1. ## Pi/Pe and Ji/Je

Those are some ideas I've been trying to put into words for a while. And I want feedback on it. Only constructive criticism counts.

external - directly observable, traceable, explicit, white box - what's going on inside is known
internal - implicit, indirect, black box - what's going on inside is modeled based on explicit clues

Pi - dynamics of fields
Pe - statics of bodies
Ji - statics of fields
Je - dynamics of bodies

Pi and Pe, Ji and Je

Ji - statics of fields, Je - dynamics of objects. Imagine objects - people, cars, ants, dots, whatever works for you - moving. Observe them so that you can see their routes. There might be explicitly defined paths - streets make the best analogy - which imply the tracks of individuals, in so far as they wish to move, of course. There might also be freely moving between various destinations, and leaving tracks upon tracks - create paths. So, Ji might imply Je, or Je might imply Ji.

When we consider Ji to be explicit, the movement within its bounds is obviously implied by it. Ji -> Je is the same as saying Ji is external (explicit) and Je is internal (implicit). This is Ti/Fe. Looking at it differently, we can see the movements themselves imply paths, consider them an anchor - now it is Je -> Ji, Je is explicit, Ji is implicit - Te/Fi. Most information doesn't fall clearly under one or the other category, but can be viewed as either - and which model is better able to address it depends on specifics.

Pi - dynamics of fields, Pe - statics of fields. This one deals with an entirely different type of information. We are no longer dealing with objects moving within a static system, we're dealing with a dynamic system - and static points. It's easier to name that dynamic system context, or perspective, which can imply something about what you put into it, or be altered by it. Another way is to imagine a picture with a missing - or replaced - element (its size is irrelevant), and one consisting only of some elements from it. Completing both, the former is "what does this picture say about the replaced element" sort of guess, the latter - "what kind of picture do these suggest".

When context changes the perception, exposes hidden qualities of something, it's Pi implying Pe, external Pi and internal Pe, Si/Ne. On the other hand, when the context itself is affected - changed - by a thing placed in it - then Pe implies Pi, Se/Ni. As with rational elements, one and the same piece of information can be looked at either way, though not always with equal results.

It seems odd and asymmetrical for Si to imply Ne, but for Ne never to imply Si - so I tried to find ways to make it work, especially in context of duality, for elements to compliment each other. And it does work in many ways, except it does nothing to prevent one being "an anchor", as labcoat calls it - when we try to reverse it, and consider Ne to imply Si, that is, Pe -> Pi, we end up with Se/Ni, as what is implied may become the implying, but the implication is still one-directional. The difference between pairs of rational/irrational elements lies precisely in the direction the implication is taking; it's this very perspective that defines them. Nothing else is needed.

All types use all functions might be an overused phrase, but it actually works, as a way information is presented, or sometimes even the nature of information itself, may enforce one way of looking at it. We're by no means incapable of dealing with it the other way, but it feels unnatural - and so a person will usually try to "make sense of it", that is, translate it into the terms they're more familiar with. Force-fitting what was never meant to be explicit (or implicit) into such categories obviously results in a twisted depiction of it, which is likely to be negative, essentially seen as a poor use or misuse of the person's valued approach, rather than in any understanding of the devalued one.

For example, Ne/Si might consider perception of an object as arising from combining contextualized views of it (Pi -> Pe), and reject an idea of a direct perception (Se). They may try to "make sense" of Se by translating it into their terms, like saying it's taking one contextualized perspective for granted, a worse use of the same process as Si/Ne - rather than considering it an entirely different one, where context itself, a unifying perspective, is derived (Ni > Si), and influenced by a perception of an object more than it affects it (Pe -> Pi).

2. It seems odd and asymmetrical for Si to imply Ne, but for Ne never to imply Si - so I tried to find ways to make it work, especially in context of duality, for elements to compliment each other. And it does work in many ways, except it does nothing to prevent one being "an anchor", as labcoat calls it - when we try to reverse it, and consider Ne to imply Si, that is, Pe -> Pi, we end up with Se/Ni, as what is implied may become the implying, but the implication is still one-directional. The difference between pairs of rational/irrational elements lies precisely in the direction the implication is taking; it's this very perspective that defines them. Nothing else is needed.
I like the idea that the direction of the implication, i.e. the distribution of the "anchor" role between the functions, is what solely defines the nature of the function axes.

For example, Ne/Si might consider perception of an object as arising from combining contextualized views of it (Pi -> Pe), and reject an idea of a direct perception (Se). They may try to "make sense" of Se by translating it into their terms, like saying it's taking one contextualized perspective for granted, a worse use of the same process as Si/Ne - rather than considering it an entirely different one, where context itself, a unifying perspective, is derived (Ni > Si), and influenced by a perception of an object more than it affects it (Pe -> Pi).
I mainly see a problem with the way "perception" implies the involvement of a perspective (i.e. things are always seen from somewhere), whereas Se pretends to being perspective independent. There is a gap between the two. Bridging the gap in a quick and dirty way, the way Se types like to do (if we may believe the stories about their being assertive and quick to react to things) involves some inference mechanism that is far more complex than just "perceiving". In as far as "perception" just means passively registering information received from a certain perspective, i.e. not removing the perspective dependence from the information, I am more inclined to associate the process with the Si function. I think this is not in conflict with your view of Si as a "holistic" process, because perception is itself a holistic process relative to objects in the world. It involves taking in perspectival information that drops hints about many, many objects at any time (i.e. a perceived scene always contains many individually depicted objects, but at the same time does not contain enough information to infer their exact definition; i.e. a perceived circle can be both a cylinder and a sphere).

3. My brain hurts.

Originally Posted by Aiss
All types use all functions might be an overused phrase, but it actually works, as a way information is presented, or sometimes even the nature of information itself, may enforce one way of looking at it. We're by no means incapable of dealing with it the other way, but it feels unnatural - and so a person will usually try to "make sense of it", that is, translate it into the terms they're more familiar with. Force-fitting what was never meant to be explicit (or implicit) into such categories obviously results in a twisted depiction of it, which is likely to be negative, essentially seen as a poor use or misuse of the person's valued approach, rather than in any understanding of the devalued one.
I agree with this though.

As to the rest of your post, what is the main point (needs an abstract)? I understand the concept of bodies and fields enough to keep up, but I don't know where you're going. Are you just making your own interpretation? Or is there a bigger picture?

4. Originally Posted by Aiss
external - directly observable, traceable, explicit, white box - what's going on inside is known
internal - implicit, indirect, black box - what's going on inside is modeled based on explicit clues
This, even though I think I'd define them rather similarly and in some places differently, seems to me to apply to the difference between extroverted and introverted IMs, that is, at least the terms of external and internal (ie. feast your eyes on Fe's "external emotions and observable social cues" more visible to the extrovert, and look deeper for Fi's "internal emotions and introspective ethics" more easily manifested by the introvert.) The more difficult part is defining rationality and irrationality in terms of information elements, because obviously temperament "look-alikes" seem to have many things in common often, though I think judging and perception is a good start. I'm fully aware of the original meanings though, so sorry to "change" the subject--just giving you my long-standing thoughts about this.

Edit: also, there seems to be other layers to this, so Ne for example wouldn't be home to all extroverts, just one of the four externally visible mindsets/lifestyles, you'd automatically assume one is an extrovert if he/she uses this skillfully and successfully. I just don't know how to "categorize" these well, aside from the eight already known IMs.

5. Originally Posted by labcoat
I mainly see a problem with the way "perception" implies the involvement of a perspective (i.e. things are always seen from somewhere), whereas Se pretends to being perspective independent. There is a gap between the two. Bridging the gap in a quick and dirty way, the way Se types like to do (if we may believe the stories about their being assertive and quick to react to things) involves some inference mechanism that is far more complex than just "perceiving". In as far as "perception" just means passively registering information received from a certain perspective, i.e. not removing the perspective dependence from the information, I am more inclined to associate the process with the Si function. I think this is not in conflict with your view of Si as a "holistic" process, because perception is itself a holistic process relative to objects in the world. It involves taking in perspectival information that drops hints about many, many objects at any time (i.e. a perceived scene always contains many individually depicted objects, but at the same time does not contain enough information to infer their exact definition; i.e. a perceived circle can be both a cylinder and a sphere).
Do Ti/Fe and Te/Fi as described here make sense to you?

Originally Posted by polikujm
This, even though I think I'd define them rather similarly and in some places differently, seems to me to apply to the difference between extroverted and introverted IMs, that is, at least the terms of external and internal (ie. feast your eyes on Fe's "external emotions and observable social cues" more visible to the extrovert, and look deeper for Fi's "internal emotions and introspective ethics" more easily manifested by the introvert.) The more difficult part is defining rationality and irrationality in terms of information elements, because obviously temperament "look-alikes" seem to have many things in common often, though I think judging and perception is a good start. I'm fully aware of the original meanings though, so sorry to "change" the subject--just giving you my long-standing thoughts about this.

Edit: also, there seems to be other layers to this, so Ne for example wouldn't be home to all extroverts, just one of the four externally visible mindsets/lifestyles, you'd automatically assume one is an extrovert if he/she uses this skillfully and successfully. I just don't know how to "categorize" these well, aside from the eight already known IMs.
The way I see it, Fe is on the internal, "black box" side of things. You don't perceive others' emotions directly the same way you can see their actions - it's implicit, a "what's going on inside this person at the moment" kind of guess. In this way it seems very much like I understand internal/external. Fi in this case would be "what those people's actions say about their relation and feelings towards each other", kinda. It's nearly impossible to make relations between people explicit () - they're almost always too complicated to be entirely covered by a category, unique in comparison to every other relation of the kind. This is the kind of specific information I mentioned earlier, clearly matching one set of values over the other.

I agree about the terms of internal and external themselves, though. They seem to be more intuitively applicable to inside and outside of self, rather than to a focus on internal (hidden) or external (visible on the surface) qualities, especially as the latter doesn't really make this good a comparison - like Ti is inner, complex, hardly "superficial" - just overt, explicit.

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
As to the rest of your post, what is the main point (needs an abstract)? I understand the concept of bodies and fields enough to keep up, but I don't know where you're going. Are you just making your own interpretation? Or is there a bigger picture?
The main point is, for me, understanding of sets of values, of complementary information, beyond keywords referring to practical focus, such as relations, emotions, health, time etc. Not sure what's unclear about it.

Originally Posted by ananke
Are you saying that external functions are more active, while internal ones are more passive? (That external -- > internal?) If so, does it not also mean that the internal functions are more dependent on external ones than the external are on internal? (And that again would mean that if we go by model A, some types would need their duals more than their duals will need them, so model A is out. If you go by the "all types have all functions" (Jung's opinion), then it makes more sense, but is still discriminating the types, in ways.)
Yes and no. That's what I was attempting to address by saying that making one an explicit anchor doesn't affect duality, or otherwise breaks the theory. The pairs describe more how information aspects are locked together; this doesn't change that both implicit or explicit irrational (same for rational) elements are strong in every type. Internal information may be implied by external information, but "strong" element means focus on what is implicit or explicit.

In other words, for External types to have an advantage, you'd have to assume that since they are more focused on explicit information, they derive more implicit information from it - but the latter is only dealt with by weak functions, while strong internal elements are very much focused on it over the former. So we end up with Ni thriving when information is scarce, Ne focusing on potential, etc., all internal elements not having to consciously consider every explicit information which implies it. To focus on the implicit, you need to take attention from the explicit, and vice versa. To have the matching information provided for you allows the comfort of not having to take care of that, to both internal and external egos. It isn't like "can't get any implicit information unless you give me explicit input to work on", nor are external types without need for internal information, which they are about as good at getting as internal types are at getting explicit information.

I've never seen labcoat call these functions "anchors", but I like the idea. It fits neatly into something I have been observing for a while, when comparing Deltas way of working in teams to Betas way of working in teams. If you combine external as anchor for internal, with static as fundament for dynamic, you can actually describe the difference between Beta and Delta aristocracies, and despite being too lazy at the moment to think through if it also explains Alpha and Gamma democracies, I see that the anchor idea at least explains why Alpha and Gamma are democracies while Beta and Delta are aristocracies.
I've been thinking of Beta/Delta in these terms as well. Another interesting aspect to it is abstract/involved dichotomy... it seems somehow less obvious than internal/external, but I think it may help a lot, especially comparing Alpha and Gamma.

6. Originally Posted by Aiss

The main point is, for me, understanding of sets of values, of complementary information, beyond keywords referring to practical focus, such as relations, emotions, health, time etc. Not sure what's unclear about it.
I just can't take in huge chunks of information because the point is hard to make out. I need to know the purpose so I can process information and make sense of it.

7. Oh well yea I understand that. Internal elements stem from external ones(speaking of bodies/fields here). Is that all?

8. Originally Posted by Aiss
he way I see it, Fe is on the internal, "black box" side of things. You don't perceive others' emotions directly the same way you can see their actions - it's implicit, a "what's going on inside this person at the moment" kind of guess. In this way it seems very much like I understand internal/external. Fi in this case would be "what those people's actions say about their relation and feelings towards each other", kinda. It's nearly impossible to make relations between people explicit () - they're almost always too complicated to be entirely covered by a category, unique in comparison to every other relation of the kind. This is the kind of specific information I mentioned earlier, clearly matching one set of values over the other.

I agree about the terms of internal and external themselves, though. They seem to be more intuitively applicable to inside and outside of self, rather than to a focus on internal (hidden) or external (visible on the surface) qualities, especially as the latter doesn't really make this good a comparison - like Ti is inner, complex, hardly "superficial" - just overt, explicit.
I tend to see this categorization of internal and external as rather limited, where the meaning of such is admittedly too vague, where as Fe as external and Fi as internal seems much more true to the intertype relationship side of things. I can see where either information element could be catching onto relationships, or either information element could take into consideration someone's feelings, but its obvious to me these perceptions come from opposite directional sources from one another, and this is where Fe people can mistype themselves as Fi, or visa versa (not being conscious enough of the other type, categorizing and separating even within their realm, ie. an Fe dominant, Fi ignoring type may consider typing an SLE instead as SLI, because there is no sign of attentiveness to other's emotions, or an IEI may type themselves as Fi because they either currently pay a lot of attention to relationships, confuse their emotional observations for Fi, might have trouble relating to certain people, aren't very expressive on the whole, unconscious of others' actual Fi signs, and unaware that their method of extroverted communication is Fe-related, etc). Where I see the main difference is Fe being more about the broadly reaching, externally applicable and realistic manifestation of ethics and emotional connections, and Fi the deeper and more inexpressible, more personal, introverted emotional connections. As for F, I'm not talking about logic, but emotion. Ti seems to me like the deeper and more inexpressible, introverted "logic" similar to things clicking and "aha moments," and Te accustomed to descriptive examples of facts or more detailed and exact assurances. Extroversion - not able to cause as much ambiguity or confusion, to easily make the connection to the outside--with that not being thought as deeply or internally.

I tend to see Fi types focusing more on special relationships with people, because it comes about more as a significant nostalgic emotional reminder, rather than a situational stimulation or opportunity to "join in" or "influence" the emotional current. Instead of the words implicit and explicit for I/E, I'd use "difficult to communicate due to depth", versus "easily communicable, easy to externalize," however while realizing that ie. an Fe-PoLR doesn't have as much trouble communicating Fe than he/she does Fi (even though we are often rather unaware that we're having trouble communicating emotionally due to the lack of account for Fe in comparison to our definition of emotion). The trouble of Fe-PoLR lies in the lack of focus and ineptness, where the thought of communication of this function doesn't occur, as to me it's already defined as externalized. Compared to an Fi-HA however, Fi doms seem to know better what is able to be worth communicating. The same goes for IEIs and having more trouble with the process of communicating Ti than Te, where Te is ignored and what logical process left seems highly abstract and personal.

9. I think I simplified it:

Ti - The observable relationship between the essence of things in existence
Fe - The implications due to the observable relationship of things in existence
Te - The occurances of things in existence
Fi - The causes and effects of the occurances of things in existence

Se - The static states of concrete existence
Ni - The dynamic abstract path between concrete states of existence
Si - The dynamic concrete path between abstract states of existence
Ne - The static states of abstract existence

From introspection, I just realized going against my ESE mother's valued Ti/Fe is like a slap in the face, because I ignore my relationship between her and the implications of such(although the latter I could care less for). Also since I value Fi, when I ask for a reason why I should do something, I'm not looking for a direct response. What I'm looking for is the admittance that everything is absurd and that I'm not obligated to do a damn thing; that the only reason why I should do anything is because of the causes and effects, which have no real objective worth, but are weighed by subjective ethics.

10. Based on this I think you can type people quicker by listening to their goals and values.

If they have some broad idea or concept of life that they'd like to achieve they may have Ego.
If they are not sure of what they want, but know how to get it, they may have ego.
If they know what they want but aren't sure of how to achieve it they may have Ego. (P.S. based on this Jimi Hendrix is ILI/IEI; ftw)

Apply the same syntax to the others and you have the concept.

11. Originally Posted by Aiss
external - directly observable, traceable, explicit, white box - what's going on inside is known
internal - implicit, indirect, black box - what's going on inside is modeled based on explicit clues
Certainly.

Hubris aside, do we now agree that, even if the terms "objective/subjective" can more or less be applied to all the the IA dichotomies (Bodies/Fields, Dynamic/Static, External/Internal), it better applies to this one?
---

Internal information reveals aspects of reality that can be seen only by building the big picture, the explicit clues are indeed used, but dismissed as importance - I mean they're not the purpose, but merely a tool. Internal things = speculation over the real things. In fact what do "intuition" and "feeling" or "ethics" tells you?

12. objectivity/subjectivity is a very complicated issue.

Ontological objectivity, objective, externally existing reality as opposed to the phenomenal, experiential, perceptual aggregate, is mostly about contrasting Pe to Pi.

Epistemic objectivity, objective knowledge in the sense of being reducible to articulated sense experience (i.e. empirical proof/evidence), is mostly about contrasting Je to Ji. When too much of a shortcut to Ji is made (i.e. when Ji is valued over Je), epistemic objectivity often suffers.

I don't like the Object/Field dichotomy because it lumps together these two forms of "objectivity", which in my opinion are not really very similar things to begin with.

But... what the real insiders know is that there is a third interpretation of objectivity in socionics.

This is Accepting/Creating. It's arguably one of the more important ones. Accepting is more carnally active and subjectively motivated, while Creating is more like idealistic in it's pursuit of a perspective independent view. This is inherent in the definitions of the terms that I use.

Static/Dynamic is also important in the analysis, but not because either is unambiguously objective or subjective. Their roles are found when one looks at the functions that are Static and Dynamic. Static is ontologically objective, but far removed from epistemic objectivity, so it presents a view that pretends to incorporating all of reality, but the reliability of the data is relatively low. Dynamic is the opposite; it stays close to "the data", so the statements are relatively trustworthy despite presenting a less fully encompassing picture. At the same time, though, they leave a whole string of realities to be deduced from the data. The data is capable of implying a lot.

13. Originally Posted by labcoat
But... what the real insiders know is that there is a third interpretation of objectivity in socionics.

This is Accepting/Creating. It's arguably one of the more important ones. Accepting is more carnally active and subjectively motivated, while Creating is more like idealistic in it's pursuit of a perspective independent view. This is inherent in the definitions of the terms that I use.
I disagree, I mean it's not the same thing. If you were right, it would be just some objective/subjective attitude over some IE, while we were talking about the objectivity of the very information that constitutes, in the end, an Information Element.

About your matter though, to say that Accepting/Creating functions can be objective/subjective sounds to me like discussing the opinion of the brain cells, it's not even applicable. Even if as a whole we have a total number of dichotomies that we use, it's mandatory to distinguish the difference between them. These dichotomies of the Model (I think that they're officially called "function dichotomies") don't deal with data themselves, but a general, non-specific mechanism of data processing.

14. I would sooner reject object/field's influence on objectivity/subjectivity than that of Accepting/Creating.

The definition of Accepting/Creating is just exactly that of either being interested in the part of an issue that is directly visible from your perspective OR trying to reconcile perspectives so as to reach a view that is to the maximal extent independent of a perspective.

15. Originally Posted by Bolt
Hubris aside, do we now agree that, even if the terms "objective/subjective" can more or less be applied to all the the IA dichotomies (Bodies/Fields, Dynamic/Static, External/Internal), it better applies to this one?
These days I don't think it's really useful for describing any dichotomy, but I disagree that the explicit offers more objectivity than extroverted attitude. Neither do I think it worth arguing as it seems we disagree more on the exact meaning of subjectivity/objectivity than actual IE dichotomies.

What do you think of the rest - pairs of opposing values being determined by the direction of the implication alone?

16. Originally Posted by labcoat
I would sooner reject object/field's influence on objectivity/subjectivity than that of Accepting/Creating.

The definition of Accepting/Creating is just exactly that of either being interested in the part of an issue that is directly visible from your perspective OR trying to reconcile perspectives so as to reach a view that is to the maximal extent independent of a perspective.
Yet Introverts have Field elements as Accepting functions and Bodies elements as Producing functions. I'm not saying it doesn't work, but this forum clearly has a bias towards Introverts when it comes to discussing theory. What of Extroverts, any good example how it works in them?

17. Originally Posted by Aiss
What do you think of the rest - pairs of opposing values being determined by the direction of the implication alone?
You mean by the direction/partition of the External/Internal? If that so, yes, I agree with that. External information "states" that something is the way it is because of the obvious imperative surface of that thing; it's exactly the opposite what the same IA with the inverted Externality concludes. For example, while Si dictates the perception of how a process unfolds mandatorily through direct ("real") experience, Ni does the opposite for the same thing - it evaluates different "similar" scenarios, creating a large but internal (I'd have used "subjective" here, but you don't acknowledge it) perception of how things are going to happen.

18. Originally Posted by Bolt
You mean by the direction/partition of the External/Internal? If that so, yes, I agree with that. External information "states" that something is the way it is because of the obvious imperative surface of that thing; it's exactly the opposite what the same IA with the inverted Externality concludes. For example, while Si dictates the perception of how a process unfolds mandatorily through direct ("real") experience, Ni does the opposite for the same thing - it evaluates different "similar" scenarios, creating a large but internal (I'd have used "subjective" here, but you don't acknowledge it) perception of how things are going to happen.
I meant what I wrote in original post, about pairs of valued elements. What you describe seems rather like Ni abstracting what Si would experience, deriving some conceptual dynamic model (which I'd say is related to abstract/involved, which you don't acknowledge), than what I suggested was related to internal/external (Si -> Ne, Se -> Ni etc.), but maybe I misunderstand you here.

19. Originally Posted by Aiss
What you describe seems rather like Ni abstracting what Si would experience, deriving some conceptual dynamic model (which I'd say is related to abstract/involved, which you don't acknowledge), than what I suggested was related to internal/external (Si -> Ne, Se -> Ni etc.), but maybe I misunderstand you here.
A bit of clarification on this, just because I don't agree with it - not related to our main issue. That is not Abstract/Involved, it's External/Internal - exactly what you (should) know about it, that is. I see absolutely no connection, apart for the name - your conclusion is an equivocation.
Originally Posted by Aiss
... than what I suggested was related to internal/external (Si -> Ne, Se -> Ni etc.), but maybe I misunderstand you here.
What you enumerate there are not based only on External/Internal, but all the three IA dichotomies. The compatible (Dual) IEs have all these three set in opposite directions.
Originally Posted by Aiss
I meant what I wrote in original post, about pairs of valued elements.
:| Please tell me what do you mean by "pairs of valued elements". You mean Dual functions or the functions that can be paired in a block? I'm further using the Dual thing, that appears to emerge from your post.

Apparently, the whole idea is that compatible IEs imply each other, while as far as I can tell they're actually tolerant to each other, rather than interacting, though they have the same rhythm and can act together. In general Dynamic elements can't work together with Static elements, although Dynamic types work best with Static ones because they complement each other, each deals with things that the other can't, one takes things from where the other leaves them. In real life, information of opposite Dynamicity than their Ego is taken for granted and expected that it won't fail.

In a nutshell, Dynamic types of information is out of the scope of Static types, and the other way around.

off-topic:

I agree with several things, like when you said that Pi is a system. Yes, it's a system that works in a certain way (Dynamic) but it's not actually running or tested (Introverted) - this is where the moment you use such function, you're perceiving things, you're trying to figure out something.

Example: a red button. Not the button itself, but its functionality, it is inherently a such Pi system, it is Dynamic Fields - just the functionality, but no current or past action that someone can refer at (that would be Bodies).

Now, ask a Si Irrational to tell you what's gonna or what's likely to happen when that button is pressed. He/she will look dumb at you and say that he doesn't know. A similar experiment revealed that Capitalist Pig is SLI to me. Si doesn't deal with mental associations, "possibly", "likely", "maybe", because it's External - it needs hard support to process, in general it needs to experience anything. It is a fact that SXIs don't guess, that they naturally don't even try to, you may try this on SXI people that you correctly typed - this is a type-related trait that I'm most certain of.
Ni types, however, immediately start to think, to guess what's that about, to imagine the scenario and find similarities with what they know and clues on what possibilities could there be.

But that's not all. The whole question, apparently the whole issue is dealt with as a red button. The SLI will think that you could maybe tell what's going to happen if you're there, that there are certainly physical clues, he will think about something real although it's a hypothetical situation, while the ILI begins by trying to figure out what's the point of the question in the first place, what's going to happen if he answers or depending on what he answers, even rambling and entering mental games. (these make part of my observations and tests IRL)

(Note that I observed differences between when you specify that you'll ask a test question and it's spontaneous, you just ask that out of the void "say that there's a red button...". It also may depend on the person who asks, as usually such test is not bullet-proof - in general, if you know what to expect from this person and it matches one of the two patterns above, you can pick among Ni and Si easily, if applicable.)