[Turi]

Hello everybody.

I'd like to talk about Ni, define it and demystify it.

There are many misconceptions about Ni related to it being psychic, it being a bullshit function, it being mystical.. magical.. it's highly sought after, and in this thread I would like to turn it into something that is easy to understand for everybody and essentially humanize it, by simplifying what it is into a single sentence.

---
Ni is an exclusive method of receiving and processing information, primarily focused on what isn't.
---

That's it. That is the definition of Ni.
Everything else about it spawns from that.

Ni works in conjunction with Se.
Se broadly receives information, data, facts and details via it's five senses, and people who prefer Se-Ni trust in this information - it is concrete, it is verifiable and it is real to them and this reality is where their focus lies.

People who prefer Ni do not trust in this information as it is, Ni focuses on information that is not present.
Ni focuses on the information that isn't.


..
In your head, imagine a football field - you can see the goals, the players, the ball, the field, you can hear the crowd, you can smell hotdogs and you can taste the cold one you've just cracked open.

This is real, this is data, this is factual and very Se.

Now, envision a smokescreen that covers everything you see, as the smoke moves and wavers, you catch glimpses of what is underneath the smoke.

You get a glimpse of the grass. You get a glimpse of the hotdog. You get a glimpse of the crowd.

Ni is in two words, a conspiracy theorist - with nothing but those glimpses of information, Ni will create a theory as to what the information means.
This is a focus on what isn't.
Unlike Ne, Ni doesn't entertain multiple ideas.
This is why I say it is exclusive - as in, it excludes alternate theories with regards to what isn't.


For example.
Ni might pick one of the following.

A soccer game.
An NFL game.
Watching sports at home.
A carnival fair.
A car-boot sale.
A rockabilly festival.


You can see, that with that little information, Ni can create anything, and what it creates will be focused (one single theory) and interested in what isn't.

When new information is given to Ni, it feeds into that one theory it is focusing on - i.e, the cold one you just cracked open.

Now, Ni will incorporates a cold one into its image - having a drink a football game, having a drink at home watching some sports - someone else having a drink at a rockabilly festival, you get the gist.


It incorporates Se information into its Ni conspiracy theories, essentially, however Se information isn't required - Ni will feed its own interpretations of information - things it creates itself, back into itself, and that will become factual, "concrete", reality to the Ni user.

For this reason, Ni users could *easily* entertain themselves, with their eyes closed, in complete silence, for days.

They already have that tiny little bit of Se information and they require nothing more than their own imagination to keep themselves entertained.


Ni doesn't require additional stimulation from the outer world to complete it's theories and fill out the pictures i.e see through the smoke - I can easily go into straight conspiracy theory nutjob land entirely of my own accord, however I realise this is "probably" based on Se information I've picked up somewhere - I can remove the smoke entirely and form a complete picture in my head, a comprehensive interpretion of those glimpses of information - and it will have a fully fleshed out backstory and everything if given enough time.


Ni does not entertain multiple possibilities at once - it won't picture all of the above list as possible scenarios for instance, that is the realm of Ne.

Instead, Ni shifts perspective to view the exact same theories from various angles.


Perhaps Ni envisions going to watch your favourite team at the football.
Is it a father-son day? Maybe the father only sees his son every other weekend?
Maybe it's for someones birthday, that's why we're having a drink.
Maybe we're here to blow off some steam after a bad night at home.
Maybe we're here to try something new - never been to a football game before.

Notice all of the above are theories revolving around one single vision, a sole theory, inspecting it from various angles - inquisitive, trying to find the truth based on those little glimpses of information - this is Ni.
Ne far more closely resembles the list I made near he start of this post where I rattled off some possibilities of what those glimpses might mean - unlike Ne, Ni absolutely does not enjoy entertaining multiple possibilities however it will until it settles on a best fit possibility, then it excludes the alternative possibilities.


The theories Ni settles on become reality to the Ni user and they trust in and value this information more than anything from the outer world, their inner world, their theories, are the absolute truth.
The outer world is not to be trusted and should be questioned constantly.


As Ni is solely concerned with these theories, or insights.. as it is obviously focused on putting the pieces together, reading between the lines, seeing past the smoke in the way that it does - it is clear to see how it is future focused as it's insights and theories are so real, so powerful to the Ni user, that they believe in them, act on them and shape their life around them.


This might come in the form of a dream or a premonition however understand as I've already explained, it's not magic.
It's simply a focus on what isn't.

The Ni dominant might have a dream about.. being an architect. This dream is real to them.

They will dive into this dream and decipher what it means, whether it is a literal foresight or whether it is symbolism is up to the Ni user - they will dig into this dream, and act on their insights accordingly.

I.e if the dream winds up meaning they end up leading a group of people to war, their Ni telling them architect is symbolism for devising a strategy to overcome an enemy - the Ni user might relate this to their real life, and decide to take a pre-emptive step to one-up their competitors by slashing prices for a day and making sure they've got enough staff on the floor to handle it.

---

Focusing on what isn't is the greatest strength and most glaring flaw in an Ni user.

Consider this - they retell a story, years after the event - of going to the football to blow off some steam after a bad night back at home.

Well they never had a bad night back at home, they were there to take someone else's kid there because their father couldn't make it.

See how dangerous this can be?
It is an alternate reality. Ni mixes its own theories into reality because they believe them, they are real, what isn't is the Ni users reality.


Consider for a moment the Ni user slashes prices, gets loads of staff on the floors, and nothing - they wind up losing money on the extra staff costs and advertising they done, because they're acting on their own theories and insights, because they believe them.

Ni can look ridiculously fucking stupid.


Hopefully this is enough to convey how I see Ni and demystify it.
It's a very simple function.
This is nowhere near everything that's in my head.


It is an exclusive method of receiving and processing information, primarily focused on what isn't.

Literally all there is to it, and everything else about it spawns from there.
I'm more than open to any thoughts and criticisms and corrections etc.

 

[Rydori]

Hmmmmm, very interesting point on your views about Ni. Very well explained. Now I may question, how do you think an Se dom/aux will use their Se-Ni axis as opposed to the NJ's Ni-Se access?

Now judging from my personal experience, I tend to jump into things first without fully thinking about what the reason of something could be which can be considered really stupid by others (Se spotted here obviously). But when I do think beforehand, I have in mind this one way plan of attack which I would consider my 'blindspot'. Why do I call it my blindspot? because I'm accustom to that one idea that is happening and I don't think of other factors.

For example would be when I'm playing chess, I would have this kind of plan and strategy that I would use, but when the strategy fails. I can't simply suddenly think of another strategy to win without spending large amount of thinking. I just simply stare at the pieces and might just move pieces without thought since my strategy has been countered.

 

[Turi]

Hmmmmm, very interesting point on your views about Ni. Very well explained. Now I may question, how do you think an Se dom/aux will use their Se-Ni axis as opposed to the NJ's Ni-Se access?

Now judging from my personal experience, I tend to jump into things first without fully thinking about what the reason of something could be which can be considered really stupid by others (Se spotted here obviously). But when I do think beforehand, I have in mind this one way plan of attack which I would consider my 'blindspot'. Why do I call it my blindspot? because I'm accustom to that one idea that is happening and I don't think of other factors.

For example would be when I'm playing chess, I would have this kind of plan and strategy that I would use, but when the strategy fails. I can't simply suddenly think of another strategy to win without spending large amount of thinking. I just simply stare at the pieces and might just move pieces without thought since my strategy has been countered.

Se is an inclusive method of receiving and processing information, primarily concerned with what is.
Se is the real world, your five senses - but beyond that, it's a trust in those five senses.

Consider these as indications of an Se-Ni, rather than Ni-Se.

• You smell the milk to check if it's off - you don't just trust in the expiry date.
  
• You prefer to create things or build things with a picture reference - i.e, building a kids bike - rather than read the instructions, or just go with your own mental image of how it should be - you like to see a picture of it, and then figure it out from there.
  
• You feel like it's a bit of a challenge/useless to describe things as anything besides what they are - i.e, how they look, feel, smell, taste, sound - after you've listed the literal what is of something, as far as you're concerned, it has been described.

Compare this to how Ni would react.

Ni would read the expiration date and think "fuck that it's gone" it doesn't need to smell the milk, it's received the information it requires to come to an immediate conclusion with - Se users prefer actual, tangible proof that the milk is off, they don't just trust in some bullshit that's been printed on the carton - they'll prefer to smell it and decide for themselves.

Ni when building something, doesn't need pictures (or instructions) - it just puts it together on the spot - whether it''s accurate or not is another matter.

This means the Ni user, really, has no real-world basis for the mental image in their head of how something should work, so the simple fact here, is the Ni user might fail massively hard, when trying to build something as simple as a childrens bike - where the Se user has the picture right there and voila it's done in like 10 minutes flat.

You can easily correlate this with my dominant Ni description in the OP - taking small pieces of information and theorising the bigger picture... just because someone prefers Ni, doesn't mean they're good at it.


The description thing is a massively obvious one that doesn't really require explaining, I just put it in to really emphasise the difference.

When an Se user looks at a fan and describes it, they will describe the actual fan, as it is, in the real world - it's metal, silver, on a stand, kinda loud etc etc maybe go into detail - 4 blades, 3 settings, stand is a tripod yada yada yada - this is actual concrete details.

Beyond that, is the realm of meanings and possibilities which dominant Se users can't be fucked with - an Ni response might be to describe the fan as "it's my saviour in the summer" - some kind of response that alludes to the image that's in the Ni users head - it's not literal. The fan is not literally saving anybody. The way Ni describes things isn't literal because there focus isn't primarily concerned with what is, rather it's concerned with what isn't.



In an Se user, Ni will perhaps be an urge to want to make long-term plans or consider the repercussions of your actions, but Se overrides it.
Example might be that you really want some video game, but you know if you buy it, you'll be $20 short of something else that you actually need.

Se users may be more likely to cave into the temptations presented at the time, as their focus is primarily concerned with what is. Literally what is. As in, the video game is.

Being $20 short of getting something else is more like.. an idea, or a theory, it's not reality - there's no real-world proof they'll be $20 short of something then - who's to say things won't change?

I imagine Ni, in a dominant Se user, to be far, far removed from how it manifests in a dominant Ni user.


I imagine it's more of a concern for the future, in the back of the mind - but a concern that is easily over-ridden in the moment by what is currently happening.
I don't see Se-Ni users as being likely to act on those concerns, as they're not tangible or real - you can't feel them, taste them, see them, hear them or smell them - they're not reality for an Se dominant.

I doubt they put much faith in their Ni, though I imagine it's present, in the back of their mind, somewhere.

 

[Bunniculla]

Beyond that, is the realm of meanings and possibilities which dominant Se users can't be fucked with - an Ni response might be to describe the fan as "it's my saviour in the summer" - some kind of response that alludes to the image that's in the Ni users head - it's not literal. The fan is not literally saving anybody. The way Ni describes things isn't literal because there focus isn't primarily concerned with what is, rather it's concerned with what isn't.

I don't mean to take this specific example to be the ultimate explanation for how Ni works, but just want to note that I really can't ever imagine myself ever describing a fan, or any everyday object, with that much symbolism. After I read the example, I can understand why somebody would describe it as such; it is true, a fan/AC feels like a lifesaver during the summer. However, this thought just doesn't come into my head as effortlessly as it seems to do for Ni users. What I want to touch upon is that maybe this is one of the important deciding factors for those who are seeking to find out whether they possess Ni or not. Perhaps they should ask themselves if they actually see symbolism (ie not concrete sensing) that effortlessly in everyday objects and situations?

I think that for something that already has a much more "mystical" feel to it, for example a picture of a galaxy, both Ni and non Ni users may describe it using symbolism (ie, the image of the galaxy is like a portal to another dimension), just because these types of images tend to already have a common usage of symbolism attached to them. It is probably forced symbolism that is not stemming from the individual, but rather, it has been taught by some external source. So when trying to type yourself or others, perhaps it is better to think of how you would describe an object/situation that is mundane and ordinary, to compare yourself with non Ni users.

Or, do I have it all way too over analyzed, and in fact, do most Ni users not attach symbolism and mysticism to everyday objects, for the most part? I'm genuinely curious about this, because Ni is extremely foreign to me, and while I can say I've read every word in the OP, I cannot admit that I actually understand how Ni works. It's the same concept as memorizing every word you've read in a textbook and claiming you are knowledgeable, when in fact all you've really done is memorize the words and find ways to sound good at explaining it, but in reality, you have almost no idea what the purpose or principle of the text was.

 

[Turi]

I don't mean to take this specific example to be the ultimate explanation for how Ni works, but just want to note that I really can't ever imagine myself ever describing a fan, or any everyday object, with that much symbolism. After I read the example, I can understand why somebody would describe it as such; it is true, a fan/AC feels like a lifesaver during the summer. However, this thought just doesn't come into my head as effortlessly as it seems to do for Ni users. What I want to touch upon is that maybe this is one of the important deciding factors for those who are seeking to find out whether they possess Ni or not. Perhaps they should ask themselves if they actually see symbolism (ie not concrete sensing) that effortlessly in everyday objects and situations?

Yes, this would be one thing that separates Ni users from other people.
I don't intend that to sound as though I think that makes it better than any other function (my fav is Si anyway).

I think that for something that already has a much more "mystical" feel to it, for example a picture of a galaxy, both Ni and non Ni users may describe it using symbolism (ie, the image of the galaxy is like a portal to another dimension), just because these types of images tend to already have a common usage of symbolism attached to them. It is probably forced symbolism that is not stemming from the individual, but rather, it has been taught by some external source. So when trying to type yourself or others, perhaps it is better to think of how you would describe an object/situation that is mundane and ordinary, to compare yourself with non Ni users.

Yeah, I agree with this.

Or, do I have it all way too over analyzed, and in fact, do most Ni users not attach symbolism and mysticism to everyday objects, for the most part? I'm genuinely curious about this, because Ni is extremely foreign to me, and while I can say I've read every word in the OP, I cannot admit that I actually understand how Ni works. It's the same concept as memorizing every word you've read in a textbook and claiming you are knowledgeable, when in fact all you've really done is memorize the words and find ways to sound good at explaining it, but in reality, you have almost no idea what the purpose or principle of the text was.

Ni users attach meaning and symbolism to everything and these meanings/symbolism feed into the Ni insights we often hear about.

Consider the meanings/symbolism attached to every day objects as glimpses through the smoke - something as mundane as a fan might make lift the veil and allow the Ni user to make sense of something, and that something might not be related to the fan.

i.e looking at a fan and realising the reason the guy at the shop has been a little standoffish lately is because you've been acting a little cold due to some issues at work.

Obviously the fan has sprung to mind "cold" or "cool" etc but that isn't the focus, that's something the fan can "do" and is more like Pe.



It sucks this wasn't easy to follow, I don't know how to break it down any further than "Ni is an exclusive method of receiving and processing information, primarily focused on what isn't".


If there is any simpler way to define it, it would be "Conspiracy Theorist" as that's exactly how it acts.

 

[Bunniculla]

Consider the meanings/symbolism attached to every day objects as glimpses through the smoke - something as mundane as a fan might make lift the veil and allow the Ni user to make sense of something, and that something might not be related to the fan.

i.e looking at a fan and realising the reason the guy at the shop has been a little standoffish lately is because you've been acting a little cold due to some issues at work.

Obviously the fan has sprung to mind "cold" or "cool" etc but that isn't the focus, that's something the fan can "do" and is more like Pe.

Oh, I'm beginning to personally understand Ni a bit more with this specific part. I guess Ni usage is just so symbolic and abstract that it can be hard to apply in a way in which the user can become aware of it. Therefore, the fan (physical, real world object) is the medium in which the message can be brought forward in. Kind of like how you can't understand what I'm saying unless I am using language as the medium for my message.

And no, I think it's just me being overly analytical of things, and I'm sure lots of people have already been able to understand your post quicker

 

[spaceynyc]

my Ni image of OP is an angry genius, similar to Gordon Ramsay in temperament (you’re probably thinking Si-Ne?), pointing his finger in the most direct way at everyone like YOURE WRONG

but damnit he’s right about this one. Great explanation.

We need more threads like this that get to the point and simplify

btw could you directly compare and contrast Ni and Si @Turi

 

[VagrantFarce]

---
Ni is an exclusive method of receiving and processing information, primarily focused on what isn't.

That's it. That is the definition of Ni.
Everything else about it spawns from that.
---

Would this work if we extended it, hopefully without diluting it:

• Se is an inclusive method of receiving and processing information, primarily focused on what is.
• Ne is an inclusive method of receiving and processing information, primarily focused on what isn't.
• Si is an exclusive method of receiving and processing information, primarily focused on what is.

 

[Turi]

my Ni image of OP is an angry genius, similar to Gordon Ramsay in temperament (you’re probably thinking Si-Ne?), pointing his finger in the most direct way at everyone like YOURE WRONG

but damnit he’s right about this one. Great explanation.

We need more threads like this that get to the point and simplify

btw could you directly compare and contrast Ni and Si @Turi

Ha, thanks, Ni and Si is a tough one for me because I'm massively bias towards Si, I love it.
I'll try to do it, without bias. Si gets me all excited. I've been with Si users a lot over the years (my longest-standing friend is an ISTJ and my wife is an ESFJ) and I just think it's awesome.
Si fanboi over here. Anyway.


--
Si is an exclusive method of receiving and processing information, primarily focused on what is.
--

So in this sense, it's very similar to Ni - where I have compared Ni to Ne above, you could do the same thing here with Si and Se - "exclusive" as in, "excludes" other information that is.
So, it's focused in the exact same way as Ni, not broad like Se.

The difference between Ni, and Si, as you can see using my ridiculously simple description above, is a focus on what is, rather than what isn't.


So when an Si user is perceiving information, they hone in on one particular facet of information and explore that in the context of what is, in their head.

This might look like the Si user walking into a room, and something catches their eye - perhaps it's a piece of jewelry - so out of all the other information in the room, all the other things.. Si users will zoom in on this piece of jewelry - this is where there interests will lie for the moment.

To examine this in the context of what is, rather than what isn't - what other options are there, other to compare and contrast this piece of information with other pieces of jewelry or similar items the Si user can recall from the past - with the present.

This might look like the Si user thinking it's out of place - nobody they know puts their jewelry in a place like that - then they would seek out additional facts and details to flesh out the picture - this is the biggest and most obvious way to separate Si from Ni - Ni jumps to conclusions, Ni is a conspiracy theorist, King of Assumptions - Si on the other hand completely and utterly opposes this way of thinking - it's just bullshit to the Si user.

It makes no sense and is in direct clash with their exclusive focus on what is.


I do believe Si is completely subjective, entirely revolved around the Si users own life and experience, so multiple Si users might be in that same room and focus on different things, and the ones who focus on the same things might have different reasoning and different thoughts pertaining to what is - for example a different Si user might zoom in on the same piece of jewelry and think this is exactly where they would expect to find it, another user might think it's not exactly out of the ordinary - but not exactly the most common place either - another Si user might look at it and think it looks like an apple, etc etc the list goes on.

Obviously for Si to work in this way - the Si user needs to have some relation to a piece of jewelry or something similar from the past - if they don't, then I don't imagine it would work this way and they would probably gloss over this kind of thing in favour of something they do have a relationship with - for better or worse.


Constantly comparing and contrasting the past with the present moment - all comes down to this very zoomed in focus on what is.

Ni doesn't do this - Ni takes in information on a broader level via Se, and jumps to assumptions trying to flesh out the whole picture - and it's primary focus is on those conclusions/insights/theories.


I've said it before on this site, but I imagine Si to be the function most closely related to deja vu - in this fashion, Si is the mystical and magical function. Ni is lord of assumptions. Si is transportation to another place and/or time.

If a past event meant so much to an Si user, their recollection of the event will be so vivid that something that reminds them of that moment, will just about magic them into that moment - this is still part of that exclusive focus on what is.
Something present, in the real-world, has triggered this response - it's a ridiculously high focus on something that is, to the point it's their only concern, and has practically removed them from reality.

I don't see this as a focus on what isn't, because it wouldn't happen without being triggered in the first place without an exclusive focus on something that is, i.e a smell, a sound, something they see etc - and I'll go out on a limb here and suggest Si counts "vibes" as "things" that they can focus on, and these "vibes" are still what is.

The vibes thing works so well for Si users, in my experience - my ISTJ friend sometimes won't like people, or things, for no apparent reason - sounds like Fi or something - but it's his Si connecting a certain 'vibe' about what he's seeing before him, and something unpleasant from the past i.e they remind him of his stepdad or something like that.

Ni doesn't work by 'vibes', rather it works by assumptions and insights using information in the real world, the present moment - but like I detailed in earlier in the thread - they aren't focused on that information, they're focused on the assumptions.

Si is focused on something specific, related to what currently is, however it's so subjective that they can almost appear completely detached from reality.

A quick example of this might be people who wake up in the middle of the night to remind you of something they have to add to the shopping list - this is an exclusive focus on what is - you'll find they've had something on their mind before going to bed, and have been scrambling through their internal database for matches - i.e the Si user might be running through a list of ingredients required to make a meal - and they have 'meal' in their head or whatever, because they've just had dinner, or just done the dishes etc - so the focus is still on what is, rather than the Ni focus on what isn't.


Consider Si as a function that requires some kind of external stimulation to get going - and if only exposes to limited information, it will just keep trying to file through it for more information, it doesn't just jump to assumptions and connect the dots like Ni does.

It can get the exact same result, though.
So if the Si user only has two pieces of information - say, the grass and the hotdog from an earlier example - they'll be forced to think of different things relating to hotdogs, different things relating to grass, and they'll be seeking to connect the dots like that - trying to find some kind of common ground between their own subjective past, and the present moment.

Ni doesn't consider the past and doesn't compare/contrast like this at all, it works by using information it receives in real-time but focuses on it's own assumptions with regards to what it means.

Si focuses on it's own experiences and interpretations of what the thing that it's focus is on at the time, means.

Ergo, it's a simple case of the difference between what is, and what isn't.


I don't feel like this is a very clear explanation and I'll mull it over my head while I'm at work and see if I can rectify this.
Hopefully it's easy enough to follow along with atm.

I think Si is cooler and more mystical and magical than Ni, by miles.

 

[Turi]

Would this work if we extended it, hopefully without diluting it:

• Se is an inclusive method of receiving and processing information, primarily focused on what is.
• Ne is an inclusive method of receiving and processing information, primarily focused on what isn't.
• Si is an exclusive method of receiving and processing information, primarily focused on what is.

Yes, this is exactly how I see them - and I truly believe absolutely everything we know about these functions to be true, can be attributed to these one-line descriptors.

The Judging functions, in my head:

Fe - an inclusive decision making process, primarily focused on people/values.
Fi - an exclusive desicion making process, primarily focused on people/values.

Te - an inclusive decision making process, primarily focused on data/facts.
Ti - an exclusive decision making process, primarily focused on data/facts.

You could probably replace the words inclusive and exclusive, with objective and subjective if it helps relate these descriptors to current understandings, because they practically mean the same thing in relation to the judging functions.

 

[incision]

It's not a focus on what isn't. It's a single subjective focus on what is or should be which results in everything outside of this to be what isn't.

 

[Turi]

It's not a focus on what isn't. It's a single subjective focus on what is or should be which results in everything outside of this to be what isn't.

No, that's Si.

 

[incision]

No, that's Si.

No because what's perceived as what 'is' might not be what 'is'. It's the subjective perception of what 'is'. Ni users have a one track mind which takes information and narrows the focus, ignoring everything that falls outside their inner vision which is often premised on probabilities or can be premised on what's most beneficial to the Ni user. It's a form of inductive reasoning.

 

[Turi]

No because what's perceived as what 'is' might not be what 'is'. It's the subjective perception of what 'is'. Ni users have a one track mind which takes information and narrows the focus, ignoring everything that falls outside their inner vision which is often premised on probabilities or can be premised on what's most beneficial to the Ni user. It's a form of inductive reasoning.

This is Pi.
Not Ni nor Si specific.

 

[incision]

This is Pi.
Not Ni nor Si specific.

No. INTPs use deductive reasoning.

 

[Turi]

No. INTPs use deductive reasoning.

Relevance?

 

[incision]

Relevance?

Oh, I see. It's not a typo of Ti. You're applying Pi, as in the old way to describe INJs and ISJs which is premised on a different model than cognitive functions.

Si doms apply the past as their measure of right/wrong. Ni users have no timelines where past, present and future are blurred.

 

[Reila]

Someone who doesn't even understand the function wanting to demystify it?

 

[Northern Lights]

• You feel like it's a bit of a challenge/useless to describe things as anything besides what they are - i.e, how they look, feel, smell, taste, sound - after you've listed the literal what is of something, as far as you're concerned, it has been described.

It is what it is :tongue2:

I doubt they put much faith in their Ni, though I imagine it's present, in the back of their mind, somewhere.

Hmm ... not quite. I believe, for example, that it should be possible to understand everything and every situation by simply knowing the premise. The rest follows. Like, I know virtually nothing about archery. I never even thought about it before. However, I do know that you want to put an arrow on target, so I feel confident I can deduce correctly how it should be done, if I wanted to. (You want to take care you don't come off as a smart-ass, btw, telling people who know more about it than you how it should be done -- and especially not if you then turn out to be right.)

And like that, there's tons of things I -- at some point -- thought and talked about for the first time, and instinctively extrapolated into a direction that just seemed "right" or "natural". At first, I surprised myself when I later realised it was pretty much spot-on. Now I'm comfortable relying on that, especially in situations where I have limited knowledge and data at hand. And the latest, quite recent revelation was that, apparently, this is not something everyone can do or wants to do. It was so easy and obvious to me that I never even considered not everyone would do that.

Still, though -- it's just a back-up plan for me, or a pastime when I have nothing else to do (I like to think about stuff like, If A was B, then what would it do?). What is overrides what should be, always.

 

[Ocean Helm]

Someone who doesn't even understand the function wanting to demystify it?

The problem is that so many people want to define The Functions based on what they want them to mean. This is ironically one of the biggest reasons why there is such a need to "demystify" them in the first place.