User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 189

  1. #101
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Urarienev View Post
    Just youtube Dario Nardi Neuroscience of Personality and start it at 56:50. I dunno why it's not working. :/
    This one I guess

    That circuit, not much was said about it... how do you know your brain is lit in those patterns? :P

    Ni isn't the circuit btw, according to Nardi, it's a "whole brain, zen-like pattern" thingie.

    That circuit was involving two Ti regions and two Te/Fi regions according to his research

  2. #102
    I want my account deleted
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    Yeah, pretty much as I remembered it (I lacked energy to go back through).

    At this point, I myself have moved on from that because a new way to think about it came up that I find more accurate. I personally find Z Buck's metaphor more accurate for me - not only in terms of my own experiences (which it is), but also because I ran both metaphors/descriptions by my INFP partner and asked which fit me per her years of observations and experiences with me. She said the blank canvas one didn't fit at all, she basically had no way at all to relate that to me. But when I mentioned the Magic Eye 3D metaphor, she kind of lit up with "Yeah! I can see that!" and we ended up with a very interesting discussion of how those things work.

    Here's the original quote re that Magic Eye 3D metaphor:

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    The term ‘blank’ doesn’t quite sit right with me because (if only for me) the association that brings up is of a blank canvas or something- and blank canvases are easier to work with, they can be consciously and willingly filled in. My 'canvas' will reject any paint (or pastel, pencil, etc) I try to force onto it and it'll poke me in the eye for even trying. I feel it’s more like looking at one of those Magic Eye 3D images and a sort of ‘waiting’ (without much idea of what will surface, but the distinct feeling that the image is already there and I can't see it yet- I’m not choosing it, it’s just there) than it is ‘blankness’ per se.
    And my response, minus the part that your comment focused on:

    Quote Originally Posted by Werebudgie View Post
    Actually, that does resonate more with how I experience it. ... I think your description is even more resonant with what's really "there" for me. It's a landscape of information that's non-differentiated to my conscious mind. And for me, organically, that's really okay.

    eta: So, at dinner, I mentioned the "blank" concept to my partner and she said it doesn't match with her experience of me at all. I then mentioned your Magic 3D Eye metaphor to her and she said that actually does mesh strongly with her experience of me. This underscores my sense that your metaphor refines whatever we're trying to get at in favor of greater accuracy.
    We ended up having a relatively interesting discussion that included attention to focusing/unfocusing and how that's related to our respective modes of information processing. Because she's a judging dominant (we assume), she can't unfocus her metaphorical eyes if she's looking directly at the kind of information that makes up my inner field per the Magic Eye 3D metaphor. Her experience is that when she herself gets flashes of information of that nature (not from me, when it happens to her), if she looks at it directly it goes away because she has to focus and that focusing makes it go away ... so she has look at it kind of sideways, glimpse it only out of the corner or her metaphorical eye, or she loses it. But I can metaphorically look directly at such information (when I get it directly, which is pretty much all the time) and keep my metaphorical eyes unfocused to allow whatever's inside all that "stuff" to show itself when it's ready.

  3. #103
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    It can go anywhere, be anything, is always open for new information, an entire reinterpretation.
    No. I have enough empirical evidence to prove this false. This is simply propoganda.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    I can't think of a direct example. But it seems a lot of Ni-isms are "paradoxes".
    Just for contrast, a Ne type can hold several possibilities to be, well, possible, even if they contradict. This is more "shallow" in a sense, so it's not so hard to grasp. But with Ni, and arguably Si, there's an ability to see it not as possibility, but reality. I guess it's just the experience of reality being subjective, a matter of interpretation more than objective fact.
    And that is the beauty of Ni right there, that desire to take all the possibilities we would hold open and reconcile them to a singular over-arching vision or truth. Sometimes that truth is the paradox. To hold onto something, we must let it go ... truisms such as this.

    IMO, this makes the Ni+Te combo more interesting in a person because the functions are almost checking each other. I suppose that's what auxiliary functions do (as a complement & "balance"), but it's very obvious in that particular one. Or perhaps there's an advantage that they prove their "checks" to others with Te. NFs have such a disadvantage there. Even INTPs have more frustration.
    Agreed. Te has the benefit of more solid 'real world' objective proofs. (Does it work? Yes or No.) Fe is working on the premise of objectivity in a system that not everyone agrees is objective. Still, Fe manages to obtain some sort of consensus despite this difficulty (same question, does it work?) mostly because Fe needs that agreed space to exist, therefore fosters the creation and maintenance of that space. I personally see this realm as subjective, so trying to carve objective truths from it is mostly useful as a guide but can on occasion be quite troublesome and even dangerous.

    Ti still gets to flit in that 'check and balance' world because, again, there is at some point a groundedness in something measureable and quantifiable. edited: as it filters through the preceding functions, the 'check and balance' aspect is influenced by each in turn.

    It doesn't feel "empty", just formless.
    Agreed. It seems as though the conversation is going in a direction that isn't jiving with what I feel as this space. It is not a "blank canvas" to me. It's an inner space that, when I explore it, has no dimension or shape. That does not mean there is nothing there. Yet, there is nothing of something that I do expect to be there.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  4. #104
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Werebudgie View Post
    ...She said the blank canvas one didn't fit at all, she basically had no way at all to relate that to me. But when I mentioned the Magic Eye 3D metaphor, she kind of lit up with "Yeah! I can see that!" and we ended up with a very interesting discussion of how those things work...

    Here's the original quote re that Magic Eye 3D metaphor:

    The term ‘blank’ doesn’t quite sit right with me because (if only for me) the association that brings up is of a blank canvas or something- and blank canvases are easier to work with, they can be consciously and willingly filled in. My 'canvas' will reject any paint (or pastel, pencil, etc) I try to force onto it and it'll poke me in the eye for even trying. I feel it’s more like looking at one of those Magic Eye 3D images and a sort of ‘waiting’ (without much idea of what will surface, but the distinct feeling that the image is already there and I can't see it yet- I’m not choosing it, it’s just there) than it is ‘blankness’ per se.
    ...We ended up having a relatively interesting discussion that included attention to focusing/unfocusing and how that's related to our respective modes of information processing. Because she's a judging dominant (we assume), she can't unfocus her metaphorical eyes if she's looking directly at the kind of information that makes up my inner field per the Magic Eye 3D metaphor. Her experience is that when she herself gets flashes of information of that nature (not from me, when it happens to her), if she looks at it directly it goes away because she has to focus and that focusing makes it go away ... so she has look at it kind of sideways, glimpse it only out of the corner or her metaphorical eye, or she loses it. But I can metaphorically look directly at such information (when I get it directly, which is pretty much all the time) and keep my metaphorical eyes unfocused to allow whatever's inside all that "stuff" to show itself when it's ready.
    I think the original blank canvas metaphor did not imply anything about the Ni-dom user forcing paint on the canvas...Actually, I don't know if others (@ and @Susurrus) agree with this but the canvas gets filled with whatever gets thru my external functions (Fe-aux and Se-inferior)...I do not put or force any paint on it...The canvas is an internal surface\screen that external data gets imprinted\projected on...

    Ni then gazes on the canvas and compares the pattern\figure in the canvas constantly with whatever set of patterns have already been stored within Ni, and yields a result if a matching pattern is found...

    However, the matching pattern is not necessarily consciously visible to the Ni-dom user readily...For me, to be able to make sense of the pattern, I need to consciously focus on it using Ti-tert...

    Let's call an external set of data "a smudge of paint on the canvas"...Ni keeps gazing on the canvas all the time...With the first smudge it may or may not see any matching pattern...then there comes another smudge...Ni starts saying "this looks like a horse..."...then comes another smudge...Ni says "I am sure this is a horse"...Then comes another smudge...depending on the incoming data Ni may see that the figure infact resembles a unicorn rather than a simple horse...mind that the figure on the canvas is still not a complete version...So Ni makes an approximation or an educated guess...

    At this point Ni user knows the figure resembles a unicorn but cannot consciously explain how the deduction was made...Then comes Ti-tert, which examines the smudges in detail and tells the Ni-user that "see there's a hoof, there's a horn, and this looks like the eye of a horse but there seems to be some feathered wings attached to the torso...bring all these together you end up with a unicorn (or pegacorn or whatever)..."...This of course requires that the unicorn or a similar pattern to have been recognized and stored by the Ni-user in the past...otherwise Ni user has to wait for the figure on the canvas to get completed so that its essential pattern can be extracted and added to the Ni storehouse of patterns...

    The internal "blankness" thing proposed by others may be stemming from Ni being a storehouse of patterns rather than ideas or detailed data...

    @Z Buck McFate, @Werebudgie;

    Regarding the magic eye 3d analogy, where does the texture of magic eye 3d come from to the attention of the Ni-dom user? Is it a constant texture or does it change with additional incoming information?

    What does it take for the Ni-dom user to be able to increase the resolution of the image or shift it so that it can be consciously perceived?

    The unfocused metaphorical eye here is Ni, isn't it?

  5. #105
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Susurrus View Post
    I don't think Ni can be understood intellectually since doing so requires some kind of reasoning.Ni are sort of like the Zen koans which required the subject to suspend all kind of reasoning and instead reconcile contradictions in order to reach an intuitive understanding of the nature of reality. Jung stated that introverted irrational functions(Si,Ni) were the hardest to explain to others since it stand in glaring contrast to our current mode of operation that values logical and rationalistic processes.
    Thanks for posting that quote. I found it beautiful.

  6. #106
    I want my account deleted
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    @Z Buck McFate, @Werebudgie;

    Regarding the magic eye 3d analogy, where does the texture of magic eye 3d come from to the attention of the Ni-dom user? Is it a constant texture or does it change with additional incoming information?
    I don't quite understand the questions here and the approach seems alien to me somehow (not sure how, though). Maybe Z Buck will have something interesting in response.

    What does it take for the Ni-dom user to be able to increase the resolution of the image or shift it so that it can be consciously perceived?
    I can't usefully affect the resolution of the image or shift it at all. When I try, it forces something that shouldn't be forced and that creates problems.

    To allow the underlying "image" to emerge, I look, wait, and keep my metaphorical eyes unfocused (don't try to focus/force it to emerge until it's ready).

    The unfocused metaphorical eye here is Ni, isn't it?
    I don't know. Probably not, though. We (my partner and I) were talking about what each of us does with a certain kind of information, when the topic of focusing/unfocusing came up. I think the unfocused metaphorical eye is what I do when looking at the information in the Ni landscape/field. But really, I don't know.

  7. #107
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Werebudgie View Post
    I don't quite understand the questions here and the approach seems alien to me somehow (not sure how, though). Maybe Z Buck will have something interesting in response.

    I can't usefully affect the resolution of the image or shift it at all. When I try, it forces something that shouldn't be forced and that creates problems.

    To allow the underlying "image" to emerge, I look, wait, and keep my metaphorical eyes unfocused (don't try to focus/force it to emerge until it's ready).

    I don't know. Probably not, though. We (my partner and I) were talking about what each of us does with a certain kind of information, when the topic of focusing/unfocusing came up. I think the unfocused metaphorical eye is what I do when looking at the information in the Ni landscape/field. But really, I don't know.
    Here's a theory...

    Ni sees the forest, Ti sees the trees...

    The unfocused Ni view is actually the global, or bird's eye, or large-scale (not sure on the last one) view of the internal material whereas the Ti view is the local, or detailed, or small-scale focused view of the material...

    So Ni-dom function first sees the global edges of the material and Ti-tert moves in for closer inspection...? (and may get lost in the woods? )

    Eta: So Ni hovers over the internally perceived material whereas Ti-tert then lands on the ground and walks inside that material...?

    As in my earlier post about fuzzy logic, N function can deal with incomplete data (i.e. data values between 0 and 1; i.e. probabilities and approximations and interpolations and extrapolations) whereas T function (and perhaps F function as well) deals with concrete binary logic (i.e. values that are strictly either 0 or 1)...

    As a sidenote, that may also be related to why Fi-dom have absolute convictions about their judgments, hence their relatively more rigid core\ego...it's binary...they are either right or wrong, or true or false...

    So N function sees silhouttes of things (i.e. intangible data) and it takes T to make the silhoutte take form and become tangible...?

    Eta 2: So T and F (judging functions) see either black or white whereas N (and S?) see in shades of grey?

    So for INFJs, Ni function allows them to see nuances...whereas their Fe and Ti balances the ethereal nature of N with some rigidity...They corporealize its spirit...Provide a vessel for it to take form and survive and exist in the material world?

  8. #108
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Eh I can have trouble with that too. Doubt this is Ni much in this generalised fashion anyway, this almost sounds like an autism spectrum thingie . Or just some kind of introversion




    Sounds like introversion...?
    Yes, taken out of the specific context of the exchange I was having with Werebudgie and considered in isolation, I suppose it does sound like plain old introversion. But take into account it evolved from talking about being sensitive to having the meaning distorted by others on a regular basis (oversimplified summary) and that narrows down the scope a bit to something more specific to Ni.



    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking here. It sounds to me like you’re asking how this could describe Ni when it sounds like a judging process? (If not, disregard the following explanation.) I don’t think Ni is the aspect that scrambles to come up with an explanation- I think Ni is the thing that drops “If A, then Q” on the table and the judging functions then must scramble around to find the linear progression which led from A to Q.
    Um... I do that a lot. See X and then Y and then "scramble around" to find the steps. I do have this need to find the steps though and I will usually succeed and I even kind of enjoy doing it, for the challenge and for the sake of the result at least. But I usually have this quick process (that you called Ni) work in tandem with logic. (In a few cases, without logic in the traditional sense.. but that's the exception from the rule)
    So I kind of assumed it was just this well automatically managed Ti. I kind of see it as Judging anyway, "if A, then Q".
    I’m getting the impression (from quite of few of responses where you've quoted me) as though you’re hearing some interpretation of it that reflects your own experience more than the point I was trying to get across.

    Ni is not a quick process. The ‘end’ shows up first- and not even clearly, but there will be the distinct feeling that there’s an ‘end’ which doesn’t match what I’m being told the ‘end’ is or what others generally believe the ‘end’ to be. That initial feeling is instant, yes- but waiting for the reason why I don’t feel like I can go along with something is anything but instant (as Hard initially explained on the first page, there’s an urge to go back and retrace all the steps that lead to the conclusion- a conclusion that sometimes/often isn’t even clear to me to begin with, I'll only know the conclusion being presented to me is 'off' somehow).


    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    And yeah, Pe (even Pe aux) to me seems to not understand that limbo in between ‘knowing something is there’ and actually being able to guess what it is. It’s almost like- as soon as they suspect ‘something is there’ (and I realize ‘something’ is incredibly vague, but I can’t think of any other way to say it), they’re flooded with ideas about what it might be- especially Pe doms (obviously).
    Se types too? Because I definitely don't do this with Se. I thought that was more Ne-ish, being *flooded with* ideas about what it MIGHT be. No that's not how I work. I will look and I either have the answer pop into my head pretty quickly or I don't have anything at all. It's like an unconscious process tries to sort the answer asap and if it runs into a mental "wall", it knows not to go on. Simply not enough information available. That's the assumption anyway. I do think this is the Ni part of the Se/Ni equation but it's prob Se > Ni in this specific case as far as my understanding goes. That would be not only because Ni I assume is not going to "give up" so fast but mainly because I just want to find the answer concretely and want to bring it into the conscious asap.
    The underlined statement seems to suggest you don’t agree with what I wrote, yet the bolded statements seem to basically say the same thing I did. “I either have the answer pop into my head pretty quickly or I don’t have anything at all” suggests (to me) that you don’t understand that limbo between knowing something is there and being able to guess what it is? Werebudgie used the word “ambiguity”, which works just as well.

    It’s a rather established thing for Pe dom/aux to be more mercurial with their immediate external surroundings than Js- I suspect what I'm trying to explain has a lot to do with why that is. When Pe dom/aux receive information that doesn’t quite sit right, they want to tear it open right then and there. When Pi dom/aux receives information that doesn’t sit right, they chuck it in a ‘pending’ file and let it bake.

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    @Z Buck McFate, @Werebudgie;

    Regarding the magic eye 3d analogy, where does the texture of magic eye 3d come from to the attention of the Ni-dom user? Is it a constant texture or does it change with additional incoming information?

    What does it take for the Ni-dom user to be able to increase the resolution of the image or shift it so that it can be consciously perceived?

    The unfocused metaphorical eye here is Ni, isn't it?
    I haven’t been following the progression of the different analogies going on enough to know for sure what you’re asking. Nor have I been reading all the posts. All I know is that the reason ‘blank’ doesn’t sit right with me is because things that are blank can be filled in. I think one of the distinguishing characteristics of Ni is that Ni doms most definitely can not easily be ‘filled in’. There’s plenty of testimony around this forum alone about hard it is to make Ni doms “listen”.

    I referred to my cognitive landscape as a ‘canvas’ just because it was the first analogy that popped into my head- not because I think it bears any striking resemblance to a canvas. If it’s a canvas, it’s like a canvas that spits the paint back at you when it doesn’t seem to belong there. Incoming information must go through something like a Rube Goldberg contraption before I can use it. It isn’t a choice. I can choose to try harder/be more patient- but ultimately I can not choose to believe something that doesn’t make sense to me. I'm really not sure if there's a way to hurry the process or not.

    Yes, it does change with new incoming information- but rarely because of some direct explanation from someone about why my POV should change (which often pushes me in the other direction). The kind of new information that actually changes my POV is if I notice I was actually wrong about something.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  9. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    It can go anywhere, be anything, is always open for new information, an entire reinterpretation.
    No. I have enough empirical evidence to prove this false. This is simply propoganda.
    +1! Though honestly, the definition DOES go like that, as it's a perceiving function. In practice, people don't always seem to be that open. Even P-doms are not fully P in this extreme sense, I suppose, the brain just can't change everything all the time if it wants to survive.


    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    Here's a theory...

    Ni sees the forest, Ti sees the trees...

    The unfocused Ni view is actually the global, or bird's eye, or large-scale (not sure on the last one) view of the internal material whereas the Ti view is the local, or detailed, or small-scale focused view of the material...
    That's not how I experience Ti, it's only one aspect of it. Ti (or god knows what it is) for me involves the global view as well. I assume it's a different view from Ni because this one is all about logical structure etc.


    As in my earlier post about fuzzy logic, N function can deal with incomplete data (i.e. data values between 0 and 1; i.e. probabilities and approximations and interpolations and extrapolations) whereas T function (and perhaps F function as well) deals with concrete binary logic (i.e. values that are strictly either 0 or 1)...
    Why wouldn't Ti be able to deal with fuzzy logic? And with probabilities and whatnot, all the shite you listed. Probability theory is totally logical too and all the rest you listed I can *see* and *feel* very well from a logical standpoint.


    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    Yes, taken out of the specific context of the exchange I was having with Werebudgie and considered in isolation, I suppose it does sound like plain old introversion. But take into account it evolved from talking about being sensitive to having the meaning distorted by others on a regular basis (oversimplified summary) and that narrows down the scope a bit to something more specific to Ni.
    OK.


    I’m getting the impression (from quite of few of responses where you've quoted me) as though you’re hearing some interpretation of it that reflects your own experience more than the point I was trying to get across.
    I am comparing it to my own experiences, are you trying to say that's a wrong thing to do?

    It doesn't mean I can't focus on your point at the same time and/or not be receptive to further explanation on what your point is like. That is, yes, I'm glad to focus on whatever you say, process it in my own way and be receptive for more information from you. It would be unreasonable to expect I will understand everything perfectly right away and I certainly don't expect others to understand everything right away of whatever I said. I'm not a patient person by default but when it comes to discussing stuff, I am very patient in this sense.

    Also, would it be less "wrong" if I came to this forum claiming I am Ni-dom? Do not assume that my experiences are all invalid just because I don't have "Ni-dom" in my profile. Sorry though if you weren't doing that; Werebudgie did that before.


    Ni is not a quick process. The ‘end’ shows up first- and not even clearly, but there will be the distinct feeling that there’s an ‘end’ which doesn’t match what I’m being told the ‘end’ is or what others generally believe the ‘end’ to be. That initial feeling is instant, yes- but waiting for the reason why I don’t feel like I can go along with something is anything but instant (as Hard initially explained on the first page, there’s an urge to go back and retrace all the steps that lead to the conclusion- a conclusion that sometimes/often isn’t even clear to me to begin with, I'll only know the conclusion being presented to me is 'off' somehow).
    By quick I meant you see the "end" without thinking through an unconscious process and it's relatively fast because you don't have to take the time to flesh out steps to arrive there. Just as you said, there's an instant initial feeling. I also talked about "scrambling around" to find the steps to it and I think it pretty much implied that that is a slower process. I described the same urge @Hard talked about too. And yep I also get the feeling at times that whatever others say is "off" and then I will have to figure out why which does take longer.

    Are we on the same page now, if not, let me know. I think we are talking about the same thing here.

    What may not be the same is that I thought this was part of Judging Ti (in my case at least). This instant feeling of the conclusion. So you don't categorize it as Judging then? I always had a bit of trouble clearly differentiating between the concepts perceiving and judging functions. The most sensible distinction I've ever heard came from Jung himself; perceiving = will see everything, all the world, while judging = will only see what can be "rational", that is, only part of the world. The above "conclusion thingie", it could be either honestly, if going by that distinction.


    The underlined statement seems to suggest you don’t agree with what I wrote, yet the bolded statements seem to basically say the same thing I did. “I either have the answer pop into my head pretty quickly or I don’t have anything at all” suggests (to me) that you don’t understand that limbo between knowing something is there and being able to guess what it is? Werebudgie used the word “ambiguity”, which works just as well.
    No, here I didn't say the same thing. :/ I was talking about how Se doesn't get flooded with ideas. You said Pe types get flooded with ideas. Nope that's not me and I'm most likely Se > Ni but I no longer know even that honestly. So anyway, my point was maybe the flood of ideas is true for Ne types but not for Se types or at least not all Se types because it's not true for me.

    Where I do agree and do please note that I didn't even dispute it, because I was only disputing the "flooded with ideas" part, is that limbo thingie. I just don't focus on the limbo much so I don't feel it, only the "wall" that signals to me that right now it's pointless for me to attempt to go on with whatever I'm trying to "see" (when trying to "see" the "end" of whatever). Make sense?


    It’s a rather established thing for Pe dom/aux to be more mercurial with their immediate external surroundings than Js- I suspect what I'm trying to explain has a lot to do with why that is. When Pe dom/aux receive information that doesn’t quite sit right, they want to tear it open right then and there. When Pi dom/aux receives information that doesn’t sit right, they chuck it in a ‘pending’ file and let it bake.
    Interesting, the bolded, I can do either, it's mood dependent for me. I think it's more noticeable for an external observer when I do the former (Pe) because I do it while discussing it with others. (I don't really do it on my own alone, only when talking to whoever. Don't ask why, I just... don't.)

    Btw, it may matter where the Pe or Pi is, for example, a Te-dom is a Judging dominant and thus may just reject the whole thing if it doesn't sit right even though they do have Pi as aux. Of course if Te-doms experience it as putting the information away and only pulling it out if it does start to make sense, then okay, but that's just not how to seem to be.


    I haven’t been following the progression of the different analogies going on enough to know for sure what you’re asking. Nor have I been reading all the posts. All I know is that the reason ‘blank’ doesn’t sit right with me is because things that are blank can be filled in. I think one of the distinguishing characteristics of Ni is that Ni doms most definitely can not easily be ‘filled in’. There’s plenty of testimony around this forum alone about hard it is to make Ni doms “listen”.
    May I ask what you meant by Ni-doms not listening? Not being receptive to other people's opinions? I thought of this interpretation because of the below text from you:


    I referred to my cognitive landscape as a ‘canvas’ just because it was the first analogy that popped into my head- not because I think it bears any striking resemblance to a canvas. If it’s a canvas, it’s like a canvas that spits the paint back at you when it doesn’t seem to belong there. Incoming information must go through something like a Rube Goldberg contraption before I can use it. It isn’t a choice. I can choose to try harder/be more patient- but ultimately I can not choose to believe something that doesn’t make sense to me. I'm really not sure if there's a way to hurry the process or not.

    Yes, it does change with new incoming information- but rarely because of some direct explanation from someone about why my POV should change (which often pushes me in the other direction). The kind of new information that actually changes my POV is if I notice I was actually wrong about something.
    Hahaha about the bolded btw. I am so much like that myself. (Well unless the direct explanation actually is a very strong argument because then my POV does change instantly.) I thought it was Judging Ti for me, though. Oh and the same about the rest, I like it if things make sense to me. Again, I attributed that to Ti for myself.

    Also, that would be in line with the jungian definition of judging (only dealing with part of the world information-wise)

  10. #110
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    No. I have enough empirical evidence to prove this false. This is simply propoganda.


    Ok

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] INJs and Introverted Intuition
    By Martian Manifesto in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-12-2011, 03:07 PM
  2. [JCF] Introverted Intuitive
    By Fife in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-07-2009, 12:04 PM
  3. Introverted Intuition as "spiritual gift"?
    By Eric B in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-01-2009, 03:49 PM
  4. Judgment Problem of Introverted Intuition?
    By Kephalos in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-23-2009, 07:15 PM
  5. [INTP] INTP and Introverted Intuition (Ni)
    By Cypocalypse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 10-26-2008, 12:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO