Let me put this in language you can understand, I will try your method of debating:
Too bad you're wrong. Actually my version is correct, let me explain.
Register to remove this advertisement.
"Very simply. It starts with internal thought process then radiates outward (introverted), following a course set by emotion (Feeling)."
The feeling does not radiate outward, for purposes of definition introverted processes flow inward not outward.
Whoops, your bad
"Actually it does, because no one does it that way. That's not how Fi works. Your opinion doesn't change the fabric of reality or science."
HAHAHA, the reality or science behind visions Jung had and is translating to reality.
Nope, again, arrogance on your part. This isn't hard science, it is psychology.
"I'm proving your points wrong, and trying to help you understand how these theories and principles work. Clearly you have interest in them, or else you would not have opinions."
I feel the same way about you, so who is right?
"No, I'm calling black and white things black and white. When these things are static and isolated, they are very clearly polarized. In a dynamic environment in which they interact, they appear to be gray because they blend."
YOU call them static and isolated, yet again just because YOU claim something DOES NOT mean it is right. My point is, if they do blend, no one person can truly separately them in the way you have and then make comments on them separately.
It's like a soup. The soup has component parts, but when combined the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.
Reading the ingredients is a very different experience from eating the soup.
Again, you are just being too black and white and arrogant, but it's ok, I can bust up your points all day.
"I've heard this statement from Fi dominant people before. I apologize if my manner of presentation is offensive to you. It is not meant to be. I'm simply trying to concisely correct and educate you on something you appear to have interest in."
Well, I guess good thing I am not Fi dominant. It isn't about politeness here, it is about saying things in a way that allows others their viewpoints while also expressing your own. Something you have chosen not to do, and I am following suit in this post.
"What I am saying is correct. There is always room for innovation and adaptation in the scientific process. However, opinion and conjecture cannot undo progress nor alter reality, only perception and perspective."
Not it's not. This stuff has not been proven or dis proven, have you ever taken a psychology course because these concepts are 101 seriously.
"I wasn't trying to have you, just correct and refine what you added to this thread, to avoid confusion for the other forum members on the subject of Ni, which is the subject of this thread."
Whoops, guess you failed at that one. Don't worry though, give my point some credence and you will find that you will develop a deeper understanding of the issue.
Continue to deny my point of view and you will find yourself stuck in the very same way of thinking for as long as it takes you to realize the error of your ways.
Open your mind please.