I've been paying attention to my eye movements the past few years, and I've noticed I can do the Ni thing either when I have flash of insight (it's brief then because it's sometimes hard to follow the trail) different than normal Ne and secondly, when I really know what I'm talking about in a way something is very real (a path well traveled) to me. I'll have high verbal fluency at these times.
I've been paying attention to my eye movements the past few years, and I've noticed I can do the Ni thing either when I have flash of insight (it's brief then because it's sometimes hard to follow the trail) different than normal Ne and secondly, when I really know what I'm talking about in a way something is very real (a path well traveled) to me. I'll have high verbal fluency at these times.
Me too! I.e. Re weird times of unusual verbal flow, which for me is NOT a constant ability though I'd really love it if it were, seeing as so many people equate being articulate or 'verbally fluent' as you put it, with intelligence! I don't know what my eyes do, though, I just know how it feels when I'm in one of these moments and it's being super calm and confident in whatever is leaving my mouth.
P.S. I have an evolutionary linguistics project concerning Je functions for anyone who's interested in wading through data and taking lots of measurements with me.
Interesting! Please share all insights you discover.
I have been wondering about how Je helps us sort things mentally through the process of articulation, verbal or written, and what this may say about which is prior in a person btw Ji and Je. I discover a LOT about what I think or why I think it through the struggle to give expressions to it.
Back to the hand analogy, I still think it possible to use any of the four functions both ways (so yields 8 functions). I agree with Doc about functions being preferential just based on what I've seen in the body. And I believe it's easiest to just stick with four based on what I conceptualize about neural networks.
Ok, interesting. Yeah, I really want to read up more on neurology as it relates to CT. I think I'll probably get that Nardi book....
I think all people can use all 8 functions (discounting injury/disability), but perhaps certain parts of the brain are more and less developed in some people - some neural pathways are 'better' than others, creating cognitive 'preferences', like handedness. Don't know, just speculation....
I've been paying attention to my eye movements the past few years, and I've noticed I can do the Ni thing either when I have flash of insight (it's brief then because it's sometimes hard to follow the trail) different than normal Ne and secondly, when I really know what I'm talking about in a way something is very real (a path well traveled) to me. I'll have high verbal fluency at these times.
Yeah, I've wondered about this! Is 'zone-out' an Ni thing per se, or is it a certain type of cognitive process that certain people are more prone to do/use more often, and we categorise them as Ni because of this increased usage? That is, does everyone zone-out when they have a 'flash of insight' using a certain part of the brain, or do Ni types zone out while utilising that part, and Si types zone out differently while utilising that same part of the brain? I was kind of getting at there here.
Also, regarding Chomsky's zone outs, this video is full of them. You could capture any 10 seconds and get a zone out.
Post by The Doctor on Jan 23, 2018 11:05:00 GMT -5
The Nardi study shows a very interesting pattern with Ni that could easily coincide with the zone out. The study did state that any type can do this, but that Ni users and especially Ni doms were the ones to do it the most frequently.
Disclaimer: Everything I say here is my OPINION. Please keep that in mind.
IMO, Ni is "in the zone" because it's simply shutting off Se new info. Therefore, it's best used with a Je function. That tends to be the case IRL, and then studies show that Je tends to shut off Pe. THis is one area I feel comfortable about my understanding in. The rest of my understanding of functions is very malleable, but I feel I get this part.