With his permission: Johannes Bloem

[consentingadult]

Edit: I like your blog bring some more LSE stuff

Thanks for the compliment! I'm sure there will be more than enough LSEs to cross my paths that will trigger me to write about them ;-)

[Joy]

I can only speak for myself, but there is a huge difference between quantifying one's statement as merely a gut feeling (which is a surface-level analysis) and expecting said gut feeling to be taken just as seriously as a carefully thought out and well-defended analysis (or throwing around that gut feeling like it's absolute truth and should be seen as such, especially when they cannot and/or will not justify it). If someone expects an intuitive insight to be taken as a solid argument, it should be defendable/explainable.

It is not wrong in itself as a way of understanding, but it is wrong as a way of transferring knowledge or providing evidence. Nobody actually learns something from such statements.

I perfectly understand statements such as are being made by Kim or SlackerMom, because gut feeling, or to put it more scientifically, by means of transference, is the way IEEs (and I assume SEEs as well) operate when they are trying to understand other people. But when transferiing such understanding without substantiating it, it is also a lack of effort on behalf of the IEE making such statements, especially because with a little bit of effort, IEEs are usually quite capable of explaining their points of view, although they can't do this in a positivistic way (hence the Ti-PoLR). IEEs (social) knowlegde is based on Verstehen, and as such anti-positivist. But that does not mean their knowledge is some kind of spiritualistic mumbo-jumbo.

I see where you're both coming from, but I don't think it's necessary to provide an air tight case for typings if, as you say, it's presented as someone's gut feeling or impression. (I also don't believe there's any such thing as proof or absolute truth when it comes to Socionics/typings to begin with, so any attempt to provide either is doomed from the start in my eyes.) As long as they have a basic understanding of Socionics, these types have their own set of talents when it comes to applying Socionics/typing people, and it doesn't lie in Ti analysis. Sure, a detailed analysis including a point by point breakdown of Model A, each information aspect, and all of the Reinin dichotomies can be of value to some if it's done well, but personally I gain more from a simple explanation such as, "He seems too focused on the practical side of things to be an NF," or "He seems to respond well to Fe, but I don't think it's strong", or "I also don't see an IJ temperament." If they're talking to others who are familiar with Socionics they shouldn't need to worry about teaching people anything about it.

Personally, as a general rule I'd rather hear their insights about people than any in depth Socionics mumbo jumbo. If I want to talk about that sort of thing I'll go find an ILE.

[mu4]

I can only speak for myself, but there is a huge difference between quantifying one's statement as merely a gut feeling (which is a surface-level analysis) and expecting said gut feeling to be taken just as seriously as a carefully thought out and well-defended analysis (or throwing around that gut feeling like it's absolute truth and should be seen as such, especially when they cannot and/or will not justify it). If someone expects an intuitive insight to be taken as a solid argument, it should be defendable/explainable.

It's a often a stupendous waste of time to qualify a gut feeling, sometimes the impression is just a impression. But people still want to say what's on their mind and what not.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

It's a often a stupendous waste of time to qualify a gut feeling, sometimes the impression is just a impression. But people still want to say what's on their mind and what not.

I never said that gut feelings should not be voiced, merely that they should be presented as what they are - a surface impression without particularly deep evidence - and that they should not be treated like an equivalent substitute for a well-reasoned argument.

[mu4]

I never said that gut feelings should not be voiced, merely that they should be presented as what they are - a surface impression without particularly deep evidence - and that they should not be treated like an equivalent substitute for a well-reasoned argument.

You can make a lot of well reasoned arguments and get absolutely no where, where as the impression could be correct out of happenstance. The thing about reason and logic is that it allows for no error, no compromise in any element of reasoning. This should lead any aspiring thinker to a healthy amount of doubt, in impressions, the mechanism by which the impression is rationalized and any such statements that are not obvious to all. If one should have a idea of some impression or rationale, one should always test it, as such testing will reveal the truth of impression and reasoning.

As a disclaimer, this forum is not responsible for any broken hearts or minds in the testing process, this is after all not a dating site.

[consentingadult]

It's a often a stupendous waste of time to qualify a gut feeling, sometimes the impression is just a impression. But people still want to say what's on their mind and what not.

It is a waste of time indeed if you do not not how to qualify a gut feeling. And of course people will not only want to exchange knowledge, but just say anything trivial just for the purpose of socializing or getting their petty opinions recognized.

[consentingadult]

Personally, as a general rule I'd rather hear their insights about people than any in depth Socionics mumbo jumbo. If I want to talk about that sort of thing I'll go find an ILE.

LOL, turning to ILEs for insights about people!

[Joy]

LOL, turning to ILEs for insights about people!

By "that sort of thing" I was referring to the aforementioned in depth Socionics mumbo jumbo.

[consentingadult]

By "that sort of thing" I was referring to the aforementioned in depth Socionics mumbo jumbo.

Socionics mumbo jumbo IS about insights about people.

[mu4]

LOL, turning to ILEs for insights about people!

I find ILE's are often very insightful about people, often far more then ethical types. However that insight make them often detached, cold and untrusting. If the world were full of mind readers, you can only imagine that it would also be a very distant and cold place.

[Olduvai]

I never said that gut feelings should not be voiced, merely that they should be presented as what they are - a surface impression without particularly deep evidence - and that they should not be treated like an equivalent substitute for a well-reasoned argument.

Could a "gut feeling" actually be a "reasoned judgment" for an "inductive" mind?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Could a "gut feeling" actually be a "reasoned judgment" for an "inductive" mind?

If you can't explain your gut feeling and tie it to supporting evidence, then no.

[Olduvai]

If you can't explain your gut feeling and tie it to supporting evidence, then no.

Does everyone experience "gut feelings"?

[Joy]

Could a "gut feeling" actually be a "reasoned judgment" for an "inductive" mind?

I use mostly inductive and abductive reasoning, but I don't call it a gut feeling. I more talk about the probability of correctness.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Does everyone experience "gut feelings"?

Now and again, probably.

On a related note, I fail to see what inductive reasoning has to do with gut feelings.

[Olduvai]

I use mostly inductive and abductive reasoning, but I don't call it a gut feeling. I more talk about the probability of correctness.

Here's some vintage Gulenko:

Left-dynamic positivists: Minus-plus logic -+L. Stochastic logic. Logic of probabilities, contingencies and exceptions, of mechanical sums rather than derivatives. Violation of hierarchy. Expression is "conglomerative" as if artificially composed from different styles. This logic is characteristic for sociotypes ESE, LIE, SLI, IEI.

[lemontrees]

I find ILE's are often very insightful about people, often far more then ethical types. However that insight make them often detached, cold and untrusting. If the world were full of mind readers, you can only imagine that it would also be a very distant and cold place.

My experience is that they typically think this but can be wrong in all sorts of ways, although it's true that many of these ways are subtle. The general picture is usually right. But when it comes to emotional information or psychological motives, subtle things can change the landscape a lot. They can tip towards empathy or towards estrangement. ILE's process patterns, but the truth is that two people can behave in similar ways under similar situations but feel differently internally. I've spent much time correcting ILE's "mindreading" beliefs about people, finding them ignoring contextual details or too quick to jump to conclusions. ILE's often don't get to find out that they've misjudged someone b/c they've already created a distance. They ignore how their own actions affect their observations through affecting how people behave around them. But I can see how this ability would be good for "sizing up" a situation, cutting right through information that ethicals are still processing.

#enddualrantoftheday

[Joy]

Here's some vintage Gulenko:

Sounds at least half like me, but I'm not sure how much I agree with the plus/minus concept. It's always seemed off to me.

[Olduvai]

Now and again, probably.

On a related note, I fail to see what inductive reasoning has to do with gut feelings.

I got hung up on the phrase "gut feeling". Sorry.

[Olduvai]

Sounds at least half like me, but I'm not sure how much I agree with the plus/minus concept. It's always seemed off to me.

Electrical impulses between neurons are what power the brain.

[Joy]

Electrical impulses between neurons are what power the brain.

Don't the descriptions say stuff like negative Fi is hate and negative Si is discomfort as if everyone of specific types focus on those negative things?

How the hell is that related to electricity? That seems like quite a stretch (at best) to me.

[Olduvai]

Don't the descriptions say stuff like negative Fi is hate and negative Si is discomfort as if everyone of specific types focus on those negative things?

How the hell is that related to electricity? That seems like quite a stretch (at best) to me.

If they do, they're wrong. "Minus-Fi" is one type of "Implicit Object Static", the other being "Plus-Fi". Think "strength/weakness". "Minus-Si" is one type of "Implicit Relation Dynamic", the other being "Plus-Si". Think "will/won't". "Minus-Fi", "Plus-Fi", "Minus-Si" and "Plus-Si" are all "information constructs" that our brain perceives and processes, and as far as I can tell, the electrical impulses between neurons represent these "information constructs".

[mikemex]

He's IEE, I know because I was just like him back when I was younger.

Believe it or not, he's probably gifted. And I wouldn't be surprised if you raise an eyebrow when you read this but I think it's a very interesting opportunity to explain people the realities of being gifted.

It all begins about destroying the popular expectation that gifted people are circus monkeys who are always performing amazing tricks on the spot. Contrary to the popular belief, being gifted is not about the level of intelligence if we understand intelligence as some sort of "raw performance". This is, a gifted individual can be slower to think than an average person. And can even make more mistakes. All of this comes from the fact that giftedness is not exactly about talent but about perceiving the world in a different way. Gifted people perceive more information at once, often significantly more. Think in terms of the resolution of a picture. The more pixels there are on it, the more details you can see. And this is what makes the gifted special: they notice details others can't see. But it also makes the processing of the picture exponentially slower as its size grows.

The development of the gifted is thus often slower than of the average person because he has a lot more issues to sort and settle. And in his particular case what we observe is the effects of an early advantage that was turned into unjustified over confidence in his own abilities. Despite his gift, he seems to overlook the fact that intellect is no substitute for knowledge. This is the source of his bold (and annoying) claims: he doesn't seem to realize that he's mixing his imagination with reality. So he responds to what he thinks he knows about the external world, rather to what it actually is.

This is not a specific tendency of him but of NFs in general (to idealize rather than know) but his development has probably hold him back in his specific development of Se and Te, which are necessary to asses the quality of the information used to build up conclusions. In fewer words, he simply don't realize his own ignorance.

I dare say "annoying as fuck"

Wow, I never thought I would hear this from Maritsa...

[mu4]

My experience is that they typically think this but can be wrong in all sorts of ways, although it's true that many of these ways are subtle. The general picture is usually right. But when it comes to emotional information or psychological motives, subtle things can change the landscape a lot. They can tip towards empathy or towards estrangement. ILE's process patterns, but the truth is that two people can behave in similar ways under similar situations but feel differently internally. I've spent much time correcting ILE's "mindreading" beliefs about people, finding them ignoring contextual details or too quick to jump to conclusions. ILE's often don't get to find out that they've misjudged someone b/c they've already created a distance. They ignore how their own actions affect their observations through affecting how people behave around them. But I can see how this ability would be good for "sizing up" a situation, cutting right through information that ethicals are still processing.

#enddualrantoftheday

I actually see that people mistake some details for the main, and this happens for everyone due to the unique specializations and preferences individuals have. Sometimes these details are the main important part and other times it's not.

I think ILE's are far more candid(to themselves) about their lack of knowledge than ppl think, what you see as jumping to conclusions could simply be a test(however as they don't care how it estranges people, they can cause negative results to arise even when the initial issue wasn't negative). Also there are often times when people delude themselves, so no matter what their feelings internally are, they delude themselves and other with their delusions, so it matters very little what their feelings actually are. Now it may cause some estrangement to ignore these feelings, but some individuals aren't inclined to cater to them. A lot of insight into humanity is just having intelligence and a lot of social interaction and observation. Also social insight isn't the same as social skills or charisma.

It's also important to understand that there are individuals which people have almost no ability to get into their thoughts. Duals for example, duals have weak unconscious functions as respective ego functions and from my observation have a hard time understanding how each other thing.

[Olduvai]

He's IEE, I know because I was just like him back when I was younger.

Believe it or not, he's probably gifted. And I wouldn't be surprised if you raise an eyebrow when you read this but I think it's a very interesting opportunity to explain people the realities of being gifted.

It all begins about destroying the popular expectation that gifted people are circus monkeys who are always performing amazing tricks on the spot. Contrary to the popular belief, being gifted is not about the level of intelligence if we understand intelligence as some sort of "raw performance". This is, a gifted individual can be slower to think than an average person. And can even make more mistakes. All of this comes from the fact that giftedness is not exactly about talent but about perceiving the world in a different way. Gifted people perceive more information at once, often significantly more. Think in terms of the resolution of a picture. The more pixels there are on it, the more details you can see. And this is what makes the gifted special: they notice details others can't see. But it also makes the processing of the picture exponentially slower as its size grows.

The development of the gifted is thus often slower than of the average person because he has a lot more issues to sort and settle. And in his particular case what we observe is the effects of an early advantage that was turned into unjustified over confidence in his own abilities. Despite his gift, he seems to overlook the fact that intellect is no substitute for knowledge. This is the source of his bold (and annoying) claims: he doesn't seem to realize that he's mixing his imagination with reality. So he responds to what he thinks he knows about the external world, rather to what it actually is.

This is not a specific tendency of him but of NFs in general (to idealize rather than know) but his development has probably hold him back in his specific development of Se and Te, which are necessary to asses the quality of the information used to build up conclusions. In fewer words, he simply don't realize his own ignorance.



Wow, I never thought I would hear this from Maritsa...

[Olduvai]

He's IEE, I know because I was just like him back when I was younger.

It's funny, an LII once told me something very similar to this, but I took his statement seriously.

[Joy]

If they do, they're wrong. "Minus-Fi" is one type of "Implicit Object Static", the other being "Plus-Fi". Think "strength/weakness". "Minus-Si" is one type of "Implicit Relation Dynamic", the other being "Plus-Si". Think "will/won't". "Minus-Fi", "Plus-Fi", "Minus-Si" and "Plus-Si" are all "information constructs" that our brain perceives and processes, and as far as I can tell, the electrical impulses between neurons represent these "information constructs".

Are you talking about this? http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Meged-Ovcharov

Also, I don't see how Si is implicit... Ni would be implicit, not Si.

[Olduvai]

Are you talking about this? http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Meged-Ovcharov

Also, I don't see how Si is implicit... Ni would be implicit, not Si.

I'm talking more like this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23423949

Si and Ni are both implicit. "Implicit" means "capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed; involved in the nature or essence of something though not revealed, expressed, or developed". Therefore you might say "implicit" information "originates from the brain", whereas "explicit" information "originates from the environment". A type with an "explicit" primary function would be more focused on their environment, while a type with an "implicit" primary function would be more focused on their thought processes, thus giving rise to the "extraverted/introverted" dichotomy.

[Joy]

I'm talking more like this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23423949

Si and Ni are both implicit. "Implicit" means "capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed; involved in the nature or essence of something though not revealed, expressed, or developed". Therefore you might say "implicit" information "originates from the brain", whereas "explicit" information "originates from the environment". A type with an "explicit" primary function would be more focused on their environment, while a type with an "implicit" primary function would be more focused on their thought processes, thus giving rise to the "extraverted/introverted" dichotomy.

The only way your definitions of information elements such as "Implicit Object Static" will ever make sense to me is if I see them all together, and even that is a long shot since you think of Ni as an object rather than field, and to me Ni is very clearly about how "internal" events are related to each other.

[Olduvai]

The only way your definitions of information elements such as "Implicit Object Static" will ever make sense to me is if I see them all together, and even that is a long shot since you think of Ni as an object rather than field, and to me Ni is very clearly about how "internal" events are related to each other.

Could you elaborate a bit, please? I'll provide you with the complete set of definitions in a little while.

[Satan]

I never said that gut feelings should not be voiced, merely that they should be presented as what they are - a surface impression without particularly deep evidence - and that they should not be treated like an equivalent substitute for a well-reasoned argument.

gut feelings are usually more accurate than irrational head feelings.

[Joy]

Could you elaborate a bit, please? I'll provide you with the complete set of definitions in a little while.

Oh! I think I've figured out where the incongruities in our definitions are. This gave it away:

Therefore you might say "implicit" information "originates from the brain", whereas "explicit" information "originates from the environment". A type with an "explicit" primary function would be more focused on their environment, while a type with an "implicit" primary function would be more focused on their thought processes, thus giving rise to the "extraverted/introverted" dichotomy.

You're using the term implicit where I use field. Field: The connection between oneself and something else (as well as the connections between other things). The things themselves are objects. Introverted information aspects are all about the person him/herself. The connections/relationships are internally experienced. <-- There's something I'm trying to say here that I'm not quite getting right, and it's something I never quite got about fields, I think, that you're sort of shining a light on with your definitions, but it's not quite that. It's been a long day and I need to go to sleep, but I'll mull this over a bit and see what makes sense when I come back to it.

When you used the term "implicit" I thought you meant "internal" because for the purpose of these definitions, internal means what's beneath the surface or not readily definable, the inner/hidden qualities. External is the readily measurable/observable side of things.

What I don't understand is how you define object and field (especially in a way that works to see Ni as being about objects rather than connections).

To my knowledge we're on the same page about what static vs. dynamic mean.

There's some old discussion about this stuff here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...he-definitions

So.... if I'm not mistaken, we're actually on the same page about the meanings of information aspects. We're just calling them different things.

[Satan]

You guys are both a bit weird with explicit/implicit.

Explicit would be calling you a whore. Implicit would be saying that implies you're a slut.

Explicit is killing someone by slitting their throat. Implicit is poisining them in their sleep.

Explicit is expressing feelings. Implicit is talking about the way things make you feel.

Oh! I think I've figured out where the incongruities in our definitions are. This gave it away:



You're using the term implicit where I use field. Field: The connection between oneself and something else (as well as the connections between other things). The things themselves are objects. Introverted information aspects are all about the person him/herself. The connections/relationships are internally experienced. <-- There's something I'm trying to say here that I'm not quite getting right, and it's something I never quite got about fields, I think, that you're sort of shining a light on with your definitions, but it's not quite that. It's been a long day and I need to go to sleep, but I'll mull this over a bit and see what makes sense when I come back to it.

When you used the term "implicit" I thought you meant "internal" because for the purpose of these definitions, internal means what's beneath the surface or not readily definable, the inner/hidden qualities. External is the readily measurable/observable side of things.

To my knowledge we're on the same page about what static vs. dynamic mean.

There's some old discussion about this stuff here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...he-definitions

So.... if I'm not mistaken, we're actually on the same page about the meanings of information aspects. We're just calling them different things.

[Olduvai]

You guys are both a bit weird with explicit/implicit.

Explicit would be calling you a whore. Implicit would be saying that implies you're a slut.

Explicit is killing someone by slitting their throat. Implicit is poisining them in their sleep.

Explicit is expressing feelings. Implicit is talking about the way things make you feel.

Peace, peace, Mercutio, peace! Thou talk'st of nothing.

[Olduvai]

Field: The connection between oneself and something else (as well as the connections between other things). The things themselves are objects.

I agree with your definition. I think "Ti" or "Implicit Field/Relation Statics" might look something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

Defining the field as "numbers in space" shouldn't detract from the idea that it has physicalreality. “It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum.”^[2] The field creates a "condition in space"^[3] such that when we put a particle in it, the particle "feels" a force.

Introverted information aspects are all about the person him/herself. The connections/relationships are internally experienced. <-- There's something I'm trying to say here that I'm not quite getting right, and it's something I never quite got about fields, I think, that you're sort of shining a light on with your definitions, but it's not quite that.

Perhaps you could try thinking about what it means to "internally experience" something.

When you used the term "implicit" I thought you meant "internal" because for the purpose of these definitions, internal means what's beneath the surface or not readily definable, the inner/hidden qualities. External is the readily measurable/observable side of things.

"Explicit" might mean "experience" while "implicit" might mean "inference".

What I don't understand is how you define object and field (especially in a way that works to see Ni as being about objects rather than connections).

Whenever we talk about "information elements" we're talking about "qualities of things". A "thing" can be an "object/unit" or a "field/relation". A "human being" is a "thing", therefore a "human being" can be an "object/unit" or a "field/relation/system". "Ni" means "Implicit Object Dynamics", so I imagine an Ni-ego to be capable of predicting and making sense of human behavior, among other things.

To my knowledge we're on the same page about what static vs. dynamic mean.

w00t.

So.... if I'm not mistaken, we're actually on the same page about the meanings of information aspects. We're just calling them different things.

Kinda maybe.

[Joy]

I agree with your definition. I think "Ti" or "Implicit Field/Relation Statics" might look something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

Among lots of other things. It's basically just structured logic.

Perhaps you could try thinking about what it means to "internally experience" something.

I felt like I was on the verge of something but didn't know what when I went to bed, and now I think it was understanding where you're coming from with your concept of introverted vs extroverted functions. I think the basic idea is much simpler than all that though. Introverted functions really are just relational. They are the connections themselves, and we're able to relate them to each other because we relate them to ourselves first. Extroverted information elements are the things between which those connections exist.

It may sound too simplistic, but remember that no function is capable of working in a vacuum. It must be supported by other functions.

"Explicit" might mean "experience" while "implicit" might mean "inference".

As related to your introverted vs extroverted information elements?

Whenever we talk about "information elements" we're talking about "qualities of things". A "thing" can be an "object/unit" or a "field/relation". A "human being" is a "thing", therefore a "human being" can be an "object/unit" or a "field/relation/system". "Ni" means "Implicit Object Dynamics", so I imagine an Ni-ego to be capable of predicting and making sense of human behavior, among other things.

Which information elements do you think are fields? By your definition here, all of them should be objects and therefore that distinction isn't a distinction and should just be removed.

I disagree that connections are simply a type of object though. Objects vs connections is an important distinction with information elements.

Kinda maybe.

Only if you think Ne, Ni, Fe, and Fi are all objects. The only way the model is balanced is if each side of the three aspects of the information elements is attached to four of them. Also, Ne and Si have to be exact opposites, as do Se and Ni, Fe and Ti, and Te and Fi. If not, the model doesn't work.

[Zero11]

Also, Ne and Si have to be exact opposites, as do Se and Ni, Fe and Ti, and Te and Fi. If not, the model doesn't work.

and , and , and , and are exact opposites, they oppose each other because they occupy the same space.

extraverted rational
Systems - People
introverted irrational
Unknown - Known (what you don´t know you have to guess)
extraverted irrational
Surreal - Real
introverted rational
Perfection - Harmony (Perfection is Harmony, Harmony is Perfection)

Jung believed that the Inferior/Suggestive function was unconscious, this faulty conception is still alive in Model A.

[Joy]

and , and , and , and are exact opposites, they oppose each other because they occupy the same space.

extraverted rational
Systems - People
introverted irrational
Unknown - Known (what you don´t know you have to guess)
extraverted irrational
Surreal - Real
introverted rational
Perfection - Harmony (Perfection is Harmony, Harmony is Perfection)

Jung believed that the Inferior/Suggestive function was unconscious, this faulty conception is still alive in Model A.

Actually, they have to be the most similar because they occupy the same space. Otherwise it'd be like if someone says, "Do you want to bake or fry this dish?" and the other person responds, "Volkswagon!" A Volkswagon is too different to do the job of an oven or a range.

The difference between the information elements in the sets you mentioned is internal vs. external:

Ne = the states of underlying, independent aspects of reality
Se = the states of apparent, independent aspects of reality
Te = the changing of apparent, independent aspects of reality
Fe = the changing of underlying, independent aspects of reality
Ni = the changing of underlying, interconnected aspects of reality
Si = the changing of apparent, interconnected aspects of reality
Ti = the states of apparent, interconnected aspects of reality
Fi = the states of underlying, interconnected aspects of reality

The reason duals are able to balance each other out is that the exact opposite information elements take the same places in Model A. For example:

Ne = the states of underlying, independent aspects of reality
Si = the changing of apparent, interconnected aspects of reality

Every angle is covered because they're seeing opposite aspects.

[Zero11]

The difference between the information elements in the sets you mentioned is internal vs. external:

Ne = the states of underlying, independent aspects of reality
Se = the states of apparent, independent aspects of reality
Te = the changing of apparent, independent aspects of reality
Fe = the changing of underlying, independent aspects of reality
Ni = the changing of underlying, interconnected aspects of reality
Si = the changing of apparent, interconnected aspects of reality
Ti = the states of apparent, interconnected aspects of reality
Fi = the states of underlying, interconnected aspects of reality

This definitions are far too complicated to make sense out of it. Johannes Bloems combined packages concluding in extraversion are far easier.

The reason duals are able to balance each other out is that the exact opposite information elements take the same places in Model A. For example:

Ne = the states of underlying, independent aspects of reality
Si = the changing of apparent, interconnected aspects of reality

Every angle is covered because they're seeing opposite aspects.

Nice fairy tale but and conflict which makes them totally different / as total different functions may be true on a second layer but not in reality.

= Explicit Relation Statics
= Implicit Relation Dynamics

= Implicit Object Dynamics (the opposite to ) Inspiration
and simply crash (Implicit and Dynamic the one about Relations the other about Objects)

Ti = "Implicit Relation Statics"
Te = "Explicit Object Dynamics"
Fi = "Implicit Object Statics"
Fe = "Explicit Relation Dynamics"

In this system, Te and Fe clash because both perceive the explicit dynamics of "things", but one is oriented toward objects, while the other, toward fields. Fi matches well with Te because Fi is also oriented toward objects, and Ti pairs up with Fe because it too is oriented toward fields, and Fi and Ti clash because both perceive implicit statics, but one is oriented toward objects, while the other, fields.

EDITED PORTION
Instead of "clash", you might say "repel".

[Olduvai]

Among lots of other things. It's basically just structured logic.

Because "Te" and "Ti" help us determine "how things work", both are "oriented" toward some "thing". "Te" does so by focusing on "objects" and their "explicit dynamics", while "Ti" does so by focusing on the "implicit statics" of the "relations" between the objects.

I felt like I was on the verge of something but didn't know what when I went to bed, and now I think it was understanding where you're coming from with your concept of introverted vs extroverted functions. I think the basic idea is much simpler than all that though. Introverted functions really are just relational. They are the connections themselves, and we're able to relate them to each other because we relate them to ourselves first. Extroverted information elements are the things between which those connections exist.

Why can't "relations" be "explicit" or "extraverted"? When you watch two people interact, isn't that an "explicit relation"?

As related to your introverted vs extroverted information elements?

Correct. "Explicit" information originates from the environment, while "implicit" information originates from the brain.

Which information elements do you think are fields? By your definition here, all of them should be objects and therefore that distinction isn't a distinction and should just be removed.

"Se" = "Explicit Object Statics"
"Te" = "Explicit Object Dynamics"
"Ne" = "Explicit Relation Statics"
"Fe" = "Explicit Relation Dynamics"
"Fi" = "Implicit Object Statics"
"Ni" = "Implicit Object Dynamics"
"Ti" = "Implicit Relation Statics"
"Si" = "Implicit Relation Dynamics"

I disagree that connections are simply a type of object though. Objects vs connections is an important distinction with information elements.

"Objects" and "relations" are types of "things".

Exactly. It's too late though. His self-identity is so wrapped up in his socionics identity. If anybody questions IEE, nice guy goes out the door and he defends his rationalizations with the wrath of 1,000 white women.