Why Ps tend to see the world in "maybes"

[Quinlan]

I see it as a Ji-Je thing, to the Ji the inner world is predictable, safe, the rules and structure are obvious, the outer world however is chaotic, unpredictable. The Je sees it the other way around.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I'm pretty classic Pe with the "maybes", getting stuck in considering every angle & not wanting to rule anything out too fast; but there does come a point where I will make a decision or form a rather solid opinion. Because I've considered so much info & so many alternate ideas, it's hard to budge that decision simply because most any argument against has already been considered thoroughly. Even still, the decision tends to be a general preference, meaning there's still all kinds of wiggle room for how to enact it.

I think the nature of Ji is a lot more, well, abstract than people realize. As far as Fi goes, Jung describes its valuations as amounting to significant ideas, which means they are rather basic concepts, not very specific or sharply defined. The external world is approached with Pe, so you easily see a multitude of ways to meet these basic ideals, and the problem often becomes picking just one option. The structure of the inner world is a model or framework in that sense, which is open to interpretation, adaption, and even some revision as new info comes in.

 

[strychnine]

Things change over time and possibilities depend on these things that change. P(Ne/Se) is about keeping the eyes open for things changing(rather than seeing static things) and N is about concentrating on the possibilities(rather than facts(S)).

This misconception has lead to SPs mistyping as Ns. The word "possibilities", used without further description, is misleading.

As Functianalyst writes on Personality Cafe:

As Linda Berens and Dario Nardi claim here, "With Se, there is an emphasis on possibilities for actions to take. With Ne, there is an emphasis on possibilities to be considered for action". Naomi Quenck (author and developer of the MBTI Step II) also says based on Jung's work, one cannot consider actions and actually act on them at the same time.

Every action is a possibility until it's done. You could think of it like conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy... the potential is the possibility, and the kinetic is the action... but the action does not immediately spring into form as an action. It's a possibility first, then acted upon.

And as [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] writes here: [emphasis mine]

A way to look at it I was recently given (as I too was confused about "possibilities" being mentioned for both, when we usually think about only Ne with that term), Se is possibilities that exist with things as they exist right now. Like a football player who sees who is in a position that he can pass the ball to.
Se "does" or acts, but is not about changing present reality like Ne is.
It's like Se reacts to situations already changing, while Ne looks at how to change them. Ne is inferring (that's the definitive term for N) a pattern of "possibility" from the situation, rather then just acting on it as it is.

The following isn't directly responding to your post... but might be relevant.

I also happened to find this post from [MENTION=12849]Retmeishka[/MENTION], an ISTP:

[...] Are you more focused on:
what is possible
what is actual

How did I answer that question? I liked 'what is possible' because there are so many things that I just don't like about the real world. I am dissatisfied with many things and I wish things were different than they actually are. So ANYBODY who feels disgruntled and dissatisfied with the world as it is will say they like the idea of 'what is possible' instead of 'what is actual,' and they will be labeled an intuitive. I always have a list of 'possibilities,' or options, or different ways something could be done, but that doesn't make me an intuitive.

In fact, I might argue that intuitives like to think about things that are IMpossible! They like logical contradictions and putting together ideas to create things that don't really exist. 'What is possible' doesn't describe that - it would be described as 'what is impossible.'

Much of the conflict between sensors and intuitives happens when an intuitive suggests an idea that is too abstract and general to work in reality, and the sensors tell them it's impossible and they need to work out the details.

Meanwhile, the intuitives think that they themselves are suggesting other 'possible' ways of doing things or seeing things, and that everyone else is seeing only what is already there. So the test question says 'what is possible/actual.' And the sensors would respond by saying that the intuitives' ideas are impossible, and listing a whole bunch of details to show why some idea can't be done in reality.

The word 'possible' might mean something different to intuitives than it does to sensors. [...]

I find that last sentence spot on.

I consider ideas possible even if they are not possible at the present moment, e.g. if we don't have the technology to bring them to fruition yet. Another person might consider that same idea impossible, because it's not possible with the current state of the world.

And I think this issue where people interpret the same word differently gets right to the heart of typology...

I tend to think of very few things as impossible, perhaps if they are directly contradictory (P and not P).

Don't know what that makes me, and it doesn't really matter... I'm just saying that even the word "possibilities" means different things to different types.

 

[strychnine]

My life has become easier since I dared to make decisions. I dont think that "deciding" is so much related to p or j at all, but I think that p or j's have different preconditions for developing strength in that department.

I came to know with age that deciding means to compromise to settle for one opinion and with that develop something progressive. So the phase of "could be, could be not" basically ended for me when I passed the age of 25. In the real world indecisiveness doesnt get you very far, if you want to achieve a responsible position in your working environment.

Pness nowadays isnt so much about "maybe" for me no more, but about flexibility of opinion and your decisions. I go by the idea: every decision thast can be changed easily is a good one.

I have learnt that having an opinion means actually to take on responsibility for a thing or idea and given the vast amount of ideas there are out there, one has to settle for some and try things out to at least have some sort of progress. I think this is a lesson all P's need to learn at some point in their lifes.

Wow. This is great, thanks. I am still in the drifting, "maybe" stage. Yeah, I think one needs solid decisions in order to progress. For me, I think indecisiveness might even be a defense mechanism so I don't have to take action. Action necessarily runs the risk of failure, and I think I have a fear of failure.

Pe expands. our worlds are ever-expanding. unlike Pi, which reduces. both aim towards One eventually, but we are working outward towards the Whole, while they are working inwards towards the Singularity. it makes our lives harder in that we have trouble deciding, yet easier in that we are more open to change.

Thanks. This pretty much sums up what I was trying to say, except you are much clearer lol. Pe stitches parts together to make a whole.

Yes I do believe J tendencies can be learned, but the preference will always remain. That speaker moves into some training he's developed to aid that, but I have not seen it myself. I know that I organize and plan some aspects of my life (usually work) very well, but it does take tremendous effort - not natural. Not sure if tert Te development has helped this along, or just being pounded over the head for years with the undesireable consequences that come with constant perception, lol.

I agree, J tendencies can be learned but that doesn't make one a J (functionally speaking). I also force myself to plan some things, for fear of dire consequences if I don't, and I can do it well... but like you it takes massive effort.

I'm pretty classic Pe with the "maybes", getting stuck in considering every angle & not wanting to rule anything out too fast; but there does come a point where I will make a decision or form a rather solid opinion. Because I've considered so much info & so many alternate ideas, it's hard to budge that decision simply because most any argument against has already been considered thoroughly. Even still, the decision tends to be a general preference, meaning there's still all kinds of wiggle room for how to enact it.

Oh yeah, good point. When I reach decisions they are actually difficult to change -- not because I'm stuck in my ways, but because so many viewpoints have been considered already that the chance of encountering a new viewpoint is pretty low. However, that chance is not zero, so the decision is still technically tentative. lol.

 

[INTP]

This misconception has lead to SPs mistyping as Ns. The word "possibilities", used without further description, is misleading.

As Functianalyst writes on Personality Cafe:



Every action is a possibility until it's done. You could think of it like conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy... the potential is the possibility, and the kinetic is the action... but the action does not immediately spring into form as an action. It's a possibility first, then acted upon.

And as [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] writes here: [emphasis mine]




The following isn't directly responding to your post... but might be relevant.

I also happened to find this post from [MENTION=12849]Retmeishka[/MENTION], an ISTP:



I find that last sentence spot on.

I consider ideas possible even if they are not possible at the present moment, e.g. if we don't have the technology to bring them to fruition yet. Another person might consider that same idea impossible, because it's not possible with the current state of the world.

And I think this issue where people interpret the same word differently gets right to the heart of typology...

I tend to think of very few things as impossible, perhaps if they are directly contradictory (P and not P).

Don't know what that makes me, and it doesn't really matter... I'm just saying that even the word "possibilities" means different things to different types.

Its not Se that sees the possibilities for action, its the Ni of Se user.

I know about the vision for action and vision for perception being different. Vision for action isnt Se, its Ni prerequirment for Ni. First of all, its unconscious, Se isnt, it leaves visual cortex from dorsal pathway, extraversion goes to opposite direction, towards visual cortex, not out of it(yea i know it sounds weird, but if you learn how brains work, you will understand why, also jungs idea of extraversion supports this). Ni comes from future projection area of the brains(according to dario nardi) and this is where this dorsal pathway leads to(actually this area is on the right side of the brains, Ne users seem to repress this sided dorsal pathway and use the left side(which leads to areas more involved with formation of Si.

Jungs definition for functions are:
S tells you that something is.
T tells you what it is.
F tells you what it is worth.
N tells you where it came from and where it is going.

I dont care about what berens, dario or especially ericb say about the function definitions, im more interested on jungs definitions and what makes sense from scientific and personal point of view. And jungs definitions make the most sense from neurological, logical and personal point of view.

Ps. Im not saying that S types dont concentrate on possibilities, incase you didnt know all types have N, N types just are more conscious of N(possibility over time) than S(what is, perceivable facts) function.

 

[strychnine]

[MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION] - Are you saying that an SP has to "use" Ni to scan for potential actions? The scanning is not from Se?

I know that all types have both S and N functions. Does what you have just said suggest or imply that Ss must focus more on facts than possibilities? Or can an S-type focus more on possibilities than facts, and still be considered S?

 

[INTP]

[MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION] - Are you saying that an SP has to "use" Ni to scan for potential actions? The scanning is not from Se?

I know that all types have both S and N functions. Does what you have just said suggest or imply that Ss must focus more on facts than possibilities? Or can an S-type focus more on possibilities than facts, and still be considered S?

Im saying that S only tells you that something is, thats the definition for S. N tells you possibilities about where that thing came from and where its going.
I was just trying to demonstrate to you why its not Se that does the seeking for possibilities, it goes against the very definition of Se(and the scientific data about what extraversion is on neural level). And since you propably already know(as you start to argue about this), Ni is what puts those facts together that Se delivered. Also darios work has shown that Ni uses areas P4 and T6(on 18 electrode eeg setup). P4 dario defined(based on work of other people) "weight many factors at once" and T6 "future projection"(naturally the areas arent this simple, they are just simplified to make it easier to understand). These areas are located next to visual cortex on right hemisphere(left if using radiologist terms) and where the dorsal pathway leads to from visual cortex.
Also it should be mentioned that this isnt all just Ni usage that uses these areas. Functions arent certain areas, they are patterns of action of certain areas(also propably in certain order).
Ne for example cant be traced on any area, its basically random activity on different areas(possibly all measured by dario, depending on situation) which leads to insight, sort of searching different possible angles to look at something from.

Cba to write more about this, but to conclude, vision for action or possibilities is not what Se does.

 

[INTP]

[MENTION=10383]strychnine[/MENTION] and incase you are interested on the "map" that dario used(he didnt come up with the areas or definitions for areas himself):

And do note again that the explanations for areas are really much simplified.

 

[strychnine]

[MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION] Thanks. I found a thread discussing some of Nardi's research here http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...6-dario-nardi-s-neuroscience-personality.html

This is pretty interesting, I'll read up more on it.

 

[Eric B]

Its not Se that sees the possibilities for action, its the Ni of Se user.

I know about the vision for action and vision for perception being different. Vision for action isnt Se, its Ni prerequirment for Ni. First of all, its unconscious, Se isnt, it leaves visual cortex from dorsal pathway, extraversion goes to opposite direction, towards visual cortex, not out of it(yea i know it sounds weird, but if you learn how brains work, you will understand why, also jungs idea of extraversion supports this). Ni comes from future projection area of the brains(according to dario nardi) and this is where this dorsal pathway leads to(actually this area is on the right side of the brains, Ne users seem to repress this sided dorsal pathway and use the left side(which leads to areas more involved with formation of Si.

Jungs definition for functions are:
S tells you that something is.
T tells you what it is.
F tells you what it is worth.
N tells you where it came from and where it is going.

I dont care about what berens, dario or especially ericb say about the function definitions, im more interested on jungs definitions and what makes sense from scientific and personal point of view. And jungs definitions make the most sense from neurological, logical and personal point of view.

Se and Ni are two sides of the same coin. You can't really have one without the other (one person calls such tandems "ladies' earrings") at least somewhere in the background (hence, unconscious, or at least less conscious). So there's no contradiction.

S, and N perception, and T and F judgment are implicit in every bit of data. It's our ego consciousness that divides it into i and e (yielding 8 function-attitudes) and focuses more on one function and attitude or the other.
So yes, when you see "possibilities" in emergent "what is" data, then there is also a storehouse of "where it's going" data working in the background. On the other hand, if I'm focusing on emergent "where it's going" data, then a storehouse of "what is" is in the background as well. You keep disputing people, but there really is no real conflict. It's just a matter of interpretation and rephrasing of Jung's concepts (which are very dense and prone to misunderstanding as it is, so you can't blame people for trying to recast it in their own way).

 

[Eric B]

Its not Se that sees the possibilities for action, its the Ni of Se user.

I know about the vision for action and vision for perception being different. Vision for action isnt Se, its Ni prerequirment for Ni. First of all, its unconscious, Se isnt, it leaves visual cortex from dorsal pathway, extraversion goes to opposite direction, towards visual cortex, not out of it(yea i know it sounds weird, but if you learn how brains work, you will understand why, also jungs idea of extraversion supports this). Ni comes from future projection area of the brains(according to dario nardi) and this is where this dorsal pathway leads to(actually this area is on the right side of the brains, Ne users seem to repress this sided dorsal pathway and use the left side(which leads to areas more involved with formation of Si.

Jungs definition for functions are:
S tells you that something is.
T tells you what it is.
F tells you what it is worth.
N tells you where it came from and where it is going.

I dont care about what berens, dario or especially ericb say about the function definitions, im more interested on jungs definitions and what makes sense from scientific and personal point of view. And jungs definitions make the most sense from neurological, logical and personal point of view.

Se and Ni are two sides of the same coin. You can't really have one without the other (one person calls such tandems "ladies' earrings") at least somewhere in the background (hence, unconscious, or at least less conscious). So there's no contradiction.

S, and N perception, and T and F judgment are implicit in every bit of data. If something "is", then in a universe of time, it must also be "heading" somewhere as well. If its heading somewhere, then it must first be something that "is". And if something "is", and is determined to be such by rational creatures, then it must also have some sort of "worth" (even if lack thereof). And again, if something has "worth", then it must be something that "is".
It's our ego consciousness that divides all of this into i and e (yielding 8 function-attitudes) and focuses more on one of these perpsectives and orientations or the other.

So yes, when you see "possibilities" in emergent "what is" data, then there is also a storehouse of "where it's going" data working in the background. In the football example that was cited, an emergent "what is" is the primary, conscious perspective. "where it's going" is in the background. So it was primarily an "Se" perspective. Ni-preferring types are not as focused on a physical perspective like that, until they have really matured and developed their tertiary or inferior.
On the other hand, if I'm focusing on emergent "where it's going" data, then a storehouse of "what is" is in the background as well. You keep disputing people on this stuff, but there really is no real conflict. It's just a matter of interpretation and rephrasing of Jung's concepts (which are very dense and prone to misunderstanding as it is, so you can't blame people for trying to recast it in their own way. He had even changed some of his concepts, so he is not so absolute).

 

[xisnotx]

"perhaps"

This is perhaps my favorite word. I mean, I wouldn't know for sure, I have yet to evaluate all the words I know in terms of favorability...and think of all the words I don't even know yet..

 

[INTP]

Se and Ni are two sides of the same coin. You can't really have one without the other (one person calls such tandems "ladies' earrings") at least somewhere in the background (hence, unconscious, or at least less conscious). So there's no contradiction.

S, and N perception, and T and F judgment are implicit in every bit of data. If something "is", then in a universe of time, it must also be "heading" somewhere as well. If its heading somewhere, then it must first be something that "is". And if something "is", and is determined to be such by rational creatures, then it must also have some sort of "worth" (even if lack thereof). And again, if something has "worth", then it must be something that "is".
It's our ego consciousness that divides all of this into i and e (yielding 8 function-attitudes) and focuses more on one of these perpsectives and orientations or the other.

So yes, when you see "possibilities" in emergent "what is" data, then there is also a storehouse of "where it's going" data working in the background. In the football example that was cited, an emergent "what is" is the primary, conscious perspective. "where it's going" is in the background. So it was primarily an "Se" perspective. Ni-preferring types are not as focused on a physical perspective like that, until they have really matured and developed their tertiary or inferior.
On the other hand, if I'm focusing on emergent "where it's going" data, then a storehouse of "what is" is in the background as well. You keep disputing people on this stuff, but there really is no real conflict. It's just a matter of interpretation and rephrasing of Jung's concepts (which are very dense and prone to misunderstanding as it is, so you can't blame people for trying to recast it in their own way. He had even changed some of his concepts, so he is not so absolute).

Its not Se that sees the possibilities, its Ni, using the analogy of different side of the same coin doesent change this, its still different sides. Also these two things in neurological level are two different operations, jung was able to differentiate the two, by seeing the difference in S and N.

S and N perception is combined into one, which comes to consciousness. Like i told already, S only sees 'what is', N tells you where it came from and where it is going.

So you could say that N detects motion, combines those separate images of 'what is' into fluid perception.

Dont believe that they are separate systems? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akinetopsia

Every type of single perception or thought are implicit unless they are combined with other stuff on other brain regions.

Its stupid to even argue about this, because this is so basic things and i cba to explain how brains operate. Ill give you one tip tho, move away from those stupid wanna be jung theories, they are simply misleading and you clearly have been misled big time, but i have already told you that multiple times. And dont just read about typology, read about current stuff in field of psychology if you really want to see how this stuff goes. And im not saying that jungs concepts are absolutes, im just saying that if you read jung instead of berens, thompson etc and look at what jung says in the framework of current knowledge about psychology, you will see how close jung actually got with his stuff and how far off those modern day (mis)interprations about jungs stuff are.

 

[Eric B]

Its not Se that sees the possibilities, its Ni, using the analogy of different side of the same coin doesent change this, its still different sides.

I didn't say Se saw possibilities in that last post. I was granting you that Ni saw the possibilities, but the primary perspective was Se "emergent data", and that thus the two functions work together. The way you're taking it, the athlete (which is a field good for Se types) would have to in effect "switch gears" when he "uses Se" to see "what is" before him, and then "use" Ni in recognizing where it's going. That's actually the way the "folk typologists" (remember that term?) who are misled use the concepts. But that's not what it's about.

Also these two things in neurological level are two different operations, jung was able to differentiate the two, by seeing the difference in S and N.

S and N perception is combined into one, which comes to consciousness. Like i told already, S only sees 'what is', N tells you where it came from and where it is going.

So you could say that N detects motion, combines those separate images of 'what is' into fluid perception.

Dont believe that they are separate systems? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akinetopsia

That's talking about physical motion, not the type of "motion" Jungian iNtuition deals with (i.e. conceptual). Are you suggesting that each person "uses S" when seeing something, and then "uses N" when he sees its position in physical space change (physical motion)?
Is that really what Jung meant, or is that your or someone else's idea?

Just seeing something move is neither S nor N. This is the common mistake many make, leading one to wonder how N's could "see", since they have to "use" an unconscious or less conscious function; and in order to see as good as an S, they would have to "develop" their "Sensing". That's just like F="emotions", T is "thinking" meaning "thoughts", Si="remembering", Fe="considering others". (The worst definitions of those experts you criticize!)

S, as we are discussing it as a type preference, means that though we all see "what is" equally, I prefer to pay more attention to that which is; and where it came from or is going is less relevant to ego's preference. N means that I see what is, but prefer to pay more attention to where it came from or is going, than just focusing on it for its own sake.

And "where it came from/where it's going is NOT spatial as that article is talking about. At least, not necessarily. If I see something already moving, and then try to figure the trajectory or possible places it can end up (momentarily taking my focus off of the physical object and particular locations in the process and conceptualizing about them instead), that is iNtuition. But just seeing it move from one place to the other is not iNtuition!

It has nothing to do with visual "motion". It's "where it came from or is going" in concept, not in space.

Its stupid to even argue about this

Of course, its as I said...

because this is so basic things and i cba to explain how brains operate. Ill give you one tip tho, move away from those stupid wanna be jung theories, they are simply misleading and you clearly have been misled big time, but i have already told you that multiple times. And dont just read about typology, read about current stuff in field of psychology if you really want to see how this stuff goes. And im not saying that jungs concepts are absolutes, im just saying that if you read jung instead of berens, thompson etc and look at what jung says in the framework of current knowledge about psychology, you will see how close jung actually got with his stuff and how far off those modern day (mis)interprations about jungs stuff are.

I don't see how he's "right" and they're "wrong". "Closer" to what? Mainstream psychological knowledge? They don't seem to be embracing him that much. The main problem I can see with the interpreters is not clarifying things enough. (And some of those oversimplified definitions, when they do attempt to clarify). But with Jung, clarifying can be hard.

 

[Thinkist]

Yes I do believe J tendencies can be learned, but the preference will always remain. That speaker moves into some training he's developed to aid that, but I have not seen it myself. I know that I organize and plan some aspects of my life (usually work) very well, but it does take tremendous effort - not natural. Not sure if tert Te development has helped this along, or just being pounded over the head for years with the undesireable consequences that come with constant perception, lol.

Now lemme ask you this: How easy is it for Js to learn the perceiver's ways? Could Js be at a slight disadvantage? Just as it can be hard for perceivers to extrovert their judgements, so can it be hard for judgers to extrovert their perceptions.

 

[KDude]

I'm not sure what types we're even talking about to begin with. The MBTI J/P dichotomy is a mess. Jung had Rationals and Irrationals - and the dom perceivers (be it Extro or Intro) were the Irrationals...the ones full of "maybes", if you will. Here, it's all redefined, and only the extroverts are described correctly when talking about Jungian theory. A mess.

I'm some Perceiver who doesn't care to fix the mess though. I just see it.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Dependencies. Everything seems dependent on everything else to fully make sense. In order to understand something fully, it seems to me that I have to also understand EVERYTHING else. And given that I don't understand everything at present, and that I probably CAN'T understand everything even if I tried, I have to view the things I would otherwise say I "know" as maybes. This means that what J types might consider "facts", the P is forced to view as possibilities -- even if a possibility with a very high probability of being true -- such that the probability that it's untrue is negligible. Yet, it's still a possibility, not a "fact".

But in the meantime it's like everything new that I learn unlocks a piece of the puzzle, and if I were to learn everything (which I won't) it will all stitch together perfectly to make a coherent, consistent whole.

But until we can fully understand everything, we cannot claim to have fully understood any one thing... and what remains only partially understood is a "maybe" in the mind of a P. So everything remains a "maybe".

This is how I tend to think, but it can be difficult to actually have interactions with people that reflect this thinking. People often project a lot of certitude in discussions regardless of type. Even at single type sites that are exclusively "P's" it is rare to see this withholding of judgment. I wonder if there can also be an internal sense of uncertainty that can be overcompensated for in external discussions? Discussions filled with maybe's and exploring the uncertainties are wonderful, but these can be difficult to find. I wonder about that. What do you think?

Edit: in offline discussions and sometimes online, I have found that others will tend to project certainties into my thinking that aren't there and a significant amount of energy is spent explaining that I don't hold the opinions that they assume. If it is a conflict dynamic the assumption is that it is a very opposite opinion, and if congenial that it is the same opinion. Usually I don't hold either and remember having debates on both sides of topics with people who quickly project a set of opinions onto my thinking. I have family who are strongly "P" who have said that their strength is in their certainty in ideas. It's a complex area to examine - the relationship between doubt and certitude in how people think and relate.

 

[Totenkindly]

Dependencies. Everything seems dependent on everything else to fully make sense. In order to understand something fully, it seems to me that I have to also understand EVERYTHING else. And given that I don't understand everything at present, and that I probably CAN'T understand everything even if I tried, I have to view the things I would otherwise say I "know" as maybes. This means that what J types might consider "facts", the P is forced to view as possibilities -- even if a possibility with a very high probability of being true -- such that the probability that it's untrue is negligible. Yet, it's still a possibility, not a "fact".

But in the meantime it's like everything new that I learn unlocks a piece of the puzzle, and if I were to learn everything (which I won't) it will all stitch together perfectly to make a coherent, consistent whole.

But until we can fully understand everything, we cannot claim to have fully understood any one thing... and what remains only partially understood is a "maybe" in the mind of a P. So everything remains a "maybe".

And this is my working hypothesis as to why we Ps tend to view the world in "maybes" while Js tend to see things more definitively.

Well, yes.

J's impose order on chaos and bring closure in alignment with their goals. The self can assert a structure on events and things.

P's are more apt to see things as "unfolding" in a natural flow of events; some P's will try to game the results, true, while other P's are very much "hands off" and not wanting to impose at all on the order. But in any case, yes, if the event flow is distinct from the person, then everything is a "maybe." The only things known for sure are the things that one directly dictates, everything else follows from the process. Even P's that game the system are taking advantage of their understanding of the natural flow of the system, rather than just looking at the system as something to be overriden.

 

[skylights]

Even P's that game the system are taking advantage of their understanding of the natural flow of the system, rather than just looking at the system as something to be overriden.

it's been my rule when i'm out on the ocean bodyboarding or surfing, too, ever since i was little. even though you might want to go a certain direction or at a certain time, the ocean is a bigger force than you (and it is a force that sustains you), and you are wise to listen to it and let it aid you in where you want to go. it's just easier - you tire yourself out otherwise. if it's pushing against you, question if it has good reason and might not be worth your effort to fight it. if you fight the wind you get drawn out to sea. and perhaps you will wind up somewhere new, perhaps in a way more enjoyable or more enlightening than before. if you're forever asserting yourself on the universe, you're not going to learn its secrets.

by the same token a J could say that if you neglect asserting yourself, you'll never get where you've always wanted to go, and you'll always be subservient to something else. you'll miss out on opportunity that could have been conquered.

both are true.

 

[INTP]

I'm not sure what types we're even talking about to begin with. The MBTI J/P dichotomy is a mess. Jung had Rationals and Irrationals - and the dom perceivers (be it Extro or Intro) were the Irrationals...the ones full of "maybes", if you will. Here, it's all redefined, and only the extroverts are described correctly when talking about Jungian theory. A mess.

I'm some Perceiver who doesn't care to fix the mess though. I just see it.

Jungs rational/orrational concept has nothing to do with these maybes and definition is totally different from MBTI J and P. MBTI P types/jungs E-irrational and I-rational are the ones full of maybes. So simply no to everything that you said.