Both are different ways of illustrating the same, IMO. For xSE, only direct developments matter - for an effect to be considered, it must be clearly visible and its consequences known. Approximating unknown aspects is in opposition to this, and I've yet to see xSE do so, much less effectively. I compare Si to weak and Ni to strong emergence - the former claims all effects of interactions are accounted for, while in case of the latter, the whole point is they aren't directly (explicitly) traceable to the properties of the system - each focusing on the aspects the other ignores.
And it really needn't be time-related - development over time is merely an example of information better suited to Ni, simply because of the unaccountability of all the factors.



Reply With Quote


My sister's an ESFj. Bad timing after mentioning all the bad parts about Ni PoLR in ESE.
She doesn't sleep around, we were raised in a strong Christian household. But! Another example. She has LOTS of alcohol in her apartment for the many parties she throws.
Sometimes we joke that she's an alcoholic. That of course goes along with the "over the top with offers of food as they have difficulties judging when enough is enough."

(as per tcaudilllg)


, etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason,
(extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).



--> perhaps Normalizing
