[INTJ] Musings about a functional distinction between Ne and Ni

Musings about a functional distinction between Ne and Ni

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
Thank Tree23Thanks

This is a discussion on Musings about a functional distinction between Ne and Ni within the INTJ Forum - The Scientists forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; Hello, this is my first thread on this website, but I'm just going to get straight to the point. For ...

  1. #1

    Musings about a functional distinction between Ne and Ni

    Hello, this is my first thread on this website, but I'm just going to get straight to the point. For quite some time now I've found most descriptions of Ne and Ni to be rather useless since they more or less just say the same things. Both functions notice patterns, make connections, dig deep into ideas, and make predictions. This is simply an intuition thing and isn't unique to either function. I think in order to properly differentiate the functions, it is vital to consider the difference in focus the two functions have. This is just a hypothesis, so I would like some constructive feedback on any potential shortcomings in my descriptions.

    To put it simply, I'm arguing that Ni is primarily focused on finding deep insights, while Ne is focused on finding all of the things that connect to a singular insight. Both functions will do things like draw connections, but I think the motivation behind finding said connections is what makes the difference. I speculate that Ne makes connections between ideas simply because it likes to see how many ways a single principle is/can be applied and enjoys seeing the connections between these things simply because it is fun. Ne may go back and think about the underlying mechanism or meaning behind an idea, but only so it can find more situations where that insight also applies. I think this is supported by the fact that dominant or auxiliary Ne is always paired with a dominant or auxiliary introverted judging function. When Ne finds more ideas that stem from a single insight, Ti or Fi can spend more time playing with those ideas and coming to decisions about them internally. I believe for Ni it is the opposite. Ni may bounce around from idea to idea, but it only does that as a means to an end. For Ni, bouncing around from idea to idea, or from observation to observation, only matters insofar as it leads to the production of one deep, original insight that can be acted upon. If the upper Ni user can glean a mind blowing insight from a single observation they will be more than satisfied with that, whereas the Ne user will only care about gleaning a powerful insight if it allows them to spend time finding more tangentially related ideas to think about. I think upper Ni is helped in this matter by the fact that it is always paired with a dom or aux extraverted judging function. Ni will glean an incredible insight about some system, which will then energize the Ni user, and inspire them to take action with Fe or Te.

    To illustrate how I think this might play out in a real example, I'll use something I commonly observe in myself. I'm fairly certain I'm an INTJ, and I find alot of joy in coming up with novel ways to solve problems in mathematics and physics. However, my way of going about it is rather formulaic, I've come to notice. 1. analyze problem 2. Develop hypothesis on how to solve said problem based on some inexplicable realization 3. See if hypothesis is valid 4. repeat process if invalid, move on if valid.... I'm entirely satisfied with coming up with a single original way to solve the problem. Even if there are other ways to solve it, I'll only consider spending a lot of time thinking about them if my own method turns out to be inefficient. I imagine a high Ne user would be more likely to think about how to solve the problem in every conceivable way just for the fun of it, before moving on when they finally run out of potential methods. They might look at the method derived by the Ni user only because it might help them to think about other ways to accomplish the same result.

    I suspect this has a lot to do with the stereotypical INTJ scientist classification. It's a description of how Ni and Te work together to come up with hypotheses and make plans to verify or falsify them. I'd be willing to wager it's much the same for INFJs, ENTJs, and ENFJs. Basically I look at it like this: Ne and Ni are both both circles of data points orbiting one central idea like a ring of stones around the larger boulder they broke off from. Ni will analyze the rocks on the out side, but only to learn what they want about the boulder on the inside, so they can act on their insights. Ne will analyze every rock around the boulder and will sometimes return to study the boulder on the inside, but only so they can see if they may have missed some other rocks on the outside that may have broken off of it.

    Tl;dr Ni works by connecting ideas, noticing patterns, changing perspectives, etc, etc, but only so it can gain some crucial deep insight that Te or Fe can verify and act upon. Ne works by noticing patterns, gaining insights, changing perspectives, etc, etc, but only so it can find more emergent possibilities and ideas that Fi and Ti can play with.

    Tell me if I'm off base.
    Last edited by skilled empiricist; 01-02-2019 at 05:25 AM.
    Sangam swadik and bucolic thanked this post.



  2. #2
    INTJ

    Hello, thanks for sharing all that. I got through about half of it. Paragraphs and organization is easier to read than a wall of text. Wall of text always screams INTP to me for some reason lol.

    Regarding your thoughts, I always felt like a lot of what you described was when Ne was paired with Ti, or even just Ti. Iím not sure I agree on Ni either, but like I said I only read half. Iíll use INTJs as an example to explain my thoughts just because I know our functions best...

    We are products of all 4 functions, but the first 2 are key. For example, intj is Ni>Te, which means that the way we process information is through Ni and the way we communicate our, letís say, findings, is through Te. This is a lot different than someone who is Ni>Se.

    The best way Iíve seen Ni and Ne explained was somewhere deep on this site, and it said that Ni was like a nebula, and we connect different points within our vast nebula of knowledge, and we love adding to our nebulas making them grow larger. Ne was like a supernova, starting at one point and exploding outwards with ideas and possibilities and points. Maybe thereís more to it than that?

  3. #3

    Quote Originally Posted by jeb View Post
    Hello, thanks for sharing all that. I got through about half of it. Paragraphs and organization is easier to read than a wall of text. Wall of text always screams INTP to me for some reason lol.
    Thanks for the feedback. In hindsight, I definitely should have broken it up into chunks.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeb View Post
    Regarding your thoughts, I always felt like a lot of what you described was when Ne was paired with Ti, or even just Ti. I’m not sure I agree on Ni either, but like I said I only read half. I’ll use INTJs as an example to explain my thoughts just because I know our functions best...
    I definitely agree that the pairing of functions makes a big difference. I talked about how I think XiNe/NeXi and NiXe/XeNi work together later in my dissertation. Although, based on the description below, I don't think we actually disagree on Ni either.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeb View Post
    We are products of all 4 functions, but the first 2 are key. For example, intj is Ni>Te, which means that the way we process information is through Ni and the way we communicate our, let’s say, findings, is through Te. This is a lot different than someone who is Ni>Se.
    In part of my wall, I go in depth about how I believe INTJ's use Te with Ni. I definitely agree that Te is how we communicate our insights, but I also think It's generally how we validate our vision. Ni will observe something, then come up with some intuitive inference about, inspiring Te to take action to validate it. This could be through communicating our findings, setting up an experiment, starting up a business or any number of things.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeb View Post
    The best way I’ve seen Ni and Ne explained was somewhere deep on this site, and it said that Ni was like a nebula, and we connect different points within our vast nebula of knowledge, and we love adding to our nebulas making them grow larger. Ne was like a supernova, starting at one point and exploding outwards with ideas and possibilities and points. Maybe there’s more to it than that?
    I definitely think there's a bit more to it than that, and that's the distinction I was trying to make. I think descriptions like that, while elegant, fail to grasp where the difference in Ne and Ni stem from. Ne may be a supernova exploding out from a single point, but after a supernova occurs a nebula is left in its wake. That analogy implies that Ne likes to see possibilities, which is certainly true, but doesn't address the tendency for Ne users to draw connections between concepts and jump from idea to idea. The description of Ni talks about how Ni user constantly consume information, but the way it describes the nebula of knowledge doesn't really seem to cover Ni's primary function. Ni gathers these info and connects it all in order to see the underlying causal factors behind all of them. Ni's most prominent desire, is to gain deep insight into whatever it is observing.
    jeb thanked this post.

  4. #4

    My somewhat uninformed view is that Ne is more exploratory in its nature. It goes more into the abstract and draws dots and lines in areas not always related at all to the subject in matter. (e.g. random)

    Ni, I think, is a bit more like a calculator. more focused, less random. You feed in 2+2 and it replies 4. But you don't know how it concluded 4.
    Te, being more objective, needs to double check the results from Ni.

    Although that Ni-calculator is capable of more then just simple math; it can "calculate" more subjective and abstract things to.
    ewdenore, skilled empiricist, jeb and 2 others thanked this post.

  5. #5

    Quote Originally Posted by Eu_citzen View Post
    My somewhat uninformed view is that Ne is more exploratory in its nature. It goes more into the abstract and draws dots and lines in areas not always related at all to the subject in matter. (e.g. random)

    Ni, I think, is a bit more like a calculator. more focused, less random. You feed in 2+2 and it replies 4. But you don't know how it concluded 4.
    Te, being more objective, needs to double check the results from Ni.

    Although that Ni-calculator is capable of more then just simple math; it can "calculate" more subjective and abstract things to.
    I almost completely agree with this description, especially in regard to the difference in focus. I think the calculator like nature of Ni is fueled by its desire to gain deep, singular insights about ideas. I definitely agree Ne is more exploratory. In essence, I think the difference is Ne explores for the joy of exploring and finding new things so it can explore some more. Everything it does is in the service of finding more things to explore. Ni on the other hand, may explore on occasion, but only so it can find some hidden gem that can be used or verified by Te in some context.
    jeb thanked this post.

  6. #6

    Te is feeding Ni
    Ne is feeding Ti

    It is my shortest understanding so far and i find it satisfying enough.

    Sent sans PC

  7. #7

    Quote Originally Posted by the_skilled_objectivist View Post
    I almost completely agree with this description, especially in regard to the difference in focus. I think the calculator like nature of Ni is fueled by its desire to gain deep, singular insights about ideas. I definitely agree Ne is more exploratory. In essence, I think the difference is Ne explores for the joy of exploring and finding new things so it can explore some more. Everything it does is in the service of finding more things to explore. Ni on the other hand, may explore on occasion, but only so it can find some hidden gem that can be used or verified by Te in some context.
    Ni being an introverted function I imagine it's driven by the individual and his/her preferences.
    So if it goes exploring, it's because the individual wants to. It does not go exploring for the sake of exploring.
    skilled empiricist, jeb and lilysocks thanked this post.

  8. #8

    Quote Originally Posted by Eu_citzen View Post
    Ni being an introverted function I imagine it's driven by the individual and his/her preferences.
    So if it goes exploring, it's because the individual wants to. It does not go exploring for the sake of exploring.
    That's an interesting take that may very well be true. In INTJs specifically, I'd imagine tertiary Fi would have a lot to do with that as well. Afterall, Fi is associated with personal values, so it stands to reason that such strong values would be a powerful driving force behind Ni insights and exploration.
    jeb thanked this post.

  9. #9

    Quote Originally Posted by the_skilled_objectivist View Post
    That's an interesting take that may very well be true. In INTJs specifically, I'd imagine tertiary Fi would have a lot to do with that as well. Afterall, Fi is associated with personal values, so it stands to reason that such strong values would be a powerful driving force behind Ni insights and exploration.
    Not sure, adding in Fi seems like a bit much speculation for me atm. I think Ni could be "programmed", but I can't specifically think how.

  10. #10
    INTJ

    @the_skilled_objectivist

    Thanks for your thoughtful reply! Iím now interested in reading your dissertation in its entirety when I have some free time tonight!


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Ni+Ti combo - distinction between Ni and Ti (INFJs and ISTPs)
    By Baphomet in forum Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-15-2016, 04:17 PM
  2. [INFJ] Questioning the distinction between Ni and Ti within Ni+Ti combo (INFJs and ISTPs)
    By Baphomet in forum INFJ Forum - The Protectors
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-13-2016, 08:39 AM
  3. Distinction between (INF)J and (INF)P?
    By fawning in forum What's my personality type?
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-12-2015, 12:25 AM
  4. [INFJ] Is this a good distinction between Judging and Perceiving?
    By Euphoria04 in forum INFJ Forum - The Protectors
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-02-2013, 07:49 AM
  5. [INFJ] Tangible distinction between Fe and Te?
    By chwoey in forum INFJ Forum - The Protectors
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-13-2013, 10:59 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:38 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0