[Boolean11]

I did see you model, but thank you for reposting it.

While don't need your "F" mask as you call it, neither do I appreciate being called imbalanced or accused (in what I read as a rather defensive, snotty, tone) of not being familiar with the source material. Feel free to criticize my theories and my understanding but repeatedly making the attacks personal will compel me to squash you.

I thought you'd be a bit more like me since I'd think that you'd be unfazed by any seemingly personal attacks, but instead remain drawn to the argument attempting to keep it objective. When somebody goes personal on me, which I would tell by the downhill projection of the quality of the argument, I just start to look down on them and immediately stop conversing:
I found that its easier than making my blood boil in the sea of irrationality that follows; I've learnt to experience that "squashing" someone doesn't work since the level of idiocy/retardation increases in them to a point were it's unbearable for me.

Also by stopping conversing and "looking down on the person" internally, I don't explicitly expose that fact since I've noticed that that retreat, give the other person a chance to calm down and get back to rationality if they are sane overall. Else I would just avoid them to spear my self and interests. And also another thing that I've noticed, which is just strange, is that people will apologize to you if you don't retaliate when they get angry and start blurting out the verbal attacks which have very little rationality (anger usually lessons the capacity to reason).

[ChanceyRose]

I thought you'd be a bit more like me since I'd think that you'd be unfazed by any seemingly personal attacks, but instead remain drawn to the argument attempting to keep it objective. When somebody goes personal on me, which I would tell by the downhill projection of the quality of the argument, I just start to look down on them and immediately stop conversing:
I found that its easier than making my blood boil in the sea of irrationality that follows; I've learnt to experience that "squashing" someone doesn't work since the level of idiocy/retardation increases in them to a point were it's unbearable for me.

Also by stopping conversing and "looking down on the person" internally, I don't explicitly expose that fact since I've noticed that that retreat, give the other person a chance to calm down and get back to rationality if they are sane overall. Else I would just avoid them to spear my self and interests. And also another thing that I've noticed, which is just strange, is that people will apologize to you if you don't retaliate when they get angry and start blurting out the verbal attacks which have very little rationality (anger usually lessons the capacity to reason).

You always have to have the last word, don't you.

[ChanceyRose]

LOL. And with that you proved me wrong!

Alright @Boolean11, as promised, my Ni/Te interactions:

Ni as an isolated function is subject to neither direction nor judgment. It simply skips, like a child on a playground, from one internally generated image to another with an occasional infusion of perception from the outside world. It is seeing the Eye of Horus and relating it to the Eye of God which looks like the Eye of Sauron, or seeing the word ‘language’ then ‘languid’ then ‘lingua’ then ‘tongue’ and delighting in the image of a tongue languishing on a pillow, or seeing ‘Yahweh’ knowing it means God and ‘I am’ but also refers to ‘create’ and ‘blows’ then skipping to ‘wind’ and ‘breath’ and ‘life’ and finally returning full circle to Yahweh is God is Life is within me.

There is no judgment on these thoughts, no decision of right or wrong or fact or fiction until I take the conscious step to verify what Ni has brought forward. A quick google search confirms that ‘lingua’ means ‘tongue’; that variations of the Eye of God are used throughout the world’s religions, is likely older than the Egyptians, and that Tolkien may have consciously used that symbol in his fiction; and that, etymologically, ‘Yahweh’ to ‘life’ makes sense and is confirmed in the commonly held belief of a soul residing within each of us.

My intuition flashes don’t create anything; they draw on existing knowledge within me or based on the archetypes embedded in the collective unconscious. They take pieces of knowledge and rearrange them until my thinking recognizes something and plucks it from the chaos. They work together most of the time but not always; intuition doesn't require thinking but thinking requires intuition.

My senses feed nuggets to my intuition but they are not required for the process. I told you once that I can't turn off my intuition; I can, however, turn off my senses, or at least largely ignore them.

I don't think your model is wrong. As you said, it makes sense to you; you relate to it. I do wonder about the separation between intuition and thinking, though. As Jung said, "...in the main, intuition is an unconscious process, the conscious apprehension of its nature is a very difficult matter." Discussing the nature of intuition with others, and receiving feedback on how they see me use it has helped me identify it in my cognitive processes. I was (and to a great extent, still am) wholly unable to see it on my own as a distinct and unique process.

[Adnan Syed]

^ easy there guys :p