Different intuition attitudes' and meaning

[Nocapszy]

If you're more interested in the meaning the author intended instead drawing your own meaning from it, is it Ne or Ni?

I think Ne, (intuiting the object, instead of the subjective meaning) but I'm not sure. Maybe Jenny or BW knows.

 

[redacted]

seems like an Ni/Fe thing.

 

[Seanan]

If you're more interested in the meaning the author intended instead drawing your own meaning from it, is it Ne or Ni?

I don't really get your question because, to my thinking, if the author has been successful, your's will be the same as his/hers. I may be thinking of the wrong kind of writing though... are you talking about theoretical writing? If so I would modify that statement.

 

[The Ü™]

If you're more interested in the meaning the author intended instead drawing your own meaning from it, is it Ne or Ni?

I think Ne, (intuiting the object, instead of the subjective meaning) but I'm not sure. Maybe Jenny or BW knows.

Interpreting the subjective meaning (like inventing your own meaning) is Ni. Ne is seeing objective possibilities in the outside world, and interpreting the intended meaning of an author's words is Ne, most likely Ne aided by Ti.

 

[Colors]

I'm also confused by your question- of course we can all only guess/conclude the meaning from the text, not from reading the author's mind- regardless of our cognitive functions. How we arrive at that goal might be different. I suppose an F might be more likely to personify their interpretation of the text as understanding the author's intent, while a T might be more inclined to depersonify (interpretation of material).

Your question seems more like literary theory. Personally, I believe that the content should be on the page, not in knowing the author's life story, etc.

 

[Nocapszy]

Interpreting the subjective meaning (like inventing your own meaning) is Ni. Ne is seeing objective possibilities in the outside world, and interpreting the intended meaning of an author's words is Ne, most likely Ne aided by Ti.

Yeah I said most of that in my post.

I don't need a knee-jerk function explication. Especially not one that uses common terminology. I might be stewing in a bunch of shit with those familiar terms.

MBTI is a system wherein one can cultivate a preferred conclusion based on subjective rationalizing and loop-hole usage of those terms (outside world, objective etc.).

 

[Nocapszy]

I don't really get your question because, to my thinking, if the author has been successful, your's will be the same as his/hers. I may be thinking of the wrong kind of writing though... are you talking about theoretical writing? If so I would modify that statement.

No writer is ever successful then.

My question is, if the efforts are to find out what the author meant specifically, as differentiated from any other interpretation, (anaolgic, or symbolic) would it be more Ne or Ni?

I wrote the question poorly, you're right.

 

[redacted]

Ni. most likely expressed through Fe.

 

[nightning]

Are you so sure dissonance? I tend to go "What does the thing the author described means". Or maybe that's the second step?

Anyways, figuring out what something means is not the same as figuring out what the author meant. Although what the author meant falls under a subsection of what that something means.

Now is Ne more specific with wanting to know what the author meant? I don't think so either...

 

[redacted]

i guess i was trying to say that Ni/Fe is good at getting others' assumption sets.

i'm not saying it would stop there, or that it would be the first thing done.

but if your goal was to get into the authors head, i'd say Ni/Fe would be the best way.

 

[zarc]

No writer is ever successful then.

My question is, if the efforts are to find out what the author meant specifically, as differentiated from any other interpretation, (anaolgic, or symbolic) would it be more Ne or Ni?

I wrote the question poorly, you're right.

I think it could be both. Using Ne or Ni are just the processes by which one comes to their conclusions based on what's being observed, whether from others or for oneself.

I could see it as: Ne taking the info and going into the possibilities of what the author intended, being quick to connect ideas if familiar with the content. Ni taking the info and going into the possibilities of what the author intended but being more slower in connecting it, if not familiar with the content.

Generally, Ne is much faster with outside info than Ni unless Ni is familiar with the content. The difference is that Ne is much more flexible in maintaining differing POVs for what is thought to be intended or it just takes what it will to suit its need whereas Ni is more set in focusing into a conclusion of what was intended or it just takes what it will to suit its need. Edit: I should add that Ni can be much more faster (or even abrupt "Aha!") than Ne in understanding the intended meaning and coming to that conclusion if familiar with the content or there is a connection to something similar.

I also think that regardless of Ne or Ni it will still be one's interpretation of what was intended as objective material is always subjectively understood. Ne and Ni take from others in order to understand but you still come to your own conclusions based on that info or person or thing. Whether or not you find the same meaning as was intended for you to have, or you do find it but also create your own or more meanings as well, is entirely up to you using Ne or Ni. The only way to be certain is if you manage to speak to the person/author to see if you understood them correctly..

I wonder if I answered poorly.