While this is not an opposition to what you wrote, and maybe to rephrase it a bit, I don't think Ni cares about the smokescreen or what's behind it at all. Ni cares about totality of the scene and its meaning. Tries to get at that by sending a query down the personal and collective unconscious and gets a response immediately, also not concerned if it is accurate or not. Pure Ni without any other interference works like this in my estimation.

 

In what way does this differ from what I said?

EDIT: Added something similar in - key part of the process I left out - I implied it, but I do want it included in text, as well.
Cheers.

 

Si.

As the smoke shifts and moves, the Si type zooms in on one section they can see through - what is this?

They explore within themselves the multiple possibilities that this singular piece of information might present - could this piece be the ocean? Could it be a pool? Could it be the sky?

In order to figure this out, the Si type - without realising it - is comparing what they're seeing, to what they know - this blue is too dark to be the sky.. it's too dark to be a pool as well, never seen one like that.. it must be the ocean..

In doing this, Si types lift that section and surrounding sections of the image through the smokescreen to get a clearer image.

They search within themselves, for the answers they seek - relying on impressions they get, similarities, differences, vibes etc - in order to better understand what they're seeing.

Si would then repeat the process with the next bit of information they zoom in on, the next section they see through the smoke - and knowing what they already know about the previous piece of information, they are better equipped to identify what the next section is and pull it out of the smoke - eventually, through introspection and observing their own impressions, Si types will lift the entire picture through the smokescreen and see the whole thing for what it is - and, more than that, they will understand what each piece is, what it means to them, and how it fits into the big picture as a whole.

Extraordinarily accurate description of how the process works for me. In particular, the part about how identifying the first element... any element... provides an "anchor point" from which finding additional elements becomes much easier. Prior to finding that first element, there can be a great sense of disorientation. Also quite accurate is how the process will continue until all of the elements are identified and the big picture emerges... not JUST the big picture, but a thorough and detailed understanding of the framework needed to create and sustain that big picture.

 

Awesome, this is great to hear - and yeah, I wanted the big picture 'emerging' to be how people visualised the process I had in my head - because for whatever reason, that's how I see Si.

I don't see Si as 'clearing the smoke' like Se, and I don't see it as bypassing the smoke like Ni does - I see it as kind of like when they pull up old ships etc out of the ocean - I see Si as hooking up a big ol' crane to a piece of information, and pulling it up through the smoke/out of the water.

I view it this way, because I see Si as being interested in more than the singular piece of information on the surface level - i.e pulling up a part of a ship out of the water lets you inspect the rest of the wreckage you pulled up - not just the bit you saw on the surface - you can see under the piece, see it from the sides etc, different angles etc, and Si types work with that information to basically put the ship back together - they understand all the parts, the more intricate details that the other perception functions miss, imo.

I'm not sure I'm accurately conveying what's in my head, but I hope you get the idea.

I believe that when an Si type grasps the 'big picture' they're practically an expert on the subject, it's not just a 'gist' or an 'overview' it's a deep understanding of everything that makes the 'big picture' the 'big picture'.

 

Maybe it'd be different for an Ne-dom, but speaking just for myself, this is fairly accurate until the last portion. At the end of the day, as much fun as I might have speculating on what the picture might be or playing around with theories about it, I'm gonna want to know what it is and whether or not I was right or wrong or how close I was to either.

 

Yeah, of course - need for closure, right?
Due to being a J dominant.

All of this was written from a 'dominant' perspective, I imagine it'll be a similar story for everyone who leads with a judging function - the need for closure, whether internal or external, will override what I've outlined, to some degree.

As a Ti dom, I imagine you require closure, of sorts, otherwise you're kind of at a loss for what to actually do with the information - i.e, what was the point?

The information, and speculations re: the information isn't actually closure for anyone who leads with a judging function, imo.
I expect this kind of reaction from all Fi, Fe, Ti and Te dominants - something should feel a little off about what I wrote up - and that something is closure.

Fe and Te leading Si or Ni - wants to know what to actually do with the information - this is like, the final step, otherwise it's incomplete.
Fi and Ti leading Se or Ne - wants to know how this information fits into their inner world - how does it make sense? How can I use this information?

This might be a big difference between P and J doms - where P doms are comfortable just ending on the information itself, and the J doms feeling like this isn't 'finished' - wtf do we *do* with the information, now?
Maybe.

 

Could you possibly do one for the judging functions?

 

I could try :/

 

@Insentient - no, you didn't.

That's not a direct quote.
There's a crucial difference right off the bat, that shapes the entire thing to support your argument.

Spot the difference:

"Introverted intuition is directed to the inner object, a term that might justly be applied to the contents of the unconscious. The relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, though their reality is not physical but psychic. They appear to intuitive perception as subjective images of things which, though not to be met with in the outside world, constitute the contents of the unconscious, and of the collective unconscious in particular.

These contents per se are naturally not accessible to experience, a quality they have in common with external objects. For just as external objects correspond only relatively to our perception of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner objects are also relative—products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function.

Like sensation, intuition has its subjective factor, which is suppressed as much as possible in the extraverted attitude but is the decisive factor in the intuition of the introvert. Although his intuition may be stimulated by external objects, it does not concern itself with external possibilities but with what the external object has released within him.

Whereas introverted sensation is mainly restricted to the perception, via the unconscious, of the phenomena of innervation and is arrested there, introverted intuition suppresses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image that caused the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by an attack of psychogenic vertigo.

Sensation is arrested by the peculiar nature of this disturbance of innervation, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its course, how it arose and how it passed, but not advancing beyond that to its content, to the thing that caused the disturbance. Intuition, on the other hand, receives from sensation only the impetus to its own immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to this particular form of expression—the attack of vertigo. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow.

This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds, and finally fades. In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation registers external objects.

For intuition, therefore, unconscious images acquire the dignity of things. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains little or no knowledge of the disturbances of innervation or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. The images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without any relation to him.

Consequently, in the above-mentioned example, the introverted intuitive, if attacked by vertigo, would never imagine that the image he perceived might in some way refer to himself. To a judging type this naturally seems almost inconceivable, but it is none the less a fact which I have often come across in my dealings with intuitives. The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive to external objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to inner objects.

Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new possibilities, which he pursues with equal unconcern for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations and tearing down what has just been built in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between them and himself.

Just as the world of appearances can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, the world of inner images is never a moral problem for the intuitive. For both of them it is an aesthetic problem, a matter of perception, a “sensation.” Because of this, the introverted intuitive has little consciousness of his own bodily existence or of its effect on others. The extravert would say: “Reality does not exist for him, he gives himself up to fruitless fantasies.”

The perception of the images of the unconscious, produced in such inexhaustible abundance by the creative energy of life, is of course fruitless from the standpoint of immediate utility. But since these images represent possible views of the world which may give life a new potential, this function, which to the outside world is the strangest of all, is as indispensable to the total psychic economy as is the corresponding human type to the psychic life of a people. Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel. Introverted intuition apprehends the images arising from the a priori inherited foundations of the unconscious.

These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience, are the precipitate of the psychic functioning of the whole ancestral line; the accumulated experiences of organic life in general, a million times repeated, and condensed into types. In these archetypes, therefore, all experiences are represented which have happened on this planet since primeval times. The more frequent and the more intense they were, the more clearly focussed they become in the archetype. The archetype would thus be, to borrow from Kant, the noumenon of the image which intuition perceives and, in perceiving, creates. Since the unconscious is not just something that lies there like a psychic caput mortuum, but coexists with us and is constantly undergoing transformations which are inwardly connected with the general run of events, introverted intuition, through its perception of these inner processes, can supply certain data which may be of the utmost importance for understanding what is going on in the world.

It can even foresee new possibilities in more or less clear outline, as well as events which later actually do happen. Its prophetic foresight is explained by its relation to the archetypes, which represent the laws governing the course of all experienceable things."

 

I'm tired and this is too much like finding waldo or some shit, what is the point you are trying to make. From what I see, Jung's description still supports his original argument, to which you wanted a source for. That has now been established. Then you just claim Jung wasn't describing function he was describing type. And I am supposed to agree to disagree about something that is just demonstrably untrue as he described both.

I'll soon have to start asking you to cite every single bit of your theorizations as well. As you seem fond of providing sources for others I am sure you won't mind providing them for yourself.

 

@Turi

Thanks so much for bringing reality home to me. I really couldn't remember where I had read that - and worried I was misremembering Jung. It was quite distressing for me, actually lol. Anyway, glad you found the true quote. : )

 

It should also be noted the book does not number the section with an 8.

Nor does it number any sections in that fashion.


@Insentient did not copy what he quoted from Psychological Types.

 

Hahaha. OK. roud:

 

Ooh I managed to find a source that DOES number the section as 8

 

Cool, which one, and what about the alteration of the first paragraph? I haven't gone through the entire thing to see if other sections of the post @Insentient quoted from have been altered.

Are there numerous 'versions' of Psychological Types?

 

@Turi so would you consider both INTx types, for example, to be equally well described by Jung's "introverted intuitive" description and his "introverted thinking" description? And do you personally relate to both his "introverted intuitive" and "introverted feeling" [and to the same degree]?

 

Not to the same degree, I believe one will edge the other out a tad.

I'm curious as to whether people would agree with this kind of thing, I'll just use myself as an example, but I want to hear other people talk about themselves rather than just magically turn this into another thread that questions my type >_<

I'd go this, I'll use the 'function' names for ease:

Ni - most powerful
Fi-Ti - both almost as powerful, I use both to make decisions with, Fi edging out Ti a little.
Se - inferior function.

I do make decisions via 'Fe' as it's commonly understood to manifest in an IxFJ, but I feel like this is just an IxFx trait, maybe even just 'Feeling' in general.
I feel like I swap between Ni and Se, depending on my mood, really, where Se is my "I can't be fucked" mode, and Ni being default.

Even referring back to my smokescreen examples - I prefer how I outlined Ni, but if I'm tired, or can't be bothered, or 'in a mood' etc, then I prefer Se.
I prefer both Ni, and Se, over how I outlined Si or Ne.

How would you make up your little 'stack' if you just clean ignore the 'rules'?

 

@Heat Mirage @Turi I should've made it clear that I believe the general statement "if you relate most to Jung's Ni, then you are very likely INxP" to be true. However I do not believe the converse to also true ("if you are INxP, you will very likely relate most to Jung's Ni"). Jung's Ni is more like a subset of MBTI INxP, while a lot of INxPs will identify most with a different Jung type. So while Jung's Ni is the closest you'll come to an analog of INxP, the actual prevalence of Jung Ni types is quite a bit rarer than MBTI INxPs who are almost 10% of the population.

 

lol does anyone else miss Turi