A new, alternative definition of Ni

[Jonathan]

The standard definitions of (i.e., sense of finding the right time for opportunities, fortune-telling, etc.) tend to be a bit mystifying, even to people who might be Ni-dominant.

Here's an alternative definition.

See if this sounds like to you. It's certainly different from in some versions of Socionics, but perhaps more compatible with other versions (?).

is the skill of imagining a complete entity, with complete flexibility over the parameters. People with dominant are good at creating an imaginary model of reality, which they tend to flesh out in greater detail than is typical in imagination.

Another difference between and is that tends to focus on things that have no relevance to the individual. Hence, whereas an -dominant person may be better at thinking up possibilities that can be implemented to start entrepreneurial projects, -dominant people will tend to think about things that don't concern them at all (e.g., what they'd do if they were president, what various countries should do, what's going to happen to the world, and what it would be like to give someone from 200 years ago of tour of modern life).

(Note...I'm aware that some of what I said in the last paragraph is exactly the opposite of some other descriptions of vs. . However, the view presented here is consistent with leading toward solitary imagination, and leading toward greater social interaction, and consistent with most views of introversion and extraversion. Feel free to comment. :-))

-dominant people are often good at writing stories, and are sometimes drawn to the arts. However, if is the second function, they may be more inclined to use their imagination to create mental models for use in scientific investigation.

Using their imagination, INTps are often particularly good at imagining structures; by picturing things in their imagination, they're able to solve logical problems. This ability to picture things may be visual, but it can also involve other senses such as auditory imagination. Because of the ability to imagine structures and solve logical problems, often appears equivalent to some definitions of .

INTps, using their , are often very able to separate reality from fantasy; hence, they're not tied to any imagination, so they can fantasize as much as they want knowing that they can easily come out of it. However, some INFps or INTps who are suffering from depression may have a harder time exiting a fantasy-view of the world, and may be trapped in their own conception, sometimes limiting their activities.

[Joy]

what of Ni as a creative function?

[Jonathan]

what of Ni as a creative function?

As a 2nd function, provides "imagination support" to the designs of ENjs. When carrying out plans, organizing groups, working on scientific or economics theories, giving speeches, convincing a jury, etc., ENjs need to be able to draw on a world view that suits their purpose.

With imagination ability, they can easily and quickly come up with a conception of the way things are...a way of looking things, or different lens through which to see reality.

Often, it's the compelling view of reality that convinces people rather than the actual logical arguments put forth.

[Kristiina]

Jonathan, I agree with what you said. You also had many ideas I have thought about.

NB! This post assumes that I'm ENTj and the INTp/ENTj differences are based on Erkki and me.

IMO,
gathers as many facts as he can to make it easier to speculate (= make it easier to use Ni). The objective is to speculate (in the way you described.)
makes as many models as possible (speculates) to organize facts, uses Ni to make the facts more practical. In other words, ENTj gathers a couple of new facts and then starts to speculate. As she does that, she needs more and more fact (some of them seem like details) and is finally able to build models and play them through in her mind. The objective is to be more efficient/practical/successful. Having a personal system of the necessary facts is indeed similar to Ti-descriptions, although it's rather practical (very close to reality).

-dominant people will tend to think about things that don't concern them at all (e.g., what they'd do if they were president, what various countries should do, what's going to happen to the world, and what it would be like to give someone from 200 years ago of tour of modern life).

This is a general side-effect of Ni, for both Ni-dominant and Ni-creative types. Both do it a lot. The difference is that INTps speculate and ponder, ENTjs speculate and discuss.
When an INTp reaches a conclusion, there is no need to share. If he doesn't, he'll look up information and try again. ENTj wants to discuss it either way (unless if it's only daydreaming or when it's obviously a dead-end).

[Jonathan]

Having a personal system of the necessary facts is indeed similar to Ti-descriptions, although it's rather practical (very close to reality). ...

When an INTp reaches a conclusion, there is no need to share.

You give good insights, but I'll comment on just a few things here...

My view here of is similar to many descriptions, but not to the view of I'd use within this model wherein I'm defining . In this context, I'd define as the ability and tendency to build a set, logical, organized view of how things are, and to follow it. -dominant people may be very careful in reaching decisions, but once they reach them, it's hard to convince them otherwise.

Also, I don't agree that INTps don't need to share. Rather, their more cherished thoughts are usually so unrelated to their surroundings that it's inappropriate to talk about them, unless they find the right person or context.

[Jonathan]

One other thing...I don't you meant this, but I wouldn't want people to be left with the impression that is more "practical" than . when used with , is often used for practical, or pragmatic, ends. But by itself, it's sort of the antithesis of practicality.

[Kristiina]

One other thing...I don't you meant this, but I wouldn't want people to be left with the impression that is more "practical" than . when used with , is often used for practical, or pragmatic, ends. But by itself, it's sort of the antithesis of practicality.

Haha True.
I meant that gets hypothetical results, but + gets rather realistic results. A person could use Ti so well that he ends up with more good ideas than the realistic gamma NT, so I can't say that either one is better. They are just different.

As opposed to types being careful about reaching decisions, I am very quick to reach a conclusion. It's important to understand that my conclusions are just the models that I played through in my mind and that haven't been confuted yet. They are not the "eternal truth". They will be easily invalidated with contradicting facts.

[Jonathan]

As opposed to types being careful about reaching decisions, I am very quick to reach a conclusion. It's important to understand that my conclusions are just the models that I played through in my mind and that haven't been confuted yet. They are not the "eternal truth". They will be easily invalidated with contradicting facts.

That's actually a very good alternate definition of vs. . seeks to make solid, irreversible decisions. makes provisional decisions for a specific purpose at the moment.

I think the distinction sheds much more light on the actual difference between the two Ts than the standard definitions do.

A person could use Ti so well that he ends up with more good ideas than the realistic gamma NT, so I can't say that either one is better. They are just different.

A standard belief within Socionics is that Alpha NTs are better at divergent thinking. I just don't buy it, at least within the context of the version we're considering here. I think ENTps are perhaps the best at rattling off a lot of ideas verbally, but INTps can come up with just as many ideas, although not necessarily in conversation.

I think we need to be very careful of our use of "realistic." The implication here seems to be that Gamma NTs are somehow confined to thinking along the lines of "the way the world is" but hence more likely to come up with ideas that are practical than Alpha NTs.

I'm really not sure about that. I think that each type has its own claim to realism. The realism of INTps comes from the fact that as P types, they realize the need to discover reality instead of just dictate it. The realism of ENTjs perhaps comes from the fact that is most relevant when applied to the external world.

Perhaps one could hypothesize that having one's introverted function in the ego block being a perceiving function makes one cognizant of the need to "discover" reality.

But INTjs probably consider themselves "realistic" because they're organized, logical, and work well with organizational structures. There are really many ways to define "realistic," "practical," etc., and so those terms may not always be helpful....

[Animal]

I like your definition, Jonathan. I can at least understand it and identify it in my thought process much easier than the more spacey definition. Also, your definition seems to jive well with "intuition of possibilities."

[Ms. Kensington]

jonathan, it would help if you contrasted this new definition with a new (yours) definition of Ti.

Also, I still think the new definition would be compatible with saying that time plays a large part of what imaginations the Ni person would have. I noticed all the examples you gave have a historical component while it would have much less a component in an Ne person.

[aestrivex]

if i am INTp, this is exactly Ni. if i'm something else, this is exactly my dominant function, whatever it is.


i cannot find one inconsistency with this description and my view of Ni or my manner of thought.

[Kristiina]

if i am INTp, this is exactly Ni. if i'm something else, this is exactly my dominant function, whatever it is.


i cannot find one inconsistency with this description and my view of Ni or my manner of thought.

told you so. :wink: Ni+Te and Ti might have similar descriptions, but they are in fact quite different.

[Rick]

Another difference between and is that tends to focus on things that have no relevance to the individual. Hence, whereas an -dominant person may be better at thinking up possibilities that can be implemented to start entrepreneurial projects, -dominant people will tend to think about things that don't concern them at all (e.g., what they'd do if they were president, what various countries should do, what's going to happen to the world, and what it would be like to give someone from 200 years ago of tour of modern life).

Here I would say "relevance to the material world," since there can be subjective relevance to the individual.

Good work. I agree with where you're going. Even though is supposedly related to "abstract thinking" -- whatever that is -- it produces motivation to pursue tangible goals in the outside world (even if that means things that have potential but require development) -- [as a leading function]. doesn't seem to produce this motivation at all [as a leading function]. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[implied]

Good work. I agree with where you're going. Even though is supposedly related to "abstract thinking" -- whatever that is -- it produces motivation to pursue tangible goals in the outside world (even if that means things that have potential but require development). doesn't seem to produce this motivation at all. Correct me if I'm wrong.

i like this. slows this down a bit, IMO. / people seem to be very active/goalsy from my point of view.

[MysticSonic]

"i like this. Introverted Intution slows this down a bit, IMO. Extraverted Intution/Introverted Sensing people seem to be very active/goalsy from my point of view."

I've actually gotten exactly the opposite impression(at least for alphas.)

[Rick]

I was referring only to and as leading functions.

[implied]

"i like this. Introverted Intution slows this down a bit, IMO. Extraverted Intution/Introverted Sensing people seem to be very active/goalsy from my point of view."

I've actually gotten exactly the opposite impression(at least for alphas.)

I agree. What Rick said sounds completely backwards from what I've observed.

actually, i take it back. when is paired with , you get something pretty different from paired with .

this is also the most difficult thing in the world to agree on, since everyone thinks their quasi-identical is more active than they are, i believe.

[Jonathan]

since everyone thinks their quasi-identical is more active than they are, i believe.

That's a good observation. I notice that someone may see another type as very active or organized in relation to oneself, without necessarily seeing the situation objectively. However, depending on the person, I think at times one might think one's quasi-identical is lazy...

Rick: Even though is supposedly related to "abstract thinking" -- whatever that is -- it produces motivation to pursue tangible goals in the outside world (even if that means things that have potential but require development) -- [as a leading function]. doesn't seem to produce this motivation at all [as a leading function]. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd agree with this except for the words "at all." I think that often involves imagination about more distant goals, things that may seem too ambitious to achieve, or may not pertain to oneself directly. However, it doesn't necessarily lead to total inertia or meditating all day. Rather, the cycle of interaction with the outside world and pursuing of tangible goals becomes much longer. In many cases, the person may be motivated to write about his/her grand idea, rather than to actually "do" it.

The tangible goal of publishing the written material is then an optional thing, or something the realizes must be done for practical reasons, but may have to force him/herself to do, using the help of other functions.

[Rick]

I'd agree with you there, having seen this in a number of bookish ILIs. Also, it sounds just like Charles Darwin and his delaying publishing The Origin of Species. He had to be persuaded by Thomas Huxley (well, or so the story goes).

[Jonathan]

Ms. Kensington: jonathan, it would help if you contrasted this new definition with a new (yours) definition of Ti.

Also, I still think the new definition would be compatible with saying that time plays a large part of what imaginations the Ni person would have. I noticed all the examples you gave have a historical component while it would have much less a component in an Ne person.

I think the connection with time in this context is that by removing direct connection to the individual in his/her material surroundings as a prerequisite for thinking about something, one may think about things like history, time, prophecy, etc.

But my conception isn't compatible with the view of that -dominant people are somehow more "inside of time" than others, or that involves a special, unique skill to show up places on time or to be finished on time, or that 's primary skill is some sort of fortune-telling ability.

As to a definition for , I'll have to think about it some more; I have mentioned already some things in this thread about , though. The key thing that I see emphasized in one strain of Socionics (the one which is most compatible with this thread) is that as a 1st function involves making a judgment, a determination....Hence, it's not merely a recognition of what's logical, but a tendency to make firm, long-lasting decisions...based on logic and a structured view of the world that seems self-evident to the individual, but may be seen as subjective by others.

Someone in a much earlier post described in terms of how one would act in a shoe store. That person said that a -dominant person would notice all the different patterns and possibilities regarding shoes...i.e, that there are big shoes and little shoes, that there are more shoes in the store with dark colors than light colors, etc....and therefore being completely oblivious as to what shoe to buy. The problem with that view in this strain of Socionics is that it's seeing as a perceiving function rather than as a judging function.

In my view (within the particular version of Socionics I'm considering here), the person would go into the store *knowing* that X brand (New Balance, or whatever) is the only shoe that's any good. This decision would be based on logic and knowledge, and would seem completely self-evident to the person, so that it wouldn't have to be explained.

Anyhow, my purpose in this thread is to describe and I'm not sure my description of is as good. Perhaps MysticSonic or others can fill us in with a 'day in the life of an INTj'....

[Jonathan]

possibilities are dependent on time

Of course time is involved. But when you imagine something, it also involves other things, such as space. Why don't they call it "intuition of the space"? Time is an important factor, but the question is whether it's so primary in as to say that 's main skill is "time"?

[aestrivex]

while i agree that the concept of time with regards to has some validity, there are many misconceptions about it, and in my opinion it is less important than Jonathan's definition at the start of this thread.


In terms of time, is a useful device in determining what might happen if certain other events occur. More importantly, prepares itself or considers its options in this phenomenon (or perhaps this only applies when paired with .) These preparations may be physical preparations or may be mere considerations of what to do if the particular situation arises.

from my own personal experience, one activity from which i do a lot of is making plans for my own future. i don't care about actually carrying these plans out, so if they are not useful in the future i ignore them.

could also be extended to a consideration of events in the past, but i tend to think this is less central to than a consideration of the future.


What is not:
1. Foolproof.
2. Psychic. Nobody could be expected to correctly predict a coin flip 100 times in a row.
3. A fortune teller. While other people have seen as being somethig which can accurately predict an outcome of a given situation, i am not so sure of this. What might do in this regard is have a good estimate of the factors which might be involved in said situation, which allows a hypothesis of the result. However, doesn't immediately transcend the result.
4. . may have some difficulty reaching an adequate conclusion when the decisions of other people are factors of the outcome because it does not, by itself, understand their motivations and thus cannot necessarily predict their actions accurately.

[Phaedrus]

Good work, guys! This is a good thread that might take us a step or two towards a better understanding of, among other things, the function. There are a lot of details discussed here, but if I would summarize my impressions when reading through the posts, I'd say that I basically agree with all of the main points being made.

That I agree with Jonathan and niffweed17 is what we should expect, considering the fact the all three of us are INTps, but it might be worth keeping that fact in mind for the future. Jonathan, niffweed17, and I, could be used as three examples of 100 % sure INTps to be compared with those whose type is not yet confirmed. It is also good to see that Kristiina agrees with most of it, and it probably also confirms that she is an ENTj.

The things Rick and others have said about the difference between and as dominant functions is also worth keeping in mind, since it is true, and I'm not sure it is mentioned in Socionics.

[Mastermind]

His definition sounds pretty accurate if you ask me.