Considering various combinations of the three parts of each information aspect/element makes sense when you're trying to understand each of those parts and how each of the information aspects/elements is different from the others.
You can compare/contrast in two ways. First of all, you can take out one part and pair up the information aspects/elements based on what's left. Here's the breakdown of which pairs match up if you take out each of the following:
- Internal vs. External
[list:4591ae9e0d] - Ne and Se
- Te and Fe
- Ni and Si
- Ti and Fi
[*]Static vs. Dynamic (I haven't put much thought into any of these except Te and Se, because it comes up so frequently here)
- Te and Se
- Fe and Ne
- Ti and Si
- Fi and Ni
[*]Objects vs. Fields
- Te and Si
- Fe and Ni
- Se and Ti
- Ne and Fi
[/list:u:4591ae9e0d]
Secondly, you can look at what's left once you take out one similar aspect in Fe/Fi, Te/Ti, Se/Si, and Ne/Ni. For example, Fe vs. Fi:
- Comparing similarities between Fe and Fi is more difficult because the only thing that's the same is that they're both internal. (I think a lot of what people attribute to "Fe values" is actually Ti values.) This is why it's easier to compare the differences between Fe and Fi than the similarities.
Fe: dynamics of objects (internal)
Fi: statics of fields (internal)
"Statics of fields" can be read "states of relationships" or "stationary connections".
"Dynamics of objects" can be read "activity of people/things" or "actions of people/things".
Overall, I generally find it easiest to take out the internal/external part and then match up what's left. From that point you can see how information aspects/elements in each pairs are different based on the internal/external part of them.