I had a "realization" earlier today so I thought I would try to post it here, for people to discuss/criticise. It's probably either obvious or wrong, lol
So, I had an idea as to why Ps tend to view things as maybes.
I think Ps tend to think in terms of "Maybe it's like this, maybe it's like that, maybe I will do X, Y, or Z..." etc. It's not very certain. Unless the P in question applies judgement -- then I think we can be certain of things (e.g. being certain that X is the correct/right decision).
I think it would be different for Ji doms (IP) and Pe doms (EP), with IPs applying more judgement and EPs thinking more in terms of maybes.
That much I think is obvious. As always, if you disagree, please respond.
The realization was regarding WHY Ps look at the world in maybes:
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.
(It may not be true for all Ps, even though it is true for me. But if it's not true for most Ps, then I'd think it's not type related. lol)
It would also explain why I (and maybe others) have problems explaining things from the ground up. To explain one thing fully, I'd have to explain everything else! More realistically, to explain one thing to the best of my knowledge, I'd have to explain all closely related concepts, which is still a pretty large set.
So yeah, perhaps that's why you see all these people writing walls of text... it really is that hard to explain things without making reference to all sorts of other things we determine are somehow related.