I know, 'omie.
I'm just pointing out that you're extolling virtues primarily associated with extroverting perception.
Technically, the claim that there is some meaning other than the overt to things and processes and actions is, it would seem, NOT specific to a given orientation, but the way you're expressing it suggests something that needs action to prompt it. "Listen", "Learn a lot just by [figuring out the reason for words used]"... etc. Moments, prompts, e. All the substance is "out there" waiting to be found.
Now, you wanna get real analytical? I was trying to be nice there, and get you out of your own world for a moment, because you're simply not getting what I'm saying. Adam Savage's catchphrase is supposed to be a joke, after all, not a way of life - though if you want to use it that way, feel free. Just don't expect us to accept you for it.
Isn't Ni supposed to be good at seeing the unseen behind the bare sensory data? What part of that is incompatible with listening and figuring out what's meant, be it consciously or subconsciously? For example, let's take a look at what you previously wrote:
I wonder...
Ni people, when you directly focus attention on the outside world, do you find it to be without meaning? Is it all just so much accident and mishap? Right in the moment, it's attractive and solid, but it doesn't even really count as anything.
And Ne people, the world's chock full of substance, isn't it? Out there, when you really look at it full on, there's just *so much* that could be, isn't there?
/wild_guess
/artificial_distinction
/end_of_days
First of all, let's look at the juxtaposition of the two thoughts. The Ni-targeted thought dismisses what you seem to believe is important from an Ne perspective, while the Ne-targeted comment asserts that the rest of us are clearly silly for not seeing the "substance" in reality. You may object that this is not what you intended, but guess what - that's what you said. So, it strikes me as just a mite hypocritical to jump on me for "extolling the virtues" of extraversion. Or is that kind of consistency too "restraining" for you?
I'll put it this way - it's not that you know something without proof. That's perfectly fine; I get those kinds of hunches all the freakin' time. The issue is that you're seemingly proud that you don't "need" proof. And then, when the rest of us call you out for being full of shit, you hide behind the supposed esotericism of Ni, instead of owning up to the idea that you might be wrong on the subject, instead of admitting that the conception "works for [you]" and 99% of the time has no basis in reality, and pointing to that 1% as reason that we should bow to your overweening intellect.
So, when I say "listen to others," it's not because I believe extraverted perception is the end-all, be-all of things, it's because those people know a hell of a lot more about the world as they conceive it than you do from your own perception. Your Ni will always be deficient if you don't have fuel to work with, and that fuel is the way others perceive the world. So, for crying out loud, listen!
