Adamantya: "I do like to come up with multiple possibilities/outcomes for a given situation"
For perceiving functions, our extroverted function "explores," and our introverted function decides which data is important.
What gets confusing, is that the extroverted function also decides which data is important, but that is because they are receiving instruction from the judging functions. It is a constant loop- J- P- J- p etc..
Se explores the environment via the 5 senses, and then Ni data from the possibilities of what we JUSt experienced. The confusing thing is sometimes we say that Ni is exploring possibilities. Well yes, but said like that, it is Ne, what Ni does is explore and sort through the possibilities that Se, the extroverted function, has focused on, and store the data, sending it over to J functions to assign value and reconfigure our future thinking.
Ne explores the possibilities, sort of, rather than having the Earth's terrain to experience, Ne can go in the head, and twist the terrain around, or even intangible thoughts around, to think about possibilities. Out of these possibilities, Si will then decide which is relevant sifting through the possibilities. Ne Si will drive without noticing road signs often times enough etc..
If you think in this way, that we must always use S, and always use N, then it is just a matter of deciding how you will be extroverted while perceiving.
The reason we actually have a difference between S and N, and simply don't say Pe and Pi, is because there are subtle differences from our judging functions that we assign on to the perceiving functions. Instead of looking at it as a pair of perceiving and judging working together, we try to isolate the variables, and therefore assign some of thhe judging properties to the introverted function. Really though, the introverted perceiving function just orders the data in a simple way based on a congruency between the judging and extroverted perceiving function.
And by extroverted, I mean, even if you are in your head reliving or considering, you are still picturing images from the external world.
Anyway we have both S and N to help us define some of the ethics and values, which helps us create more personality types, etc.. So we use them in pairs, only Se Ni for example, not Ne Ni, because that is what the system is based on, for clarity sake. If we change the properties, then all the assigned characteristics of each personality type would have to be rewritten. It is not that it can't be done for any of them.
I'm just assigning the basic values to the functions at this point, and to expain why it isnt Ne Ni, beyond that because the descriptions are written that way, would be to get into specific character ethics that effect the perceiving function.
Here is an example of confusion: ""In short, Ni is about integrating numerous different (and often seemingly contradictory) interpretations into one total interpretation that escapes the confines of the unconscious assumptions made by each one on its own. It's about changing one's personal interpretation of meaning and significance in order to view an idea from many different conceptual standpoints."
The thing is, of course the perceiving function is about integrating interpretations. Thats what our mind does, it thinks and interprets. We arent talking about liver function, that processes and secretes bile. We are talking about thoughts. This description is also part of Si. Once we add some ethics to it though, we apparently Im seeing now, assign things like "Ni prefers to think about meanings, where as Si prefers to think about whatever is important in the past." How silly can that really be? What if Si has thought about meanings in the past? that is completely ridiculous. Assigning ethics to perceiving functions, as a singular seperate function attitude is ridiculous. "Attitudes" only come with I suppose an example would be @
Eric B's archeatypes. Not singular functions.
No wonder I was so confused...........
We can obviously shift between them and use both. That is why we can score high on the function analysis test with all functions. The thing Jung does though is assign preference, which gives us a typical way that peopel react to stress and danger. And since without danger we would all just get along and be happy, it is good to think of it from this conflict theory, in order to defend ourselves against the possible conflict and therefore get along etc.. But yea we can shift using both.
After we take in data and decide what is relevant, we actually at the same time of deciding what is relevant are starting to use our Judging functions. In fact, if you look at functions in pairs, you are either say using (Ne, Si), or then (Si, J) for example.
The reason we our wired like this, is because Si or Ni wouldn't know how to order and configure the new data that they deem relevant, without the use of T or F.
Really, each cognitive function attitude is acting like a filter.
Jung simply chopped the mind filter up into 8 portions, assigned them congruent filter abilities, and wrote of their qualities.
However, parts in a filter work together. Our top 4 functions work together most certainly in a continuous loop.
We might confuse Ji and Pi, for example, Ti and Ni. They sound very similar in function, and in fact they are. They filter information for the purpose of the mind. However, J functions are geared towards configuring the data we have already taken in from P.
Another thing to note, is that, J functions are our ethics, so, we don't have to consider our ethics everytime we think, and when we do consider, we are back to perceiving. It is a series of 0's and 1's for good and bad labeled on everything. In fact, the perceiving functions can assign 0 and 1 values to new data, because we can relate it to old data. The J functions then order this new data one on top of the other.
For example, if we assign a value to red that is good, and connect it to the value of yellow, which is good, T and F might theoretically combine the good of red and yellow to say that orange is also good. Shitty example I know, but initially, when exploring the possibility of what could orange be, we are using the perceiving function, but when we try to order it, refer to the post on real life examples for cognitive functions and go to the orange part. The example is fully lined out there.