It can go anywhere, be anything, is always open for new information, an entire reinterpretation.
No. I have enough empirical evidence to prove this false. This is simply propoganda.
+1!
Though honestly, the definition DOES go like that, as it's a perceiving function. In practice, people don't always seem to be that open. Even P-doms are not fully P in this extreme sense, I suppose, the brain just can't change everything all the time if it wants to survive.
Here's a theory...
Ni sees the forest, Ti sees the trees...
The unfocused Ni view is actually the global, or bird's eye, or large-scale (not sure on the last one) view of the internal material whereas the Ti view is the local, or detailed, or small-scale focused view of the material...
That's not how I experience Ti, it's only one aspect of it. Ti (or god knows what it is) for me involves the global view as well. I assume it's a different view from Ni because this one is all about logical structure etc.
As in my earlier post about fuzzy logic, N function can deal with incomplete data (i.e. data values between 0 and 1; i.e. probabilities and approximations and interpolations and extrapolations) whereas T function (and perhaps F function as well) deals with concrete binary logic (i.e. values that are strictly either 0 or 1)...
Why wouldn't Ti be able to deal with fuzzy logic? And with probabilities and whatnot, all the shite you listed. Probability theory is totally logical too and all the rest you listed I can *see* and *feel* very well from a logical standpoint.
Yes, taken out of the specific context of the exchange I was having with Werebudgie and considered in isolation, I suppose it does sound like plain old introversion. But take into account it evolved from talking about being sensitive to having the meaning distorted by others on a regular basis (oversimplified summary) and that narrows down the scope a bit to something more specific to Ni.
OK.
I’m getting the impression (from quite of few of responses where you've quoted me) as though you’re hearing some interpretation of it that reflects your own experience more than the point I was trying to get across.
I am comparing it to my own experiences, are you trying to say that's a wrong thing to do?
It doesn't mean I can't focus on your point at the same time and/or not be receptive to further explanation on what your point is like. That is, yes, I'm glad to focus on whatever you say, process it in my own way and be receptive for more information from you. It would be unreasonable to expect I will understand everything perfectly right away and I certainly don't expect others to understand everything right away of whatever I said. I'm not a patient person by default but when it comes to discussing stuff, I am very patient in this sense.
Also, would it be less "wrong" if I came to this forum claiming I am Ni-dom? Do not assume that my experiences are all invalid just because I don't have "Ni-dom" in my profile. Sorry though if you weren't doing that; Werebudgie did that before.
Ni is not a quick process. The ‘end’ shows up first- and not even clearly, but there will be the distinct feeling that there’s an ‘end’ which doesn’t match what I’m being told the ‘end’ is or what others generally believe the ‘end’ to be. That initial feeling is instant, yes- but waiting for the reason
why I don’t feel like I can go along with something is anything but instant (as Hard initially explained
on the first page, there’s an urge to go back and retrace all the steps that lead to the conclusion- a conclusion that sometimes/often isn’t even clear to me to begin with, I'll only know the conclusion being presented to me is 'off' somehow).
By quick I meant you see the "end" without thinking through an unconscious process and it's relatively fast because you don't have to take the time to flesh out steps to arrive there. Just as you said, there's an instant initial feeling. I also talked about "scrambling around" to find the steps to it and I think it pretty much implied that that is a slower process. I described the same urge [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] talked about too. And yep I also get the feeling at times that whatever others say is "off" and then I will have to figure out why which does take longer.
Are we on the same page now, if not, let me know. I think we are talking about the same thing here.
What may not be the same is that I thought this was part of Judging Ti (in my case at least). This instant feeling of the conclusion. So you don't categorize it as Judging then? I always had a bit of trouble clearly differentiating between the concepts perceiving and judging functions. The most sensible distinction I've ever heard came from Jung himself; perceiving = will see everything, all the world, while judging = will only see what can be "rational", that is, only part of the world. The above "conclusion thingie", it could be either honestly, if going by that distinction.
The underlined statement seems to suggest you don’t agree with what I wrote, yet the bolded statements seem to basically say the same thing I did. “I either have the answer pop into my head pretty quickly or I don’t have anything at all†suggests (to me) that you don’t understand that limbo between knowing something is there and being able to guess what it is? Werebudgie used the word “ambiguityâ€, which works just as well.
No, here I didn't say the same thing. :/ I was talking about how Se doesn't get flooded with ideas. You said Pe types get flooded with ideas. Nope that's not me and I'm most likely Se > Ni but I no longer know even that honestly. So anyway, my point was maybe the flood of ideas is true for Ne types but not for Se types or at least not all Se types because it's not true for me.
Where I do agree and do please note that I didn't even dispute it, because I was only disputing the "flooded with ideas" part, is that limbo thingie. I just don't focus on the limbo much so I don't feel it, only the "wall" that signals to me that right now it's pointless for me to attempt to go on with whatever I'm trying to "see" (when trying to "see" the "end" of whatever). Make sense?
It’s a rather established thing for Pe dom/aux to be more mercurial with their immediate external surroundings than Js- I suspect what I'm trying to explain has a lot to do with why that is. When Pe dom/aux receive information that doesn’t quite sit right, they want to tear it open right then and there. When Pi dom/aux receives information that doesn’t sit right, they chuck it in a ‘pending’ file and let it bake.
Interesting, the bolded, I can do either, it's mood dependent for me. I think it's more noticeable for an external observer when I do the former (Pe) because I do it while discussing it with others. (I don't really do it on my own alone, only when talking to whoever. Don't ask why, I just... don't.)
Btw, it may matter where the Pe or Pi is, for example, a Te-dom is a Judging dominant and thus may just reject the whole thing if it doesn't sit right even though they do have Pi as aux. Of course if Te-doms experience it as putting the information away and only pulling it out if it does start to make sense, then okay, but that's just not how to seem to be.
I haven’t been following the progression of the different analogies going on enough to know for sure what you’re asking. Nor have I been reading all the posts. All I know is that the reason ‘blank’ doesn’t sit right with me is because things that are blank can be filled in. I think one of the distinguishing characteristics of Ni is that Ni doms most definitely can not easily be ‘filled in’. There’s plenty of testimony around this forum alone about hard it is to make Ni doms “listenâ€.
May I ask what you meant by Ni-doms not listening? Not being receptive to other people's opinions? I thought of this interpretation because of the below text from you:
I referred to my cognitive landscape as a ‘canvas’ just because it was the first analogy that popped into my head- not because I think it bears any striking resemblance to a canvas. If it’s a canvas, it’s like a canvas that spits the paint back at you when it doesn’t seem to belong there. Incoming information must go through something like a Rube Goldberg contraption before I can use it. It isn’t a choice. I can choose to try harder/be more patient- but ultimately I can not choose to believe something that doesn’t make sense to me. I'm really not sure if there's a way to hurry the process or not.
Yes, it does change with new incoming information- but rarely because of some direct explanation from someone about why my POV should change (which often pushes me in the other direction). The kind of new information that actually changes my POV is if I notice I was actually wrong about something.
Hahaha about the bolded btw. I am so much like that myself. (Well unless the direct explanation actually is a very strong argument because then my POV does change instantly.) I thought it was Judging Ti for me, though. Oh and the same about the rest, I like it if things make sense to me. Again, I attributed that to Ti for myself.
Also, that would be in line with the jungian definition of judging (only dealing with part of the world information-wise)
