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".

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[strrrng]

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

I don't.

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

I guess that's a satisficing simplification, but it doesn't shed any real insight on their actual natures, as (has already been stated) pretty much any functions can "discover" or "predict" something, in different ways.

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.

No -- not at all. If anything, your description of Ni applies better to the stabilizing nature of Si, which maintains a continuity with the environment, and bases its predictions of how things operate, on how they have done so in the past (observable, not intangible like Ni). Ni may reference the past, in order to glean a more long-reaching understanding of the dynamics underpinning a given situation, but it will only do so to hone a vision, not actually make a historically-based prediction; its whole deal is about uprooting the perception of events itself, and transforming it into a more crystallized awareness of what is really going on with them -- simply resorting to historical probability would be fatuous.

So, there is no more "new" or "old" in either Ne or Ni. Do you honestly think delta Ne is geared at new concepts, in the same way that alpha Ne is?

The only "consistency" that Ni boils down to, is an understanding that there is no observable consistency, but that the honing of the internal vision will remain undiluted. Materialization of said thing via Se is probably one of the most apparently inconsistent things, to Si/Ne types (i.e. sporadic and seemingly out of nowhere).

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.

Congratulations -- you have just unwittingly described Si perfectly.

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 a decent example of Ne. Consider how exploring these variations in the train's potential qualities relates to the aforementioned description of its continuity in operation, and you will clearly see how Si/Ne operates.

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.

That is flagrantly incorrect. Ne and Ni are NOT two sides of the same coin -- that would be Ni/Se and Si/Ne. Ne and Ni are only comparable by virtue of being "intuition" functions, i.e. abstract perceptual filters. Other than that, there is nothing significant to align them by.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request