Introverted intuition

[Werebudgie]

"There are many ways you can look at this" is a common motto of an Ni-user.

Yeah, this seems to come up a lot. My instinctive move when faced with a problem (or even a situation that isn't really a problem) is to look for the local specific parameters of perspective (easy enough for me to perceive, if not always to consciously understand at first), and metaphorically move outside them to look around - to see where those parameters might be altered, and/or explore what it would look like from different sets of parameters etc etc. It's like that kind of movement and exploration is just where my attention goes. I find it very difficult to be in situations/environments where perceiving and moving outside of the local specific parameters of perspective isn't allowed.

IMO one key to understanding this "many ways you can look at it" is to take the "look" part of that seriously. In my experience, it's not a thinking/logical process - it's truly a perceptual one. It's kind of a fluidity of perceptual movement in a three (or more) dimensional field, allowing me to move my perception around and see from different vantage points and from inside and outside of various parameters.

 

[TaylorS]

Yeah, this seems to come up a lot. My instinctive move when faced with a problem (or even a situation that isn't really a problem) is to look for the local specific parameters of perspective (easy enough for me to perceive, if not always to consciously understand at first), and metaphorically move outside them to look around - to see where those parameters might be altered, and/or explore what it would look like from different sets of parameters etc etc. It's like that kind of movement and exploration is just where my attention goes. I find it very difficult to be in situations/environments where perceiving and moving outside of the local specific parameters of perspective isn't allowed.

IMO one key to understanding this "many ways you can look at it" is to take the "look" part of that seriously. In my experience, it's not a thinking/logical process - it's truly a perceptual one. It's kind of a fluidity of perceptual movement in a three (or more) dimensional field, allowing me to move my perception around and see from different vantage points and from inside and outside of various parameters.

On a different note, as an Ne-Dom who has no Ni, I actually get slightly nervous when I start hearing talk about "different perspectives" because I seem to expect that some sophistry and spin-doctoring is about to go down.

 

[Werebudgie]

On a different note, as an Ne-Dom who has no Ni, I actually get slightly nervous when I start hearing talk about "different perspectives" because I seem to expect that some sophistry and spin-doctoring is about to go down.

Is that because of your experiences with Ni, and/or because of your experiences with other meanings/uses that talk about "different perspectives" can have? (and/or something else not covered in how I asked that). Basically - why do you expect that sophistry and spin-doctoring is about to go down?

(in the background, I'm thinking about a recent discussion I had with my INFP partner and wondering if your response is related).

 

[TaylorS]

Is that because of your experiences with Ni, and/or because of your experiences with other meanings/uses that talk about "different perspectives" can have? (and/or something else not covered in how I asked that). Basically - why do you expect that sophistry and spin-doctoring is about to go down?

(in the background, I'm thinking about a recent discussion I had with my INFP partner and wondering if your response is related).

I don't have anything wrong with the concept of different perspectives per se, It just seems that in a lot of contexts it ends up being used for rationalizing something bad into sounding like something good. You often see this in politics and business when a politician or a executive is trying to "put lipstick on the pig", so to speak.

 

[Werebudgie]

I don't have anything wrong with the concept of different perspectives per se, It just seems that in a lot of contexts it ends up being used to rationalizing something bad into sounding like something good. You often see this in politics and business when a politician or a executive is trying to "put lipstick on the pig", so to speak.

Yeah, my (Ne-aux) partner referred to the movie Thank You for Smoking (are you familiar with it? basically all about what you describe here) in trying to describe her suspicion of the different perspectives thing.

She recently asked me if I could argue against something she said is true. My response was to move outside the parameters she had set and see it from another perspective, and speak from that space. She felt that move as slippery and evasive and changing the topic. I said that the only way I could organically (meaning, from how I process things organically) address what she was asking me to do was to move outside what I saw as the artificially limited terms/parameters/assumptions of what she claimed was true. I said that from what I could see, she had set up her claim to be true because it's true because it's true, basically set up the parameters so that inside those parameters it was true by definition. A setup that, interestingly enough, is what I feel as slippery and suspect and sometimes a deceptive move in truth claims.

In the end, what worked is that I shifted into simply trying to understand what she was saying was true. I told her I couldn't argue it as she had asked me to, but that I wanted to understand better what she meant. That dialogue led us into what turned out to be a deeper understanding of areas where we connect and agree despite seeming very different on the surface.

The funny thing is that in shifting away from her original request (that I respond either with an argument against her truth claim, or agreement, inside her parameters) and finding another goal that did work (me just trying to understand her), I was doing the Ni "shifting perspective" move yet again, just in a different way.

 

[TaylorS]

Yeah, my (Ne-aux) partner referred to the movie Thank You for Smoking (are you familiar with it? basically all about what you describe here) in trying to describe her suspicion of the different perspectives thing.

She recently asked me if I could argue against something she said is true. My response was to move outside the parameters she had set and see it from another perspective, and speak from that space. She felt that move as slippery and evasive and changing the topic. I said that the only way I could organically (meaning, from how I process things organically) address what she was asking me to do was to move outside what I saw as the artificially limited terms/parameters/assumptions of what she claimed was true. I said that from what I could see, she had set up her claim to be true because it's true because it's true, basically set up the parameters so that inside those parameters it was true by definition. A setup that, interestingly enough, is what I feel as slippery and suspect and sometimes a deceptive move in truth claims.

In the end, what worked is that I shifted into simply trying to understand what she was saying was true. I told her I couldn't argue it as she had asked me to, but that I wanted to understand better what she meant. That dialogue led us into what turned out to be a deeper understanding of areas where we connect and agree despite seeming very different on the surface.

The funny thing is that in shifting away from her original request (that I respond either with an argument against her truth claim, or agreement, inside her parameters) and finding another goal that did work (me just trying to understand her), I was doing the Ni "shifting perspective" move yet again, just in a different way.

My head hurts, now. And that doesn't happen often, LOL!

 

[Werebudgie]

My head hurts, now. And that doesn't happen often, LOL!

Awww, I'm sorry! On the upside, at least you just ran into me on the internet so the ache should subside with time. Consider my poor INFP's head ... I mean we live together and she has to deal with me all the time.

 

[yeghor]

Yeah, my (Ne-aux) partner referred to the movie Thank You for Smoking (are you familiar with it? basically all about what you describe here) in trying to describe her suspicion of the different perspectives thing.

She recently asked me if I could argue against something she said is true. My response was to move outside the parameters she had set and see it from another perspective, and speak from that space. She felt that move as slippery and evasive and changing the topic. I said that the only way I could organically (meaning, from how I process things organically) address what she was asking me to do was to move outside what I saw as the artificially limited terms/parameters/assumptions of what she claimed was true. I said that from what I could see, she had set up her claim to be true because it's true because it's true, basically set up the parameters so that inside those parameters it was true by definition. A setup that, interestingly enough, is what I feel as slippery and suspect and sometimes a deceptive move in truth claims.

In the end, what worked is that I shifted into simply trying to understand what she was saying was true. I told her I couldn't argue it as she had asked me to, but that I wanted to understand better what she meant. That dialogue led us into what turned out to be a deeper understanding of areas where we connect and agree despite seeming very different on the surface.

The funny thing is that in shifting away from her original request (that I respond either with an argument against her truth claim, or agreement, inside her parameters) and finding another goal that did work (me just trying to understand her), I was doing the Ni "shifting perspective" move yet again, just in a different way.

Werebudgie, did it look to you as if she were over-simplifying things or leaving some crucial details of the issue out in her analysis?

And then you broadened the boundaries of the issue to be able to make your own analysis... and you both reached the same conclusion in the end?

If yes on all accounts, how did she manage to come to the same conclusion based on a smaller/incomplete/limited setup?

Sent via Tapatalk

 

[cafe]

How can someone believe something is true when only looking at it from one perspective? You need as many perspectives as possible in order to triangulate for truth/reality. We all have our favorite views, but those are subjective. Subjectivity has it's place, but that is when we discuss preferences. There is nothing wrong with preferences, but they are not Truth or fact. Arguing them as though they are is unproductive and inefficient. IMO.