Introverted Intuition Ni of IEIs/INFps

[Aiss]

I found this on INTJ forum:

(...)

/agree^

I've noticed that once an Ni has examined enough points of view and distanced themselves, it leaves behind a residual idea that can difficult to describe in words; it's almost like a unity of subject and object. it's like a limit, in calculus, or something; all these standpoints approach a certain concept, and the more standpoints you've seen, the clearer the concept becomes! I have yet to consolidate this part of Ni with my OP. It also seems consistent with the post I referenced above.

Sometimes I think that there's a 3rd force involved though, and that is the drive; to what end am I using my Ni on social structures? For me it's sometimes to just enjoy sharing laughs amidst clever conversation, but often it's to get a girl. When I don't feel like doing either of these things, I often find myself doing activities reminiscent of Ti or Si, like reading psychology or fantasy, playing the guitar or listening to music. What information element(s) would you associate with reading fantasy, playing WoW, watching adventure movies etc.? They almost seem like Ne to me but I don't know.

I should probably start by mentioning I used to post there and discuss with jndii, among others, largely disagreeing with him. Admittedly I typed as INTP in MBTI, and tried to fit my thought processes into TiNe framework - which wasn't all that difficult, what with functions being interpreted very differently in both systems.

I disagree with a lot behind MBTI Ni and Ne. They're often compared - it happens in socionics as well, to be honest - as "multiple ideas" and "starting from one idea". Whereas in particular situations these may work, it's far from always being the case. For example it's Ni that focuses on following the consequences, which is inseparable part of playing out scenarios. Additionally, this "searching" process is also affected - IMO, it's Gulenko's concept which isn't universally accepted - by forms of thinking, which differ between IEI and ILI - the former uses vortex, the latter dialectical-algorithmic. Neither of these is unique to Ni dominants. Static vs dynamic - focus on ideas vs conceptualization of development - make for a better comparison, from my point of view.

One thing I find undeniable is intuition itself eluding description, which is vague enough for me to largely agree with anyway, though the point about connections not being random is worth noting. This being said, I can't say I agree with jndii's ideas about Ni in general, though I'm probably reading more into this particular post due to previous knowledge.

I find it far easier to relate to your description of unifying viewpoints, which has a kind of double meaning here - once as creative function's assessment of data, and then as emerging context you speak of, which is, I think, the very nature of Ni.

[shorebreaker]

I should probably start by mentioning I used to post there and discuss with jndii, among others, largely disagreeing with him. Admittedly I typed as INTP in MBTI, and tried to fit my thought processes into TiNe framework - which wasn't all that difficult, what with functions being interpreted very differently in both systems.

I disagree with a lot behind MBTI Ni and Ne. They're often compared - it happens in socionics as well, to be honest - as "multiple ideas" and "starting from one idea". Whereas in particular situations these may work, it's far from always being the case. For example it's Ni that focuses on following the consequences, which is inseparable part of playing out scenarios. Additionally, this "searching" process is also affected - IMO, it's Gulenko's concept which isn't universally accepted - by forms of thinking, which differ between IEI and ILI - the former uses vortex, the latter dialectical-algorithmic. Neither of these is unique to Ni dominants. Static vs dynamic - focus on ideas vs conceptualization of development - make for a better comparison, from my point of view.

One thing I find undeniable is intuition itself eluding description, which is vague enough for me to largely agree with anyway, though the point about connections not being random is worth noting. This being said, I can't say I agree with jndii's ideas about Ni in general, though I'm probably reading more into this particular post due to previous knowledge.

I find it far easier to relate to your description of unifying viewpoints, which has a kind of double meaning here - once as creative function's assessment of data, and then as emerging context you speak of, which is, I think, the very nature of Ni.

When I first saw a therapist he had me take the MBTI and I tested INTJ, and since then I've only been sure i was an INXX. MBTI INFJ is just my best guess at this point. The consequences part is definitely a recurring theme I've found with Ni; an awareness of the "rules of the game" yields an awareness of consequences. I've never heard of Gulenko, but I know what you mean about static and dynamic and I'm inclined to agree.

Does this sound somewhat accurate to you?

Over a period of time, Te and Fe gather information about recognition and conveyance of passions, and recognition and application of algorithmic structures, respectively. Application of specific affections or algorithms to achieve specific goals necessitate specific dispositions, and to understand the application toward that goal, Ni prompts us to consciously assume those dispositions for the duration of the process. Awareness of the goal of the process, the process itself, and our voluntary immersion in it are somehow related to the awareness of time.