I've noticed that different interpretations of the IM elements often boil down to this difference:

1) Stable universals are static. For example, the technique of language, universals of feeling/value concepts.

2) Changing things are dynamic. For example, dialectical logic, cause-and-effect, if-then-therefore, changing emotional states: "I was too ecstatic, so events let me down, and then I was depressed, but I got so pessimistic that I was pleasantly surprised by what happened..."

vs. the other point of view:

1) stable universals are object. For example, techniques being viewed as "disconnected facts," the shared objective basis on which everything rests; universals of feeling/value concepts being in some sense "objective" and "shared" among all people.

2) Changing things are field. For example, dialectical logic, cause-and-effect, changing emotional states, etc., would be introverted because they're making connections between things....changes -> therefore connections -> therefore field -> therefore introverted IM element.

It seems to me that this difference of opinion is at the core to why what one person thinks is Xi, someone else invariable thinks is Xe.

This may also explain why so many famous people are typed in opposite quadras by various well-known socionists.