The introverted Ne

[The Ineffable]

What function is, in your opinion, the Introverted variation of Ne (Extroverted Intuition)?

[krieger]

introversion/extroversion of functions is bogus, but the Dynamic variant is Si. Ne is in essence the same thing as Si in all respects except that it adds ruminatory "void dimensions" to an object of cognition.

[The Ineffable]

introversion/extroversion of functions is bogus, but the Dynamic variant is Si.

Why not Ni? It is Introverted and Dynamic, too.

[EyeSeeCold]

What function is, in your opinion, the Introverted variation of Ne (Extroverted Intuition)?

Expand on "introverted variation".

[The Ineffable]

Expand on "introverted variation".

Its Introverted counterpart, only that. Edit: In a technical manner, of course, I'm not talking about just replacing "extroverted" with "introverted" in the name, if it is not the case.

[EyeSeeCold]

Expand on "introverted variation".

Its Introverted counterpart, only that. Edit: In a technical manner, of course, I'm not talking about just replacing "extroverted" with "introverted" in the name, if it is not the case.

And in this context, what is your idea of "introverted"? Because the sheer existence of this thread indicates you mean something else than what Socionics Introversion is.

[Pa3s]

Strictly speaking, there is not introverted version of Ne, in my opinion. Just an introverted variant of N, and that's Ni.

[munenori2]

Perhaps it would be easier to examine the issue by starting with whatever Ne is, then we can start hypothesizing what Ne would/might be like if it took on a more strictly inward direction (assuming that's what a more introverted version entails)?

[The Ineffable]

And in this context, what is your idea of "introverted"? Because the sheer existence of this thread indicates you mean something else than what Socionics Introversion is.

No, I mean the Socionics Introversion.

Strictly speaking, there is not introverted version of Ne, in my opinion. Just an introverted variant of N, and that's Ni.

I said variation, namely the function that has the properties of Ne except Extroversion.

Perhaps it would be easier to examine the issue by starting with whatever Ne is, then we can start hypothesizing what Ne would/might be like if it took on a more strictly inward direction (assuming that's what a more introverted version entails)?

AFAIK without knowing what Ne is we can't even talk Socionics. And again, I meant variation - a different function - it's obvious from the poll options, too.

[Cat King Cole]

I would say Si too. I think that's the whole reason complementarity works out how it does, since complementary elements both do largely the same thing but act on different aspects of life.

[Jonathan]

Si is not the introverted version of Ne for the same reason that Fe is not the extraverted version of Ti. Nobody confuses Fe as being a type of thinking (well, maybe not nobody, because somebody probably does); in any case, it is a type of what socionics call ethics.

There seems to be a confusion between "version" and "compliment" or "ramification." I think Ti naturally has an Fe ramification. When someone expounds on a system of thought, usually there is a feeling ramification...either "isn't this great" or "we're really up a creek." So Ti-egos give off Fe too.

But does that make Fe a form of extraverted thinking? No.

Now here's where the rubber meets the road: Suppose you believe someone is Ip temperament, and the person is very intuitive-like; the person tends not to be that aware of or concerned about his environment; he's generally not good at taking care of physical things such as being handy, etc.; but he's very theoretical and has all sorts of, impractical, other-worldy, off the wall ideas.

Do we say, "aha, this person is obviously ISp?" Suppose we go further...the person is very analytical and talks about logic all the time. Now on the basis of that very limited information, do we say, "aha, that means Ti, so if the person is ISp, that means he must have Fe, so therefore he's ISFp?"

[krieger]

Ni is antithetical to Ne. between Si and Ne you have the same "core" and a difference in it's superficial manifestation. between Ni and Ne you have a completely different core identity and only some tiny manifestory similarities.

and yes, the principle does hold true between Ti and Fe and between Te and Fi. the fact people don't realize this lies at the root of a lot of misinterpretations of these functions. in any T statement you can find a F motivational sentiment looming the background. the two work in concert this way.

part of the confusion, though, is that Ji and Pe can not be seen apart from eachother, the same going for Je and Pi, thus making the i/e aspect of functions a distraction. every function is always i and e at the same time. the thing that matters is how i and e are distributed over P and J, and this quality is denoted by the Static/Dynamic dichotomy.

the interpretations being:
Static: ontological objectivity; epistemic subjectivity
Dynamic: ontological subjectivity; epistemic objectivity

[The Ineffable]

This is not about compatibility, functionality in type or quadra values, unless you think so - hence the poll covering all the Introverted functions. Just an example: an Extrovert's Dual and Conflictors are primarily Introverted, basically they have that morphological trait in common - their Base function is Introverted. Basically it is not the Introversion that make your Conflictor incompatible, neither Sensing (for an Intuitive) - aka practicality or whatever Sensing types have in common - and so on.

Obviously, if you have an Extroverted function and revert Introversion, you obtain an Introverted function, hence the options in this thread. This is something we know for sure. However, there are more manners to understand functions, depending on what people are focusing on, on the other hand there's the correct Socionics understanding. If one makes the claim that Te is closer to Ni and Si just because they can be blocked together, that is IMO wrong, though some people are inclined to believe it.

Basically it is possibly irrelevant that Ni is antithetic to Ne because they form not so compatible types. On the other hand it's possibly irrelevant that Ni and Ne are "intuitions". But obviously each one has his view, just I insist the OP not to be misrepresented, all I ask is the Introverted variation of the function that is Ne, not a version of Ne, since there's no such thing.

labcoat and Jonathan got it right, just note that nothing that's been said along the thread necessarily represents the OP. For instance, labcoat said that "Ni is anthitetical to Ne because they have the same core and a difference", *if* that difference is precisely the Extroversion, while the core remains the same, that is in fact exactly what the OP asks: the function which is exactly the same as Ne, just it's Introverted.

@labcoat: in fact, isn't Se which is the antithetical function of Ne? The same as it is Fi for Ti, Te for Fe and Ni for Si, the pairs that determine conflict. Why do you say Ni?
---

For the others who still miss the point: the red variation of a black car is an identical model except it's red instead of black, not the "red black car". WTF is so hard to understand?
---

If the poll will prove unsuccessful as it is, I will call by name the ones who appear knowledgeable enough in Socionics to explain, make associations and dispute functions (and function-related stuff) on the board, and PM them if necessary. I excluded the option "none" because it is not applicable to the query, but if you truly think that, please specify in a reply.

We are currently waiting for the answers of EyeSeeCold, MensSuperMateriam and optionally noid (I don't remember noid to make claims, though his opinion would be welcome for the sake of the discussion in the "Classical composers" thread and possibly other future discussions).

[krieger]

@labcoat: in fact, isn't Se which is the antithetical function of Ne? The same as it is Fi for Ti, Te for Fe and Ni for Si, the pairs that determine conflict. Why do you say Ni?

they can't both be?

[The Ineffable]

they can't both be?

If we talk about the structural differences only, then technically Ni can be, though total conflict of information appears between Ne and Se. That is what is odd, normally the antithesis, contradiction, antagonism of Ne is Se.

[Creepy-Snaps]

So many ways to look at this. You say what is "the" introverted Ne, like there's only one acceptable answer.

First off, you ask for 'variation'. You could argue any of the 4 choices is somehow a variation.

Ni I would say is generally the introverted variation of Ne. That was my first gut answer when looking at this thread.

Then again, Ne generally works with Si in Alpha/Delta, so Si would be a pretty acceptable answer too.

So I was thinking either Ni/Si then... but then, what if you're asking for an introverted variation of strictly the extroverted function Ne? AS IN... choose between two types... ENTp, ENFp... which is the more introverted variation?

So ultimately, my answer to the original question will have to be ENTp. Yes, ENTp is the introverted variation of Ne. Wasn't one of the answer choices, but oh well.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Strictly speaking, there is not introverted version of Ne, in my opinion. Just an introverted variant of N, and that's Ni.

Once again we're on the same page, thinking the same.

... But what's up with your sociotype? 'Sociotype: INTj-ISTp' ... you wouldn't dare be looking at other types, would you?

I mean a 2nd type? ... never really bought it, I don't know...

But your opinions on everything are awesome MD. And I agree with you. We're like (MD)^2.

Don't be ISTp. BE INTj TODAY!!!


....... And with this overly emotional rant on something probably little in the grand scheme of things, I'm going to bed.

... ^^^ eh eh, still related to the topic, my not going to bed, Ni POLR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why do I have to do every little thing, and always be late for everything?

WTB PRIORITIZATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

............

...



g'night.

[Galen]

Expand on "introverted variation".

Its Introverted counterpart, only that. Edit: In a technical manner, of course, I'm not talking about just replacing "extroverted" with "introverted" in the name, if it is not the case.

Oh, well then I guess by that definition the answer would be Fi. IOS vs IFS etc.

[munenori2]

Well, given the way you put it, ineffable, it's got to be either Ni or Si. Ti or Fi can both complement Ne according to socionics, so the question is reduced to either compatibility between processes or similarity between opposites.

[The Ineffable]

First off, you ask for 'variation'. You could argue any of the 4 choices is somehow a variation.

But there's a condition, to vary only Extroversion. I know that one way or another French fries are a variation of Ne, though that's not what's being asked.

So ultimately, my answer to the original question will have to be ENTp. Yes, ENTp is the introverted variation of Ne. Wasn't one of the answer choices, but oh well.

Yeah bullshit. So you admit you have no idea .

Oh, well then I guess by that definition the answer would be Fi. IOS vs IFS etc.

That was the point from the beginning, we don't play with words here. You anyway answered Si in the poll, so I don't see how my specification applies to this difference, that was intended to deter the ones who would pick on wording intentionally.

Anyway, your answer is interesting, are you gonna stick with it, that Fi is Introverted Ne?

Well, given the way you put it, ineffable, it's got to be either Ni or Si. Ti or Fi can both complement Ne according to socionics, so the question is reduced to either compatibility between processes or similarity between opposites.

Hmm the only manner how I could answer this would be to tell you my answer. Based on this you could consider you answered already, since this is what an actual vote is supposed to reveal anyway, I guess.

[Jonathan]

they can't both be?

If we talk about the structural differences only, then technically Ni can be, though total conflict of information appears between Ne and Se. That is what is odd, normally the antithesis, contradiction, antagonism of Ne is Se.

Right, this is correct according to Model A. On the forum, and in some tests, people make a lot about an opposition between Xi and Xe. But in classical Socionics, the conflict is between Ax and Bx. This is why the super-ego block is supposed to conflict with the ego block, whereas the id block is something that's considered something one uses sometimes or tries out for fun, but generally in a way to point back to the ego block functions.

...and by the way, even if there is some big conflict between the use of Xi and Xe, that doesn't negate the fact that they're different versions of the same thing. In fact, they're so similar that people on the forum can hardly tell them apart. Think of all threads where people are asking "is this an example of Ne or Ni?" or "is this person demonstrating Ti or Te?" and then 50% of the people think one way, and 50% the other. That doesn't usually happen between Ne and Si. People don't confuse those two definitions as much.

By the way, here's a good analogy to the idea that Si is the introverted form of Ne:

"Maple syrup is the liquid form of waffles."

[The Ineffable]

...and by the way, even if there is some big conflict between the use of Xi and Xe, that doesn't negate the fact that they're different versions of the same thing.

I fully agree.

By the way, here's a good analogy to the idea that Si is the introverted form of Ne:

"Maple syrup is the liquid form of waffles."

I assume you say that not based on the condition of the OP. This is a functional approach, which I agree with (not sure about the example and I don't feel like analyzing it now, but sounds like Ni or Fi). However, that's not what the OP necessarily asks for. Here's an comparison:

Let's say that we can pick from several possible artificial landforms. And let's say that we deal with two of them initially, a balanced pyramidal hill and a pit in the shape of a reverse pyramid of the exact measurements as the former. We may confidently say that the pit is functionally the same as the pyramid, since to cross it you need to do the same effort - descend a side and climb one, at the same length and angle. We can correctly assert that the pit is the pyramid without a peak, which is again true, though again, we're taking about functionality or abstract shape. But now, strictly speaking, if you ask for a landform that is the pyramid without a peak, you don't ask for a pit, but a bump in the shape of a trunk of a pyramid for example.

Now, if it happens that Si satisfies both for you in respect to Ne, then it is fine - and probably the correct answer, but if it doesn't satisfy the condition, it is irrelevant whether they are similar/complementary/etc.

Okay, I though about an example of the similarity between Ne and Si - I really don't know what to make of yours. Consider this scenario: "people use electric fences to protect areas".
Si: there's no fence in front of you, still "if I put my hand on an electric fence I will get electrocuted";
Ne: there's actually a fence in front of you "if I put my hand on an electric fence I will get electrocuted".

Get the difference? They both tell the same thing, what outcome the things are set for (mind this because this is something that differentiates them from the other functions), though in opposite manners. Regarding the common property of Si and Ne I underlined: Si tells what manner something necessarily affect something else, Ne tells what manner something can necessarily affect anything else (its potential). In this respect they're the same thing, in fact a conclusion drawn based on one is perfectly sensible when interpreted through the other, except it is interpreted differently. It is impossible to confuse such judgment with Ni or Fi (which confirm more than one possible effect), Te or Se (which require empirical validation, aka you expect anything that actually happens), and so on. When this unique consequence is mising, then none of these two functions is used, otherwise you need to discern whether it comes from actual objects or reason - though there are other indicatives to tell them apart as well.

[The Ineffable]

Bump. (POLL ^)

[The Ineffable]

The answer is Fi.

@Galen: you old fox, your answer is disqualified, not because you changed your mind, but because you just correctly analyzed the clues of what I said figuring out the only logical solution to my problem, however, you don't consider it in practice, but consider it merely formally appropriate for this "riddle", using a different understanding outside its scope.

[DividedsGhost]

The answer is Fi.

Of course it is, which is why no one answered that. What exactly just happened here?

[717495]

Depends on who you ask. Aushra says its Fi. But I tend to see the functions as describing mirror processes in antithetical realms, so as the same as Jung, I see Ni as the introverted Ne because the extroverted and introverted orientations clash, where as Ne and Fi can both be valued and thus describe a different style of information processing than do Ne and Ni. Moreover Ne/Si clashes with Ni/Se as they are opposites of one another like Fi/Te and Fe/Ti are. Nowhere in Aushra's function theory does she account for rationality/irrationality and value clashes. I tend to view her ideas as far from perfect.

[EyeSeeCold]

Ok I see what you did, and how it applies to the others. But what does it mean?

It seems like another case of External/Internal & Abstract/Involved.

[The Ineffable]

Depends on who you ask. Aushra says its Fi. But I tend to see the functions as describing mirror processes in antithetical realms, so as the same as Jung, I see Ni as the introverted Ne because the extroverted and introverted orientations clash, where as Ne and Fi can both be valued and thus describe a different style of information processing than do Ne and Ni. Moreover Ne/Si clashes with Ni/Se as they are opposites of one another like Fi/Te and Fe/Ti are. Nowhere in Aushra's function theory does she account for rationality/irrationality and value clashes. I tend to view her ideas as far from perfect.

But they are so in Socionics, too. Functionally. Intuitions are still the two Perceiving Internal opposites by B/F, where this "Perceiving/Irrational" manifests functionally from the other two base aspects (B/F and D/S). Of course, understanding the actual mechanism or formula is more bitter than placing this common property of under a black box term of "intuition", but this is the point in any analytical field, to understand what's going on under the hood, otherwise you're stuck with a primitive knowledge. Withouth this analysis, Jung would have perhaps had written fiction, and the psychological types of today would have still been the four temperaments.

Generally convenience is not hand in glove with research.

It seems like another case of External/Internal & Abstract/Involved.

Internal/External is certainly not, it is just Bodies/Fields. It seems you confuse B/F (which determine Extroversion/Introversion) with External/Internal, but they are totally different things. Weird that you can't make the difference after all this time, but start with reading a translation of Aspectonika (ie http://lib.dsu.dp.ua/books/%D0%93%D1...3%D0%B8%D1%8F/) and more articles of Aushra.

On short:
- Bodies: Xe; Fields: Xi
- External: Sx, Tx; Internal: Fx, Nx

[krieger]

The answer is Fi.

please... this is a worse answer than i expected anyone to come up with. what a surprise that it came from you.

imo no P function should ever be equated to a J function. P/J is the most fundamental divide and the one of the greatest impact. P and J functions are in completely different categories of existence.

[EyeSeeCold]

It seems like another case of External/Internal & Abstract/Involved.

Internal/External is certainly not, it is just Bodies/Fields. It seems you confuse B/F (which determine Extroversion/Introversion) with External/Internal, but they are totally different things. Weird that you can't make the difference after all this time, but start with reading a translation of Aspectonika (ie http://lib.dsu.dp.ua/books/%D0%93%D1...3%D0%B8%D1%8F/) and more articles of Aushra.

On short:
- Bodies: Xe; Fields: Xi
- External: Sx, Tx; Internal: Fx, Nx

No I didn't confuse anything. I continued with the exercise and derived:
Ne - Internal Static Objects(E, Abstract)
Fi - Internal Static Fields(I, Involved)

Te External Dynamic Objects(E, Abstract)
Si External Dynamic Fields(I, Involved)

Se - External Static Objects(E, Involved)
Ti - External Static Fields(I, Abstract)

Fe - Internal Dynamic Objects(E, Involved)
Ni - Internal Dynamic Fields(I, Abstract)


Your insult of my intelligence is pardoned, for ye did not know better.

[EyeSeeCold]

Ne - Abstract Static Objects(E, Internal)
Ti - Abstract Static Fields(I, External)

Fi - Involved Static Fields(I, Internal)
Se - Involved Static Objects(E, External)

Te - Abstract Dynamic Objects(E, External)
Ni - Abstract Dynamic Fields(I, Internal)

Si Involved Dynamic Fields(I, External)
Fe - Involved Dynamic Objects(E, Internal)

Why are not these groupings the flipped I/E version?

[DividedsGhost]

The answer is Fi.

please... this is a worse answer than i expected anyone to come up with. what a surprise that it came from you.

imo no P function should ever be equated to a J function. P/J is the most fundamental divide and the one of the greatest impact. P and J functions are in completely different categories of existence.

*Purrs*

Yeah, it really makes no sense, does it. The evidence of the thread is enough to show how easy it is for people to reach different conclusions on the matter. It does clearly suggest a limitation of trying to apply such an idea to Jungian cognition.

Or, in other words, just NTR - too many empirical variations.

It would be nice if this is wrong though.

[redbaron]

I don't understand this thread, or its purpose.

[The Ineffable]

imo no P function should ever be equated to a J function. P/J is the most fundamental divide and the one of the greatest impact.

In Socionics, it is not required to distinguish these categories (only the types, Schizotim/Cyclotim), even when the two mentioned attitudes the most notable for some, their naming is inherited from Jung, but that's all about this distinction. This is a dichotomy like any other. The rest is the descriptions of the IM elements, their systematization is accomplished differently in Socionics. I agree though that it is one of the most difficult things to understand how Rationality (of a type) emerges from the association between Extroversion and Dynamicality in the Base function but nevetheless, as long as you don't deny the existence of any of the three IE distinctions, there's absolutely no problem to see how they are structured in the Socionics theory of IM.

Remember that Aushra herself denied that the IM elements (the topic of the thread, not types) can not be separated into Rational/Irrational: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...841#post725841. And this makes sense, like in the case of Extroversion, Rationality is an attitude (of a person), it is unapplicable to information itself. How can one say "this information is Rational"? It makes no sense.

I insist though that one checks this, because the functions flipped over one distinction are not similar merely on paper. There are a lot of instances where one can see the common properties between j and p functions, perhaps the most obvious is the similarity between Se and Te (Bodies, External): pragmatism, practicality, concreteness, empiricism. Where they differ is Static/Dynamic, see the distinction between inherent and emergent qualities (e.g. the untested steed VS the successful jade).

[EyeSeeCold]

Hey, Ineffable, go over my post. I'm seriously curious.

[The Ineffable]

Hey, Ineffable, go over my post. I'm seriously curious.

I went over it, but that's off-track. I told you already to pay attention to the conditions in the OP, now you enumerate arbitrary I/E functions expecting what from me?

Besides, Abstract/Involved has nothing to do with all this.

[EyeSeeCold]

Hey, Ineffable, go over my post. I'm seriously curious.

I went over it, but that's off-track. I told you already to pay attention to the conditions in the OP, now you enumerate arbitrary I/E functions expecting what from me?

Besides, Abstract/Involved has nothing to do with all this.

Introverted Ne - > Fi. Why?
If you look under the hood:
Internal Static Objects - > Internal Static Fields

All the other (known) properties stay the same except for E/I. Hence Introverted Ne = Fi. I get that.

Now moving on...

What does they say about IM Aspects? In the previous exercise External/Internal remained constant, and we found that there are I/E versions of functions. What if Abstract/Involved remained constant? What does that say about the versions of functions?

Rational Ne = Ti
Abstract Static Objects = Abstract Static Fields

Are you with me?

The previous is what I want to focus on, although, yes, it is deviating from the main topic. If you are unwilling to focus on the above, at the least could you explain what you were trying to accomplish with this thread?

[Gilly]

Labcoat when did you get all fuckin smart and shit? Last time I checked in you were a quack on my list

[tcaudilllg]

I'd have to say that N is energy: Ni is kinetic energy and Ne is potential.

[The Ineffable]

What does they say about IM Aspects? In the previous exercise External/Internal remained constant, and we found that there are I/E versions of functions. What if Abstract/Involved remained constant? What does that say about the versions of functions?

Rational Ne = Ti
Abstract Static Objects = Abstract Static Fields

The basis for my premises are the fundamentals of Socionics: the three distinctions of the IM elements. Abstract/Involved is for the time being merely another gimmick of Gulenko's, nothing more. We may arbitrarily split the IEs over a conventional dichotomy, say:
A: Fi Se Fe Ni
B: Te Ne Si Ti

So what? Not every arbitrary collation is relevant to the IM.