A short summary of the functions in a form of a story. Call them information elements or information aspects instead of functions if you will. My doesn't yet bend around those three concepts and their differences well enough to know which ones I am talking about
Anyways here is the story...
Te: This rock weights 200 pounds. A rock over 100 pounds is defined as being heavy. Thus this rock is a heavy rock. (evaluating the correctness of objectively verifiable logical statements and their logical consequences)
Si: Lifting that rock will hurt your back for sure. (awareness of "inter body" cause and effect relationships)
Se: Let's throw this rock to that fountain to cause a big splash of water. (will to do something and awareness of the direct effect of your actions)
Ni: Throwing the rock could cause the fountain to break, people around it get all wet, someone call the police and us ending up in jail. Keep that in mind. (intuition of consequences, understanding long term cause and effect relations)
Fe: Ending up in jail would make our parents very very angry and our school principal to black list us. (awareness of the emotional effect an event will have on people)
Fi: I love huge splashes a lot but I hate jail even more. And I promised my parents to behave. I definately don't want to be a part of this. (stable subjective value system, moral firmness, loyalty)
Ne: The splash would be like a miniature version of a tsunami caused by a falling asteroid on the pacific ocean. It would be interesting to see. (intuition of conceptualization, awareness of the common abstract qualities of real world objects and phenomenon)
Ti: If any of you will vote for throwing the rock but are against making people wet then your values are contradictory, illogical and wrong. You have to be against both or for both in order to have a consistent value system. (awareness of the logical consistency of a system of thinking)
Then another example to differentiate and .
is the logic of measurable, objective statements. "Black ball weights 5kg", "Blue ball weights 10kg", "Blue ball is heavier than black ball" are statements whose correctness can be objectively verified. As a result is very good at modeling and manipulating objective reality.
is the logic of qualitative, subjective statements. "I am a Christian", "I don't believe in God" are statements. The concepts used are not measurable but instead they are _defined_. As Christianity is defined to include a belief in one God then a statement "I am a Christian but I don't believe in God" is a logical fallacy and untrue. As a result is very good at modeling and manipulating philosophical systems and generally "systems of thinking".
One more example. In logic you may say: "Let's define a cube shaped ball." That creates a system. Now the claim "A ball has eight corners" is true in this particular system.
doesn't work with theoretical systems of thinking. Instead takes a real world object and names that object "a ball". So there is only one system of thinking which is the "reality". tries to make sure that everybody calls the same objects with the same names (i.e. tries to force everyone to use the same system of thinking). From a point of view "a ball" never has eight corners. Instead a ball is round. Any other kind of statement is a logical fallacy.