[INFJ] Pinning down Ni

[sworm09]

Trying to understand this function is driving me nuts.

When I attempt to describe Ni, I feel like the man in the Looney Tune's short "One Froggy Evening". Like the frog in that short, Ni will go into high gear when I'm alone, no one is watching, and I'm not trying to pay attention to it. Thus when I try to explain it to someone else, I just look crazy.

Did that analogy work?

When it comes to actual experience, I'm never 100% sure that I'm using Ni. An example of my possibly using Ni was a few weeks ago. Two people that I met starting flirting with each other, and one of them said that she didn't like the other one "like that". I'd seen this same pattern before, and I almost immediately knew what would happen: they would hook up with each other within an extremely small space of time. Despite the fact that she spoke of not "liking him like that" I just knew what would happen because I saw that pattern before. Less than a week later my friends all talked about "something" happening at a party between those two. I almost immediately knew that they kissed while drinking...because I could just see the pattern. That very weekend I found out that that's what happened.

In the instance it was like I could see a hidden road connecting one circumstance to another, and I could see all of the possible places that the road could take them. I knew what was going to happen because I've seen that pattern before. That's the best way to describe my Ni future-predicting activities: I see a road or pathway, connecting events to each other. I can see what direction an event is going on that pathway and I can say "This will happen" because I see the destination. But it only happens WHEN I'M NOT TRYING TO DO IT. It's also a source of a slight anxiety because I'm constantly anticipating what will happen next; I'm constantly peering down the road trying to see what's coming up on the horizon.

Using the road analogy a little more, I know which route I'm on when I see certain "landmarks"...details that symbolize advancement along said route. I can almost always imagine where a situation could go taking into consideration current trends.

When I'm not grasping at the future, I think Ni takes on a very different usage, but one is more recreational than the other. When I'm alone or at least doing my introvert withdrawal thing, I enjoy toying around with intense, vibrant visualizations. I can't listen to music without imagining something...usually myself in a certain situation, engaging some kind of archetypal representation of the tone of the music. I'm constantly toying around with archetypal and symbolic representations of other things as well as "What if" scenarios.

My scariest nights are when I wake up in the middle of the night and find myself drowning in imaginary images, abstract concepts, and archetypes. It's scary as hell because it feels like I'm dreaming, but I'm awake. I see all of the connections and patterns that Ni has recognized during the day at one time, and it always overwhelms me a bit. But when I wake up all of that stuff is gone from my conscious awareness.

Speaking of archetypes, that very accurately describes the only other known usage of Ni: fitting ideas into molds. Very similar to the road idea, when I recognize the "shape" or "outline" of an idea or person, I can fill in the blanks. I do this most with people. Voice tone, facial features, way of speaking and such will give me an outline that I'll match to other outlines that I've seen before, allowing me to see a certain archetype that this person matches up to. This is how I "just know" that person is stuck up or I "just know" that guy doesn't like that other guy. Of course I never say these things off of one or two instances. I'm usually able to do this after noticing underlying patterns in their behavior that say something one way or another.

Of course it also helps in noticing concepts behind concepts. I'm known for peering deeply into things, trying to see what someone really meant by what they said. I never take things at face value and I'm always aware of patterns underlying surface appearances. This is the part that's really hard to describe in words....I just see the underlying connections between behaviors...the underlying source of a behavior.

For all of my babbling though, I'm still not completely sure that this is Ni. I've been told that I'm using Ne, but I don't really see it. What do you think? Is this an accurate description of Ni?

 

[sprinkles]

Just as a one off from the top of my head:

Ne tries to figure out how you bend the spoon.
Ni realizes that there is no spoon.

/blatant Matrix reference

 

[Nitesteamer]

Trying to understand this function is driving me nuts.

Of course it also helps in noticing concepts behind concepts. I'm known for peering deeply into things, trying to see what someone really meant by what they said. I never take things at face value and I'm always aware of patterns underlying surface appearances. This is the part that's really hard to describe in words....I just see the underlying connections between behaviors...the underlying source of a behavior.

For all of my babbling though, I'm still not completely sure that this is Ni. I've been told that I'm using Ne, but I don't really see it. What do you think? Is this an accurate description of Ni?

Ni is a subconscious (irrational) process that takes diverse forms of data and impressions and draws conclusions. You may, or may not (often the latter) be able to work backwards and trace the patterns and steps that led to the conclusion. It sounds to me like you are using Ni since you are drawing conclusions (whether they are actually right or wrong), and it is happening when you are not thinking about it.

Ni=convergent; Ne = divergent.

Regarding the above highlight: By never taking things at face value you are more describing yourself as a skeptic, than necessarily a Ni user. Ni will sometimes look at something and immediately know that face value is correct. Other times it will look at something and say that there is more to it than just face value.

 

[Trifoilum]

I'd talked about this before but I forget, ugh; sorry.

Sprouting what can very well be nonsense;
Ni zooms in, Ne zooms out.
Ni asks what will be, Ne asks what can it be
Ni looks at the patterns, Si looks at the objects.
Ni asks what will be, Si asks what it was.
Ni looks using the mind, Se looks using the senses.
Ni asks what will be, Se asks what it is.

 

[YourFavoriteNightmare]

I'd talked about this before but I forget, ugh; sorry.

Sprouting what can very well be nonsense;
Ni zooms in, Ne zooms out.
Ni asks what will be, Ne asks what can it be
Ni looks at the patterns, Si looks at the objects.
Ni asks what will be, Si asks what it was.
Ni looks using the mind, Se looks using the senses.
Ni asks what will be, Se asks what it is.

That's actually a good way of summing it up. I have to say that this function is hard to simply define because its very essence is being undefinable. But we can't fully realize it without it's opposite, Se, and it's relationship with such. Even though unconscious in the INJs, it is still active, just...in the dark. But still there. Se gathers information, picks up on things. It can be hypersensitive almost. It quickly channels external stimuli taken from the senses, filters through the inner two function and it reaches Ni. It may seem like its working backwards, but this is how it works. With all this data, Ni works on it. Chewing on its pencil, seeing the connections, forming conclusions. Because an INJ's inferior is Se, this explains the phenomena of having a realization coming "out of nowhere".
There is a strong visual element to Ni. Makes me think of certain Savants, whom think in images. Ask them a question, "What is a horse?" And they get something like Google Images going on. Ask them something abstract though, "What is Fear?" and they can't. (Personally, I had the same thing happen with fear (you kidding me? I can picture it!) but brain wiring is different in Savants so I leave it at that). The archetypes and imaginary images and abstractions, so on, so forth. This would make seem to fit but not quite. I can't rationalize that. Ni is not psychosis. Trust me.
The toying around with ideas, visualizations, imagining etc is very Perceiving function. And look at the words this perceiving is directed too. It's definitively N - but Ni or Ne? Ne is very open and is creative. People who are excellent at brainstorming? Ne-doms. It loves taking ideas, whirring around in the world of the conceptual and abstract. Playing with these. But Ne is possibilities. It can be this, this, this, or that, and maybe that. Ni is the same but much more convergent. It says, "This, according to the data we have, is what will happen." Ne's like all these roads, connections, possibilities. Ni's like this is the way it's gonna happen. End of story.

Personal example: In movies and books, I'm a good predictor of what's going to happen. I've been known to express frustration at the producers/director/actors for dragging out the dramatic, emotional climax when the solution is right there! Argh. However, here's the difference of using Ni more than Ne (we do use all the functions but the top 4 are most conscious but the inferior (4th place) remains important because it's in direct opposition to your dominant, your core, most true, function). I see the ways it could turn out. However, this is the data I have. And some is in-explainable. "I feel like she'll do this..." "It seems like he's not really charmed..." Etc. This is thanks to the more unconscious details given by Se. But I know this is what's going to happen. This is most likely and there's some strong evidence, whether I can state how I got it or not, that says "This is it."
I'm not always right.
Like everyone else, I'm vulnerable to red herrings and perhaps losing some data that was filtered out by, in my case, Te and Fi. Or with INFJs, Fe and Ti. This is why I love new books and movies and, just in general, new stories, new plots. They are puzzles to me. However, if they sound cliche/unoriginal (Fi filters out) or mushy/easily solvable (Te), it's going back on the shelf (or I'll leave the website or scroll over to see the next one (Netflix user right here)). But once it's past this, I dive into a state of deep perception. Ni-Se working together to figure this out. It enlivens me because I'm working directly with my dom and makes me feel more whole because I integrate my inferior with it.

 

[sassafras]

That's actually a good way of summing it up. I have to say that this function is hard to simply define because its very essence is being undefinable. But we can't fully realize it without it's opposite, Se, and it's relationship with such. Even though unconscious in the INJs, it is still active, just...in the dark. But still there. Se gathers information, picks up on things. It can be hypersensitive almost. It quickly channels external stimuli taken from the senses, filters through the inner two function and it reaches Ni. It may seem like its working backwards, but this is how it works. With all this data, Ni works on it. Chewing on its pencil, seeing the connections, forming conclusions. Because an INJ's inferior is Se, this explains the phenomena of having a realization coming "out of nowhere".
There is a strong visual element to Ni. Makes me think of certain Savants, whom think in images. Ask them a question, "What is a horse?" And they get something like Google Images going on. Ask them something abstract though, "What is Fear?" and they can't. (Personally, I had the same thing happen with fear (you kidding me? I can picture it!) but brain wiring is different in Savants so I leave it at that). The archetypes and imaginary images and abstractions, so on, so forth. This would make seem to fit but not quite. I can't rationalize that. Ni is not psychosis. Trust me.
The toying around with ideas, visualizations, imagining etc is very Perceiving function. And look at the words this perceiving is directed too. It's definitively N - but Ni or Ne? Ne is very open and is creative. People who are excellent at brainstorming? Ne-doms. It loves taking ideas, whirring around in the world of the conceptual and abstract. Playing with these. But Ne is possibilities. It can be this, this, this, or that, and maybe that. Ni is the same but much more convergent. It says, "This, according to the data we have, is what will happen." Ne's like all these roads, connections, possibilities. Ni's like this is the way it's gonna happen. End of story.

Personal example: In movies and books, I'm a good predictor of what's going to happen. I've been known to express frustration at the producers/director/actors for dragging out the dramatic, emotional climax when the solution is right there! Argh. However, here's the difference of using Ni more than Ne (we do use all the functions but the top 4 are most conscious but the inferior (4th place) remains important because it's in direct opposition to your dominant, your core, most true, function). I see the ways it could turn out. However, this is the data I have. And some is in-explainable. "I feel like she'll do this..." "It seems like he's not really charmed..." Etc. This is thanks to the more unconscious details given by Se. But I know this is what's going to happen. This is most likely and there's some strong evidence, whether I can state how I got it or not, that says "This is it."
I'm not always right.
Like everyone else, I'm vulnerable to red herrings and perhaps losing some data that was filtered out by, in my case, Te and Fi. Or with INFJs, Fe and Ti. This is why I love new books and movies and, just in general, new stories, new plots. They are puzzles to me. However, if they sound cliche/unoriginal (Fi filters out) or mushy/easily solvable (Te), it's going back on the shelf (or I'll leave the website or scroll over to see the next one (Netflix user right here)). But once it's past this, I dive into a state of deep perception. Ni-Se working together to figure this out. It enlivens me because I'm working directly with my dom and makes me feel more whole because I integrate my inferior with it.

This is a most excellent explanation of Ni.

 

[rawr]

obviously a limited perspective, but think of it like this:
Ni an Ne are funnels.

Ni is a standard funnel which tapers/narrows as it goes downward. Your mind perceives information at the top of the funnel, gathering from a large variety of sources, many of then sub/unconsciously. It (pretty much automatically/by default) begins to whittle that information down to the relevant bits (which may not always seem relevant to the conscious mind). This continues down the length of the funnel, as it tapers down, smaller and smaller. Finally, (whether this is a quick process which it often is, or a long, drawn-out one) we arrive to the end of the funnel, where the information exits out the end, which happens to be the smallest portion of the funnel. this is your conclusion, a small, specific point.

Ni takes from broad sources and almost unknowingly and automatically filters and uses that information to arrive at a more focused conclusion.

Ne is pretty much the inverse. Flip that funnel upside down. Now the smallest, most tapered end is on the top, and your largest end is one the bottom. Ne also gathers information, a lot of it subconsciously, but begins at the small end of the funnel. During the extraverted intuitive process, information gets larger/greater as it goes from the small end of the funnel to the large end. At the end of the process, information exits at the big end of the funnel. This is Ne.

Ne broadens an information set, taking specific smaller pieces of information, and expounds/extrapolates on them, so that it has a larger, more general conclusion from a smaller/more focused information set.

So basically Ni and Ne are opposites. Ni takes a large amount of information intuitively to make it more focused and arrive to a specific point. Ne takes specific or smaller amounts of information to make it a broader more wide-stretching point or conclusion. Note that the individual may have no idea how s/he got to either point.

Hope it helps.

 

[YourFavoriteNightmare]

So basically Ni and Ne are opposites.

True. All the Perceiving functions are information gatherers. However, Ni and Ne are similar as they are the same P process but extroverted and introverted, where it's source is at. Sensing is in tune to the environment, the senses and all the information that comes from these. Si, gathers it from within. People with Si in their functional stack prefer to where what's comfortable for them (body's comfortable = mind's comfortable) and they are often sensitive to more internal sensational input such as tatse and touch. Se is the same process but...takes data from the outside. Seeing, hearing are more keen and it's the Se-doms whom have the best reaction time. This is the same process with Ni and Ne but, instead of Sensing (the physical), it's tuned into the metaphorical and abstract(Intuition). Ideas, theories. Maybe a reverse process because of the Pe/Pi difference. Nevertheless, it's still the same one.

 

[Mary Shelley]

People with Si in their functional stack prefer to where what's comfortable for them (body's comfortable = mind's comfortable) and they are often sensitive to more internal sensational input such as tatse and touch. Se is the same process but...takes data from the outside. Seeing, hearing are more keen and it's the Se-doms whom have the best reaction time.

You're saying taste and touch do not belong to Se? Really?

 

[sassafras]

You're saying taste and touch do not belong to Se? Really?

Actually, I think he was trying to say that Si puts more emphasis on what makes it personally comfortable, whereas Se will look for novelty in the same senses.

At least, that's how I read it the first time.

 

[Mary Shelley]

No, I think he's just saying that Si puts more emphasis on what makes it personally comfortable whereas Se will look for novelty in the senses.

So is it the Si users who are so invested in announcing what they don't like?

 

[sassafras]

So is it the Si users who are so invested in announcing what they don't like?

I don't understand the question. What do you mean?

 

[Mary Shelley]

I don't understand the question. What do you mean?

"I don't like onions/mayonnaise/pickles/<any given thing>."
"I hate <some cuisine>."

Many people seem so proud of what they don't like and often feel the need to announce it.

 

[sassafras]

"I don't like onions/mayonnaise/pickles/<any given thing>."
"I hate <some cuisine>."

Many people seem so proud of what they don't like and often feel the need to announce it.

That's a decision made by a judging function, though, not an interpretation of sensory data. Si would aid in the recall of the taste of onions/mayonnaise/pickles if the person had to describe why they don't like those things, for instance, but being proud of this fact or announcing it wouldn't be it's department.

 

[YourFavoriteNightmare]

You're saying taste and touch do not belong to Se? Really?

Well, the senses belong to the physical body. Not any sort of psychological function.

I was in math class. Excuse my less than full attention. To clarify, Se's sector where it performs information gathering is from outside in. This is the five senses. Si is internal sensation; inside out. Pain, hunger/thirst, muscle tension, etc...However, taste and touch are the senses that are most closely linked to Si. It's hard to explain. I'll provide examples, someone's pressing against you in one area. Hard. Si is the soonest to say "Hey, pain over here!!" Same thing with taste. "Whoa, wait. This food makes you feel sick. Out! NOW!"

But there is much more to Si and Se than that. Si wants the past preserved. Traditions? Bred from some other function initially, but it just needed to be practiced once or twice more. Si will then keep it. Trends? Se sought out something new and it caught on. Also, Si likes to use the materials it has already. "Let's reuse this and that." Se is the opposite. "New, new, new!!!" It listens to the data coming from outside and after the same stuff, it will get bored. Se would rather just buy the new, stinking machine. Don't replace part after part, just go get the new one!

 

[YourFavoriteNightmare]

That's a decision made by a judging function, though, not an interpretation of sensory data. Si would aid in the recall of the taste of onions/mayonnaise/pickles if the person had to describe why they don't like those things, for instance, but being proud of this fact or announcing it wouldn't be it's department.

And that Judging function is Fi. As feeling it's concerned with the "person". As Fi, it's concerned with the individuality of the person (i.e. the Fi user) and their own feelings, likes/dislikes, values.

 

[Mary Shelley]

And that Judging function is Fi. As feeling it's concerned with the "person". As Fi, it's concerned with the individuality of the person (i.e. the Fi user) and their own feelings, likes/dislikes, values.

So Fi is involved with judging even when it comes to physical sensations? So then, it is Fi + Si people who are most likely to be so outspokenly anti stuff? INFP, ENFP, ISTJ, ESTJ?

 

[YourFavoriteNightmare]

So Fi is involved with judging even when it comes to physical sensations? So then, it is Fi + Si people who are most likely to be so outspokenly anti stuff? INFP, ENFP, ISTJ, ESTJ?

Fi isn't involved with Judging. It is a Judging function. The people most outspoken about their judgments would actually begin with ETJ. The Judging dom coupled with Thinking, instead of Feeling (especially Fe) to keep them from including other people and these other people's feelings a factor in their voicing of their judgment or conclusion.
Fi, as part of its area of Judging, includes that of discerning personal tastes. Their likes and dislikes. It's pretty safe to assume Fi would extend to include the sense of taste. Unless...you have a better explanation?

 

[Trifoilum]

"I don't like onions/mayonnaise/pickles/<any given thing>."
"I hate <some cuisine>."

Many people seem so proud of what they don't like and often feel the need to announce it.

Aside from what TDHT said, I think Si works like-- this.

Judging Function (it can be anything; Ti, Fi, Fe, Te) : "I don't like mayonnaise")
Si : "I usually don't like mayonnaise." (this is like, the simplest form of it.)
*munch mayonnaise*
Si : "this TASTE! This TEXTURE! This SMELL! It's just....LIKE MAYONAISSE!"
Judging : "EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW" whether internally or externally

Which is where the opposite function comes (in this case, Ne);
Ne : "BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE-- There's difference between this and that and that other factor!"

So Fi is involved with judging even when it comes to physical sensations? So then, it is Fi + Si people who are most likely to be so outspokenly anti stuff? INFP, ENFP, ISTJ, ESTJ?

I think it's different-- how to say it, we all have our own form of distaste / dislike / hate / irrationality. It's just a combination of two functions (much less four) will net a different kind of reactions.