Functional Explanation

[Joy]

The latest function analyzes threads have been a bunch of convoluted nonsense, so I am making one that I think is more objective, but I could be mistaken. This one is nice and simple.

Sees random possibilities. Makes outside connections not directly associated with a logical process. Considers ideas in a more unbiased, unfiltered sense. Less careful. "Wants" to see all that is possible instead of what will happen. Very much one side of the ADD coin. ( being the second)

Sees discriminate possibilities. Considers and perceives these in a more "quiet" way than does . Considers ideas more... prophetically. Is more about finding the one rather than finding the many.

Physical sensation. dominant types perceive physical consequences as paramount. An ESTp father will warn his INTj son that he will starve to death if he does not get a job and go to college, whereas an ENTp will keep these consequences in mind, but focus more on the the idea, the philosophy of the INTj first, considering a life uninteresting not worth living in the first place. ESTps do kick ass though.

The body. "If I am not dying then you are wrong." A fatalistic function, in some ways, as the existence of the self is seen as the final factor in the validity of a claim. An angsty ISTp or ISFp can totally ignore an argument just because what the person is saying isn't presently contributing to his demise. Healthy use of this function allows for deep relaxation, because awareness of one's body as a link to the universe, existence, etc., allows one to appreciate on an emotional level, physical sensation.

Random Access Memory. This is your emotional ram. It reacts in real time to the current running program. I think conscious use of this causes to become subconscious, since the emotional "chemistry" of a social situation either employs one or the other feeling functions, but not both simultaneously.

Hard Disk. This function is the "real" feelings we keep. Our deep convictions. This function seems to lack a rational backing, yet seems to carry with it an aura of profound truth. This function is a person telling you you don't exist because they aren't "aware" of you, and you telling them, "Cogito Ergo Sum." You can't prove it, but you're right. This is the function that sees a person getting assaulted on the street, and righteously defends the victim, and is right in doing so -- again, no justification needed. There is something very spiritual about this function. Listen to INFjs.

Powerful function. One side of the logic coin. This is the "practical," "Gitterdun" side of logic. Several "dichotomies" between and are actually exhibited by both functions equally, and are created through type bias between extroverted and introverted thinking types. is logic used for outcome, for practicality. It wants to create what it sees.

Logic that wants to understand. types do not necessarily not want to create logical constructions, it is just that itself is not the function that desires the creation. Think of it this way:

Te/Ni wants to create using logic, and assist through understanding and foresight.

Ti/Ne wishes to understand and foresee, and assist through creation.

They both desire essentially the same things, and if this is the biggest difference the two have they would be well advised to get over it. Seriously.

So there you have it. Comments?

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[implied]

[Joy]

First of all, we all use all of our functions all of the time (unless we're in a coma or have severe neurological deficits).

I see introversion and extroversion as a continuum.

Extroversion is everything that is outside of the individual. Introversion is everything that is inside the individual. They are not separate things, however, because individuals exist both within themselves and in the world at the same time. The center of the continuum is the individual.

--------------------- individual ---------------------

An example of how the individual uses both and simultaneously is jogging. Jogging is because it causes physical changes within our bodies, but it is also because it is creating sound on the pavement with each step and moving the jogger's physical body from one location in the outside world to another. A second example of using both and is eating. Eating is because we perceive the food with our senses and it changes our physical bodies. It is also because in eating, we are removing the item that was consumed from the outside world. There may also be involved, such when cooking or moving the individual's physical body to a restaurant. A third example is fighting. Fighting is because it causes changes in the physical environment around the individual, but it is also because the individual feels the rush of the fight, pain, and the individual's body will likely be damaged. I could use sex as an example of this as well, but I think I've sufficiently demonstrated the point.


--------------------- individual ---------------------

and are also often used simultaneously unless is merely observing or the individual is using and not interacting with others. So pretty much... if there are people involved, both functions are used. If two individual's are having an emotional conversation, both functions are used by both people, regardless of type. If gets offended and the individual tells the other person off, then is being used. The other person's internal response is and the following external reaction is .


--------------------- individual ---------------------

is about gathering outside information to be analyzed and understood by . Once the individual wants to use the information to accomplish something, is used to implement 's conclusions.


--------------------- individual ---------------------

"Sensing" refers to all that is physical, and "Intuition" refers to all that is mental. sees a world of non-physical ideas. internalizes those ideas that the individual accepts. This is why is more interested in spirituality while is more interested in abstract theories. uses to verbalize itself, which is why it's next to impossible to find a good definition of just what is. Again, the individual is the center of the continuum.

[Creepy-]

Sees random possibilities. Makes outside connections not directly associated with a logical process. Considers ideas in a more unbiased, unfiltered sense. Less careful. "Wants" to see all that is possible instead of what will happen. Very much one side of the ADD coin. ( being the second)

Oh? In what sense?

I liked your / disctinction, btw.

[Jonathan]

Darkside: Sees random possibilities. Makes outside connections not directly associated with a logical process. Considers ideas in a more unbiased, unfiltered sense. Less careful. "Wants" to see all that is possible instead of what will happen. Very much one side of the ADD coin. ( being the second)

Sees discriminate possibilities. Considers and perceives these in a more "quiet" way than does . Considers ideas more... prophetically. Is more about finding the one rather than finding the many.

That's one of the few things I've seen written about that makes any sense to me at all. It's very interesting because there's a field out there of people who study creativity, and they almost always associate creativity with . But spouting out many ideas doesn't produce the most creative one, because most of them are run-of-the-mill. looks for "the one"...the idea that comes from a different source or has a different process, or grasps the essence of a situation.

At least, that's the way I reconcile with the notion in Socionics that INp types are .

In comparison, Joy's analysis, while interesting, doesn't ring as true to me. A lot of people seem to think that is about accepting a certain set of beliefs as true and rejecting other beliefs as false. Actually, that's the role of the judging function (Thinking or Feeling). When you say " is more interested in abstract theories."....well, so is . I don't see anything about that's more into abstract theories than .

[Jonathan]

Joy, the one thing I do find interesting in your analysis though is that you're willing to go beyond the realm of psychology here. I think that essentially, the nature of the types is about phenomena...that is, the types transcend psychology. Nevertheless, it's also helpful to remember that typically, Socionics is talking about how people perceive and process things.

Therefore, the fact that everything you do is both internal and external doesn't mean that everyone is equally introvert and extravert at the same time. The issue is that people's awareness is directed more in one way or the other, and that it's hard to see equally both ways...

Kind of like those pictures that look different depending on how you look at them....or like the pictures of cubes that go in and out...and it's hard to see them both ways at once.

[FDG]

That's great, darkside!

[Creepy-]

--------------------- individual ---------------------

"Sensing" refers to all that is physical, and "Intuition" refers to all that is mental. sees a world of non-physical ideas. internalizes those ideas that the individual accepts. This is why is more interested in spirituality while is more interested in abstract theories. uses to verbalize itself, which is why it's next to impossible to find a good definition of just what is. Again, the individual is the center of the continuum.

That's not . Whatever happened to the "Intuition of Time"?

[Jonathan]

Whatever happened to the "Intuition of Time"?

Personally, I always found "intuition of time" to be somewhat confusing way of describing . I think that it's an aspect, or possible application of , but I don't think dominant people are going around thinking about time all the time.

[Creepy-]

Whatever happened to the "Intuition of Time"?

Personally, I always found "intuition of time" to be somewhat confusing way of describing . I think that it's an aspect, or possible application of , but I don't think dominant people are going around thinking about time all the time.

How about "Intuition of Processes"?

lives in the passing of time, when they think about objects they are thinking about how the object is changing, the "direction" its life is taking, etc.

Isha: Ni uses ideas associated with the object
Rocky: like, if you look at a piece of cheese, you will see a cow or something?
Isha: somethign to that effect
Isha: although
Isha: probably more what will happen to the cheese
Isha: its destiny

(That's not the best definition, it was just handy at the time)

[Expat]

Not necessarily about time in terms of seconds, hours, etc -- but in terms of where past trends have led to, and where present trends are going to lead to.

Perhaps one way of looking into it is this.

Your existence, or sense of being, or life, or consciousness, is like a road. is when you look where you've been and where you're going to be along that road. is when you look at what's outside the road, and perhaps at alternative roads.

[Creepy-]

Not necessarily about time in terms of seconds, hours, etc -- but in terms of where past trends have led to, and where present trends are going to lead to.

Exactly.

[Creepy-]

works forwards - it considers the most likely process of events. The possibility itself is considered as an afterthought. The journey is given more emphasis than the destination as the detination is considered to be determined by the journey.

Correct me, Expat, if I'm wrong

[Expat]

works forwards - it considers the most likely process of events. The possibility itself is considered as an afterthought. The journey is given more emphasis than the destination as the detination is considered to be determined by the journey.

That's how I see it, too.

[Joy]

lol where's a sensor when you need one? Nothing that anyone has said here actually contradicts what I said. Some of it adds to it and some of it says the same thing in a different way.

A lot of people seem to think that is about accepting a certain set of beliefs as true and rejecting other beliefs as false. Actually, that's the role of the judging function (Thinking or Feeling). When you say " is more interested in abstract theories."....well, so is . I don't see anything about that's more into abstract theories than .

EXACTLY. I didn't want to get into that just because I didn't want to clutter the post too much, but this is EXACTLY how I see it.

Therefore, the fact that everything you do is both internal and external doesn't mean that everyone is equally introvert and extravert at the same time. The issue is that people's awareness is directed more in one way or the other, and that it's hard to see equally both ways...

I agree 100%. If we all used all of the functions EQUALLY at the same time and for the same things, there wouldn't be types.

That's not Introverted Intution . Whatever happened to the "Intuition of Time"?

Again, I didn't get into that because I didn't want to clutter the post. What I said does not contradict this notion, or that focuses on relationships, etc.

I like your description of ishy. Using the cheese example, might look at the cheese and thing about the new medical study on the benefits of cheese, may think about what that cheese is good for biologically, might think of the scientific process through which the cheese was created, might think of how yummy and filling that cheese is, might think about how the person across the table is looking at that piece of cheese and wants to eat at and would be sad if she didn't get to... anyways...

[Creepy-]

lol where's a sensor when you need one? Nothing that anyone has said here actually contradicts what I said. Some of it adds to it and some of it says the same thing in a different way.

I did say, "that's not ", and what you described isn't.

[Joy]

we're talking about jung again now, aren't we?

[Creepy-]

No, we're talking about Socionics.

[Joy]

LOL k

[detail]

What made be seen as intuition of time is people's consciousness of the time flow. They are aware of it because it's fluent. I think everybody knows by now that what people see (or try to see) is the structure of everything that can exist. In case you think you don't know it, i mean by "the structure of everything that can exist" all the links between all objects/processes/concepts/younameit under all possible grouping criteria (It should be noted that the relevance of the used grouping is up to the judging function of the dude/chick). What i wanted to point out with (Since most people understand it better than ) is that the grouping it uses can be abrupt, random, hence "more objective" as it's often pointed out.



With that in mind, we can come back to , time, and fluidity. , like it's introverted perception pal , prefers to be grounded to reality but not nessessarily to concrete reality, as intuition is not about that. The best way to stick to abstract reality would be to litterally(Well not so) stick to it, which is exactly what does, like a melted bubblegum it follows the path and shape of abstract reality. That explains the way ers are conscious of time and why was coined "intuition of time" since it's contact with time is more visible than it's contact with abstract reality. But more importantly, it explains why is not random and is looking for "the one" as it has been pointed out. I mean face it, an INFp trying to say something random will probably achieve to say the most random possible thing that can be said within the context.

[Mariano Rajoy]

i wanted to post something that i am unsure of, for criticism. i will apoligize in advance for redundancy, but i have never seen the idea of self and self-awareness adressed directly, despite terms such as personal and introverted.

the notion of introversion and extroversion has been a consideration of mine for a bit. it might be possible that "theory of mind" is a better notion with which to approach the I/E dichotomy. "theory of mind" is often understood as understanding that others have minds, but has a more subtle connotation of being able to form mental models of beliefs and/or mental states of others.

more generally, this issue of I/E addresses the self and self-awareness. extraversion is the awareness/model of reality that sees the self as a body amongst other bodies, or object amongst objects. introversion is the awareness/model of reality that sees the self as creating/discovering reality within the self. our implicit (unconscious) self-awareness determines, or has some relation to, introversion or extroversion.

so the functions:

(theory of mind in its essence) the self being aware of the self that is holding various emotions, moods, and feelings about the interest and the ethical evaluations about the interest that stem from them.

the self being aware of the self as a part of the various emotions, moods, and feelings of the interest and the ethical evaluations about the interest that stem from them.

the self being aware of the self that is holding various thoughts and ideas about the interest and the logical evaluations that stem from them.

the self being aware of the self as a part of the various thoughts and ideas about the interest and the logical evaluations that stem from them.

the self being aware of the self that is holding various insights and connections about the interest and the potentialities that stem from them.

the self being aware of the self as a part of the various insights and connections about the interest and the potentialities that stem from them.

the self being aware of the self that is holding various sensory inputs, such as taste, touch, smell, sight, hearing, and equilibrium.

the self being aware of the self as part of various sensory inputs, such as taste, touch, smell, sight, hearing, and equilibrium.


this is not a very detailed post, and i apologize for butchering the functions, but i think i got the point across.

[Ms. Kensington]

Not necessarily about time in terms of seconds, hours, etc -- but in terms of where past trends have led to, and where present trends are going to lead to.

Perhaps one way of looking into it is this.

Your existence, or sense of being, or life, or consciousness, is like a road. is when you look where you've been and where you're going to be along that road. is when you look at what's outside the road, and perhaps at alternative roads.

This is one way i've understood it best too. Except I would say that Ne's not prone to look at the road Ni sees any more or less readily, its just that the Ne will see all the alternate roads as well. They won't see , perhaps, that the road the Ni person sees is the "right" one according to the event. I also see someone who is strong in /uses / has Ni most consciously as being able to accurately see the particular strain that a given event is part of super quickly, just as Ne is described as seeing all the possibilities "at once".

*thinks about removing the quote marks*

[Jonathan]

I also see someone who is strong in /uses / has Ni most consciously as being able to accurately see the particular strain that a given event is part of super quickly

That's interesting...Can you give an example?

[Jonathan]

I mean face it, an INFp trying to say something random will probably achieve to say the most random possible thing that can be said within the context.

I can identify with that. Years ago, I was in an unusual class where there was an assignment to create a musical piece out of non sequiturs. Most people just wrote something kind of dissonant. The point of the assignment was that even so, everything made some sort of sense, so that you can find some sort of artistic meaning out of anything. But I thought about what's the essense of non sequitor, and decided that it was entropy or just plain ineffectualness. Hence, I made tapping noises in various ways that all sounded about the same, as an exercise in futility.

[Jonathan]

Expat:Your existence, or sense of being, or life, or consciousness, is like a road. is when you look where you've been and where you're going to be along that road. is when you look at what's outside the road, and perhaps at alternative roads.

Are you saying that is when you think about your life, what you should do, etc., in a sort of linear way, whereas is when you think about things that have nothing to do with your immediate situation our when you think "out of the box" about possible directions for your life (or not even for yours but someone or something or some399i4s elses)?

Here's why I have trouble with that and with a lot of other things that are said about and . Most Socionics sites talk about rational (J) types as being decisive planners focused on a goal, and about irrational (P) types as being flexible explorers who are open to opportunities.

If what you say and what others have said about being about exploring and being more goal-oriented, realistic, etc., is true, then dominant types should be the decisive planners, and people with in their ego block, such as INTj, should be the flexible explorers.

That's exactly what MBTI theory says...dominant Ni types are called "J" types in MBTI, and people with Ne are called "P" types in MBTI. But in Socionics, it's the other way around. INTp has dominant but is described as a "P" type.

While your definitions are natural and common-sense, they break Socionics. Socionics falls down with these definitions.

[Creepy-]

Expat:Your existence, or sense of being, or life, or consciousness, is like a road. is when you look where you've been and where you're going to be along that road. is when you look at what's outside the road, and perhaps at alternative roads.

Are you saying that is when you think about your life, what you should do, etc., in a sort of linear way, whereas is when you think about things that have nothing to do with your immediate situation our when you think "out of the box" about possible directions for your life (or not even for yours but someone or something or some399i4s elses)?

Here's why I have trouble with that and with a lot of other things that are said about and . Most Socionics sites talk about rational (J) types as being decisive planners focused on a goal, and about irrational (P) types as being flexible explorers who are open to opportunities.

If what you say and what others have said about being about exploring and being more goal-oriented, realistic, etc., is true, then dominant types should be the decisive planners, and people with in their ego block, such as INTj, should be the flexible explorers.

That's exactly what MBTI theory says...dominant Ni types are called "J" types in MBTI, and people with Ne are called "P" types in MBTI. But in Socionics, it's the other way around. INTp has dominant but is described as a "P" type.

While your definitions are natural and common-sense, they break Socionics. Socionics falls down with these definitions.

is not "planning", it is merely a mode of perception.

[Rocky]

Planning is Extraversion. Not judgment.

[Creepy-pokeball]

I cant disagree with that.

[Jonathan]

is not "planning", it is merely a mode of perception.

Okay, I'll concede regarding the use of that word, but the point is that the way has been described here suggests that it's perception down a narrow path, as if it's a predetermined path...sort of as if the person is closed to other paths....meaning that the person isn't considering other paths...meaning that the person's perception is akin to having decided on the set path, or at least conducive to deciding on a set path (since there are no other paths being considered).

That kind of person would have these kinds of strengths:
* Decided
* Knows where he's going
* Makes up his mind
* Good in orderly situations (i.e., that work with having a set path)

And these kinds of weaknesses:
* Not flexible
* Doesn't see opportunities
* Not good in chaotic situations (i.e., ones where you must consider different paths)

However, that means the person would fit the description of the rational (J) type. But an type is supposed to be an irrational (P) type.

Socionics falls apart.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Creepy-]

is not "planning", it is merely a mode of perception.

Okay, I'll concede regarding the use of that word, but the point is that the way has been described here suggests that it's perception down a narrow path, as if it's a predetermined path...sort of as if the person is closed to other paths....meaning that the person isn't considering other paths...meaning that the person's perception is akin to having decided on the set path, or at least conducive to deciding on a set path (since there are no other paths being considered).

That kind of person would have these kinds of strengths:
* Decided
* Knows where he's going
* Makes up his mind
* Good in orderly situations (i.e., that work with having a set path)

And these kinds of weaknesses:
* Not flexible
* Doesn't see opportunities
* Not good in chaotic situations (i.e., ones where you must consider different paths)

However, that means the person would fit the description of the rational (J) type. But an type is supposed to be an irrational (P) type.

Socionics falls apart.

No, you've misinterpreted it.

That kind of person would have these kinds of strengths:
* Decided

No. What you must understand is that a contrary action can change the "set path", so they have as many choices to make as anyone else. "Seeing" the path doesn't make your life any more straightforward, and dominants are quite indecisive (note that they tend to expect their duals to take intiative).

* Knows where he's going

Yes, but I think you've taken this out of context. the dominant "literally" knows where he is going because he has perceived it, rather than having the set goal in mind which would be characteristic of rational types.

* Makes up his mind

Umm, no. See my response to "decided".

* Good in orderly situations (i.e., that work with having a set path)

Wow, what a leap! Every situation has a set path as far as goes, but that doesn't mean that the dominant sticks to the set path, in fact a characteristic of INTps is that they work to avoid danger (stepping out of the path and creating a new path).

As for the weaknesses, the explanations I have already given can adequately cover them.

[Jonathan]

Transigent:I think you're falling apart.

Look, if something contradicts something else, then you went wrong somewhere. YOU did.

Don't take what I say too literally. I just happen to think that it's useful to challenge the system, or to state the extreme case, to make the point absolutely certain. Anyhow, I happen to know that for every Socionics person who says that Ni-dominant is P, there's an MBTI person who says that their definition of Ni-dominant is J.

But the main point is, one has to state things to the extreme sometimes to get an appropriate response or appropriate understanding.

What Aleesha just said in response made sense. What other people have been saying about being about exploring and being about a fixed path didn't make sense, or wasn't explained as well.

Sorry about being confrontational or extreme in my posts; I'm just that way sometimes.

[Ms. Kensington]

im deleting this post as pre-edited the post under this one

[Ms. Kensington]

I also see someone who is strong in /uses / has Ni most consciously as being able to accurately see the particular strain that a given event is part of super quickly

That's interesting...Can you give an example?

hmm well you know how INTps are seen as psychic? Well, someone who "knows in advance" how things will turn out is seen as psychic. I think , as was said by Rocky (i believe), that introverted types are quick in responding to things they have already thought about; i think that the information Ni leads take in via Fe or Te according to socionics, is "stored" in a conglomerate of perceptions of events and how they pan out over time. so when an Ni person sees an event they've seen before the perception is instantaneous--- this is what will happen over time.

Ne person is not storing/immediately aware of this information, but the totality of possibilities.

[Expat]

Expat:Your existence, or sense of being, or life, or consciousness, is like a road. is when you look where you've been and where you're going to be along that road. is when you look at what's outside the road, and perhaps at alternative roads.

Are you saying that is when you think about your life, what you should do, etc., in a sort of linear way, whereas is when you think about things that have nothing to do with your immediate situation our when you think "out of the box" about possible directions for your life (or not even for yours but someone or something or some399i4s elses)?

No, that is not what I was saying, as everybody has said you just misunderstood it. The key is in what I hightlighted above -- "should". If you say "should", that does imply Judgement.

But nobody said - certainly I didn't - that was about what you "should" do, or setting goals, etc. As Aleesha said, is about perception. You perceive the time flow, the sense of history, the trends of the past leading to today and those of today leading into the future.

And it also has to do with time flow as in real time, which is why the types with PoLR, ESTjs and ESFjs, tend to be late, or early, and tend to give themselves rigid schedules because they don't trust their own perception of the time needed to do something.

It is also why ISTjs and ISFjs, with as 6th function, are very "J" in the sense of not letting things for later -- they want to do it NOW because they are disturbed by the waiting. The future is "already happening".

But is only "responsible" for such perceptions, not for the decisions involved.

EDIT: and as Aleesha said, the "future" is not set in stone as a fixed goal. Each new event today can change the perception of the future. That is why dominant types are indecisive.

[Jonathan]

Expat: Each new event today can change the perception of the future. That is why dominant types are indecisive.

I see...I stand corrected.
Now, I suppose that one might think that each new event today can change the mental model, or system, by which one sees things ( )...But perhaps what seems as a mental model, then is , or if one perceives it as systemmatized, maybe that's ?

See, because otherwise, dominant types would be indecisive too. I mean, certainly if you have this mental model that says that things work this way or that way, that feels like a structure of some sort, and naturally it will change with new information.

However, dominant types are supposed to be decisive. How are they so decisive if new information coming in might change the model?

[Rocky]

And it also has to do with time flow as in real time, which is why the types with PoLR, ESTjs and ESFjs, tend to be late, or early, and tend to give themselves rigid schedules because they don't trust their own perception of the time needed to do something.

I don't know about that. Ni dominant types from my experiences are usually poorer judgers of "time" in this sense then the ESxJs. You are talking about clock/second/moment/sequential time stuff which is more Judgment related. Perceivers often get "lost" in the flow of time. Exactly like what Ni does. Ni gets stuck in their own little world of passing time, past and future, processes, etc... that they often lose hold of the "actual" clock-driven time.

[snegledmaca]

However, dominant types are supposed to be decisive. How are they so decisive if new information coming in might change the model?

The way I understand it, for judgment new information does not build a completely new model, it is intergrated into the existing one.
For perception, every bit of information stand on it's own.

So for a new information is like "Hey, new information! I'd better integrate it into the system"
for it's like "New information"

[snegledmaca]

Okay, I'll concede regarding the use of that word, but the point is that the way has been described here suggests that it's perception down a narrow path, as if it's a predetermined path...sort of as if the person is closed to other paths....meaning that the person isn't considering other paths...meaning that the person's perception is akin to having decided on the set path, or at least conducive to deciding on a set path (since there are no other paths being considered).

Perception cannot *decide* on anything. It just perceives. In a green room I may actually not like the color green. But then I stop and use my *judgment* to make a conclusion.
Contributing to a fixed view point perhaps. But I will look for other paths if I don't like this one. Consider it more like using binoculars "Gee, I don't like that side of the hill ... I'll look over there"

That kind of person would have these kinds of strengths:

* Decided

is not drive.

* Knows where he's going

You could say the same for a cat.

* Makes up his mind

Totally wrong. Why should I, when presented with the vision of the path, make up my mind? (A parallel with Se, if a Se type sees the path, does (s)he immediately make up his mind to go down it?)

* Good in orderly situations (i.e., that work with having a set path)

Perhaps. I don't know.

And these kinds of weaknesses:
* Not flexible
* Doesn't see opportunities
* Not good in chaotic situations (i.e., ones where you must consider different paths)

Why? Is it impossible for me to see more then one path? (Is it impossible for a Se type to see more then one path?)

Also, why are you talking about behaviour?