Creativity based on Sensing VS. Intuition? (Design&Art) | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Creativity based on Sensing VS. Intuition? (Design&Art)

So I stumbled across this person who did a poll on typing designers:
4372498589_38176fdcc1_b.jpg

Source

Primarily, the poll was done to challenge the MBTI ideal type of a designer to be an ISFJ.
  1. Introverted – likes to work alone, seeks to understand the world, prefers depth over breadth
  2. Sensing – trusts facts and data, accepts the world as it is, prefers practicality
  3. Feeling – seeks harmony, considers the feelings of others
  4. Judging – gains control through planning, focuses on results
And it came up with INTJ, ENFJ and ENFP as the most common type of designers.



Thoughts on this:
  • the idea of "design" has changed since MBTI was created (1944..?)
  • as well as the the goal, process and fields (depending on what they design and what tools/abilities is needed)
  • It doesn't give much clue on who actually participated on the poll (except that there were 64 people, it was online, probably "followers"..and that the owner of the poll is an industrial designer and at the very strategic spectrum of design thinking).
  • We don't know for sure if the people who participated on the poll typed themselves correctly and from what I know it didn't seem to dig much into the cognitive functions but only on the I/E, S/N, F/T, J/P plains.
  • (I'm totally not objective: this poll steers me up *lol* I always liked projects of others designers more that did the extra digging because it's so easy to find flaws in the overall project if done "half-heartedly"..)
 
So, researching on creativity and MBTI always seem to spit out articles summed up as following:
"Creativity = Intuition"


But what is with Sensor types?
I sincerely doubt that sensors don't have some kind of own way to be creative..


I wonder a bit ..what the differences between intuition or sensory-based creative processes and/or creative outcomes would be like?

Thoughts? Examples? Experiences? Insights? :)

My best friend is a Sensor. (ISFP) He struggles to come up with ideas on what to make, and often simply chooses to make thing he's seen somewhere. He tends to copy things he's seen at very high levels, but coming up with his own designs often doesn't even cross his mind. He tends to enjoy working out concepts others give him more than he does coming up with his own one from scratch. He's very successful and good at what he does, he simply doesn't imagine up new things. He seems to express his creativity though recreating existing things digitally, for example show him a photo of a hangar and he'll make it. Tell him you want a sandstorm and he'll magic it up, but ask him to come up with a cool concept for something and he's drawing blanks or naming existing concepts to which he adds the idea of modifying it someway in his manner of throwing the idea creation back in your ball park.

My brother is an ESFJ. When he was young he used to draw every now and then, now a days he makes his own knives, sheaths and customizes axes. Like my best friend, my brother tends to make what he sees somewhere and doesn't explore the concepts hes copying much further. That said, he greatly enjoys combining concepts he's seen. I also noticed that a lot of people at the Knife making conventions seem to do the same thing and the majority of them appear to be Sensors save for those rare few who do all the insanely detailed uncommon stuff.

Those are just my observations. If i were to draw a conclusion of my experiences with Sensors being creative, it would be that when they spot a concept, they adopt it, they don't experiment as much with the look of whatever they're making. I guess you could even say, they're tame in their artistic expressions as they're less extreme in what they do.

Where I would for example see Epoxy and imagine all kinds of crazy hand holds for knives to make with it that would take considerable trial and error to even get to something usable. Something that is an artistic expression in and off itself, and would spam dozens of completely different ideas involving a knife handle and epoxy, my Sensor friend and brother would likely end up using it in the same way they see most others using it.

Contrary to mine, their ideas are ALWAYS feasible and proven. Mine are more out there, more abstract, more extreme and sometimes completely beyond the achievable scope for the costs, material or time frame.

Over all that's the only conclusion that I dare to draw as an as of yet unproven speculation based on my personal experiences and speculations.
 
My best friend is a Sensor. (ISFP) He struggles to come up with ideas on what to make, and often simply chooses to make thing he's seen somewhere. He tends to copy things he's seen at very high levels, but coming up with his own designs often doesn't even cross his mind. He tends to enjoy working out concepts others give him more than he does coming up with his own one from scratch. He's very successful and good at what he does, he simply doesn't imagine up new things. He seems to express his creativity though recreating existing things digitally, for example show him a photo of a hangar and he'll make it. Tell him you want a sandstorm and he'll magic it up, but ask him to come up with a cool concept for something and he's drawing blanks or naming existing concepts to which he adds the idea of modifying it someway in his manner of throwing the idea creation back in your ball park.

My brother is an ESFJ. When he was young he used to draw every now and then, now a days he makes his own knives, sheaths and customizes axes. Like my best friend, my brother tends to make what he sees somewhere and doesn't explore the concepts hes copying much further. That said, he greatly enjoys combining concepts he's seen. I also noticed that a lot of people at the Knife making conventions seem to do the same thing and the majority of them appear to be Sensors save for those rare few who do all the insanely detailed uncommon stuff.

Those are just my observations. If i were to draw a conclusion of my experiences with Sensors being creative, it would be that when they spot a concept, they adopt it, they don't experiment as much with the look of whatever they're making. I guess you could even say, they're tame in their artistic expressions as they're less extreme in what they do.

Where I would for example see Epoxy and imagine all kinds of crazy hand holds for knives to make with it that would take considerable trial and error to even get to something usable. Something that is an artistic expression in and off itself, and would spam dozens of completely different ideas involving a knife handle and epoxy, my Sensor friend and brother would likely end up using it in the same way they see most others using it.

Contrary to mine, their ideas are ALWAYS feasible and proven. Mine are more out there, more abstract, more extreme and sometimes completely beyond the achievable scope for the costs, material or time frame.

Over all that's the only conclusion that I dare to draw as an as of yet unproven speculation based on my personal experiences and speculations.

Wow, thank you so much for your insight! "Even if" subjective/experience-based ;) It's very valuable to me. So, thank you for sharing!

While reading your post I actually started re-seeing a couple of people that might just fit in what you described.
I especially liked the description of "tame", I don't know why :p I like it more than the overused "down to earth" descprition.

:neutral: ..and it reminds me how "envisioning/ideazation/concepting things and toying with perspective" is so much more fun than the actual "turning things into reality" or "pixeling" part of it. :neutral:
 
I thought you might be interested in this link to some famous artists and their supposed types @Impact Character:
https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/2017/04/10/famous-artist-myers-briggs-personality-type/

I think you can see a difference in the S types who are more restrained in their styles compared with the Ns. I'm not sure they fall into the tame description that @Artisan referred to, but there does seem to be a lower temperature about them. However I think there is a danger that we infjs can judge S types by our own vivid, and even bordering fantastic, conception of what creativity includes.

You might be interested in this extract from Jung's book "Modern Man in Search of a Soul" which has a lot to say about the psychology of artistic creation. I think for Jung, the creative urge that envelops some of our most prominent artists probably overrides their type and masks it - and in many cases their personalities develop in reaction to the prevailing culture of the society that they live in. For that reason I'm inclined to take the type suggestions in the web link with a pinch of salt, though they are revealing when taken as a group rather than individually. Of course we are talking about the rare people who are the artistic greats here, not everyday creativity - but there is often useful stuff to learn about the everyday by looking at the extremes.

The extract consists of selected passages rather than a continuous copy
1. From: Modern Man In Search of a Soul
From Chapter VIII Psychology and Literature


……… The two parts of Faust illustrate by way of extremes this psychological

distinction between works of literature. In order to emphasize the distinction, I will call the one mode of artistic creation psychological, and the other visionary.


The psychological mode deals with materials drawn from the realm of human consciousness—for instance, with the lessons of life, with emotional shocks, the experience of passion and the crises of human destiny in general—all of which go to make up the conscious life of man, and his feeling life in particular. ….. I have called this mode of artistic creation psychological because in its activity it nowhere transcends the bounds of psychological intelligibility. Everything that it embraces—the experience as well as its artistic expression—belongs to the realm of the understandable…………


………The profound difference between the first and second parts of Faust marks the difference between the psychological and the visionary modes of artistic creation. The latter reverses all the conditions of the former. The experience that furnishes the material for artistic expression is no longer familiar. It is a strange something that derives its existence

from the hinterland of man’s mind—that suggests the abyss of time separating us from pre-human ages, or evokes a super-human world of contrasting light and darkness. It is

a primordial experience which surpasses man’s understanding, and to which he is therefore in danger of succumbing. The value and the force of the experience are given by its enormity.

It arises from timeless depths; it is foreign and cold, many-sided, demonic and grotesque. A grimly ridiculous sample of the eternal chaos—a crimen laesae majestatis humanae, to use Nietzsche’s words—it bursts asunder our human standards of value and of aesthetic form. The disturbing vision of monstrous and meaningless happenings that in every way exceed the grasp of human feeling and comprehension makes quite other demands upon the powers

of the artist than do the experiences of the foreground of life. These never rend the curtain that veils the cosmos; they never transcend the bounds of the humanly possible, and for this reason are readily shaped to the demands of art, no matter how great a shock to the individual they may be. But the primordial experiences rend from top to bottom the curtain upon which is painted the picture of an ordered world, and allow a glimpse into the unfathomed abyss of

what has not yet become. Is it a vision of other worlds, or of the obscuration of the spirit, or of the beginning of things before the age of man, or of the unborn generations of the

future? …….


……… In dealing with the psychological mode of artistic creation, we never need ask ourselves what the material consists of or what it means. But this question forces itself upon us as soon as we come to the visionary mode of creation. We are astonished, taken aback, confused, put on our guard or even disgusted—and we demand commentaries and explanations. We are reminded in nothing of everyday, human life, but rather of dreams, night-time fears and the dark recesses of the mind that we sometimes sense with misgiving. The reading public for the most part repudiates this kind of writing—unless, indeed, it is coarsely sensational—and even the literary critic feels embarrassed by it. ……..


….. Great poetry draws its strength from the life of mankind, and we completely miss its meaning if we try to derive it from personal factors Whenever the collective unconscious becomes a living experience and is brought to bear upon the conscious outlook of an age, this event is a creative act which is of importance to everyone living in that age. A work of art is produced that contains what may truthfully be called a message to generations of men. ……


…….Every period has its bias, its particular prejudice and its psychic ailment. An epoch is like an individual; it has its own limitations of conscious outlook, and therefore requires a compensatory adjustment. This is effected by the collective unconscious in that a poet, a seer or a leader allows himself to be guided by the unexpressed desire of his times and shows the way, by word or deed, to the attainment of that which everyone blindly craves and expects—whether this attainment results in good or evil, the healing of an epoch or its destruction. …..


The personal idiosyncrasies that creep into a work of art are not essential; in fact, the more we have to cope with these peculiarities, the less is it a question of art. What is essential in a work of art is that it should rise far above the realm of personal life and speak from the spirit and heart of the poet as man to the spirit and heart of mankind. The personal aspect is a limitation—and even a sin—in the realm of art. When a form of “art ” is primarily personal it deserves to be treated as if it were a neurosis. There may be some validity in the idea held by the Freudian school that artists without exception are narcissistic—by which is meant that they are undeveloped persons with infantile and auto-erotic traits. The statement is only valid, however, for the artist as a person, and has nothing to do with the man as an artist. In his capacity of artist he is neither auto-erotic, nor hetero-erotic, nor erotic in any sense. He is objective and impersonal—even inhuman—for as an artist he is his work, and not a human being.

Every creative person is a duality or a synthesis of contradictory aptitudes. On the one side he is a human being with a personal life, while on the other side he is an impersonal creative process. Since as a human being he may be sound or morbid, we must look at his psychic make-up to find the determinants of his personality. But we can understand him in his capacity of artist by looking at his creative achievement. We should make a sad mistake if we tried to explain the mode of life of an English gentleman, a Prussian officer, or a cardinal in terms of personal factors.

The gentleman, the officer and the cleric function as such in an impersonal role, and their psychic make-up is qualified by a peculiar objectivity. We must grant that the artist does not function in an official capacity—the very opposite is nearer the truth. He nevertheless resembles the types I have named in one respect, for the specifically artistic dis- position involves an overweight of collective psychic life as against the personal. Art is a kind of innate drive that seizes a human being and makes him its instrument. The artist is not a person endowed with free will who seeks his own ends, but one who allows art to realize its purposes through him. As a human being he may have moods and a will and personal aims, but as an artist he is “man” in a higher sense—he is "collective man" —one who carries and shapes the unconscious, psychic life of mankind. To perform this difficult office it is sometimes necessary for him to sacrifice happiness and everything that makes life worth living for the ordinary human being.

All this being so, it is not strange that the artist is an especially interesting case for the psychologist who uses an analytical method. The artist's life cannot be otherwise than full of conflicts, for two forces are at war within him— on the one hand the common human longing


for happiness, satisfaction and security in life, and on the other a ruthless passion for creation which may go so far as to override every personal desire. The lives of artists are as a rule so highly unsatisfactory—not to say tragic—because of their inferiority on the human and personal side, and not because of a sinister dispensation. There are hardly any exceptions to the rule that a person must pay dearly for the divine gift of the creative fire. It is as though each of us were endowed at birth with a certain capital of energy. The strongest force in our make-up will seize and all but monopolize this energy, leaving so little over that nothing of value can come of it. In this way the creative force can drain the human impulses to such a degree that the personal ego must develop all sorts of bad qualities—ruthlessness, selfishness and vanity (so-called "auto-erotism")—and even every kind of vice, in order to maintain the spark of life and to keep itself from being wholly bereft. The auto-erotism of artists resembles that of illegitimate or neglected children who from their tenderest years must protect themselves from the destructive influence of people who have no love to give them—who develop bad qualities for that very purpose and later maintain an invincible egocentrism by remaining all their lives infantile and helpless or by actively offending against the moral code or the law. How can we doubt that it is his art that explains the artist, and not the insufficiencies and conflicts of his personal life? These are nothing but the regrettable results of the fact that he is an artist—that is to say, a man who from his very birth has been called to a greater task than the ordinary mortal. A special ability means a heavy expenditure of energy in a particular direction, with a consequent drain from some other side of life.

It makes no difference whether the poet knows that his work is begotten, grows and matures with him, or whether he supposes that by taking thought he produces it out of the void. His opinion of the matter does not change the fact that his own work outgrows him as a child its mother. The creative process has feminine quality, and the creative work arises from unconscious depths—we might say, from the realm of the mothers. Whenever the creative force predominates, human life is ruled and moulded by the unconscious as against the active will, and the conscious ego is swept along on a subterranean current, being nothing more than a helpless observer of events. The work in process becomes the poet's fate and determines his psychic development. It is not Goethe who creates Faust, but Faust which creates Goethe. And what is Faust but a symbol? By this I do not mean an allegory that points to something all too familiar, but an expression that stands for something not clearly known and yet profoundly alive. Here it is something that lives in the soul of every German, and that Goethe has helped to bring to birth. Could we conceive of anyone but a German writing Faust or Also Sprach Zarathustra? Both play upon something that reverberates in the German soul -a "primordial image", as Jacob Burckhardt once called it—the figure of a physician or teacher of mankind. The archetypal image of the wise man, the saviour or redeemer, lies buried and dormant in man's unconscious since the dawn of culture; it is awakened whenever the times are out of joint and a human society is committed to a serious error. When people go astray they feel the need of a guide or teacher or even of the physician. These primordial images are numerous, but do not appear in the dreams of individuals or in works of art until they are called into being by the waywardness of the general outlook. When conscious life is characterized by one-sidedness and by a false attitude, then they are activated—one might say, "instinctively "—and come to light in the dreams of individuals and the visions of artists and seers, thus restoring the psychic equilibrium of the epoch.
 
I thought you might be interested in this link to some famous artists and their supposed types @Impact Character:
https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/2017/04/10/famous-artist-myers-briggs-personality-type/

I think you can see a difference in the S types who are more restrained in their styles compared with the Ns. I'm not sure they fall into the tame description that @Artisan referred to, but there does seem to be a lower temperature about them. However I think there is a danger that we infjs can judge S types by our own vivid, and even bordering fantastic, conception of what creativity includes.

You might be interested in this extract from Jung's book "Modern Man in Search of a Soul" which has a lot to say about the psychology of artistic creation. I think for Jung, the creative urge that envelops some of our most prominent artists probably overrides their type and masks it - and in many cases their personalities develop in reaction to the prevailing culture of the society that they live in. For that reason I'm inclined to take the type suggestions in the web link with a pinch of salt, though they are revealing when taken as a group rather than individually. Of course we are talking about the rare people who are the artistic greats here, not everyday creativity - but there is often useful stuff to learn about the everyday by looking at the extremes.

The extract consists of selected passages rather than a continuous copy


Thank you so much, John. For link, text and the kind reminder. :)

Restrained.. tame.. I see. I suppose you are right about the judging, each has their unique own way of being creative (not to mention depending on the richness of their personality, what they have gone through, and when concidering what zeitgeist/context they created in)...besides typing..defining.. (I'm a bit careful when I see typing of people who cannot contribute to being typed at all. It's like a lacking and very important perspective in context.)

It's facinating, though, to do so based on viewing artwork rather than using words for a change (and somehow nicer..) Today I was reading again on types, but after a while, the words that were used frustrated me (not to mention that many just quote but don't really seem to be able to do much with it. It somewhat becomes stagnant/liveless, just as re-reading the same words to describe type XY on and on.)
Looking at artwork is much better for a change.. I think it helped me grasp the idea of some types a bit better.. Looking at artwork is somehow more honest or true.. .. I'm not sure.. It is probably not about "[group of typed artists]'s creations look like this".. but rather some "direction" to concider.. :/ I'm lacking better words here.. like.. you know.. let's stay in the "connecting the dots" imagery realm... you'll "decide" which dots get connected and which don't to form the overall picture.. there's a subtle moment of choosing a direction ..

...let's just say the typing in the link can be seen as some kind of illustrative argument... probably/hopefully carefully chosen and picked out. :)

I think for Jung, the creative urge that envelops some of our most prominent artists probably overrides their type and masks it - and in many cases their personalities develop in reaction to the prevailing culture of the society that they live in.

I would double that. There might be still some clues as you said.. in an overall style/expression (though.. well ... it's all already extraverted when you look at the results).. but I'm gonna..I need to look up for the german version as well .. translations are sometimes a bit overwhelming.. a voice masking a voice kind of thing. :neutral:
 
It's facinating, though, to do so based on viewing artwork rather than using words for a change

Yes I agree wholeheartedly with this. Art -> Ni direct !

I need to look up for the german version as well

I'm not sure if there is a German equivalent of the book I'm using in English which was composed from several lecture papers by Jung. The German text of Psychology and Literature see Die Philosophie der Literaturwissenschaft - Ermatinger, Junker and Dunnhaut, Berlin 1929 (this is the reference in my book, but there may well be more accessible German publications)
 
Yes I agree wholeheartedly with this. Art -> Ni direct !



I'm not sure if there is a German equivalent of the book I'm using in English which was composed from several lecture papers by Jung. The German text of Psychology and Literature see Die Philosophie der Literaturwissenschaft - Ermatinger, Junker and Dunnhaut, Berlin 1929 (this is the reference in my book, but there may well be more accessible German publications)

Aww, you are a sweetheart! Thank you :3
 
looking at artwork is much better for a change.. I think it helped me grasp the idea of some types a bit better.. Looking at artwork is somehow more honest or true.. .. I'm not sure.. It is probably not about "[group of typed artists]'s creations look like this".. but rather some "direction" to concider.. :/ I'm lacking better words here.. like.. you know.. let's stay in the "connecting the dots" imagery realm... you'll "decide" which dots get connected and which don't to form the overall picture.. there's a subtle moment of choosing a direction ..

...let's just say the typing in the link can be seen as some kind of illustrative argument... probably/hopefully carefully chosen and picked out. :)

Just thinking a bit more about what you said Impact Character. This is something I feel very strongly about on a much broader level - a lot of the time there's no need to rush as quickly as possible to a fixed conclusion, all pinned down and closed off. It just puts road blocks in our minds and shackles our thinking. Sometimes it's good to just let the material soak in, and like you say "connect the dots" to see what may emerge - and maybe try different ways of connecting the dots, and enjoy the whole process, before letting the direction find itself and carry us with it. Time enough to backtrack and pin it all down more firmly when we feel we've got a stable overall idea of what's going on. Closing down too quickly will cut off any further possibilities - I use to hate it at work when the STJs sometimes just shut everything down like that, though normally there'd be a good balance between insight, possibilities and action.
 
Just thinking a bit more about what you said Impact Character. This is something I feel very strongly about on a much broader level - a lot of the time there's no need to rush as quickly as possible to a fixed conclusion, all pinned down and closed off. It just puts road blocks in our minds and shackles our thinking. Sometimes it's good to just let the material soak in, and like you say "connect the dots" to see what may emerge - and maybe try different ways of connecting the dots, and enjoy the whole process, before letting the direction find itself and carry us with it. Time enough to backtrack and pin it all down more firmly when we feel we've got a stable overall idea of what's going on. Closing down too quickly will cut off any further possibilities - I use to hate it at work when the STJs sometimes just shut everything down like that, though normally there'd be a good balance between insight, possibilities and action.

Yes... tell me about broader level.. let's say we were talking about life or life choices.. your post still reads perfectly.
On my research today I also came across how the inner process of IxxP differs from the IXXJ..
  • IxxP: imposing inner agendas or rules on themselves, expanding and actually getting sidetracked or distracted and then coming to a conclusing.. while..
  • IxxJ: procrastinate, let it emerge organically, spontanious and not intentionally, while some part is narrowing it down or getting closer and then have a sudden feel compelled to do something..
..and how INFJs for example sometimes would like to be able to "jump-start" this process like IxxP types are capable of. I still think Ni can be very frustrating sometimes and that is probably an example to highjack with a forced cut off or directional push.

Whereas.. (talking art again) switching media/language/devices/etc. can actually be quite enriching way of further different approaches on dot connecting. Some things work better with words, some pieces with colors or light.. and so on and so forth.. if being not understood in the world means seeing the worth/Sinn in broadening the "connecting dots tools".. something good might come out of it.. but you know.. until then.. it's white noise.
 
Last edited:
Some things work better with words, some pieces with colors or light.. and so on and so forth.. if being not understood in the world means seeing the worth/Sinn in broadening the "connecting dots tools".. something good might come out of it.. but you know.. until then.. it's white noise.

This is a good summary of what I try to strive towards personally
 
Yes... tell me about broader level.. let's say we were talking about life or life choices.. your post still reads perfectly.
On my research today I also came across how the inner process of IxxP differs from the IXXJ..
  • IxxP: imposing inner agendas or rules on themselves, expanding and actually getting sidetracked or distracted and then coming to a conclusing.. while..
  • IxxJ: procrastinate, let it emerge organically, spontanious and not intentionally, while some part is narrowing it down or getting closer and then have a sudden feel compelled to do something..
..and how INFJs for example sometimes would like to be able to "jump-start" this process like IxxP types are capable of. I still think Ni can be very frustrating sometimes and that is probably an example to highjack with a forced cut off or directional push.

Whereas.. (talking art again) switching media/language/devices/etc. can actually be quite enriching way of further different approaches on dot connecting. Some things work better with words, some pieces with colors or light.. and so on and so forth.. if being not understood in the world means seeing the worth/Sinn in broadening the "connecting dots tools".. something good might come out of it.. but you know.. until then.. it's white noise.

If you haven't already found them, you might find some of the threads about Ni appeal to you. I've copied a link to a description of Ni as it hits me (at the risk of boring everyone who's seen it before ;)) but the whole thread is very interesting so don't just look at my post. There are several more threads on similar themes. I think you've found yourself a good home here in the Forum :)
2018-10-13-green-heart-gif.45254


giphy.gif


For me Ni is a perception and seeing is a good metaphor for it. It isn't expressed in words - I have to turn to one of the other functions to do that.

In analogy, it's as if I have an image of a landscape in my mind - it's all there but I'm more consciously aware of some parts of it than others. It's whole and self-consistent and has a deep sense of meaning and rightness. I can look around it just like you can focus visually on different parts of a real landscape that is partly in sunlight, partly in shadow. I can't describe it to anyone else very easily. I know what I mean, but not in words - to put it into words is like translating a novel into a foreign language and it's frustrating because it's hard to make it sound quite right. I'm using Ni now to see itself and it's quite hard because I'm filtering it through Ti (I think) to write this. Another way of looking at it - imagine you are standing on top of a (real) hill, overlooking a (real) wide landscape full of features, and being asked to describe it in detail to someone who can't see it.

Of course (going back to the analogy) usually I'll just bring out a relevant bit of it for you, like the rock in the middle of the GIF - but I can see the whole thing and hear the waves and feel the wind on my face and smell the salt sea, and see the light flashing in the lighthouse, and you can't so you often don't get it, which is frustrating. If you are unlucky, I'll then set off on a long, ill-prepared Ti ramble around the whole vision that'll lose you quickly. I find it so refreshing when I can talk to people who think in the same way as me and who can pick up the picture from a few hints and details. A strange thing though - I learn so much more about this inner vision when I do have to put it into effective words. The vision feeds on this and I develop and see more of the landscape's features and inner consistency that way.

It's non-judgemental. Sticking with the analogy - If you tell me that isn't a lighthouse in the GIF but a spaceship and we are looking at a view on an alien planet, I might jibe a bit at first and go a bit passive aggressive with you. In my view I'm on earth looking at an ordinary seascape that is quite self-consistent and I'm pretty invested in it. On the other hand, if I'm curious, or I don't want to upset you, and you have a consistent and interesting alternative viewpoint, then I may happily create a completely new vision in my head around that theme. If I do that then I won't bin the old one, I'll keep them both and swap between them as it suits me. It doesn't really bother me that there are two incompatible world views there - I'll have a preferred one, but that's all it is and I can live with either or both. I can have quite a few of these alternative world views in my head and I love context-shifting between them.

@JennyDaniella is so right about the beauty that Ni can bring - it can be as though you yourself are actually part of a sunset, not just a spectator. This sort of feeling sometimes just creeps up, but sometimes it can take me by surprise, and when it does it's as if it was happening again for the first time - the feeling can be stunning!
 
If you haven't already found them, you might find some of the threads about Ni appeal to you. I've copied a link to a description of Ni as it hits me (at the risk of boring everyone who's seen it before ;)) but the whole thread is very interesting so don't just look at my post. There are several more threads on similar themes. I think you've found yourself a good home here in the Forum :)
2018-10-13-green-heart-gif.45254

Thank you! Is the thread by any chance "So what does Ni look like for you guys?" I get a bit lost in the forum (sometimes can't even find my own threads which is embarassing.)
. when I came here it was some kind of sudden pull ...
2018-10-13-green-heart-gif.45254
thank you and the others for having me.
 
Thank you! Is the thread by any chance "So what does Ni look like for you guys?" I get a bit lost in the forum (sometimes can't even find my own threads which is embarassing.)
. when I came here it was some kind of sudden pull ...
2018-10-13-green-heart-gif.45254
thank you and the others for having me.
Yes that’s the one- it should take you to that thread if you click on the little arrow next to “JohnK said: “
 
Yes that’s the one- it should take you to that thread if you click on the little arrow next to “JohnK said: “

ohhh! I've never noticed the small arrow before! lol gosh.. welp.. this will make things easier.. ö.ö