Post by robomwm on Jul 21, 2014 15:42:08 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this.
I've been looking through some posts here to get a proper and accurate understanding of the cognitive types, the last thing being that I found and read through the PowerPoint found here.
I then had an idea of why Ni could appear to have an "aura of knowing/confidence." I then proceeded to write, more or less, what I knew of the other functions, connecting it with my new idea about Ni.
My inquiry is if this is correct/accurate. I'm aware that there's probably a lot of missing information and/or simplifications, which I'd appreciate if you can help me understand those as well. (i.e. Be aware that these thoughts are simply my perspective on cognitive functions, in which I am still in the process of understanding - so the assertions I make here are actually questions.)
Ni's don't know everything, although they project that "aura." My hypothesis of this is probably the realization that "the entirety of [intuitive] reality cannot be known [in detail.]" Hence, an "algorithm" of a sort is applied to have some basis of the "intuitive" reality, an "overall" aspect to it. Over time, this algorithm is adjusted according to experience - but it doesn't generally "seek out" the intuitive reality [more on the Ne part about this], but rather, is aware that it exists[?].
As for sensory detail, there is much more affinity/regards to explore since it is "there." It can be felt, it can be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, etc. Thus, these can appear to have more of a handle on "reality," in regards to objective, tangible reality.
Ne's have been said to have a particular interest in the "unknown" or "mysterious," or at least things that appear to have these attributes. As such, these types, I'd reckon, are much better into getting in the actual details of a [intuitive] reality, since they desire to explore "all tangents/possibilities," zero-ing in on the details of one until they have exhausted the potentials[?] of that idea/possibility. [Since intutition involves "global inter-connections", Ne's would have more "detailed" knowledge of it because it seeks to actually go out and seek [and play with] those connections, rather than just be content with "knowing" that the connections are there.]
Henceforth, Si becomes that algorithm, in which, I'd assume, similarily to Ni, that would classify that "sensory reality cannot be fully known [or is irrelevant]" Thus, instead of actively seeking out sensations, whether it be in how thin and smooth something feels*, or seeing how fluidly a UI transition occurs, etc., it instead has a more "holistic" view of such sensations. Similarily to Ni, this view of such sensations will change over time, instead of actively seeking the "tangible reality." Unfortunately, I don't think I can continue talking about this without including Ne in it.
[This doesn't sound right. But it does have something to do with some sort of algorithm. I could be understanding it wrong, though, because sensing and intuiting, themselves, involve different criteria, afaik.]
*when I got the Surface (the tablet by Microsoft) I was continually amazed by how thin and smooth it felt, it was quite ridiculous (to me, at least) how much time I spent appalled with how it felt - how could a device that can functions like a laptop be compressed into something like this? (Although I knew it to be possible, I was continually amazed that it was thinner and lighter than I expected...)
Something I could add to this would include that Ni and Si [-leads?] can (and probably do) focus on a certain ideas/"sensations," but their attitude to intuition and sensation overall would still remain "general."