Base/Ignoring and Creative/Demonstrative

[Azeroffs]

I've started to look at the relationship between these functions in order to differentiate an element being in the base or creative slot.

The base function is looking for any and all information related to it. It doesn't want anything to limit it, and will purposefully overlook other data in order to maximize it. The ignoring function is often related to information in the base function. The type will take it into consideration and has a strong knowledge base in the area of their ignoring function, and they may even offer advice in it. However, the moment that the information in the ignoring function somehow interferes with the information in the base function, it is dismissed all together.

The creative function is not as strong and not as much of a priority as the base function. Not only that, but the demonstrative function is ingrained into the individual's subconscious, and they are usually not even aware of how much the element affects their actions. The individual doesn't focus on their creative all the time, but when they do, there is always an implicit consideration of the demonstrative. The individual may not have any values related to their demonstrative, but they can't help but be guided by it.

------------

Fe/Fi

With Fe base types, they are entirely focused on the implicit emotional dynamic that exists in peoples actions and interactions. They focus on manipulating or maintaining this in order to create mood that they would like to see. Most often this means upholding a positive, friendly, and fun atmosphere. While doing this they are aware of the bonds they are creating with others, and they enjoy creating these bonds with others. However, if they have to deal with being around people they dislike or if personal boundaries are crossed, they can easily overlook these personal fouls in the name of maintaining an atmosphere. They may even ignore the fact that they dislike someone if they see that person as fun to be around and contributing to interpersonal dynamics, and they will continue to put themselves in a position where they are around the person(i.e. invite them to parties, etc).

Fi base types have the opposite priority. They are very aware of how they feel about others, the implicit relationships that exist between people, and how to maintain, build, or break these relationships. They are skilled at working interpersonal dynamics and have to for the sake of their relationships. However, they refuse to dismiss their personal sentiments in order to maintain a friendly facade, and if pushed hard enough will even break a whole group dynamic because of the way they feel about a particular person and how they're acting. Fi-base types know that interpersonal dynamics don't always reflect what kind of relationship exists, so they will usually ignore them when determining what kind of relationship exists or what they would like to exist.

Fe creatives are like Fe-base in that they focus on interpersonal dynamics. They are aware of how they can change an atmosphere and manipulate emotions. More often than not though, they simply observe the changes going on, and are only occasionally driven to push things into a different direction. They form strong opinions of people and become clearly aware of the implicit relationships that are built and how they are built. When they do act on the interpersonal dynamics going on between people they do so with the consideration of how they feel about individuals involved. For example, they're not likely to act like best friends of people they don't know or dislike. Like Fi-base, they cannot ignore the relationships they have with people or the lack there of. However, they don't emphasize their personal feelings or implicit relationships the way Fi-base does, therefore they are unlikely to overtly ignore people they dislike or cling to people they like.

Fi-creatives focus on implicit relationships just as Fi-base does, but with a lesser priority. They aren't as focused on stable relationships as much as they like to change relationship or establish new ones. When their personal sentiments change, the way they interact with people changes to reflect it. Like Fe-base they are constantly changing the emotional atmosphere, but they tend to let themselves be emotionally free, always expressing their personal feelings. They don't feel the need to control an emotional atmosphere the way Fe-base does. Instead they subconsciously change it on a whim by letting their actions reflect their changing personal sentiments.

---------------

Te/Ti

Te-base are focused on particular cause and effect processes in the external environment. They know well how to manipulate things and make them work the way they want them to. They have a strong orientation toward tasks as they are drawn to produce beneficial results from their actions. As they are involved with these external processes they find general patterns and rules that can be concluded from the world. They can build a pretty strong knowledge base in this way. A potentially infinite number of conclusions can be drawn from the facts derived from the external world. Te-base are skilled in these comparisons and logical conclusion building, but they have a need to consult reality. If a structure becomes too far removed from reality, they become uninterested because it doesn't help them interact with the world and distrustful of it's accuracy even if it is logically valid. They may be reluctant to jump to conclusions even when it makes logical sense. If there's no external basis, it should be questioned.

Ti-base is focused very heavily on what does and does not make sense. They are always aware of whether things fit together logically or not, and they are skilled at following a logical train of thought and coming to a logically accurate conclusion. They are well aware of the practical workings of the world and often refer to it in order to get more information from which more conclusions can be built. They feel little need to interact with the world though. They can much more easily learn about reality through reflection and conclusion building. They can be prone to dismissing evidence that contradicts their logical conclusions, because there are always exceptions to the rules. Often they will try to reclassify the contradictory fact in order to explain why it was an outlier. Unless enough external evidence is shown to prove something to be incorrect, they won't let go of guidelines that represent how reality is at least most of the time, and even then they prefer to understand the logical reason they were wrong before accepting the evidence.

Te-Creative are focused on causal functioning of the world. But, they spend less time directly involved with the world unlike Te-base. They spend more time observing the processes taking place and they begin to build an understanding of how it works. They also become aware of the various explanations behind why the world is the way it is. When they do interact with their environment they are guided by how they understand what they are interacting with. However, they know the limitations of logical analysis and will quickly let go of explanations which they cannot rely on when interacting with the world. For them, evidence always trumps explanations.

Ti-Creative are focused on how they understand the world. They build and deconstruct understandings very often and quickly. They like the exercise of discovering new ways of explaining the world, but they are not concerned with maintaining all-encompassing systems the way Ti-base is. While they enjoy coming up with new insights into why the world is the way it is, they are also always aware of the empirical evidence of how the world actually works, and take note when their explanations are not supported by facts. Contrary evidence causes them to question their logical analysis sooner than Ti-base, and they will freely adopt new explanations if they can find them. They find themselves deriving new patterns and ideas from processes occurring in the world, and this is because they are continually subconsciously taking note of all the ways in which the world functions. However, they are aware that there is more to the world than just the observable workings of it, and consequently they feel free to follow logical trains of thought beyond what fact and evidence can prove.

(Thanks to Krig the Viking)

[Beautiful sky]

Great job, also look at how role and base can be interchanged at times, but not sustained for a long time with comfort. For example, if I were to assume Ti responsibilities all the time, I would surely get over stressed.

[Mattie]

The base function is looking for any and all information related to it. It doesn't want anything to limit it, and will purposefully overlook other data in order to maximize it.

As my working understanding of the Leading IME is, the Function composes all information through your leading. It is the lens you can't really escape, everything is filtered through it. Whenever I think of the Leading Function, I remember that scene from A Beautiful Mind where he sees the group of birds and walking people as math equations (or something to this effect), as if the composition of reality, to him, was understood only through mathematics. I don't see the leading IME as active, like not looking for related information, but just translating or fitting all information into its understanding. Because it is so ingrained in us, we take it for granted and don't see it working, we just assume that information is just presented in the composition of our Leading IME.

The ignoring function is often related to information in the base function. The type will take it into consideration and has a strong knowledge base in the area of their ignoring function, and they may even offer advice in it. However, the moment that the information in the ignoring function somehow interferes with the information in the base function, it is dismissed all together.

I think I basically agree with this. I see it as another passive process, the Ignoring IME is understood but rarely recognized because it muddles how things are understood to work through the Leading IME. Because of this, there's something jarring when attention is called to the Ignoring IME, like something has been left out or that something is plausible, but not satisfying. Because it only works tentatively with the Leading IME, it is usually just left out of the picture.

The creative function is not as strong and not as much of a priority as the base function. Not only that, but the demonstrative function is ingrained into the individual's subconscious, and they are usually not even aware of how much the element affects their actions. The individual doesn't focus on their creative all the time, but when they do, there is always an implicit consideration of the demonstrative. The individual may not have any values related to their demonstrative, but they can't help but be guided by it.

I really disagree, as from what I can tell, a type most focuses on their Creative IME; with my experiences in type, I tend to notice the Creative IME in others much before anything else. I think it's because it is the strongest "active" Function, you use it in reaction to the information that you come to understand through your leading IME. The world isn't composed of the creative IE's information, but it is the way things move, change, and are adjusted. It's possible that a type may think in the terms of it's Leading, and do in the terms of it's Creative; a little simple but gets at the idea I'm trying to reach for. I think the second most focus goes to the Mobilizing Function, as that's the IME that fits right along well with the Creative set-up the type already has.

As for the Demonstrative, I can only best describe that as a knee-jerk implementation when the Creative doesn't seem suitable for some reason. It feels awkward to use because you can't normally see why your Creative function would have an issue, but after enough time, this pops up. It feels redundant because it focuses on the Objects/Subjects that the leading and Mobilizing do, but you have a better understanding of how to use it more because it's been in the back of your mind for a long time, rather than proficiently using it often like the Creative. I'd like to work more on my understanding of the Ignoring and Demonstrative Functions, but I haven't gotten there yet.

[Azeroffs]

As my working understanding of the Leading IME is, the Function composes all information through your leading. It is the lens you can't really escape, everything is filtered through it. Whenever I think of the Leading Function, I remember that scene from A Beautiful Mind where he sees the group of birds and walking people as math equations (or something to this effect), as if the composition of reality, to him, was understood only through mathematics. I don't see the leading IME as active, like not looking for related information, but just translating or fitting all information into its understanding. Because it is so ingrained in us, we take it for granted and don't see it working, we just assume that information is just presented in the composition of our Leading IME.


I think I basically agree with this. I see it as another passive process, the Ignoring IME is understood but rarely recognized because it muddles how things are understood to work through the Leading IME. Because of this, there's something jarring when attention is called to the Ignoring IME, like something has been left out or that something is plausible, but not satisfying. Because it only works tentatively with the Leading IME, it is usually just left out of the picture.



I really disagree, as from what I can tell, a type most focuses on their Creative IME; with my experiences in type, I tend to notice the Creative IME in others much before anything else. I think it's because it is the strongest "active" Function, you use it in reaction to the information that you come to understand through your leading IME. The world isn't composed of the creative IE's information, but it is the way things move, change, and are adjusted. It's possible that a type may think in the terms of it's Leading, and do in the terms of it's Creative; a little simple but gets at the idea I'm trying to reach for. I think the second most focus goes to the Mobilizing Function, as that's the IME that fits right along well with the Creative set-up the type already has.

As for the Demonstrative, I can only best describe that as a knee-jerk implementation when the Creative doesn't seem suitable for some reason. It feels awkward to use because you can't normally see why your Creative function would have an issue, but after enough time, this pops up. It feels redundant because it focuses on the Objects/Subjects that the leading and Mobilizing do, but you have a better understanding of how to use it more because it's been in the back of your mind for a long time, rather than proficiently using it often like the Creative. I'd like to work more on my understanding of the Ignoring and Demonstrative Functions, but I haven't gotten there yet.

I think the issue we're having is that I don't view functions as active or inactive in terms of a person 'using' an element. The way I understand it is that people don't use an element. They are aware of it or they are not. People are always aware of their base, and cannot break awareness of it, and so you are most strongly focused on it. You are also strongly aware of your creative, especially when you need to be, but you aren't always focused on it the way you are with your base, so you aren't as strongly focused on it. Do you see the difference in how we approach it? If you can't agree with my approach, then I doubt we will be able to reconcile.

Also, the demonstrative is not 'used' just as other functions are not used. You are just subconsciously drawn to it. You are constantly acting within its context, but you aren't consciously aware of it. So technically you are just as aware of it and deal with it just as much as your base. The difference is that it's happening subconsciously, and so it's not a factor in how you consciously decide to conduct yourself.

[Krig the Viking]

Excellent analysis, Azeroffs! Not only do I think you are correct in your conclusions, but reading them has improved my own understanding, which can't be said for most posts on this forum.

I love few things better than a clear, precise, and accurate analysis of a complex phenomenon.

I think that your descriptions of Fe and Fi are somewhat skewed toward Alpha/Gamma Fe and Fi (-Fe and -Fi), but I think this actually results in a clearer and cleaner description.

I'm very much looking forward to your descriptions of the other elements.

[Azeroffs]

The other elements aren't going to be as clear as Fe and Fi. I'll try doing Te/Ti next, but the relationship isn't as clear to me and people seem to be reluctant to make many solid conclusions about them. Also, I'll have to get over some of my own biases. But here we go...


Te/Ti

Te-base are focused on particular cause and effect processes in the external environment. They know well how to manipulate things and make them work the way they want them to. They have a strong orientation toward tasks as they are drawn to produce beneficial results from their actions. As they are involved with these external processes they find general patterns and rules that can be concluded from the world. They can build a pretty strong knowledge base in this way. A potentially infinite number of conclusions can be drawn from the facts derived from the external world. Te-base are skilled in these comparisons and logical conclusion building, but they have a need to consult reality. If a structure becomes too far removed from reality, they become uninterested because it doesn't help them interact with the world and distrustful of it's accuracy even if it is logically valid. They may be reluctant to jump to conclusions even when it makes logical sense. If there's no external basis, it should be questioned.

Ti-base is focused very heavily on their thoughts. They know the thinking process most intimately, and have an innate understanding of how logic works. They are very aware of the logical connections that build up valid conclusions. They are well aware of the workings of the world and often refer to it in order to get more information from which more conclusions can be built. They feel little need to interact with the world though. They can much more easily learn about reality through reflection and conclusion building. They have a hard time denying logical structures because of exceptions to the rules. Just because there are slight exceptions doesn't mean the conclusion is completely incorrect. Often they will just reclassify the exception in order to explain why it was an outlier. Unless enough external evidence is shown to prove something to be incorrect, they won't let go of guidelines that represent how reality is at least most of the time.

Te-Creative are focused on causal functioning of the world. But, they spend less time directly involved with the world unlike Te-base. They spend more time observing the processes taking place and they begin to build an understanding of how it works. They become aware of elaborate explanations for the world they observe. When they do interact with their environment they are guided by how they understand what they are interacting with. However, they know the limitations of logical analysis and will quickly let go of explanations which they cannot rely on when interacting with the world.

Ti-Creative are focused on how they understand the world. They build and deconstruct understandings very often and quickly. They like the exercise of discovering new ways of explaining the world, but they are not concerned with maintaining all-encompassing systems the way Ti-base is. They need to stay in contact with external world in order to find new ways of understanding it. They find themselves deriving new patterns and ideas from processes occurring in the world, and this is because they are subconsciously noting all the ways in which the world functions. They don't feel the need to control the functions of the world the way Te-base does though.



I'm not as crazy about these descriptions.

[Jarno]

I want to do other elements, but I'll see how you all react to this first.

You have really great threads.

[Mattie]

I think the issue we're having is that I don't view functions as active or inactive in terms of a person 'using' an element. The way I understand it is that people don't use an element. They are aware of it or they are not. People are always aware of their base, and cannot break awareness of it, and so you are most strongly focused on it. You are also strongly aware of your creative, especially when you need to be, but you aren't always focused on it the way you are with your base, so you aren't as strongly focused on it. Do you see the difference in how we approach it? If you can't agree with my approach, then I doubt we will be able to reconcile.

Also, the demonstrative is not 'used' just as other functions are not used. You are just subconsciously drawn to it. You are constantly acting within its context, but you aren't consciously aware of it. So technically you are just as aware of it and deal with it just as much as your base. The difference is that it's happening subconsciously, and so it's not a factor in how you consciously decide to conduct yourself.

I guess the point here isn't to flesh this out, as you're looking to just create descriptions from your understanding. So I'll just see what you come up with.

[leckysupport]

You are just subconsciously drawn to it. You are constantly acting within its context, but you aren't consciously aware of it. So technically you are just as aware of it and deal with it just as much as your base. The difference is that it's happening subconsciously, and so it's not a factor in how you consciously decide to conduct yourself.

I agree with this and I believe this issue highlights the problem of typing through thought processes. To be able to say you have the correct thought process you have to confirm it with a number of people of the same type which have the thought process you're focusing on. And how can you be sure that a person recognises their own socionically related thought processes? Mattie.

[Suz]

WOW these are awesome Azeroffs!!! Keep em coming!

p.s. save a copy of these somewhere in case the forum ever goes down or posts get deleted by a virus or something.

[Aiss]

I think the issue we're having is that I don't view functions as active or inactive in terms of a person 'using' an element. The way I understand it is that people don't use an element. They are aware of it or they are not. People are always aware of their base, and cannot break awareness of it, and so you are most strongly focused on it. You are also strongly aware of your creative, especially when you need to be, but you aren't always focused on it the way you are with your base, so you aren't as strongly focused on it. Do you see the difference in how we approach it? If you can't agree with my approach, then I doubt we will be able to reconcile.

Also, the demonstrative is not 'used' just as other functions are not used. You are just subconsciously drawn to it. You are constantly acting within its context, but you aren't consciously aware of it. So technically you are just as aware of it and deal with it just as much as your base. The difference is that it's happening subconsciously, and so it's not a factor in how you consciously decide to conduct yourself.

I couldn't agree more, especially with the emphasized part.

Though awareness of creative function information requires what may be called an 'active' focus, simply because it's not as natural as base - and if we make a distinction between information elements and aspects, 'using' the former becomes more or less equivalent to focusing on the respective information aspect anyway, it's just that terminology suggests associating thinking patterns with elements. That is not to say they don't affect it, but they are not the same nor is the correlation this simple.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

With Fe base types, they are entirely focused on the implicit emotional dynamic that exists in peoples actions and interactions. They focus on manipulating or maintaining this in order to create mood that they would like to see. Most often this means upholding a positive, friendly, and fun atmosphere. While doing this they are aware of the bonds they are creating with others, and they enjoy creating these bonds with others. However, if they have to deal with being around people they dislike or if personal boundaries are crossed, they can easily overlook these personal fouls in the name of maintaining an atmosphere. They may even ignore the fact that they dislike someone if they see that person as fun to be around and contributing to interpersonal dynamics, and they will continue to put themselves in a position where they are around the person(i.e. invite them to parties, etc).

Fi base types have the opposite priority. They are very aware of how they feel about others, the implicit relationships that exist between people, and how to maintain, build, or break these relationships. They are skilled at working interpersonal dynamics and have to for the sake of their relationships. However, they refuse to dismiss their personal sentiments in order to maintain a friendly facade, and if pushed hard enough will even break a whole group dynamic because of the way they feel about a particular person and how they're acting. Fi-base types know that interpersonal dynamics don't always reflect what kind of relationship exists, so they will usually ignore them when determining what kind of relationship exists or what they would like to exist.

I don't like this, because I just don't feel that our brains are dichotomized in this fashion. I just really think you're using your imagination too much here. I mean, to me everybody is a little bit of both of these things....almost equally. People want close bonds, and they also want to lift up the mood of everybody around them. It's not an either or thing. It's hard to tell even what I myself prefer.

Furthermore, you insinuated that Fe was a 'friendly facade' and that Fi is inherently more 'real' (and thus of course, naturally and organically better than Fe). So you need to describe Fe better. I doubt Fe-types think they're 'putting on a facade' just because they (presumably) like lifting up the spirits of everybody around them. Oh, and- this is even more complicated, because you have to take into consideration where Fe is in the psyche, which to your credit I think you actually did so never mind that last sentence too much (though its just a friendly reminder =p)

[Krig the Viking]

The other elements aren't going to be as clear as Fe and Fi. I'll try doing Te/Ti next, but the relationship isn't as clear to me and people seem to be reluctant to make many solid conclusions about them. Also, I'll have to get over some of my own biases. But here we go...

It's hard to follow up such a strong start. But still, 90% as good as "super-awesome" is still awesome.

Only two more to go!

[Azeroffs]

I don't like this, because I just don't feel that our brains are dichotomized in this fashion. I just really think you're using your imagination too much here. I mean, to me everybody is a little bit of both of these things....almost equally. People want close bonds, and they also want to lift up the mood of everybody around them. It's not an either or thing. It's hard to tell even what I myself prefer.

I clearly stated that it wasn't either or. Just that when it comes down to it, there is a clear preference for what is emphasized for rational feelers.

Furthermore, you insinuated that Fe was a 'friendly facade' and that Fi is inherently more 'real' (and thus of course, naturally and organically better than Fe). So you need to describe Fe better. I doubt Fe-types think they're 'putting on a facade' just because they (presumably) like lifting up the spirits of everybody around them. Oh, and- this is even more complicated, because you have to take into consideration where Fe is in the psyche, which to your credit I think you actually did so never mind that last sentence too much (though its just a friendly reminder =p)

I said 'friendly facade' to refer to how the individual (Fi-base) will view acting that way. Both Fi and Fe are real, it's just a matter of what you prefer to emphasize. I never mad any insinuations about one being better or worse. Just different. If some people happen to believe that one is somehow better or worse, that's their own value judgment. Also note the difference between Fe-base and Fe-creative. If an Fe-base is absolutely opposed to this, I'll reconsider it.

[Aiss]

Furthermore, you insinuated that Fe was a 'friendly facade' and that Fi is inherently more 'real' (and thus of course, naturally and organically better than Fe).

This seems to be how Fe quite consistently comes off to Fi-types, so it is probably a natural and organic view for a Te-dominant. It's more the result of misinterpretation of each other than anything else, probably.

[Krig the Viking]

Also note the difference between Fe-base and Fe-creative.

Exactly. An IEI such as yourself, BnD, with Demonstrative Fi, is going to think about it more and take it somewhat more seriously than a type with Ignoring Fi, who will be aware of it but consider it much less important than Fe.

Keep in mind, also, that a lot of this occurs on a subconscious level. It's not like people go around thinking to themselves "I really like making people happy, but I don't care about my relationship with them!" It's just a tendency of behaviour that they probably wouldn't even be aware of unless you pointed it out.

[Azeroffs]

Ni/Ne

Ne-base is focused on hidden properties that they see as existing within people and things. They are driven to discover and bring to light the properties which they see as possible. They are motivated by new things because there is so many possible properties which could exist, and that sense of unknown inspires them. They are also clearly aware that certain things are more or less possible than others. They are aware that some things are predictable and that the possibilities aren't truly infinite. However, they don't let this stop them when they cannot be absolutely sure. They must experience for themselves whether or not something is truly possible or not, and they must test them all.

Ni-base is focused on, more than anything, the plausible causal relationships between occurrences and things that they have imagined. These things that they have imagined are more often than not, what they believe will happen in the future or what they remember from the past. They believe that they understand well how things exist when they have never experienced it or come to be certain of it. Because what they have imagined just makes so much sense, it cannot be ignored. They are aware that the world is far more unpredictable than the way they act it is, but they can't ignore the strength of their insight. They are just so certain that things are going to continue the way they seem to be. Part of them knows that things may go differently, but they refuse to act like things could go just any way. They know what's most likely going to happen and there's no point in fighting it.

Ne-creative is also focused on possibilities in the world, but they aren't focused with as much priority or enthusiasm. They don't naively go in directions they 'know' are fruitless, and they don't mind uncovering possibilities by the use of heavy reflection and deep analysis. They have very strong insight into how things likely are, and they use that to their advantage in uncovering new things. However, they refuse to go by hunches alone. They must have some rationale behind why things will go the way they believe or why things exist the way they do. Sometimes they have to come up with highly abstract explanations in order to do so.

Ni-creative are focused on how they believe things to exist or how they believe things will result. They trust their insight a lot when making decisions in the world, but they don't feel so sure that everything in the world is going to go as it seems to be. They have to make things go in the direction they decide. They limit their vision to particular actions. They understand well that the world is full of possibilities and things could go in many different directions. They subconsciously orient themselves around opportunities, and they are confident that they know which actions will take advantage of them. They often put themselves in a position where the possibilities are good for them, and they act with all the possible long-term consequences of the action in mind.

[ashlesha]

Ni is the element i have the most difficulty conceptualizing but the way you described it here and contrasted it with Ne made it really easy to understand.

thanks for all of these.

[Azeroffs]

Though awareness of creative function information requires what may be called an 'active' focus, simply because it's not as natural as base - and if we make a distinction between information elements and aspects, 'using' the former becomes more or less equivalent to focusing on the respective information aspect anyway, it's just that terminology suggests associating thinking patterns with elements. That is not to say they don't affect it, but they are not the same nor is the correlation this simple.

It's mostly a semantic preference, but I think it's more accurate to say that the creative element is situational. Also, 'using' an element, to me, sounds like there is an implied action which isn't always the case. The awareness of an element is a factor that is considered when taking action, and it may drive or discourage action, but the element itself is not an action. The elements are different types of mental awareness. For example, using Te doesn't mean you're working. Using Fe doesn't mean your being emotional. Using Ne doesn't mean your imagining up possibilities. Using them means you are processing information in a certain way and becoming aware of something. So I Just don't like it, but that's just me. That said, I'm sure I've used 'using Xx' in the past. Sometimes it's convenient.

The concern I really had was the idea that the creative is most heavily focused on, and I can see how someone could be lead to think that if they view the creative as active and the base as passive. If I had to describe the creative as active, I'd describe it as situationally active, and I'd describe the base as continuously active.

It's hard to follow up such a strong start. But still, 90% as good as "super-awesome" is still awesome.

Only two more to go!

I'm concerned with the T descriptions.. I'd like to improve them if I can. If you or anyone else for that matter can make any suggestions, that would be great.

[Krig the Viking]

It's mostly a semantic preference, but I think it's more accurate to say that the creative element is situational. Also, 'using' an element, to me, sounds like there is an implied action which isn't always the case. The awareness of an element is a factor that is considered when taking action, and it may drive or discourage action, but the element itself is not an action. The elements are different types of mental awareness.

I agree with this. Gulenko proposes that actions are handled more by the sub-type or "Energy Type". If I understand him correctly, he believes our consciousness uses its awareness of information processed by the base type or "Information Type" to make decisions on possible actions in the Energy Type. I still have to do more reading on this, though.

I'm concerned with the T descriptions.. I'd like to improve them if I can. If you or anyone else for that matter can make any suggestions, that would be great.

What parts specifically are troubling you?

Excellent descriptions of Ne/Ni, btw. I agree with laghlagh.

[Azeroffs]

What parts specifically are troubling you?

I'm just not seeing it. I pieced it together through theory, but idk if it actually make sense in the real world sense. Like do people actually think that way?

I'm just not feeling it like I can feel the F and N descriptions. Something is missing. Can you see it in my writing?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[ilikesex]

Ni/Ne

Ni-base

They believe that they understand well how things exist when they have never experienced it or come to be certain of it. Because what they have imagined just makes so much sense, it cannot be ignored. They are aware that the world is far more unpredictable than the way they act it is, but they can't ignore the strength of their insight. They are just so certain. Part of them knows that things may go differently, but they refuse to act like things could go just any way. They know what's most likely going to happen and there's no point in fighting it.



Ni-creative

They trust their insight a lot when making decisions in the world, but they don't feel so sure that everything in the world is going to go exactly as they expect. They limit their expectations. They understand well that the world is full of inherent uncertainty and things could go in many different directions, and they subconsciously orient themselves as such, but they are confident that they know which actions will have better results than others. They often put themselves in a position where the possibilities are good for them, and they act with all the possible long-term consequences of the action in mind.

wow.... really?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Krig the Viking]

I'm just not seeing it. I pieced it together through theory, but idk if it actually make sense in the real world sense. Like do people actually think that way?

I'm just not feeling it like I can feel the F and N descriptions. Something is missing. Can you see it in my writing?

Here's my attempt. I didn't see any way to improve the Te-base description, not surprisingly. Mostly I filled out the Ti-Ego ones, from my own experience with the two.

Ti-base is focused very heavily on what does and does not make sense. They are always aware of whether things fit together logically or not, and they are skilled at following a logical train of thought and coming to a logically accurate conclusion. They are well aware of the practical workings of the world and often refer to it in order to get more information from which more conclusions can be built. They feel little need to interact with the world though. They can much more easily learn about reality through reflection and conclusion building. They can be prone to dismissing evidence that contradicts their logical conclusions, because there are always exceptions to the rules. Often they will try to reclassify the contradictory fact in order to explain why it was an outlier. Unless enough external evidence is shown to prove something to be incorrect, they won't let go of guidelines that represent how reality is at least most of the time, and even then they prefer to understand the logical reason they were wrong before accepting the evidence.

Te-Creative are focused on causal functioning of the world. But, they spend less time directly involved with the world unlike Te-base. They spend more time observing the processes taking place and they begin to build an understanding of how it works. They also become aware of the various explanations behind why the world is the way it is. When they do interact with their environment they are guided by how they understand what they are interacting with. However, they know the limitations of logical analysis and will quickly let go of explanations which they cannot rely on when interacting with the world. For them, evidence always trumps explanations.

Ti-Creative are focused on how they understand the world. They build and deconstruct understandings very often and quickly. They like the exercise of discovering new ways of explaining the world, but they are not concerned with maintaining all-encompassing systems the way Ti-base is. While they enjoy coming up with new insights into why the world is the way it is, they are also always aware of the empirical evidence of how the world actually works, and take note when their explanations are not supported by facts. Contrary evidence causes them to question their logical analysis sooner than Ti-base, and they will freely adopt new explanations if they can find them. They find themselves deriving new patterns and ideas from processes occurring in the world, and this is because they are continually subconsciously taking note of all the ways in which the world functions. However, they are aware that there is more to the world than just the observable workings of it, and consequently they feel free to follow logical trains of thought beyond what fact and evidence can prove.

[Krig the Viking]

Ni-Creatives are very inpatient and their Ni is not at all exploring all the possibilities, like Ni-Base, but rather some quick view of the ensemble.

I think Pied has a point here. Ni-Base uses the information from their other functions (their creative function, mostly) to try to come up with the strongest possible impression of what is going to happen or what is likely to be true. Ni-Creative will get impressions situationally, but these impressions are used to further their Base function's goals. Their subconscious awareness of the hidden potential of things makes them aware that their Ni impressions are not 100% reliable, making them more willing and able to change what they think is going to happen after gaining new information on the potential of things.

[Suz]

I think Azeroffs is right in an absolute manner, it's not how they come across, but what they actually usually do. And that's about Fe Base.

The problem that I have is that the same thing applies to Fi Base types. And I actually think that this "friendly facade" is more applicable to Fi Base types than Fe Base, where IMO more applicable is "happy-to-see-you" facade.

Agree. Because Fi-egos use Fe towards an Fi purpose.

As an Fi-valuer, I view use of Fi towards an Fe purpose such as would be done by an Fe-ego as highly fake and i have a keen radar for this. However, when this happens I will put on a friendly facade, yes, in the hopes that an Fi-bond can be established. Unless of course the person has done something egregious enough that I wouldn't want to. In which case I avoid and ignore.

So yes PP, I believe you to be correct in this observation.

p.s. awesome sig!!

[Azeroffs]

This is the first thing I looked at, and this is very wrong, IMO. It's exactly the opposite. Ni-Creative are exactly "bang-bang - this is it!" but the Ni Irrationals are always undecided! If you are right, I'll have to retype all my IXIs as XIEs and the other way around.

I'll have to reword what I said. You're right. I didn't try to make it sound like Ni-bases are the ones full of certainty and Ni-creatives are not.

I understand Ni-base as a someone who has many ideas about the way things are going, and feel sure that things will continue to go that way. The reason why their characteristic uncertainty manifests is that they have little to no foundation for why they think that and they don't feel like they can change the way things are going. They are floating down a one tract river. They may be able to change their position on the river, but they aren't confident that they can really change anything. They ignore possibilities because things are going to go the way they're going to go regardless of anything.

With Ni base, they see a river with many different routes that split and reconnect, and such. They are confident in their ability to change their path with the decisions they make as a result. They are innately aware of all the different ways in which things could go, and don't pretend to know exactly where things are going beyond the way they act. They know what results from their actions, but they don't confidently extend their predictive ability to the world at large.

The types are very confident in the information of the Creative function, they take it as "obvious" and don't have patience about it. It is stripped-down to the hard core and that's what they use - this making sense with what you said about Ne and Ti, IMO, I'll probably check the others, too.
---

I overall agree about what you said about Ti/Ne, this is probably related to your understanding in the fact that Ti Base types tend to create "perfect" systems that work, dismissing some things that just don't fit but are neither clear enough. The problem is that the same things happens with Te. Ni-Creatives are very inpatient and their Ni is not at all exploring all the possibilities, like Ni-Base, but rather some quick view of the ensemble. It is rather strange to understand that the realm of Base covers and overlooks details of other nature (other functions) but to Ni you make this exception - because the problem is that Ni itself is uncertainty! Ni Base is itself the certainty that "we surely overlooked something" - which you won't see in Ni Creative types.

I think that you seem to confuse the "maximization" of the Base function with something that comes from either T/S or Rationality, and this "something" is connected to certainty, something that makes you sure. But the problem is that Internal functions are not about certain but rather what is be beyond the obvious. Or probably another bias: Te is not flexible the same way Ti is not flexible, when overused, they simply work in different manners.

I'm not sure why you got the idea that I think Te-base is more flexible than Ti-base.

I didn't mean that Ni-creatives explore possibilities. They are just aware of them at the same level as Ne-base, just subconsciosly. That awareness orients them around opportunities from which they choose, but they aren't drawn to explore opportunities. Ni-base is the least possibility-oriented intuitive type. They see things as going one way and one way only for the most part.

I disagree that Ni is uncertainty. Ni is the awareness of, most often, the cause-effect relationship of events through time. But mostly just abstract causal events. Ni is unfounded certainty. It's essentially belief.

[Azeroffs]

Here's my attempt. I didn't see any way to improve the Te-base description, not surprisingly. Mostly I filled out the Ti-Ego ones, from my own experience with the two.

Ti-base is focused very heavily on what does and does not make sense. They are always aware of whether things fit together logically or not, and they are skilled at following a logical train of thought and coming to a logically accurate conclusion. They are well aware of the practical workings of the world and often refer to it in order to get more information from which more conclusions can be built. They feel little need to interact with the world though. They can much more easily learn about reality through reflection and conclusion building. They can be prone to dismissing evidence that contradicts their logical conclusions, because there are always exceptions to the rules. Often they will try to reclassify the contradictory fact in order to explain why it was an outlier. Unless enough external evidence is shown to prove something to be incorrect, they won't let go of guidelines that represent how reality is at least most of the time, and even then they prefer to understand the logical reason they were wrong before accepting the evidence.

Te-Creative are focused on causal functioning of the world. But, they spend less time directly involved with the world unlike Te-base. They spend more time observing the processes taking place and they begin to build an understanding of how it works. They also become aware of the various explanations behind why the world is the way it is. When they do interact with their environment they are guided by how they understand what they are interacting with. However, they know the limitations of logical analysis and will quickly let go of explanations which they cannot rely on when interacting with the world. For them, evidence always trumps explanations.

Ti-Creative are focused on how they understand the world. They build and deconstruct understandings very often and quickly. They like the exercise of discovering new ways of explaining the world, but they are not concerned with maintaining all-encompassing systems the way Ti-base is. While they enjoy coming up with new insights into why the world is the way it is, they are also always aware of the empirical evidence of how the world actually works, and take note when their explanations are not supported by facts. Contrary evidence causes them to question their logical analysis sooner than Te-base, and they will freely adopt new explanations if they can find them. They find themselves deriving new patterns and ideas from processes occurring in the world, and this is because they are continually subconsciously taking note of all the ways in which the world functions. However, they are aware that there is more to the world than just the observable workings of it, and consequently they feel free to follow logical trains of thought beyond what fact and evidence can prove.

I like these a lot better. Especially the Ti-creative one.

[Azeroffs]

@PP

I made some small but necessary revisions to the N descriptions. They better reflect what I was trying to get at. I want to know what you think.

Ni-base is focused on, more than anything, the plausible causal relationships between occurrences and things that they have imagined. These things that they have imagined are more often than not, what they believe will happen in the future or what they remember from the past. They believe that they understand well how things exist when they have never experienced it or come to be certain of it. Because what they have imagined just makes so much sense, it cannot be ignored. They are aware that the world is far more unpredictable than the way they act it is, but they can't ignore the strength of their insight. They are just so certain that things are going to continue the way they seem to be. Part of them knows that things may go differently, but they refuse to act like things could go just any way. They know what's most likely going to happen and there's no point in fighting it.

Ni-creative are focused on how they believe things to exist or how they believe things will result. They trust their insight a lot when making decisions in the world, but they don't feel so sure that everything in the world is going to go exactly as they expect it seems to be. They limit their expectations vision. They understand well that the world is full of inherent uncertainty possibilities and things could go in many different directions. They subconsciously orient themselves as such around opportunities, and they are confident that they know which actions will have better results than others make the most of them. They often put themselves in a position where the possibilities are good for them, and they act with all the possible long-term consequences of the action in mind.

[Krig the Viking]

I like these a lot better. Especially the Ti-creative one.

*bows*

Except I noticed a typo: "Contrary evidence causes them to question their logical analysis sooner than Te-base, and they will freely adopt new explanations if they can find them." Should be "Ti-base". I've edited my post to fix this.

[Azeroffs]

*bows*

Except I noticed a typo: "Contrary evidence causes them to question their logical analysis sooner than Te-base, and they will freely adopt new explanations if they can find them." Should be "Ti-base". I've edited my post to fix this.

Oh! I noticed that. I forgot to mention that. Good work!

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Krig the Viking]

I think your Ni descriptions are fine now, Azeroffs.

Pied, your descriptions of Ni-Base are sounding more like Ne-Creative to me (perhaps not surprising, given your opinion of my type). As you understand it, how would you describe the differences between Ni-Base and Ne-Creative?

[Azeroffs]

Let's put it this way, without entering details about Ni as information: do you think Ni-Base types are more certain about the possibilities than Ni-Creative?

In a global sense, yes. Ni base seem to 'know' where the world is heading. Ni creative 'know' what their actions entail.

Here is where I think not. Ni-Creative types have that confidence, they're usually sure on themselves and envisage their path with little deviation. If you analyze these two categories (eg the descriptions), you'll note that XIEs mostly always know where they're heading at, while IXIs rarely know whether they're going towards the good target or maybe there's something better, rather picking what apparently sounds more advantageous but so startled to rethink when some new insight/doubt appears.

In a sense, the difference is that XIEs are more in control of their destiny. They have to make things go in the direction of their vision. IXIs feel like their destiny is already laid out for them and they can do little to change it. They see their vision as mostly absolute and extremely difficult to derail. IXIs are a bit helpless, so they're just going along without direction from an outsider perspective.

That's how I see it anyway.

Hmm... it still appears to me that Ni-Base are much more oriented in activity and vision than Ni-Creative. Is this what you intended?...

vision, yes, activity no.

For Ni-Base I still disagree with:

What I cut out, although I acknowledge as Ni, it is what I know to be Ni-Creative. I put that part in red because this is actually what IXIs are known to be like: they *do* act as things can go either way - probably their most evident peculiarity.
Ni-Creative sounds better, yeah:

I'm not sure what to say other than, I disagree.

What do you mean by "they limit their vision"?

They limit their vision to particular actions, and they don't take their vision as far as Ni-base.

Again, I cut out the things which not necessarily don't apply to them, but apply much more to Ni-Base. For example "go exactly as it seems to be" - I don't know what that "exactly" means, it's rather applicable to S-Creative types, but in any case, these Ni Rationals are usually very confident that they got the trend and know where things are heading at.
With the underlined I totally agree.

"Exactly" seems like an exaggeration, sorry.

xIE aren't so sure that everything is going to go as it seems. They have to make it happen the way they want to. They take take all the consequences into consideration. Plenty of LIE descriptions describe how they take calculated risks.

I think that if you further ask my opinion on this, I won't be able to stop nitpicking you, I simply see that your view is inverted than mine - you basically tell me to be Ni-Base pretty much exactly what I know to be Ni-Creative and the other way around - and that can't just be fixed . What I'm very surprised about is what in the descriptions and theory made you have this view :|.

I just see Ni-base as a type who extends their vision to the point of crippling them self in terms of the control they have on their life. Ni-creative use their vision only to determine how to make changes in the world.

[Aiss]

I admit I didn't read all the walls of texts above (don't have the time right now), but I think Ni-base is characterized by uncertainty. If there's one thing you can be certain about, it's that you can't be certain about anything. This "feel sure about" sounds like a bunch of MBTI stereotypes, which originally discouraged me from even considering Ni types. In my experience, it's the types with weakest Ni that have a tendency to assume things will be this way or that way, or alternatively that they can't be predicted at all. The stronger the Ni, the greater the awareness of what can and what can't be foreseen with reasonable accuracy, and its lack of certainty despite the consideration of probability.

xIE aren't so sure that everything is going to go as it seems. They have to make it happen the way they want to. They take take all the consequences into consideration. Plenty of LIE descriptions describe how they take calculated risks.

Ni-base are even less sure of it. (Unless I'm completely wrong about Ni and being one, which is a possibility.)

[Azeroffs]

Ni-base, as I understand it, is characterized by uncertainty because they are unsure of how they can change anything. They are victims of the world which they see as going it's course with or without them. They will likely realize, for example, that a certain action will lead to a certain result, but they aren't sure that it can really be pulled off. "I'm not really capable of making that much of an impact am I?"

Also, the abstract nature of their vision is in itself uncertain, and they are consumed by that.

Still, Ni-base has a gift for being able to see through the immediate reality. However unclear it might be to them, they are aware of many hidden phenomena, and they are guided by their insight.

[Azeroffs]

I think that may be the problem. Ni-base types aren't really so sure of their vision. They are just so heavily focused on it. Even if it is unsure, they follow it regardless.

[Aiss]

Ni-base, as I understand it, is characterized by uncertainty because they are unsure of how they can change anything. They are victims of the world which they see as going it's course with or without them. They will likely realize, for example, that a certain action will lead to a certain result, but they aren't sure that it can really be pulled off. "I'm not really capable of making that much of an impact am I?"

Also, the abstract nature of their vision is in itself uncertain, and they are consumed by that.

Still, Ni-base has a gift for being able to see through the immediate reality. However unclear it might be to them, they are aware of many hidden phenomena.

I disagree with this.

You have a point about Ni-base inertia, but not its origins, in my opinion. You describe Ni-creatives as situationally using Ni to see what kind of consequences their impact would have. Ni base continuously assess these and is much *less* sure about them, acutely aware of many ways it could go wrong (or better). That is not to say xIEs don't use it to avoid major risks, but they're less focused on them. For IxI, act rather than this assessment is situational (creative). Not saying act = Te/Fe, but these elements seem related to impact we talk about. It's a different rhythm.

It isn't unsureness about the possibility of making the impact itself, but increased awareness of its wayward effects. Ni is too aware of how it could change things to do so lightly, rather than unsure about being able to change anything. In unhealthy individuals, it leads to inaction. It's the issue with never settling on one option.

At any rate, "feel sure" in Ni description is highly misleading, even if you reinterpret it to work for you. No offense was intended here or earlier by bringing up MBTI.