Defining Ni (my theory)

[wesleh00]

Even as much as I've read about Introverted Intuition, it still seems very enigmatic to me. But I think I've found a proficiently coherent way to describe it.

---

For simplification, I define Fi and Ti, or Ji in general, as internal structure.

---

For all 8 4 types, Ni's symmetrical counter-part (in the order of the functions) is Ji (Ti or Fi). This means that they always share the same dimensionality. This means that:

• For a person who is base Ji, they have 4D, unconscious Ni. This person will also value Ji and devalue Ni.
• For a person who is base Ni, they have 4D, unconscious Ji. This person will also value Ni and devalue Ji.

For this next part, I will now define Ni as fluidity (in the most vague sense). We now see that Ji deals with internal structure and Ni deals with internal fluidity. That there exists a quality called "fluidity" in relation to a structure

Given the premise above, we can now theorize two different things:

1. Within a structure, there exists fluidity
   or
2. Fluidity gives way to a structure

In (1), we can see that the priority lies within the structure, and fluidity only exists (secondarily) within the structure. This describes someone who is Base Ji because they value structure (Ji) and devalue fluidity (Ni). To put it another way; structure comes first, then fluidity or fluidity is derived from structure.

In (2), we can see that the priority lies within the fluidity, and structure only exists (secondarily) within the fluidity. This describes someone who is
Base Ni because they value fluidity (Ni) and devalue structure (Ji). To put it another way; fluidity comes first, then structure or structure is integrated from fluidity.

---

[Important Note: Alright, if you've made it this far, and vaguely understand it, then I hope to tie up some loose ends for you in this section. The next two sections will be more explanation of the theory, and the final section will be about the implications of the theory (i.e., the context surrounding my premises) or problems with the theory.]


We now see that the relationship between Ni and Ji is not mutually exclusive, meaning that they have to exist within the context of each other.


Right here, one might ask: "How can we explain Ti and Fi with more ease, but not Ni?" This is because Ti and Fi are judging functions, where the definition of judging implies a conscious effort. Ni on the other hand is a perceiving function, where the definition of perceiving implies a more subdued, background effort.


I will also make an assumption for this theory to make more sense, that perceiving functions are the most subjective functions, and thus, the hardest to objectively define, and thus, agree upon. The next assumption would be that out of all the perceiving functions, Ni is the most subjective function because intuition as a definition is already highly vague and introversion means personal (which means more clouding->subjectivity), thus, it is the most subjective function out of all.


If this is true, then we can see that to simply define Ni without the context of another function, in a way that could be understood by others, is virtually impossible.

In this post, I've already defined Ni as a vague sense of fluidity, but this is within the context of Ji. We can see how enigmatic this definition is already; so trying to define Ni without any context would be defining an enigma of an enigma.

Now, this is where we will basically jump off the deep end.

---

Up to now, I've defined Ni as internal fluidity.

In Socionics, Ni is referred to as temporal intuition or simply Time (T). How then, do we relate my definition back to this essence of time? I will now
show you.


What do we think of when we think of structure? Models, Graphs, Theories, Logical Sequences, Relationships? A definition I found was:


"The arrangement of and relations between the parts of elements of something complex."

For the sake of simplification, let's pick a very archaic definition of structure, which is, anything in the 3rd dimension . Anything that has length, width, and height has structure.


Given this definition, we can relate it back to when I said:


Structure is integrated from fluidity or fluidity is derived from structure.


We can now see the relationship between [structure, fluidity] and the mathematical concepts of [derivatives, integrations].

For a quick refresher:

• The derivative of position is velocity ---------> d/dx(position) = velocity
• The derivative of velocity is acceleration ----> d/dx(velocity) = acceleration
• and so forth...

Likewise:

• The integration(anti-derivative) of acceleration is velocity ------> Integral(acceleration) = velocity
• The integration(anti-derivative) of velocity is position ------> Integral(velocity) = position

In this same way, this means for us that:

• The derivative of structure is fluidity
• The integration(anti-derivative) of fluidity is structure

And if we plug-in the definition of structure to the formula we just created, it would look like:

• The derivative of the 3rd dimension is fluidity
• The integration(anti-derivative) of fluidity is the 3rd dimension

Okay, then what the hell is fluidity then? We can see from these equations that fluidity is the derivative of structure. In other words, fluidity, is one order higher than the 3rd dimension, which would be the 4th dimension or space-time.

We then get:

• The derivative of the the 3rd dimension is the 4th dimension (space-time)
• The integration(anti-derivative) of the 4th dimension is the 3rd dimension

​
In this sense, we see that someone who is base Ni derives structure from their experience of time. And, someone who is base Ji derives time from their experience of structure. However, the base Ni is in it FOR time itself, whereas the base Ji is in it FOR the structure itself. Now we can see how Ni is in relation to time.

Now, this is where the theory can split into two, and I will explain both branches.

(i) In branch one, we can say fluidity is the derivative of structure; note, this is our definition! If this is true, then we can say that fluidity is almost a "byproduct" of structure. Meaning, given an equation P(x) where x is an arbitrary structure, and given an arbitrary structure a; we can say P(a) = y where y is the fluidity of the structure; "a" went through some blackbox P(x) and came out y. This raises some big implications. That somehow, a person with base Ni is mostly experiencing a byproduct of something even more enigmatic. If this is true, then I believe this accounts for why Ni is so hard to define or explain. They are experiencing a product, not a raw, pure form of it. This is why, in my theory, Ni needs context of another function.

(ii) In this branch, we question the contextual premise. What if, structure and fluidity are mutually exclusive? And that, they are only interacting on some plane we are able to experience? If this is true, then this would be saying that Ni (in general) is accessing something so complex, that it even lacks a structure, which is almost incomprehensible. This is why I believe it can get tied into "the unconscious" because the unconscious has some sort of enigmatic structure we just cannot fully comprehend.



[END OF THEORY]

---

I will add any thoughts here or any responses that I like. For now, nothing.

Edit: I just realized for some types, the counterpart of Ji is Si instead of Ni. I guess this post mostly pertains to those 8 types then lol. Nonetheless, I still believe my theory holds weight.

Edit: updated again. thanks! @AWellArmedCat

Edit: read @CR400AF 's post for some different clarifications and counterpoints.

[AWellArmedCat]

That was a remarkably Ti attempt at describing Ni. It was interesting to read

However, I feel like maybe you overlooked something rather early on

For all types, Ni's symmetrical counter-part (in the order of the functions) is Ji (Ti or Fi). This means that they always share the same dimensionality. This means that:

• For a person who is base Ji, they have 4D, unconscious Ni. This person will also value Ji and devalue Ni.
• For a person who is base Ni, they have 4D, unconscious Ji. This person will also value Ni and devalue Ji.

ESI's and LSIs both have 2D, unconscious Ni, as well as valuing both their base Ji function AND Ni. What you're saying could only therefor apply to the intuitive Ji bases (EII and LII)

[wesleh00]

That was a remarkably Ti attempt at describing Ni. It was interesting to read

However, I feel like maybe you overlooked something rather early on

ESI's and LSIs both have 2D, unconscious Ni, as well as valuing both their base Ji function AND Ni. What you're saying could only therefor apply to the intuitive Ji bases (EII and LII)

Wow! I realized that only 8 types could pair Ni and Ji. But completely forgot that I also stated them in terms of valued / unvalued. Thank you! i will update accordingly.

[AWellArmedCat]

Wow! I realized that only 8 types could pair Ni and Ji. But completely forgot that I also stated them in terms of valued / unvalued. Thank you! i will update accordingly.

You're welcome ^-^

[AWellArmedCat]

I like that you're thinking about how the elements relate to each other rather than how they act in isolation. In a Ti way I'm not sure how to add what you're saying aside from my earlier correction, but those who would maybe prefer a less Ti-heavy description of Ni, I'll give that a shot.

Ni perceives the patterns behind phenomena on an instinctual level. Like a neural network it collects snapshots of millions of instances provided by Se and looks through the snapshots to see the common motion behind them. Ni recognizes that there is a relatively limited set of patterns fundamental to existence and perceives those patterns pseudo-directly rather than needing to uncover them from scratch every single time. It does so by eliminating "noise" (Si noise in particular, but Ne as well - hence why these functions must be devalued if Ni is valued). This elimination of noise is also why Ni base types are often oblivious to elements of their surroundings which seem obvious to others, and why they can be prone to forgetting things others may not struggle to remember while distinctly remembering others with an intense clarity. Ni, on some level, is a filter. Some information is born of the primordial chaos, and has no direct relation to the deep patterns. It is simply noise and distraction. Once the noise is eliminated, Ni can can easily see how the raven is like a writing desk. It will immediately have some insight when trying something new like horseback riding for example, and realize that really it's not so different from that one game with the tea cups their grandmother taught them years ago, and somehow it will understand some tricky element of horseback riding "naturally". Of course it isn't a super power. Ni base types definitely aren't good at everything they try immediately. We do get little hints from our Ni that help us though, and those hints likely wouldn't make much sense to an outside observer. Ni is not born knowing what all the patterns are or how many of them exist, but over time, as it is fed by Se, it learns them. As it learns the patterns it plugs them into it's grand matrix. It is appropriate to think of Ni as ultimately a comprehensive thing plugging bits into itself. It grows and mutates and changes shape as it needs to in order to accommodate and account for new patterns it discovers, or revisions to the old ones. The more it's fed, the more accurate its intuitions become. For IEIs the matrix undergoes further organization via Ti. ILIs presumably by Fi. This is where it connects to what you're trying to get at, I believe. However, as I've described, Ni is very much a thing in and of itself too. It isn't *just* fluidity. At the most basic level it's the perception of a thing's spirit - it's Platonic form. It watches the movement of the water, not the whale

[persimmonism]

@wesleh00

I have been teaching my friend about Socionics. She is Si-seeking and always asks me-- what is Si? yeah but what is it exactly? Since I'm only 2D Ti, my explanations aren't particularly rigorous and seek more to illustrate rather than define (in hopes that enough glimpses will help form a natural, intuitive picture-- pretty Ni). Hey, they aren't structured, like yours here.

But, I did find a simple definition for Si, and therefore Ni, that I'm extremely satisfied with: physical homeostasis and mental homeostasis. In reading your definition, I was reminded of that, seeing as fluidity is an essential process of obtaining homeostasis. Thoughts?

It's also easy to relate Pe with Pi with the definition of homeostasis, seeing as Pi is lowest-energy/least-effort/naturally flows into balance/calm.., though I don't have an exact word for it. I mean, like "homeostasis," but for Pe.
I like that you put forward a good word to sum up Ji: structure. So, what word(s) would you assign to Je?
I also enjoyed how you relate Pi with Ji as a framework for thinking of Pi. I reflexively link Pi with Pe in order to think of Pi, so it was an interesting new angle for me.

[wesleh00]

@wesleh00

I have been teaching my friend about Socionics. She is Si-seeking and always asks me-- what is Si? yeah but what is it exactly? Since I'm only 2D Ti, my explanations aren't particularly rigorous and seek more to illustrate rather than define (in hopes that enough glimpses will help form a natural, intuitive picture-- pretty Ni). Hey, they aren't structured, like yours here.

But, I did find a simple definition for Si, and therefore Ni, that I'm extremely satisfied with: physical homeostasis and mental homeostasis. In reading your definition, I was reminded of that, seeing as fluidity is an essential process of obtaining homeostasis. Thoughts?

It's also easy to relate Pe with Pi with the definition of homeostasis, seeing as Pi is lowest-energy/least-effort/naturally flows into balance/calm.., though I don't have an exact word for it. I mean, like "homeostasis," but for Pe.
I like that you put forward a good word to sum up Ji: structure. So, what word(s) would you assign to Je?
I also enjoyed how you relate Pi with Ji as a framework for thinking of Pi. I reflexively link Pi with Pe in order to think of Pi, so it was an interesting new angle for me.

Yep. To me, this rings true. To go off of it, I would view "mental homeostasis" as being able to maneuver (fluidity->Ni) because homeostasis implies some sort of natural flow or state to be reached versus having an all encompassing idea to account for everything (Ji).

[Tallmo]

@wesleh00

I have been teaching my friend about Socionics. She is Si-seeking and always asks me-- what is Si? yeah but what is it exactly? Since I'm only 2D Ti, my explanations aren't particularly rigorous and seek more to illustrate rather than define (in hopes that enough glimpses will help form a natural, intuitive picture-- pretty Ni). Hey, they aren't structured, like yours here.

But, I did find a simple definition for Si, and therefore Ni, that I'm extremely satisfied with: physical homeostasis and mental homeostasis. In reading your definition, I was reminded of that, seeing as fluidity is an essential process of obtaining homeostasis. Thoughts?

People mention this, homeostasis, quite often. But it is not Si, but Se ignoring. You can't really observe Si directly so what people see is the homeostasis behaviour, maintaining balance, neutralizing impact from outside. But that's the Se ignoring.

Of course Si base always comes with Se ignoring, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

Jung writes about the Si type:

But, where the influence of the object does not entirely succeed, it encounters a benevolent neutrality, disclosing little sympathy, yet constantly striving to reassure and adjust. The too-low is raised a little, the too-high is made a little lower; the enthusiastic is damped, the [p. 503] extravagant restrained; and the unusual brought within the 'correct' formula: all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds.

Si is really irrational, introverted and sensation. It doesn't do anything but observe impressions. But for this to happen the external influence (Se) has to be reduced.

If you want to link Si and Ni you could say that Si senses the inner impressions, but Ni goes deeper, and finds the source in the eternal images. Or check out what Jung says in the Ni section.

[CR400AF]

Let me post some comments. At first I point out some descriptions that I personally don't agree. Then I will add some comments on my understanding of Ni as a LII-Ne.

Even as much as I've read about Introverted Intuition, it still seems very enigmatic to me.

Actually, Jung describes Ni pretty well. I suggest you to read him carefully. I will add some of my interpretations at the end of this post.

For this next part, I will now define Ni as fluidity (in the most vague sense). We now see that Ji deals with internal structure and Ni deals with internal fluidity. That there exists a quality called "fluidity" in relation to a structure

For me, this seems to simply be Static vs Dynamic in the dichotomy-based definitions in Model A. Ti and Fi are static, while Ni and Si are dynamic.

This describes someone who is Base Ni because they value fluidity (Ni) and devalue structure (Ji).

Counterexample: IEI is Ni-leading, but they have Ti-activating and they value Ti. Similarly, ILIs value Fi.

Right here, one might ask: "How can we explain Ti and Fi with more ease, but not Ni?" This is because Ti and Fi are judging functions, where the definition of judging implies a conscious effort. Ni on the other hand is a perceiving function, where the definition of perceiving implies a more subdued, background effort.

In Model A's dichotomy-based definition system, all 8 IME are described equally. And Ni is not necessarily the hardest one to describe. For instance if you read Aushra's definition carefully, you will find that her worst description is the one of Ti. This is probably due to the fact that she is ILE and she uses Ti with Te in the background. You can see the Te-demonstrative in her description. Her description of Ni is way better in my understanding.

In my opinion, many find Ni hard to understand because they are somewhat influenced by wrong interpretations of Jung (eg. MBTI). Such systems often have a wrong illustration in the Jungian definition of introversion, which will highly influence how one understands Ni.

I will also make an assumption for this theory to make more sense, that perceiving functions are the most subjective functions, and thus, the hardest to objectively define, and thus, agree upon. The next assumption would be that out of all the perceiving functions, Ni is the most subjective function because intuition as a definition is already highly vague and introversion means personal (which means more clouding->subjectivity), thus, it is the most subjective function out of all.

Introversion ≠ personal ! Read this post for details. This is a common misinterpretation in MBTI communities.

Introverted elements are highly global, actually. They bearing the perspectives from the collective unconsciousness, which is common around all the people.

How to understand Ni

In Jung's Psychological Types, he writes a good example:

Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades.

In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects.

Actually I don't have many to add. This is a very good explanation of how Ni works. Let me analyze it:

When the person is sick, he links it with a image from the collective unconsciousness, which is "man pierced through the heart". Then, the image contains information about how things change, unfold and finally develop. Also, it contains information about how things becomes this image. Hence, Ni project the dynamic process from the collective unconsciousness to the real thing. So when he feels sick (vertigo), he predicts how he gets sick, how will he feel in the future and how will his vertigo fades finally.

As Aushra points out:

Such an individual perceives information from without as feelings about the future, past, and present.

I think Jung and Aushra describe Ni pretty well. And as a LII-Ne I can recognize my Ni-demonstrative since I studied Socionics. For another example I would refer you to Jung's Memories, Dreams, Reflections. He, as another LII-Ne, describes his feeling of his Ni-demonstrative clearly in this book.

I only recommend Jung's texts and the Model A definition.

[adage]

Introversion ≠ personal ! Read this post for details. This is a common misinterpretation in MBTI communities.

Introverted elements are highly global, actually. They bearing the perspectives from the collective unconsciousness, which is common around all the people.

I never liked the idea of collective consciousness for Ni, it seems a heavy burden to bare.

Then I thought of wedding customs, how most of the world uses red for various reasons; luck, love... While in europe/america it's white for purity. The root of the white dress is supposeddly Queen Victoria. She wanted a white dress for purity and people started doing alike, is it true I haven't 100% certainty.
But those colors, they are only a physical manisfestation of one thing: hope for a successful union.
That's a very universal thing.

What I think is that with Ni, too much emphasis is put on the image or symbol that is only the visible part of the iceberg, like the wedding dress' color, while the deeper meaning behind gets lost in such details.
The symbols are a start and they don't matter in the end, it's the process of seeking the roots of it and where it leads that's truly important, after, the image is abandoned. It has served its purpose, it is no longer useful to hang unto it.

Perhaps, what I'm really seeing is a bunch of static types trying to explain a dynamic elements in a static way and it seems off. It seems a bit backward, tends to make me hang on the symbols and it isn't a good place for me.
Ime, those symbols also tend to make one alienated from others if too much emphasis is put on it, as the image tends to be personal, but what it refers to is universal.

I find pretty much all I read here a good representation of Ni, but I didn't read 100% of this thread. Too tired for so much Ti, sorry.

[Still Alive]

it is your sovl

[wesleh00]

it is your sovl

???

[DogOfDanger]

"We now see that the relationship between Ni and Ji is not mutually exclusive, meaning that they have to exist within the context of each other."
Things always exist in context with one another, that's inescapable and true of any combination of functions, or anything really.

Ti is an external function, as far as relationships between functions Ni is more closely related to Fi - both are internal and introverted. Fi is integrating the information into a core, internally consistent state... it's a static function. With Ni the information has already been internally resolved by Fi, and it begins emerging spontaneously. That is really all there is to it, augusta came up with a very confused hierarchy of function relationships based on her mentally insane ideals of rationalism and duality, but the information aspects is all you really need - internal or external functions share a close relationship, dynamic or static functions share a close relationship... the introverted / extraverted axis further distinguishes them - T and S are focused on the external world, N and F are focused on the internal world... and there is no boundary that defines the structure of relationships, just a collection of functions that all cooperate to process information with some people being more fixed on certain functions than others, that's all there is to it really.

[wesleh00]

Actually, Jung describes Ni pretty well. I suggest you to read him carefully. I will add some of my interpretations at the end of this post.

Fair enough, I will look into it closer. There are multiple interpretations of Ni from multiple, different, (and usually somewhat to really) reputable sources. If I could understand Ni as it really is, then I would, but obviously, I can't, so I am trying to define it in a way I can. It might register in your brain easier / differently than mine.

This post is written from how I process it in my brain. Socionics is too decentralized to agree on a singular, correct definition of Ni. My idea is a congelation of all the subtle differences and variations I've seen in describing it over my time trying to understand it. And instead of also trying to define it's characteristics, I choose a more epistemological / structural route because I believe I would be falling into the same dead-ends otherwise.

Counterexample: IEI is Ni-leading, but they have Ti-activating and they value Ti. Similarly, ILIs value Fi.

Yes this is true. Looking back on what i wrote, I think I pre-consciously skimped out on some more nitty gritty context because I wanted to write while it was still fresh and clear in my head. When I attempt to ruminate on a singular thing for too long, I can become so intertwined in it, I forget where I am; and thus, the things that had meaning / made sense to me up to that point, I might no longer understand.

To clarify, i was implying that:

-A person with base, 4D Ni also has 4D Ji (but this contextual Ji is unvalued)
-Conversely, a person with base, 4D Ji (who is also intuitive) has 4D Ni (but it is unvalued)

And where I was going was: Why do these types have such strong Ji, but it's unvalued? Conversely, for strong, unvalued Ni.

For me, this seems to simply be Static vs Dynamic in the dichotomy-based definitions in Model A. Ti and Fi are static, while Ni and Si are dynamic.

I included that it is fluidity in the most vague sense (i.e., non-contextual) to make sure people didn't have to go: what is fluidity? Maybe it was too general. I was trying to capture that innate, unconscious understanding that people of a word when they say it or recognize it, but don't consciously register it.

Introversion ≠ personal ! Read this post for details. This is a common misinterpretation in MBTI communities.

Introverted elements are highly global, actually. They bearing the perspectives from the collective unconsciousness, which is common around all the people.

I haven't read the post but will sometime. IMO, MBTI Ni and Socionics Ni share a common (obviously unseen) focal point for explaining Ni. I am not convinced that MBTI explanations have no value in Socionics. I believe there are points at which they can converge, and thus, I don't (usually) view any systems as mutually exclusive. I'm not educated on the collective unconscious. But it seems to me, it would be more of an opinion on whether you agreed with his theory of the collective unconscious or a more Freudian theory. So in respect to this, I think we just have differing opinions.

[wesleh00]

Things always exist in context with one another, that's inescapable and true of any combination of functions, or anything really.

I agree with you for the most part (see further down). But, there are people out there who disagree. My post wasn't to prove this, I included this for clarity in my theory. I for one, am always on the fence between objectivity and subjectivity. To clarify my stance further: I think most things exist within context of each other, but I for one, cannot say all things exist within the context of each other.

Ti is an external function, as far as relationships between functions Ni is more closely related to Fi - both are internal and introverted. Fi is integrating the information into a core, internally consistent state... it's a static function. With Ni the information has already been internally resolved by Fi, and it begins emerging spontaneously. That is really all there is to it, augusta came up with a very confused hierarchy of function relationships based on her mentally insane ideals of rationalism and duality, but the information aspects is all you really need - internal or external functions share a close relationship, dynamic or static functions share a close relationship... the introverted / extraverted axis further distinguishes them - T and S are focused on the external world, N and F are focused on the internal world... and there is no boundary that defines the structure of relationships, just a collection of functions that all cooperate to process information with some people being more fixed on certain functions than others, that's all there is to it really.

I'm going to put this out there first and foremost. That definition probably makes sense to you, you understand it, and it resonates within your internal world of understanding things, and I can respect that. But let me point out to you how I view it:

Fi is integrating the information into a core

But what does this actually mean? What is a core? And depending on what a core is, the definition of integrating could change.

With Ni the information has already been internally resolved by Fi, and it begins emerging spontaneously

I go, what information? Like what is it actually? Audio? Visuals? An internal image? A feeling?

What does internally resolved mean? Is it a feeling? A state of mind? How do you know when that has occurred?


My intention is not to degrade or nitpick your definition. Actually, I am grateful you took the time to respond to me. But what I am saying is, there is an unavoidable characteristic of (I guess) all IMEs where when people try to explain the characteristics of them, you get the feeling that they understand the unconscious signifiers, but those are subjective, and thus, it might signify something to me slightly different, or I may not even understand it.

What I tried to do with my definition of Ni is explain a structure to it, rather than describe its characteristics in of itself; because, well, I'll admit, I don't understand other definitions of it. Like they literally do not merge with my brain for some reason.

[Vis]

Ni means you have to be in it to understand it. "It" can be a single point in space time, or can be the entire space time. "It" is always you. If you refuse to be it, you will never understand it. If you allow yourself to be it, you will instantly understand its entirety without any intellectual processing.

OP is treating Ni like a separate entity from yourself, so you will never understand it in a true Ni way. If you are asking an Ne question, you can only get an Ne answer.

If you are LII, you already know Ni as your demonstrative function. Don't need to ask others; simply turn it into a Ti definition. However you will never understand Ni 100% as the lead function, creative function, activating function...etc. because you aren't it. The honest way is to admit everyone has bias. Observe it from outside and don't obsess with coming up with the absolutely right answer.

[adage]

Ni means you have to be in it to understand it. "It" can be a single point in space time, or can be the entire space time. "It" is always you. If you refuse to be it, you will never understand it. If you allow yourself to be it, you will instantly understand its entirety without any intellectual processing.

OP is treating Ni like a separate entity from yourself, so you will never understand it in a true Ni way. If you are asking an Ne question, you can only get an Ne answer.

If you are LII, you already know Ni as your demonstrative function. Don't need to ask others; simply turn it into a Ti definition. However you will never understand Ni 100% as the lead function, creative function, activating function...etc. because you aren't it. The honest way is to admit everyone has bias. Observe it from outside and don't obsess with coming up with the absolutely right answer.

That's how it is for all functions.

And I mean, Ti leads gotta Ti, it's the best they got, and I think it's better they dare share and have feedback than keep it all in their heads and never seek to refine it with the help of others.

[Vis]

Exactly. I will never 100% understand Ti as the base function. If I say I do, that's dishonesty. I can get close to it by observing and asking, but I'll never be right there.

And I'm already sharing what is Ni with that comment. It's a different way with Ti sharing, but it's there. I can't give OP that clear Ti definition they want because I'm not Ti leading.

[CR400AF]

I haven't read the post but will sometime. IMO, MBTI Ni and Socionics Ni share a common (obviously unseen) focal point for explaining Ni. I am not convinced that MBTI explanations have no value in Socionics. I believe there are points at which they can converge, and thus, I don't (usually) view any systems as mutually exclusive. I'm not educated on the collective unconscious. But it seems to me, it would be more of an opinion on whether you agreed with his theory of the collective unconscious or a more Freudian theory. So in respect to this, I think we just have differing opinions.

Collective unconsciousness is not very mysterious. What Jung actually means is somewhat similar to the "evolutionary psychology" nowadays. IMO, it's very important to at least know the fundamental ideas of Jung when studying at Jungian typologies. If a typology has some definition that's fundamentally different from Jung's idea, then it's very hard to acknowledge that it's Jungian.

As far as I'm concerned, the key of Jungian typology is that introversion means the evolved pattern of thinking which is common to all people around the world. So in Jungian context, introversion is actually more global, more universal than extraversion. Jung actually specifically emphasized that introversion is not personal.

There's another perspective, perhaps originates from Hans Eysenck. They hold that introverts have low energy, and they assume that introversion means personal. Both MBTI and Big Five actually holds this perspective so they are somewhat Eysenckian instead of Jungian.

[Tallmo]

There's another perspective, perhaps originates from Hans Eysenck. They hold that introverts have low energy, and they assume that introversion means personal. Both MBTI and Big Five actually holds this perspective so they are somewhat Eysenckian instead of Jungian.

General comment about this:
Introverts obviously have low energy in the outside world, at least if they are pure types. But the wisdom of it is that the energy is the same as for extraverts, but in introverts it is turned towards the subject so it stays hidden. It's sad that this wisdom is not always understood. There are cases of extremely introverted people who are very gray and passive but the inner life is vivid. For example some Ni type shaman who uses all his energy on inner visions. But most people need to use energy also extravertedly so it is important for introverts (and extraverts) to remain balanced.

[Tallmo]

I haven't read the post but will sometime. IMO, MBTI Ni and Socionics Ni share a common (obviously unseen) focal point for explaining Ni. I am not convinced that MBTI explanations have no value in Socionics. I believe there are points at which they can converge, and thus, I don't (usually) view any systems as mutually exclusive. I'm not educated on the collective unconscious. But it seems to me, it would be more of an opinion on whether you agreed with his theory of the collective unconscious or a more Freudian theory. So in respect to this, I think we just have differing opinions.

MBTI follows Jung in part, and in part it totally misunderstands him. The MBTI description of Si is not even Si anymore. That function doesn't even exist. When you read MBTI you are basically reading mediocre or bad interpretations of Jung, so better to go to the source directly.

Socionics descriptions are not very good either imo, but at least they are more or less correct. There is no mess like in MBTI.

I just think Jung's descriptions are very high quality. They require some work, but Jung is LII and I like reading him, although I have to be very attentive to follow his reasoning.

Collective unconscious is almost everything (except the ego). Everything psychic that is inherited. All autonomous psychic reactions, emotions, the functions, the experience of the world, other people, erotic experiences etc. It's just so common and everyday that we don't think of it.

[DogOfDanger]

[/COLOR]But what does this actually mean? What is a core? And depending on what a core is, the definition of integrating could change.[/COLOR]

The core is just the most deeply inward part of you - it is the information you carry around with you, it's you as a subject, it's your memories... as you integrate information inward you sort through it and organize it, - you pick and choose which information to hang on to and which to discard.

I go, what information? Like what is it actually? Audio? Visuals? An internal image? A feeling?

You can remember any kind of information - visuals, audios, tastes, sixth sense information... any type of information you can be aware of can be made a memory of. Generally speaking functions aren't defined by the quality of the information. Sense information for example - you incorporate visual information into memory, and you recall it as visuals later... the visuals are in memory, they're not bound to the sensing mechanism. But the memory is persistent, it's part of the subject, whereas sense information is transient and somewhat disorganized, related to the object, and on the whole there is alot more of it... people have to be selective in the information they take in. But the information is not really qualitatively different for different functions it's all just 'data'

What does internally resolved mean? Is it a feeling? A state of mind? How do you know when that has occurred?

Internally resolve means to bring information into a state of logical consistency with information already in memory via reconciling the contradictory parts (the parts that dont feel good) and retaining the consistent parts (that parts that feel good). That's what Fi does - it fits new information into memory alongside other memories, and stores it away for later recall.

My intention is not to degrade or nitpick your definition. Actually, I am grateful you took the time to respond to me. But what I am saying is, there is an unavoidable characteristic of (I guess) all IMEs where when people try to explain the characteristics of them, you get the feeling that they understand the unconscious signifiers, but those are subjective, and thus, it might signify something to me slightly different, or I may not even understand it.

Hopefully this clears things up.

What I tried to do with my definition of Ni is explain a structure to it, rather than describe its characteristics in of itself; because, well, I'll admit, I don't understand other definitions of it. Like they literally do not merge with my brain for some reason.

They don't merge with your brain because they are based on nonsense, but what I'm telling you is all about structure. The simplest things to consider are the subject and the object. IM data flows are always cycling between subject and object - taking information in from the external world, integrating it into the subject as a memory... having the spontaneous recall of memories which drives dynamic engagement with the environment, observing ones effect on the environment (that's Si and Te - external dynamic functions) and detecting any response from the environment (Se and Ti - external static functions), integrating information in the response back into memory (Ne and Fi, internal static functions), and round and round it goes. People seem to get more or less fixated on certain parts of the cycle - maybe someones memory is very strong, maybe someone is very attuned to their external surroundings - and so they seem to have a certain IM they are more fixated on than others - but every IM is working in unison to process information. If you were to lack an IM it would be impossible to think. Again, what I'm describing here is a cyclical structure that incorporates all 8 IMs, much different than Augustas structure where the whole thing is based on duality, you have shadow information processing rings and only certain functions participate in a given processing flow, then this complex hierarchy forms - trying to make sense out of that convoluted hierarchy in various contexts is mind-bending. The universe, math, metaphysics - none of them are fundamentally rational or binary, but we always have people trying their best to model things that way - anything that is rational can be made an exact science out of. You can't confuse this rational idealism for truth, you will end up completely lost trying to reconcile the fragmentation into a coherent whole. Augusta was very caught up in that effort, but socionics remains a complicated mess because it is not rooted in sound metaphysics.

SO .. to circle back to your original statement - Ni is simply the spontaneous triggering and recall of memories. Memories can take many forms, they can seem archetypal - they have to get simplified during integration so they have an abstract form. They're always deeply personal... a person with a fixation on Ni is always monitoring their internal self for what might be emerging from within. There is an emergent quality to Ni - it is a dynamic function. As far as Ni/Ji, there is no real hierarchy or pairing of functions, all functions exist in context with one another and cooperate to process information, they all have distinct relationships... they cooperate within a single cyclical flow of information, they're defined by their position in the data flow and in relation to the subject / object... some are more closely related, some are opposite.. but ultimately they're structurally alot more like a soup than a well organized machine. For example, who's to say you couldn't break the whole data flow down into 5 distinct functions instead of 8 if you felt so inclined? Even the functions themselves are something we define and structurally impose onto the data flow. The actual mechanics of information processing is something that can not be defined outside of an assumed, imposed structure, the structure has to be consistent with good metaphysics but beyond that it's arbitrary.

[Rusal]

​Ni should not be so elaborate to explain or point out and neither should be Si. For identification in Socionics, that is. But the descriptions got progressively intricate. “Mental homeostasis” is a no-no for a beginner as all the types experience uncomfort outside of the ego-block hence everyone is moving in that direction. A young IEI in bed daydreaming his weekend away does not engage in any visible effort and is well within his psychic comfort zone yet we cannot say he's engaging in Si proper and has anything to offer a Si-suggestive. Maybe at first it's just better to be a maximalist when it comes to IEs.

[wesleh00]

The core is just the most deeply inward part of you - it is the information you carry around with you, it's you as a subject, it's your memories... as you integrate information inward you sort through it and organize it, - you pick and choose which information to hang on to and which to discard.



You can remember any kind of information - visuals, audios, tastes, sixth sense information... any type of information you can be aware of can be made a memory of. Generally speaking functions aren't defined by the quality of the information. Sense information for example - you incorporate visual information into memory, and you recall it as visuals later... the visuals are in memory, they're not bound to the sensing mechanism. But the memory is persistent, it's part of the subject, whereas sense information is transient and somewhat disorganized, related to the object, and on the whole there is alot more of it... people have to be selective in the information they take in. But the information is not really qualitatively different for different functions it's all just 'data'

Internally resolve means to bring information into a state of logical consistency with information already in memory via reconciling the contradictory parts (the parts that dont feel good) and retaining the consistent parts (that parts that feel good). That's what Fi does - it fits new information into memory alongside other memories, and stores it away for later recall.

Hopefully this clears things up.

They don't merge with your brain because they are based on nonsense, but what I'm telling you is all about structure. The simplest things to consider are the subject and the object. IM data flows are always cycling between subject and object - taking information in from the external world, integrating it into the subject as a memory... having the spontaneous recall of memories which drives dynamic engagement with the environment, observing ones effect on the environment (that's Si and Te - external dynamic functions) and detecting any response from the environment (Se and Ti - external static functions), integrating information in the response back into memory (Ne and Fi, internal static functions), and round and round it goes. People seem to get more or less fixated on certain parts of the cycle - maybe someones memory is very strong, maybe someone is very attuned to their external surroundings - and so they seem to have a certain IM they are more fixated on than others - but every IM is working in unison to process information. If you were to lack an IM it would be impossible to think. Again, what I'm describing here is a cyclical structure that incorporates all 8 IMs, much different than Augustas structure where the whole thing is based on duality, you have shadow information processing rings and only certain functions participate in a given processing flow, then this complex hierarchy forms - trying to make sense out of that convoluted hierarchy in various contexts is mind-bending. The universe, math, metaphysics - none of them are fundamentally rational or binary, but we always have people trying their best to model things that way - anything that is rational can be made an exact science out of. You can't confuse this rational idealism for truth, you will end up completely lost trying to reconcile the fragmentation into a coherent whole. Augusta was very caught up in that effort, but socionics remains a complicated mess because it is not rooted in sound metaphysics.

SO .. to circle back to your original statement - Ni is simply the spontaneous triggering and recall of memories. Memories can take many forms, they can seem archetypal - they have to get simplified during integration so they have an abstract form. They're always deeply personal... a person with a fixation on Ni is always monitoring their internal self for what might be emerging from within. There is an emergent quality to Ni - it is a dynamic function. As far as Ni/Ji, there is no real hierarchy or pairing of functions, all functions exist in context with one another and cooperate to process information, they all have distinct relationships... they cooperate within a single cyclical flow of information, they're defined by their position in the data flow and in relation to the subject / object... some are more closely related, some are opposite.. but ultimately they're structurally alot more like a soup than a well organized machine. For example, who's to say you couldn't break the whole data flow down into 5 distinct functions instead of 8 if you felt so inclined? Even the functions themselves are something we define and structurally impose onto the data flow. The actual mechanics of information processing is something that can not be defined outside of an assumed, imposed structure, the structure has to be consistent with good metaphysics but beyond that it's arbitrary.

I don't understand a lot of the more detail-esque stuff in here but framing it as a cyclical structure has helped immensely in my understanding. Now it's not a question of if, but when/where/how.

Also, I'm glad someone else has this understanding of science. Science is based on an irrational/subjective premise that things can be measured and observed objectively.

The biggest thing I took away from you was: "You can't confuse (this) rational idealism for truth." Thanks because I felt like I was going crazy trying to rationalize something that if you critically think about for even a second, makes no sense. I'll also admit that the only reason I'm trying to rationalize this definition is because I want to understand, and to me, from what I had seen, this was the underlying phenomena. I can rest now.

[Sol]

extravertion - external, objective
introvertion - internal, subjective

N - imagination, as opposing to physical reality of S

Ni - subjective imagination, imagination about not objective (Ne is about objective)

feelings about personal meanings as signes. guessing based on this. magical influences as those are based on dominancy of subjective imagination above objective reality. dreaming about other realities. imagination about past and future events, mb as objective can be said only what exists in now time

[VagrantFarce]

Someone on Reddit described it as "psychosomatic intuition", which I quite liked (https://old.reddit.com/r/Socionics/c...d_and_subdued/).

But really, time - or perhaps timing - is a great way of expressing it. Not just waiting for the right moment, but actively guiding things into a "moment" - where things synchronise & coalesce in a way they intuitively notice way up front, without even trying.

I tend to think of types that value Ni as good luck/bad luck charms. They respect will-power & destiny. Fate is a gift and a curse. Everything is in a phase - transitory, changing from one thing to the next. Very reflective and peripheral by nature. Easy to victimise - something they may even welcome. Sacrificial by nature. Can forget their own agency, or become blind to it. Cryptic.

Music is a big deal to Ni types, I think. Sports as well. The way instruments and players - performers in general - move in and out of sync over time.

[Still Alive]

it's a diverse palette of visual, literary, acoustic and dramatic creativity. an interest in prophecies, fate, visions; a constant perception of patterns that repeat themselves to form a bigger picture, the root of something. the perception of the inner essence of other people, their "soul"

[Metaphor]

I really appreciate this view but this is too redundant or just convoluted to some extent. Ni isn't as vague as people think it is and it mechanically works fluidly in attempt to create baseless impressions throughout what they've seen as a rainbow or colourful manic pixies dreamy or just monotony gray, bright and dark but gloomy wise.

However, that's just a general perspective of Ni-base. And despite being stemmed by their own subjective impression, it really isn't as subjective - any subjective functions are very subjective in general but to a degree, no matter when it's Pi or Ji. Ni's subjective view is rather tangled by its own perspective, - something that @Vis already explained before - as much as you don't see the other's views at all and instead, observing the others from afar. And this is how Ni-base is more than often being stubborn on what they held as a conclusion of "being" or "becoming" and "non-existent" or "nothing" revolve towards them simultaneously to create a dynamic perception of time.

Ni is more than often being affected by the environmental development of time but that necessarily isn't the space of time or the time of space by its merit of comparison. And I would rather say that Ni has a structured "version" of time and it compares one event to another continuously without separating them into sections fluidly. Being principled or structured really isn't related to Ni or Ti, any subjective elements are principled and or structured to an extent by its usage therefore, it's not limited to it. It relates, compares, becomes, contemplates, associates, and also observes the events of time in the space by being themselves as anything but anyone.

I really am aware of my limit in explaining so I wouldn't explain the usage of Ni as a demonstrative function since I don't understand it at all.

[wesleh00]

extravertion - external, objective
introvertion - internal, subjective

N - imagination, as opposing to physical reality of S

Ni - subjective imagination, imagination about not objective (Ne is about objective)

feelings about personal meanings as signes. guessing based on this. magical influences as those are based on dominancy of subjective imagination above objective reality. dreaming about other realities. imagination about past and future events, mb as objective can be said only what exists in now time

Could you also define "Ne - objective imagination" ?

[DogOfDanger]

I don't understand a lot of the more detail-esque stuff in here but framing it as a cyclical structure has helped immensely in my understanding. Now it's not a question of if, but when/where/how.

Also, I'm glad someone else has this understanding of science. Science is based on an irrational/subjective premise that things can be measured and observed objectively.

The biggest thing I took away from you was: "You can't confuse (this) rational idealism for truth." Thanks because I felt like I was going crazy trying to rationalize something that if you critically think about for even a second, makes no sense. I'll also admit that the only reason I'm trying to rationalize this definition is because I want to understand, and to me, from what I had seen, this was the underlying phenomena. I can rest now.

Could you also define "Ne - objective imagination" ?

I am glad to see this helped you and that you understood me. Here is a picture of what I am describing for reference -

wheel.png

Regarding introversion / extraversion - as you can see from the wheel, introversion / extraversion is somewhat of a relative measurement - while T & S are all external functions (oriented toward the object), compared with Se / Te, Ti & Si are a little closer to the subject - they are more interested in how the subject relates to or with the object while the extraverted external functions are more purely focused on the object itself.

The internal static functions (Ne/Fi) are both about integrating information into the memories. With Ne you are first contextualizing the information, not with such a focus on internally resolving it into consistency as Fi, but rather just forming / being aware of connections. You could think of this as the drinking in of information... lets say you're sitting through a lecture openly listening. You are perceiving with the goal of remembering it. You hang onto each word the teacher says ... so you're in a very aware state, but internalizing, acquiring information / seeing possible connections between things. The imaginative aspect of it is the connections and associations being triggered. This is objective information first being incorporated into the subject, the information was just passed to Ne by Ti. Also the information has yet to be incorporated fully into the subject by Fi. So this is the 'objective' quality of Ne (Ne is only objective in a relative sense, it is still primarily subjective).

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Ni to me is simply the function that sees what somebody is really like beyond the veils of society and social masks or something. It is raw, "pure" insight. Like we can see through and realize a narcissistic bitch is being a narcissistic bitch ((eventually I mean, Ni is also about time and it can take some time to get that!)) whereas Te/Fi might be like 'that's a good and worthy person.' That's how LIEs can manipulate people into buying things I think because they are good with both Te and Ni like that. So they can cleverly manipulate the 'good' side with a person and their 'bad' side all at the same time. Like Orzhov/magic the gathering being White and Black together. LIE Gamma Illuminati- ruler of the business world.

LSE Ni polr and ESE Ni polr- but more so LSE cuz they are thinking types- are often really horrible at judging the true character of other people as they take people too surface-y or they are too gaslighted by fake Te shit that might not tell the entire picture. It's reading them too literally and not bothering much with what they are really saying with their words. "I bet when he goes home after work he does something really weird" and the Ni insight turns out to be very correct if it's 4D or 3D - Te just sees their work performance or something or will falsely assume too much that because they have a good work ethic that means they are like that in other areas of life when they are not. Unless of course you are strong in both Te and Ni- but LSEs are not.

[Metaphor]

Someone on Reddit described it as "psychosomatic intuition", which I quite liked (https://old.reddit.com/r/Socionics/c...d_and_subdued/).

But really, time - or perhaps timing - is a great way of expressing it. Not just waiting for the right moment, but actively guiding things into a "moment" - where things synchronise & coalesce in a way they intuitively notice way up front, without even trying.]

Don't you mean it's a time momentum by space?