wait
Is the concept of just trying to tie a few of these questions into some overarching explanation that answers all of them an example how Ni works?
Yes. Your synthesis was quite sound, in my estimation.
ThatGirl carries it a bit further:
So basically Ni is taking all relevant material into consideration before coming to or acting upon a conclusion.
It is personalized to the specific subject because while there may be some universal generalities, there will also be factors which cause the situation to be uniquely independent. There fore, the final conclusion is more fit for the time than the subject?
With all the threads about exploring your type, TG, this reply convinces me that you've got Ni in you.
And the universal generalities are stored/remembered in an "Ni format", not a Ti or Si format.
One analogy that I used a long time ago is a gem with facets, or (easier to analogize) a 20-sided die. What will happen is that I roll the die in my head, and I get a "19" for example, and then I tell the outside world, "19." The whole truth is really "the rolling 20-sided die," not "19," but "19" is the ONLY way to communicate what needs communicating at that time. If I step back and explain to you "how do I know it's 19," then I end up giving a disjointed explanation that starts to explain the whole universe, without ever answering your real question. For that time and that place, "19" is correct.
This is where INTPs and other Si or Ne types can get confused by my words/arguments, because they'll remember that I said "6" in a very similar situation 5 months ago, so I'm asked, "Is the real answer '6' or '19'?" It's neither. The real answer is that rolling d20, but there's no way in hell I can explain that. But in this situation "19" is correct, and in that prior situation "6" was correct, and no, I'm not being inconsistent, dammit.
It only seems inconsistent because there is some detail that is obvious to me, but not obvious to others, and I don't know which detail
they are missing that would demonstrate consistency. And most of the answers
they would deem consistent would seem inconsistent (i.e., untrue) to me!
[To add a bit of weirdness to the rolling d20 analogy, assume that each time I roll it, it comes up "19", until something changes - the situation "makes" it roll 19, it isn't random on the inside, only to those on the outside.]
If Jung was an INTJ, where was the Te though? I see more INTP there.
what if he was INFJ? that's what i thought initially upon reading some of his writings, before also reading somewhere that he typed himself INTP (i do not remember the source at all, but i don't remember it being particularly trustworthy)... anyway, his stuff about an acorn holding the potential of a tree, the whole concept of an archetype, the boiling down of religions, etc... it all seems really Ni. i definitely see Ti over Te, but i'm inclined to see Ni over Ti.
hard to question his own type theory though...
INFJ is a definite possibility. It's also possible he was an INTJ fascinated about how people tic: the topic matter can make an INTJ sound FJ-ish. Either way, he's definitely Ni.