I was generally critical of lasagna-on-the-brain Lenore Thomson as well as your incessant posting of "Lenore says".
I'm well aware of that. It's been going on for years. I was hoping you'd enlarge your scope over time, but it looks like my wish never came true.
I didn't remember you being the one to oppose Lenore. (I know someone used to mock "lasagna", but I had forgotten who). You tend to be against more popular oversimplified descriptions, and I thought Berens' terms like "foreseeing", "analyzing", "considering", "valuing", etc. fit that better.
My scope is far more than Lenore, but when it comes to understanding the functions, she's recognized as being a very good place to start. All "lasagna" was, was her analogy of the function stack. There's really nothing unique to her about that. I don't see what the problem with that is.
I take definitions with a grain of salt since they can vary from person to person. To wit:
This is exemplified by the fact that Extraverts tend to have shorter attention spans and frequently shift their focus from one thing to the next. Their social relationships and interactions are also more extensive in nature, characterized by breadth rather than depth. Jung viewed Introversion as more intensive and focused. Instead of constantly shifting or extending their attention, Introverts dive deeper by investing more of their time and energy into a handful of things they really care about.
Were I to reclassify myself every time I read a blurb, I would have to classify myself an introvert after reading that. Then I'd read something else and classify myself an extravert. It could continue on, ad nauseam. But as you know, people are frequently a combination of both extraversion and introversion and that's why black and white thinking and the definitions born from it fall so short. How someone views Ni and Ne is no exception. To exclude the future when discussing Ni would be as strange as excluding wetness when discussing rain.
Well, yeah, all type theories are prone to misunderstandings like that. Jung himself was very hard to understand, and that's why so many people have tried to clarify him. I would agree that that description is a bit shallow, taken in
isolation. (Hence, the type stack others further developed behind him, where you have both Te and Ni, and thus both introversion and extraversion, and so can identify with that description even if the extraverted function is out front making you an extravert).
No one's
excluding the future from Ni; just saying that's not its main definition. Like wetness is not the
definition of rain. If someone asks “What's rain?†and the answer given is simply “wetnessâ€, that really won't tell you much at all. People will think a lake must be "rain". Describing the process that produces rain without mentioning wetness (like mentioning "condensation" instead) isn't
excluding it. There are other planets where that same process produces solids, like diamonds, which aren't “wet†(and IIRC, goes straight from gas to solid), and yet that's still called "rain". So our definition of rain must go beyond mere "wetness". (Now if you say "
earth rain", then you have a qualifier, like qualifying a specific instance of using Ni to try to foresee something. But the function still goes way beyond just that sort of instance).