How Good Is Sim's Ni Definition?

[sculpting]

Where's uumlau?

Maybe he'll want to actually come back and post again since the forum isn't boring as shit anymore.

I think he will be here shortly.....

 

[SillySapienne]

This really needs to be reworded.

There's truth there, obvious truth, but...

But I'm hungover, and considering I'm half Asian and lack the enzyme to break down alcohol like you, I think I'm doing a half decent job at making coherent thoughts whilst my brain is pounding like a garage house janky ass speaker with far too much bass.

You ever seen those movies where the child, or character (the character is always essentially in the role of a child in this situation), is in a dark, murky forest and is looking around, feeling like the eyes of the forest are all looking at it, knowing what is happening, while the child does not.

Well, for Ni-doms, Ne-doms are like that child, and the Ni-dom is the forest.

For the sake of clarifying the analogy, Ne-doms obviously aren't going around fearful, that is not the point.

But they are that child, walking around the forest, and the connections they're making while looking outward are vastly finite relative to the forest looking in at them.

SAY WHAT?!!?!!!!!?!!!

You just essentially declared that Ni is the sentient world, and that Ne is a wholeheartedly ignorant child.

I'm astounded by your lack of understanding of Ne, and by your RIDICULOUS ASSLOAD OF CONDESCENSION AND ARROGANCE.



First of all, all of our perceptual capacities are finite, and limited in some regard.

And secondly, Ni is the forest looking at Ne, your metaphor hardly makes sense at all, but I still get the gist, which is the fact that you think Ni is vastly superior to, um, everything?

 

[sculpting]

Admittedly, I have read very little of this thread, until I saw something, and then had to put my two cents in.

But, I dunno, Ne + Ti makes sense to me, (when I have the interest to read it )

Though, I have very little use of my Te, and regarding thought processing, I use Ne, Fi and Ti.

Some INTJs say shit and I'm like, holy fuckasaurus, you know what's up, and other times I'm like...

Well, the lesson I have learned is to never ever assume what goes on in anothers head. I do build patterns endlessly, hehe, apophenia huh? but the end recognition is that if they do not stand up to Si experience, they are just one potential endpoint-a toy to bat around and play with...tert Te is my releif function after all, so all of my ideas are but shiny toys.

The only time I use Ti is in a shadow state under massive pain in which it serves a library to form the sharpest most precise terms possible to wound and inflict damage upon another person.

If only Ni types (actually just NTJs, once again, NFJs aren't half as arrogant) would accept that Ni is still just one perspective, not the meta-perspective synthesizing all other perspectives that you want it to be. I understand that that's what you're trying to do; the problem is that you vastly overestimate your own success rate with it. A lot more of you are "crackpot, bottom of the barrel conspiracy theorists" than are able to recognize it about themselves.

I strongly agree with the Bold. whole fucking heartedly. Ni can be predictive, BUT that doesnt make what the rest of us do just normal human reasoning... (I love my INTJ, the one with hairy eyebrows. I love to wake up next to him and love to hold him and love to see him smile......)

Truly brilliant NTJs (Kalach, uumalu, etc.) tend to come off as very humble because they possess the depth of perspective to recognize how much they don't see. It's just the poorly developed ones who come off as arrogant pricks because they think they've got it all figured out and that everyone is a complete idiot totally unworthy of their presence (*cough*, Lex Tali-retard, *cough*.)

BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sim INTJs do something weird as they age. The first 20 years or so seem silent. They say very little. But they constantly absorb social mannerisms as a Te ruleset. They plan very carefully how to best convey the message to convince the other of what they wish. To the point they plan out convos in advance so much in their heads that they sometimes forget they never actually had the convo with the other person....

I suspect this "humility" you see is actually a developed persona for interacting with others. Unlike my raw, axe-like Te that brutally pummels others, or Z's Te which is blunt, older INTJs have had a long time to learn that Te pisses people off...thus learn to Fe like mannerisms to convey messages....

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Truly brilliant NTJs (Kalach, uumalu, etc.) tend to come off as very humble because they possess the depth of perspective to recognize how much they don't see. It's just the poorly developed ones who come off as arrogant pricks because they think they've got it all figured out and that everyone is a complete idiot totally unworthy of their presence (*cough*, Lex Tali-retard, *cough*.)

I liked Lex Talionis. He repeatedly pointed out all of the negative aspects of the other types and then used that to define a type, and he didn't afraid of anything. He wad a pretty cool guy, if you ask me.

The biggest one is how you guys consistently fail to understand how anyone could be looking for different things out of life than you are. I get really tired of the implicit "LOL THAT GUY IS A RETARD, HE HAS NO ECONOMIC INFLUENCE OR OVERARCHING POWER AT ALL ROFL" whenever NTJs want to belittle someone, as if you're completely incapable of recognizing that most types aren't even trying to build that and are totally uninterested in devoting their lives to it.

Huh? -especially the underlined portion-

That's not their primary goal and you continually evaluate others' performance in life as if it is. Listen to NTJs talk about "stupid people"--listen to the values implied by the way they deride people they consider lesser than themselves. It's almost always based on this economic power/influence elitism, and very few of you will openly admit it.

What the fuck?.

 

[sculpting]

The biggest one is how you guys consistently fail to understand how anyone could be looking for different things out of life than you are. I get really tired of the implicit "LOL THAT GUY IS A RETARD, HE HAS NO ECONOMIC INFLUENCE OR OVERARCHING POWER AT ALL ROFL" whenever NTJs want to belittle someone, as if you're completely incapable of recognizing that most types aren't even trying to build that and are totally uninterested in devoting their lives to it. That's not their primary goal and you continually evaluate others' performance in life as if it is. Listen to NTJs talk about "stupid people"--listen to the values implied by the way they deride people they consider lesser than themselves. It's almost always based on this economic power/influence elitism, and very few of you will openly admit it.

Sim, might I suggest a bit o' Ayn Rand? It would give a really interesting insight into what you are seeing. I would, as always for any type, be hesitant to assign motives onto the INTJs, as that would be highly presumptious, however the Se inf function does give a very practical, productive, even slightly materialistic tint to their worldview-always think in terms of function pairs...NeSi or NiSe....otherwise you only have half the picture.

But I'm hungover, and considering I'm half Asian and lack the enzyme to break down alcohol like you, I think I'm doing a half decent job at making coherent thoughts whilst my brain is pounding like a garage house janky ass speaker with far too much bass.



SAY WHAT?!!?!!!!!?!!!

You just essentially declared that Ni is the sentient world, and that Ne is a wholeheartedly ignorant child.

I'm astounded by your lack of understanding of Ne, and by your RIDICULOUS ASSLOAD OF CONDESCENSION AND ARROGANCE.



First of all, all of our perceptual capacities are finite, and limited in some regard.

And secondly, Ni is the forest looking at Ne, your metaphor hardly makes sense at all, but I still get the gist, which is the fact that you think Ni is vastly superior to, um, everything?

Z I am with silly here-use caution not to mix the childlike innocence of Fi with Ne. NeFi will give us the look of that child at times, but often we stopped looking at the forrest long ago...we are seeing far, far beyond the trees at that point to things no longer on the plane of the forrest. Jung says Ne is objective in that it is prompted by a physical object of interest...however we very quickly move away from the object in front of us. By n=20, our Ne is no longer anywhere near that prompting object anymore.

 

[Ginkgo]

Analyzing people's behavior is a significant part of typology. Every type has a number of annoying things it tends to do as a result of overvaluing its own perspective--analyzing people's behavior might be one of those things for some of the NT types, in fact.

Yes, but so is professional psychology. However, if a group of psychologists were discussing psychology, they wouldn't evaluate each others' reasoning based on their psychological states. Imagine if you were diagnosed with depression, mania, or some other sort of disorder; you raised your hand in a psychology class at the local college to state your opinion. Instead of evaluating your opinion based on either the logical consistency or the evidence (against/for) it, he just said, "Oh, well from a depressed persons perspective..."

I know that psychological types aren't disorders. My point is that you're mixing typology as a basic science with typology as an applied science, and in doing so you commit the common fallacy of judging the interocular instead of the argument.

But uh, if you only see deprecation in my posts then you don't really read them. You must be looking for negativity if you can't recall reading anything positive about various types in my writing,

I'm referring to this thread. Most of what you said prior to my post in this thread were negative. My point was that as long as you evaluate peoples' opinions according to their type, you're free to either appreciate them or depreciate them. What you should be doing is evaluating peoples' statements based on whether they are true or not.

Uh huh, and also a search for finding ways to compliment people. The idea is to understand the relative strengths and weaknesses of each archetype. If it makes you happy I can make a post detailing all the positives about each function attitude; I just happen to be discussing negatives in this particular thread.

How about you do neither and make it more sober instead of laminating typology with emotional bias?

I think your Fi is offended that I'm insulting people's individuality by slandering the negative aspects of certain types.

No, I am offended. What's your point?

Once again I'm kind of surprised you don't remember reading any analysis of the positives of any type in my writing. Are you really paying attention?

I've been paying attention to this thread, which is what I'm referring to. Not your long history of posting; but if I recall correctly you even toted a bias against Fi oriented people around in my first thread around 6 months ago.

 

[SillySapienne]

Z I am with silly here-use caution not to mix the childlike innocence of Fi with Ne. NeFi will give us the look of that child at times, but often we stopped looking at the forrest long ago...we are seeing far, far beyond the trees at that point to things no longer on the plane of the forrest. Jung says Ne is objective in that it is prompted by a physical object of interest...however we very quickly move away from the object in front of us. By n=20, our Ne is no longer anywhere near that prompting object anymore.

Zara and I just got into a heated discussion.

This is what I think.

Prior to knowing anything about typology/MBTI, I considered myself both an Intuitive and an Empath, due to my abilities to predict answers, predict motives, behaviors, just know things, synthesize information prior to analyzing it, then ultimately being right. I also just understood people, my imagination, and my ability to place myself in a position I had never literally been and feel what it would be like to be there, yielded a strong moral compass within me, and the ability to relate to others, and for others to feel as though they are/were truly understood by me.

My sixth grade teacher said I had an incredible talent for making inferential connections/conclusions

I have this on record, fwiw.

Inference is the process of drawing a conclusion by applying heuristics (based on logic, statistics etc.) to observations or hypotheses; or by interpolating the next logical step in an intuited pattern. The conclusion drawn is also called an inference.

The type of inferences I've always drawn have been via inductive reasoning.

The process by which a conclusion is inferred from multiple observations is called inductive reasoning. The conclusion may be correct or incorrect, or correct to within a certain degree of accuracy, or correct in certain situation

My Fi, or my empathic abilities developed earlier, around age three.

This might be due partially to genetics, or the fact that I had two older sisters who were not so older than I was/am.

Regardless, being empathic/empathetic has been difficult for me, growing up and still, if there is any correlation between Fi and being empathetic, then, well, there you go.

But, I always felt special for my intuitive capabilities, I was never cocky about it, in fact, I often was misunderstood, and greeted with frustrated teachers who couldn't understand that I didn't need their steps to understand something.

I digress.

When I quoted that Lenore definition of Ni, I related to it immensely.

However, I do not think I am god, I know that I know very little, and furthermore, I know when I don't know something.

But, on the flip side, I know when I know something too, even though there have been circumstances where I have been wrong, and these moments in my life have proven to be both pivotal and critical.

Generally speaking, I trust myself more than I trust others.

But, there are people that I trust, and when I trust them, I learn from them, and find solace in their visions of truth, that, shock horror, are similar to mine.

What was the point of this post.

Ahh, this, that some of us trust our intuition, I know I do, it seldom does me wrong or leads me astray.

But regarding new shit I don't know, I'm all ears, and regarding shit I already know, I'm even more all ears, because it's interesting to find out stuff and expand your knowledge base.

But there is "superficial" knowledge, which I love.

And there is existential knowledge which I need.

/end rant

 

[SillySapienne]

I've been paying attention to this thread, which is what I'm referring to. Not your long history of posting; but if I recall correctly you even toted a bias against Fi oriented people around in my first thread around 6 months ago.

Sim, you must admit that what he says about you here is true, I've heard you state it over and over, how much you can't stand Fi.

I'm starting to think that Fi and Ni are kinda similar.

That's just a working hypothesis, though, as I just came up with it a couple of hours ago.

 

[Zarathustra]

Silly and I are getting ready to go to my parent's, so I don't really have time to comment on the many different things I want to comment on, but...

Orobas, as usual, you have filled this thread with a bunch of useful nuggets of information.

Not to discount the others, cuz they were all valuable, but I particularly liked the part you said about Ne looking far past the object as the user gets older.

I completely agree with you, and it was not something really delineated well enough in my metaphor, by any means.

Really, my metaphor applied more broadly to Pi (forest) and Pe (child) functions.

I completely agree that Ne starts looking "beyond the object" in a way that Se does not, and, in this sense, I tend to look at the N functions as ways in which we stretch beyond the threshold of S -- an uncertain proposition to be sure, but I think we would be foolish to not consider its potential truth, especially out of some flabby-minded political correctness.

Anyway, great posts.

Sim, I actually think your last post was pretty good.

I still think you're letting your relationships with Jaguar, your dad and/or your brother taint your entire perspective on NTJs, and that you harbor an obsession with pointing towards the 2% (Orobas' figure) of the time when Ni-doms are not actually bringing to the table an accurate, largely-encompassing view of the matter at hand, due to your issues with one or more of these relationships.

I don't know if it's that your dad and/or brother and/or Jaguar "look down on you" for what it is that you are doing with your life, but I suspect this is the source (particularly with your family) of much of your obsession with pointing out that Ni doms don't really see the "whole picture" (i.e., in your case, that material gain, etc. is not that important).

Yes, their values make them desire for you to do something that they see as "productive" with your life -- and these desires are undoubtedly biased by their Te -- but to constantly obsess over pointing out a particular type's "blind spots", which, invariably, do exist, seems to be driven more by your personal experiences than a drive for accuracy or truth, and thus pushes you towards behavior that you wouldn't otherwise be engaging in.

I don't know. Maybe I'm completely off base. I don't know you that well.

But it just always seems like you have a personal axe to grind with NTJs.

 

[SillySapienne]

I just found something pretty fucking rad, for all you NFs out there.

Intuitive abilities were quantitatively tested at Yale University in the 1970s. While studying nonverbal communication, researchers noted that some subjects were able to read nonverbal facial cues before reinforcement occurred.[20] In employing a similar design, they noted that highly intuitive subjects made decisions quickly but could not identify their rationale. Their level of accuracy, however, did not differ from that of nonintuitive subjects.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(knowledge)

(I swear on everything I value that I did not come across this tidbit of information prior to making my previous posts.)

 

[garbage]

I love these threads. Full of huge retards.

fixed

 

[SillySapienne]

Taken from here...

Introverted Intuition



^See, I get this feeling too, a lot, I dunno if it's because of my Fi, or that I also have quite a bit of Ni.

But the fact remains, as humans we are fallible.

It is true in that it is possible for someone to have some capacity to know things despite having proof, or knowing why they know.

Interestingly enough, the aforementioned description of Ni is something I can identify with a lot, however, I will hold the belief in my head, or often vocalize it, and whaddya know, what I just knew, was actually right.

Let it be known that this "power" or "gift" of mine works best with people, I am and have always been a ridiculously good judge of a person's character, from a brief encounter I can and do conjure a lot of information about this person, I think there is something to it though, perhaps I have an exceptionally good processor/decoder when it comes to non-verbal human communication.

This also happens in other situations, where I just know something before I have "real" evidence for knowing it.

If one studies intuition outside of typological/MBTI definitions this makes a lot of sense.

But, I do believe that there is a transcendent reality that no one has the capacity to completely know and understand.

Also, I have been wrong about people before, very wrong, (whenever this happens I become fascinated with the subject, they are "special" and need extra attention, they don't fit any of my preconceived molds/models of human behavior, I love when this happens ) though, I'd say over 90% of the time I tend to be right about someone, i.e. I know when someone is a shit bag, when they are lying, when they are sincere, when they are intelligent, when they are sensitive, etc.

God, I lost my train of thought.

Anyhow, sometimes one just knows, and sometimes one is wrong.

When I was with my ISTP it took forever until he finally conceded that I had this gift, he needed evidence, and finally I turned a hardcore skeptic into a believer, (as in, he believed I was "exceptionally talented" in this arena).

But, it was comforting and agitating at the same time to have to prove my "irrational" beliefs to a Ti dom, it definitely made my head explode on occasion, but it certainly sharpened my ability to explain what I once thought was the unexplainable.

Sorry, I forgot where I was going with this.

^Written at 12:49pm Pacific time

I just found something pretty fucking rad, for all you NFs out there.



Intuitive abilities were quantitatively tested at Yale University in the 1970s. While studying nonverbal communication, researchers noted that some subjects were able to read nonverbal facial cues before reinforcement occurred.[20] In employing a similar design, they noted that highly intuitive subjects made decisions quickly but could not identify their rationale. Their level of accuracy, however, did not differ from that of nonintuitive subjects.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(knowledge)

(I swear on everything I value that I did not come across this tidbit of information prior to making my previous posts.)

^ Found around 2:15 pm.

 

[Zarathustra]

Bologna, never seen you much before, and as hilarious as I thought your comment about Sim's "awards" was, since then, based on all of your posts I've seen, you've come to seem like someone who's just disgruntled.

 

[Ginkgo]

Everything you say here is absolutely true...from an introverted perspective. The idea is to accept that there are situations where breadth is preferable to depth, rather than always letting introversion dominate your perspective/assuming that depth is always the best approach.

Obviously it goes both ways; if we always choose extroversion then we'll neglect depth, which is equally bad.

The problem is that if we insist on complete depth at all times, it becomes impossible to communicate our ideas meaningfully to others because they're so inseparable from our own subjective perspectives. Balance is the goal.

You just told me that what I said was true, meaning that breadth can be found in introversion and depth can be found in extraversion. Yet you persist in your previous stance prior to that because you hold my statement captive as though you can't accept it.

The fact is that having depth means that you plunge the innards or deepness of a thing, which is quite possible in referring to external input (which is what extraversion is). Having breadth means that you can examine a broader range of input, which is also quite possible when you are referring to a more intrinsic or internal input.

Actually it's both. Extroversion, by nature, sacrifices depth and specificity in order to achieve more practicality through broader applicability. "Accuracy of a statement depends upon the reasoning behind a statement" = introverted perspective. That's certainly true, but when we want to take an idea and apply it to a wider range of external situations, moving it outside the bounds of our own subjective interpretation requires the sacrifice of a certain degree of precision. That is the nature of extroversion, and failing to account for the value in this perspective is the #1 mistake I constantly see from all the introverts I discuss typology with on the internet.

What a crock of shit.

The accuracy of a statement is entirely contingent upon reasoning, whether you're referring to internal or external data.

What do you mean by "precision"? Certainly, one can formulate an idea in one's head until it is pristine and then communicate it with perfect clarity. The subjective bounds of another's' interpretation is what prevents that clarity from having an identical effect in their own psyche.

Note that undervaluing a perspective may not be the cause of introversion, but it may just be that's your perspective isn't correct.

Read up on extroversion vs. introversion and breadth vs. depth plz, kthx.

Cute.

I'm not dismissing it. It's a valid point; it's just that it only takes one side of the coin into account. There are times when introversion's depth is clearly preferable, and other times when extroversion's breadth is.

And uh, coming from an introverted person implies that an idea is influenced most heavily by an introverted perspective (in most cases), as the introvert's dominant perspective is, by definition, an introverted one.

The same applies to extroverts; we have a natural tendency (at least in regards to our dominant process) to choose breadth over depth, and we have to work on the auxiliary to balance that out.

I am referring to those criticisms as "introverted" because I feel that they fail to take into account the value of extroversion/breadth and thus continually insist that no precision can or should ever be sacrificed for the sake of broader applicability.

The Ti+Ni ISTP from Per-C that I mentioned is largely against inductive reasoning. You can think of introversion as deductive (because it is precise, complete, and certain) and extroversion as inductive (because it sacrifices precision/completeness in favor of wider applicability.) I wrote a post about inferring the types of others based on their behaviors; he found this completely unacceptable as it required use of inductive reasoning.

He said something to the effect of, "Guessing is not certainty." That's certainly a valid point--the problem is, it's a purely introverted perspective that doesn't take into account the relative value of breadth. The idea is to get to a point where we recognize that breadth and depth are equally important, and that which is preferable is context-dependent.

I've already addressed the reasoning you have here. All I'm hearing is you using typology as a scapegoat for evaluating what people have to say, which is laced in depth in many of your posts.

 

[SillySapienne]

You just told me that what I said was true, meaning that breadth can be found in introversion and depth can be found in extraversion. Yet you persist in your previous stance prior to that because you hold my statement captive as though you can't accept it.

The fact is that having depth means that you plunge the innards or deepness of a thing, which is quite possible in referring to external input (which is what extraversion is). Having breadth means that you can examine a broader range of input, which is also quite possible when you are referring to a more intrinsic or internal input.






What a crock of shit.

The accuracy of a statement is entirely contingent upon reasoning, whether you're referring to internal or external data.

What do you mean by "precision"? Certainly, one can formulate an idea in one's head until it is pristine and then communicate it with perfect clarity. The subjective bounds of another's' interpretation is what prevents that clarity from having an identical effect in their own psyche.

Note that undervaluation a perspective may not be the cause of introversion, but it may just be that's your perspective isn't correct.



Cute.




I've already addressed the reasoning you have here. All I'm hearing is you using typology as a scapegoat for evaluating what people have to say, which is laced in depth in many of your posts.

Damn good post.



My brain is starting to hurt, but daaaayum good post.

I wonder what sim is gonna have to say to your valid points.

I'm excited, I love intellectual drama!!!

 

[Zarathustra]

Highlander!

You started this!!!

 

[Zarathustra]

Note that undervaluing a perspective may not be the cause of introversion, but it may just be that's your perspective isn't correct.

All I'm hearing is you using typology as a scapegoat for evaluating what people have to say, which is laced in depth in many of your posts.

These were my exact two sentiments when I read his response to your post.

 

[garbage]

Bologna, never seen you much before, and as hilarious as I thought your comment about Sim's "awards" was, since then, based on all of your posts I've seen, you've come to seem like someone who's just disgruntled.

You're right; you've rightfully called out on one of my blind spots with respect to this thread, which was fueled by frustration. My comment was uncalled for. It was a pretty harsh judgment. And, yeah, for that I totally apologize.

I'm not about to get personal about my own motivations here, but it's just sad that many, many posts are simply talking past one another.


The sentiments that I'm inclined to agree with are those like these:

There are those who share knowledge to help others, and those who use it to push their own agenda.

All I'm hearing is you using typology as a scapegoat for evaluating what people have to say, which is laced in depth in many of your posts.

And, because of that, I really want to understand what we're all actually trying to do in these discussions. Share or spread our own views? Come to a better understanding of typology systems? Share information in a meaningful way? Popcorn-level discussion? Nothing in particular (which, well, is also fine)?

If we're looking to develop a good, solid foundation for all of this typology stuff, I think we'd all be well-served to try to figure out where exactly it is that we as individuals are coming from. I think that, sort of ironically, we'd also fare better if we left others' individual types out of the discussion, because they're majorly clouding things up. Everyone is completely responsible for evaluating their own perspective.

 

[cascadeco]

Is This because he is using his Ti system to describe Ni....which would be easier for you to innately understand given your tert Ti? (please assume no insult at all!!!! I just think of this comparison as I find INTJs much easier to understand due to my tert Te than INTPs for instance, and I will find their descriptions resonate more strongly as being closer to my perception of a situation)

Maybe; I'm not sure. I'll let you be the judge of that. I just know the description resonated.

(I'm really not a big fan, at all, of breaking things down into functions though; I find the process tedious and often-times counterproductive in the end, for various reasons I don't want to derail about in here. Sorry. ]

Taken from here...

Introverted Intuition Ni is a way of knowing (or at least thinking you know) that bypasses reason, facts, evidence, the expected or intended interpretations of signs, or anything you can point to, simply giving you an awareness or belief that seems indisputably true to you, period. You can't tell by introspection how you got this idea. There is no thought process. There is only tuning into this form of awareness and just knowing.

In contrast, I find these sorts of definitions of Ni retarded. No offense. I mean, I don't know if the creator of said definition is trying to isolate Ni and only Ni (presumably so? And failing to really get at what it IS.. or perhaps it as an Ni definition is more applicable/pertinent as a tertiary function or beyond?), but it's not like I utilize Ni is some sort of vacuum where I'm just going off of hunches 24/7. That's dumb. I was trying to describe this to, I think Eric B once in another thread a long while ago, and I think the big FAIL when it comes to resorting to this sort of definition is that it then leaves people thinking dom-Ni's are having unexplainable visions their entire lives, and frankly that makes no sense as a dominant process. These thoughts are derived somehow, and the user can undoubtably, if he so desired, describe the [lengthy] process as to how he arrived at said conclusion (even if in his mind it isn't necessarily 'lengthy', as much could happen simultaneously, it's just there are so many strands/threads that would need to be explained that it would become lengthy). Typically though that would take so much time so as to be considered tiresome by said dom-Ni (It would take effort, and the elements leaned upon to draw conclusion, or at very least the weight put into said elements, might seem screwy to others, depending), thus the resultant statements appear more nebulous because he isn't also outlining the paragraphs or pages or books of other information/ideas/concepts/patterns in his brain used to derive that conclusion.

------------
In the end, though, this is why mbti theory is rather nebulous as a system - certain descriptions resonate with some, others not at all. I happened to really relate to the description in the OP, and find Ni descriptions such as the one SillySapienne posted utterly lacking; but presumably there are Ni-doms who do relate to such things.

 

[Zarathustra]

You're right; you've rightfully called out on one of my blind spots with respect to this thread, which was fueled by frustration. My comment was uncalled for. It was a pretty harsh judgment. And, yeah, for that I totally apologize.

I'm not about to get personal about my own motivations here, but it's just sad that many, many posts are simply talking past one another.

The sentiments that I'm inclined to agree with are those like these:

And, because of that, I really want to understand what we're all actually trying to do in these discussions. Share or spread our own views? Come to a better understanding of typology systems? Share information in a meaningful way? Popcorn-level discussion? Nothing in particular (which, well, is also fine)?

If we're looking to develop a good, solid foundation for all of this typology stuff, I think we'd all be well-served to try to figure out where exactly it is that we as individuals are coming from. I think that, sort of ironically, we'd also fare better if we left others' individual types out of the discussion, because they're majorly clouding things up. Everyone is completely responsible for evaluating their own perspective.

Thank you for the thoughtful post.

While I agree with much of what you said and with the sentiments in the posts you quoted, I think it's important to keep in mind that people share and learn in different ways; for some people, including myself, Silly, and probably many others, that discussion was thoroughly enjoyable.

That's why we engage in those type of discussions.

It might not be quite your cup of tea, but it might be others'.