least something misleading. Sometimes I seem to forget (as several other INTJs have rightly reminded me) their Te based interest in the facts, in reality, in getting things done and making things work. So that is where I'd attribute your regard for the external world and facts and seeking not to be biased. Similarly, I could very well say that as an INFJ I am very much interested in the feeling tones outside of me in other people, and the feeling environment among people, but that's from my auxiliary function, which I believe is essentially trying to put my Ni vision to work or provide it with judgements and assumptions from the outside world to start off from. I don't know if that rings true for you though?
I guess its the same for me. But here is where there are problems, according to the test of cognitive functions, My strongest is Ti and second Ni followed by Te and then Ne. How is it possible someone could develop other cognitive functions when according to theory, we are born with our natural functions and cannot change it?
+RaZoR BLaDe Well, it would depend on how the test works -- the cognitive function tests I've seen treat the functions as separate entities, not as interwoven axes as I treat them, and as a result, I believe they misrepresent the functions, attributing nonessential things to the essential nature of the functions, for instance, defining Te as 'a sense of efficiency' in itself, and not as 'a sense of efficiency *resulting* from the dynamic between having a desire (Fi) and isolating how to obtain that desire (Te)'. A sense of efficiency in itself can be connected with by any type, to be honest. I think I'm efficient in certain situations, but the axial process is alien to me.
+RaZoR BLaDe Firstly, most cognitive functions tests are bad, and their results routinely nonsense in terms of theory. It is hard to write questions to differentiate between different attitudes of the same function - just try writing a battery of questions that an Ni type would answer yes and an Ne type would answer no to. You probably can't. Measure concreteness, you stumble upon overlap between Sensing and Te, individuality, and you confuse Fi with all manner of other introverted functions. The list goes on. Cognitive function tests can give you a good guess as to your dominant function, but the other results contain too much noise to be useful and even the dominant result should be taken as just that - a good guess that's by no means definitive. Secondly, functions are not tools you use to do stuff, despite the tests kind of measuring them like that. They are patterns, preferences, predilections, tendencies. Ingrained mental habits for how we tend to go about our lives, rules of thumb we can use to roughly describe some aspects of a person. Third, as Michael notes above, the tests (and many sources of type theory as well) confuse the essential, core aspects of a function with their consequences that often follow from or accompany the mental habit but are not it, per se. This can obviously lead to mistakes.
Komatik Well I agree in a sense that, it is much harder to measure our cognitive functions and how much we use it. But I disagree with the notion that the questions are the main problem. U have to understand that when u read the questions, if u are biased in anyway because of external influences, then of course u will get the results incorrect. The answers that u have answered with must be truthful and not influenced by any external influences.Lets use me as an example, I took many quizzes to get a less margin of error, I compared each question with my past behaviors and what I was thinking about during that time. Guess what? My result was very accurate. After that, I studied more into the type theory, and realized was correct. The external influences never affected me, what I made my decisions on was based on the facts of each situation, before making a decision. Now this is not to say, that all tests are perfect. Some tests are too vague or too long that it might affect the mental state of the person. The main problem most people are getting results that are incorrect, is because the are influenced by external influences and what their ideal type is. My ideal type is ENTP but the facts don't show it. I can rant and give more examples about my life and how I reached my correct results, but that would be taking too much of my time that I could be using for other important stuff. But if u do want to hear it, then feel free to ask.
Finally after years upon years ive understood the diffrence between ne and ni my problem was that when people said that Ni thinking on the one idea while Ne thinking on many From that ive understood easily that Ne will jump from one conclusion to another like he have seen a banana and then he thinks about the moon since its obvious and then about other yellow things like chesse or the sun and that bananas requires a warm climate to grow and then he will think on the carribean islands and that the carribean islands have a lot of cruise ships and then he will remeber his last vacation (From one idea i got inspired to think and many diffrent ideas) While Ni he will think about a monkey for example that eat the banana and share it with his monkey friends or keep this banana to itself and after he will finish eating the banana will he and his friends be smart enough to take the seeds of this banana in order plant them and have more bananas So their will be enough bananas for their babies and the whole tribe an so they wont have to fight another monkies for food but what if their babies dont like this taste of banana because it too sweet for them so they would like to search for a banana that is less yellow then this kind of banana (i had one idea in mind of a monkey eating a banana and i centred on that very monkey and banana idea and added many many concepts and developed this monkey banana idea)
when introverted intuition looks at something is it pulling in past memories into a single point or is it more impressions what do you mean by impressions?
+benny hinn When I refer to 'impressions', I mean anything that has been experienced by the subject and hence recorded subjectively by them, just as an object might impress itself into a ball of clay and leave an impression, which mirrors the nature of the object, but only in an inverse way and in different material. So in that sense, yes, they are memories.
+Michael Pierce so it ni not necessarily just counting past incidents, forming a vision, but pulling in different interpretations of that object into a point,like from the many to the one,like the example you gave about the red balloon?
+benny hinn Would these descriptions be of any help? www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/35ynl5/im_completely_incapable_of_understanding_the/cr9u0aj www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/310asy/whats_the_difference_between_ni_and_ne/cpxn3cq
My friend is an ENFJ and I am an INFP. We debated about whether Ni is objective, and he insists it is an objective point of view, one that sort of rises above all others. He says that all you need to know is within. He calls it "decompressing" and he calls my Ne-Te approach "constant downloading." I argued that Ni is not objective, because if I were to gather a bunch of Ni users together they would disagree (this is a scientific Te approach I am using).
These are some good points you bring up. Ni could make very clear subjective impressions that they make onto their hard drives or crystallized memory (grey matter). And we Ne users are constantly creating new connections in our fluid intelligence (white matter). With Ne we can create a breadth of possible connections and avenues very rapidly. Then we may call on our Ni to choose a specific route wish to explore in detail by "milking the topic dry" as Michael had mentioned in his Function Axes video. 😜
Type Tips Ni most certainly is not an objective point of view. It's a subjective, associative outlook on something (that can often prove to be right if it's honed well), but objective, no. It can *feel* like that because the function is largely unconscious even in Ni-dominants and just feels like seeing obvious things, but it's subjective as all hell in reality.
To Ni's credit it can be quite accurate, as it is more convergent pattern-recognition than Ne, so in a sense it can feel more objective. But it is not objective.
Imagine that both Ne and Ni were going to play a game, a word or image association game, where both start on the same image. (First of all, is this a legitimate hypothetical to think about, but assuming it is) how might the two look different? Say the initial image was a certain book. Actually, how about it is Jung's Psychological Types, for good measure. If I understand you correctly, Ne might start from the book, then jump to Jung, then to Freud, then to psychology in general, then to development in psychology, then to development of types in particular, then back to Jung's ideas about development of types, and maybe how they relate to modern ideas about development of other parts of the psyche, and also about the potential for that development to be empirically measured or observed, then to fMRI machines, which are doing just that for many areas of the brain, so hey why not this one too. Ni, starting from the book, might move in directions that, from the outside world, have absolutely nothing to do with the book or its contents, yes? So, maybe start with the book, then move to its shape as a rectangular prism, then to the abstract shape of prisms, then to their splitting of light in rainbows, then maybe a rainbow bent or flowing in the shape of a rectangular prism, then to such a prism giving off its own warm glow, then to the outer jungle landscape feeding off the light coming from that object. Am I getting this right? (I will say that I'm a Ne user. The first one was very easy for me to come up with, while the second one was sort of a struggle, but a lot of fun.)
FromBehindTheBoard You've got it, I think :) The primary difference is that Ne is connecting objects together, while Ni is retreating into the subject and relating subjective ideas together, so its possible for both to have a similar looking association process, but its still fundamentally different: Ne has a definite feel of jumping from actual objects to actual objects, just as you demonstrated, in a way that Ni has difficulty doing. Ne actually connects things together, but what Ni is really doing is not connecting the dots so much as taking what it notices about the object and assimilating that into its mushy jello mind where its disintegrated into the psyche soup. Ne actually comprehends the objects better, while Ni really is just enriching and better understanding its own theories better through the inspiration caused by the object. So, Ne might jump from Jung's ideas to Freud's ideas to MRI machines, and connect them all together. Ni however, takes Jung, disintegrates the ideas in the psyche, and then realizes that those disintegrated ideas taste really good with some disintegrated Freud and disintegrated MRI machine. If that makes sense?
Michael Pierce Yes. But, I am still thinking about the distinction, because I have been trying to observe actual examples of Intuition out in the wild, (often in the form of jokes or comparisons or connections made by people around me) and I've noticed that, in practice, it's actually very difficult to tell Ne and Ni apart. Re-watching this video a few weeks later, I'm drawn towards your statement about Ne being like a philosophy without a philosopher, while Ni is inseparable from the philosopher. It seems to me that that probably translates directly to examples too: if you're interpreting a comment that is the result of Ne, chances are that you can probably understand the statement on its own, face value, without needing to know who said it. While for Ni, it is probably necessary to know something about the person, and maybe even ask them why those two seemingly unrelated concepts are tied together for them. But I think the fundamental difficulty is that, unlike for Sensation where the properties you observe actually exist in the real world, the domains of Intuition (which you've described as "possibilities, ideas, and associations") already only exist in the mind. So, really both Ne and Ni are connecting things which only exist in their mind, and doing so in their mind; but Ne wants to make certain that it's connection is in fact borne out by the object, while Ni doesn't really care about that. It also seems to me, though maybe I'm wrong here, that because Ni doesn't really care whether the connection is an objective one or not, it still may have objective connections! In other words, it is looking for subjective connections, but it's possible that two ideas are subjectively connected BECAUSE they were objectively connected in the first place. It is Ne that's taking the extra step to try to rule out non-objective connections. Ni might have a preference for the subject and distrust of the object, but it's probably not about to exclude its perfectly good subjective connections simply because they happen to be reflected in the object as well, is it? So the results of Ni will appear to be indifferent to the question of the objective reality of their intuitions. And then I think the final difficulty arises from not being an impartial observer. I'm an Ne-dominant, so surely that has an effect, although I haven't yet decided which way it's likely to bias me. Did that all make sense?
youre great , the ballon thingy OMG ,im trying to put in words the functions for a long time ,and you just did it .. BTW after seeing your risk videos i convinced my intj freind to create a board game with me .
אסף גוטמן Michael Pierce Try to make it more Ni-based and less Te-based than Ultra-Risk :P That thing looks like a horrible, disconnected mess that'd make Steve Jobs cry, even if it works and seems like a lot of fun in the end as well. Elegance, dammit XO
Komatik lol , i'm trying .. but the thing is i just wanna make a cool game that it will be fun to play ,and he is starting to think about how can we sell it -_-. i guess it's gonna endup being Te based ,cause strategy
אסף גוטמן Fun to play > everything. And mind you, I just said that out of pure game design nazism. Most people probably don't give a damn. Just make a fun game.
I don't know what my type is because I think I might be Ni dominant, but I also have Ti that's way too well developed at my age for it to be my tertiary, so I don't think I'm an INFJ, although I might be. Often I'll intuitively understand something, but I try to voice what it is right away. When I was younger I'd just say, "Oh, it's that thingy," and know what the thing is, but not explain it to myself in my head, which I try to do more now. My mind is kind of hazy, and I'm trying to make it less so, because I figure it'll make it easier to explain my reasoning to others when necessary and could be beneficial in the future. That said, I also have quite a bit of Ne. I always try to narrow things down, but I can see plenty of possibilities if I need to, although I do have a tendency to jump to conclusions. Usually I'll guess at something, doubt that guess, and then later that guess proves correct. When I type people, I intuitively know what their type is, then analyze it logically, and sometimes come to other conclusions but usually my first idea is always the best one. I'm only 15 so that makes it harder to tell, of course.
If a person feels troubled in dwelling into too much depth of Ni I would suggest reconsidering INTP and INFP types because Ni is so called demonstrative function for those JiNe types in socionics. They are too deep in there and troubled by experience waiting their complementary JeSi types to bring them to see extraverting intuitive possibilities.
Muhahaha I've made you self conscious about pronunciations :) Joking aside, I think Dominant Ni implies an overdeveloed superego which results in the individual giving too much weight and attention to extrnal information, which might also imply instable/porous ego boundaries, internslizing too nsny things. It's like a cell membrane that allows more than normal amount of external partickes to be processed inside and at some point the cekl hecomes overloadef with external particles and has to isokate itself to recover like in indigestion. So theres a suction point/force inside the cell. Dont know if same could hold true for ti or fi or si. Ne otoh is the reverse mechanism. It's a positive pressure point indide the cell that propels material genrrated inside the cell outwards (verbal diarrehea, blurting out and projection) and disallows absorption of unfavorable exterbal material (denial). Hence it implşes an overdevelooed id. There needs to be a healthy bslance between the two.
ember fly I think Ni and Si represent mechanisms that cause the individual to obsess over doing the right "thing". Si learns the right thing from the local environment/society whereas Ni tries to develop a global/universal concept of the right "thing". The nature of the "thing" is defined by the Ni Si dom's auxiliary function, i.e., Fe or Te. Fe aux are more concerned with social begaviour and morals whereas Te aux are more concernef with commercial behaviour and efficiency. Fe or Te dom's OTOH try to impose their values on others and try to dictate others as to how they must act whereas they are much easier on themselves. They have double standards and try to use Fe or Te domain for tgeir profit and rise above others in that domain to feel superior and safe. Fe or Te aux OTOH are much harsher towards themselves about doing the right thing and more lenient towarfs others.
Ne is objective? I'm over here like asdfghsygfgwesdfahdkag 🙃 .... Well, I guess it is objective when with our tremendous and unbiased gift we end up making a trash duck🔧🦆🌟🧚🏼♀️ I'll name him Quacksi
I am curious how your description of Ni -- trying to see and understand something completely as itself -- differs from the operation of Si on a concept or abstraction? Your description of Ni as really trying to examine an idea on its own terms, for what it is (presumably here and now, in the moment it is being encountered and digested), seems very akin to how you described sensing. So, for an example -- if both you and I were to read a theory by Gafrota (the philosopher I made up for this question), how would I, as Si-dom, examine and understand it as distinct from how you, as Ni-dom, would examine and understand it? At what point do you lose sight of Gafrota's work in favor of intuitions ideas, connections, etc., as distinct from Ne's lack of attention to Gafrota's work, and as opposed to Si's continued attention on the actual object of Gafrota's work? Just curious, and wanted to ask your thoughts, since I very much respect your views on typology :)
+Explicit Informant Finally getting to you -- though I'm embarrassed to say that I don't quite understand the question...I don't recall ever describing Ni as "trying to see and understand something completely as itself"...so I'm not sure how to answer your question
+Explicit Informant I appreciate your compliment though! It flatters me, truly. (Please let me know where you found that description of Ni in my work, by the way, that would be helpful, I think)
SapereAude1490 I'll see what I can do :) In the mean time, if it helps, I would recommend this article which might be useful: www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2014/12/dating-and-type/
While I love watching your videos and your analogies have been more than helpful in the long run, I tend to get lost while trying to apply them to myself. I am an INFP with Ne, but while and after watching this video I spent time questioning my axis. Maybe it's because I tend to subconsciously focus on the object of your analogies rather than the analogies themselves and wind up confusing myself. Like considering I like film but am totally ignorant of anything relating to industry- so the analogy for Ni resonated with me more. I could apply the second explanation to myself more easily. So maybe I just have a difficult time simplifying some of your descriptions to the point where I can understand the concept. That or I am somewhat oblivious to the objective parts of my processes as I often tune out the world to the point I feel everything I connect to exists entirely in my own subject.
Celadon Flame Well, you're not the first to mention difficulty with that, and its more a problem on my end: I've found its easy when hearing attempted descriptions or analogies of the functions to relate details about one's character to them and begin questioning the axis; for instance, your example with the film vs. the film industry. I think when looking at my analogies, its best to apply them to your whole self at once, and your whole tendency as a person. I don't suppose that helps?
Celadon Flame Ni is a black hole of understanding. It takes in a lot of information, finds the red threads between things, patterns in how things work. It condenses this to a singular understanding. Ni is largely unconscious, and goes from many impressions/observations to one vision (which in itself may be vast, however). Ni likes to dwell on pattern of history, predictions of the (often far) future, and timeless truths. It compulsively sees things as parts of systems, and is prone to get lost without some context to ground itself in. The context may not be as much as an Si type needs to achieve a similar level of facility (but consequently a more nuanced and detailed grasp of things in some ways) Partly because of its associative nature and tendency to deal with the impressions observations leave in the user's mind Ni is not very good at being in the moment, in the here and now - luckily its opposite, Se, is all about the moment and a breadth of detailed observations. It can also have trouble telling how the things it sees might come about - the association process is highly unconscious even in dominant types, so it's often the case that an Ni user will know the end result, but not the steps to get there - those have to be retraced consciously. Ne is an exploratory function that looks at the objects outside directly, rather than the impressions those observations leave in the user's mind. Where an Se type focuses on the concrete details and properties of the object, an Ne type sees possibilities of what the object could become and its connections to other objects (and these need not be concrete - ideas easily suffice, which helps explain INTPs' typical detachment, for example) as inherent in the object itself, and pays attention to those. It goes from one observation to many possibilities or connections. Unlike Ni, which mercilessly pares down the possibilities in the unconscious and focuses on the most likely outcome which it then brings into consciousness (if it even does that at all), Ne has trouble deciding between the ideas that spring into its mind, and brings the many possibilities it generates into consciousness. In this way, it's a good that Ne's idea storm is more conscious than Ni's - its results can be analyzed and decided upon consciously, rather than trusting that the intuition is right - it often is, but not always. If you imagine what is known and "fact" as a box, Ne is that guy who looks a bit outside it and ventures there - not very far, but in all directions, growing the box as it goes. Because Ni goes from ample context to a singular goal, seeing some outcome as inevitable based on the state of things, its solutions are typically revolutionary, not evolutionary - it would suggest overhauling the whole damn thing to get things right, basically. Ne's possibilities of object/idea thinking is more evolutionary, innovative in nature: It naturally sees the small refinements and improvisations that are often enough the correct and less taxing solution to a problem. Know which intuitor you hire for the job folks! :P Finally, Ni can sometimes be mistaken for Ti or Fi. Ti because both Ti and Ni have a desire to explain things, understand them thoroughly and to distill things to a "one idea" type understanding. With Ni, it's a large, unorganized, unconscious blob of associations and patterns, with Ti a structured set of rules from which explanations for many things can be derived. One is highly unconscious and unstructured, the other highly conscious and very structured, but the goals are similar. Fi because when you have an Fi judgment about something, you feel it in your bones and though you can probably explain it somewhat, ultimately it'll prove to be more or less impossible. One of the typical descriptions of Ni is that you just know something but can't explain it. Oopsie.
Ne Ti Fi and Se are a right brained function. While Ni Te Fe and Si are left brain functions. This to my understanding and intuition is programming. Not whether you actually only use one side of your noggin and not the other. ;) Here is a video you might enjoy Michael. Yes the narrator seems to be more interested in the right brain. But that is not what is the main importance for our purposes. Enjoy! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dFs9WO2B8uI.html
I think this is the introspective (over self-aware) look of an Ni-dom. s3.amazonaws.com/hobartpulp/ckeditor_assets/pictures/181/content_09_-_the-burrow.jpg?1384897449 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Burrow_(short_story) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis
I'm an INTP, but when it comes to creativity I think I use both Ne and Ni. I'm also more into art and writing than the INTP stereotype of liking science and mathematics. I related to most of the other Ne stuff though.
i think i understand what you are saying, when he gave the example of Ne & Ni with the balloon i don't really get the difference as i would seem to do both, like whatever i make a connection with.
