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.
It’s not that I think it’s ‘wrong’. It’s a relatively common occurrence in this forum for people to say, “That’s not a <whatever function> thing, I do it too.†Sometimes it gets frustrating because it interferes with being able to discuss commonalities.
Or in other words, it’s one thing to say, “I relate to this too.†It’s another thing to say, “I don’t think this is related to being Ni dominant because I relate to it too.†The latter requires the commonalities conversation to stop long enough to explain a whole bunch of things that I don’t especially have the patience to stop and explain, because my focus is already on something else. I think that for Js, the way Ps want to pick apart the micro details that stand out to them- it’s like being expected to stop the car every 15 feet to check the air on the tires; after the first few ‘air checks’, it’s easy to forget what I got into the car for in the first place (which is why Js get angry with a lot of interruptions). So depending on how important the ‘destination’ of the original convo is- I’ll be proportionately agitated by distractions. [irl, I’m rarely as focused on conversation as I am here in the forum, I’m more focused on the people and I’m far more patient with side tangents. It’s much harder for me in written conversation though, to change gears.]
So this “I relate to this too†business- it’s not that I think it’s wrong. I’ll just say that I too understand what it’s like to be in a GIT ER DONE (!) mode….but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a stronger characteristic of Te doms than it is of Ni doms. <-I hope that suffices as an explanation.
[There
are times in the forum when I think certain characteristics are wrongly attributed to a function- but people do tend to be a little too trigger happy with the whole “I do that too†argument around here.]
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.
I agree that "conclusion" can be either, and I think that's the crux of the misunderstanding here. I think- while the “scrambling around†description may resonate- Pe does the ‘scrambling around’ work aloud. [And before you argue this point- obviously it isn’t 100% every single fragment of every single thought must be spoken aloud. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying
in comparison, Pe processes information by bouncing fragments off of others
almost in real time as those fragments occur or relatively soon after they occur.]
Someone around here once said that Pi does it’s “churning†of information internally (I think ‘churning’ and ‘scrambling around’ probably mean the same thing), and that seems true to me. I have to scramble internally, my own way- whereas PeJi/JiPe is inclined to want to bounce immediate fragments of the churning/scrambling process off of others. The process may not feel “immediate†to PeJi/JiPe- but it is from a Pi perspective. Think of it like a microwave- if all you ever use is a microwave, then it might sound ridiculous when someone claims food is “instantly†heated: sometimes it takes as long as 5 minutes to cook something. But in comparison to a conventional oven- it’s pretty instant.
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?
I do agree that "flooded" probably applies more to Ne.
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.
Yeah, it looks that way to me too. One of the problems with the internal ‘churning’ is that having someone bounce a bunch of fragments of thoughts off of us can sound like a bunch of gobbledy-gook if some strong bullet points are not presented as staples to frame that information. While Ti generally makes sense to me (in spite of the fact that it gets exhausting to get pummeled with Ti fragments, I can still usually follow), that’s not so much the case with Fi. I need a context in which to place the fragments or they will go in one ear and out the other.
And so with Te doms- I’m starting to think a lot of times (when I
thought they were dogmatically rejecting anything they didn’t already agree with) they reject Ti because there’s no staple or no framework ready to hold the fragments in place.
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 have been comparing Ni to a Rube Goldberg contraption for a while now (it probably applies somewhat to Si as well): if you put a marble in the top, it has to progress through a series of mechanisms before it hits ground zero. That’s what happens to information: it has to run the course through a series of diagnostics before I give it much weight. People tend to want to bypass this metaphorical Rube Goldberg contraption. It’s pretty common for people to feel like we’re “not listening†if they can’t say something and have it instantly bounced back at them in the way they bounce things back themselves. Pe dom/aux are much better at directly interacting with the information being presented in the moment (whether or not they’re actually giving it a chance is another story- sometimes they only take enough in to be able to shapeshift it into something more self serving before they throw it back, but that’s a whole other topic).
How do you know without actually ASKING your mother if she truly liked the music. Or how do you know whether someone else is incapable of "getting" whatever idea you have? Too many assumptions seriously. I'd prefer to figure out if the assumption is actually true.
Also you mention that you could have continued to yell louder each time if you really wanted to get the point (the name) across to your mother. But you didn't do that because it wasn't classical music. So it means it wasn't only her fault that she didn't hear the name right if we must resort to fault finding.
Really? It's unreasonable to make an assumption about what kind of music someone likes after having just lived with them for 20 years?
Yep
to me
This is the sort of thing I absolutely don't make judgments on
Like, preferences can be totally irrational so it's certainly possible that someone doesn't like X but likes Y for god knows what reason, even though Y shares some traits with X (but of course is not the exact same thing as X or it would be called X right
) It's also possible that someone's tastes change, they start to like something for some reason that they didn't before.
So let me get this straight: after spending
years around a woman who asks “Who is this?†every single time there’s music playing (Every. Single. Time.) and who only ever later asks “Who was that musician…†or establishes any deeper interest where classical music is concerned- you wouldn’t pick up on that? Ever? It’s unreasonable to assume that this particular instance of asking is
probably going to be no different than the (literally) thousands of times that preceded it?
She isn’t always asking because she’s interested in the artist- she’s asking because she’s expressing interest in the person playing the music (it is possible to reasonably figure out- after being around someone for 20 years- the difference). She incessantly asks questions as a means to feel connected to people and/or just to be talking. Because some people are like that. There aren’t many people who can handle being around my mom very much because of it- it never stops, she
never runs out of things to ask questions about.
And in short, (sorry but) I find it annoying to have someone point out that I’d made too many assumptions when their own observation about it- in itself- is actually based on too many of their own assumptions. It feels like it creates too much work for me communication-wise, and it’s actually a good example of the point I’ve been trying to make (about how there’s no one to ‘blame’). Sometimes, with some people, I can tell blanks are getting filled in with information in such a way that’s too difficult to keep track of and communication starts feeling like it’s more trouble than it’s worth. [I do think Ni- or at least NiFe- is especially sensitive in this way.]
I don't know if accommodate is correct for me. Maybe it is. Mostly what this looks like for me is that I choose not to try to communicate specific things or in specific ways or sometimes with specific people because I can feel the energy drain it would take to deal with their frameworks, agendas etc. A fair amount of the time, people who interpret what I say get it at least subtly wrong. They run it through their filters, their experiences, their reference points, their needs, their agendas etc etc, and feed it back to me in ways that have little to do with what I was trying to say. At that point, I have a choice: do I continue to engage, or do I not? If I continue to engage, how?
Yeah, can
totally relate to this. [And I actually found this paragraph after writing that response just above- though it's basically saying the same thing, I think.]
Conflating the external human world with "the material world" seems to be one of the illusions of cultural systems that assme things like mind/body splits and/or remove intuition from some sort of "real" reality, and can seem very true when there is a hard disconnect between Ni and Se-inf.
Have you ever read any R.D. Laing? I think you'd really dig Politics of Experience- because of this^ in particular, but also a lot of what you're saying. [I'm just throwing this out there to take or leave. Like maybe look up Laing on youtube if you're bored sometime.
] He’s all about how there’s a ‘reality’ that people collectively take for granted- and how individuals that catch glimpses of it are sometimes considered “crazyâ€.
