In my personality, Ti and Ne are constantly at war for my identity. Fe EM firmly focuses my Ne on exciting, fantastic situations. Had I been born a dominant subtype, I would have probably become a fiction writer. I can process fictional decisions, behaviors, and outcomes using Ni EM in the context of Ne. As a kid I would often put myself "into the context" of a video game by accepting its rules and even its intonation. I enjoyed belaboring myself to make sense of Final Fantasy IV's (II U.S.) script, in particular.
I can remember something that someone else said and replicate it with perfect intonation, to the extent that my voice will allow. I used to hum video game music, and not just the melodies either. I would dilate my voice to perform every tone I could manage, synthesizing base, percussion, and every other accompaniment with my larynx.
On the other side is Ti. Ti is very serious. I can recognize an emotional expression or sentiments and, using Si and Ni EM in alternation, match it to an expected behavioral response. However this response must be figured according to a rule, and Ti is the keeper and maintainer of that rulebook. Mostly though, I use Ti to write the book because past people with traits similar to mine chose never to make their books publicly available. But once the book is written, I can match an emotional response to an existing behavioral object definition ("type") -- argumentative responses are less clear because emotions may be withheld during an argument and the lack for those indicators can make it difficult to distinguish between one sentiment or another. This in turn makes behavioral predication difficult. (which is why I'm not that great at typing people).
Ne is like to take Ti's categories and the implications for the people who are in them, and ask "what can we do with it?" Ne is content to throw the rulebook out the window and imagine impractical solutions to the problems posed by the existence of the rules. I've always been somewhat of a change-oriented person -- I am socially progressive with an essentially anarchic and chaotic core.... The chaotic preference strongly bias my Ne towards "rule breaking" in a way that Ti will not permit. Often when using Ne, I will not remember all the rules and as such, will not be able to see how the rules invalidate an imagined solution. Because of this, my Ne just isn't very socially viable. It's like it does not have a sense of the impossible, only the possible, and because of that it cannot see where the impractical makes the possible unrealizable. Just because something could be achieved, doesn't mean it is safe to or doable with current technology or available resources. My ideas, as such, have little value.
I actually find relatively little use for either of my ego EM functions. A fiction writer, I suppose, could use my work as a base from which to make characters, and others could use it as a guide by which to assess a person's behavioral potential. A prosecutor, for example, feels that much more justified in recommending a harsh sentence when they feel that the perpetrator is beyond help. (and prosecute is, in fact, exactly what ESE-IEI does, as Fe(S)-Ni(F) is the judge of acceptable vs unacceptable behavior). Because I am removed from those who are judged, their crimes seem abstract and their situations sympathetic. Really, I can't blame anyone for denying the permanence of potential... it implies the possibility that nothing short of medical intervention can change behavior. The whole positivism movement has generally gained steam in popular culture because people like to deny things about them that are either negative or perceived as such by others. In my view, positivism is an enemy of any who would make a career of helping people understand the non-malleable aspects of personality. I would share their sentiments except, it seems logically incoherent to deny knowledge just so the worst of mankind can feel better about themselves. The positivist talks about how their patients need to be taught they can change, but then they don't see first hand the emotional wreckage that the leave around them. Or, maybe they don't care or, maybe, they are delusional themselves.
And yet, I myself often try to appeal to the "good" in people who I know see too much peace around them and try to stir the pot just to appreciate the "high" of it. I guess it's for those faint glimmers when they doubt themselves, and they begin to ask themselves if maybe they are wrong after all? And you just want to imagine that some way, some how, they can break free of the pitiful mechanations of their mind. Then they try to lure me into their little mind frame, and I feel their insanity. The worst is when dealing with anarchists, completely chaos-oriented people. Because then I get the sense that they are trying to change me, and that they will go to any lengths to do it. At one moment I feel afraid, and then I feel the pressure to make a decision: do I submit, run, or attack? I've attacked before... and in my experience the only thing that seems certain is that they will take me down with them. Even feigning submission is dangerous... it qualifies as embarrassment. I guess I could walk away, but it never feels like walking, only running. Their very existence, their intransigence and willingness to hurt unreasonable people, is scary. Every historical tragedy in history starts with them. I wish they would avoid me, but they choose not to. It's really though, what scares me about them, is the memory of what people like them have done in the past. I see the likes of Michael Moore, who is literally trying to take over the Democratic Party at this point by convincing people not to vote (despite the good sense of the health care reform package overall)... and I see the triumph of the radical Right being sowed by a person who supposedly despises it. What to make of such a person who "can't play well with others"? And of course he's fanned the flames of 9/11, casting doubt on Bin Laden's innocence... it's not what he says but what he does: he gets the crazies together, unites them under his banner. And that's scary to me, when all of a sudden the crazies are not rallying to beat the people they both disagree with and feel no affinity towards... but instead are punishing people whom they do feel an affinity towards because those people represent an obstacle to their power. But it just goes to show that they don't really feel an affinity, because they could never give themselves the whole way to the spirit of individuation, nor even believe in it. It's something optional for them, and I find that very scary. I certainly would never put trust in a person, and if it were in my ability I would sit Mr. Moore down for a psychiatric evaluation and if he didn't pass, commit him, because people who are that overconfident in themselves can be dangerous if allowed to reach a sympathetic audience.
But I'm not in that position and even if I were, it's not likely I would be able to make money from it. So instead I try to push my personality to their limits, using them to developing many different type theories in various directions. For example, I've got a theory of social castes, which are shaped by a person's willingness to give others their attention and their affinity for specific emotions and problem solving styles. I've also got dual-type theory, of course, which is clearly definable in terms of Fi and Ne EM: the motivation shapes the potential. The caste theory describes willingness to earn status as a factor of having specific motivations (Te/Fi aspect synchrony), with physical attraction as the reverse side of the synchrony. I anchor the whole system on Ni and Fe as a system of static personality traits.
Increasingly I've begun to think that maybe these two worlds, the serious Ti world and the exciting epic of Ne, are best used together. And if they are, then what I will create is something akin to not just a socialized coping, but an actual self-willed evolution of mankind, because that's exactly where all these theories -- immanence, dual-type theory, and the caste theory -- that's exactly where they point, in the direction of a will to create new technologies that eliminate immanence altogether and purge tragedy from mankind. And there's the danger, in that we don't know how, without originators of violence in the world, how we will react. Do we need people trying to control us? To kill us? It's a meaningful question that our ethics probably compels us to answer....
Seeing as people have shadows of apparently psychotic (even psychopathic) disposition, there is a need to feel a sense of triumph through destruction of a threat. To live in a peaceful world, man will need an outlet by which he can feel some kind of tangible threat, or belief in such threat, such that he can overcome it. It's a problem a man's problem-oriented nature -- if he does not have a problem, he will create one; if there is no crisis he will make one; if there is proof, he will deny it; and if there is civility, he will choose to destroy it. And all so that he has an opportunity to feel excitement. All these things are distractions from the endless threat that is posed by nature, especially to his legacy, to his children's children's children... but we have difficulty finding excitement, most of us, in conquering nature. No, it feels much better to conquer another person who you dislike in some way, for better or worse, even if you only have a feeling of regret in the end.
But I was thinking the other day about how with the health care issue finally out of the way (for a while) the people of the U.S. have a much smaller slate of problems to deal with than before. The biggest one (other than the temporary situation of job scarcity) is global warming. The world's getting hotter, and it's not going to be getting any cooler for the foreseeable future. In the absence of a technology to cool it down (the development of which cannot be relied on), future generations are at ever increasing risk against the phenomena. I don't think it's really sunk in yet that global warming doesn't have an obvious remedy... and the fact that the people who think it's a threat are the people doesn't seem to bother the conservatives. It's like they fail to understand that the people who they think are going to save them are quite convinced that there is nothing they can do. But the more immediate threat of global warming is as a complicating factor in the midst of population explosion. By the end of this century we will be at about 13 billion people, according to (so far reliable) estimates. Many of whom will live in East Asia, a rapidly industrializing region. Their resource expenditures will be tremendous -- not double, quadruple what we have today. And that's the end of the century, after which is followed another century. These aren't abstract figures, folks -- these are your grandchildren, and their children, and grandchildren! And we'll have many of the same problems we have today, only magnified!
So, I think that mankind's self evolution will come about as a necessity, rather than a choice. And I do think that that's where type comes into the picture, as a rock of stability and coherency in a world where conditions become progressively more extreme. War will vanish because the risk of allowing warriors to live is greater than the cost (emotional or otherwise) of their destruction/proscription from being born. Of course, Christianity will be in the way of that, with its anti-abortion thing, and by that time no doubt the evangelicals will be trying to say that the delusional are appointed by God or some such nonsense. But, that's the idea: because only radical conservatives are anti-abortion evangelicals, evangelism will disappear with them. The real problem is not the elimination of immanence, but the people who are not immanent at all but simply deluded. They use the discordant immanents as their tools, and so will not be happy to see them go/cured. They are exceedingly dangerous and will continue to make our lives interesting, at least until they, too are proscribed from existence in numbers enough as to become mostly irrelevant.
I think that freedom will decline overall as efficiency becomes more important, though I don't think it will matter because their jobs will perfectly satisfy their motivations. Populations will be preplanned and personality predetermined at conception, so as to fit expected production needs. Entrepreneurship will be a responsibility, rather than a choice, and will carry neither the same level of risk or reward that it does today. Then as now, people will prefer to think in terms of socionics functions rather than brain regions, just as psychologists do today. I actually expect that attitudes towards entrepreneurship will change rather soon, perhaps in the next 20 years. Politics will also become a thing of the past -- with delusion gone, conservatives and liberals will no longer fear each other nor deny one another's arguments. The same will hold true for reformers and traditionalists. Representative government will disappear because there will be little likelihood of disagreement. The nations of the future will be utopian and, although not impoverished, highly egalitarian and expertly managed in the face of increasingly intensifying environmental issues.
I do think that the era of scarcity will eventually end, probably when terraforming techonology is developed for colonizing other worlds. I imagine earth's nations would have to become more or less unified under one government for that to happen, however.