As fellow creative thinkers and theorizers, Ne (i.e., NPs) and Ni types (i.e., NJs) have a long history of mutual respect and appreciation for one another, often gravitating toward each other in friendship and/or romantic partnership thanks to their shared interest in the conceptual. Extraverted intuition (Ne), open and curious, is always ready to explore and absorb new concepts; introverted intuition (Ni), with its refined theories, is always ready to supply. What follows is a relatively predictable pattern of interaction between Ne and Ni types as they navigate the highs of a shared strength of intuition, as well as frustration stemming from the differences caused by E/I directionality.
At first meeting Ne and Ni pairs usually experience strong compatibility. Ni types are veritable wells of knowledge, and the depth of that knowledge runs so deep that indeed the Ni type himself might not know where the bottom lies (if it exists at all). Being the energy conservationists that they are, Ni types often lie in wait, hoping curious souls will seek them out, eagerly casting down vessels for filling. When Ne does arrive, bucket in hand, the initial interaction between them is fraught with energy and excitement as each type is encouraged to do what he does best.
Ne types differentiate themselves from the rest of the “bucket brigade” thanks to their creative thinking prowess. Usually more skeptical than, say, sensing types operating primarily from the grip of the inferior intuition, Ne types are masters of asking apropos questions, as well as comparing and contrasting competing theories. This allows them to appreciate Ni’s theories on a level that surpasses the more cursory acceptance that can come from other types likes Sensors. Introverted intuitives easily pick up on this authentic interest from extraverted intuitives and respond in turn by entrusting their insights to them.
As long as Ni is able to continue piquing Ne’s interest by proffering something new to the Ne type, the interaction continues in a fairly positive direction, with each type mutually reinforcing the other (usually in the form of a “question” and “answer” type of arrangement with the Ne type asking questions and the Ni supplying answers). This situation can go on indefinitely until one of two things usually happens: 1) The Ne type asks a question that the Ni is unable to answer or 2) The Ni continues to drive a theory so deep into the ground that Ne becomes bored/disinterested. Amusingly enough, each of these situations is usually met with genuine surprise from both parties, though you would think dominant intuition could see it coming. In these instances, it would seem intuitive foresight is no match for the power of projection.
In the first case, Ne is usually unwilling to exercise patience for the time required for Ni to refine an answer that would be satisfactory enough to meet Ni’s rigorous standards. The Ni type, feeling that it’s better to give no answer if they haven’t got the answer, might be reluctant to propose an answer that it hasn’t fully worked through the Ni system. This approach is usually met with confusion from the Ne who can’t understand why the Ni doesn’t simply proffer a prospective theory off the cuff of its intuition so that a debate might arise which could potentially get at the answer. This approach, of course, goes against everything the Ni type stands for. Without the conviction of a proper answer there is no sense in partaking in a rhetorical debate, the Ni figures.
Additionally, because answers are not something that the Ni type arrives at through “groupthink”, but are rather worked out individually in the depths of the Ni’s inner refinery, the Ni type faces the risk of inauthenticity if forced to entertain answers it hasn’t derived on its own. As such, Ni types may become completely disengaged when a theoretical debate arises (often seen within the context of a group of Ne types) about a topic that they haven’t explored independently and therefore have no position on. With nothing to contribute, and possibly feeling insecure as a result, the result is often the Ni type shutting down or pulling away (i.e. an inward retreat) from the conversation, and ultimately from the Ne type.
The other situation mentioned above involves the dissonance created by Ni’s propensity to linger on a single theory or topic against Ne’s penchant for variety. Ni may assume that the depth and detailing which is so essential to the reinforcement of Ni’s theories will be of equal interest to the Ne type. Oblivious, the Ni may also regale a great deal of contextual detail, either before ever getting to the crux of the thesis, or afterward by carrying on with endless examples, unaware that Ne fell off the wagon a while ago. With one essential point to make, Ni generally isn’t hiding more than one golden egg in its basket. Of course, “golden” is the key word there; what Ni lacks in quantity it makes up for in quality.
But this is often lost on extraverted intuition’s axiom that “all ideas are created equal” (or, perhaps more accurately, “all ideas – at least initially – deserve equal consideration”), which consequently may miss the intended gravity of Ni’s insight. As a general rule, Ne avoids being confined by or committed to just one theory, feeling that this could ultimately retard extraverted intuition’s ongoing quest for knowledge. Additionally, Ne, sensing that there is a great deal of theoretical ground to cover (and never enough time), does what it can to avoid being hampered by repetition. Therefore, the general modus operandi for the Ne type is surveyal; once Ne senses that it has the “gist” of the theory, it anxiously looks to move on to the next idea. This may mean impatiently leaping into new questions, perhaps even changing the topic altogether, so that it can continue trying to coalesce an expensive web of disparate philosophies into one unified theory.
This is confusing, however, to the Ni type who believes that he has, in fact, handed over just such a unified theory – a theory to end all theories! If the Ne fails to renounce all other wisdom as hogwash (as Ni expects he should) and enthusiastically embrace Ni’s doctrine as a committed disciple right there on the spot, tension usually arises. Worsening matters, the Ni type, mystified by how it is that the Ne could possibly be reluctant to commit to his theory, will often proceed to repeat the concept thinking perhaps the explanation wasn’t clear and if he could just explain some more then maybe Ne would get on board. By this time, of course, Ne’s patience has worn incredibly thin, and it’s unlikely that the Ni could “convert” Ne in the immediate aftermath of such an episode anyway. Feeling constrained, the Ne type may move on, going wherever the environment is amenable to more explorative conversation.
What’s perplexing to Ni is that even though Ne may have seemed intrigued by, even highly enthusiastic over an Ni idea initially, Ne by nature tends to lack the theoretical staying power of Ni; it’s fleeting. This catches the Ni off-guard as it’s naturally expecting the kind of discernment and religious devotion that he himself exhibits as an introverted intuitive. The result can be Ni actually feeling betrayed, as if Ne is guilty of intellectual, or metaphysical, infidelity. Ni, having spent a lifetime carefully crafting and refining its paradigm, is horrified when Ne, like an unwitting consumer tossing back a $2,000 glass of Burgundy in a gulp or two, fails to really realize (let alone savor) what Ni has supplied. And before the Ne can even get the words, “thanks for the drink!” out, he’s already looking for the next vintage (or so it seems to Ni), because once Ne has gleaned the “basic” concept, it needs to find another new idea or theory. After all, how can Ne be certain that a given wine is the best one not having tried anything else?
For the Ne’s part, the initial encounter with an Ni’s philosophy has the appearance of something novel (since it’s likely the first time Ne is coming in contact with that theory.) Such apparent novelty implies that the Ni type is open to new theories and areas of conceptual exploration, much as the Ne is. Imagine the Ne’s surprise when he learns that the only theory that Ni is open to is his own, and that when confronted with new concepts from Ne, Ni isn’t going to be nearly as eager to entertain them as Ne was. So goes the common refrain from Ne types: “you’re so closed-minded!” or, “you’re just threatened by competing ideas!” Additional accusations may include decrying the Ni as dogmatic and hypocritical for dishing out its own perspectives without being able to receive others’ in turn.
Often, however, all that is needed is some space and time for each type to do some additional work within the function stack, to consider one another’s type differences as well as their personal philosophies. The Ni type can’t be expected to show the same openness to a new theory that Ne would, nor can Ni expect the same commitment, “or closedness,” to a theory that Ni has. However, as Ni continues in its growth and development it will (albeit slowly) tweak and refine its paradigm to include those pieces of information that it has extracted from subconscious Se experience. In other words, if one of Ne’s proposed theories actually holds weight, Ni figures that it will eventually “discover it” for itself and incorporate it into the working Ni theory – a much more authentic way for an Ni to adopt an idea than by simply accepting it from without. The same is essentially true for Ne, except that it’s consciously collecting as many competing theories as possible from the outset so that it may work them through the remainder of the function stack, through Si as well as the judging functions. And if an Ni theory is true, it too will be proven with time and experience.
If Ni can appreciate Ne’s need for exploration, trusting that Ne will return if, after tasting hundreds of vintages, he eventually realizes he’s found something really special in Ni’s insights, then a respectful and enjoyable relationship can occur. Conversely, if Ne uses its open-mindedness to understand the difficult position that Ni is in with respect to being able to accept a new theory from without, trusting that Ni is constantly refining its insights and learning to be open to experience so that its theorizing eventually becomes “all-inclusive,” these two types can continue sharing a particularly special rapport with one another as they each set about on the quest for knowledge and truth.
To learn more about Ni, Ne, and intuitive personality types, be sure to explore our books:
My True Type: Clarifying Your Personality Type, Preferences & Functions
The 16 Personality Types: Profiles, Theory & Type Development
nico says
i was attached to an infp, i myself an infj. i think this pretty much sums up why she left for different pastures despite the ‘unified theory’ i have presented about a life together. when i had no more new content to present, not because the well was not deep, but i had already seen the end game she has not seen, she was more content to go and find and see more of it herself.
ali says
As an NJ (Ni) engaged in precisely this kind of dynamic with a Ne on an acadmic-work related interaction, there is another possibility for how this pans out in the long run: the Ni continues to deliver and the Ne continues to suck it up, but the Ni begins to feel taken for granted…and kind of used. So Ni, be careful that you don’t keep giving it all away — it’s not worth it!
Elaine Schallock says
Hello Ali! This is a very accurate point and one, as it happens, that I actually meant to include in the article (points to your incisive insight as an Ni!) I thank you for mentioning it here as it definitely warranted a place in the article (as I said I meant to include it by my weak Si dropped off that thought somewhere in the midst of writing!) I appreciate your readership and wish you the best. – Elaine
ryan says
Hahaha wow. This article came at the right time for me when I, an INFP, have just started to go strong in a relationship with an INTJ.
The thing that always irks me about him is how closed minded he seems. I’m always presenting ideas and thoughts and I rarely get any rapport. He’s always going on and on about the same thing and I find him a bore. This has become quite a problem for us and now I have something to refer to, thanks!
Hopefully in time we can learn to better harmonize our separate communication styles and way of thinking.
Dina Weiner says
Hello, Elaine. As an INFJ like yourself, it is refreshing to have someone explain the way I work, especially an insider like you who is an INFJ as well. I was wondering if you are planning to write a book on the subject of INFJ. Most books on personality are written by INFPs who understand emotions well but have very little in common with INFJs and cannot understand them properly. It would be a great benefit to the INFJ world if you would author such a book. I was also wondering if there are any resources on the subject that you can refer me to. Thank you so much for making me feel ‘not so different’ in a world where we are only 1-3% of the population.
Dina
Elaine Schallock says
Greetings Dina! Thank you for the very kind comment; I appreciate your taking the time to read the article and respond! As it currently stands I’m (attempting) to work on a more extensive book project that would cover personality type theory more generally, from the basics up to the more complex material. I had, at one time, begun working on an INFJ-specific book, but shelved it as I began focusing on covering type theory more generally. I’m inspired by the support of readers, however, and will take into consideration the demand for an INFJ-specific book as I move forward. You’re right, I think, to point out that there are very few books/references on INFJ types specifically and (at the risk of earning myself a few enemies here) I do find that there are a number of INFP types mistyping as INFJs (due to confusion of the Judging function being dominant, however introverted), so a number of the INFJ books/articles written by INFP types don’t fully seem to capture the INFJ, despite the overlaps in strength of introversion, feeling, and intuitive thought. Marie Louise Von Franz’s work “Jung’s Typology” has some very good sections highlighting, in particular, the uniqueness of Ni, and of course Jung’s original book on Psychological Types is worth carefully reading (in the INFJ case both the section on Ni and Fe are useful.) But, again, there seems to be a noticeable lack of material that is INFJ specific other than a limited number of online type profiles (I can obviously recommend the INFJ profile on here as I supplied much of the descriptive material to A.J.) That said, I will definitely consider the level of interest in an INFJ specific book and consider revisiting that project time permitting. Thank you again so much for your readership Dina, I wish you the very best! – Elaine
Infjme says
After reading this, I can see why the INTP I was involved with was so upset about me being complicated. I can see how even with the differences in Ni / Ne it can be so, add in the feeling aspect of it and to a TP it seems very complex, I suspect. Which now seems more clear.
infjme says
I’ve worked through so many of the issues INFJ”s have and have a strong rational side, which means I’ve not really ever acted like most INFJ’s. This has been difficult, because I can’t really connect with the majority of INFJ’s . I really feel like the black sheep of my type. This must be why I migrate to the INT’s.
Amy says
Please put me on your email list
David says
Thanks for a great article once again, Elaine! Me (INFJ) and my wife (INFP) are both avid readers and supporters of this website, and this article is particularly spot on! This sort of question-answer banter is so characteristic of my wife’s and my coversations, and also seen strongly between me and my INTP and ENTP friends. I’m also very excited that you pointed out that the skeptical receptiveness of sensors operating with inferior intuition doesn’t feel genuine to the INFJ, and that strong Ne is a very welcome experience! Addressing infjme’s comment above: You’re certainly neither alone nor a black sheep. I’m an INFJ with a strong rational side, being brought up through an engineering education by my own choice and interest. A good majority of my closest friends are INTJs, and I seem to get along with the NTJ demeanor much more consistently than the NFJ. Perhaps there is an article already addressing this that I just haven’t read yet by A.J. or Elaine, but I know some INFJs that seem to rely much more heavily on Ti than Fe, each being developed seemingly at the expense of the other.
Jenna says
Great article. So accurate. Thanks!
INTP says
On a theoretical basis it would be the Ne who would be the well of knowledge whom the Ni user would consult with. Consider; the Ne user would be far ranging, going from one subject to another, acquiring something from each. Depending on the individual and type (e.g. Ne dominant versus auxiliary) the Ne will have more or less to say about everything they’ve looked at. Conversely the Ni user will tend to have a much smaller range of interests, but will dive much deeper and have more knowledge on those theories. And considering that a typical Ne would be less interested in diving deep on any particular theory, why would you say Ne’s go to Ni’s for ready made theories on anything and everything?
In practice I also am an INTP (Ne aux) married to an INFJ (Ni dominant), and it’s usually her coming to me, on the same subjects over and again. In this case she’s gathering more and more on her favorite subjects and theories, and partially because of this I’ll study them deeper. Here too you see Ti vs Fe. I have the analysis capability to examine subjects logically, which surely appeals to her Ti tertiary.
Perhaps you mean here Ne dominants (e.g. ENTP) and Ni dominants (e.g. INFJ), I don’t have experience with that relationship. But hypothetically I wouldn’t expect the ENTP to be running to the INFJ for ready made theories. Instead I’d expect that the restless ENTP would (probably quickly) reach the breadth of the INFJ’s knowledge, and that ENTP would be much less interested in the great _depth_ of the INFJ’s knowledge.
Individuality comes into play here, but I have difficulty understanding how this dynamic plays out in the general population as you spell out here.
N. W. Flitcraft says
Based on my own (INTP) experiences with FJ (even INFJ) types, the reason your wife “comes to you” rather than vice versa is probably more due to Ti rather than Ne. I know that I personally get the best advice from INTJ’s and ENFP’s (and, oddly enough, STP’s), though INFJ’s are often insightful, sometimes profound. But the latter’s strength is usually not idea- but people-oriented. But I agree about Ne being more w-i-d-e than Ni (which is more “deep”). In any case, I’ve come to realize that a lot of what people call my own “depth” must be more due to Ti than to Ne. Ne sparks the curiosity and “brings” the information, but Ti is what figures everything out and strives after consistency and truth. I think the latter can especially be observed when finding the INTP’s common points with ISTP’s.
N. W. Flitcaft says
A. J.’s work made it clear to me Once And For All that, after some years of uncertainty, I am in fact INTP. However, reading an article such as this makes me think I identify more with Ni than with Ne. The INTJ option, however, for me, seems untenable simply because the Te focus on practical application and *results* holds no interest for me whatsoever. Many people, I think, find me “narrow-minded” (like the Ni types), but perhaps this is due to the dominant preference for Ti? I certainly find the ENTP to be “whacko”, so to speak, whereas I find INTJ’s to be veritable “gurus.” In general, from my own experience, I’ve found that, among all the NP and NJ types, this is how I relate: I have the strongest liking for INTJ’s; whereas I am on-the-fence regarding INFJ’s (if they’re operating from the same set of philosophical assumptions as I am, usually we get along fine; but if our assumptions are divergent, there can be some deep-seated mutual hostility). I think that after INTJ, I find ENFP’s the next most interesting; ENFP’s seem to be a beacons of motivation, inspiration, and hope, and I often find we reach many of the same conclusions. I also seem to get along with ENFJ’s surprisingly well. INFP’s, like INFJ’s, I’m on-the-fence about; I think that if I had a choice between spending an evening with an INFP and an INFJ, I’d choose the latter. ENTP’s and ENTJ’s I do not seem to get along with at all. The former think I am, in fact, “narrow-minded,” and ENTJ’s, while we have many similar interests, see to come to polar opposite conclusions — and operate from polar opposite assumptions — about nearly every single thing. Oddly enough, I don’t know that I get along with people of my own type very well. But honestly, I can’t say this for sure because I don’t know that I’ve ever really “known” another INTP in “real life” (I have, e.g., encountered some online, and, depending on their level of intellectual maturity, we seem to get on reasonably well. But the interaction is nothing like what I find to be so fruitful in dialogue with INTJ’s and ENFP’s [and, again, sometimes INFJ’s, and then, more rarely, INFP’s].) It’s a conundrum that as an INTP I should find extraverted NF’s more amenable than introverted NF’s, and should find interaction with ENT’s, who are “Fellow NT’s”, so very taxing. I suppose so much has to do with the so-called Functional Stack; the distribution, e.g., of Te as tertiary in an ENFP makes them “just the right amount” of refreshingly logical, but able to see the Big Picture by the dominant Ne (and I suppose the common Si plays a role in this compatibility). But I would say that most of all I get along with INTJ’s (except for those rare moments when they insist on me Doing Something more concrete [the Te kicking in]).
Incidentally, I find I get along rather well with ISFJ’s, and STP’s. ISFJ’s, alas, rarely seem to have time for me, preoccupied as so many of them are with their families. ESTJ’s and I, I think, find each other mutually detestable, while ISTJ’s are all right so long as they’re relaxed in their Si-mode; when they get into Te-mode they’re almost as irritating as ESTJ’s. ESFP’s are quite annoying, while ISFP’s are usually easy enough. But again, ESTP’s and ISTP’s seem to be a good match (especially the former).
Dufresne says
As an INTP I completely agree with Flitcraft, that I found myself relating more with the Ni. For instance the dominant Ni here is characterized as quite narrowly focused, while the Ne is somewhat promiscuous with theories. This couldn’t be more untrue if you were comparing INTP’s with INTJ’s. So I think this article might only pertain to N dominants, which is probably what the author had in mind.