Why Ps tend to see the world in "maybes"

[INTP]

I didn't say Se saw possibilities in that last post. I was granting you that Ni saw the possibilities, but the primary perspective was Se "emergent data", and that thus the two functions work together. The way you're taking it, the athlete (which is a field good for Se types) would have to in effect "switch gears" when he "uses Se" to see "what is" before him, and then "use" Ni in recognizing where it's going. That's actually the way the "folk typologists" (remember that term?) who are misled use the concepts. But that's not what it's about.

That's talking about physical motion, not the type of "motion" Jungian iNtuition deals with (i.e. conceptual). Are you suggesting that each person "uses S" when seeing something, and then "uses N" when he sees its position in physical space change (physical motion)?
Is that really what Jung meant, or is that your or someone else's idea?

Just seeing something move is neither S nor N. This is the common mistake many make, leading one to wonder how N's could "see", since they have to "use" an unconscious or less conscious function; and in order to see as good as an S, they would have to "develop" their "Sensing". That's just like F="emotions", T is "thinking" meaning "thoughts", Si="remembering", Fe="considering others". (The worst definitions of those experts you criticize!)

S, as we are discussing it as a type preference, means that though we all see "what is" equally, I prefer to pay more attention to that which is; and where it came from or is going is less relevant to ego's preference. N means that I see what is, but prefer to pay more attention to where it came from or is going, than just focusing on it for its own sake.

And "where it came from/where it's going is NOT spatial as that article is talking about. At least, not necessarily. If I see something already moving, and then try to figure the trajectory or possible places it can end up (momentarily taking my focus off of the physical object and particular locations in the process and conceptualizing about them instead), that is iNtuition. But just seeing it move from one place to the other is not iNtuition!

It has nothing to do with visual "motion". It's "where it came from or is going" in concept, not in space.
Of course, its as I said...
I don't see how he's "right" and they're "wrong". "Closer" to what? Mainstream psychological knowledge? They don't seem to be embracing him that much. The main problem I can see with the interpreters is not clarifying things enough. (And some of those oversimplified definitions, when they do attempt to clarify). But with Jung, clarifying can be hard.

Twisting my words, twisting typologies, cant understand what is being said to you etc etc. Useless wall of text

 

[KDude]

Jungs rational/orrational concept has nothing to do with these maybes and definition is totally different from MBTI J and P. MBTI P types/jungs E-irrational and I-rational are the ones full of maybes. So simply no to everything that you said.

Rational/Irrational are Jung's own terms for what we understand as the J/P dichotomy. Irrational is another word for Perceiving. Rationality is another word for Judging.

The person who changed which types are Rational and Irrational (J and P) though is Myers. She explicitly says it herself in the introduction of her book, that she discovered something new about how Ji leading are Perceivers and Pi leading are really Judgers. Then she even tries to cover herself by suggesting to not even read Jung. Because it doesn't work once you do.

Jung's Introverted Irrationals are presented as being a bit maladjusted to life... in terms of extroverted judging standards, that is. They don't incorporate that sense of order and determination either from or on to the world. Which is what an MBTI J type does.

The two types just depicted [Introverted Sensing and Intuition] are almost inaccessible to external judgment. Because they are introverted and have in consequence a somewhat meagre capacity or willingness for expression, they offer but a frail handle for a telling criticism. Since their main activity is directed within, nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, or uncertainty, and an apparently groundless perplexity. When anything does come to the surface, it usually consists in indirect manifestations of inferior and relatively unconscious functions. Manifestations of such a nature naturally excite a certain environmental prejudice against these types. Accordingly they are mostly underestimated, or at least misunderstood. To the same degree as they fail to understand themselves -- because they very largely lack judgment -- they are also powerless to understand why they are so constantly undervalued by public opinion.

^ That is not an MBTI IJ. Jung's real IP types were Pi leading.

Maybe some want to say that all IJs are really like that "deep inside", when no one is looking, and the lights are off - but I call bullshit. If Jung wanted to make more room for that, he probably would have said so. And afaik, he didn't... I don't even think he went into much detail about the effect secondary/auxiliary functions have. This was more Myers' thing. Which isn't a bad idea, but she took it to the point where a major dichotomy like J/P gets turned around.

 

[Eric B]

Twisting my words, twisting typologies, cant understand what is being said to you etc etc. Useless wall of text

"twisting" and "misunderstanding"? You need to clarify what said, then. (Like why would you mention visual motion, in comparison to conceptual motion, which is where Jung's "where it's going" refers to? If that's not what you were doing, then what was the point of that? Talk about "useless text"; you're just disputing theorists with no real cause).

 

[INTP]

"twisting" and "misunderstanding"? You need to clarify what said, then. (Like why would you mention visual motion, in comparison to conceptual motion, which is where Jung's "where it's going" refers to? If that's not what you were doing, then what was the point of that? Talk about "useless text"; you're just disputing theorists with no real cause).

Its pointless to discuss about this since you have no idea how brains work and i cba to teach you everything since it is so complex.

 

[Eric B]

The statement of mine that was quoted was "Like a football player who sees who is in a position that he can pass the ball to." You now seem to be saying that that isn't sensation, but rather intuition. You say the player is "using Ni". The immediate point is in the seeing in itself. This is, in your own words, "what is, perceivable facts". I wasn't mentioning any process of inferring "where it's going". It wasn't "possibility over time"; but immediately.
Inasmuch as "where it's going" can be considered implicit, it is what Jung called "undifferentiated". It's more of a limbic (instinctual) reaction, that even animals can have, than a differentiated "iNtuition". i.e. They too can see an immediate opening for action. (Do animals "use Ni" too, then?).
It seems you're getting hung up on the word "possibilities". Perhaps it shouldn't be put that way, then.

Then you start talking about brain regions, and it seems this is the basis of this redefinition of a form of sensation as Ni, and you just appeal to the theory being so "complex" and people's not understanding the brain in place of backing your objections up. (It also just occurred to me how Nardi was one of the people you dismissed along with me, regarding "what [we] say about functions", yet he is the one you are appealing to with this brain theory! Which is it? Is he right, or is he off the wall too?)

Brain research is empirical science. Function theory is very abstract (meaning conceptual; intuitive), and that's the biggest reason mainstream science has dismissed type theory in the first place. It would be a great shot in the arm if we could get some empirical backing for our theory, and the brain research looks promising to fill that role.
But don't conflate the abstract concepts with the empirical. Functions and attitudes may be connected with parts of the brain, but that doesn't mean that a process of sensation now becomes defined as intuition, just because of which part of the brain it's from. The only way it can be understood as such is with what I said. The opposite function is in the background, in undifferentiated form. (This is what I should have said in the beginning. I didn't know we would go down this trail on the brain).