Reply
Thread Tools
Is it really impossible to use both Ne and Ni? None
Old 05-02-2013, 11:09 PM   #1
Enfpbutterfly
Member [07%]
MBTI: XNFP
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 280
 
The original functions theory seems to suggest that we only have access to Ne/Si or Ni/Se, but not both. But why must Ne and Ni be mutually exclusive? Is it really impossible that someone might have access to both?

How do you rule one out? I could swear I actually use both, just in different situations.
Enfpbutterfly is offline
Reply With Quote

Old 05-02-2013, 11:10 PM   #2
9272
Member [44%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,761
 
It's not about which one you use, it's about which one you PREFER.
9272 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 11:34 PM   #3
Ender
Veteran Member [79%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,164
 
Depends on how you look at them.

I see them as mutually exclusive in a mirror way: Si/Ni, Se/Ne, etc. I suspect there are function combinations that can sometimes look like a single function.
Ender is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 12:42 AM   #4
CaesAug
Member [04%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 191
 
Yes. You can't "use" either.
CaesAug is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 01:42 AM   #5
jndiii
Core Member [158%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,340
 

  Originally Posted by Enfpbutterfly
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The original functions theory seems to suggest that we only have access to Ne/Si or Ni/Se, but not both. But why must Ne and Ni be mutually exclusive? Is it really impossible that someone might have access to both?

How do you rule one out? I could swear I actually use both, just in different situations.

Still drilling on this one? I should state for the record that I used to think that I "used both", until I refined my definition.

  Originally Posted by CaesAug
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yes. You can't "use" either.

This is a cogent observation. It's not about "preferences" or "use": those are shorthand terms for "being of that type." In reality, we don't consciously "prefer" a function, never mind "use" it.

We are it.

The difference between thinking in terms of use/prefer and "are" is huge.

I do not doubt, Ms. Butterfly, that you are extremely intelligent and capable of following ideas that have Ne characteristics and ideas that have Ni characteristics. But ideas don't have types. The typology is in how you "digest" them. I strongly suspect that as much as you have Ni-style ideas, your digestion/production of them is very much in the Ne style. I am fully capable of producing Ne-style ideas, but upon self-reflection, I've noted that the Ne-ish ones that are really out-of-context actually did have an underlying "within-context" source, it's just that the context was remarkably unusual.

For instance, upon seeing a sign on the highway that reads, "Left lane for passing only", the first thought that comes to mind is "So the right lane is for failing?" To lots of people, my saying that appears to be entirely out of context. But internally, all I did was alter context, swinging it around on the word "passing", punning on its meaning just the traffic phenomenon vs its meaning with respect to success and failure. Ni ideas tend to always have these pivot points, where the intersection of two contexts allows for very odd juxtapositions that seem Ne-ish. But the Ne version of out-of-context is completely out of context. Nardi observes that Ne doms appear to be the "most creative" of the types, at least in terms of just being able to come up with lots of ideas that simply don't have much of a relationship to each other, and definitely don't have that "pivot point" that Ni-style ideas do. You Ne types don't need to do the deliberate context-switching that Ni types do, you don't appear to apply context at all.

jndiii is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 01:54 AM   #6
Busboy
Banned
 
MBTI: xxxx
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,096
 
Ne is about seeing a picture from a thousand puzzle pieces

Ni is about seeing the long-term indirect consequences of a single-action

...

From what I understand at least.

MBTI could be kaputt though. The theory is more like Newton's gravity theory before Einstein came along.

Dabrowski made good headway with his positive disintegration theory; but, it doesn't relate very well to the masses (as MBTI does), so it's not very popular.

MBTI is popular because it's simple, and accurate enough for most applications. However, we should be careful when making conclusions that Jung didnt expressly state.

I believe that Jung has stated that we are all more similar than we are different.

I imagine that extraverted intuition is utilized when a rapper freestyles, and needs to string together quick analogies that make sense and also rhyme

I imagine that introverted intuition is utilized during chess.

I'm also just an amateur at this stuff
Busboy is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 01:56 PM   #7
Enfpbutterfly
Member [07%]
MBTI: XNFP
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 280
 

  Originally Posted by jndiii
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Still drilling on this one? I should state for the record that I used to think that I "used both", until I refined my definition.

I'm still spinning my wheels, can you believe it?!

I thought I had the issue figured out. I took Nardi's test and Ne usage came out as very high. But then I started reading his books. His descriptions of Ni fit me perfectly, but I am 100% sure I am not an INxJ, and that Ne is my primary cognitive process.

For example, one of the exercises he recommends for those wishing to develop their Ni is as follows:

 
Gain Insight for Others
Questions and problems you present to your unconscious can be for or about anyone or anything. When you feel comfortable, ask someone if you can assist him or her. Listen for times when people wonder about the meaning of an experience or how the future will unfold. Consider helping people interpret their dreams (or their thoughts in general). If someone is wondering which option to pick when making a decision, submit each of their options to your unconscious and allow images to come into your mind that portray future results and implications for each one.

There are also other applicable Ni quotes:

 
The most powerful metaperspectives result in a transformation, synthesis, or paradigm shift. All that was confusing or waiting on the edge of our mind is now accessible from a single vantage point...And there remains a feeling that everything we think we know and everything we do reflect just one understanding among infinite levels of reality. People who prefer introverted Intuition look inward for a steady stream of realizations and mind shifting to navigate life and make sense of all aspects of living.

His book also mentions several Ne exercises, most of which make sense and which I already practice in my daily life without realizing. But his Ni exercises and descriptions stumped me, because they are also things that I do very naturally. I prefer to use Ne because it's fun -- it's just playing around in a giant idea playground, and tossing and turning and combining and taking apart ideas as if they were abstract elements that I can combine into molecules. It's just easy and fun. But I swear I use Ni. I don't do it consciously or intentionally. In fact, Ni scares me a bit; I will out of nowhere get an impression about someone or be able to just "know" something about their intentions or background or preferences, or suddenly conceive of a new idea that ties together many aspects I've been considering lately. It's not always logical, especially as it relates to people (which I don't like, as thoughts to me are only aesthetically pleasing when they are rational and ordered), and it's certainly not fun. So of course I prefer Ne, but maybe there really is something about being able to access more than just four functions.

Enfpbutterfly is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 02:03 PM   #8
catzama
Core Member [198%]
 
MBTI: INFJ
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,922
 
Good lord don't be greedy with the N, lady!
catzama is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 02:14 PM   #9
Moxiie
Core Member [387%]
Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production.
MBTI: eNfP
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 15,501
 

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


An excerpt:

 
Interestingly, when an ENP type attempts to do this, thanks to strength and agility of their intuition, the result can look curiously like Ni – presumably the result of a sort of “blending” Si and Ne. This process is what I referred to earlier as “masquerading”: an ENP gives the appearance of having the wisdom or insight reminiscent of Ni.

I find this site to be immensely helpful FWIW

Moxiie is online
Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 02:17 PM   #10
Chameleon
Restricted [forum rules]
 
MBTI: INTP
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,721
 
I see small pictures so my intuition is explosive so that I can work towards a bigger picture in my mind. I suppose if I ever start looking at the big picture my intuition would become implosive so that I can work towards the smaller picture in my mind. But, I don't see a point in ever needing to do both, nor do I feel like vastly rebuilding my mind. Could you use both? Maybe, but not at the same time IMO. But, it would be very time consuming and likely create a chasm in your mind...
Chameleon is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 02:24 PM   #11
jndiii
Core Member [158%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,340
 

  Originally Posted by Enfpbutterfly
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm still spinning my wheels, can you believe it?!

I thought I had the issue figured out. I took Nardi's test and Ne usage came out as very high. But then I started reading his books. His descriptions of Ni fit me perfectly, but I am 100% sure I am not an INxJ, and that Ne is my primary cognitive process.

For example, one of the exercises he recommends for those wishing to develop their Ni is as follows:



There are also other applicable Ni quotes:



His book also mentions several Ne exercises, most of which make sense and which I already practice in my daily life without realizing. But his Ni exercises and descriptions stumped me, because they are also things that I do very naturally. I prefer to use Ne because it's fun -- it's just playing around in a giant idea playground, and tossing and turning and combining and taking apart ideas as if they were abstract elements that I can combine into molecules. It's just easy and fun. But I swear I use Ni. I don't do it consciously or intentionally. In fact, Ni scares me a bit; I will out of nowhere get an impression about someone or be able to just "know" something about their intentions or background or preferences, or suddenly conceive of a new idea that ties together many aspects I've been considering lately. It's not always logical, especially as it relates to people (which I don't like, as thoughts to me are only aesthetically pleasing when they are rational and ordered), and it's certainly not fun. So of course I prefer Ne, but maybe there really is something about being able to access more than just four functions.

Yeah, I read that same book. His write-up in Neuroscience of Personality is much more apt, especially for the Ni and Fi descriptions. I find the descriptions in his 8 Keys to Leadership and in his online test (which is fairly old, btw) to be weak. Most intuitive types score high in both Ne and Ni ... and T types score high in both Ti and Te, and so on. There's a reason the MBTI simplifies into T vs F and N vs S: those are concrete distinctions to be made that are easily communicated. The difference between Ni and Ne, however, is abstract (pun intended), and the concrete explanations of each sound the same, because it's so difficult to describe how the thought process is doing things differently in each case. Part of the issue is that Ne understanding an Ni idea or Ni understanding an Ne idea are just results, and don't imply that the processes each applies to achieve the results are similar.

Basically, if you can do the kind of synthesis that Nardi describes in his EEG Neuroscience book, then I'd be more convinced. My ENFP gf described a class she took in which she had to write a paper: she handed it in, and the professor said after reading it, "I'm not sure what your thesis is." She replied, "What's a thesis?"
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Ne doesn't do synthesis, it just runs through idea after idea, and tries to remember the good ones. Ni does the opposite, which is why it gets along so well with Ne, namely it can take the random-ish Ne ideas and make them all apply to something, which, to Ne, appears to be a completely new idea. But it isn't a new idea, it's simply all the ideas that Ne has already gone through and arranging them. If ideas are flowers, Ne just picks a bunch of wild flowers and sticks them in a vase because they all look pretty. Ni comes along, takes the same flowers, and arranges them according to some internal Ni-schema/context, creating distinct patterns with the flowers.

jndiii is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2013, 12:33 PM   #12
scorpiomover
Core Member [185%]
Remember, you're a Womble.
MBTI: INTP
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 7,419
 

  Originally Posted by Enfpbutterfly
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The original functions theory seems to suggest that we only have access to Ne/Si or Ni/Se, but not both. But why must Ne and Ni be mutually exclusive? Is it really impossible that someone might have access to both?

Well, of course you can. N can imagine anything. But it would be rather pointless, because Ne is divergent, while Ni is convergent. Like putting a car into forward and reverse gears at the same time.

  Originally Posted by Enfpbutterfly
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
How do you rule one out? I could swear I actually use both, just in different situations.

Jung referred to introversion/extroversion as a general attitude type, and one's dominant function as a function-type. If you are an N-dom, and you generally think and behave like an introvert, then you'll generally think and behave like an Ni-dom. You'll still sometimes switch to extrovertsion, because introversion is only a [b]general[b] attitude type, and not a complete one, and so is only expressive of your general mode of cognition and behaviour. When you do switch to extroversion, then you'll behave like an Ne-dom. But, because it's not your general attitude, there will have to be some compelling reason for you to change, such as that you're in a party, or you are stressed at work, or something, and when that thing disappears, then very quickly, you return to introversion and thinking like an Ni-dom.

If you generally think and behave like an extrovert, then you'll generally think and behave like an Ne-dom. You'll still sometimes switch to being an Ni-dom, but this will again be only while some compelling force goes on.

This is why MBTI characterises introversion/extroversion as what you get your energy from. It's not so much that you actually "recharge" from either attitude. It's just that one attitude is usually there, as long as there is no comelling reason to behave either way, and the other attitude is only there, when there is a compelling reason to behave with that attitude, and as soon as the reason removes, then one flicks back to the general attitude. That compulsion requires force, which uses up energy as it continues to be applied, slowly tiring the person more and more, giving the person the requirement to stop, and when one stops, then the compulsion is no longer there, and thus the person automatically returns to their general attitude, while they are recharging. Not causation, but correlation.

One can also simulate Ni, and Ne, simply by combining 2 functions together, such as Ne & Fi, or Ni & Fe. But then you kind of know this when you're doing it yourself, because you thought of both elements before combining them.

scorpiomover is online
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.