IEIs/INFps observing power structures and imaginative vs. daydreaming

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Can you please back me up here,

You all agree right that describing our Ni function as 'Being imaginative' is more accurate than 'Daydreaming.' And 'interlapping inner worlds, creating inner worlds (creative but still based on reality enough to be relateable to others)' is more accurate than 'living in a fantasy world.' And 'a vested interest in time concepts' is more accurate than a raw understanding of time. (Something that I think all pure introverts have a base understanding of, not just Ni-egos)

And also, 'Observing power structures to best understand the hierarchy (wisely understanding when to avoid conflict), to rule it over like a king with writing and wise ideal commands' is more accurate than 'Submissive IEI doormat that is easy to overpower just because they don't have the same physical presence as other types, usually.'

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

And 'Ni understands that meaning comes from within and isn't based on good or bad but what works purely individually is better than 'narcissistic airy emo ****** that can't externalize anything.' And that IEIs can be strong tough and forceful with enough practice, even if we always will remain the watery piercing insights to see the essence of things with our Ni. And that mistaking lack of action for 'weakness' is annoying.

[marooned]

You're the one drawing submissive airy ****** out of everything! And then projecting it on everything else!!!

[07490]

You're the one drawing submissive airy ****** out of everything! And then projecting it on everything else!!!

bold letters are catchier.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

That last example was just an attempt at humor.

Do you get the gist of my point?

I guess my point is that simply, how something appears - what you can see/observe/collect scientific data on, is never the whole truth. What people see isn't the truth, because people can wear so many masks and show so many faces. Objectivity isn't always truth. Far from it. I think that's what bothers me about Te-statements. It's an easy mistake to make, since your subjective beliefs can obviously never be the entire truth, or the truth at all. They're just what you personally value, what gives you personal meaning. But that doesn't mean that what you observe externally is the truth either, since you would make conceptions based on what you see- and they could be false, because people are so self-conscious of themselves (even when they appear not to, remember self-consciousness doesn't always mean somebody is 'anxious') they pick and choose what you're observing.

This ALSO explains, why (like the profile says) IEIs understand sometimes that "Rage is ethical" even though being angry, losing your temper, rarely (objectively speaking) looks like somebody is doing the right thing. But they very well can be. Why you dodo heads banned Sean too quickly that one time, but I as his dual- knew better.

I'm over it now though.

[ArchonAlarion]

Im pretty imaginative, dude.

Sometimes I think its the only thing I know Im good at =\

To call Ni being imaginative, is simultaneously not doing Ni justice and also taking away something from other elements as well. Nor would I use daydreaming.

I think you should call it what it is, man. "Internal field dynamics". Now observe the world and see how that manifests in your perception and also see how it does not in Alpha-Delta.

Assigning broad behavioral traits to any element is going to do this, and its not going to help anyone. Try being even more specific. Also do not take this as an attack if thats how im coming across.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

lol.

Yes it is most likely too general. But it's just soooo much more accurate than 'daydreaming' to me.

"Internal field dynamics". Now you just got even more general and more useless. It's like I'm reaching for a tool that I know what it is but I haven't reached yet, and of course it won't actually be useful until I'm close enough to reach the tool.

Assigning broad behavioral traits to any element is going to do this, and its not going to help anyone.

How do you know that? Why are you so against behaviorism, like dolphin? Behaviors are everything man. Without behaviors we couldn't study or psychoanalyze *anything.* People think IEIs are 'daydreamy' because they saw, with their own two eyes- a lot of people they typed as IEIs staring off into space being daydreamy. It's as simple as that. They watched it. It was ultimately a behavior, that they observed.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Also do not take this as an attack if thats how im coming across.

You're fine. At least you didn't say that I masturbate over the sound of my own voice!!!

[Satan]

You're fine. At least you didn't say that I masturbate over the sound of my own voice!!!

You masturbate over the sound of my own voice.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

You wish!!!

[Satan]

You wish!!!

In your dreams.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't want you merky, why do you think gay men want you???

It's okay I'm not gonna come on to you or make you gay. You can relax around me. =)

ps: Steve has a hotter voice than you.

If I want a straight guy it will most likely be steve.

I'm ovu-laaaating.

*Yawn.* I'm tired. I need to go to bed soon.

[marooned]

That last example was just an attempt at humor.

Do you get the gist of my point?

I guess my point is that simply, how something appears - what you can see/observe/collect scientific data on, is never the whole truth. What people see isn't the truth, because people can wear so many masks and show so many faces. Objectivity isn't always truth. Far from it. I think that's what bothers me about Te-statements. It's an easy mistake to make, since your subjective beliefs can obviously never be the entire truth, or the truth at all. They're just what you personally value, what gives you personal meaning. But that doesn't mean that what you observe externally is the truth either, since you would make conceptions based on what you see- and they could be false, because people are so self-conscious of themselves (even when they appear not to, remember self-consciousness doesn't always mean somebody is 'anxious') they pick and choose what you're observing.

This ALSO explains, why (like the profile says) IEIs understand sometimes that "Rage is ethical" even though being angry, losing your temper, rarely (objectively speaking) looks like somebody is doing the right thing. But they very well can be. Why you dodo heads banned Sean too quickly that one time

I don't disagree with any of this. But here, in this place, the objective, observable things are all we can really talk about to give what we're talking about a substance that at least everyone can see. That's why I actually think that typing celebrities is useful, because we at least all have access to the exact same information sources (I agreed with most of what Archon said about it in that other thread, except for the VI emphasis :tongue. Even if we type them all incorrectly, we can at least have the on-going arguing about why we're typing them that way. And I know that people can present themselves in a myriad ways, and wear a thousand faces on the outside, and hell, even on the inside... but even if we pierce through all of that to their "at home personality," does that really tell us anything more about their type? The in-the-closet-SLE is out there in the world looking and behaving like an EII? Supposedly, personality is not type. However! I agree that focusing on people irl makes the most sense; it's a theory of interactions, which is remarkably difficult if one isn't actually interacting on a deeper level with real human beings.

All that aside, if all you have is how something appears, you can glean some of the things that do not appear, it's just you can't really prove you're seeing something that's actually in there as opposed to something caught only in your perception. It becomes murky quite fast when trying to communicate it to others. And it can't be used as proof.

But... if everything becomes a recognizing of "traits," a sorting them into the right categories, or finding behavioral "threads," or "themes" in people's lives, and thinking "hmm, I see this all the time irl with this particular type" it can become a sort of thinking that is purely on the surface. As behavioral patterns, motivations, whatever, are sorted into a database of increasing complexity, then perhaps the human being is falling out of the entire picture. But information metabolism isn't a human being, it's only an information filtration system? Or is it more than that? If it's only that, then does representing it that way when referring to individual people and their types somehow take the "H" out of Human? Does it dehumanize people into simply "observable phenomena"?

Perhaps that way is empty and there is a deeper, more meaningful path. Although I don't think "internal dynamics of objects!" is going to work at all!

[Steve]

And also, 'Observing power structures to best understand the hierarchy (wisely understanding when to avoid conflict),

I think from your experience you being a phobic 6 can have something to do with that.

'Submissive IEI doormat that is easy to overpower just because they don't have the same physical presence as other types, usually.'

In your case a 6'2" doormat

[sigma]

Can you please back me up here,

You all agree right that describing our Ni function as 'Being imaginative' is more accurate than 'Daydreaming.' And 'interlapping inner worlds, creating inner worlds (creative but still based on reality enough to be relateable to others)' is more accurate than 'living in a fantasy world.' And 'a vested interest in time concepts' is more accurate than a raw understanding of time.

Ok... some back-up...
I'm very drunk so take this with a little bit of salt.

I don't think Ni is imaginative but rather collapsing. We are collapsing some of the possible futures in a present expression. Imaginative seams unreal, but to me, it is just one of the futures that has yet to happen. Some of this futures will never happen due to the fact that the time line perceived is ONLY one... but... I think they are branches from the current timeline... other branches.

inner world vs. fantasy world is a matter of undestanding THIS world. The IEI's world is loaded with metaphors... and as such is departed from FACT, departed from what most perceive as reality BUT metaphors are powerfull lens that allow oneself and sometime others to see past the illusion of this world. Our world are not "fantasy" but rather this world expressed differently.

As for the a vested interest in time concepts... this sounds a little bit alien right now...
Sure, time is important to me but I perceive the "raw understanding" as being more descriptive. The problem is that people don't see time. They don't see the essence of time. How many of you entertain the idea of eternal and relate it to actual time? How many of you see eternity in NOW? How many of you analyze the very fabric of time? My guess is that very few think of time at all and, because of this, don't perceive it in its raw state.

Out of curiosity... how many of you perceive time as a form, a multidimensional.... thing... rather than a line? How many of you see the branches clearly?