How does your Ni (introverted intuition) work?

[gloomy-optimist]

Actually, not necessarily. I thought it was weird too, but most people don't just have streams of consciousness and suddenly realize things. I find it hard to imagine how else one would think.

 

[Baccal]

Ditto gloomy - my sis says Ni freaks her out but I can't imagine anything more natural or another way of being.

 

[Goatman455]

I'm not sure what you mean, but I find a large difference between Ni and Ne. In a word, the difference is depth. Ni seeks a deeper understanding of whatever it is focused on whereas Ne seeks a breadth of understanding of whatever it is focused on. That difference is why Ni is known for foresight and insight and why Ne is known for innovation and creativity. I like to think of Ni as the little philosopher, always seeking a deeper understanding of the world, and Ne as the little inventor, always seeking news ways to view the world.

Can't new ways to view the world, be the same as a deeper understanding of the world?

I tend to seek a deeper understanding of the world, yet ENFP supposedly have Ne.

Perhaps you could elaborate on deeper understanding vs. new ways?

 

[IndigoSensor]

I tend to seek a deeper understanding of the world, yet ENFP supposedly have Ne.

Everyone uses all 8 cognitive functions to a given point. You also use Ni like everyone else in the world, but it is a shadow function for you so it does not have a defined location in your function order. Also because it is shadow, it's full capacity can't really be utelized.

 

[Goatman455]

Everyone uses all 8 cognitive functions to a given point. You also use Ni like everyone else in the world, but it is a shadow function for you so it does not have a defined location in your function order. Also because it is shadow, it's full capacity can't really be utelized.

Now again, Socionics does not quite see things this way. They call those unconscious functions. I am not sure how much I subscribe to the idea of "Shadow Functions" that can't be utilized fully. This is an interesting idea, but certainly one that not all authors subscribe to ("John Beebe and Linda Berens" have only more recently proposed this idea, Jung himself did not)- Paraphrased from Wiki article.

I would be interested to study it more, any links by any chance on the shadow theory. I am googling it as we speak but I figured maybe you have a really good link or something.

Thanks


Edit: Yet more interesting controversy on perspectives, check this out:

Dr. Charles Martin [1], ex-Vice President of research at CAPT, writes the following on page 22 of the binder, "In what attitude is the tertiary? Isabel Myers read Jung to say that the auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior are all in the same attitude and opposite the dominant. Others (Harold Grant) read: tertiary is in the same attitude as the dominant."

People just seem to be all over the board trying to put this stuff into words.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I think order is kind of...I dunno, overplayed. Really, it's in what order to learn to really grasp the function. It's a development thing, and it changes. You can learn to use any functions, but some of them will be easier to learn than others, and some will come naturally and more quickly. But everyone uses all of them quite extensively.

 

[Goatman455]

I think order is kind of...I dunno, overplayed. Really, it's in what order to learn to really grasp the function. It's a development thing, and it changes. You can learn to use any functions, but some of them will be easier to learn than others, and some will come naturally and more quickly. But everyone uses all of them quite extensively.

That's what I think. I also believe some balanced users (not me) can learn to access all of them equally.


BTW, awesome name gloomy-optimist. That's the way to be.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I think order is kind of...I dunno, overplayed. Really, it's in what order to learn to really grasp the function. It's a development thing, and it changes. You can learn to use any functions, but some of them will be easier to learn than others, and some will come naturally and more quickly. But everyone uses all of them quite extensively.

I do agree. Nevertheless, you know me- I must put labels on everything and nail things down, even if I have to nail something to jello

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I do agree. Nevertheless, you know me- I must put labels on everything and nail things down, even if I have to nail something to jello

You and your jello-hammering It's a good label system, though, and sometimes that's necessary

 

[SilverRvn]

[video=youtube;gZTiAR-vBV0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=HL1344552714&feature=player_detailpage&v=gZTiAR-vBV0[/video]


I made this video and described it as best as I can. I hope it helps!

 

[foreveryoung]

When I need to solve a work related problem, I notice my S type colleagues approach the problem in structured, orderly way. They also like to discuss the problem thoroughly.

For myself, I just block off some time alone and collect data or related facts, sort of comb through them in no particular order. A couple of hours immersing myself in anything related to the problem itself, and the answer will sort of pop up out of nowhere. Whereas if I try to approach the problem in a structure way, I just get lost in all the possibilities.

Also, if I am really thinking very hard about someone, I eventually get a phone call from them, even if I haven't heard from them in a long time. Not sure if anyone else experiences this...I sort of use this as a barometer in romantic relationships, if I don't find myself "feeling" this person, I assume they are not thinking of me either...please tell me is this an INFJ thing as well..