Need for clarification on Ni, Te

[tcaudilllg]

Alright, first off I'd like to state my understanding of these functions as I see them now.

: collective priorities: "We've got to work together to succeed. We want to accomplish this. They are trying to do this. They want this. They think this." Compare individiual priorities: "I want to get this done. I need to do this. I think this." Object vs. subject.


"These are interrelated like this."


Now, what other people seem to think:

"This costs this much. This is a fact." Those two statements seem to have nothing at all to do with each other. Augusta defines it as external statics of objects, which is kind of unclear. Rather than being "fact based", external statics of objects seems to imply the recognition of a definite disposition. Perhaps I am miscorrelating these, though.

Now when I say collective priorities, am I actually thinking in terms of personal knowledge? Or is collective priority analysis and production? is "the facts are this, we need to do this?" being "this is happening, the facts of the happening are this."

And how does that compare with : "I see/hear/sense this, which means the facts are this."?

[krieger]

A slight correction. Te is defined as external (= well-defined) dynamics of objects, not statics.

I tend to just read it as a knowledge of the situation in the environment. Factual knowledge of what is going on.

[aestrivex]

take your Te and Ti descriptions. throw them out. replace them with actual definitions.

start again.

[Rocky]

take your Te and Ti descriptions. throw them out. replace them with actual definitions.

start again.

Very much agree... Te definition here sounds lame.

[tcaudilllg]

Thanks for your reponses, but I would like some additional information.

Rocky, what would you propose as the definition of ?

Wait a sec... would gravity be defined as a force, do you think? "external dynamics of objects"... then gravity would be " external dynamics of fields", but the law of gravity would be . OK I think I get it.

: "this person has a trait which makes them receptive to this group." So data is that information specific to an object which defines how it will relate to other objects.

So saying "The U.S. is at war with Iraq" is only half of a process. (the beginning) After that comes the judgement: "the U.S. does not want war with other countries." An ENTj would say then, "we need to negotiate with other countries in the world community.", which is an production. An ESTj would say that "the U.S. is not participating in aggressive activities against other countries." (internal statics of fields)

[aestrivex]

huh???????

[tcaudilllg]

huh???????

External dynamic of objects = "at war with Iraq" is an attribute of the United States at this point in time. Just as your type is INTp: both are external dynamics because they affect how the objects they apply to relate to other objects. INTp has these relational patterns, a nation at war will try to avoid conflicts with other countries.

How about this: "The international community is nervous about Iraq." "Individual states are on high alert." The nervousness about Iraq () is an internal dynamic of the field of states which constitute the international community. The alert status of individual states is , because it is an attribute respective to each of the states.

So could be described as the process of determining individual traits from macrosocial phenomenon. Because A is going on in the macro, B is present in the micro.

Then would be the actual creation of a fact, first acknowledging the A is a constant, then attributing that constant to individual objects. "the world is a dangerous place." "people who live in the world have a need to defend themselves."

[aestrivex]

i think you have absolutely no idea what is or does and i thoroughly disagree with the explanations provided here.

[Rocky]

Rocky, what would you propose as the definition of ?

Te believes that logic is a one-way street, and Ti is more opinionated; Te is good at laying out and expressing ideas whereas Ti holds back it's thoughts until pressured and then let's everything out at the same time; Te believes that things can be measured, Ti believes that things can be made up; Te is more formal, Ti being apathetic; and Te is bent on expanding it's control over people while Ti's more focused on asking itself what is going to happen.

OF COURSE I could be totally and completely wrong, but my point was more that no one in their right mind would claim to be a Te type reading your description.

[Exodus]

Augusta defines it as external statics of objects, which is kind of unclear.

No shit.

I will give you that rational functions are somewhat related to priorities.

[Not A Communist Shill]

is largely an uncritical logic - it makes judgements based on the widely available evidence + the typical consensus of that person's society at that time. works over a period of time, evaluating perceptions to form its own evidence. is dynamic because it's decisions are made from evidence available at the time, is static because it's decisions have largely been made before the event.

and are about external, readily visible properties about objects\environments, and are about hidden perceptions of these objects\environments - they are internal properties, such as time + form.

is dynamic because it constantly perceives the properties of its internal environment in the present, is static because it largely knows the rules about perceiving the abstract properties of external objects in the present - little analysis of the objects is needed.

[krieger]

My understanding of the functions roughly matches what you describe, tcaud, though I have to point out that (in your haste?) you listed the wrong definitions for the Ne and Si functions in your first post. Ne = internal statics of objects (kind of like a shapeless idea that serves as the basis for imagination, a word like 'gravity' in itself is - I agree - pure Ne) and Si = external dynamics of fields (which I will not risk describing because it is kind of ethereal).

[tcaudilllg]

My understanding of the functions roughly matches what you describe, tcaud, though I have to point out that (in your haste?) you listed the wrong definitions for the Ne and Si functions in your first post. Ne = internal statics of objects (kind of like a shapeless idea that serves as the basis for imagination, a word like 'gravity' in itself is - I agree - pure Ne) and Si = external dynamics of fields (which I will not risk describing because it is kind of ethereal).

You are right... hmm I had done some work on Einstein's type but I'll have to reevaluate what it means. (I had concluded ENTp-XNTx but I'll have to look it over.)

Traditionally I've thought of as the ability to "picture think", the ability to form objects in the mind and move them about in an imaginary "mental space" at will. I've heard that many mathematicians have this capacity; Einstein himself said he could do it.

As for , I've been thinking the concept of "attribute identification" is a good descriptor. In particular, I've created this analysis of fused with :

external dynamics of fields within dynamics of external objects

"This is the ability to perceive the full extent of the consequences of an
attribute relationship between objects. All phenomenon which are not emergent
from the attribute relationship/principle are easily identified as irrelevant
to the relation. It is a window into the inner reality of an attribute, the
stuff of thought experiment. The existence of a relational attribute implies
the existence of a field when two or more objects are in possession of it.
However there can be more than one field tied to the existence of a single
attribute, depending on its nature. This capacity allows for the perception
of the relation of these fields to each other, and of the rules for
transfomation between them."

Example:
"A magnet possesses a magnetic field."
"The magnet also possesses an electric field."
"These fields interact with each other similarly. They can be thus said
to be interchangable."

EDIT:
The abstract function definitions used by Augusta seem to imply a kind of action orientation. external statics of fields, put into motion, become external dynamics of fields.

I think I'll show my in-progress description of Einstein's type. This view imagines Einstein as an ENTp thinking subtype who tried his hardest to be an INTj. (read: ENTp fusion with INTj)

Fi -> Se -> Ne -> Ti -> Si -> Fe -> Ni -> Te
Se -> Fi -> Ti -> Ne -> Fe -> Si -> Te -> Ni

external statics of objects within internal statics of fields

"This is the ability to deduce mainstays of integrity in the strength
levels of fields. By changing these pillars of strength, the dominance
of a field may be either increased or diminished."

internal statics of fields within external statics of objects
(? I'll come back to this)


external statics of fields within internal statics of objects

"This is the ability to deduce the influence of an imagined possibility
on individual thought. It may be used to examine the effect of a principle
on the objects to which it applies."

external dynamics of fields within internal dynamics of objects

"This is the ability to guage perception changes due to changes of
relationship between fields. The internal world is implied to be the
source of phenomenon in the external world, and is the determinant of
what can be imagined."

internal dynamics of objects within external dynamics of fields

(suggestive function, mostly preceding laws of physics)

external dynamics of fields within internal dynamics of objects

(? later)

7th function:
internal dynamics of fields within external dynamics of objects

(this is Einstein's conviction that the speed of light is constant; similarly, his conviction that "god does not play dice" with the universe.)

8th function:
external dynamics of objects within internal dynamics of fields

(this is the recognition of the principle of relativity: "for every system K, K'")

I need to go back and look this over. Intuitively I had it right, but logically I need to review -why- it is right.

[tcaudilllg]

This is my current definition of :
Augusta said it was "internal dynamics of fields." I interpret this to mean that consists of principles and laws. For example, if an investment firm tells their traders that they can only sell oil when it is more than $50 dollars a barrel, then that is an rule or fact. Similarly, mathematical rules are information.

Imagine the variables in an equation as the objects within a field represented by the equation. The rules for solving the equation are the internal dynamics of the field: "subtract A from both sides", "completing the square", etc..

then, is the intuition of algebra, and the perception of governing rules and regulations of logic.

[Phaedrus]

then, is the intuition of algebra, and the perception of governing rules and regulations of logic.

Disregarding the question of whether what you say here is consistent with the common socionic understanding of , if what you say is true, it would explain a lot and give us an understanding of the socionic types that would enable us to see their similarity with the corresponding MBTT types more clearly according to the ABCD=ABCd school, which I still defend.

[tcaudilllg]

From what I can tell, that definition means that the sense of time comes from the ability to perceive an opportunity, the option of seeing an unbalanced part of the equation and the recognition that for the equation to continue someone must be the balancing quantity. The requirement for the quantity is already dictated; all that is unclear is what form the quantity will take.

Times of choice, times of decision.

[Not A Communist Shill]

This is my current definition of :
Augusta said it was "internal dynamics of fields." I interpret this to mean that consists of principles and laws. For example, if an investment firm tells their traders that they can only sell oil when it is more than $50 dollars a barrel, then that is an rule or fact. Similarly, mathematical rules are information.

Imagine the variables in an equation as the objects within a field represented by the equation. The rules for solving the equation are the internal dynamics of the field: "subtract A from both sides", "completing the square", etc..

then, is the intuition of algebra, and the perception of governing rules and regulations of logic.

My understanding of 'field' in that context is a contrast with an 'object' - e.g. something which has no obvious border, but is the active site of . I don't see how can regulate logic it on it's own - aren't the preceiving functions uncritical?

[tcaudilllg]

This is my current definition of :
Augusta said it was "internal dynamics of fields." I interpret this to mean that consists of principles and laws. For example, if an investment firm tells their traders that they can only sell oil when it is more than $50 dollars a barrel, then that is an rule or fact. Similarly, mathematical rules are information.

Imagine the variables in an equation as the objects within a field represented by the equation. The rules for solving the equation are the internal dynamics of the field: "subtract A from both sides", "completing the square", etc..

then, is the intuition of algebra, and the perception of governing rules and regulations of logic.

My understanding of 'field' in that context is a contrast with an 'object' - e.g. something which has no obvious border, but is the active site of . I don't see how can regulate logic it on it's own - aren't the preceiving functions uncritical?

It perceives the way things change, from what I can tell. "Dynamics" = change rules. For example, quantum electrodynamics is the study of how subatomic particles relate to each other.

If nothing else, it explains why INTjs are not the best at math, and INTps naturally excel at it.

This article from Wikipedia seems to capture precisely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think you might be right about the algebra thing - if any function is going to be good at visualing\remembering internal abstract values\meanings(e.g. the symbolic meaning of objects in the external world, and the symbolism of letters + numbers etc. in the internal world) on a temporal basis it would be .

This might be relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structu...in_linguistics

[Rocky]

This is my current definition of :
Augusta said it was "internal dynamics of fields." I interpret this to mean that consists of principles and laws. For example, if an investment firm tells their traders that they can only sell oil when it is more than $50 dollars a barrel, then that is an rule or fact. Similarly, mathematical rules are information.

Imagine the variables in an equation as the objects within a field represented by the equation. The rules for solving the equation are the internal dynamics of the field: "subtract A from both sides", "completing the square", etc..

then, is the intuition of algebra, and the perception of governing rules and regulations of logic.

Everything in this post makes Ni sound like a Judging function.

[tcaudilllg]

This is my current definition of :
Augusta said it was "internal dynamics of fields." I interpret this to mean that consists of principles and laws. For example, if an investment firm tells their traders that they can only sell oil when it is more than $50 dollars a barrel, then that is an rule or fact. Similarly, mathematical rules are information.

Imagine the variables in an equation as the objects within a field represented by the equation. The rules for solving the equation are the internal dynamics of the field: "subtract A from both sides", "completing the square", etc..

then, is the intuition of algebra, and the perception of governing rules and regulations of logic.

Everything in this post makes Ni sound like a Judging function.

More like an observational function. You can observe something without making a determination about it.

[aestrivex]

This is my current definition of :
Augusta said it was "internal dynamics of fields." I interpret this to mean that consists of principles and laws. For example, if an investment firm tells their traders that they can only sell oil when it is more than $50 dollars a barrel, then that is an rule or fact. Similarly, mathematical rules are information.

Imagine the variables in an equation as the objects within a field represented by the equation. The rules for solving the equation are the internal dynamics of the field: "subtract A from both sides", "completing the square", etc..

then, is the intuition of algebra, and the perception of governing rules and regulations of logic.

how absurd.

[Exodus]

This is my current definition of :
Augusta said it was "internal dynamics of fields." I interpret this to mean that consists of principles and laws. For example, if an investment firm tells their traders that they can only sell oil when it is more than $50 dollars a barrel, then that is an rule or fact. Similarly, mathematical rules are information.

Imagine the variables in an equation as the objects within a field represented by the equation. The rules for solving the equation are the internal dynamics of the field: "subtract A from both sides", "completing the square", etc..

then, is the intuition of algebra, and the perception of governing rules and regulations of logic.

Everything in this post makes Ni sound like a Judging function.

"principles", "laws", "rule", "fact", "logic"

I agree; you're getting it mixed up with logic, specifically Ti.

[Phaedrus]

"principles", "laws", "rule", "fact", "logic"

I agree; you're getting it mixed up with logic, specifically Ti.

But somehow we must explain the empirical phenomenon that ILIs are just as much as LIIs (and probably more in some ways) focused on, interested in, good at, thinking about ... all those things you mention above. That phenomenon is "explained" in MBTT but probably in the wrong way. If we cannot explain the fascination for principles and logic without reference to , then we probably have to put a lot of INTPs and INTJs in the same socionic group -- the LII group -- and that is not a satisfactory solution, because then there is something wrong with the temperaments (IJ and IP) as well as with the interype relations, the quadras, and the Reinin dichotomies.

[FDG]

"principles", "laws", "rule", "fact", "logic"

I agree; you're getting it mixed up with logic, specifically Ti.

But somehow we must explain the empirical phenomenon that ILIs are just as much as LIIs (and probably more in some ways) focused on, interested in, good at, thinking about ... all those things you mention above. That phenomenon is "explained" in MBTT but probably in the wrong way. If we cannot explain the fascination for principles and logic without reference to , then we probably have to put a lot of INTPs and INTJs in the same socionic group -- the LII group -- and that is not a satisfactory solution, because then there is something wrong with the temperaments (IJ and IP) as well as with the interype relations, the quadras, and the Reinin dichotomies.

The solution is muuuch simpler: you're an INTj, and you'll always be! Muhauahauhauhahauauhauhaua

[Phaedrus]

"principles", "laws", "rule", "fact", "logic"

I agree; you're getting it mixed up with logic, specifically Ti.

But somehow we must explain the empirical phenomenon that ILIs are just as much as LIIs (and probably more in some ways) focused on, interested in, good at, thinking about ... all those things you mention above. That phenomenon is "explained" in MBTT but probably in the wrong way. If we cannot explain the fascination for principles and logic without reference to , then we probably have to put a lot of INTPs and INTJs in the same socionic group -- the LII group -- and that is not a satisfactory solution, because then there is something wrong with the temperaments (IJ and IP) as well as with the interype relations, the quadras, and the Reinin dichotomies.

The solution is muuuch simpler: you're an INTj, and you'll always be!

Of course I would gladly accept that I am an INTj -- if that would solve the problem. But unfortunately the problem is still there given that assumption. Most of the ILIs on this forum test as, and identify with, MBTT INTPs, and they and I seem to think in similar ways. I strongly identify with their ways of describing themselves. We seem to belong to the same group, the group of INTPs.

Then we have a clear example of an INTJ in UDP II, and most of the LIIs on this forum also identify with, and test as, MBTT INTJs. So, somehow we must explain that empirical phenomenon. How can a clear INTP and a clear INTJ belong to the same socionic type (LII)? Are all of the "ILIs" on this forum, who think that they are MBTT INTPs, wrong? If they are not INTPs, which MBTT type are they? If they are INTPs, which socionic type are they?

If MBTT is right about INTPs having "the greatest precision in thought and language of all the types", which socionic type are they, as a matter of fact (without knowing it) talking about? Rick and FDG seem to be convinced that INTP type descriptions are portraying LIIs more than they are portraying any other socionic type. Okay, let's assume that they are right about that (I did think so myself about a year ago). Then most of the LIIs and ILIs on this forum seem to be confused about at least one of their types in the two models.

[krieger]

I was thinking a field might resemble an equivalence class:

Ne: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Ti: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Se: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? J K L M N O P Q ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

It would make sense out of the Ne-(Ti)>Se thing.

[Expat]

Then most of the LIIs and ILIs on this forum seem to be confused about at least one of their types in the two models.

My own personal suggestion is to just drop MBTT, even if you spent a lot of time studying it.

Let us say that the most logical explanation to all this discussion is that you are an INTp who for some reason also gives an impression of focusing on Ti. Or perhaps you really do. Then for this very reason you think that the "INTj-INTp" MBTT INTP profiles are excellent, but perhaps this doesn't apply to most other INTps.

[Phaedrus]

Then most of the LIIs and ILIs on this forum seem to be confused about at least one of their types in the two models.

My own personal suggestion is to just drop MBTT, even if you spent a lot of time studying it.

Let us say that the most logical explanation to all this discussion is that you are an INTp who for some reason also gives an impression of focusing on Ti. Or perhaps you really do. Then for this very reason you think that the "INTj-INTp" MBTT INTP profiles are excellent, but perhaps this doesn't apply to most other INTps.

My own type is almost completely irrelevant here. What is relevant is that it seems to be rather easy to see the boundaries between INTPs and INTJs in the MBTI model, but it is much more difficult to determine who is an ILI and who is an LII. The reason(s) for that is still a mystery.

It is very easy to see that SLI=ISTP, SEI=ISFP, LSI=ISTJ, and ESI=ISFJ. Almost everyone agrees on that after a while, when they have had time to compare type descriptions and so on. But then why the heck is it so difficult to come to a consensus about how an LII and an ILI relate to the types in MBTT? I'm not insisting on a 1 to 1 correlation if there is some better solution to the problem. But the problem must be solved somehow.

[krieger]

Maybe MBTI J/P is not type related. A lifestyle thing. j/p in socionics would be approximated with similar words as those used in the Myers Briggs system, but not defined by them.

In any case, take it to another thread. The original discussion here is not over yet.

[FDG]

Then most of the LIIs and ILIs on this forum seem to be confused about at least one of their types in the two models.

My own personal suggestion is to just drop MBTT, even if you spent a lot of time studying it.

Let us say that the most logical explanation to all this discussion is that you are an INTp who for some reason also gives an impression of focusing on Ti. Or perhaps you really do. Then for this very reason you think that the "INTj-INTp" MBTT INTP profiles are excellent, but perhaps this doesn't apply to most other INTps.

My own type is almost completely irrelevant here. What is relevant is that it seems to be rather easy to see the boundaries between INTPs and INTJs in the MBTI model, but it is much more difficult to determine who is an ILI and who is an LII. The reason(s) for that is still a mystery.

It is very easy to see that SLI=ISTP, SEI=ISFP, LSI=ISTJ, and ESI=ISFJ. Almost everyone agrees on that after a while, when they have had time to compare type descriptions and so on. But then why the heck is it so difficult to come to a consensus about how an LII and an ILI relate to the types in MBTT? I'm not insisting on a 1 to 1 correlation if there is some better solution to the problem. But the problem must be solved somehow.

You are the only one causing the problem, fool. Nobody has made such a big fuss about nothing and so much drama as much as you are making now, self-absorbed female chipmunk. Go read some type descriptions over and over until you'll figure out that you're INTj and stop wasting all your posts on the forum discussing your type, duh.

[Expat]

What is relevant is that it seems to be rather easy to see the boundaries between INTPs and INTJs in the MBTI model, but it is much more difficult to determine who is an ILI and who is an LII. The reason(s) for that is still a mystery.

There is no mystery as far as I am concerned. "J" and "P" behaviors according to MBTI - whether from descriptions or from test results - refer directly, or by definition, to external behavioral traits. So it's easier to draw a distinction - which does not mean that it is always accurate from the point of view of Socionics.

For instance, if asked whether INTJs or INTPs are more Resolute, MBTI enthusiasts would surely say, "INTJ of course". Yet in Socionics it's the INTp.

Also, INTjs are Result-oriented - which causes behaviors similar to "P" - and INTps are Process-oriented - which causes behaviors similar to "J".

The same goes for INFjs and INFps, by the way -- where there is nearly as much confusion as for INTjs and INTps.

So it's no wonder that there are difficulties with regard to those types.

I've said over and over again: the LII loves ESEs and can't stand SEEs, the ILI is the opposite. That's the way to decide it according to Socionics, focusing on Fe or Fi preference, or Se or Si (if Te and Ti seem to create confusion). Surely to focus on very minute details of MBTI or Socionics profiles is not the best solution.

EDIT: correction, no for INFjs and INFps only the "Resolute" bit holds, not in terms of Process-Result.

[Phaedrus]

Maybe MBTI J/P is not type related. A lifestyle thing. j/p in socionics would be approximated with similar words as those used in the Myers Briggs system, but not defined by them.

J/P and j/p are defined in similar ways, and it is clearly a lifestyle and a temperament thing -- in both models. So it is clearly type related.

In any case, take it to another thread. The original discussion here is not over yet.

It is the original discussion I am interested in. The problem is directly related to the definitions of Ni, Te, and Ti. One of the biggest mistakes I think one can make is to insist that logic, logical reasoning, principles, etc is .

[FDG]

Maybe MBTI J/P is not type related. A lifestyle thing. j/p in socionics would be approximated with similar words as those used in the Myers Briggs system, but not defined by them.

J/P and j/p are defined in similar ways, and it is clearly a lifestyle and a temperament thing -- in both models. So it is clearly type related.

EP IP EJ IJ is more useful. IPs can be much more J than EPs. EPs are your stereotypical perceivers, IJs your stereotypical judgers. EJs can vary: the accepting subtypes are more clearly J, the creative subtypes are P-ish; a creative subtype EJ can be as "P" as a creative subtype EP which is more J than an accepting subtype EP. You just look for the universal solution to make fit everything into your system, which is consistent with what smilingeyes has associated with creative Ne behaviour. Now, please, devote your attetion to something better than yourself.

[FDG]

It is the original discussion I am interested in. The problem is directly related to the definitions of Ni, Te, and Ti. One of the biggest mistakes I think one can make is to insist that logic, logical reasoning, principles, etc is .

My post above is a good example of Ti. Focussing on comparison instead of absolute traits is what I define it to be. Many times I remember all the system but I forget all the names associated with its components, for example.

Something I agree with you is the very extreme importance that subjectivsm vs objectivism plays a part in real-life interactions between people. NOT in the kind of philosophy they choose, but in THE WAY THEY RELATE ONE ANOTHER which is what socionics is about, not typing Kant Russel and Wittgenstein and Derrida and blah.

[Phaedrus]

"J" and "P" behaviors according to MBTI - whether from descriptions or from test results - refer directly, or by definition, to external behavioral traits.

And it is the same in Socionics. It is clear from the socionic type descriptions that whether you are a rational (j) or an irrational (p) type heavily influences your external behaviour according to socionists.

For instance, if asked whether INTJs or INTPs are more Resolute, MBTI enthusiasts would surely say, "INTJ of course". Yet in Socionics it's the INTp.

If you are right about that it is very important. But are we talking about the same thing? What exactly does "Resolute" mean here?

Also, INTjs are Result-oriented - which causes behaviors similar to "P" - and INTps are Process-oriented - which causes behaviors similar to "J".

This is clearly wrong. The opposite is more true -- unless I have completely misunderstood that dichotomy.

The same goes for INFjs and INFps, by the way -- where there is nearly as much confusion as for INTjs and INTps.

Agreed.

I've said over and over again: the LII loves ESEs and can't stand SEEs, the ILI is the opposite. That's the way to decide it according to Socionics, focusing on Fe or Fi preference, or Se or Si (if Te and Ti seem to create confusion).

And my ABCD=ABCd solution seems to be the best fit if we consider the dual-seeking functions and the intertype relations in general.

[Rocky]

It is very easy to see that SLI=ISTP, SEI=ISFP, LSI=ISTJ, and ESI=ISFJ. Almost everyone agrees on that after a while, when they have had time to compare type descriptions and so on. But then why the heck is it so difficult to come to a consensus about how an LII and an ILI relate to the types in MBTT? I'm not insisting on a 1 to 1 correlation if there is some better solution to the problem. But the problem must be solved somehow.

No, it's not, as the LSI in socionics is often seen as closer to the ISTP, and SLI is closer to the ISTJ.

You're forcing this too much.

[Rocky]

This is my current definition of :
Augusta said it was "internal dynamics of fields." I interpret this to mean that consists of principles and laws. For example, if an investment firm tells their traders that they can only sell oil when it is more than $50 dollars a barrel, then that is an rule or fact. Similarly, mathematical rules are information.

Imagine the variables in an equation as the objects within a field represented by the equation. The rules for solving the equation are the internal dynamics of the field: "subtract A from both sides", "completing the square", etc..

then, is the intuition of algebra, and the perception of governing rules and regulations of logic.

Everything in this post makes Ni sound like a Judging function.

More like an observational function. You can observe something without making a determination about it.

Not the way you described it.

[Rocky]

It is the original discussion I am interested in. The problem is directly related to the definitions of Ni, Te, and Ti. One of the biggest mistakes I think one can make is to insist that logic, logical reasoning, principles, etc is .

Logical reasoning pricinples are the definition of Ti, in fact.

[Phaedrus]

EP IP EJ IJ is more useful. IPs can be much more J than EPs. EPs are your stereotypical perceivers, IJs your stereotypical judgers. EJs can vary: the accepting subtypes are more clearly J, the creative subtypes are P-ish; a creative subtype EJ can be as "P" as a creative subtype EP which is more J than an accepting subtype EP.

I agree with everything here. And MBTT probably would too. That, for example, an INTP is usually more J than an ENTP is common knowledge in MBTT.

You just look for the universal solution to make fit everything into your system, which is consistent with what smilingeyes has associated with creative Ne behaviour.

As I have said, I don't mind being an INTj if that would make more sense in socionic terms than being an INTp. It is true that I look for a solution that would make all the pieces fit together, but it is very doubtful if I have a system to begin with, like the INTjs do. I take one piece here and one piece there and try to reach general conclusions.

Now, please, devote your attetion to something better than yourself.

This is a very clear example of what Expat talked about in his thread about a dividing line between Fe-Ti and Fi-Te.