Sorry just one question, "measured" is used in what sense? Can you rephrase that, "it is even moreso measured than Thinking"? Thanks.
A sense type surmises that only through sensation can a situation be accurately perceived.
It contributes to their highly mechanical/objective relation to the universe. This is a set of dualities I cannot reduce: scientists - sensors or intuitors? Of course, this can be resolved: rational types!
That thin slices thing, it sort of sounds like a way of judging, the wikipedia article even uses the word judge. I understang with jungian theory it's not judging but quite honestly this use of terminology is very confusing. If you make an initial assessment and are instantly convinced it's correct, that's a judgement in my book. How in Jung's view could it not be a judgement?
Because that was not Jung's view. Jung used "rational" & "irrational" to distinguish what MBTI calls "judging" and "perceiving". This is because Jung focused on the ego, the dominant function, whereas Myers uses the J/P dichotomy to refer to the extroverted function, with the idea it influences the appearance of the outer personality (so IxxPs are "perceiving" types despite having a "judging" aka "rational" function as their dominant).
Myers changed the terms because "irrational" has insulting connotations & because J & P are really referring to Je & Pe (extroverted functions, not Ji or Pi). Je does look more like a decisive mentality. Pe really does look like a more exploratory mentality. But when you get to Ji & Pi, it's not so clear, IMO. I think "rational" suits Ji better than "judging". And let's face it - "judging" has negative connotations nowadays too. Irrational is not really a great descriptor for any type; although I think the idea of accepting contradictions as part of reality gets hinted at with that term, and so it does provide insight into what perceiving mentalities can be like.
So in Jung's view, a rational type uses lines of reasoning to come to a conclusion. A perceiving type "sees" or is "aware" of things, be it objects or concepts. That certainly can be a conclusion or judgement.
I agree that what these Ni-dom describe sounds like a form of judgment. It's part of what constitutes the "J mentality" in MBTI. Pi is paired with Je & together they form "J personalities" as far as outward behavior goes. This is also why socionics is WRONG :P .
Internally, they may not experience it as judgement, hence the hesitancy to not express it until it's more of a justifiable conclusion (?). But they do seem to experience it as a reality, which has implied judgement even if they detach it from being their own mind's conclusion. It's like looking at an object, say a blue coffee mug, and noting it is blue. You wouldn't say you are judging it is blue, as you don't experience your mind as reasoning over it, but still you assigning a judgement category. It seems to me that Pi-dom have a way of "seeing" in their own mind that is just like the Se types sees the object & really comes to an immediate conclusion that it is XYZ. It is reality to them not a choice... and in being unquestioned, it's really a judgment of sorts of what is real & what is not.
But that's also why IxxPs may find vocalized thoughts taken as judgements when they are explorations - because of the prevalent Je mentality. I may hesitate less than an IxxJ because my mentality is not to order things outwardly, so it doesn't occur to me a verbalized thought is seen as a judgment; this especially gets INxPs in trouble sometimes :P. Also, INxPs may question whether or not what is "seen" is undeniably there :P.
What's so exotic about Se to you?! I'm curious.
It's just less familiar to me.
Isn't everyone "blank" internally? O_o
OK, sure, I know some people are pretty verbal. Me, I'm not verbal much. When I think it's usually in a non-coded way, not coded in words, not coded in images. You could call it blank, sure. Though I don't think I'm Ni-dom or Si-dom. I sometimes like to test people by asking them "can you think without words?" Some people will say NO, some will say yes. Lol so funny, the differences you can discover about people's minds.
Um, no.... My mind is pretty colorful & "populated". I'm a visual thinker & I have an inner dialogue too. I can think without words, for sure, in visuals or formless abstraction. I don't consider the latter to be "blank".
"Charlotte sometimes dreams a wall around herself. But it's always with love - So much love it looks like everything else. Charlotte Sometimes - So far away, glass sealed and pretty." - The Cure
I’m not quite sure how to sum it up, there are so many different ways it can be applied. As HollyGoLightly hit on in her post- sometimes it’s incredibly difficult to understand why someone is tripping my internal alarms (why something seems ‘off’). I want to make sure I’m not just throwing vitriol at someone because I’m feeling bad myself. There are times in the past when I was truly clueless in the moment- though in retrospect, it will sorta blow my mind how clear it 'should' have been. When I'm in the middle of feeling some negative emotional charge- all I can think about is disengaging from the source of it until the negative emotional charge has passed, because I can't even start processing it until that storm blows over.
Or even if I’m pretty certain I’m right- like the 'dust has settled' and it's clear to me that someone was dishing out their own issues at me- sometimes still it’s just unkind to point stuff out just because I can, and I regret it in retrospect. Because we all do the best we can with what we know. If it isn't helpful to the person, then it ultimately doesn't make me feel any better. I like to strive for kindness, but if I can’t quite cut ‘kind’ (because something ‘off’ has built up and it’s too distressing) then I want to make sure I’m as reasonable as I can handle being.
Or I guess a big part of it is making sure I’ve spent at least a little bit of effort considering what the other point of view might be, so that I’m not throwing a lot of emotional work at someone (making them do the work of explaining to me why their position is understandable- when it would have taken only moments for me to figure that out on my own).
Thank you! That really clarifies for me what you mean.
I’m not sure what you mean by “Ni/Ni-Se perception”, but the bolded resonates. If you can get your hands on a copy of his book, I think you’d really like it. It’s a quick read- took me maybe 3 or 4 days. [I'm going to have to read through that^ again a couple times, to see if I can understand what you're getting at.]
I am a big fan of the public library system and am sure I can get my hands on it at some point.
Do you mean specifically within this forum? Or just in general? I do think I've always felt a push within myself to make sure I'm making sense (as others have already described).
I see it in general, meaning in the cultural system in which I live (I live in the US, which I see as in many ways a cultural child of Europe at its core) overall. Certainly in this forum, but I don't think it's specific to here. The general/cultural pattern I see is a actually two-sided coin: on one side, Ni is trivialized, devalued etc, on the other side it is exotified and mystified/New-Age-ified. Both are routes to distortion and they work together somehow.
You know, the funny thing is- in the first chapter (or introduction, can’t remember) Gladwell states something along the lines of “…and I’ll show you when you can trust this initial impression and when you should doubt it…” I clearly remember thinking, “Yeah, right.” I’ve always been very dubious of the whole ‘trust initial impression’ shtick because there’s little I hate more than someone imposing their half-assed beliefs on me. And it smacked of the usual ‘self help’ tone that I usually have an aversion to (so much of it just sounds so airy-fairy to me). But the thing is- he explained it REALLY well. Lol. I wish I had a copy of the book to refer to right now, so that I could try to paraphrase some of the things he said.
Thanks for the heads-up, that first bit might irritate me as well (I tend not to appreciate the self-help/airy-fairy tone either.) Will pass over that to the good stuff.
It can go anywhere, be anything, is always open for new information, an entire reinterpretation.
As someone who comes from an all SJ household, I can assure you, Si is mind-bogglingly simplistic next to Ni.
Same goes for Ne and Se. And that's not even a value judgment. I love Se. Some times. But it is undeniably more simplistic than Ne.
(and then you come to realize the functions don't simply work solo)
I agree with the open endedness, and reinterpretation part.
Context, context, context! So important.
But I have seemed to gather that all of the introverted functions are just more complex than the extroverted ones in a general sense.
Thus making Fi no more "mind boggling" than Ti. I find that if one compares Si to Ni, there is still a subjectivity that is out of grasp. (Of course I'm assuming you know that too...but it could just be the way you have used the word mind-boggling. It gives the sense that there's no comparison at all, when there is. I'd say understanding Si is at least half of understanding Ni.) <---This may be a possibe a way to describe Ni actually. If I were to interpret the word mind-boggling in a literal fashion, I could be discounting what you've said entirely. But I don't do that often with people cause I know what they mean. I understand the bigger picture that they're trying to convey. Leaving more room for interpretation of the word mind-boggling and therefore giving it more context. (Just as a simplistic example :P)
Originally Posted by Werebudgie
I myself have spent decades erring on the "don't accept Ni/Ni-Se information I perceive as true until I and others can observe it in the external world" side, and am at the point where I have decided that for me, the cost of such a practice is now too high to continue it. I do wonder how many of us who are Ni-doms have decided to err on the side of default initial distrust of our own perception because of how non-Ni-doms respond when we speak or act directly from that space.
I really like your post.
I always dismiss the information. And I'm starting to realize one of the reasons is because I just don't sit still long enough to let things come to me. But I also have to think everything through. Everything must have evidence. I have been trying to let myself trust it more though. I find it to be difficult. :/
Originally Posted by garbage
The orientation leads to a tendency to try to tip things over in an attempt to figure out what's "really" going on. Sometimes, that orientation digs deep and finds gold beneath the surface; at other times, it mistakes dirt and gravel for gold.
This ^ is so good.
But I distrust it. And refuse to mistake dirt for gold.
Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate
I think Fe actually pushes me to ignore it when/where I can’t effectively explain it- for the reason Hard mentioned (credibility) but also because the urge to be fair often overrides the urge to give it much weight where I can't effectively explain it.
Originally Posted by superunknown
Yes, this phenomenon is well documented. It can be called "expertise".
The ability does not make an Ni type. Same at you, @solipsists.
What I think is really kool though, is that the flow for each type is different.
I have watched Ni doms play Reach compared to Se and Si doms, and they all have a different flow. (I'm lacking in Ne doms in my life, so I don't know what it looks like for them.)
It's difficult to describe by writing it, but Ni even visually looks less reaction-based than Se. (I dated an Ni dom for over 6 years, and an Se dom for 4....we played A LOT of Halo. But the Ni dom almost always beat everyone, hands down.)
Not that any of that is real data or anything....but I am just saying that visually....their flow even looks different. Just thought it was interesting.
I'm that person that embodies pretty much everything that you hate.
Unapologetically bonding in an uninhibited, propelled manner
"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." ~ Eric
But I have seemed to gather that all of the introverted functions are just more complex than the extroverted ones in a general sense.
Is this true? The way I have come to view introverted vs extroverted functions is that introverted ones are more mysterious to the outside observer. It's happening on the inside and is unique to the individual using it, so people have a hard time understanding. That doesn't mean it's more complex, just more mysterious and less apparent.
Also, introverted functions tend to be more linear. This is probably largely because of the rapidly changing nature of the external world when compared to ones internal thoughts. We can much better control the diversions that take place in our heads than we can all the new stimuli we're constantly bombarded with on the outside. That makes extroverted functions quicker, farther reaching in multiple directions, and their complexity is found in the sheer amount of different factors and options it can hold and process at a given time. Their divergent, far-reaching energy shouldn't be interpreted as simplicity.
This leads into introverted functions being more linear. They're able to build upon one or a few choice tracks of thought over long periods of time. They're slower moving, more concentrated energy. Sure, maybe over time, there's a point at which an introverted function has been pruned and developed for so long that it surpasses the extroverted functions' capacity for information held at a given time, but for the most part, I'd argue that it's the linear, concentrated nature of introverted functions paired with their somewhat hidden nature that makes them seem more complex.
You hem me in -- behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.
*nods* makes sense. But at the same time ... if I understand it correctly, Ne also has a "perceive and go with the flow" quality that's like the other side of the coin. (the metaphor of currents flowing like on a river and perceiving or following them somehow). In feel, it seems like it's a similar kind of thing as the Ni blankness but just from some other angle or something. Same category, different specifics. I could be wrong. eta: or maybe its more of a mirror image: Ni combines blankness and active approach to action, Ne combines flooding and passive approach to action. Or maybe neither of these things.
The more I read of Ni, the more I see it...
Enneagram: 6w7 (phobic) > 2w1 > 9w1 Alignment: Neutral Good Holland Code: AIS Date of Birth: March 15, 1996 Gender: Male Political Stance: Libertarian Liberal (Arizona School/Strong BHL) ATHEIST UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST HUMANIST and SCIENCE ENTHUSIAST
I say this as a reminder to myself, but this goes for everyone:
You can achieve anything you set your mind to, and you are limited only by how dedicated you are to succeed!