It’s not that I think it’s ‘wrong’. It’s a relatively common occurrence in this forum for people to say, “That’s not a <whatever function> thing, I do it too.†Sometimes it gets frustrating because it interferes with being able to discuss commonalities.
Thing is, these MBTI functions are defined in this way and then that way and then that way. People are trying to add too many things into function definitions, associate way too many traits and observations and whatnot without actual grounds* to do so and without ever even stopping to think for a second whether these things are really that well correlated. Yes I said it before and I will repeat that I'm picky with quality of correlations and yes, quality of definitions as well.
(*: Actual grounds means checking out the workings of many many people. After all, these MBTI functions are thingies that supposedly apply to everyone out there.)
So... I wish there was some true common ground where it's clear what's NOT supposed to be part of a function and then what is actually core of a function and the rest is just outside MBTI's framework.. I want to explain to people what the problem is with trying to associate everything on earth with everything else. This is part of my agenda. Like it or not... I would still hope that it at least gets
understood.
Before anyone misinterprets this... This doesn't mean that I want to invalidate anyone's experiences**. Nope. That expression doesn't even *make sense*. So no, you and I and everyone have experiences and they are real and everything but not everything needs to be explained by the actually pretty narrow framework of MBTI. I encourage everyone to read up more on general psychology outside MBTI. It's worth the time. If one's already willing to pour so much time into MBTI shite, then how about pouring some time into other parts of cognitive psychology.
(**: Someone, I think it was [MENTION=20789]Werebudgie[/MENTION], in this thread asked:
"Why can't it be simply that my experiences are mine, yours are yours, and we don't have to have overlap in order for both to be valid? That's a real question." Good point there I would say! I'm only talking about validity from the viewpoint of theory framework.)
And well that's the second part of my agenda. Show people that there's more to it - the mind and psychology - than MBTI. Yep.
And the third part of my agenda is - simply discussing internal experiences of the mind's workings. Whether Ni or not Ni. Sometimes it's nicer not trying to attach labels to everything like that. Especially MBTI labels. Just simply describe, discuss, compare, be amazed.
Or in other words, it’s one thing to say, “I relate to this too.†It’s another thing to say, “I don’t think this is related to being Ni dominant because I relate to it too.†The latter requires the commonalities conversation to stop long enough to explain a whole bunch of things that I don’t especially have the patience to stop and explain, because my focus is already on something else. I think that for Js, the way Ps want to pick apart the micro details that stand out to them- it’s like being expected to stop the car every 15 feet to check the air on the tires; after the first few ‘air checks’, it’s easy to forget what I got into the car for in the first place (which is why Js get angry with a lot of interruptions). So depending on how important the ‘destination’ of the original convo is- I’ll be proportionately agitated by distractions. [irl, I’m rarely as focused on conversation as I am here in the forum, I’m more focused on the people and I’m far more patient with side tangents. It’s much harder for me in written conversation though, to change gears.]
Alright cool I already said I'm a very patient type when it comes to discussing stuff. I can deal with it if you don't want to approach it the same way I do.
I will just comment - in line with my agendas I've laid out above - that I don't see it as a J/P thing about management of details. This can be attributed to many other things.
So this “I relate to this too†business- it’s not that I think it’s wrong. I’ll just say that I too understand what it’s like to be in a GIT ER DONE (!) mode….but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a stronger characteristic of Te doms than it is of Ni doms. <-I hope that suffices as an explanation.
Sure suffices. See above.
[There are times in the forum when I think certain characteristics are wrongly attributed to a function- but people do tend to be a little too trigger happy with the whole “I do that too†argument around here.]
OK, we see that differently then.
I agree that "conclusion" can be either, and I think that's the crux of the misunderstanding here. I think- while the “scrambling around†description may resonate- Pe does the ‘scrambling around’ work aloud. [And before you argue this point- obviously it isn’t 100% every single fragment of every single thought must be spoken aloud. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying in comparison, Pe processes information by bouncing fragments off of others almost in real time as those fragments occur or relatively soon after they occur.]
First. Allow me to ask you to stop making assumptions about what I was going to argue about. (Regardless of whether the assumptions are correct or not, I just don't want it. Often it's not correct anyway.)
Now, as for the scrambling stuff, I don't know if that's Pe or what, I just recognise it in myself. As I said, when I think of a conclusion because of whatever that came up that needed a conclusion, I try to flesh it out in concrete steps and/or find the concrete data supporting it. And I'm sorry this isn't to argue with you, just stating my own experiences, so, yes, I do this in my mind on my own. Say I'm ISTP for example but it doesn't change the fact that I still do this on my own even though ISTP is a Pe type.
What I do like to talk about with others in the "bouncing Pe style" is simply about whatever things that then make me think in the process of the discussion. Like, I do that thinking on the move and I don't think about it when I'm on my own. That actually is one of the reasons why I don't see myself as Ni-dom because that goes pretty much against the core of that, I think. (Yes. A long time ago in a period of my life that now seems like maybe never really existed, I thought I was INFJ.)
Anyway that can also have me in the process find such conclusions as above. So I would say I'm 50/50 on this thing. Sorry if I don't fit neatly into the MBTI boxes. *Sarcasm off*
Someone around here once said that Pi does it’s “churning†of information internally (I think ‘churning’ and ‘scrambling around’ probably mean the same thing), and that seems true to me. I have to scramble internally, my own way- whereas PeJi/JiPe is inclined to want to bounce immediate fragments of the churning/scrambling process off of others. The process may not feel “immediate†to PeJi/JiPe- but it is from a Pi perspective. Think of it like a microwave- if all you ever use is a microwave, then it might sound ridiculous when someone claims food is “instantly†heated: sometimes it takes as long as 5 minutes to cook something. But in comparison to a conventional oven- it’s pretty instant.
Hmm, as for churning, I think of the information that got collected over time without processing it right away. And then one day it comes up processed. I do that a lot too.
The scrambling to me means as above, what we talked about tracing steps to a conclusion. That's done relatively slowly compared to the AHA! moment that produces the conclusion, but it's still done much faster than the "churning" as defined by me in the above lines.
I wonder which one you meant actually? I think we were originally talking about the first one or is it that to you these two processes (that I called churning vs scrambling) aren't distinctly different?
Yeah, it looks that way to me too. One of the problems with the internal ‘churning’ is that having someone bounce a bunch of fragments of thoughts off of us can sound like a bunch of gobbledy-gook if some strong bullet points are not presented as staples to frame that information. While Ti generally makes sense to me (in spite of the fact that it gets exhausting to get pummeled with Ti fragments, I can still usually follow), that’s not so much the case with Fi. I need a context in which to place the fragments or they will go in one ear and out the other.
And so with Te doms- I’m starting to think a lot of times (when I thought they were dogmatically rejecting anything they didn’t already agree with) they reject Ti because there’s no staple or no framework ready to hold the fragments in place.
I didn't really understand the part about Fi framework but no worries.
I think I get the part about "bunch of gobbledy-gook". I guess I'm better at taking that than the Te-doms because I don't really require bullet points
Otoh, I do still like to try and make sense of "gobbledy-gook stuff" too, depending on my current mindset. I either just absorb information without processing it right away or I want to take it apart and make sense of it. (Yea I am again 50/50 sorry.
) In an active discussion I usually have this latter mindset though so I'm sorry if it's exhausting to you being pummeled with my Ti fragments.
I have been comparing Ni to a Rube Goldberg contraption for a while now (it probably applies somewhat to Si as well): if you put a marble in the top, it has to progress through a series of mechanisms before it hits ground zero. That’s what happens to information: it has to run the course through a series of diagnostics before I give it much weight. People tend to want to bypass this metaphorical Rube Goldberg contraption. It’s pretty common for people to feel like we’re “not listening†if they can’t say something and have it instantly bounced back at them in the way they bounce things back themselves. Pe dom/aux are much better at directly interacting with the information being presented in the moment (whether or not they’re actually giving it a chance is another story- sometimes they only take enough in to be able to shapeshift it into something more self serving before they throw it back, but that’s a whole other topic).
I see. I don't mind that, I've had NJ people before tell me that they need some time to think about whatever. That's fine. Yes, I'm not like that, I do try to interact in the moment if something gets thrown at me (and I would say I am 100/0 on this, not 50/50, hehe).
As for shapeshifting things. I believe it's totally completely fucking normal if something gets misinterpreted the first time by whoever. Or not even misinterpreted sometimes but just gets interpreted through the filters that everyone has in place. Well let me give it a better name, one that you used yourself. It's the filter that you yourself called your POV. Everyone's got a POV in this sense. And that's fine. It doesn't mean there can't be mutual understanding. Say, even if there is disagreement, the parties understand each others' POV's. This is why I believe in giving the chance to everyone who's willing to discuss stuff. I think that's where my previously mentioned patience comes from - I really am *not* a patient person in other situations.
I agree it's a problem though yes, if someone doesn't want to give it a chance, and that's what I call "not being receptive". Not the stuff about the person needing time to think through stuff, that's fine.
So let me get this straight: after spending years around a woman who asks “Who is this?†every single time there’s music playing (Every. Single. Time.) and who only ever later asks “Who was that musician…†or establishes any deeper interest where classical music is concerned- you wouldn’t pick up on that? Ever? It’s unreasonable to assume that this particular instance of asking is probably going to be no different than the (literally) thousands of times that preceded it?
Well the way I am.. I would just answer the question and not worry about the deeper meaning of why it was asked. So I can't really tell you much about that. I hate a lot of assumptions in general.
She isn’t always asking because she’s interested in the artist- she’s asking because she’s expressing interest in the person playing the music (it is possible to reasonably figure out- after being around someone for 20 years- the difference). She incessantly asks questions as a means to feel connected to people and/or just to be talking. Because some people are like that. There aren’t many people who can handle being around my mom very much because of it- it never stops, she never runs out of things to ask questions about.
So um was that why she got upset about you not actually answering her?
I didn't really know the reason for her interest when you originally described the situation but I still strongly felt it was unfair to deny her the answer. She obviously felt the same way because she got upset. So that's why I even commented on it.
And in short, (sorry but) I find it annoying to have someone point out that I’d made too many assumptions when their own observation about it- in itself- is actually based on too many of their own assumptions. It feels like it creates too much work for me communication-wise, and it’s actually a good example of the point I’ve been trying to make (about how there’s no one to ‘blame’). Sometimes, with some people, I can tell blanks are getting filled in with information in such a way that’s too difficult to keep track of and communication starts feeling like it’s more trouble than it’s worth. [I do think Ni- or at least NiFe- is especially sensitive in this way.]
Yeah that's pretty logical, I wasn't there, so yes I don't know what actually happened, I did assume you were telling the whole story with all relevant details. So anyway I understand you that you found it annoying and sorry for that. Otoh I already talked above about feeling strongly about the story.
As for blanks getting filled in, let me refer you back to my previous lines in this post about how it's completely normal to see something in WHATEVER way. Say, you see it in WHATEVER way because you have a specific POV. This isn't a sin and no one is exempt from it either. You either. I have seen you changing stuff I said. Just like everyone does. Ni-dom or not Ni-dom, NiFe or not NiFe. I don't have a problem with it though as long as the parties stay open; I value communication pretty highly. (See patience thingie.)
The only thing I do have a problem with is *if* you don't seem to acknowledge that it's you *too* who fills in blanks and whatnot. Earlier you seemed to acknowledge just that though.
So anyway, you seem to complain about how other people's POVs get in the way. While you earlier mentioned that your POV will not change easily no matter what others say (I related to that, remember
), only if they say something that's really good POV-changing stuff (wow, I related so much to that too). Does that not mean that your POV can get in the way just as much as other people's POV's can? In this case why complain? It's a perfectly normal thing. Or do you mean that your POV doesn't get in the way because your POV is usually so much better than other people's? I wouldn't assume you actually wanted to claim that.
Please, do not take this as a personal attack, it's a glaring inconsistency to me right now and I would like to see it resolved. That's all.
