Can someone tell me - introverted intuition Ni

[xyz]

What Ni means exactly?

And please try to limit the use of squares and triangles... they don't help me much

[redbaron]

interconnectedness between things over time. being able to see how one thing leads to another to the end result. being able to pick the right time to act on something so that the chance of achieving the goal is maximized. Knowing how things are likely to unfold.

[xyz]

Being able to pick the right time? Like, predicting something?

[redbaron]

Being able to pick the right time? Like, predicting something?

yeah. a sense that you know what's likely to happen. that you can "see" it somehow. like you can follow the tunnel to the most likely destination.

[The Exception]

At its most fundamental level, internal dynamics of fields.

Socionics :: Information Elements

[redbaron]

At its most fundamental level, internal dynamics of fields.

Socionics :: Information Elements

The definition for Ni given on that site is this:

"intangible connections between processes separated in time and space: sense of when things might happen, patterns of events, abstract representations of processes"

[xkj220]

Redbaron is spot-on. I'll quote here an awesome description that I found somewhere:

"I need to begin this part by saying that I only use "intuition of time" for lack of a better term. Introverted intuition is actually more like "intuition of the balance between intangible forces in the universe and the patterns that subsequently develop from those imbalances." Sounds deep, and it is."

[silverchris9]

What Ni does is exactly what redbaron said:

a sense that you know what's likely to happen. that you can "see" it somehow. like you can follow the tunnel to the most likely destination.

This is my theoretical account of how that happens:

Introverted intuition uses existing information to build a theoretical model of a given process or relationship. From this model, one can extrapolate forward into what will happen next. As a perceiving function, Ni does not only do this consciously, as the verb "build" might imply, but also without conscious intent. However, I use the verb "build" to stress the artificiality of the Ni reality-construct. It is not reality-as-perceived-through-the-senses, but an abstraction away from reality-as-perceived-through-the-senses.

One of the characteristic ways in which Ni differs from other introverted elements (I am thinking of Ti in particular right now), is that it takes what are often referred to as "intuitive leaps". This is how Ni works:

1) reviews the existing set of parts
2) perceives a relationship between them
3) makes an intuitive leap, which subsumes these parts into a theoretical whole (first level of abstraction away from 'reality' as such)
4) deduces other parts from the understanding of the whole (second level of abstraction away from 'reality' as such).

Here's another way of saying it: It's like if you had never seen a car, but you looked at a tire, an engine, a car door, a steering wheel, and a gear shift, and then, based on this, made a guess as to what the relationship between these objects is. Well, this relationship is called a car; a car is the overall whole that relates the individual car parts. Once you make this intuitive leap from car parts to the imaginary 'car', or theoretical-relationship-between-car-parts, you can very easily say what the other parts of the car are. The problem with this analogy is that it's too static rather than dynamic, but I think it still gets the overall point across. Ni is that sort of thinking applied to processes that occur over time.

The weird part of Ni is that the intuitive leap really does feel like perception, rather than construction. It's like you're "seeing" a relationship that was always there, when in reality, I believe that Ni constructs a theoretical relationship that isn't really "there" in some sense. Of course, in another sense, Ni can discover things that are "there" in a much more profound sense than physical objects. So it's a toss-up.

Also, to relate further to what redbaron was saying, I think that the model-building part of Ni occurs unconsciously, so we don't notice ourselves building this theory of how things will change; consciously, we skip straight to the solution. In my four-step process, the second and third steps occur unconsciously, so that we consciously move straight from the first 'part' of the whole to the last 'part'. It is my contention that this occurs through a sometimes-conscious, sometimes-unconscious process of extrapolating an overall model of a process

Also also, as a bonus, here's my explication of internal dynamics of fields: how relationships that cannot directly be perceived by the senses change (there's an argument that says that emotion and stuff like that is actually just understanding subtle physical cues, which is why I say that internal things cannot "directly" be perceived by the senses). Ni tells me how relationships between things that cannot directly be perceived by the senses change.

[crazedrat]

Imagine trying to reduce everything you know to a cause and effect relationship, even the most minute details.

[Jarno]

Being able to pick the right time? Like, predicting something?

having a rough estimate of how things are going to turn out, and a sense of all the wrong things that can happen along the way.

[Singu]

Ni is basically about... pretending to being in the future, and experiencing the sensations of being in that pretend-future-world. It's basically about separating yourself from the present-moment, and imagining yourself in different time periods.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[krieger]

A focus on what experiences have in common. Generalized understanding of phenomena. Unlike Ne it doesn't analyze objects, but situations one finds oneself in.

The understanding is more immediate and less capable of being broken down than the understanding gained from Ne (Limiting when Accepting instead of Limiting when Creating). It makes you understand fundaments that can not be broken down further.

[xyz]

I still don't get how you can "predict" a relationship though...based on what? just a strong hunch?

[xerx]

I still don't get how you can "predict" a relationship though...based on what? just a strong hunch?

That's Ne. I predict things based on hunches or guesses. And I'm usually right.

Ni's predictions are based on past trends, and also based on relevant experiences that person has internalized and mentally abstracted.

[krieger]

I think it's safe to say that all predictions are based on past trends.

[xerx]

I think it's safe to say that all predictions are based on past trends.

Not to the same extent. Ne doesn't directly council trends to nearly equal capacity, and fills in the pieces with minimum recourse to that.

[717495]

Well, in MBTI its defined kind of like that, making predictions based on trends. INTJs and INFJs dominant function does this, and I'm an INTJ so I relate with this. But I'm quite sure that its not really what Ni manifests as in a socionics sense, in a realistic sense. People seem to think some of the functions are basically the same in Socionics as they are in MBTI, which I disagree. Saying it sees trends and makes predictions would be an oversimplification that wouldn't really hit home for many Ni dominants. I agree its an introverted intuition, so its based on one's own experience, although it has a lot more to do with one's internal world of intuitive thoughts, and much less about seeing possibilities in daily things or being creative thinkers on the job how Ne types tend to be. Ni can be very limited in expression because its all very personal, but its much more of a internal characteristic feature, than having just one sole objective purpose (which I think causes the confusion). Generally it manifests in a variety of ways all linked to being an intuitive type, ability to see hidden connections, and gaining sight of grander implications of things, especially having a detached-from-world lifestyle. Focused on mental wanderings and one's own imagination, that skips through all the rationale and realistic parts in order to gain a perception. It's a very deep, internal-searching process, where past experiences and trends come together, allowing one to visit complex landscapes and gain perception of how events might develop, and usually Ni types easily follow one main plan of action or thought, versus Ne, accepting many of the possibilities. It is hard to word thus equally hard to understand for people, since it has a variety of possible applications. Its not so much defined in real world terms because its so subjective, but there have always been better and closer explanations given by each person. One thing I have noticed is that Ne types don't really seem to get it, they don't understand quite well what Ni is, when I try to explain it to them. They get confused by it. Another thing I've noticed is that Ne types compared to Nis usually deal better with gathering and accepting in external information, alpha NTs always requiring the facts and the information, where as Ni don't even find this tiresome in practice, because they usually don't think about it, rather going off intuiting the main idea, their hunches, always developing the exteneral circumstances internally, and that's where I think Ni can often begin to predict the future with little information, because the events subconsciously play out in our head in a sequence and we can come up with startlingly accurate conclusions. Ni types seem to communicate with me on a generally clear level about this process, but its subjectivity will leave it as one of the most unclear information elements, if probably the most vaguely described one. INTps can pretty much always be uncertain about things, because we have Te which seems to rely on facts and information even though we feel like we don't need them, so when we really do need them, it kind of puts our dominant function into serious question, and we spend a lot more time overthinking things without making many certain conclusions. This is a downside that isn't always part, but is frequent enough to state. INTps are deep analytical types, generally less keen on scientific stuff where you have to play around with things like numbers or equations, and where there are principles to everything. Think of Balzac or Jung, who spent their lives conducting research and deeply pondering the sea's perpetual patterns. INTps can be rather eccentric and understand very unique and nonexistent forms, esoterically. One thing that I think will help you see Ni, is that its a deep intuition, compared to Ne which is based more on various interests of reality, of a whatever works, whatever sounds good. Ni is very personal and can't be divided from the subject, that being the person who is witnessing the marvel. It is not objective. This is also why when we have ideas or predictions, they are often too complex and detailed, where as I think Ne types have predictions too, but they are much more generally themed. Their ideas are like the skeleton or essence, and Nis the skin, the little intricate details which we're not even sure fit into a context, that wish to become realized by words, if only the situation was made available.

[FDG]

I still don't get how you can "predict" a relationship though...based on what? just a strong hunch?

For example, abstract similarities between experiences

[crazedrat]

through remembering past causal relationships a Ni dominant type will have a working model which they apply to their present experience in their memory. Similarity between objects is the assumption of this application.. which may be considered weak S. From this application emerges predictions for the future. The application of this working model is ongoing. As things unfold, the application may change. All these relationships are stored in memory. This is the 'dream world' people sometimes reference. Occasionally I go into something like a meditative state where I play around with causal relationships in my dream world, for experimental purposes. I think it's like pruning my thoughts. Throwing out the bad ones, developing better understanding of the good ones. If you try to think of everything as a causal relationship, you might get close to Ni. But dominant Ni is developed in this sort of thinking to a point it's too abstract for a non dominant Ni to emulate. To go into a dream world of imagining causation, you need alot of past experience to rely on. Better to just understand the structure of Ni, and not try to comprehend the daydream aspect of it.

[Suz]

I am reading what you guys are saying, and am identifying my Ni function. Ni is impossible to explain. Daydreaming is how it looks when i am completely inside myself doing Ni. Which happens often. But I can be at various levels of contact with the world, using Ni. Do other IEIs relate?

[xyz]

For example, abstract similarities between experiences

You mean like general themes between stuff thats happened to you in the past?

[betterthan]

Daydreaming (a chunky amount) is an unproductive use of Ni, it's such a waste of time and I find it drains my energy. Also while you are busy daydreaming, you are not fully experiencing what's going on outside your head - you are not using Ni in the present to predict future patterns, you are just focusing on make believe bullshit up in your head, my Ni is much stonger since I stopped the frequent daydreams.

[Marie84]

Pasting some translated sections from Socionics.org
.........................

Intuition of Time

The skill to correlate temporary sections, to plan, to make forecasts, to recover the dynamics of the course of events. Taking this into account to form strategy of actions.

Future, a change of the situation with time, prediction, foresight, gradual development, evolution, planned ascending, the dynamics of changes, temporary flow, imagination, consistency, imperceptible changes - step by step, convergence, convergence

The past, the calculation of errors, the avoidance of danger, anxiety, vague uneasiness, the ripening of the crisis, revolution, jump in the time, the skill to insure against the troubles, sharp shifts, discrepancy, the moment of decisive actions, divergence.
.................

I guess for a comparison of opposites:

Ni- see's "C" and how to get there from "A" via recognizing the process that's needed to get there. The priority is getting to "C", not lingering in "A".

Si- see's "A" and deals with "A" well, but does not see "C". "C" is seen as something irrelevant when still at "A".