examples of information aspects

[Joy]

Te: readily apparent activities of people/things/etc. (such as how someone is behaving)
Fe: beneath the surface/internal activities of people/things/etc. (such as how someone is feeling)

Se: readily observable/apparent characteristics of people/things/etc.
Ne: hidden/potential characteristics of people/things/etc.

Ti: measurable/readily observable/apparent states of connections/relationships (or states of measurable/readily observable/apparent connections/relationships)
Fi: beneath the surface/unseen/internal states of connections/relationships (or states of beneath the surface/unseen/internal connections/relationships)

Si: immediately apparent/readily observable cause and effect relationships
Ni: beneath the surface/unseen/abstract/distant/not readily apparent cause and effect relationships



I realize these definitions aren't much use without examples to illustrate them, so I'm inviting people to offer scenarios/things to be used for pointing out which aspect of the scenario/thing relates to which information aspect.

I've found that exchanging examples like this is an easy way to get pretty much anyone to understand information aspects in one on one conversations, but so far haven't really tried this in the forum. Let's give it a shot.

[Joy]

For some reason Ne is the one for which I have the hardest time coming up with examples that don't sound ridiculous.

[machintruc]

For some reason Ne is the one for which I have the hardest time coming up with examples that don't sound ridiculous.

I have a thought that I'm not a saint yet, but I'll be one later.

Or you may have a thought that your company that has the potential to make $980K or such.

Or you may teach children, which have the "potential" to understand things. This is too.

[Joy]

Some of those are dynamic though... they're about doing something as opposed to being something?

[Joy]

Are you laughing at my apple person?

lol yeah

Some people see faces on the grills of cars or on outlets. That's Ne as well.

[reyn_til_runa]

lol yeah

Some people see faces on the grills of cars or on outlets. That's Ne as well.

i think its a form of pareidolia.

[leckysupport]

lol yeah

Some people see faces on the grills of cars or on outlets. That's Ne as well.

Wouldn't seeing a faces on the grills of cars be or some ethical element? (makes it easy to relate to a unanimate object)

[Ms. Kensington]

if you're going to relate aspects of a certain objects to another, it makes sense it would be a face since it's a very familiar object to humans.

[Logos]

For some reason Ne is the one for which I have the hardest time coming up with examples that don't sound ridiculous.

For someone with theoretically strong Ne, you do seem to have problems with conceptualizing Ne.

[consentingadult]

Leading/Creative Fe: looks at the emotions of other people (regardless of their own) and tries to influence/change those emotions.

Leading/Creative Fi: looks at the emotions of themselves (disregards other's) and tries to influence/change those emotions.

In both cases the shadow sides are in the ID-block:

Ignoring/demonstrative Fi: looks at the emotions of themselves induced by other people, then tries to change the internal emotions by resorting to Fe to change other's emotions first and hope it effects themselves in some way.

Ignoring/demonstrative Fe: looks at the emotions of other people, then tries to change other's emotions by resorting to Fi to change their own emotions first and hope it effects the other.

Would that make sense? I'm just trying to make the stuff a little less academic.

[tiny_dancer]

I like them.. makes more sense to me at any rate.

[Exodus]

For some reason Ne is the one for which I have the hardest time coming up with examples that don't sound ridiculous.

"You always say things like that, Joy."

i think its a form of pareidolia.

Whatever it is, I wouldn't say it's Ne. Ne is not just about silliness, people.

[marooned]

: serious business. :-]

[Exodus]

: serious business. :-]

I said "just".

[reyn_til_runa]

I said "just".

:serious business:water:desert

[Jonathan]

Si: immediately apparent/readily observable cause and effect relationships

Okay, here are some examples of Si by that definition:
* If you treat people like dirt, they will probably like you less.
* If you're strong, powerful, and agressive, you can get what you want.
* If you take 468 and divide it by 2, you'll get 234.
* If you can prove that "A is false" is false, then you can conclude that A is true
* If every member of set A is also a member of set B, and C is a member of set A, then C is a member of set B

Obvious. Observable. Cause and effect.

How come these have so little to do with sensing, the subjective effect of sensing something, and everything else people think Si is related to?

BTW, Augusta came up with the idea that introverted functions are "relations" as a theory to try to explain what introverted is. The intertype relationships, Model A, quadras, etc., don't rely at all on that concept. Has anyone ever considered that maybe Augusta had it wrong? Don't rational functions seem to have more to do with "relating things"?