To Uumlau: Do you think this randomnity is a good description for the foresight? I have to think about this question a little more... Actually would you say that 'scattershot' is a good description to describe the foresight? I mean to say that because you're amassing a great deal of plausibilities it's almost impossible for an insight not to occur.
Almost. It's scattershot with a filter, e.g., Te. Without the filter, you just end up with a gazillion possibilities. Te or Fe judge the potential results of the scattershot internally, and only a very few (or even no) possibilities emerge.
I think the reason it seems absurd is because it's so twisted. When you deliver a statement like that, it's as though you've created entirely new details to be woven into the plot, and those details just "happen" to be the case. But, epistemologically, you were given all of the data and you shifted the way you looked at it. You saw past the facade. Here's a question I have for you, though. When you experience a perspective shift, do you consider it to be an absolute truth, or an alternative speculation that holds just as much weight?
For me, it was a "that's probably true" insight. It just bubbled up in my head, really, and I compared it to what was going on, and it just "seemed right" even though it was absurd. However, I also know that I don't know 100% for sure, I just know that it's a very likely guess.
Remember, we Ni-doms have to be a bit skeptical of our intuition, or we start turning out crackpot theories. It is by comparing our intuition to reality that we learn which insights are useful.
With such practice, I've become fairly good at predicting plot twists, and there are only a few writers that challenge me in that regard, e.g., Joss Whedon. Sadly, it makes a lot of movies terribly boring for me, as I know exactly what is going to happen. Sometimes though, predictable books/movies can be fun if I feel like my talent for prediction is at least being moderately challenged, or if I approve of how artistically/dramatically the plot "surprises" flow.
From the sound of your post, it seems more like you're looking through a facade. That's not because you claim your insights to be true, but you recognize the inconsistencies within the impression of the circumstances. You knew something wasn't quite solved with the Twilight episode, and similarly, something was atypical about the long name.
Yes. It isn't just seeing through the facade so much as a habitual way of looking at things. I want everything I observe to make sense to me, but rather than going to books and looking things up, I would guess for myself. Back before I understood relativity, I was making guesses as to why it was true, e.g., photons are massless, therefore they go at the speed of light, because if they had mass, it would be infinite. (That's really circular reasoning, I know - but none of my high school physics teachers were equipped to explain it to me, so I was stuck with my own guesswork, and didn't happen upon any books that explained it based on the classical laws of electromagnetism. My readings all focused on the "gee whiz" time dilation and such, without explaining why, so I was left with guessing why.)
So whenever I look at something, and it
doesn't work the way I think it should, I know I have something wrong (or it has something wrong). I compare what is essentially a dynamic model in my mind (Ni) with the real thing (Te). My models says that thus-and-such should be true, but it obviously isn't. So I unconsciously switch perspectives (hypotheses) until I have an internal model that does predict the real thing. That new hypothesis tells me
exactly where to look for what is broken and fix it, if the problem is with the real thing. Or the new hypothesis provides my prognostication a great deal more accuracy, since it corrects for something I didn't know before.
It's kind of like doing science experiments in my head, before I actually tackle the thing in real life.
In my experience with the forumers here, Ni users always foresee escalating future events through observance of slightly atypical circumstances. Like, let's say that a new member with a particular character joins the forum. An Ni user may instinctively know that there may be a rash of similar forum members to usher in the future. Would you say this is true?
I'd be more likely to say "selection effect."
One of the main tools I use to make sure I don't come up with nonsense models is understanding logical fallacies and poor observational techniques. That is to say, I need to know
how to look at things with Ni, and not simply just accept the first thing that pops into my head.
Also, because I'm Te, not Fe, I don't see the people patterns as easily as INFJs do. I can study an individual and gradually be able to predict the kind of behaviors/responses I'll get in any particular situation, but that knowledge is hard-earned for me. More objective phenomena, the more it's about things and not people, the more fast and accurate my predictions are.