Ni Problem Solving (INTP)

What's going on, boys? Thanks to our patrons and Fiverr customers! Subscribe to our Patreon for free behind-the-scenes stuff. Arm yourselves with typology stuff. Today we're talking a bit about Ni, particularly a way an Ni type described Ni to me that makes sense, which is rare for Si types. It's not that hard to get your mind around the way you see Ni work, but understanding Ni is a bit more difficult.

A good way to look at Si versus Ni is in the way both types would charge an enemy force or solve a problem. Contrast is important, so let's think about Si for a moment. Si gets associated with stagnation, but that's more in feeling, in fact or in practice, Si is always moving. I'm realizing both Si and Ni are intertwined with the passage of time, and in relation to time, it's useful to look at Si as a vessel.

When you listen to people discuss Si in the way it feels, it's easy to make the mistake of looking at it as immobile. You'll hear Si types talk about the way things were and, using the way things were, discussing the way things have been and thereby guessing at the way things will be based on these patterns. So it's easy to start to view Si as this tall tower looking way back at the way things used to be and using that information to guess the way things will be. But it's not a tower; it's more like a crow's nest situated on a ship.

Because Si doesn't really deal with problems, or rather, it doesn't really address problems or a problem on that problem's own merit. Instead, it implements defenses according to all the problems in the past, all the problems it has dealt with, and then it rams these defensive measures into all future problems, all the things you don't know. So it's not really dealing with new problems; it is ramming into new problems using defenses designed for old problems.

Like, let's imagine a military force. This force encounters a new enemy that employs psychic soldiers—they got telekinesis, mind control, all that [ __ ]—a problem that's new and unique, probably asking for a solution equally new and unique. But if you're looking at this new problem from an Si perspective, lots of artillery is probably the answer, because sometime in the past, lots of artillery dealt with, for the time, an equally new and unique problem handily. And frankly enough, artillery probably will deal with these new psychic soldiers equally handily when applied liberally enough. And that solution to an old problem might actually deal with this new problem handily, but it's not addressing the new problem; it is applying an old solution to a new problem. And while that old solution might work, it creates inefficiency, because how long will this old solution work, or how much will you need to waste to make this old solution work?

We mentioned vessels earlier; this is like trying to deal with shallow water by bombing it until it becomes deep water. I think that's one of the reasons the human race stagnates so frequently. Governments come into power and, to cement their power, because they understand how to deal with problems they have been dealing with for a while, but they stagnate because they don't know how to address new problems, and their power is based on old solutions. So instead of investing money in trying to find new solutions, they dump money into raising those old solutions as high as possible, to try to deal with these new problems using old solutions until that becomes feasible no longer, at which point everything goes bad.

The reason getting away from this mindset, or this sort of Si—because there are different sorts of Si—is difficult is because, probably for a few generations, that outlook will work. Why reinvent the wheel when you can instead dump a bunch of money into making a really kick-ass wheel for decades or even generations? Our time, modern times in fact, probably being the outlier in all of human history, that sort of Si is actually more efficient, not less efficient. When you've discovered a solution to a naturally occurring problem, that pattern is going to change. You'll probably be more efficient spending your time and resources trying to figure out solutions to the problems you haven't solved rather than trying to create new solutions to problems you have already solved. When dealing with the natural world, that outlook makes a lot of sense and probably will save you a lot of time and resources.

Unfortunately, humans have consciousness, and consciousness is a kick in the dick. I think that's one of the reasons most famous military commanders and historic course-correcting humans tend to be Ni types, specifically because they don't approach new, consciousness-oriented problems with an old, predictability-oriented system. Consciousness is not predictable; that's what makes it dangerous, and that's where we get into positioning, particularly in relation to an Ni. Si is always moving forward, even if it's slow and even if it doesn't work. Si builds attrition into its system; Si is willing to take losses if it means figuring out the much larger pattern. And I think that's why Si is overwhelmingly statistically the more common function. If you're looking at humanity from the big picture, or like the way we look at ants, it's reasonable to sacrifice millions of people, or even billions, to figure out a solution that will work for most people and ensure the future of the species.

Ni is different; it's a lot more individual. Now, Si can be individual; it is individual, but even on the individual level, it is still concerned with building the biggest, most [ __ ]-offest boat to plow into new problems than it is to figuring out a new problem's unique solutions. That's where Ni comes in. And a South Korean—I don't know if North Korean and South Korean are separate languages—but a South Korean-speaking, ass-needing Google Translate-ass-speaking Korean viewer explained Ni to me in a way that makes sense, in ways other Ni types' explanations don't make sense, and it got me thinking about all this. Si takes everything and creates and uses an average; Ni addresses each new problem individually.

You might have heard of the flower perspective example when trying to explain the differences between Si and Ni, because it seems like Si and Ni is this barrier that each respective type cannot really cross into in a way that makes sense. So the way the flower example works: people say Si types look at each part of the flower individually, catalog all those parts, and then come up with the concept of flower based on all these cataloged components, whereas Ni types step back and look at the flower and say, "That's a flower. Now what?" And that example aggravates me because it's frustratingly partially correct. That example makes it sound like a details versus big picture dichotomy, and that's only partially correct. In reality, or what I think, the way I think things work: Si gets specific at first so it can become general. We catalog things so later we no longer need to think about it. We go through a flower part by part so we understand what a flower is in concept, and then we no longer need to think about it from that point on. If it looks like a flower, we're going to call it a flower until it gives us reason to think otherwise, and in most cases it won't. A flower will be a flower, will be a flower, will continue to be a flower, has always been a flower, probably. And Ni types look at the whole thing at first, but they don't stop there; right, that's where the example gets [ __ ] up. See, Ni types—at least the way they appeared to me, the way this commenter explained it that lines up—they step back, get the big picture, and then they step in. And that stepping in is where the example falls short. Si specifies first and then generalizes later; Ni generalizes first and then specifies later. But even in this adjusted example, that's vague for Si types; that's probably difficult to understand; it makes them sound too similar when in reality they are not.

So what does Ni do? Si looks at a bunch of car parts lying around a garage and infers, based on what it knows: "I don't know what all these things do in this instance, but these are probably car parts; they probably fit together to build a car," and the Si type will probably be right because it's usually right, but it won't be specific; it'll be conceptual instead. An Ni type will look at all the parts and catalog them, make individual notes for each part: "Okay, these are not just car parts; abstract that. That's eight pistons. I mean, I don't know, but those eight pistons are probably part of an engine, and then those parts, those belts, that's a lot of pulleys; that looks like a supercharger. Okay, thinking about this, thinking hard, brain blast: these are probably car parts designed for a car that's going to go really stupidly fast." Now, in this example, both the Ni type and the Si type arrive at the same conclusion, but the Ni type's conclusion is a bit finer. The Si type is correct in assuming these are car parts; the Ni type is correct in deducing these are fast car parts—deducing, different verbs that make a world of difference, right? If you're thinking about this in most situations, it's not going to matter for the average person whether these are parts for a car or parts for a fast car, but if you're dealing with a solution that, or a problem that requires a finer solution, understanding that these parts are for a fast car could mean everything. The Si type saves time by assuming, and even in this example that assumption is correct, but if the solution requires chasing this person down once that car is built, if they show up in a Civic, they're [ __ ], whereas the Ni type spends more time addressing this problem as if it were a completely new problem, because technically it is a completely new problem, even if most people wouldn't view it that way. That extra time will pay off because the Ni type knows what they need to show up with in order to secure the solution they're looking for.

Another part of this cognitive function dichotomy that interests me is the way people describe these functions operating; they actually are not that different. You'll see Si types describe Ni problem-solving like it's magic, like they realize the perfect solutions out of nowhere. How, okay, if you're an Si type, how much time do you need to spend figuring out what you need to do when you see you have a flat tire? Is it magic for you to realize that you need to change your tire? No, because you already know what you need to do in that situation. Si is, or if you want to look at it from that perspective, is equally magic because we, for most situations, already know what we need to do based on all the [ __ ] we have done in the past. It's not magic; we just know. For Si types, I think it's useful to imagine Ni as Si except taking longer. How does it feel to use Ni? How would it feel to solve problems the way you solve problems if you needed to wait a required period to access your files? And it's not any different; it's just a different angle. So while Ni types might describe using Ni as feeling like they realize answers, it feels or seems magical only because they are statistically the minority. If you're an Si type, I'm guessing for you remembering something does not require effort; it just happens when you need it to happen, except it happens fast because you already know, or think you know, what needs to happen. And if you reach the point you are problem-solving, that's not really Si working, or it's not Si developing new answers for you. Si has taken you to the solution, and now, or the failed solution and/or the solution that's no longer working, and now your other functions are at work. That's not Si solving the problem; Si is the courier quickly bringing you what you already know; you don't have to do that in the same way. Ni is a courier bringing Ni types answers, except it takes a bit more time because these are attempts at fresh solutions. The additional time comes from their brains trying to fit everything together fresh, but it's equally as automatic and unconscious as your Si is; it just seems like magic because there's a delay. And they're not running next store or running you your sandwich from the sandwich store next door; they are running their pizza from a couple blocks over.

And this is all also why Ni types are so weird to Si types. For Si types and most of humanity, the problem-solving pipeline is not really addressing a new individual problem; it's more like: encounter a problem, apply the average; if the average doesn't work, why doesn't it work? Try to come up with new solutions; once you find one, catalog it into the average and then move forward. For most human beings, problem-solving is more like troubleshooting, as is a runner who takes notes; in other words, when Si types are trying to solve a problem and the solution doesn't work, it's not, or it's—unless the problem is really exceptional—it's not going to be a completely out-of-left-field [ __ ] solution, quote, solution failure; it's going to be, "Well, this was in the area, but it's not exact, so let's try to refine it," whereas with Ni types, they're either dead on the money or so totally wrong it's baffling. So we go back to the military force charging, or one army charging another army example. Si doesn't even stop really to think about anything; it charges straight in, plows into them, and then makes adjustments as necessary. Ni, on the other hand, steps back up onto a hill and reviews the situation and tries to come up with solutions according to this specific threat, and then, after that contemplative delay, it charges in. The issue is that contemplative delay means nothing if the individual is [ __ ] stupid. You spent an additional 5 minutes looking pensive before getting totally [ __ ]; congratulations. And because you aren't attuned to the average, you're probably going to stay getting [ __ ] unless you get smarter or attach yourself to Si types, even stupid Si types, to take advantage of that average, because you don't—that's the beauty of Si in terms of species survival; you don't need to be smart to use Si. Any dummy can apply the average, the way any dummy will feel pain. Refining Si is more like refining the delay between something not working and you realizing it's not working, which is a skill; it's valuable. I love Si as a function, but you don't need to be sophisticated to use it. Ni is different; you do need to be sophisticated to use it. That's why, or that's one of the reasons why, when an Ni type is [ __ ] dumb and doesn't learn anything, there's, there's, there are no stops; they don't [ __ ] up a little bit and then course-correct; they [ __ ] up bad and stay [ __ ] up. Versus Ni types who are a lot more sophisticated, they win and they stay winning; there's not really a cap on how hard an Ni type can win in solving a problem, in the same way there's no safety net if they [ __ ] up, because they're designed to look for unique solutions, not average solutions. If you're good at looking at each problem individually and developing correct, catered, unique solutions, then you're going to win big, but if you can't figure out how to do that, there's no safety net for you because you don't, you aren't paying attention to the average pattern; it's hard for you to assume. But the tricky part is if an Ni type were better able at, or better able to assume the way Si types do, they wouldn't be able to develop unique solutions because they're focused on the assumption; they're focused on the average. In the same way, if an Si type approached each new problem trying to figure out each individual component of this new problem, they wouldn't be able to save time, energy, and resources the way they're designed to, the way they're good at.

One of my favorite Si versus Ni examples comes from Michael Pierce, one of the only typology channels I will ever send a new typology person to because he's really good: the person jumping out from behind a bookshelf in a library example. 10 seconds to recognize there's a difference; 5 years to understand maybe what that difference means. For me, as an Si type, Si type and Ni type are sitting in a library; someone jumps out from behind the bookshelf, shouts, and startles them both. Si type categorizes that person as a prankster and leaves it there: "People do dumb [ __ ] for attention; I've seen that a hundred times; whatever." And Ni type thinks, "Why a library? Dude's dressed like Fred Durst. Why a library? Why not a porta-potty or some [ __ ]? What does this mean?" I love that Michael Pierce example because it's like a monkey who's evolved enough to recognize he's looking at gold, but he doesn't have a full concept of what gold is yet. The first time he described that example, I added the Fred Durst bits; I knew that was right; I recognized the difference, but I didn't understand it; I think I do now. The important thing to remember is if you're an Ni type, or if you're dealing with Ni types, having Ni does not equal better answers overall. I've been watching investing videos that I also don't understand recently. I think Ni is like biotech investing—forgive me if this is brutally incorrect—Si is like shorting biotech companies. Nine out of 10 times you're going to be right by saying this is [ __ ], and you'll earn a little bit of money in doing it, but one out of 10 times you're gonna get [ __ ] big time. Ni is like investing normally, or just buying stocks in a biotech company, or maybe in, or buying call options—is that the positive smm? One out of 10 times you'll lose your money, but that one out of 10 times you'll become, or you'll earn a life-changing, bloodline-changing fortune. As an individual, if you have to invest in something, which you do because you're alive, you can't not be alive, unfortunately, you're probably safer going with the shorting, which is Si. Most of the time you're probably going to be right with smaller gains, and I could win big, but it probably won't, so you're better off not doing it, but if you do win big, you're going to win really big. The issue, or maybe not an issue if we're not looking at humanity from our lowly individualized ego perspective and rather from a wider collective species perspective, is both are good. The people who are wrong when they're usually right—it doesn't matter if we lose them because they're the minority and the majority is doing well. It doesn't matter if most people who could win big don't rather than could lose big because there statistically are not that many of them losing everything, but the ones who, the few who do win big, win so big it's good for everybody. Now, on that individual level, it sucks if you're the loser, but in terms of the species, it doesn't really matter because, in terms of averages, the species is going to be doing better by doing both.

In summary, Ni is high risk, high reward, with a little bit of delay. An Ni type who's a loser will stay a loser because they don't know how to learn; an Ni type who's a winner will stay a winner because they understand how to solve, and in their case, it doesn't really matter if they ever learn or attune themselves to the average because they're that good at solving new problems as they arise. And the lovely thing about all this is this entire video is Ni versus Si positioning or problem-solving; this has nothing to do with memory, which is a completely different subject, which actually we might be able to solve here really quick, or discuss here really quick. I don't have a solid answer. I think there's a base form of memory the same way there is a base form of human interaction. Base form of human interaction: we don't hit each other; we'll stay cool. Base form of memory: you recall something, but then you get into the advanced forms. Si memory centers around sensations; it's like you have an imprint of all your senses in a moment, and then you assign that moment what it means to you conceptually, and then you weave it into your larger average, whereas with Ni types, and again I have not worked this out or studied this the way I'd like to, but the way it looks to me right now, Ni types have very sharp memories, perhaps even sharper than Si types, but only in relation to problems they have not yet solved; or looking at it another way, an Si type will never really let something go, but on the moment-to-moment level, yeah, they absolutely let it go because they file it into their memory average: "This was..."

This sort of memory, and maybe I remember this one because it helped define this average, but it doesn't. I don't need to think about it constantly because I know how and where to file it, unless this problem has come up and now I am dwelling on this thing forever. But even in those instances, it's more like you're dwelling on the pattern, and you're accessing that pattern by dwelling on the constituent parts of that pattern.

Whereas with NI types, they either don't remember something because it wasn't important to them, or they solved the problem and put it to rest and therefore don't need to remember it anymore, or they didn't figure out why a monarch butterfly's wings were orange when they were five, and they have never ever been able to let that go, and it will stay with them until they put that problem to rest vividly. So, as with all patterns or or contrasts between SI and NI, NI is a lot sharper on that "thing to think" basis, whereas SI is a lot more oppressive with the weight of the patterns at waves.

And none of what I'm saying here is totally comprehensive or totally correct, because typology is my favorite thing because there is so much [__] that must make sense. Because in terms of patterns, things that do make sense make perfect sense, and they line up. So when something doesn't make sense, it's not that it's irrational or illogical, it's that your stupid ass doesn't understand well enough. And I types—you would think SI types would view the huge picture; we talk about the historical timeline, or or the the grand rope. SI types, you would think, would be the ones who would be weaving that grand rope and viewing it as such, as a huge rope woven together with all these different patterns and things—but that's not the way SI types view history; that's the way NI types view history. And I don't know why; once you get to that scale, it's like information processing inverts. I don't know; I only know what I think I know, and that's what we've talked about today. Like, if you enjoyed, subscribe; if you haven't.