I then use all of this to "fill in what's missing
"; that the person talking to me isn't even aware of. They then tell me "no, that's not what we meant"", and often put together a less critical string of meaning of the situation. But I "look at the trajectory" of "where the data wants to go", and what's "beyond the map" people are reading (As the person describing Ni told me), and it always seems to lead squarely to these negative conclusions. Conclusions which their rosy views of God's involvement in life "must leave out in order to remain intact".
This should have figured all along, when I was struggling to understand what I was told!
So I realized this was Senex Ni; the "critical" part of me that scans people's words looking for negative stories via inferences and implications.
Of course, for me, this is shadow, and very erratic, and I guess, often off-base, as the people are complaining. For Ni preferrers, it could be like this, in a negative situation (hence they're often characterized as "conspiratorial"), but it would also be used in a more mature fashin in good situations.
So can the NJ's here identify with this description?