My bad. You're right.As am I. There is a single-minded focus on that one outcome, although I'm aware of alternatives. I think the difference is in how we predict outcomes/meaning and what is focused on in coming to that conclusion. And (edit) these predicted outcomes may be likely different.
You seem to have a bit of confusion between Ni and Ne, though. Ni doesn't entertain random possibilities, it tends to focus on the most likely one. The difference is that Ni makes leaps or skips steps, doesn't always stick to the map made earlier, etc.
Regarding Ni... It's such a difficult function to pin down, and it doesn't help when people go on about how it's a difficult function to pin down. x__x
I've always associated Ni with imagination or perhaps unconscious extrapolation, but perhaps it might not be.
I like to think of awareness of usage like this.
Unconscious processing - Giving it that whole illusive and hidden feel.
Why do I use this whole idea of unconsciousness/conscious processing? That's my basic understanding of S/N.
I believe that intuitives are more focused on the process because they come to the conclusions/outline first. Where as for sensors it's more of a conscious building block, therefore they are more interested in getting to the answer. But this could all be just rubbish. I can't exactly test it.
On a completely unrelated note:
I've always wondered where my extrapolation came from and whether it was a combination of Si+Ti that was doing so. *Shrugs*
This was brought up in a previous thread when some person was attempting to explain the difference between Ni and Si, and that Ni deals with theories to predict. It was a confusing thread because I couldn't see the difference...
I'm not against MBTI. Otherwise I would have dropped it a long time ago, I just think it needs refining. It's not exactly a finished product and I doubt it ever will be.I still don't think these misconceptions prove the 'failure' of the MBTI, but I don't have anything more to add to the subject.