Reflections on Ni

[minkowski thermodynamics]

1. Ni is actually one of my dominant functions (don't ask...that's for another thread)

For me, a major reason why I am confused about Ni is that I never really think of my Ni as being a part of myself. Let me explain. Since I grew up in a religious household, I unconsciously attribute a divine origin to many of my Ni insights. It is something that comes from outside of me, so I don't feel like I have a right to really own it as a personality trait.

Since there are many Ni users here, could you share your thoughts on this?

---------------------------------------------------------------

2. Sometimes, it seems as if the lines between Ni and Fi are blurred. For
example, on the cognitive functions test, there is a section under Fi called "gut reactions"

-. "feel strongly that something is good or bad"
-. "detect if someone's behavior is authentic or phony"

Yet in the thread on this forum called "INFJ's and gut feelings", the way in which they talked about Ni made it sound suspiciously similar to this kind of "gut reaction." Yet it is listed under Fi here.

 

[Goatman455]

That's why I try and liken some of what people compare from Ne to Ni or Fe to Fi (or any function) to the differences b/t extroversion and introversion.

Some disagree with this view, but I think it is easier to look at the function itself, THEN apply introversion or extroversion to it.

Look at Jungs definitions of introvert/extrovert, then look at the definition of Thinking for example, then apply the I or E to the T. Then you have Te and Ti.

I think when people start seeing Ti and Te as two completely different functions, communication goes out the windows because everyone has their own idea of what each one means.


I want to point out too that in Socionics, introverted perceivers have an introverted perception function first. If you feel you use Ni more, maybe you are a Socionics INxP. This would mean your primary function is Ni, not Ti or Fi.


I know what you mean about the Ni coming from outside of you considering your religious beliefs. I think that's a good way to look at it.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Fi and Ni do have some similar patterns to them. However, they are completely different functions, with very different processing schemes.

Fi and Ni get gut feelings, but gut feelings is more attributed to Ni. Fi gut feelings would be more gut reactions to morals, convictions, and what you want from someone around you, and what matches what you want. Ni gets gut feelings about and idea, thought, feeling, or theory without knowing the point or origin. Fi often can find the point of origin and trace back to where the thought came from, where as Ni often can not (unless it is passed through another function, such as Te).

As they are both very internal functions, and often have attributes about them that can't be fully explained, the line between them gets blurred. This is why you will often see people on the board here test with equally high Fi and Ni scores, and thus become confused if they are INFP or INFJ. It takes a long time for one to internally seperate Ni and Fi, as they are apparent overlaps. I used to think my Fi score was right behind my Ni score. However, I have come to realise that this is not the case. It took a while for me to accept that when it comes to personal things, I don't always weigh out the meaning and worth of something in a way to apply to myself and then decide if I will do something or not based on that. I sort of wanted myself to be that way, so I tricked myself into thinking I was that way. I would venture to guess there are a handful of people in the same boat as I was with wanting to have a high Fi score. Because it would appear as desirable for an INFJ, and conforming to social rituals would be seen as a bad thing.

 

[Goatman455]

Fi and Ni do have some similar patterns to them. However, they are completely different functions, with very different processing schemes.

Fi and Ni get gut feelings, but gut feelings is more attributed to Ni. Fi gut feelings would be more gut reactions to morals, convictions, and what you want from someone around you, and what matches what you want. Ni gets gut feelings about and idea, thought, feeling, or theory without knowing the point or origin. Fi often can find the point of origin and trace back to where the thought came from, where as Ni often can not (unless it is passed through another function, such as Te).

As they are both very internal functions, and often have attributes about them that can't be fully explained, the line between them gets blurred. This is why you will often see people on the board here test with equally high Fi and Ni scores, and thus become confused if they are INFP or INFJ. It takes a long time for one to internally seperate Ni and Fi, as they are apparent overlaps. I used to think my Fi score was right behind my Ni score. However, I have come to realise that this is not the case. It took a while for me to accept that when it comes to personal things, I don't always weigh out the meaning and worth of something in a way to apply to myself and then decide if I will do something or not based on that. I sort of wanted myself to be that way, so I tricked myself into thinking I was that way. I would venture to guess there are a handful of people in the same boat as I was with wanting to have a high Fi score. Because it would appear as desirable for an INFJ, and conforming to social rituals would be seen as a bad thing.

Well actually, Ni or Ne or any perception function can't operate on its own, neither can a judgment function. Ni doesn't give gut feelings alone, it combines with an extroverted judgment function to do so. In order to have a gut feeling, we need to have perceived information and made a judgment.



"I don't always weigh out the meaning and worth of something in a way to apply to myself and then decide if I will do something or not based on that. I sort of wanted myself to be that way, so I tricked myself into thinking I was that way. I would venture to guess there are a handful of people in the same boat as I was with wanting to have a high Fi score."

This is an interesting insight, do you think it would be possible to talk more about this, I am curious as to what ideas you have.

Also to point out again, if you think you are high in Fi, you may want to check out Socionics which puts INFJs as (also, INFJs don't always test as INFPs and vice versa when they go from MBTI to Socionics

Introverted Feeling
Extroverted Intuition

Might give you some added insight or at least be entertaining to read, if you haven't already.

 

[minkowski thermodynamics]

I think when people start seeing Ti and Te as two completely different functions, communication goes out the windows because everyone has their own idea of what each one means.


I want to point out too that in Socionics, introverted perceivers have an introverted perception function first. If you feel you use Ni more, maybe you are a Socionics INxP. This would mean your primary function is Ni, not Ti or Fi.

I've never delved into Socionics but perhaps it would help me to sort my type. I think I break MBTI , and I've reached a point where the theory seems a lot less clear cut than I originally thought. There is overlap between Ne and Ni, as well as overlap between Fi and Ni. Whether this is due to a flaw in the system, or to my having an insufficient grasp of the MBTI theory, or to my being a plain weirdo, is up for discussion.


To show the enormity of my confusion, here is my cognitive functions from taking two different tests:

The primary source of my confusion is due to my Ni score. there seems to be no type which depends on both Ni and Ti, so I seem to be a hybrid between an INTP and an INFJ.

Fi and Ni get gut feelings, but gut feelings is more attributed to Ni. Fi gut feelings would be more gut reactions to morals, convictions, and what you want from someone around you, and what matches what you want. Ni gets gut feelings about and idea, thought, feeling, or theory without knowing the point or origin. Fi often can find the point of origin and trace back to where the thought came from, where as Ni often can not (unless it is passed through another function, such as Te).

So being able to trace the gut feeling back to a source/origin is a key point ? This makes sense and under this light, I use Ni more frequently than Fi.

 

[minkowski thermodynamics]

(Since my previous post is a bit long, I'll start a new one)

I should add that my Fe score is admittedly quite low. While I do empathize a great deal with people, I use my intuition to empathize rather than emotions per se.

For example, if I see a video of children starving, I don't necessarily feel sadness, but instead I am automatically put directly in their situation via my intuition and I experience what they might be going through right down to the intangibles such as the attachment they feel towards that worn out pair of trunks around their skinny legs. If this sounds bizarre, I should say that I've been like this since I was very young, and it wasn't until recently when I first started reading about type theory that I realized that not everyone in the world perceived things the way I do. It made for a lot of confusion, and difficulty throughout my childhood and especially adolescence.

 

[Morgain]

1. Ni is actually one of my dominant functions (don't ask...that's for another thread)

For me, a major reason why I am confused about Ni is that I never really think of my Ni as being a part of myself. Let me explain. Since I grew up in a religious household, I unconsciously attribute a divine origin to many of my Ni insights. It is something that comes from outside of me, so I don't feel like I have a right to really own it as a personality trait.

Since there are many Ni users here, could you share your thoughts on this?

I don't know that this brings any benefit to you tread but here it is :becky:

I was watching the film "father damian" today. You know, the Belgian priest that went to Molokai to help the lepers. Anyway, I lot of times in the film he was talking about God: "you have to trust in God" or "God is not talking to me any more" or "God shows me the way". And it came to me, he spoke of God the way that I speak of my intuition. When I say that I follow my intuition, he would explain it by saying that I follow the word or wishes of God. So my Idea is that the knowing that comes from God is the same as the knowing that comes from our intuition. And to me, God isn't outside of me, he is insight me and wether the "knowing" comes from Him or myself, doesn't matter to me.

 

[minkowski thermodynamics]

I don't know that this brings any benefit to you tread but here it is :becky:

I was watching the film "father damian" today. You know, the Belgian priest that went to Molokai to help the lepers. Anyway, I lot of times in the film he was talking about God: "you have to trust in God" or "God is not talking to me any more" or "God shows me the way". And it came to me, he spoke of God the way that I speak of my intuition. When I say that I follow my intuition, he would explain it by saying that I follow the word or wishes of God. So my Idea is that the knowing that comes from God is the same as the knowing that comes from our intuition. And to me, God isn't outside of me, he is insight me and wether the "knowing" comes from Him or myself, doesn't matter to me.

Hey, I'm very glad you shared that. I understand exactly what you mean. When I was a little boy (I was younger than seven because my little brother wasn't born as yet in 1992), I used to go alone into the forest with my Bible and a hand made cross in my hand and God would communicate with me there. Yeah I know this sounds completely coo coo to some people, but I think you will understand what I mean.

It seems to me that if you're a religious person, you will use the word "God," whereas if you're a secular person, you will use the word "intuition" to describe what seems to be the same phenomena.

 

[Morgain]

thanks for your reply, I was not sure you would understand

I used to go alone into the forest with my Bible and a hand made cross in my hand and God would communicate with me there.

uhmm, I didn't that too . I'm born catholic and when I was I child I was religious and searching for God and hoping to hear him talking to me (never happened). I still do that but without the cross and searching for my deepest self instead of God. Somewhere on the road I lossed my faith in the catholic church with all the hypocrisy, the guilt, confession, stupid rules. They are missing the essence. the clue is (to me) to not search for God outside yourself but within. God is intuition and when you follow your intuition, you follow God and you authomaticaly do what is right. Not what the church say it is right but what is right to you. So yeah, I think they are the same. And I think that is what Jesus tryed to tell us

 

[minkowski thermodynamics]

thanks for your reply, I was not sure you would understand



uhmm, I didn't that too . I'm born catholic and when I was I child I was religious and searching for God and hoping to hear him talking to me (never happened). But somewhere on the road I started to hate the catholic church with all the hypocrity (spelling??) the guilt, confession, stuppid rules. They are missing the essence. the clue is (to me) to not search for God outside yourself but within. God is intuition and when you follow your intuition, you follow God and you authomaticaly do what is right. Not what the church say it is right but what is right to you. So yeah, I think they are the same. And I think that is what Jesus tryed to tell us

We actually have very similar views.To me, there is a distinction between being religious and being spiritual.


Organized religion is permeated with man-made rules. You can go to a big church with a rich pastor on TV talking about "give me your $$$money$$$ for Jesus!" and be "religious," but not spiritual. Similarly, you can be a secular person who doesn't go to church and be more in tune with spiritual aspects of life.

 

[Morgain]

yes exactly

but being spiritual doesn't necesary means that you don't believe in God or Jesus. you just don't do it at the "right" way

But searching for God insight yourself, living according to your own intuition with a deep respect and believe for what is insight you, is more valuable than following all the rules in the world!

 

[Morgain]

going back to your second question:

2. Sometimes, it seems as if the lines between Ni and Fi are blurred. For
example, on the cognitive functions test, there is a section under Fi called "gut reactions"

-. "feel strongly that something is good or bad"
-. "detect if someone's behavior is authentic or phony"

Yet in the thread on this forum called "INFJ's and gut feelings", the way in which they talked about Ni made it sound suspiciously similar to this kind of "gut reaction." Yet it is listed under Fi here.

There is a big difference between Ni and Fi.

Ni means that you gather your information based on your intuition, flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind
Fi means that you come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. (stoled from wikipedia)

So both are based on gut feeling but they are complete different functions.

But it is confusing for me to because I have the feeling that my Fi decision making is not based on my intuition/my knowing of my true path and stuff but rather on what would be best to create the greatest harmony and fulfill the needs of the people involved in the decision. It is rather annoying because this means I do what is best for the group at that moment and not what is best for me!

 

[minkowski thermodynamics]

going back to your second question:



There is a big difference between Ni and Fi.

Ni means that you gather your information based on your intuition, flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind
Fi means that you come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. (stoled from wikipedia)

So both are based on gut feeling but they are complete different functions.

But it is confusing for me to because I have the feeling that my Fi decision making is not based on my intuition/my knowing of my true path and stuff but rather on what would be best to create the greatest harmony and fulfill the needs of the people involved in the decision. It is rather annoying because this means I do what is best for the group at that moment and not what is best for me!

Yep, between you and Indigo Sensor, I believe I now understand the difference between Ni and Fi. Thank you!

Fi has a more active component to it. It involves some user participation, whereas Ni just spontaneously comes up from...well wherever it comes from.

 

[minkowski thermodynamics]

MORE REFLECTIONS ON Ni

This is almost an exact copy of something I posted on another forum:

The French mathematician Henri Poincare once said , "It is by logic we prove, it is by intuition that we invent."

There is also a famous anecdote about Poincare where a deep, important idea in mathematics came to him in a sudden flash of insight while he was about to go away on vacation. Look up the phrase "as soon as he put his foot on the step of the bus."


S. Chandrasekhar, who predicted the existence of black holes, often wrote about the role of beauty in science and mathematics. The language he used to describe this "beauty" seemed suspiciously similar to "intuition."

Even Einstein, who is held up as the paragon of the NT mind, seemed to make heavy use of his intuition.

What accounts for this?

Maybe there are nT's, while others are Nt's ?(The N dominant vs. the T dominant)

Perhaps there is a cultural factor? I have noticed that Indian scientists and mathematicians readily make use of intuition, and the western scientists who delved into Eastern philosophy (including Einstein, J. Oppenheimer, Schroedinger etc.) all made heavy use of intuition in their work.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here, Poincare uses an analogy involving the game of chess to explain how logic (Ti) is useless without intuition (Ni):

"If you are present at a game of chess, it will not suffice, for the understanding of the game, to know the rules for moving the pieces. That will only enable you to recognize that each move has been made conformably to these rules, and this knowledge will truly have very little value.

Yet this is what the reader of a book on mathematics would do if he were a logician only. To understand the game is wholly another matter; it is to know why]/b] the player moves this piece rather than that other which he could have moved without breaking the rules of the game. It is to perceive the inward reason which makes of this series of successive moves a sort of organized whole."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What Poincare seems to be saying here is that logic can often only give a brute description of the "what". But when it comes to the "why", i.e. perceiving the general theory underlying the what, you need something else, and this is where intuition comes in.


If science was done by people who only employed basic syllogistic logic, we would never have seen as much progress as we have. The way in which people often talk about science seems to me more like an STJ way of thinking as opposed to NT.

 

[minkowski thermodynamics]

No comments?

Are my posts too confusing? I know that clarity in my writing is something that I need to work on (as my professors at college keep oh so "politely" reminding me... ahem)

Does it freak you out? I know. I know. I've always been the "odd man out" (or rather odd boy out), even among other nerds/geeks. Ha.

Time has made me accustomed to it. Yet every once in a while (like right now, for instance), the reality of that distance hits me really hard, and the loneliness sinks in.

Bummmer. *sigh* another "woe is me" post, I know, but goodness knows we all need to get it out of our system every once in a while. I now go to the sweet caress of Lady Sleep, and may my dreams be comforting.

Good night, reader.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Well, I would be inclined to agree with you, I believe. Science really has a lot to do with proving hunches; in order to allow freedom of discovery, you have to allow for some good ol' intuition

 

[Solar Empath]

T

Maybe there are nT's, while others are Nt's ?(The N dominant vs. the T dominant)

Isn't that the difference between NTJ and NTP?

NTJ = N dominant T auxiliary
NTP = N auxiliary T dominant

or am I not understanding the P-J?

 

[Morgain]

Isn't that the difference between NTJ and NTP?

NTJ = N dominant T auxiliary
NTP = N auxiliary T dominant

or am I not understanding the P-J?

nope,

this is how I understand it (by reading wikipedia):

suppose you are NF

of you have a J that means that you have preference for the judgemental function (T or F), when you are P then you prefer the perceiving one (N or S) (sorry for my bad english, it is not easy to write what you want to say if you have to look up a translation and spelling in every sentence )

So when you are NFJ this means that F is extraverted and N is introverted so: NiFe
when you are NFP it is the other way around: NeFi

Then the E or I tells us wich one (the perceiving or the judgemental) is dominant.

When you are E it is the extraverted one that is dominant, when you are I it is the introverted one

INFJ: Ni is dominant and Fe is auxiliary
ENFJ: Fe is dominant and Ni is auxiliary
ENFP: Ne is dominant and Fi auxiliary
INFP: Fi is dominant and Ne auxiliary

correct me if I'm wrong :becky:

 

[Solar Empath]

You are 100% right, I didn't get the differences between IxxJ order and ExxJ order until I read it again after I posted that.