Originally Posted by
Gilly
I don't think that's the definition of weak Ne. I think it's one of the possible "symptoms" of weak/unvalued Ne.
I think it's possible that you could prove me wrong; by all means, go ahead. But from what I know, this is Ne related.
Well, I don't know if I have time to prove it to your satisfaction, but here's some evidence:
* Sometimes, LIIs are viewed by others as appearing stubborn, single-minded, and oblivious to certain criticism, despite having strong/valued Ne.
* Also, as I've pointed out in this thread, some forum members seem to observe that certain non-Ne-valuing types fit their model of "open-mindedness"
Look at it this way...consider the viewpoint that I'm bringing up...i.e., that open-mindedness (i.e., recognizing one might be wrong) is more related to intertype relationships than to any specific IM element. Wouldn't that make more sense, given that, for example, duals are supposed to get along well and accept each other's input?
See, if recognizing that one might be wrong were a quality found primarily only in Alphas and Deltas (or Alphas and Betas according to hitta's system), then duals who happen to be Gammas should clash, because they would both feel they're each right about everything. How could Gammas get along with each other if they're all naturally tending towards close-mindedness?
But Gamma duals and activity partners don't clash as you might expect, because they're accepting of advice from some strong in their 5th and 6th functions. If people are open to advice from those functions, then that means their activity partner and dual relation will seem to them to be particularly open, amenable, to what they have to say....which is exactly how the system is supposed to work. But that only works if "open-mindedness" is relative...that is, a perception in the eye of the beholder.
I know that may not be what you've thought up until now, and it seems to go against an ingrained cultural paradigm that "there are open-minded and close-minded people," but can't you see that it could be the way that I'm saying? Can you prove that it's not?