- Type: SeFi
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Seelie
I postponed my feedback on the S and N articles because I definitely relate more to the N view and I even tend to think it is the “correct” one. I kept wondering if this is new or an older pattern but my impression is after our views change, we tend to believe we always had the new ones and dismiss previous information pointing out the opposite, which makes it even harder to parse them out.
One question is how much this is purely N vs. S and if there is no influence of J vs P, as polarized P leads tend to have a certain “hazy” qualia that is not there in polarized J leads for example. So, for example an SeFi I–I vs a TeNi I–I.
I am curious about the distinction, as I do think the polarized P lead would relate to some of the N description more than a polarized J lead and they would also come off in these particular ways when talking about their experience.
Another question is if the N attributes apply equally to Ni and Ne. Especially the part about registering objects as wave like. I am not an Ne user, so I can’t see that very well. I can definitely see it in some people, but I am not sure I can see it in Ne-Si users without conscious Si, so is the wave-like perception of objects an attribute of N or is is a general attribute of Pe-Pi together, more apparent when both are conscious? In case of Ne-Si Ne providing the associations (resulting in indiscriminate correlating) and Si providing a certain pattern of movement (shown by inertia) and these two together leading to the wave like perception? I think it’s a legit question, as the most obvious example of wave like registering of objects is Umbi, who is Ne and Si conscious. I think I can see this in Rondo too. But I am not sure about Ne I-I- users. There is some P flowiness but I don’t know if they do register objects as wave like by default.
Relating strongly to this N section doesn’t mean your psyche leads with N, as cognitive typology does not assign a hierarchy based on F, T, N, S “preference.” Instead, this article is only mean to introduce you to what CT means by the N component, which never exists independently but is always tied to either Pe or Pi.
Definitely but I know no other way of reaching a conclusion than comparing the attributes to people’s behavior/ their experience, as described by them. Making this disclaimer because I did read this section but can’t basically make any argument or ask any questions without making these comparisons. 🙂