Ne and Ni: User definitions

[AQ]

My experience has been that Ni is not always well explained in Socionics, though it is well documented in terms of experiences. So, this thread is my attempt at getting a broader understanding of and differentiation b/n Ne and Ni.

One serious difference I see is that Ni tries to "slow down" time, whereas Ne-leading types complain of time not being fast enough. Is this your experience/observation too?

Also, when the Socionics descriptions say Ne is for "possibilities", it makes it sound as if Ni ppl can't see that. But, often, I find I am the first to spot potential in a situation and prepare two-three courses of action, so that at least one provides results.

Could the difference primarily be because of Introversion/Extroversion. As an introverted function, Ni doesn't react to what it sees in terms of doing something ... the basic idea being that, over time, this matter will anyhow show up?

[Jarno]

I think it was Mnogood (or some other ILE) who once said that that
Ne = micro possibilities
Ni = macro possibilities

So you are probably on the right track.

[AQ]

Okay, I found that post. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-elements.html.

But I don't want to jump to conclusions, so someone who thinks they understand Mn0good's explanation for sure would be able to expand on it best.

My guess is this would translate as: Using the dimension of time to describe these two, Ne is more focused on the here and now and its connections, while Ni on the distant past or future???

She has also used the word "associations". Why should that not be part of Ni too? They also exhibit the ability to do that.

And, oh, there is this standard definition I have seen used for NeFi that they are excellent psychologists, but so are INFps and INTps (IME). [Cause and effect combined with Fe creative or Fi HA can again help see potential "reasons" for why someone is doing what they are.] Maybe this should be another thread.

I am just trying to cull out some clear defining factor that would draw out the difference between Ne and Ni. Personally, I think the answer may lie in the understanding and use of "time".

[Creepy-male]

I understand that Ne sees time as being like outcomes coming out of junctures. Like, if you rotate your arm through your elbow, where your fist is changes. This is because it's extraverted, and focuses on "What will happen if I flip this switch?" I'd say Ni is more focused on extrapolating where things are headed based on where they've been going. It's like comparing a tree with branches to a projectile with a trajectory.

I'm still not entirely clear on how Ni works, though, so sorry if I'm saying something incredibly wrong about the way your mind works

To maybe clarify, both are time-based. Ne is focused on critical moments and periods and "ingredients" (like "what if?" scenarios).

[Blaze]

My experience has been that Ni is not always well explained in Socionics, though it is well documented in terms of experiences. So, this thread is my attempt at getting a broader understanding of and differentiation b/n Ne and Ni.

One serious difference I see is that Ni tries to "slow down" time, whereas Ne-leading types complain of time not being fast enough. Is this your experience/observation too?

Also, when the Socionics descriptions say Ne is for "possibilities", it makes it sound as if Ni ppl can't see that. But, often, I find I am the first to spot potential in a situation and prepare two-three courses of action, so that at least one provides results.

Could the difference primarily be because of Introversion/Extroversion. As an introverted function, Ni doesn't react to what it sees in terms of doing something ... the basic idea being that, over time, this matter will anyhow show up?

i would say you are on track with this. Ni doesn't want to waste time on possibilities that it thinks won't lead anywhere or are a waste of energy. Ni leading is always IEI or ILI, IP types who don't want to needlessly expend the energy they have available. Ne gets bored with things being the same old. they have an abundance of energy to expend. so Ne always messes with stuff to see what it will do. Ne leading is always ILE or IEE, erratic types who will expend energy to release it out of their system. both Ne and Ni types can readily see potential. their courses of action are what is different and the way they go about things.

my younger daughter is an ILE. she's only 6 but already it's easy to see how sporadic, impulsive she is. she literally is constantly joyfully moving, flitting from one thing to another.

tom on the other hand is IEI, Ni leading, and he won't do anything that he thinks is unecessary. he picks the right moment for the right action so he doesn't have to expend. so it looks like he just sits there. but when he zooms into action, he's pretty efficient.

[Azeroffs]

The best way to understand any function in my opinion is by first referring to what the information element is at its base. Ne is internal static objects meaning it is a static property or characteristic of an object much like Se. The difference is that Se focuses on external or visible unchanging characteristics of an object. Ne sees the internal unchanging characteristics. This is why it is typically associated with potential because it perceives what something is capable of, which translates into possibilities.

Ni is internal dynamic fields. So, basically it wants to make connections (fields) between a flow (dynamic) of the unapparent (internal). This is really abstract, and I still haven't come to full understanding of exactly what that means, but that description does somewhat imply an understanding of time(flow of unapparent connections). My understanding is that dynamic fields(Pi) is an awareness of what is going on around you. Si is focused on the external or apparent occurrences around you, and Ni is the internal unapparent occurrences. Having a strong use of Ni would give one a strong understanding of how one event will lead to another. This translates into probabilities. My understanding is also that Si would perceive physical cause and effect, which is more detailed but short-sighted, but that's for another thread.

So basically the conflict between Ne and Ni is that Ne focuses on what one is capable of achieving while Ni focuses on what will likely happen in the future. Ne says "yes I can" and Ni says "no you can't".

[717495]

I don't like the slowing or speeding of time example. It just doesn't work for me, half of the time I want to slow down time, and the other half I want to speed it up in this example. It depends on the moment. It certainly makes sense, and its catchy. You could prove it with simple logic, but I don't think its true.

I think Ne is more intuitive, meaning, 'perceiving the possibilities and the unknown' happens more by instinct, hunches, and experimentation. With the Ni realm of theoretics, you're actually thinking and reflecting into of this stuff (instead of trying to put it to direct assumption), so you're connecting with causes of evidence, looking to the past for guidance, and putting the pieces together. Ne egos more so reflect into Ti or Fi. It's best not to look at the physical shape of the ego, but what it does. Ne types are more likely to put their ideas to use in the theoretical realm, so of course there will be much greater need to go by intuition of N (the theoretic) which is Ne. For Ni egos, Te or Fe is going to be more intuitive and Ni pensive, so these intuitive hunches are usually from logic or ethics, and this is where discussion is born and Ni takes over. Extroverted elements are where people get lost if they don't value it enough. Because these functions are intuitive. You're jumping from one place to another with no given reason, and you expect others to catch on. Its like that for all of the extroverted elements.

[Brilliand]

isn't about time; is closer to that. sees potential overall - finding concepts that apply across all situations (which works well with the variability of ). deals with the concepts as they come - striking just the right balance between 's jumping clean out of time and 's looking close ahead, to look into the far future (as far as observations permit).

's balance is precisely the opposite - jumping clean out of the imagination and stabilizing the present. will see potential for things to develop in a certain way, whereas sees that an existing concept can be brought into play. Different kinds of potential, different opportunities.

[Park]

isn't about time; is closer to that. sees potential overall - finding concepts that apply across all situations (which works well with the variability of ). deals with the concepts as they come - striking just the right balance between 's jumping clean out of time and 's looking close ahead, to look into the far future (as far as observations permit).

's balance is precisely the opposite - jumping clean out of the imagination and stabilizing the present. will see potential for things to develop in a certain way, whereas sees that an existing concept can be brought into play. Different kinds of potential, different opportunities.

This is very well put.

[Krig the Viking]

The best way to understand any function in my opinion is by first referring to what the information element is at its base. Ne is internal static objects meaning it is a static property or characteristic of an object much like Se. The difference is that Se focuses on external or visible unchanging characteristics of an object. Ne sees the internal unchanging characteristics. This is why it is typically associated with potential because it perceives what something is capable of, which translates into possibilities.

Ni is internal dynamic fields. So, basically it wants to make connections (fields) between a flow (dynamic) of the unapparent (internal). This is really abstract, and I still haven't come to full understanding of exactly what that means, but that description does somewhat imply an understanding of time(flow of unapparent connections). My understanding is that dynamic fields(Pi) is an awareness of what is going on around you. Si is focused on the external or apparent occurrences around you, and Ni is the internal unapparent occurrences. Having a strong use of Ni would give one a strong understanding of how one event will lead to another. This translates into probabilities. My understanding is also that Si would perceive physical cause and effect, which is more detailed but short-sighted, but that's for another thread.

So basically the conflict between Ne and Ni is that Ne focuses on what one is capable of achieving while Ni focuses on what will likely happen in the future. Ne says "yes I can" and Ni says "no you can't".

This is how I see it as well. In my opinion, an understanding of objects and fields, etc., is essential to really understanding the nature of the information elements.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Krig the Viking]

To explain it further, any "negative" polarization of the three main steps of any function (defined by it's respective IE) is subjective, soft, relative, "meta", template: Introverted, Static, Internal. They are not strictly constrained by outside things, by accuracy, but they can be replaced by anything.
The "positive" ones are strict, they are states defined by the exterior, the reality, so hard, objective and absolute.

- Ne: Extroverted (+), Static (-): it deals only with the real initial status of things, the hypothesis, the impression, scenario, this first impression depends on the outside things (Extroversion). The process which should be applied to the scenario is irrelevant (Static).
- Ni: Introverted (-), Dynamic (+): it only deals with what real processes, methods, can be applied to things, no matter what these scenarios are.
Of course, in both cases (Internal), a conclusion, an aim is irrelevant. Both are irrational because process does not depend on the situation, and the reverse.

In semiotics, Ne is the denotation, Ni is the connotation.

Shouldn't Dynamic be the relative "-" one, and Static the absolute "+" one? Static being "things as they are in this unchanging snapshot of time", and Dynamic being "things as they are experienced in the flow of time", or rather, "things as they are relative to the past and future."

This, I think, is why Ni is so hard to understand for so many people (including me). It's "internal dynamics of fields" or "relative relatives of relatives". There's no nice solid absolutes in there to get a handle on.

[Azeroffs]

Ne deals with "what it can be". Ni deals with "what it can become".
Ne reduce possibilities from more to less. Ni develop possibilities from less to more.
Ne discover. Ni predict.

This seems wrong. "What it can be" and "what it can become" are essentially the same thing. Ne doesn't reduce possibilities. No irrational functions reduce. They see what they see. Ni doesn't really develop anything. It perceives trends.

Ni is somehow similar to Te, because it develops (symmetrical: Decisive, Serious).
Ne is with Ti, it reduces towards one point (asymmetrical: Judicious, Merry).

They aren't so much similar as much as they are used together. Te develops from Ni and Ti reduces from Ne.

Maybe it's only me who considers this:
- extroversion is the impression, the initial situation in a mental process
- dynamicity is the next step, path to follow, process to...
- ...externality, which is the conclusion, the aim, the logical result.

extroversion is focus on objects and introversion is focus on fields. Simplified extroversion is focus completely outside of the self. Introversion is a focus that relates objects; usually an object to one's self.

dynamic is changing or flowing, and so easily changes from moment to moment. Static is stable and unchanging, and so is difficult to change.

external/internal is just implicit versus explicit. Obvious/apparent versus invisible unseen.

[Krig the Viking]

This seems wrong. "What it can be" and "what it can become" are essentially the same thing. Ne doesn't reduce possibilities. No irrational functions reduce. They see what they see. Ni doesn't really develop anything. It perceives trends.

They aren't so much similar as much as they are used together. Te develops from Ni and Ti reduces from Ne.

extroversion is focus on objects and introversion is focus on fields. Simplified extroversion is focus completely outside of the self. Introversion is a focus that relates objects; usually an object to one's self.

dynamic is changing or flowing, and so easily changes from moment to moment. Static is stable and unchanging, and so is difficult to change.

external/internal is just implicit versus explicit. Obvious/apparent versus invisible unseen.

I agree with all of that.

Of all the functions, Ne is most similar to Se, and Ni is most similar to Si. Ne perceives the non-visible, abstract properties of objects in the same way that Se perceives the visible, physical properties of objects. Similarly, Ni perceives the non-visible, abstract properties of the changeable connections between things, in the same way that Si perceives the visible physical properties of the changeable connections between things.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Krig the Viking]

No. I used +/- for the sake of speed, but I prefer "positive/negative" or "active/passive" - caution with this last term, "active" in all means that the environment/information/stimuli actively build your mental status.

And no, the things you refer, you refer to the whole information in the IE. I'm talking about the process, where Ni's maintain activity, but imo you were talking about extroversion - about thing Ni applies process, not the process itself.

Extroversion is like this: figuring out your surroundings; hypothesis; prime matter; first sight. Ne is active only on this one.
Dinamicality - what you should do about things; what could (irrational), should (rational) happen next. Ni is active only on this one.
Externality - what would be the result of all this. There are we heading to, aim goal. Ti is active only on this one.

So, what you said applies to the things (belonging to Extroversion), not to the process or action. And yeah, it is normal, as long as Ni's extroversion is internalized, relative (Introverted). So you said exactly what I've written.

Serious question: are you a native speaker of English? I really would like to understand what you're talking about, but I can't seem to make head or tail of it. Maybe there's some context I'm missing, here.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Joy]

The one socionics diagram I've ever made:





lol

[jewels]

yes, Joy, I think that's a good diagram!

I agree w/ this, that Pinocchio said, "Ne discover. Ni predict."

I think that summarizes well the main difference -- Ne is creating entirely NEW concepts or ideas to be applied quickly to change the future. Ni is looking for trends in the past, a system of thought, to predict the future. Ne is looking at new happenings that could affect what occurs. So, Ne is very changeable, where as Ni is more constant.

example...There is a train. It's run on a track for 100 years.

Ni focuses on what the train has done and then draws an expectation based on that to predict what it will do. The train has followed the same route/showed up on time for ages, so might as well expect the train to show up right on schedule. This train is reliable, rich in history and embodies the American Dream of (etc.). Historically, people enjoy eating in the dining cars, so we can expect that will continue. Famous presidents rode on this train. Obama will likely ride on this train soon, just as past presidents have done. Let's wait for the train to arrive at 3:15 and plan on ordering the turkey in the dining car. We can soak up the historical feel.

Ne leaves room for the train to do something unpredicted and "new" -- Maybe the train won't show up on time, due to many factors, such as...the train may be influenced by the economy and a shift to cheaper airline flights reducing riders on trains. The business may suddenly be close to going bankrupt, so they may have reduced train times. Maybe it won't show up at 3:15 then. Will they even have a dining car in that case? Or will that be a cost they cut to save money? I wonder if the trains should be marketed as more "festive" to attract more riders, or maybe used for some other purpose to stay profitable...I wonder how we could accomplish that and what marketing plans would be used. In any event, we need a plan b in case it doesn't show up at 3:15, and maybe we should bring some snacks just in case.

[Azeroffs]

NO!

"Whet can be" is about existing things - check out that I used the word "discovery".
It is like the difference between an archaeologist and a chemist (or a cook).
- the first would figure out where to hit with the shovel to not break the skull of Genghis-Khan, because it can be in some place. It is there, in the existence, in the past.
- the second would figure out what substances can be created by a whatever combination of other substances, quantities to be used, etc. The result is hypothetical, in the future, not existing yet.

Yes, the second example relates to Si (Ni examples would be too abstract) if you think about real people, but you get the idea, both are Introverted and Dynamic.

You're going to need to clarify. I don't really understand the analogy.

Imo, Ne perceive trends, the same as any context, but Ni understand all what these trends will bring, wht the trends are capable of, but also alternative trends that could replace the existing ones.

Yes, they do both perceive trends in a sense, but Ne perceives trends in terms of what singular people, things or ideas are capable of. Ni perceives trends in terms of events. Ne takes a single object and predicts what it might be capable of. Ni takes in all information and connects it together (fields) to predict what will happen.

About reduction, Ne types create by sequentially applying the function many times. It reduces the possibilities to the most (intuitively) sensible few. With each Ne usage, you're closer to the skull. The largest number of odds. But used many times, it exposes the many possible facets of reality. I was not talking about repetitive usage, but a single mental Ne process.

You are wrong. Ne cannot reduce. Information elements - Wikisocion

irrational functions are "raw, unfiltered information."

Theoretically, Ne might tell you that an object has a certain breaking point, and so the Ne user will be careful about how much force s/he uses.

This is too simplistic, imo, it makes sense as a phrase, but not in reality. If Ni would not offer more possibilities, Ni/Te's would be one-way train. Se is the Perceiving IE which assumes a single conclusion/result from a specific context.

What makes the Pi and Je similar? And what makes Ji and Pe similar?
Ne works the same as Se. Just internal properties instead of external ones.

What would Ti reduct from Se, btw?

Ti organizes relevant information, just as Fi does. Ti will accept or reject information from Pe to make coherent judgments.

This is what we already knew. Do they contradict what I added?

Maybe I just didn't understand what you meant, but what you said seemed irrelevant to the IE dichotomies, besides the part on dynamics.

[Joy]

Ni: probabilities
Ne: possibilities

[Azeroffs]

Ne leaves room for the train to do something unpredicted and "new" -- Maybe the train won't show up on time, due to many factors, such as...the train may be influenced by the economy and a shift to cheaper airline flights reducing riders on trains. The business may suddenly be close to going bankrupt, so they may have reduced train times. Maybe it won't show up at 3:15 then. Will they even have a dining car in that case? Or will that be a cost they cut to save money? I wonder if the trains should be marketed as more "festive" to attract more riders, or maybe used for some other purpose to stay profitable...I wonder how we could accomplish that and what marketing plans would be used. In any event, we need a plan b in case it doesn't show up at 3:15, and maybe we should bring some snacks just in case.

This is Ni as well. It's making predictions.

Ne in action is more about pursuits of potential enjoyment or improvement of the self to increase one's own potential. Instead of saying "maybe this will happen or maybe that will happen," Ne says "I don't know what will happen. Let's find out."

Ne is a drive to discover rather than it being a function that allows one to discover.

[Azeroffs]

Ni: probabilities
Ne: possibilities

This is simplistic. Ni is about probabilities, but Ne just sees potential in people and things that gives the illusion of an understanding of possibilities.

[Logos]

This is simplistic. Ni is about probabilities, but Ne just sees potential in people and things that gives the illusion of an understanding of possibilities.

Then could we not say the same about Ni merely giving the illusion of an understanding of probabilities?

This is Ni as well. It's making predictions.

Ne in action is more about pursuits of potential enjoyment or improvement of the self to increase one's own potential. Instead of saying "maybe this will happen or maybe that will happen," Ne says "I don't know what will happen. Let's find out."

Ne is a drive to discover rather than it being a function that allows one to discover.

Jewels was closer.

[Azeroffs]

Then could we not say the same about Ni merely giving the illusion of an understanding of probabilities?

In the sense of predictions of events no. Ni actually does predict events.
Ne understands what specific objects are capable of. So it seems like it can predict what might happen to said objects.

Ni is directly about probabilities
Ne is indirectly about possibilities

In a sense both (and all other functions) can generate possibilities. All functions understand that X might happen because of Y. Y being what is observed by the function.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...Dimensionality

Notice that the base function and 8th function can both understand development into the future. The difference is that Ni is an actual focus on events in the past and future; basically a focus on the realm outside of Si which is the present.

[Logos]

In the sense of predictions of events no. Ni actually does predict events.
Ne understands what specific objects are capable of. So it seems like it can predict what might happen to said objects.

Ni is directly about probabilities
Ne is indirectly about possibilities

In a sense both (and all other functions) can generate possibilities. All functions understand that X might happen because of Y. Y being what is observed by the function.

As Ni deals with fields and connections between Ne, then we can only say that Ni indirectly deals with probabilities in as much as Ne indirectly deals with possibilities.

[Azeroffs]

As Ni deals with fields and connections between Ne, then we can only say that Ni indirectly deals with probabilities in as much as Ne indirectly deals with possibilities.

Ni does not at all deal with connections between Ne. They are entirely separate. The only thing they have in common is that they are internal perceptions. Ni of internal happenings and Ne of internal characteristics.

[717495]

I like where you're going with this, but to be honest, all of your definitions are insanely too simple. There is a bigger picture to the entirety of these elements. We're just using examples like "time" and "possibility" to express our observations. I would have a hard time being assured of identifying with any of this, generally because it has little explanation of how these things are ordered in larger comparison.

[krieger]

Ne is only Limiting in Rational types. This means that one can only really pin-point an Ne idea by looking at it the way a Rational does. It also takes more effort, because Limiting Ne is Creating. It's something you can only understand by piecing together data from multiple sources. It deals with composite things.

[Azeroffs]

I like where you're going with this, but to be honest, all of your definitions are insanely too simple. There is a bigger picture to the entirety of these elements. We're just using examples like "time" and "possibility" to express our observations. I would have a hard time being assured of identifying with any of this, generally because it has little explanation of its order.

I'm just trying to give a general picture of my general understanding. I'm no expert. I just work from the IE dichotomies as a base to see what works from that. Most if not all of my understanding is from what I've read. That's not a very good reason for rejecting the idea though. "It's too simple; it can't be right."

besides.."If it can't be explained simply, then it probably isn't true" - Einstein :tongue:

[Logos]

Ni does not at all deal with connections between Ne. They are entirely separate. The only thing they have in common is that they are internal perceptions. Ni of internal happenings and Ne of internal characteristics.

Saying that Ni does not involve connections of Ne is about like saying that Si does not involve the process of Se. They are opposite sides of the same coin, in which using one function necessarily involves using another. But on the original point, Ni only indirectly results in "powers of prediction." Looking on wikisocion at accepting-Ni: "The ability to transcend the axis of time and understand the cause and effect relationships that occur is also a feature, sometimes resulting in the ability to accurately predict general future trends and outcomes of certain events." The language implies that Ni indirectly predicts in the case of accepting-Ni. For creative-Ni, "The individual likes to predict the further development of the situations and topics that he is interested in." The enjoyment of prediction is still merely an indirect result of the mechanics of Ni. Downplaying the relationship of Ne to possibilities without downplaying the relationship of Ni to prediction is lacking in perspective.

[Azeroffs]

Saying that Ni does not involve connections of Ne is about like saying that Si does not involve the process of Se. They are opposite sides of the same coin, in which using one function necessarily involves using another. But on the original point, Ni only indirectly results in "powers of prediction." Looking on wikisocion at accepting-Ni: "The ability to transcend the axis of time and understand the cause and effect relationships that occur is also a feature, sometimes resulting in the ability to accurately predict general future trends and outcomes of certain events." The language implies that Ni indirectly predicts in the case of accepting-Ni. For creative-Ni, "The individual likes to predict the further development of the situations and topics that he is interested in." The enjoyment of prediction is still merely an indirect result of the mechanics of Ni. Downplaying the relationship of Ne to possibilities without downplaying the relationship of Ni to prediction is lacking in perspective.

Si doesn't involve Se... I know exactly the implications of what I'm saying. They work in the same field but don't involve each other, just like both types of intuition logic and ethics.

Cause and effect is directly related to making predictions. Making predictions is reliant on an understanding of cause and effect.

I'm not down playing Ne. I'm correcting a misunderstanding. Simply put Ne is not in the same playing field. If you're implying that I'm making Ni sound better than Ne, it's simply because Ni is more capable than Ne imo. But they are within completely different fields. You might as well compare Ne to Fi. Comparing Ne and Ni is like comparing apples to oranges. The fact is that Ni has more in common with Si than it does with Ne.

What about 'internal static objects' implies generating possibilities?

[Logos]

Si doesn't involve Se... I know exactly the implications of what I'm saying. They work in the same field but don't involve each other, just like both types of intuition logic and ethics.

Si involves Se through a strong recognition of the static properties of objects that operate in the dynamic unfolding of the physical environment. The difference in types lies in focus on dynamic physicality versus static physicality.

Cause and effect is directly related to making predictions. Making predictions is reliant on an understanding of cause and effect.

Cause and effect is as much directly related to making prediction as recognizing the potential of objects related to recognizing possibilities. That is the point I am trying to make. Claiming that Ne's relationship to possibilities is indirect whereas Ni's relationship to prediction is direct is simply false with no substantial factual or argumentative backing whatsoever.

I'm not down playing Ne. I'm correcting a misunderstanding. Simply put Ne is not in the same playing field. If you're implying that I'm making Ni sound better than Ne, it's simply because Ni is more capable than Ne imo. But they are within completely different fields. You might as well compare Ne to Fi. Comparing Ne and Ni is like comparing apples to oranges. The fact is that Ni has more in common with Si than it does with Ne.

The only misunderstanding in need of correction is your own. Telling me to compare Ne to Fi is a strawman. There is valid value in comparing Ne to Ni. It is hardly a stretch. You can see in this thread that there is a great deal of confusion over the two IE. This provides a clear demonstration as to why such comparisons and clarifications are needed.

But what do you mean that Ni is more capable than Ne? More capable in a general sense or are you talking about a specific issue. You are not entirely clear here.

Besides, where have read that Ne is related to generating possibilities besides in MBTI?

Try the two of the first sentences of the Ne page on Wikisocion:

It is also called Ne, I, intuition of possibilities, or black intuition. Extroverted intuition is generally associated with the ability to recognize possibilities, create new opportunities and new beginnings, recognize talent and natural propensities in others, reconcile differing perspectives and viewpoints, rapidly generate ideas, and be led by one's intellectual curiosity and stimulate curiosity in others.

Wikipedia:

Ne is responsible for understanding the essence (permanent traits) of a thing, estimating opportunities and possibilities for people and things, and visualizing potential outcomes of events. It is responsible for the sense of interest or boredom. Ne will speculate as to why an event occurs, but sees the specific event as static and unalterable.

Socionika.net on Ne:

Contents: Feeling of potential capabilities, possibilities, understanding persistence or potential troubles of objects and phenomena. Evolutional approach to events (not just in Darwin's sense but in the broadest sense of the word 'evolution'). Manifestation: speculations on possibilities and capabilities, comparison, "if I were you..."; understanding the essence without the need of redundant details. "General human values". Reading between the lines. Dedication. Intellectual independence.

You do not have to look hard in Socionics to find the existence of the clear relationship between Ne and generating possibilities.

[Azeroffs]

Si involves Se through a strong recognition of the static properties of objects that operate in the dynamic unfolding of the physical environment. The difference in types lies in focus on dynamic physicality versus static physicality.

The difference is dynamic fields and static objects. An example of how they're so different is Si perceives motion or non-motion and the changing or non-changing of one's surroundings . Si is basically physical awareness. Se draws information from a singular objects that is completely separate from other things around it. Se perceives physical characteristics like size, shape, color, etc.

Cause and effect is as much directly related to making prediction as recognizing the potential of objects related to recognizing possibilities. That is the point I am trying to make. Claiming that Ne's relationship to possibilities is indirect whereas Ni's relationship to prediction is direct is simply false with no substantial factual or argumentative backing whatsoever.

Just as Si is physical awareness of events, Ni is non-physical awareness of events. Ni has more generalized idea of whats going on around itself. Ni can be thought of as an awareness of whats going on beneath the details. So it really understands generalized events. Ni is basically synonymous with the flow of events, and so is synonymous with understanding of what will happen in the future.

Just as Se is about physical characteristics, Ne is non-physical characteristics. These are completely reliant on the specific object and has nothing to do with what is going on around the object. Ne can be thought of as a perception of as something's or someone's personality, intelligence, or any other kind of mental/unapparent skill/characteristic. Ne can then say what that person/thing could become as a result of that.

It has the ability to perceive the potential in an object.
It does not have the ability to say that an even might occur unless it is off the bases that something has the ability to become something else.
This is what Si is for, to materialize this potential, or to make it happen through an understanding of physical cause and effect.

The only misunderstanding in need of correction is your own. Telling me to compare Ne to Fi is a strawman. There is valid value in comparing Ne to Ni. It is hardly a stretch. You can see in this thread that there is a great deal of confusion over the two IE. This provides a clear demonstration as to why such comparisons and clarifications are needed.

Sure there is value in it, but not much more than comparing Ne to Fi. The only reason for the confusion is that they are both labeled intuition.

But what do you mean that Ni is more capable than Ne? More capable in a general sense or are you talking about a specific issue. You are not entirely clear here.

I meant that Ni is, i general, more useful than Ne. But, of course there are things that Ne can do that Ni cannot.
In my opinion introverted IE's are more useful than extroverted ones, this is a really loose view because the functions are all dependent on each other, so I could understand arguments against it.

Try the two of the first sentences of the Ne page on Wikisocion:
Wikipedia:
Socionika.net on Ne:
You do not have to look hard in Socionics to find the existence of the clear relationship between Ne and generating possibilities.

You are correct. It is plastered all over the place, and that's why I edited my post, but this is a skewed view of Ne because you could extrapolate possibilities from any IE. In fact, there would be no point in any of the functions if they couldn't come up with possibilities. Ne is only more associated with coming up with possibilities because in a sense it does understand the possibilities of objects. It is limited to just that however, possibilities of objects. It cannot predict what will or could happen in terms of events. Only what something has the ability to become.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Waddlesworth]

My experience has been that Ni is not always well explained in Socionics, though it is well documented in terms of experiences. So, this thread is my attempt at getting a broader understanding of and differentiation b/n Ne and Ni.

One serious difference I see is that Ni tries to "slow down" time, whereas Ne-leading types complain of time not being fast enough. Is this your experience/observation too?

Also, when the Socionics descriptions say Ne is for "possibilities", it makes it sound as if Ni ppl can't see that. But, often, I find I am the first to spot potential in a situation and prepare two-three courses of action, so that at least one provides results.

Could the difference primarily be because of Introversion/Extroversion. As an introverted function, Ni doesn't react to what it sees in terms of doing something ... the basic idea being that, over time, this matter will anyhow show up?

The fundamental difference between Ne and Ni is the attitude. Ne and Ni differences are defined by how a person FEELS about their external life.

We determine type by asking how a person FEELS about specific things. We define functions in the same way. Is there another, better way? Well, if there is, good, but I haven't seen it.

In conclusion: The fundamental difference between Ne and Ni is attitude. All else can be seen as symptomatic elaboration.