While this is an idea that is mostly centered on Ni vs Ne, I figured I'd toss in some S functions as well.
Anyway, on the topic of fish
Se: It's a fish . . . why the hell are we talking about a fish?
Si: It was a fish yesterday, it was a fish last week, it was a fish last year. . . . why the hell wouldn't it be a fish next week or next year?
Ne: It's a fish now, but it has genetic traits that could change in subsequent generations. It could grow legs, or it could grow wings, or it could grow a jet engine, or it could grow an electric lightbulb on it's head, or it could grow fingernails out of it's forehead.
Judging function: I suppose the water is going away, so the legs are the best option. . . though perhaps the wings or jet engine might work as well.
Ni: It's a fish, but the water is going away so it better grow some legs fast.
Judging function: Hmm, how could a fish grow legs?
I suppose the differentiation in my opinion would be that Ni sees what something needs to be, where Ne sees all the possibilities of what something could become.
Ni is limited to a functional answer to a problem. . . . but not necessarily the best answer. Judging fuctions then figure out the best way to enact the functional answer that Ni saw.
Ne sees all the possible things that could happen, but then has to figure out which of those possibilities are functional . . . . and then which one is the best choice.
Any criticism?
Anyway, on the topic of fish
Se: It's a fish . . . why the hell are we talking about a fish?
Si: It was a fish yesterday, it was a fish last week, it was a fish last year. . . . why the hell wouldn't it be a fish next week or next year?
Ne: It's a fish now, but it has genetic traits that could change in subsequent generations. It could grow legs, or it could grow wings, or it could grow a jet engine, or it could grow an electric lightbulb on it's head, or it could grow fingernails out of it's forehead.
Judging function: I suppose the water is going away, so the legs are the best option. . . though perhaps the wings or jet engine might work as well.
Ni: It's a fish, but the water is going away so it better grow some legs fast.
Judging function: Hmm, how could a fish grow legs?
I suppose the differentiation in my opinion would be that Ni sees what something needs to be, where Ne sees all the possibilities of what something could become.
Ni is limited to a functional answer to a problem. . . . but not necessarily the best answer. Judging fuctions then figure out the best way to enact the functional answer that Ni saw.
Ne sees all the possible things that could happen, but then has to figure out which of those possibilities are functional . . . . and then which one is the best choice.
Any criticism?