Ni and "sleeping on it"

[Ginkgo]

One thing I've noticed is that those who rely on Ni also rely on their ability to sleep on problems. If someone sleeps on a problem, they've likely not put much mental energy in solving the problem at all. Perhaps they have, but at a certain point, lateral thinking takes the wheel and does the work for them.

How is it, then, that an Ni dom could rightfully claim an idea as his own if that idea was the work of an intuition that seems to have its own autonomy?

 

[Coriolis]

How is it, then, that an Ni dom could rightfully claim an idea as his own if that idea was the work of an intuition that seems to have its own autonomy?

Who else should be considered responsible for the idea, then: God? Many artistic ideas are not the work of a "lateral thinking" process, but simply the inspiration of the artist. Some artists do credit their "muse", but the rest of us usually have no trouble acknowledging the authorship of the artist.

 

[Giggly]

I think they're just not sure and needing more information which sometimes comes to them with a little time and space....Or sometimes a lot of time and space, which is frustrating if you're waiting for them.

 

[skylights]

as far as i understand Ni it relies very much on unconscious processing. so when you say "not much mental energy", you mean the sort of mental energy that you're used to using. i frequently notice Ni dom and aux friends of mine doing the thousand-yard stare thing where they seem to leap out of normal time, and i would be very surprised if they weren't engaging their little Ni brain gears during those times.

i don't think any Perceiving function can fairly claim complete authorship because we do derive our ideas from the worlds outside of us, be they the internal world of Ni and Si or the external worlds available to Ne and Se. i am an artist and i often tell people that my art tends to be "variations on a theme": i see things and i alter and combine and rework them. i do not simply generate them out of my own inner being, even though my inner being works its own magic upon them.

at least personally i have no real belief in authorship in and of itself, anyway. i think most ideas are collective, owned by the universe and the cosmos, and it is rather silly to claim an idea as completely of one's own - though that is how the human ego seeks to understand things and that is the way our world often works.

 

[Riva]

The answer to the OP to a certain extent -

http://personalityjunkie.com/2011/10/05/understanding-introverted-intuition-ni-in-infjs-intjs/

 

[King sns]

I think that's how some of the best ideas, (for anyone) come up. They pop out of your subconscious. They came from some complex background process that had nothing to do with your everyday thinking.

 

[Riva]

Ah this thread scream Gregory House.

Guessing and guessing and putting to the test.

Until finally it hits him.

He is such an INTJ.

If Mac sees this he is going to kill me.

 

[Ginkgo]

Ah this thread scream Gregory House.

Guessing and guessing and putting to the test.

Until finally it hits him.

He is such an INTJ.

If Mac sees this he is going to kill me.

Oh God. That's a good way to derail, friend.

 

[Riva]

Oh God. That's a good way to derail, friend.

I wasn't derailing at all.

That's an unfair accusation.

I was only pointing out that the points provided to understand the functions of Ni screams the behaviour of Gregory House.

You obviously have issues with me.

Don't try to misinterpret the things I say to offend me or put me in that particular light.

I don't know what your issue is with me and I do not care at all.

This is not the 1st time you tried to antagonize me.

The skin colour joke you made a while ago was rather offensive too, though I never reported it.

 

[Ginkgo]

I wasn't derailing at all.

That's an unfair accusation.

I was only pointing out that the points provided to understand the functions of Ni screams the behaviour of Gregory House.

You obviously have issues with me.

Don't try to misinterpret the things I say to offend me or put me in that particular light.

I don't know what your issue is with me and I do not care at all.

This is not the 1st time you tried to antagonize me.

The skin colour joke you made a while ago was rather offensive too, though I never reported it.

Skin color joke...? What? I'm not trying to do anything to you. I don't even know you.

 

[Riva]

Skin color joke...? What? I'm not trying to do anything to you. I don't even know you.

Good lets just keep it that way.

 

[Coriolis]

at least personally i have no real belief in authorship in and of itself, anyway. i think most ideas are collective, owned by the universe and the cosmos, and it is rather silly to claim an idea as completely of one's own - though that is how the human ego seeks to understand things and that is the way our world often works.

I have no problem with the idea of authorship, but in a similar vein, find the notion of "intellectual property" to be an oxymoron. We don't completely own what we create, especially once it is out there in the world. Proper attribution is still courteous and responsible, though.

 

[Ginkgo]

I have no problem with the idea of authorship, but in a similar vein, find the notion of "intellectual property" to be an oxymoron. We don't completely own what we create, especially once it is out there in the world. Proper attribution is still courteous and responsible, though.

The who else owns what we create?

 

[skylights]

I have no problem with the idea of authorship, but in a similar vein, find the notion of "intellectual property" to be an oxymoron. We don't completely own what we create, especially once it is out there in the world. Proper attribution is still courteous and responsible, though.

to the bold, agreed. it allows for pride in one's hard work and a sense of community synergy.

 

[iwakar]

One thing I've noticed is that those who rely on Ni also rely on their ability to sleep on problems. If someone sleeps on a problem, they've likely not put much mental energy in solving the problem at all. Perhaps they have, but at a certain point, lateral thinking takes the wheel and does the work for them.

How is it, then, that an Ni dom could rightfully claim an idea as his own if that idea was the work of an intuition that seems to have its own autonomy?

Does Ne have no autonomy because it requires an environmental soundboard? All of our processes require a "ping" to materialize.

Eh.

 

[Ginkgo]

Does Ne have no autonomy because it requires an environmental soundboard? All of our processes require a "ping" to materialize.

Eh.

You may have a point. Ne, without anything else to ground it, can cause an individual to be extremely flappable when exposed to new information. It's only alien to me because it's an extraverted process as opposed to Ni.

 

[Coriolis]

The who else owns what we create?

No one. My comment applies only to ideas and concepts, though. It makes no more sense to speak of owning these than to speak of owning one's children. As Skylights mentioned, even the most novel idea is influenced by prior and contemporary thought and circumstance. While it is often possible to point to who pulled it all together, it is far more difficult to apportion "ownership" accurately and realistically. Moreover, once exposed to the light of day, one's ideas, like children, will grow beyond their beginnings, spawning more ideas and eluding the posession and control implied by ownership.

Some Native American groups similarly found the idea of owning land hard to fathom. That doesn't stop us from putting up fences and issuing deeds, but the land will be there long after its "owners" are gone, much like the thought forms that issue from our imaginations.