Bad reply. You cant give any real life scenario that differentiates between Ti and Te, since the functions are mental processes and all sorts of different mental processes can manifest similarly in a real life scenario. There is a reason why i chose to use a real life scenario instead of explaining the theory or neurology behind the functions.
OK, but it would have been a better example if contrasting Ti and Te on the same subject material.
A few different angles on the same basic theme that I hope can help clarify this (as I understand it at least):
OK, thanks, that made sense.
I suspect that this points to one possible difference between a function in the inferior position, and a function in the dominant position. If I tried to describe or understand what Se is, on its own, from my perspective as someone with Se-inf, I wonder if there wouldn't be a similar problem of my version being "flat" and thus sort of unrecognizable in some way by a Se-dom. The only way Se makes any organic sense to me is in clear service to Ni, so I really don't think I could begin to comprehend what it is for a Se-dom as a lead function.
Well try to describe Se, I'm curious.
I'm not sure btw if I have inf Ni because I could see how two-dimensional the OP was... but I can't claim I have this landscape like you do, either. :/ It would be interesting to see Ni descriptions from ENxJ's and from ISxP's as well.
Ni perception feels like home to me. That's beyond nice for me. It's ... mmmm, home. Time as a coordinate is just part of how it works (and may partially explain why people think Ni sees into the future - in my case, it doesn't, it's just that time isn't linear in that landscape as I perceive it, and so the future isn't completely inaccessible the way linear time frameworks say it should be).
The future certainly isn't inaccessible in the sense that you can speculate about it. It's just that often we can't know all factors that go into it. Sometimes it's possible though, at least with a high likelihood.
No. Not me at least (I'm Ni-dom). I perceive a landscape that is not culturally accepted as real the way that 5-accepted-sense perception is accepted. It's not "ideas." It's just not culturally accepted as real the way that the S perception is. When people think N is about ideas because it creates serious distortions in understanding, in reference to my own Ni perception.
I think intuition is most likely a real human sense, just like S senses are. IMO, the problem comes in a cultural distortion that splits out the 5 "real" senses from other modes of human sense perception that are just as real. With this split, N perceptual reality can (semi-plausibly) look like "ideas." It's a distortion, but one that seems relatively widespread.
That's an interesting way to see it. I don't think however that this is just culture, I mean, even though the sense perception isn't perfect, it's still more reliable than the N perception. Also it is more direct.
Do you disagree with that and if so why?
Otherwise, what an interesting description! Ni extends beyond that, for me - meaning, it doesn't just function with Fe-aux and so is not solely about values or even emotional info. For example in me, partial Ni-Se integration yields information about the environment around me as a major other realm. But the description of taking specific experiences (my addition) and happenings, tearing them open and finding the meaning behind - I would say underneath - that has a lot of clarity to it. It shows how a perceiving sense could look like it's doing logical work. And it does also apply to how I experience Se information run through Ni. It's Ni perceiving meaning underneath the Se sensory data. That explains a lot.
What does this Ni-Se integration look like for you?
*nods* This makes lots and lots of sense to me. Because Ni can simply perceive what's behind the curtain just by looking at it. It's as simple as that, just looking at something.
I would like to correct that, Ni can make a guess based on whatever data, doesn't truly see through the curtain. Unless you say it's got a magical quality, which I don't believe it has.
The difficulty with Fe-aux (in my case at least) is that it orients me to legitimize external values/perspectives over my own, by default. In real world terms, this translates to: I'm standing there seeing what's behind the curtain from my specific vantage point. Those around me don't see that layer at all, and are acting like it's not there. If I speak what I see, the most typical response from others is to question my perception and tell me I'm making stuff up or otherwise wrong. Because for them, it just isn't there and it's like, where the hell am I getting this? But for me it's as basic as saying "there's a table right there" in the visible world. Now, eventually, what's behind the curtain will make itself visible in other ways - that's been my experience at least. But in the meantime, it can get very frustrating.
You need to support your Ni perception with evidence. Or, at the minimum, provide the data that the conclusion eventually comes from. I know for me that's the only way to accept a Ni conclusion.
But if what you're saying is correct, I don't see any correlation between Ni-use and long-term planning the xNTJ's are renowned for; in fact, that seems Ti to me. Maybe it's easy to confuse Ni and Ti. And maybe I equate things that aren't comparable.
I noticed that myself, the confusion between Ti and Ni. Hell, even the MBTI official website isn't very clear about them.
It says:
Introverted Intuition: Looks at consistency of ideas and thoughts with an internal framework. Trusts flashes from the unconscious, which may be hard for others to understand.
Introverted Thinking: Seeks internal consistency and logic of ideas. Trusts his or her internal framework, which may be difficult to explain to others.
The only real difference here is that the unconscious is mentioned for Ni.
Here's how you tell the difference:
Ti: Deductive logic. General -> Specific "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is a mortal."
or "24 is an even number. All even numbers are divisible by 2. Therefore, 24 is divisible by 2."
Ni: Pseudo-Inductive logic. Specific -> General "It has rained everyday on January 1st in Hawaii for the past several years. Therefore, it will rain next year on that day as well." (Can't be proven but it is an apt prediction considering past events)
or "Given the sequence 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,X, We can infer from the pattern that X = 34"
Hmmm I'm very inductive. I can do deductive thinking but it always feels kind of foreign to me. Though maybe it only feels foreign when actually breaking up the logic into concrete steps? Because otherwise the logic itself is just fine e.g. in your examples. I can intuitively calculate all these things. Note I said intuitively :/ Do you think that Ti always does conscious step by step logical reasoning? I'm saying all this because maybe I don't even have that much Ti and just confusing Ni for Ti in some cases but I don't know.
Hence me saying "Pseudo-inductive", as Ni is indeed a perceiving function. Ti is deductive because it is given general data from extroverted intuition or extroverted sensing and it hones in on specifics. Ti is precision based going from General -> Specific, making it deductive (and not pseudo-deductive because it is actual thinking).
Hmm again I don't relate. When I analyse data it's either done by looking at the specifics and inferring logical patterns/logical structure from that, that is, I'm being inductive, and I feel this is Ti for me; or it's done by eureka moments, which I don't really call Ti, sure.
I can use already fleshed out logical structures to make up or do something though, e.g. apply the logic in practice, I suppose that maybe is deductive.
Also Werebudgie is saying you were talking about Ti-doms only, really?
I just don't know where you're getting all these ideas about Ti being deductive. Where is this from? Is this your own theory on MBTI?
And we can't even get a damn common consensus.
Because maybe the concepts are wrong? People are trying to associate so many different things with Ti and Ni etc. Where's the guarantee that all those things are all truly related?