A specific question about Ne and Ni

[Carola]

Hi!
I was reading an article about INFJs compared to INFPs .
There was said that :

Ni is focused about analyzing one single thing , intepreting every single part of it , and seeing all possible intepretation of it.

Ne instead is seeng all at once searching common things between ideas and different sources

Now , usually Ni is described as convergent thinking and Ne divergent thinking.
Ni is also described as a synthetic function,or unifying the contraddictory.Isn't that similar to the previous Ne description?
What is the difference between ''seeing all at once '' and convergent or synthetic thinking?

I could guess that Ni wants to find a perspective that make different things '' the same thing'' instead Ne wants to create something new or some new way of using it.

So Ni wants to find the ''underlyng principle'' instead Ne wants to see a totally new thing.

I've found a description of Ne (lenore thomson if i'm not wrong , sorry ) in which was said that it wants to find more about the context for a bigger understanding of the part.Instead from what i've grasped of Ni , it is much about changing the understanding of the part to have a different vision of the whole.

Is that right?

I can really relate with this Ni ''decomposing play'',i analyze every single part of topics and view for different intepretations of it, but then i see ''all at once'' , when i synthesize things .... Is that Ni or Ne?
I really need to understand this :help:

Thanks everyone

 

[Barnabas]

Ne explores possibilities, creating multiple outcomes from a single event.

Ni connects the dots of information and produces a likely outcome from a situation.

Ni is kinda like Deductive reasoning where Ne is kinda like multiple choice.

 

[Nixie]

I am not an expert.
My general theory about MBTI precludes looking at any function on its own in relation to trying to understand how you use it. I think you have to see it in terms of your Dom and your Aux functions working in tandem.

Ne or Ni are the "map" Fe or Fi are the "ship" (what you use to navigate)

Sounds like Fi and Ne if you ask me. The emphasis of your question revolves around how you interpret things, which seems more likely to correlate with Fi. The aha moment reminds me more of Ne. Ni tends to feel very definate all the time, not something that strikes out of the sky.

 

[Carola]

I am not an expert.
My general theory about MBTI precludes looking at any function on its own in relation to trying to understand how you use it. I think you have to see it in terms of your Dom and your Aux functions working in tandem.

Ne or Ni are the "map" Fe or Fi are the "ship" (what you use to navigate)

Sounds like Fi and Ne if you ask me. The emphasis of your question revolves around how you interpret things, which seems more likely to correlate with Fi. The aha moment reminds me more of Ne. Ni tends to feel very definate all the time, not something that strikes out of the sky.

Thanks for the answer!
Usually the ''aha'' moment is rlated with Ni , in a lot of descriptions.And that counfused me a lot .
I have ''aha'' moments, but not so '' out of nowhere''.Usually it is a consequence of a work of analysis , I don't see it as mysterious ( in my mind ) .It is true that sometimes it comes when i stop thinking ''hardly'' to the problem , and i think in without intention , but it isn't a rule.
What do you exactly mean with ''definate'' ?

 

[InvisibleJim]

Easy way to think about it: Ne\Si has a focus on categorisation to understand. Ni\Se has a focus on action/direction of movement to understand.

 

[Nixie]

Honestly, I haven't done as much indepth studying on the subject as I wish to really speak volumes

However, this is my understanding

Introversion and Extroversion are the keys on how I relate to the functions. Jung speaks of these aspects in terms of how the individual relates to the object.

The extrovert is objective their it's assessment--they wants to own or possess the object--they see the object for what it is. Think of object as a concept for "that which is not you".

The introvert is subjective in their assessment--they want to understand the object and how it relates to them--they see the object for what it is to them.

Extroverts are focused externally
Introverts are focused internally

The functions Intuition vs. Sensor only change in relation to how you focus on the object

Intuition is a process by which you internalize your assessment of the world based on a set of criteria that is developed and created by the individual.
Sensing is a process by which you externalize your assessment of the world based on concrete data and observations that is not created by you.

These functions do not change. What changes is HOW you use these functions. Are they extroverted or introverted? Kind of like are you left handed or right handed.

Introverted Intuition says that the criteria you create is internal--you draw your conclusions based on what your internal feelings/thoughts/senses/unknown quality/memories process. You create a world map based on a mixture of all this nebulous data and you filter it within yourself. In a way this process is more complex. You relate to the object (intuition) in a subjective manner. You interpret and filter the object (intuition) as a tool to learn and utilize rather than "own" it. You maintain the separation between you and the object.

Extroverted Intuition says that the criteria you create is external--you draw your conclusions based on external stimulus the feelings/thoughts/unknown qualities that you sense. You create a world map based on a mixture of all this nebulous data that you don't filter thru yourself. In a way you would say that it is purer--it isn't necessarily colored by your own prejudices. You remove yourself from the equation a bit because your relation to the object (intuition) is objective.

Right or wrong. This is how I analyze the functions. I don't really memorize all the stuff that has been written about Ni acts "this way" and you do "these things". I tend to look at HOW I process and function.

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

I think this is something people must find hard to grasp because all of these posts are contradictory to everything else I've read apart from Carola's, who seems to have read the same things.

I try to understand this by just working out the principle behind them instead of seeing them as concrete categories. I don't think it could necessarily work if they're concrete categories. If I was to try and look at myself - assuming I use Ni - I would say that I find it difficult to come up with a lot of ideas and I tend to have a lot of certainty about things (apart from myself of which I can be quite uncertain - all that, who am I? stuff). Generally, though, I trust whatever personal logic I have unless I have the feeling it doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, then I work out what's wrong.

I'm sorry that that is quite vague.

I relate to what you're saying, @Carola . I tend to see everything at once but I do not consider it to be "separate possibilities". I more see everything that is related to one another at once and see it as a "whole" - just one idea, but the holistic version of it. So everything that is related to one stimulus is seen at once - cause, effects, context etc - but they are seen concurrently rather than linearly. So I see things as multifaceted or multilayered rather than in a straight line. If I was to say what possibilities can I see from this? Or what does this mean? I would probably only see one possibility. However, within that world view, there might be constituent parts.

So I agree it is difficult to decipher between Ni and Ne. But I think the reason it is so difficult to decipher is because these categories don't exist per se. They are very blurred lines and the categorisation MBTI uses is simply to make it easier to discuss personality - it's a tool to use so that personality can be analysed - but they're not absolute.

 

[Nixie]

Thanks for the answer!
Usually the ''aha'' moment is rlated with Ni , in a lot of descriptions.And that counfused me a lot .
I have ''aha'' moments, but not so '' out of nowhere''.Usually it is a consequence of a work of analysis , I don't see it as mysterious ( in my mind ) .It is true that sometimes it comes when i stop thinking ''hardly'' to the problem , and i think in without intention , but it isn't a rule.
What do you exactly mean with ''definate'' ?

This is how I look at it

Intuition is internal understanding
Sensing is external understanding

Feeling is internal validation
Thinking is external validation

 

[Carola]

I think this is something people must find hard to grasp because all of these posts are contradictory to everything else I've read apart from Carola's, who seems to have read the same things.

I try to understand this by just working out the principle behind them instead of seeing them as concrete categories. I don't think it could necessarily work if they're concrete categories. If I was to try and look at myself - assuming I use Ni - I would say that I find it difficult to come up with a lot of ideas and I tend to have a lot of certainty about things (apart from myself of which I can be quite uncertain - all that, who am I? stuff). Generally, though, I trust whatever personal logic I have unless I have the feeling it doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, then I work out what's wrong.

I'm sorry that that is quite vague.

I relate to what you're saying, @Carola . I tend to see everything at once but I do not consider it to be "separate possibilities". I more see everything that is related to one another at once and see it as a "whole" - just one idea, but the holistic version of it. So everything that is related to one stimulus is seen at once - cause, effects, context etc - but they are seen concurrently rather than linearly. So I see things as multifaceted or multilayered rather than in a straight line. If I was to say what possibilities can I see from this? Or what does this mean? I would probably only see one possibility. However, within that world view, there might be constituent parts.

So I agree it is difficult to decipher between Ni and Ne. But I think the reason it is so difficult to decipher is because these categories don't exist per se. They are very blurred lines and the categorisation MBTI uses is simply to make it easier to discuss personality - it's a tool to use so that personality can be analysed - but they're not absolute.

Thanks a lot for your answer! My thinking is similar to yours : i search a single idea that describes everything and it is not formed by different pieces, it is one single thing .
It is not a puzzle that i see , i see a single idea , ''multifaced'' , like a single sculpture , one single piece of marble.
Thanks a lot everybody for the answers !

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

Thanks a lot for your answer! My thinking is similar to yours : i search a single idea that describes everything and it is not formed by different pieces, it is one single thing .
It is not a puzzle that i see , i see a single idea , ''multifaced'' , like a single sculpture , one single piece of marble.
Thanks a lot everybody for the answers !

Yes. Exactly the same. Exactly the same as I think. If anyone does have a name for this, I'd love to hear it. It becomes obvious after some time that others do not think this way so it must be included in one of the cognitive functions or a set of them?

 

[Majesty]

This is how I look at it

Intuition is internal understanding
Sensing is external understanding

Feeling is internal validation
Thinking is external validation

Feeling, Thinking, Sensing and Intuition in themselves are neither externally or internally oriented.

 

[Nixie]

Feeling, Thinking, Sensing and Intuition in themselves are neither externally or internally oriented.

I beg to differ, especially considering you are an ENTP

Edit: OKkkkayyy then

I didn't mean they were orientated, rather how one "aims"--within or without

Intuition is a process of focusing understanding by using internal cues
Sensing is a process of focusing understanding by using external cues

Feeling is a process of determining validation by using internal rationales
Thinking is a process of determining validation by using external rationales

 

[Majesty]

I beg to differ, especially considering you are an ENTP

Edit: OKkkkayyy then

I didn't mean they were orientated, rather how one "aims"--within or without

Intuition is a process of focusing understanding by using internal cues
Sensing is a process of focusing understanding by using external cues

Feeling is a process of determining validation by using internal rationales
Thinking is a process of determining validation by using external rationales

For you that works, since you're Ni/Te/Fi/Se.
However, it doesn't for people who don't share your functions.

 

[Cheshirelogic]

I have studied the differences of each function for quite awhile as well, and, Stormy1, I think your theory has made the most sense thus far!