[jndiii]

	Originally Posted by Synamon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can try, your conflation of functions will likely prevent you from understanding agreeing though.

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


So do you posit that any kind of thought, any kind of cognition necessarily invokes both a perceiving and a judging function, which are necessarily of opposite attitude (one "e", the other "i")? I would agree that this is the standard and natural mode, and is the means by which one determines MBTI type. Beyond that, I don't see that it is necessarily always true for all "function use". In the case of MBTI, it is typical to attribute many of the primary problems of one's type to lack of developing the auxiliary, e.g., that an imbalanced INTJ may well be relying upon Ni alone, with little or no Te.

How about Te/Fi in the INTJ? Is there no thought or chain of thought that considers both a thinking perspective and a feeling perspective? Are "F" and "T" mutually exclusive? One "thinks" or "feels", and using one necessarily suppresses the other?

In my perspective, I find that I often make decisions with both Te and Fi in tandem. Perhaps one might argue that I switch between them and don't really think them in parallel, but the decisions reflect both aspects, nonetheless. It would be dishonest of me to express this as "well, Te-wise, I think this, and Fi-wise I feel this other stuff": what I "judge" is an amalgam of the two; the T/F is not distinct as I perceive it in myself, but rather mixed together. (Of course, there are many cases where it is just one or the other; I'm specifically referring to cases in which both are legitimately in play.)

It is in a similar vein that I believe that it is possible to perceive both in an Se and an Ni context, more or less simultaneously. No, I don't mean to suggest that it is "easy."

I understand the necessary dichotomy with respect to typology and MBTI in particular: there is a distinct preference that appears to shape the personality. Figuring out which perceiving and which judging function plays a primary role is necessarily part of determining one's type, therefore it really is one or the other, not some random mix of functions. Function usage, however, is a much more contentious and debated matter. I don't reduce functions to the elementary level, e.g., "every time I eat food I use Se to taste it", but rather regard the function as a "lens" (either perceiving or judging can be a lens in my metaphor), e.g., "when I focus upon being present in the physical world, I view things from an Se perspective."

As such, it is entirely reasonable to hypothesize that these lenses aren't as mutually exclusive as one might think: that one can use two perceiving or two judging lenses - or that the lenses may be of the same attitude (cf. discussions on dom/tert "loops"). About the only exception I've encountered that I'm fairly sure is true is that the two attitudes of a given function are mutually exclusive: Ne/Ni, Te/Ti, etc., that even if one can practice both versions, they aren't in play simultaneously.

	This description of making a decision is Ti (a decision function) working with Se (a perceiving function). Running the route, faking the cut inside, glancing back, seeing that the ball was overthrown, a spurt of speed and a leap, pulling the ball in. Gut instincts are not intuition, unless you think muscle memory is some sort of Jungian function.

With respect to "gut instincts", I'm not talking about muscle memory, but rather decisions to use this muscle memory or that muscle memory. To see the contrast, consider the chess game again: it is possible to have a slow game in which one may ponder a decision, considering many possible paths, or have a gradually faster and faster game. At some point, the game is fast enough that there isn't any pondering as such, but rather one is using "gut instinct" (as I mean the term) to decide what move to make, based on being aware of the flow of the game in real time. This involves no muscle memory of how to pick up a piece and move it.

[stiletto]

	Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hi Ni doms! Can you explain in your own words what it is like to context shift from one one perspective to another?

It's sort of like this subtle (yet subjectively penetrating) perceptual-mental 'tunnel' that I can change the landscape of completely just by rearranging priorities or aims. In terms of being 'subtle' that is to say the makeup of this landscape is quite 'subtle' perceptually speaking. In my experience it is very loosely similar to the dream experience, in that I feel on the cusp of some psychic layer more nuanced and 'encompassing' than ordinary or daily awareness. And this 'subtlety' extends further than that as is also often the case with the dream state. For example, perceptions of 'spirituality' play into it, too, often superseding everything else via the virtue of scale or representing the 'larger pattern'... there's a kind of 'rapture' (spiritually/philosophically/w.e) when the tunnel 'connects' and makes a path through some luminous core of something.

	How do you know you have found all reasonable perspectives and not left any important ones out?

Hunches, mostly. If I feel genuinely comfortable in my understanding, that generally indicates that I'm not neglecting anything. Approaching something new always comes with a sort of vague anxiety in the background. Like there are so many things to consider that integrating it in as much of a 'whole' as possible into subjective understanding just feels like too much to think about.

Other times I'll just get this feeling that the subject has been rendered more 'inert', reflecting on it feels like more of a retread, and (especially) I have no vague nagging sensation that I should dig deeper or try a new approach. It's really just in how something 'sits' with me. If prodding it doesn't bring to the surface some vague or subtle anxiety, I can set it aside without worrying about it. Logic just serves as a means of fact-checking in order to illuminate doubt realized through intuition.

	How do you identify which context/perspective is best to view the problem through?

How far the 'gestalt' carries me. Some perspectives feel more penetrating than others.

	Do you find that by interacting with other Ni doms, you will identify contexts you missed?

Yeah, sometimes.

	INTJs are very well known for finding the "hole" in an argument or logical proposal. The question everyone else forgot to ask. Is this related to the context/perspective shifting somehow?

Sort of. It comes from a similar place. That feeling of if something 'sits' with me is basically how this works. If someone puts forth an argument or proposal, and it doesn't 'sit', I just begin to tear it apart rationally until that feeling is justified. Which tends to happen as a sort unanticipated 'gestalt' where suddenly the entire proposal is drawn in reference to this problem-area after a very broad moment of 'understanding' in some subjective/allegorical sense.

[cheerbear]

	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.
	That's an interesting point. Do you really believe that to be so, that perceiving functions are that mutually exclusive?

I tend to agree that perceiving functions can't work in tandem, but haven't gathered enough information yet to say for certain (typical P, eh?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

I do, however, think that opposite perceiving functions can't work together, ie. Ni-Se and Ne-Si. If you think about "grip" episodes, an ENFP can't do what they're great at (Ne) when stuck in Si; they actually have a suppressive relationship to one another. And so it goes with Ni-Se as well.

	Someone focusing on Se, say doing something athletic, is still often expected to do make "gut instinct" decisions on how to catch a ball, for example. Intuition is in play, but limited in a very specific context.

I think what you're describing here may be more Ne than Ni. Ni is supposed to be the synthesizing function, taking concepts and ideas and breaking them down. I'm not sure what idea there is to break down to catch a ball once you know how to catch a ball--reach out hands, catch, done.

I *do* however, see a case for Ne where a pattern/possiblity is noticed--"oh, a ball coming at this speed at this angle means that if I put my hands out here I should be able to--oof! *catches ball*
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"

But hm, that would mean that I should be really great at sports, and well, compared to my Se-dom friends there really is no comparison.

Ok, I just thought of something else--I have pretty bad hand-eye coordination; I never really did know how to keep my "eyes on the ball". When I was learning to shoot pool I tried to concentrate on specific spots of the cue and target, but my mind saw grids and angles on the table instead. I was seeing patterns of where the ball should be hit to get to a certain pocket, and where the cue ball would land afterwards. I had to play a lot to get good, to see enough of the patterns until it finally "clicked".

My Se-dom friends however, forget it, they were good nearly right away. Ugh. But once I got it, I whooped their butts anyway.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Huh, I guess that means I don't think Ne and Se can work in tandem either!

So to sum up: Ni-Se and Ne-Si have suppressive relationships, and I don't believe Ne-Se can work together.

That leaves out Ni-Si...anyone?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Conversely, one could be playing chess, and looking at the chess board, but that's just the launching point for all the patterns of the game through which Ni also perceives the board. They can be more or less equally present, say, when one is improvising music or dance.

Emphasis mine.

I agree that Se could be a launching point, but then maybe that's it. And the use of patterns here again sounds like Ne.

[nowt]

	Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	nowt-what would "context shifts -from- an inferior S perspective, " mean?

Si/Se-- those are the S's. Inferior, assuming jindiii's not mistyped, or it'd be superior.

	Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Once upon a time I was heavily engaged in the Fe/Fi wars and an old, obnoxious INTJ kept harping on how important Ni-Se vs Ne-Si was and how it would doom an INTJ:ENFP relationship. He was obsessed with Se and reality and enfps being conservative due to Si, and how that would limit the development and flow of the relationship.

And for my next paranoid delusion.

	Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I disregarded him for a long time assuming the judging functions where of much greater value. I figured N is N is N.

N should be N, for the most part. What did I say... Nothing kills Ni like banal Ni. Same for Ne. If S'ing, T'ing or F'ing N to death is your best recourse to understanding either variant, you may not be using N.

	Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I learned you should always pay heed to an Ni dom as you guys can find the questions that have not yet been asked.

Don't bootstrap your own anecdotes in front of me. I'm trying to be polite.

	Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Interestingly it is very hard to talk about ideas over time with an INTJ-as you context shift my Si out from under me, leaving me nothing to Ne branch off of.

Try thinking.

Most of your bolded text in your following post are examples of S, not N. Working N gives you the one tree in the forest you need; S just gives you an ever growing assortment of trees.

.

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.

<snip smarmyface> So do you posit that any kind of thought, any kind of cognition necessarily invokes both a perceiving and a judging function, which are necessarily of opposite attitude (one "e", the other "i")? I would agree that this is the standard and natural mode, and is the means by which one determines MBTI type. Beyond that, I don't see that it is necessarily always true for all "function use". In the case of MBTI, it is typical to attribute many of the primary problems of one's type to lack of developing the auxiliary, e.g., that an imbalanced INTJ may well be relying upon Ni alone, with little or no Te.

As if the middling of well-balanced sludge has much merit. To that ever-feared 'imbalance' [which reads more like an excuse to forgive undifferentiation] I say this: Any instance uses all eight. And I'll give you a counter: the more differentiated one is, the easier it is to separate and refine [as one sees fit] any of the others.

	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.
	<snip what reads like a raging against the double-slit> About the only exception I've encountered that I'm fairly sure is true is that the two attitudes of a given function are mutually exclusive: Ne/Ni, Te/Ti, etc., that even if one can practice both versions, they aren't in play simultaneously.

Because the mind is too stupid ever to do both, at once. Right. I'm going to hazard that examples of excellence will tend to do exactly what you've said is impossible: synthesize attitudes. That an Ni using Ne ends up being a realized N; a Te simultaneously using Ti ends up being an actualized T; a NiTe or NeTi doing this? Ends as an actual NT, little letters unneeded. Consider them childish versions of the real thing.

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.

With respect to "gut instincts", I'm not talking about muscle memory, but rather decisions to use this muscle memory or that muscle memory. To see the contrast, consider the chess game again: it is possible to have a slow game in which one may ponder a decision, considering many possible paths, or have a gradually faster and faster game. At some point, the game is fast enough that there isn't any pondering as such, but rather one is using "gut instinct" (as I mean the term) to decide what move to make, based on being aware of the flow of the game in real time. This involves no muscle memory of how to pick up a piece and move it.

I'm finding it more and more probable you do not know what N is: It can be very slow, still and as exacting as anything else.

[stock]

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

I do, however, think that opposite perceiving functions can't work together, ie. Ni-Se and Ne-Si. If you think about "grip" episodes, an ENFP can't do what they're great at (Ne) when stuck in Si; they actually have a suppressive relationship to one another. And so it goes with Ni-Se as well. Ok, I just thought of something else--I have pretty bad hand-eye coordination; I never really did know how to keep my "eyes on the ball". When I was learning to shoot pool I tried to concentrate on specific spots of the cue and target, but my mind saw grids and angles on the table instead. I was seeing patterns of where the ball should be hit to get to a certain pocket, and where the cue ball would land afterwards. I had to play a lot to get good; I had to see enough of the patterns until it finally "clicked". My Se-dom friends however, forget it, they were good nearly right away. Ugh. But once I got it, I whooped their butts anyway. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Huh, I guess that means I don't think Ne and Se can work in tandem either! So to sum up: Ni-Se and Ne-Si have suppressive relationships, and I don't believe Ne-Se can work together.

hiya cheerbear, So I follow you wrt the grip use of Si. It locks Ne doms into certain rules.

I also agree that Ne and Se are mutually suppressive. I have only met one person-an ESTP-who said she could swap between the two.

I also recognize the pattern inherent in your pool table example. Anytime I pick up a physical hobby, I am pretty terrible for a bit, then once I learn the pattern I improve and get better than other people at the activity-I learn the pattern. (Did you just notice I made a pattern about learning patterns?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

In the Si and memory thread, it occurred to me, that I do not store exact memories of events to be honest as I am pretty oblivious to what is going on around me. I see patterns-and store patterns as memory. "I've seen that pattern before". So sorta like I take new information in-and cross check against stored patterns from the past to judge the validity of the new pattern.

So switching from Ne new data to Si stored, more (oddly) universal data.

Check out FiSi loops or TiSi loops for another perspective on this.

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

N should be N, for the most part. What did I say... Nothing kills Ni like banal Ni. Same for Ne. If S'ing, T'ing or F'ing N to death is your best recourse to understanding either variant, you may not be using N. Most of your bolded text in your following post are examples of S, not N. Working N gives you the one tree in the forest you need; S just gives you an ever growing assortment of trees. I'm finding it more and more probable you do not know what N is: It can be very slow, still and as exacting as anything else.

Nowt, you likely would be well served to read up on how Ne doms describe Ne. It is very different from how you guys are describing Ni.

Working N for me-an Ne dom-is to take the entire forest in front of me and connect every tree to every other tree through subtle connections. The connections build and reinforce each other-like spiderwebs blanketing the tops of all the trees. The end goal is one distinct interconnected matrix that is self consistent. Except it is a multidimensional grid to be honest, with many tracks running side by side at any given moment. It isnt that central object you guys are twisting around.

Your central object is part of thousands of other objects that can be built into my connective grid. I am Fi, thus my grid is made of people observations. One person is boring, hundreds are very interesting to watch as you see patterns ripples across groups. Taking it to a higher level, you can treat groups of people as entities of a sort, then watch interactions between those entities. Taking it to a much smaller level, you can watch one person and monitor patterns of behavior within that person and try and understand and predict how and why they do what they do, albeit you need a system like MBTI which gives puzzles pieces to shift.

Once the connective grid is built, then generalized principles can be derived from the grid-oddly I suspect these are stored as Si truisms. "All X are Y" and so forth in the case of an INTP or ENTP, although they tend to not like truisms wrt people due to Fe. However to be honest-much like you guys seem to have a never ending flow of Ni contexts, the connective grid is never really complete-there is always more information-thus any Si truism is subject to change on a whim, and be rebuilt via enough new Ne connections.

In my example, above in bold, I noticed a Ne trend/pattern-Every Ni user seems to be using the concrete problem to determine which Ni context suits the problem best. It is all about that individual problem and understanding as much data as possible about the problem, finding the best context, then using the answer generated. The bold-those are, hmmm, ancedotal datapoints, noted to be saying something very similar.

Ne connects them. It looks back into the past. Have I seen this before? Yes, many many times and places in INTJs. Same pattern. Next it symmetry matches against what Ne doms do with Si-the symmetry would remain unbroken. It compares INTJs and INFJs-yes the symmetry remains unbroken. It cross checks against ESFPs and ESTPs-the data is tentative but interesting. It refers back to physical diffs between INTJs and ISTJs-the sense of physicality INTJs have. The initial pattern appears consistent.

So then try and form a general rule of some sort.

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

Because the mind is too stupid ever to do both, at once. Right. I'm going to hazard that examples of excellence will tend to do exactly what you've said is impossible: synthesize attitudes. That an Ni using Ne ends up being a realized N; a Te simultaneously using Ti ends up being an actualized T; a NiTe or NeTi doing this? Ends as an actual NT, little letters unneeded. Consider them childish versions of the real thing.

This runs counter to MBTI dogma, but Jung did hint at a transcendent function-however I have concerns he meant that to be the development of his own Te-Fi to be honest.

But this would mean that an SeTi and SiTe-an ISTJ and an ESTP eventually become very similar ? Thus ST?

[jndiii]

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

Because the mind is too stupid ever to do both, at once. Right. I'm going to hazard that examples of excellence will tend to do exactly what you've said is impossible: synthesize attitudes. That an Ni using Ne ends up being a realized N; a Te simultaneously using Ti ends up being an actualized T; a NiTe or NeTi doing this? Ends as an actual NT, little letters unneeded. Consider them childish versions of the real thing.

My main point was with regard to using them completely simultaneously. An analogy might be Ni is breathing in, and Ne is breathing out. Together, as you put it, one has "a realized N." For having "a realized N", doing both is necessary, yet they are still necessarily mutually exclusive in a timewise sense. More aptly, I think of the e/i attitudes of the functions as being almost like going forward and reverse within that function's context. It's all just N, or just T or whatever, but at any point in time, one isn't going both forward and reverse.

The reason that NiTe or NeTi can work in tandem is that, in the forward/reverse analogy, Ni/Ne go forward and reverse, even as Ti/Te go "right" or "left" in the T context.

This is not to say that one cannot have several thoughts going in any arbitrary direction, even should some of those directions be opposite the direction of other thoughts. Rather, a single "thread" of thought, has such a direction: I can integrate or differentiate a math function, and I might even be smart enough to do both in my head more or less at the same time, but each is its own thread of thought. As such thoughts become more involved, and require more focus, one is focusing only on one thread, one direction of thought, and one must "shift into reverse" in order to instead apply a function of the opposite attitude.

	I'm finding it more and more probable you do not know what N is: It can be very slow, still and as exacting as anything else.

I'm not sure what I wrote suggests that I believe that N cannot be slow and exacting. Ni can ponder things for days, given the chance, and does. I was using "speed" to make a different point about how I wasn't talking about muscle memory, and a separate point about how I believe Se and Ni interact.

[nowt]

	Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	<snip short-winded near-N explication of the obvious>>

Different expressions of the same thing are expressed differently? Genius.

	Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	<snip long-winded S-type explication of the obvious>

Or the one set of trees, which is itself [gosh] still a tree. S is the only thing that gives you the trees, according to jindii. Perhaps you two could hash out this erroneous point between yourselves.

	Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This runs counter to MBTI dogma...

Whatever disregards it.

	Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But this would mean that an SeTi and SiTe-an ISTJ and an ESTP eventually become very similar ? Thus ST?

You're seriously asking that, given what I've just said.

.

	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.
	<snip a pretty but mostly irrelevant analogy>

Except the analogy isn't the thing-- There is no forward/reverse or left/right in the hive of a working mind. Ne is N, extraverted; Ni is N, introverted-- And you see the E/I and you're all up on the polarity and dichotomy the words used provide, but there really isn't any-- That breathing? The lungs, the capillaries themselves, are still taking in oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide no matter whether it is inhale or exhale-- Both are -ever- done.

	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.
	I'm not sure what I wrote suggests that I believe that N cannot be slow and exacting. Ni can ponder things for days, given the chance, and does. I was using "speed" to make a different point about how I wasn't talking about muscle memory, and a separate point about how I believe Se and Ni interact.

They don't interact. Not directly. That's why T/F exist-- the intermediaries. And the probability against increases.

[jndiii]

	Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They don't interact. Not directly. That's why T/F exist-- the intermediaries.

That is your opinion, without any recourse to source material or others' understanding ... or, for that matter, any elaboration on your own part as to how you reach or support your conclusions.

Consider this link:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
expressly states that Ni can be used with Se. Perhaps you disagree with this analysis and conclusion, but I'm not just making this stuff up from whole cloth. Others have had similar thoughts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, even as he outlines several well-known (and somewhat contradictory) theories about how functions work together.

	And the probability against increases.

Expressing opinions of others' "ignorance" usually only reveals one's own.

[stock]

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.

Dario Nardi[/URL] expressly states that Ni can be used with Se. Perhaps you disagree with this analysis and conclusion, but I'm not just making this stuff up from whole cloth. Others have had similar thoughts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , even as he outlines several well-known (and somewhat contradictory) theories about how functions work together.

moving along...

Excellent links! I will check those out.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


jindii assuming primarily you are dealing with Ni macro-usage, but in very well developed Ni users, you may begin to see Ne micro-usage, how would you describe that based upon the initial descriptions of twisting/flexing/swirling around a central item?

[nowt]

	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.
	<snip S-whine about lack of S-spoonfeeding>

Considering I move tween Ni and Ne without too much of a problem, sans any 'required' S, there's not much needed in the way of footnotes and mental handjobs.

	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.
	<snip hand-me-down cloth>

That's nice. The theory doesn't work for me, or for any potent Ns I've known. Perhaps it's applicable to those middling stews of types, and that's fine.

	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.
	Expressing opinions of others' "ignorance" usually only reveals one's own.

How sanctimoniously trite. And one now can't call you opinionless, now can they.

[LionsPride]

	Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If S'ing, T'ing or F'ing N to death is your best recourse to understanding either variant, you may not be using N.

I couldn't agree more

	Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Working N gives you the one tree in the forest you need

This was the best description for Ni that I have seen in the thread. Ni, to me, doesn't model anything or sift through data at all, at least in a conscious sense. It provides an answer, not a series of options, calculations or a catalogue of information or act as some sort of tethered dog on an S pole. Often I don't know how Ni found the tree or have a clue how to describe why I know it's the tree I need, but there it is, exactly what I was looking for and I *know* it will do nicely.

jndiii, I have read your analogies and explanations and not of them bear any resemblance to anything I could conceivably refer to as Ni.

[stock]

in general, I wanted to thank contributors to the thread. I have seen a lot of descriptions of Ni, and this thread, especially the first 20 posts or so, have been some of the best descriptions of Ni for non Ni users I have ever seen.

I have heard many descriptions of ni in other places:
1. the symbolism
2. the bubbling up of ideas from the subconscious
3. the isolation of one object as the focal point and peeling back deeper and deeper into layers
4. different perspectives-ie the context shifts or swirling

I think each opinion we gather on something as subjective as a cognitive function is of great value, as, given it is inside our our minds, we each will have a different understanding of what it really means and what it really is from our own perspectives. Thus all opinions are of value.

The value of why this may be useful for INTJs-From the perspective of the INTJ, it appears you are still discussing the same subject. From an external perspective it may appear as though the subject of a conversational flow has been changed, when you context shift. In a worst case scenario it could be perceived as making excuses or avoidance, but in general might lead to conversational confusion, especially when combined with large shifts in perspective. If you can communicate this or understand the source of the confusion, it may be of value in enhancing communication.

[Samueza]

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

I just want to note I find this so odd to ponder. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . When you guys do this, Internally I go "didnt last week we agree on the definition of X? You cant just change it!" This is because Ne explores off of some firm foundation of known facts. If you suddenly insert new facts, via context shift, all of the previous linkages are now broken-thus Ne has no foundation-or we are debating different topics and I end WTF in mid debate. I sometimes will be debating things with an INTJ-and sense them context shift and it is very deja vu-of how my ESFP sister would "change the subject" in mid discussion. My mom and I -both enfps- always assumed she was being evasive-but in retrospect she was using a weird, wimpy Ni. For her is was mostly with respect to memories of the past-I suspect she would look at the past and find a "perspective" that justified her actions. I see the three estps I work with due this too sometimes. They are actually quite punny-like INTJs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. but they also will tend make spastic instant Se decisions, then later answer the same question in a very different way-after time to Ni ponder I might guess. I have noticed both INTJs and INFJs are very aware of different types of logical fallacies-is this something that is developed as part of a way to cross check Ni derived ideas? For me, somehow, when I have an Ne idea-I can sort of feel how bad or good it is by...sort of seeing how many connections it has to it already. We generate tons of really weird connections-thus the enfp random stereotype-but we recognize they are wrong, thus they are very funny so we like to share them.

I never definitely agree on definitions. I am always the master of an idea, never its slave. I would say: "Those were premises we agreed on using in one particular situation for the sake of argument," or something like that. To me, there is no such thing as known facts in se. Observations are interligned in a certain greater perspective (or paradigma if you will) and interpreted insofar they are consistent with the whole. A new connection changes this so-called fact. To me, the connections aren't broken per se, but maybe just in need of an upgrade. I can understand how that may be difficult to deal with. On the other hand, if you hold on to definitions too strongly I might feel like you are forcing your perspective on me (as your perspective incorportates that definition and mine doesn't).

I can very well be outraged and say something like: "How can you say X is such and such? Given Y and Z X may seem that way, but what about S or X connected to B and I'? Remember how five months ago we discussed P in relation to A mediated by K', that's clearly impossible if X is what you say it is! Also, [study] proves X can't be that way given C and M. Clearly Y and Z should be reinterpreted, and this is how: [complex theory]. So, what about that?" When I was younger I was puzzled as to how people kept holding on to their perspective on X even though I believe I provided compelling evidence for my point of view. And given how few evidence they could provide, my perspective was better anyway!

(btw, if this may seem like an overexaggeration, I'm sorry to inform you it's not. I've been in fights that almost literally went like this - and felt disappointed afterwards because people "just don't get it")

What I'm trying to say is that I honestly appreciate the reminder to sometimes stick to certain definitions or to prevent Ne doms (who can make big Ne jumps and therefore seem to be very intelligent, or at least to me) from WTF'ing. I honestly find it difficult to buy into the idea of things being a certain way. If you 'know' a fact, that's only because you know a number of other facts into which that fact fits. There's a theory in philosophy of science which describes this very well, the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. To me it sounds perfectly like a theory of INTJ Ni.

I'm not too sure about INFJs and logical fallacies, but for INTJs it may well be a process which developed because several perspectives were considered and compared. One way to see in what way two elements are combined is to see if one happens after the other post hoc (B after A) or propter hoc (B because of A). If the difference between those two is clear, we'll hardly ever fall for post hoc ergo propter hoc and notice quickly if others do.

And yes, sharing Ne connections is funny, particularly because it also triggers Ni. If you're a Ne connection machine gun and I'm forced to keep up using Ni to keep placing your connections in perspectives, that's one exhilerating challenge! One of the most fun things in the world for me is to prove how seemingly random things aren't random at all (using extremely faulty logic, but that's part of the joke) and 'proving' how that *clearly* was what you were thinking when using Ne.

	Are the examples in bold not using Se to judge the merit of the various Ni contexts that are at your disposal? They may be Fe or Te judged but the end result must answer the Se problem in front of you?

That sounds very limited to me, to be honest. I think the problem doesn't have to be in front of me (after all, it's better to prevent a problem than to solve it). I'm not too sure how clear the difference between an actual problem, a perceived problem or a potential problem is, Ni-wise. Important point here is that Ni doesn't need to be triggered by something. It might just be reworking through the available data, doing maintenance work and upgrading ideas when necessary.

[jndiii]

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

Originally Posted by nowt Working N gives you the one tree in the forest you need. This was the best description for Ni that I have seen in the thread. Ni, to me, doesn't model anything or sift through data at all, at least in a conscious sense. It provides an answer, not a series of options, calculations or a catalogue of information or act as some sort of tethered dog on an S pole. Often I don't know how Ni found the tree or have a clue how to describe why I know it's the tree I need, but there it is, exactly what I was looking for and I *know* it will do nicely. jndiii, I have read your analogies and explanations and not of them bear any resemblance to anything I could conceivably refer to as Ni.

Your quote of nowt is definitely a reasonable description of Ni (not "N" vs S in the context of the original quote). This is exactly how it "feels" to an Ni-dom.

Now, how does it feel when Ni is auxiliary? Tertiary? Inferior? What are the commonalities? How does one recognize it when it isn't "just how I think?"

For an Ni-dom in particular, the process is largely subconscious. We just do it. We don't have to think about it. We look at things and they're obvious, even as others look at them, and they just aren't.

My descriptions, my analogies, are not about how Ni feels to an Ni-dom, but rather how Ni behaves. And it behaves largely the same way, even when it is less developed. What one will observe is that non-Ni people in the course of a discussion/disagreement with an Ni-dom, will often accuse the Ni-dom of changing topics, switching the subject, playing with definitions, rewriting the rules. In fact, it's a great way to spot INxJs, in general: we tend to "play with the rules," insofar as other types are concerned. Even as we accuse Ne dom/aux types of going off on tangents unrelated to the original topic, we insist upon looking at the main topic in a new way.

Because this process is often subconscious, an Ni-dom is often accused of changing the topic, who then denies it because it feels like the same topic. E.g.:

Xx: "You changed the topic again!"
Ni: "No I didn't. We're talking about widgets, right?"
Xx: "No, you changed the topic to the price of widgets, we were talking about manufacturing widgets."
Ni: "The cost of manufacturing is an intrinsic part of manufacturing."
Xx: "The cost has nothing to do with optimizing widget production with a more energy-efficient process."
Ni: "If the price of 'being optimally energy-efficient' is much higher than the price of being 'slightly more energy-efficient', it entirely matters. It's a matter of diminishing returns."
Xx: "Good grief, now you're talking about diminishing returns. We were talking about widgets."
Ni: "I AM TALKING ABOUT WIDGETS! I never stopped talking about widgets!"

Ni naturally leads one to look at things in a new way. This new way of thinking makes things really damn obvious, e.g., now you see that one sick tree in the forest, because you just put on your infrared goggles. However, our goggles are "Ni". They're invisible goggles. No one sees us put them on. One only hears us say, "That tree is sick." Others retort that there is no way that tree is sick, and we start trying to say -how- we know the tree is sick, at which point we're accused of changing topics, because our Ni perspective feels "twisty" to them.

No, this isn't how Ni feels inside our heads. Thus when I am describing Ni, I endeavor to describe how it looks to others who cannot see what's going on in our heads. That Ni tends to look at the same thing in new ways, that Ni tends to change context, has long been understood as a property of Ni, since Isabel Briggs Meyers wrote in "Gifts Differing" regarding introverted intuition:

Regards the immediate situation as a prison from which escape is urgently necessary and aims to escape through some sweeping change in the subjective understanding of the objective situation.

Receives its impetus from outer objects but is never arrested by external possibilities, being occupied rather by searching out new angles for viewing and understanding life.

This is nothing new under the sun. This is standard Jung/MBTI.

Yes, I am personally very aware how this doesn't translate into one's own understanding of Ni as an Ni-dom. It took me a long while to connect my feeling of "I just know" to the concept of juggling perspectives/contexts.

As Samueza points out in his post above:

	Originally Posted by Samueza To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I never definitely agree on definitions. I am always the master of an idea, never its slave.

I.e., to Ni, the idea is the thing. Not how you say it. Not how you look at it. Ni appears to be able to hold onto the idea, however complex or mundane, and then shift perspectives to better describe it. It was not at all obvious to me that this appeared as switching context or changing topics to others until I'd spent a long while studying the topic.

[LionsPride]

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.

Now, how does it feel when Ni is auxiliary? Tertiary? Inferior? What are the commonalities? How does one recognize it when it isn't "just how I think?" For an Ni-dom in particular, the process is largely subconscious. We just do it. We don't have to think about it. We look at things and they're obvious, even as others look at them, and they just aren't. My descriptions, my analogies, are not about how Ni feels to an Ni-dom, but rather how Ni behaves. And it behaves largely the same way, even when it is less developed. What one will observe is that non-Ni people in the course of a discussion/disagreement with an Ni-dom, will often accuse the Ni-dom of changing topics, switching the subject, playing with definitions, rewriting the rules. In fact, it's a great way to spot INxJs, in general: we tend to "play with the rules," insofar as other types are concerned. Even as we accuse Ne dom/aux types of going off on tangents unrelated to the original topic, we insist upon looking at the main topic in a new way. Because this process is often subconscious, an Ni-dom is often accused of changing the topic, who then denies it because it feels like the same topic. E.g.: Xx: "You changed the topic again!" Ni: "No I didn't. We're talking about widgets, right?" Xx: "No, you changed the topic to the price of widgets, we were talking about manufacturing widgets." Ni: "The cost of manufacturing is an intrinsic part of manufacturing." Xx: "The cost has nothing to do with optimizing widget production with a more energy-efficient process." Ni: "If the price of 'being optimally energy-efficient' is much higher than the price of being 'slightly more energy-efficient', it entirely matters. It's a matter of diminishing returns." Xx: "Good grief, now you're talking about diminishing returns. We were talking about widgets." Ni: "I AM TALKING ABOUT WIDGETS! I never stopped talking about widgets!" Ni naturally leads one to look at things in a new way. This new way of thinking makes things really damn obvious, e.g., now you see that one sick tree in the forest, because you just put on your infrared goggles. However, our goggles are "Ni". They're invisible goggles. No one sees us put them on. One only hears us say, "That tree is sick." Others retort that there is no way that tree is sick, and we start trying to say -how- we know the tree is sick, at which point we're accused of changing topics, because our Ni perspective feels "twisty" to them. No, this isn't how Ni feels inside our heads. Thus when I am describing Ni, I endeavor to describe how it looks to others who cannot see what's going on in our heads. That Ni tends to look at the same thing in new ways, that Ni tends to change context, has long been understood as a property of Ni, since Isabel Briggs Meyers wrote in "Gifts Differing" regarding introverted intuition: Regards the immediate situation as a prison from which escape is urgently necessary and aims to escape through some sweeping change in the subjective understanding of the objective situation. Receives its impetus from outer objects but is never arrested by external possibilities, being occupied rather by searching out new angles for viewing and understanding life. This is nothing new under the sun. This is standard Jung/MBTI. Yes, I am personally very aware how this doesn't translate into one's own understanding of Ni as an Ni-dom. It took me a long while to connect my feeling of "I just know" to the concept of juggling perspectives/contexts. As Samueza points out in his post above: I.e., to Ni, the idea is the thing. Not how you say it. Not how you look at it. Ni appears to be able to hold onto the idea, however complex or mundane, and then shift perspectives to better describe it. It was not at all obvious to me that this appeared as switching context or changing topics to others until I'd spent a long while studying the topic.

As said before, jndiii, nothing you say about Ni sounds at all like Ni. The portion I have bolded is one of the things that I have never, ever, found to be in effect with Ni dom people. If anything, our ability to see what *the* answer is means that we are more likely to be accused of not changing topics even when other people would like to explore other avenues. The closest we could be accused of is using a poor analogy, which is something that is wholly different from the 'topic changing' you described in your example.

How does Ni look to other people? It looks like this.

Xx: Do you...
Ni: No.
Xx: I didn't even finish. How do you know what I was going to say?
Ni: I just do.
Xx: Oh yah? What was I going to say?
Ni: You want to stop to pee.
Xx: I...?
Ni: The answer is still no.
Xx: Damn.

[stock]

LP, I have noted the dogmatic adherence to an idea in both Ni doms. To be honest it isnt typically worth trying to alter their minds once set, as it is extremely solid. At that point-the point of sharing-it isnt about Ni-it is the Te explanation of the idea Ni figured out.

In INTJs, to make them change their minds I have to provide contrary physical evidence. In labs, the way me and my entp friend handle INTJ PIs, is to not ask permission, to conduct experimentation, then provide them data that our Ne alternative approach worked. The external physical data is just about the only thing that will make them change their minds. They CANNOT deny physical evidence.

You are also correct, that when in pedantic mode, INTJs are almost impossible to get to deviate from a subject. They are delivering a very concrete understanding of a subject-this seems to be almost a Te didactic explanation.

If you do have to alter the course of their minds, once set, they get agitated and sort of flustered. I have been assigned resident flutter-looney-butterfly in my work place, as I can drop very contradictory data off with the INTJs, argue a few points, then escape with them seeming both flustered yet having a happy glow as they all really like me. They typically require a 2-3 day turnaround time to rewrite the concrete Ni explanation, and then you can make progress in a project.

Where I see the shifting is in very theoretical discussions or debates-which you dont often see with INTJs given they are introverted. To be honest I really found the below piece of text VERY fascinating-as I could see you Ni shifting throughout the paragraphs on logic and values. It read as though the two terms were being redefined on the fly, as you shifted around them. Please dont take as picking on you, by any means, it was just fascinating to observe.

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

Logic doesn't mean it's devoid of emotion or that you can't have an opinion that wasn't grafted in a petri dish somewhere. People seem to confuse 'logic' with 'scientific', 'calculating' or even "T". If that's what you think logic is, then no wonder you think it should be left out, but that isn't actually logic. Logic is making sense. That's it. It is the ability to look at your premises and assess, rationally, if they support your conclusion. The idea that people should do debate or argument of any kind without making sense or on fallacious premises shouldn't sound reasonable to anyone. No. I think you missed what John F Kennedy's point was. T's and F's have different value principles, but ALL use logic. Fi people will place more value on what they want. Fe people place more weight on what society wants. Te people tend to value the external system and Ti people seem to value that it's consistent with their internal understanding. Valuing something more or less doesn't make it more or less logical.

The context shifts also explain a weird thing I see with a few older INTJs I know. My ex dad-in-law is an INTJ who graduated from the navy nuc program and has worked in electrical engineering and applied nuclear engineering for 25 years. Yet he is a fundementalist christian who believes the world is 4000 years old. This last bit is a solid Fi value of his, thus I would never question it-Fi rules, as he never overtly tries to force others to adopt it-but I could never understand how he could have such conflicting concepts, yet accept both as truth.

I guess they are different contexts. It's really quite awesomley cool.

[jndiii]

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

As said before, jndiii, nothing you say about Ni sounds at all like Ni. The portion I have bolded is one of the things that I have never, ever, found to be in effect with Ni dom people. If anything, our ability to see what *the* answer is means that we are more likely to be accused of not changing topics even when other people would like to explore other avenues. The closest we could be accused of is using a poor analogy, which is something that is wholly different from the 'topic changing' you described in your example. How does Ni look to other people? It looks like this. Xx: Do you... Ni: No. Xx: I didn't even finish. How do you know what I was going to say? Ni: I just do. Xx: Oh yah? What was I going to say? Ni: You want to stop to pee. Xx: I...? Ni: The answer is still no. Xx: Damn.

This is certainly an example of Ni, but your perspective of Ni seems rather narrow if it only consists of making uncanny guesses. I see the Ni context shifting your your posts and arguments. Above, you effectively change the context of my post about "how other people in general see Ni in Ni doms" to "how LionsPride sees Ni in Ni doms," in spite of my cited evidence that the creator of MBTI observes the same pattern. (Jung suggests the pattern, but his writing on the topic isn't exactly clear, nor would one be able to explicitly discern the uncanny predictions attributed to Ni from his writings, either.)

You "never, ever" see these things? Are you sure you are looking? I see them all the time. INTJ/INTP discussions are rather revealing in this instance. Look around at other INxJs: you'll see the context shifts without much shifting of topic. Look for it in the xNxPs, and while you'll see topic shifts, you'll see little if any of context shifts. If you don't look for it, you won't quite see it. Personally, I would find myself confused by the flow of certain conversations, but once I looked for these shifts, and in particular the kind of shift, then statements that before seemed totally illogical become quite comprehensible: even if one might still disagree, one is far more certain of the point with which one disagrees.

My hypothesis is that Ni doms usually make these context shifts subconsciously. We wonder what's up, what's the meaning of this, why is he asking a question with that tone of ... "Oh, not again! He needs to pee." Underneath the hood, subconsciously, we look at the (barely begun) question from several possible motivations, but only one is remotely likely: peeing. He wasn't about to ask about football scores, physics, or the land speed of an unladen swallow. We "just seem to know" because we quickly subconsciously consider all the possibilities, but are left with but one. It just bubbles up from the subconscious. We "just know."

I would suggest that we are talking about the same thing, at different levels, and that there is something to be gained from understanding how Ni works "under the hood," becoming more conscious of our subconscious activity. It provides a clue as to which intuitions are reasonable (or not)? In what cases should we strongly doubt our intuitions? What does it mean if our intuition has nothing to reveal about a matter? Or how about the simple advantage gained by hearing someone new make a context shift, looking at an idea from a new way: you then know they use Ni, and can use that knowledge to communicate more effectively, even before they start making uncannily good guesses.

[LionsPride]

	Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	LP, I have noted the dogmatic adherence to an idea in both Ni doms. To be honest it isnt typically worth trying to alter their minds once set, as it is extremely solid. At that point-the point of sharing-it isnt about Ni-it is the Te explanation of the idea Ni figured out.

This can be quite true that what a person hears, from an INTJ, is most likely the Te explanation and not the raw example of Ni. I can't speak for others, but turning what Ni knows into a explainable sentence is quite taxing and yes, once I've gone through that effort it can be quite cumbersome to divert me in a new direction. It's a lot of investment in an idea at that stage.

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

In INTJs, to make them change their minds I have to provide contrary physical evidence. If you do have to alter the course of their minds, once set, they get agitated and sort of flustered. I have been assigned resident flutter-looney-butterfly in my work place, as I can drop very contradictory data off with the INTJs, argue a few points, then escape with them seeming both flustered yet having a happy glow as they all really like me. They typically require a 2-3 day turnaround time to rewrite the concrete Ni explanation, and then you can make progress in a project.

That 2-3 day turn around is something I experience. Not necessarily that time line, it changes depending on the situation, but that delay between new information and changing direction from something I have already committed to is there. If I haven't committed, there is no delay, it's only when Ni has decided on an answer that makes the difference.

	Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Where I see the shifting is in very theoretical discussions or debates-which you dont often see with INTJs given they are introverted.

I'm not sure I see what you see. In many of my responses I tend to try and place myself in the position of seeing what the other person sees, but not to find the other angles to see if I'm right, more like so I can better shift them from where they are to what I'm looking at. I'm not sure that is specifically Ni, more like an adaptation I developed because "I just know" wasn't working so well.

Let's try a visual. Most of my thoughts exist in overlapping and intersected planes, much like a celtic knot, though in my head I tend to imagine them more 3 dimensionally. There is no start, middle, or end.

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


Now, Ni lets me see the knot all at once, not as pieces that connect in a sequence. This has some advantages in that I can see the shapes made by the negative space, the positive space, the symmetry, and several other aspects at the same time. To me, there is no shifting of thought because they all exist concurrently as a single idea, a knot. Now, the downside is when I am forced to dismantle this into a linear expression to walk someone through it. Where do I start? Which lobe of this knot comes first? Which direction do I go once I pick the lobe? For someone else to see what I see I have to pick a point to start and try and lead one part into another. What part of the knot is the fundamental part? Which curve or intersection is the most critical? Perhaps it is this you see as 'shifts' in my posts? This walking through of an idea from a start to an end until you may or may not see the image for yourself? To you it seems like I am changing angles when in fact I'm merely going round the bend?

[Wien1938]

Dropping a bit of classical theory into the mix as well, the nature and capability of any function is radicalised when introverted. In this regard, introverted intuition views the external world through the subjective, internal agenda held in the unconscious mind. Because its perspective is subjective, it only truly perceives that which strikes the subject as important, anything not perceived as such is simply not regarded.
"The extravert would say: "Reality does not exist for him, he gives himself up to fruitless fantasies." The perception of the images of the unconscious, produced in such in exhaustible abundance by the creative energy is of course fruitless from the standpoint of immediate utility but may give life a new potential, this function, which to the outside world is strangest of all, is as indispensable to the total psychic economy as is the corresponding human type to the psychic life of a people. Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel."
Psychological Types P.400.
What this means is that Ni is most capable of deep perception where as Ne is most capable of wide perception. So a Ne dominant type will effortlessly switch from perspective to perspective because they are forced to confront all phenomena at once. By contrast the Ni dominant type perceives what is important and pours their creative energy into contemplation of that perception.

[someuser]

So would Ni context shifts include finding the best possible answer for something? Like when trying to answer a question or explain why you do something, I usually try to find that one best possible answer/way, even though there's different ways to do something or to see something. Almost kinda like finding the answer to something that doesn't have an answer.