[PeterIMC]

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

I also disagree with you on one point. One of my best friends is an INTJ and she's told me repeatedly that she's able to channel her ESFP shadow. However, while it's fun for her to be zany and random, and it feels like a different mental state, she doesn't see the value in doing so beyond it providing her with an idle distraction. Also, there's a post somewhere in the "Best Friends" thread where the author claims that he can just "let go and have fun" around his ESFP friend, which may be taken as a distinction from wearing a mask. So, it's perfectly possible to turn your Ni up or down; it's just very unlikely that you have (and, more generally, the average person has) acquired the ability to do predictably, nor developed your inferior functions to the extent where you can easily choose to perceive the world through a different lens altogether, especially if you're already quite content with doing things your own way. I assume it's obviously very hard for anyone to do this, of course, but I don't see any reason to believe that it's outright impossible, nor a worthless pursuit (unless you, personally, judge it as such).

Turning my Ni down? I don't see how that's done. But perhaps it means like turning up Se (though not really).

Pretending is not the same thing as beeing. I think it's important to realize that. I don't see how you can really turn up or down an unconcient process in the brain. But perhaps when understanding there is another way, one could just act and if done enough, it may even feel natural, (kind of like playing piano or what ever other instrument), but still it's learned, not natural.

Imagining how another person looks at the world (kind of like predicting how they react to certain information) is pretty much an Ni function, IF the person with Ni is interested in understanding how that person reacts to information. You could fool yourself into believing that that is like turning up or down a certain function, but I think it's more like using your natural function to enforce the other function.

I'm noticing I'm not going to be able to write this down in a way that presents the way I really see this. one more try though. Over the years my Se is developping, but this is probably because I'm managing a whole bunch of people which kind of forces me to pay more attention to how the world around me behaves and acts. Simply because many of the actions that happen around me are reactions on my actions. Is it that my Se is developping or is it my Ni that is now seeing the relations between my actions and the reactions of the world around me and that therefore my Se is developing?

The other way around, the same question: Is somebody with a strong Se, in a position where he or she has to gain certain results through their own actions, that cause reactions in other people, developing Ni?

[Sinequanon]

Peter,

Maybe
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
can help with some of the questions you have about how Se and Ni interplay?

[PeterIMC]

	Originally Posted by Sinequanon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Peter, Maybe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. can help with some of the questions you have about how Se and Ni interplay?

I like that page, it describes pretty much what I meant to say. This is a quote:

	I notice that whenever I use extraverted Sensing, it's almost an instant "trigger" for my introverted iNtuiting to show up.

That says it in a different way. Ni starts to analize the information obtained. Where Se basically focuses on the individual facts, Ni wants to connect them. Where Ne is just satisfied with looking at individual steps, Ni will skip steps and connect them anyway.

Maybe as one gets older, Se develops because of lack of new information, though this may not apply to everybody as it depends a lot on your situation and type of job I guess.

[Maayan]

	Originally Posted by PeterIMC To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I like that page, it describes pretty much what I meant to say.

Same. I'm emphasizing a different corollary drawn from the same conclusion.

[callmemigs]

I've come to a very simple yet a totally complicated (and it needs some elaboration but I'm too lazy to type right now) analogy of Ni and Ne.

Ni is like a convex lens, convergent.
Ne is like a concave lens, divergent.

[Shorgenfunkel]

Here's my MSPainted-in-2-minutes take on Ne vs. Ni, hope it's right and if so it reduces a lot of the confusion:

Ne:

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



Ni:

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

[phantasma]

With both of those diagrams, it's probably more reasonable that we all have a "field" of small arrows going every which way at a small speed around our heads, with one big really fast one for Ni and several moderately fast ones for Ne.

[Shorgenfunkel]

Ah, true. The diagram is supposed to be as simple as possible, and the "field" of small arrows could easily be confused for Ne.

The huge difference in speed between Ni and Ne isn't to suggest that NeDom or NeAux types are "slow," but that the intuitor can see the connections happen in real-time as opposed to with Ni, where it just goes FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM--CONCLUSION--waitwhatwheredidthatcomefrom?

A small field of blue arrows for intellectual input/stimulation might be good though, with a lot of them forming around the Ne diagram's "head" and a few funneling into the top of the Ni diagram's.

[PeterIMC]

I like those arrow diagrams. Very clear. Reminded me right away of some Ne's I know.

I understand the 20 km/h number, that just means slow. But how did you get to 9057 km/h ? Was that just randomly chosen?

I looked it up...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
the speed of neural signals in the brain peaks at like 100 to 120 km/h.

[Eleven]

Isn't Ni sometimes slow?

Like, from the moment you start working on something (subconsciously, perhaps), to the moment you get hit with a conclusion...that can be a while sometimes, right?

I don't know. I never saw the difference between them as one of speed, so much as one of depth and solidity. Ne gives you lots of concepts, but it's not committed to what it gives you, it's frivolous. Ni is dedicated to what it deals with, and gives you a much fuller, more definite picture (Ne's many pictures are all 'maybes').

And the connections Ne gives you are pretty much immediate. What takes longer is getting to the eventual point that Ni might get you to, except that's a combination of Ne and whatever else (Ti, Fi) at work - it's not that Ne is slower getting there than Ni, it's that Ne needs help getting there at all.

I think your diagram is still excellent and visually intuitive, but rather than 'speed' of the arrows, I think you should indicate the 'amount of content', 'degree of internal structure', or something like that.

[Shorgenfunkel]

	Originally Posted by PeterIMC To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I understand the 20 km/h number, that just means slow. But how did you get to 9057 km/h ? Was that just randomly chosen? I looked it up... To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. the speed of neural signals in the brain peaks at like 100 to 120 km/h.

Bingo. However, I also chose it because I wanted something to signify that we couldn't see it until it stops.

Originally Posted by Eleven

Isn't Ni sometimes slow? Like, from the moment you start working on something (subconsciously, perhaps), to the moment you get hit with a conclusion...that can be a while sometimes, right? I don't know. I never saw the difference between them as one of speed, so much as one of depth and solidity. Ne gives you lots of concepts, but it's not committed to what it gives you, it's frivolous. Ni is dedicated to what it deals with, and gives you a much fuller, more definite picture (Ne's many pictures are all 'maybes'). And the connections Ne gives you are pretty much immediate. What takes longer is getting to the eventual point that Ni might get you to, except that's a combination of Ne and whatever else (Ti, Fi) at work - it's not that Ne is slower getting there than Ni, it's that Ne needs help getting there at all. I think your diagram is still excellent and visually intuitive, but rather than 'speed' of the arrows, I think you should indicate the 'amount of content', 'degree of internal structure', or something like that.

Maybe merely the size/thickness of the arrows is enough, without the speeds.

[PeterIMC]

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

Isn't Ni sometimes slow? Like, from the moment you start working on something (subconsciously, perhaps), to the moment you get hit with a conclusion...that can be a while sometimes, right? I don't know. I never saw the difference between them as one of speed, so much as one of depth and solidity. Ne gives you lots of concepts, but it's not committed to what it gives you, it's frivolous. Ni is dedicated to what it deals with, and gives you a much fuller, more definite picture (Ne's many pictures are all 'maybes'). And the connections Ne gives you are pretty much immediate. What takes longer is getting to the eventual point that Ni might get you to, except that's a combination of Ne and whatever else (Ti, Fi) at work - it's not that Ne is slower getting there than Ni, it's that Ne needs help getting there at all. I think your diagram is still excellent and visually intuitive, but rather than 'speed' of the arrows, I think you should indicate the 'amount of content', 'degree of internal structure', or something like that.

If you ask me, Ni does the same as Ne except that in Ni the unlikely possibilities are discarded without much further thought to it. When I get a question that require a lot of facts to consider my thoughts go through all the options but it doesn't get to the point where it's translated into words for example. (which keeps things going fast). It's more like a high speed journey through a maze and the final conclusion is there without any doubt.

Ne's that I know want to touch every little fact, come to a conclusion on that one and then move on to the next.

So I'd say that the Ni process it self is pretty amazing fast. What slows it down is lack of information. If the Ni process doesn't get to a conclusion, I know exactly what I need to get to a conclusion. Sometimes it takes weeks or even months to get that information.

[Eleven]

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

If you ask me, Ni does the same as Ne except that in Ni the unlikely possibilities are discarded without much further thought to it. When I get a question that require a lot of facts to consider my thoughts go through all the options but it doesn't get to the point where it's translated into words for example. (which keeps things going fast). It's more like a high speed journey through a maze and the final conclusion is there without any doubt.

My Ne doesn't automatically involve translation into words either - and it's pretty fast. It comes in images, mostly, and the images are accompanied by understanding of the conceptual content involved, without it being linguistic understanding. It means you can get images and concepts flashing past, and you don't have to latch onto them unless they strike you as likely or interesting. Then, if I want to work through an idea presented by Ne, then I'm using Ti, and that's when it becomes linguistic - the content is explicitly stated and checked for logic (i.e. does it really hold together?), and if I do this, I'll remember the idea better.

	Ne's that I know want to touch every little fact, come to a conclusion on that one and then move on to the next.

Not sure about this. I admit that, if Ne generates a range of ideas and, in addition to one seeming immediately useful, there's one that seems interesting, I'll take a moment to make a mental note to come back to it (and I'll find something salient about it to use later to re-trigger it) before I focus on the useful idea. But it's certainly not the case that you have to think about everything Ne gives you - often you can discard or ignore.

	So I'd say that the Ni process it self is pretty amazing fast. What slows it down is lack of information. If the Ni process doesn't get to a conclusion, I know exactly what I need to get to a conclusion. Sometimes it takes weeks or even months to get that information.

But when you're actively looking for information, you're using a judging process, aren't you? The product of Ni might be the conclusion that you need to know about X, but actually looking for X will be something else. It's like what I said about Ne - it's not that Ne is slow reaching the same conclusion as Ni, it's that Ne needs Ti or Fi to get to anything resembling a conclusion at all. Similarly, Ni itself is not slow in the scenario you're describing, it's just in need of assistance in order to reach a conclusion. Sometimes, conclusions need more than perception.

Ni is, however, variable in the time it takes. Sometimes it's pretty immediate, but sometimes it needs to work away subconsciously for a day before it gives you a result.

I was also under the impression that Ni does give you firmer conclusions than Ne. Not necessarily because it has discarded other possibilities, but because there is a kind of subconscious reasoning process involved that is absent in Ne. Ni gives you answers to problems; it has taken premises, processed subconsciously, and it offers a result. Ne gives possibilities for further investigation. It takes a stimulus, and generates new applications, similar ideas, different contexts or interpretations. You can use a judging process to use these Ne products in problem solving, but Ne itself isn't a problem solver - it's a suggester.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think Ni and Ne do the same thing. It's not that Ni is Ne-plus-filter, or Ne-plus-additional-processing (and nor is Ne Ni-times-many-branches). What they give you is fundamentally different, although in both cases it's abstract/conceptual rather than concrete/sensory.





Eleven added to this post, 0 minutes and 54 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Shorgenfunkel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Maybe merely the size/thickness of the arrows is enough, without the speeds.

I think that would work well.

[PeterIMC]

The words example was just that: an example. And you´re right that by the time you get to that point it's already where the other processes are involved.

What you explained actually helped me understand it a little better. When I think about this stuff I compare my conclusions a lot to what I see in people that I know are Ne's.

But for me, in a case where there's no lack of information, my brain races through the concept that was given or obtained and then gets to a conclusion. What I notice a lot is that people tend to go through things step by step while I'm already ahead and have reached a conclusion. Then I have to wait for them to also get there. Downside of that is that during that process people forgot what they were after in the first place and the whole discussion goes to somewhere totally different.

I'm wondering if that's a problem Ne encounters,.... getting lost in all the data, losing sight of the original goal.

Maybe I'm already looking at more than just Ne and Ni. that's probably not the correct way to understand the difference between the 2.


One thing that might be important is that Ni gets to jump from A to Z in like 5 steps while Ne needs to take all 26 steps. is that something you can relate to?

[Eleven]

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

The words example was just that: an example. And you´re right that by the time you get to that point it's already where the other processes are involved. What you explained actually helped me understand it a little better. When I think about this stuff I compare my conclusions a lot to what I see in people that I know are Ne's. But for me, in a case where there's no lack of information, my brain races through the concept that was given or obtained and then gets to a conclusion. What I notice a lot is that people tend to go through things step by step while I'm already ahead and have reached a conclusion. Then I have to wait for them to also get there. Downside of that is that during that process people forgot what they were after in the first place and the whole discussion goes to somewhere totally different. I'm wondering if that's a problem Ne encounters,.... getting lost in all the data, losing sight of the original goal. Maybe I'm already looking at more than just Ne and Ni. that's probably not the correct way to understand the difference between the 2. One thing that might be important is that Ni gets to jump from A to Z in like 5 steps while Ne needs to take all 26 steps. is that something you can relate to?

Not really. For a start, Ni is my third most used process, so while I don't live in it, I do get frequent Ni-insights. That means I often get to a conclusion rapidly.

But because I'm more at home in Ti and Ne, I recognise the difference between conclusions reached via TiNe and those reached via Ni.

Still, it's not Ne that has to go through all 26 steps. If a person is to get to a conclusion, then they are using something else in addition to Ne, if they are using Ne.

Here's an example, based on your example:

Ni:
A...(subconscious processing)...Z.

Ne:
A - Analogous to 1, in a sense.
- Related historically to alpha.
- Followed by B...
- A is for animal, aardvark, anomaly...
- As a prefix, 'not'.
- is a paradigmatic case of symbolism...

And so forth. That's an exaggeration, of course, but I hope it shows what I mean by Ne and Ni really being about different things entirely. Ni seeks a solution, an answer, a single point toward which it directs its processing. Ne doesn't constrain itself the same way - it's prepared to offer potentially useless information sometimes if it means you also get to choose the conceptual path you want to follow.

If I were to include auxiliary processes, we might get something like this:

Ni:
A...(subconscious processing)...Z.
Te:
Best way to act on Z identified.
Act initiated.

Ne:
A - Analogous to 1, in a sense.
- Related historically to alpha.
- Followed by B...
Ti: Ah, followed by B. And, logically, C follows, after which comes D...
Ne: What about if G?
Ti: Let me check...E-F-G, yes, good, G is consistent with A...(etc.)

So, getting to Z takes longer for the Ne user than for Ni, because Ti (or Fi, I guess) has to go through the explicit reasoning process to get there. But, interestingly, if Ni gets you to Z, then it won't have gotten you to alpha, symbolism or the not-prefix. It gives you a solid destination, with a reasoning-chain intact. Ne gives you a range of possibilities to follow, leading to a field of possible distant destinations, to be reached after further investigation with Ti-Ne effort.

Of course, this process can lead to getting off-track. I may simply be more interested in the not-prefix than I am in Z, which could be frustrating if you're fixed on Z and want to talk about it (notice that you see it as a 'downside' if other people don't reach the same conclusion as your Ni?). But this is not necessarily a problem - it's just a different system.

Edit: in case the lengthy answer was unclear: Ne does not go through 26 steps to reach the same conclusion as Ni. Ne does not reach conclusions at all. It generates possibilities, for a judging function to take up and analyse later. Ti and Ne in tandem can reach the same conclusion as Ni, and yes, that process takes longer than Ni. But, with Ne/Ti, you have the chance to follow a whole range of paths, and you can compare your various divergent conclusions later. With Ni, I get the impression that you just take what you're given, as it were.

[PeterIMC]

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

So, getting to Z takes longer for the Ne user than for Ni, because Ti (or Fi, I guess) has to go through the explicit reasoning process to get there. But, interestingly, if Ni gets you to Z, then it won't have gotten you to alpha, symbolism or the not-prefix. It gives you a solid destination, with a reasoning-chain intact. Ne gives you a range of possibilities to follow, leading to a field of possible distant destinations, to be reached after further investigation with Ti-Ne effort. Of course, this process can lead to getting off-track. I may simply be more interested in the not-prefix than I am in Z, which could be frustrating if you're fixed on Z and want to talk about it (notice that you see it as a 'downside' if other people don't reach the same conclusion as your Ni?). But this is not necessarily a problem - it's just a different system. Edit: in case the lengthy answer was unclear: Ne does not go through 26 steps to reach the same conclusion as Ni. Ne does not reach conclusions at all. It generates possibilities, for a judging function to take up and analyse later. Ti and Ne in tandem can reach the same conclusion as Ni, and yes, that process takes longer than Ni. But, with Ne/Ti, you have the chance to follow a whole range of paths, and you can compare your various divergent conclusions later. With Ni, I get the impression that you just take what you're given, as it were.

With the Z in A to Z I didn't mean a preset conclusion, but more like the conclusion, what ever it may be, that is the result of the N process.

I have the impression that (to use yet another visual example
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) that Ni starts at the bottom of a pyramid which is full of stones (data) and ends up at the top which is 1 stone (conclusion). Ne kind of more starts at the top of the pyramid with just one stone (very little data) and ends up at the bottom of the pyramid with lots of stones (options).

[Eleven]

Yes, the pyramid example shows the divergent (Ne) versus convergent (Ni) notion well.

[blackdahlia515]

It appears to me that Ne is all but useless.

[PeterIMC]

	Originally Posted by blackdahlia515 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It appears to me that Ne is all but useless.

Not really. People with Ne are more focused on resolving the problems of "now".

[zephryi]

Maybe I'm slightly biased, but... XD

Ne is often not readily usable I will say; it's more about seeing the inherent possibilities, collecting information that may be useful, ect. However, the possibilities that pop up as well as the potential-finding aspect of the function can be very useful when you need to get something done and the usual methods are simply not working/ aren't available, or when suddenly you find the information you had gathered previously, driven by Ne, is exactly what you need. Ne's usefulness really comes down to whether or not you can use what you've gained through the function instead of going, "Well, I could do this.." and never applying it, which is true for any of them.

After all, how is Ni useful if you ignore it?
--

((This may be interesting, on Ne as a dominant function, although it is socionics:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
))

[PeterIMC]

	Originally Posted by zephryi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	After all, how is Ni useful if you ignore it?

Is that even possible?

[Eleven]

	Originally Posted by blackdahlia515 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It appears to me that Ne is all but useless.

A thing can only be understood as useless with regard to some preconceived aim. Ne may be useless for what you generally like to do, but you can't deny that it's an excellent source of ideas. If your aim is idea generation, Ne is brilliant.

[PeterIMC]

	Originally Posted by Eleven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A thing can only be understood as useless with regard to some preconceived aim. Ne may be useless for what you generally like to do, but you can't deny that it's an excellent source of ideas. If your aim is idea generation, Ne is brilliant.

I'm going to disagree with that. It's more like Ne wastes a lot of time on possibilities but doesn't seem to have much interest in accepting many of them. In the end it seems to have a bias towards what's already known. The Ne's that I know,... aren't innovaters.

Actually Ni is more innovative as it will come to what ever conclusion makes more sense. It's only limited by the amount of input, which is usually huge in Ni.

[Eleven]

	Originally Posted by PeterIMC To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm going to disagree with that. It's more like Ne wastes a lot of time on possibilities but doesn't seem to have much interest in accepting many of them.

Ne isn't about accepting possibilities - it just generates. What you do with them is up to you, and is probably the result of judging functions.

	In the end it seems to have a bias towards what's already known. The Ne's that I know,... aren't innovaters.

I don't know what to say about this, other than that it's not my experience. I certainly don't think it's fair to say that NPs as a rule aren't innovative.

My Ne is the source of my ideas. Some are great, some are not so great. I've found that my Ni is only good when I have a series of ideas (plus whatever other evidence etc.) to work with - it integrates these well into a coherent and interesting whole (Failing Ni, Ti can do this, but it's more arduous). But without Ne, my ideas would be dull, extracted only from brute experience...you get the idea.

All of that may be partly because I use Ne a bit more than Ni - but I hope at least that you can see how a dynamic can work in which Ne is innovative.

	Actually Ni is more innovative as it will come to what ever conclusion makes more sense. It's only limited by the amount of input, which is usually huge in Ni.

Ni is also limited by what makes sense. Ne isn't limited in the same way, which means it can give you an idea that needs work and modification, but which may be sufficiently eccentric that Ni would not have produced it.

[PeterIMC]

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

Ne isn't about accepting possibilities - it just generates. What you do with them is up to you, and is probably the result of judging functions. I don't know what to say about this, other than that it's not my experience. I certainly don't think it's fair to say that NPs as a rule aren't innovative. My Ne is the source of my ideas. Some are great, some are not so great. I've found that my Ni is only good when I have a series of ideas (plus whatever other evidence etc.) to work with - it integrates these well into a coherent and interesting whole (Failing Ni, Ti can do this, but it's more arduous). But without Ne, my ideas would be dull, extracted only from brute experience...you get the idea. All of that may be partly because I use Ne a bit more than Ni - but I hope at least that you can see how a dynamic can work in which Ne is innovative. Ni is also limited by what makes sense. Ne isn't limited in the same way, which means it can give you an idea that needs work and modification, but which may be sufficiently eccentric that Ni would not have produced it.

You make some good points there. Actually I don't know many P's. Maybe that's why my perception is not so accurate.

I like your comment that Ni is limited by what makes sense. But then again, what good are ideas that don't make sense?