The introverted Ne

[inumbra]

"Introverted Ne" is Ne dominants who are more withdrawn and introverted, XIIs who are very Ne focused, some Ni dominants who simply appear highly "intuitive" and so it can look like Ne dominance, and SXIs who identify a lot with Ne (or intuition) and feel there's more to life than darning socks.

[EyeSeeCold]

What does they say about IM Aspects? In the previous exercise External/Internal remained constant, and we found that there are I/E versions of functions. What if Abstract/Involved remained constant? What does that say about the versions of functions?

Rational Ne = Ti
Abstract Static Objects = Abstract Static Fields

The basis for my premises are the fundamentals of Socionics: the three distinctions of the IM elements. Abstract/Involved is for the time being merely another gimmick of DarkAngelFireWolf69's, nothing more. We may arbitrarily split the IEs over a conventional dichotomy, say:
A: Fi Se Fe Ni
B: Te Ne Si Ti

So what? Not every arbitrary collation is relevant to the IM.

Maybe, maybe not, in terms of substance. I just think it's interesting that functions have both I/E and J/P poles. Never looked at it that way before.

[The Ineffable]

I'd have to say that N is energy: Ni is kinetic energy and Ne is potential.

Ne and Se (not Ni) are the IEs that determine energy, force, potential, magnitude, vector, inclination. Static Bodies. The closest to this are Te and Fe, which determined the effects, but Ni is Fields and does not deal with the the objects themselves, but the rules - i.e. whether something (not instantiated) may happen and how it may happen, not what (object) can cause it.

Edit: sorry, within the italics there is a mistake. I keep it in order to let people understand the difference. The correct expression is "what something (object) can cause". In the first case, as anyone can see, there's actually no object, but a type or class (concept), which is Static Fields (Fi, Ti). While the comparison correctly distinguishes the Dynamic Fields (Ni, Si) from Static Fields, we were discussing the Static Bodies.

[krieger]

In Socionics, it is not required to distinguish these categories (only the types, Schizotim/Cyclotim), even when the two mentioned attitudes the most notable for some, their naming is inherited from Jung, but that's all about this distinction. This is a dichotomy like any other. The rest is the descriptions of the IM elements, their systematization is accomplished differently in Socionics. I agree though that it is one of the most difficult things to understand how Rationality (of a type) emerges from the association between Extroversion and Dynamicality in the Base function but nevetheless, as long as you don't deny the existence of any of the three IE distinctions, there's absolutely no problem to see how they are structured in the Socionics theory of IM.

Remember that Aushra herself denied that the IM elements (the topic of the thread, not types) can not be separated into Rational/Irrational: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...841#post725841. And this makes sense, like in the case of Extroversion, Rationality is an attitude (of a person), it is unapplicable to information itself. How can one say "this information is Rational"? It makes no sense.

I insist though that one checks this, because the functions flipped over one distinction are not similar merely on paper. There are a lot of instances where one can see the common properties between j and p functions, perhaps the most obvious is the similarity between Se and Te (Bodies, External): pragmatism, practicality, concreteness, empiricism. Where they differ is Static/Dynamic, see the distinction between inherent and emergent qualities (e.g. the untested steed VS the successful jade).

bolt, i have no simpler nor kinder way to say this. you are wrong.

[silke]

I don't understand this thread, or its purpose.

it's

 

-

only purpose that this thread remotely relates to

[MisterNi]

it's

 

-

only purpose that this thread remotely relates to

LOL!

Here's the Taio Cruz version.