Ne and Ni: User definitions

[strrrng]

yes, Joy, I think that's a good diagram!

I don't.

I agree w/ this, that Pinocchio said, "Ne discover. Ni predict."

I guess that's a satisficing simplification, but it doesn't shed any real insight on their actual natures, as (has already been stated) pretty much any functions can "discover" or "predict" something, in different ways.

I think that summarizes well the main difference -- Ne is creating entirely NEW concepts or ideas to be applied quickly to change the future. Ni is looking for trends in the past, a system of thought, to predict the future. Ne is looking at new happenings that could affect what occurs. So, Ne is very changeable, where as Ni is more constant.

No -- not at all. If anything, your description of Ni applies better to the stabilizing nature of Si, which maintains a continuity with the environment, and bases its predictions of how things operate, on how they have done so in the past (observable, not intangible like Ni). Ni may reference the past, in order to glean a more long-reaching understanding of the dynamics underpinning a given situation, but it will only do so to hone a vision, not actually make a historically-based prediction; its whole deal is about uprooting the perception of events itself, and transforming it into a more crystallized awareness of what is really going on with them -- simply resorting to historical probability would be fatuous.

So, there is no more "new" or "old" in either Ne or Ni. Do you honestly think delta Ne is geared at new concepts, in the same way that alpha Ne is?

The only "consistency" that Ni boils down to, is an understanding that there is no observable consistency, but that the honing of the internal vision will remain undiluted. Materialization of said thing via Se is probably one of the most apparently inconsistent things, to Si/Ne types (i.e. sporadic and seemingly out of nowhere).

example...There is a train. It's run on a track for 100 years.

Ni focuses on what the train has done and then draws an expectation based on that to predict what it will do. The train has followed the same route/showed up on time for ages, so might as well expect the train to show up right on schedule. This train is reliable, rich in history and embodies the American Dream of (etc.). Historically, people enjoy eating in the dining cars, so we can expect that will continue. Famous presidents rode on this train. Obama will likely ride on this train soon, just as past presidents have done. Let's wait for the train to arrive at 3:15 and plan on ordering the turkey in the dining car. We can soak up the historical feel.

Congratulations -- you have just unwittingly described Si perfectly.

Ne leaves room for the train to do something unpredicted and "new" -- Maybe the train won't show up on time, due to many factors, such as...the train may be influenced by the economy and a shift to cheaper airline flights reducing riders on trains. The business may suddenly be close to going bankrupt, so they may have reduced train times. Maybe it won't show up at 3:15 then. Will they even have a dining car in that case? Or will that be a cost they cut to save money? I wonder if the trains should be marketed as more "festive" to attract more riders, or maybe used for some other purpose to stay profitable...I wonder how we could accomplish that and what marketing plans would be used. In any event, we need a plan b in case it doesn't show up at 3:15, and maybe we should bring some snacks just in case.

This is a decent example of Ne. Consider how exploring these variations in the train's potential qualities relates to the aforementioned description of its continuity in operation, and you will clearly see how Si/Ne operates.

Saying that Ni does not involve connections of Ne is about like saying that Si does not involve the process of Se. They are opposite sides of the same coin, in which using one function necessarily involves using another.

That is flagrantly incorrect. Ne and Ni are NOT two sides of the same coin -- that would be Ni/Se and Si/Ne. Ne and Ni are only comparable by virtue of being "intuition" functions, i.e. abstract perceptual filters. Other than that, there is nothing significant to align them by.

[ArchonAlarion]

.

.

<3

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Krig the Viking]

I was thinking about replying to this thread, and then Azeroffs went and said everything I would have said. Excellent analysis, Azeroffs!

The only thing I have to contribute to the discussion is this:

I meant that Ni is, i general, more useful than Ne. But, of course there are things that Ne can do that Ni cannot.

Interestingly, as an Ne Ego type, I agree with this. From an LIE perspective, yes, Ni is much more useful and practical. Of course, from my LII perspective, useful and practical are irrelevant. What is important is how Ne helps us understand the true nature of things, not what we can do with them.

[strrrng]

The main point is that Ne find clues in existing things, situations, momentum, but Ni finds it in activities, actions, happenings. If you have better terms, be my guest.

Nope. "Things, situations, momentum" are not mutually exclusive from "activities, actions, happenings" -- quite similar, in fact; and I'd be hard-pressed to find a legitimate differentiation between them, that shed any light on the respective natures of Ne and Ni. Now, I have no clue what the hell you mean by "clues," but will hazard a guess that it has to do with finding intrinsic potential in objects; fine. Realize that the word 'objects' is the most important qualifier here, as it determines the exact limitations of Ne.

And how does anything of what you said discount the portion of my post you quoted?

Judging functions don't deal with observation, so I don't understand your statement that any can "predict". Maybe you mean that all the functions can be used by a person in prediction, although this has nothing to do with the topic - single IEs, specifically Intuition.

Judging functions don't deal with observation? The human mind deals with observation. Functions are intrinsic to cognitive and behavioral processes. To delineate P and J functions by such simplistic and banal criteria, is foolish.

Even more so, why would the ability to predict things be so tied to observation? Is one observing things when they make an abstract connection between events separated in space in time, in order to form a prediction about the development behind them? Nope.

And the fact that prediction can be performed by any function, in differing ways, very much IS relevant to the topic, because it undermines the bullshit premises people have been purporting here, which state that prediction and discovery are things exclusively intrinsic to Ne and Ni.

[Hitta]

@ Ephemeris

NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!

[Hitta]

This entire thread is a logical fallacy. You should all be gang raped by Klingon.

[krieger]

Ne sees understanding as something that can be broken down into fundamentals. Ni sees understanding as something fundamental of it's own that can only be pieced together with other fundamentals to form composites (which the Ne types in turn try to break down again). This is why Ne as a Static function is called analytical, whereas Ni as a Dynamic function is called synthetical.

This is related to my post on how Ne can only be pin-pointed by Rational types. Irrational Ne types don't break down the Ne, but do use it in some way. It's as if they speak about the things without fully undestanding them; just quickly alluding to them without going into their specifications. This is why I tend to think of the INxj types as having a better grasp of Ne than the ENxp types. The opposite can be said about Ti.

For more information on this, look into the Limiting/Empowering dichotomy (or PM me about it).

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[discojoe]

You should all be gang raped by Klingon.

ROFL

[717495]

I'm just trying to give a general picture of my general understanding. I'm no expert. I just work from the IE dichotomies as a base to see what works from that. Most if not all of my understanding is from what I've read. That's not a very good reason for rejecting the idea though. "It's too simple; it can't be right."

besides.."If it can't be explained simply, then it probably isn't true" - Einstein :tongue:

Eh. I generally disagree with that. Simple is relative too. What I do or say that is simple might not be simple to you.

[strrrng]

They are separate. I'm not going to debate this with you. Good luck with grammar.

Uh, what? Deflecting your conflation of erroneous terminology with some hollow claim about my grammar? Nice copout.


*edit: and why do you continue to quote tidbits of my posts and give irrelevant counter-arguments? Either address the content or don't bother saying anything.

[717495]

Either address the content or don't bother saying anything.

Well, don't just address it. Say something relevant.

[Azeroffs]

@Pinocchio: I generally agree.

@krig: Thanks!

@ Strrrng: <33

However, I don't agree with this:

"Things, situations, momentum" are not mutually exclusive from "activities, actions, happenings"

or the whole dispute on this. Could you shed some light on how they might relate?

Besides, I would say Ne is about things and not about situations, happenings, or actions. Activities is a vague term. Ni is about situations and happenings, but not actions. I mean sure you can find Ne or Ni elements in just about anything, but most of it is going to come from their respective areas.

[aestrivex]

Either address the content or don't bother saying anything.

look who's talking.

[strrrng]

@ Strrrng: <33

Aw

However, I don't agree with this:

"Things, situations, momentum" are not mutually exclusive from "activities, actions, happenings"

or the whole dispute on this. Could you shed some light on how they might relate?

Well, that was kind of my point -- that they are related, to a degree that precludes a differentiation between them with functions.

Besides, I would say Ne is about things and not about situations, happenings, or actions. Activities is a vague term. Ni is about situations and happenings, but not actions. I mean sure you can find Ne or Ni elements in just about anything, but most of it is going to come from their respective areas.

Yes, exactly. And this is why pinnochio's categorization was wrong.

[strrrng]

look who's talking.

fuck you ******

[Logos]

The difference is dynamic fields and static objects. An example of how they're so different is Si perceives motion or non-motion and the changing or non-changing of one's surroundings . Si is basically physical awareness. Se draws information from a singular objects that is completely separate from other things around it. Se perceives physical characteristics like size, shape, color, etc.

Just as Si is physical awareness of events, Ni is non-physical awareness of events. Ni has more generalized idea of whats going on around itself. Ni can be thought of as an awareness of whats going on beneath the details. So it really understands generalized events. Ni is basically synonymous with the flow of events, and so is synonymous with understanding of what will happen in the future.

Just as Se is about physical characteristics, Ne is non-physical characteristics. These are completely reliant on the specific object and has nothing to do with what is going on around the object. Ne can be thought of as a perception of as something's or someone's personality, intelligence, or any other kind of mental/unapparent skill/characteristic. Ne can then say what that person/thing could become as a result of that.

It has the ability to perceive the potential in an object.
It does not have the ability to say that an even might occur unless it is off the bases that something has the ability to become something else.
This is what Si is for, to materialize this potential, or to make it happen through an understanding of physical cause and effect.

On the contrary, Ne has the ability to extrapolate the possibility of events through an understanding of the unchanging static elements that are present in a given point in time. As you say above, Ni is more concerned with what will likely happen in the future, whereas Ne proposes a more conditional (if not speculative) view of what could happen in the future with the base elements that are present.

Sure there is value in it, but not much more than comparing Ne to Fi. The only reason for the confusion is that they are both labeled intuition.

There is quite a bit of value in comparing Ne to Ni, much as there is in comparing Fe to Fi. Understanding the manifestation of Fe helps to understand the underlying phenomenon present in Fi, how it operates, and vice versa. The same is true with Ne and Ni.

I meant that Ni is, i general, more useful than Ne. But, of course there are things that Ne can do that Ni cannot.
In my opinion introverted IE's are more useful than extroverted ones, this is a really loose view because the functions are all dependent on each other, so I could understand arguments against it.

Okay, so just a subjective value statement.

You are correct. It is plastered all over the place, and that's why I edited my post, but this is a skewed view of Ne because you could extrapolate possibilities from any IE. In fact, there would be no point in any of the functions if they couldn't come up with possibilities. Ne is only more associated with coming up with possibilities because in a sense it does understand the possibilities of objects. It is limited to just that however, possibilities of objects. It cannot predict what will or could happen in terms of events. Only what something has the ability to become.

It is only skewered in that Ne entails more than simply possibilities. Once more, you are falsely underemphasizing Ne's association of possibilities. While other IEs can be used to generate possibilities, Ne remains as the IE that is most closely related to the Socionics understanding of possibilities. Furthermore, it can just as easily be argued that other IEs apart from Ni can also be used to make predictions. Ni is only more associated with predicting because in a sense it does understand the unfolding of events. See what I did there?

[Azeroffs]

On the contrary, Ne has the ability to extrapolate the possibility of events through an understanding of the unchanging static elements that are present in a given point in time. As you say above, Ni is more concerned with what will likely happen in the future, whereas Ne proposes a more conditional (if not speculative) view of what could happen in the future with the base elements that are present.

There is quite a bit of value in comparing Ne to Ni, much as there is in comparing Fe to Fi. Understanding the manifestation of Fe helps to understand the underlying phenomenon present in Fi, how it operates, and vice versa. The same is true with Ne and Ni.

Okay, so just a subjective value statement.

It is only skewered in that Ne entails more than simply possibilities. Once more, you are falsely underemphasizing Ne's association of possibilities. While other IEs can be used to generate possibilities, Ne remains as the IE that is most closely related to the Socionics understanding of possibilities. Furthermore, it can just as easily be argued that other IEs apart from Ni can also be used to make predictions. Ni is only more associated with predicting because in a sense it does understand the unfolding of events. See what I did there?

You don't seem to understand the nature of the IEs. Both Se and Ne and also Fe and Te for that matter are focused entirely on specific objects. That means that if you took a single object (person, rock, etc..) away from it's context, and extroverted IE could be used to identify properties associated with that object.

Take a single person for example. Se would perceive things like strength, hair color, etc (external characteristics). Ne perceives thing like intelligence, personality, skills etc (internal characteristics). Te perceives external dynamics of that object, so what the object is doing and how well they are doing it. Fe perceives internal dynamics or how the person is feeling and well they are feeling. Notice that Pe things typically don't change easily while Je things change from moment to moment. Notice also that all four of these IEs are only involving the singular object. These things are the basis of what these IEs are about and although they lead to other behaviors and abilities, they are all indirect and so not necessarily part of the IE. So types with these in their ego will be proficient at perceiving/judging these things and not necessarily anything else.

According to the dimensionality of functions the 1st and 8th function can make predictions or create possible scenarios related to these these things. 2nd and 7th have the ability to fill in holes in situations which haven't been experienced before. 3rd and 6th can be adapted to after being exposed to these elements, and the 4th and 5th can only be experienced.

@ Pinocchio: this is why I say the Id is sometimes more visible than the super-id in the other thread. Even though the super-Id is the preferred mode, it imply isn't skilled enough to be in constant use.

[munenori2]

Alpha NT



Maybe Gamma/Delta?

I teach you the Overman! Mankind is something to be overcome. What have you done to overcome mankind?

All beings so far have created something beyond themselves. Do you want to be the ebb of that great tide, and revert back to the beast rather than overcome mankind? What is the ape to a man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just so shall a man be to the Overman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame. You have evolved from worm to man, but much within you is still worm. Once you were apes, yet even now man is more of an ape than any of the apes.

Even the wisest among you is only a confusion and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I ask you to become phantoms or plants?

Behold, I teach you the Overman! The Overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beg of you my brothers, remain true to the earth, and believe not those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them!

Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died, and those blasphemers died along with him. Now to blaspheme against the earth is the greatest sin, and to rank love for the Unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth!

Once the soul looked contemptuously upon the body, and then that contempt was the supreme thing: -- the soul wished the body lean, monstrous, and famished. Thus it thought to escape from the body and the earth. But that soul was itself lean, monstrous, and famished; and cruelty was the delight of this soul! So my brothers, tell me: What does your body say about your soul? Is not your soul poverty and filth and wretched contentment?

In truth, man is a polluted river. One must be a sea to receive a polluted river without becoming defiled. I teach you the Overman! He is that sea; in him your great contempt can go under.

What is the greatest thing you can experience? It is the hour of your greatest contempt. The hour in which even your happiness becomes loathsome to you, and so also your reason and virtue.

The hour when you say: What good is my happiness? It is poverty and filth and wretched contentment. But my happiness should justify existence itself!

The hour when you say: What good is my reason? Does it long for knowledge as the lion for his prey? It is poverty and filth and wretched contentment!

The hour when you say: What good is my virtue? It has not yet driven me mad! How weary I am of my good and my evil! It is all poverty and filth and wretched contentment!

The hour when you say: What good is my justice? I do not see that I am filled with fire and burning coals. But the just are filled with fire and burning coals!

The hour when you say: What good is my pity? Is not pity the cross on which he is nailed who loves man? But my pity is no crucifixion!

Have you ever spoken like this? Have you ever cried like this? Ah! If only I had heard you cry this way!

It is not your sin -- it is your moderation that cries to heaven; your very sparingness in sin cries to heaven!

Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the madness with which you should be cleansed?

Behold, I teach you the Overman! He is that lightning, he is that madness!

[Marie84]

yes, Joy, I think that's a good diagram!

I agree w/ this, that Pinocchio said, "Ne discover. Ni predict."

I think that summarizes well the main difference -- Ne is creating entirely NEW concepts or ideas to be applied quickly to change the future. Ni is looking for trends in the past, a system of thought, to predict the future. Ne is looking at new happenings that could affect what occurs. So, Ne is very changeable, where as Ni is more constant.

example...There is a train. It's run on a track for 100 years.

Ni focuses on what the train has done and then draws an expectation based on that to predict what it will do. The train has followed the same route/showed up on time for ages, so might as well expect the train to show up right on schedule. This train is reliable, rich in history and embodies the American Dream of (etc.). Historically, people enjoy eating in the dining cars, so we can expect that will continue. Famous presidents rode on this train. Obama will likely ride on this train soon, just as past presidents have done. Let's wait for the train to arrive at 3:15 and plan on ordering the turkey in the dining car. We can soak up the historical feel.

Ne leaves room for the train to do something unpredicted and "new" -- Maybe the train won't show up on time, due to many factors, such as...the train may be influenced by the economy and a shift to cheaper airline flights reducing riders on trains. The business may suddenly be close to going bankrupt, so they may have reduced train times. Maybe it won't show up at 3:15 then. Will they even have a dining car in that case? Or will that be a cost they cut to save money? I wonder if the trains should be marketed as more "festive" to attract more riders, or maybe used for some other purpose to stay profitable...I wonder how we could accomplish that and what marketing plans would be used. In any event, we need a plan b in case it doesn't show up at 3:15, and maybe we should bring some snacks just in case.

[Krig the Viking]

You don't seem to understand the nature of the IEs. Both Se and Ne and also Fe and Te for that matter are focused entirely on specific objects. That means that if you took a single object (person, rock, etc..) away from it's context, and extroverted IE could be used to identify properties associated with that object.

Take a single person for example. Se would perceive things like strength, hair color, etc (external characteristics). Ne perceives thing like intelligence, personality, skills etc (internal characteristics). Te perceives external dynamics of that object, so what the object is doing and how well they are doing it. Fe perceives internal dynamics or how the person is feeling and well they are feeling. Notice that Pe things typically don't change easily while Je things change from moment to moment. Notice also that all four of these IEs are only involving the singular object. These things are the basis of what these IEs are about and although they lead to other behaviors and abilities, they are all indirect and so not necessarily part of the IE. So types with these in their ego will proficient be at perceiving/judging these things and not necessarily anything else.

According to the dimensionality of functions the 1st and 8th function can make predictions or create possible scenarios related to these these things. 2nd and 7th have the ability to fill in holes in situations which haven't been experienced before. 3rd and 6th can be adapted to after being exposed to these elements, and the 4th and 5th can only be experienced.

@ Pinocchio: this is why I say the Id is sometimes more visible than the super-id in the other thread. Even though the super-Id is the preferred mode, it imply isn't skilled enough to be in constant use.

Exactly. Extraverted functions (object functions) deal with objects in isolation. It's the introverted functions (field functions) that provide context, how that object relates to other objects, etc. That's why each block pairs an extraverted function with an introverted function.

Ne looks at a person, sees his good reflexes and his mechanical aptitude, and says "You have the potential to be a racecar driver". That's a statement of possibility about an individual object. But in order to say something like "You have the potential to win the Indianapolis 500", you would have to combine that Ne with an introverted function, like Ti (comparing the "racecar driver potential" in this person with the "racecar driver potential" of all the other drivers).

(Technically, "You have the potential to be a racecar driver" has traces of Ti in it as well, as determining the quality of someone's driving ability would involve comparisons to other people.)

I think it's more helpful to think of the functions in blocks like this, as isolated functions do not occur in nature.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Krig the Viking]

No, but I don't think I do better in my native one . Things like the ones I think about are not so easy to explain, I put all my hopes in the audience to understand with the insight, I'm a bit ambiguous and the examples are my only hope.

I could try harder, is there something I could clarify further for you?

(Sorry, I overlooked your response to my post earlier)
You use sometimes use words in ways which I find unfamiliar, which was starting to make me think you were an Ni type trying to describe the indescribable. Now, however, I find that when I "hear" your posts in my head with a thick foreign accent, they suddenly make much more sense.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

Edit: a function with such step needs assistance to be able to deal with the environment (which is defined).

Could you clarify this? Why should anyone use anything other than ?

Did he say that when he was trying to discredit quantum theory? Because... we all know how well that turned out.

While he was being reactionist about it, I think he saw real problems with quantum theory... and I think I've seen those problems resolved. (There are no fundamental units of matter - matter is composed of interacting, continuous energy fields.)

[silverchris9]

Ni is like finding something in a badly lit room.

Ni is getting to the truth of something. It's like looking through a microscope and finding the core.

At the same time, Ni looks outwards. Ni is like sitting in a web, and feeling all the vibrations. It's understanding the ebb and flow. It's like an abstract, subconscious synthesis of a million inputs to give you the essence. It's absorbing all the colours of the spectrum and getting a beam of pure white light. (Of course, the whiteness of the light is subjective. This is why Ni bases disagree all the time. Also, any new input is bound to change the light subtly, which is why Ni bases are so uncertain about everything.)

Ni can get to the same conclusions as Ne, but it just doesn't feel like it. Ne is busy exploring a tree's branches, Ni would rather sit at its base and contemplate trees. By the end, they both think they "know" the tree, but that the other one was wasting its time on unimportant matters.

All that was totally, completely true and awesome. It's like divining a universal from staring at a particular.

I think one of the differences between Ne and Ni is the direction of their thought. Ne starts from the unchanging potential (this is their "intuition" in the more common use of the term) and builds naturally outward to possibilities. Ni starts from the changing actions (or accidents, if you're down with aristotle) of a thing and flows naturally inward to it's inward nature, which is why Ni can stare at a tree until it gets a theory of trees. Ne extrapolates (that is a great word) out from the core of a thing (as expressed in its potentials or capabilities), Ni abstracts in to the core of a thing (which is most readily seen, externally, in the prediction of how it will change, I guess).

In my view, what the "internal dynamics of fields" (or "how immaterial relationships change") describes is the Ni process of abstraction: we observe how things change (I don't quite understand how this change occurs relative to other things rather than singularly as in "internal dynamics of objects"), and derive a general understanding. I have issues with the "intuition of time," though. When people say "intuition of time" it makes me think of the usual image of time as a river and successive things happening, and I don't think like that. I understand time more non-sequentially, more like a map. It's not so much that "this happened and then this happened and then this happened, now that must happen" as "all these things happened; what is the pattern?" And then from the pattern, you deduce what happens next. I really think Ni is more concerned with finding what is unchanging over time by examining it through time (in the same way that the function of a curve is the same at any point on its graph, but the function can only be determined by examining the points) than predicting the future. It's just that we get so accustomed to thinking in this manner that we toss off things like:

Ni: Oh, the train will come at seven ten.
Less Cool Type (or equally cool type, if beta, esp. beta ST): Why/how do you know?
Ni: Because, every time the train is supposed to arrive anywhere after four, it is always ten minutes late. If the train is supposed to come at seven, it will come at seven ten.

The only thing is, the process is so unconscious that the vast majority of the time, in least in my experience, the Ni user doesn't have a "because" since he/she gathered the data that lead to this conclusion without noticing it. So we just shrug and say, "I dunno." I guess Ne types might see this as being too rigid, not leaving room for possibilities, but Ni-users, I think, tend to subconsciously know this weakness and therefore try to gather data from as many sources as possible (so as to produce a more accurate understanding/prediction), and often develop a good degree of skepticism as a precaution against rigid thinking.

Could you clarify this? Why should anyone use anything other than ?

I don't know what pinocchio was thinking, but the answer to your question is "because Te sucks"

(also, sorry for the wall of text moment.)

[strrrng]

.

.

Yes! Flawless, 100%

[strrrng]

To briefly expand on something chris said, regarding how Ni almost unwittingly accrues abstract information and naturally hones in on whatever singular process is evolving... this is quite true, and serves as a nice correction to the fallacious idea that Ni tracks processes over time gradationally, making predictions based on a past-ridden causality sense of how they interact. It's by sheer virtue of the fact that Ni cognition ignores the observable characteristics of these very things, that it is able to make the predictions it does. It is a matter of looking at the developing rings on a tree vs. examining the tree's core, a base ring, and extrapolating the underlying theme which will presage the rings to be formed over the years.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

This is how it is, there advantages and advantages for each, and you know it from the types.

Te does not deal with things other IEs deal with. You need Ne for potential, you need Fi for relationships, etc. Te is simply objective on all those steps, but to make connections, to deal with the internal/background/unknown, you have to have undefined steps. It's like in maths, the defined, objective, concrete things are the constants or values, but using only them you can't do other than basic operations, you can't apply the methods on different things, but using variables you can, and these variables are the undefined stuff in IEs/functions (Introverted, Static, Internal).

So, the "assistance" I'm talking about represents the values which are constrained by external conditions (constants, previously calculated results, etc) but again, to deal with the environment only. Their "strength" consists in the fact that they are applicable on anything, there's where imagination, creativity and other stuff come from. But their "weakness" is that they are not usable alone in the concrete world, they need some examples, values, to apply on.

In real people/types, it is not so easy to note this need for assistance, people usually find ways to cover these gaps. The easiest to notice is the one for Internals. The Internal types are say "head-in-clouds" or "emotional" and someone else usually remind them of their earthly and vulgar life.

BRB to continue... (SEI calls)

Okay, so considering it this way... is the element most bound by the environment, whereas can apply to anything, regardless... well, just regardless?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

For Fi and Ti it is pretty tricky to explain and I have no formulation so far, so yeah, "regardless?".

Fi is the main thing I'm worried about, but I'll try to answer Ti.

It is known that dominants will occasionally suffer bouts of nihilism. I have experienced this myself, and Descartes' "I think therefore I am" is the canonical example. (It may be that this is related to Introversion in general.) , functioning without observation or process, draws conclusions from conclusions - any process or observation is seen as an association of conclusions with each other. complements this by assigning values to various points in the system, allowing a clear winner to emerge.

This hints at a way to describe - assigns value without observation or process, that is, "value from value" to 's "conclusions from conclusions." 's nihilistic bouts would be attempts to form a value system out of thin air, as opposed to 's attempts to form a logical basis out of thin air.

So -
Extroversion (Concrete 1): The outside
Introversion (General 1): Regardless of context
Dynamic (Concrete 2): As the process goes
Static (General 2): Overall
External (Concrete 3): Conclusions
Internal (General 3): Values

: Conclusions about external processes
: Conclusions about the external, overall
: Values in the outside world
: Values in the processes of the outside world
: Overall conclusions, regardless of context
: Context-free conclusions about processes
: Context-free values in processes
: Overall values, regardless of context
: Big happy face, out of context

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Logos]

I'm not sure if one-word descriptions really helps to give a good sense of a concept. I would much rather see multiple words, each reinforcing the other and the primary concept.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

Yeah, the thought is the observable result of man, therefore it doesn't need justification, even as its cause and process are not known.
I believe Ti invented Results-Only Work Environment, a strategy which dismisses unproductive employees regardless of their problems and pays productive ones regardless of how they fulfill the job. Yes, such company needs a bit of a running-in period, but then it becomes a dream one (at least for me).

I believe the quote is more related to LII, an LSI one would probably be closer to "I accomplish therefore I am".

No, I don't think that's what it was - you seem to be relating it to ; I see it as a purely statement. If he had been merely observing the fact that thoughts were running through his head, then that would be an judgment, and open to question from a purely standpoint. However, Descartes noted that his logical processing was itself a thought, and that it would be logically inconsistent to question his own ability to question things - therefore he had to, in his thoughts, conclude that he was thinking. It's the recursive nature of the conclusion that makes it unavoidable - it's a proof by contradiction.

I agree with what you said further, although I'm hesitant to use "value" for the Internals, it feels like it doesn't cover all. I think it's your tendency to see the Rational part . It implies some determination or preference which I think it's not general enough. I'd rather say "ideas" or "concepts", which imo better cover both F and N.

I think you're right about "Value" not covering Intuition, but I'm hesitant to extend "ideas" and "concepts" to Feeling, as those are terms that I've used purely for Intuition in the past. Nothing better comes to mind atm, however...

Anyway, considering that I believe we humans interpret differently the nature of each step considering the others (especially Extroversion compared to Dynamicality - Rationality) I think the preferred way of naming would vary from IE to IE.

Let me have my try with terms:

Fi: relation
Ti: property

Ni: possibility
Si: procedure

Ne: potential
Se: value

Fe: activity
Te: progress

Ok, it took a while...
Note that I use "value" in the sense of objective, observable even measurable, not a personal value.

"Relation" is actually a fairly good term for a concept without a basis in process or observation... but "property" and "possibility" don't seem so good. would be something like a "relation of activity" - a grouping of the movement of many things that doesn't identify them specifically (I'm not sure what word to use for this). might be likened to a "stopped procedure" - but all that comes to mind are "logic" and "conclusion" which probably aren't what we'd want in a one-word description list.