lol this is exactly what im talking about. you're making Ne about unmitigated acceptance of expanding possibilities, when its more about perception of expanding possibilities, it can easily be perceiving possibilities and finding them threatening in that they don't fit into the model, which is what you're doing here. what you are demonstrating is a kind of sympatico with LSE because you view similar things as threats, which is essentially anything that contradicts the rational model in the form of Ni. your recourse is to define it out of existence and insist on the model. Ne has been wholly made a servant of the rational model and it is a joke to suggest then, as a consequence of the model, it is about absolute acceptance of possibilities, as if it weren't a slave because the model says it isn't. you are in fact the one who has turned things upside down. because like LSE the perception has been subordinated to the "order of things", except in your special case, you've defined Ne valuing as being above such petty weaknesses. which is ironic, but typical. the model doesn't make it real, it just makes them foolish inasmuch as they insist on it at the expense of reality. in any case ESE is the one who gets excited over possibilities for their own sake. are we really going to pretend base thinking types don't get caught up in the conception of things and the resulting formulas at the expense of the true situation, simply because they value Ne, as if Ne isn't precisely the pernicious servant to such a process, when in any position but the dominant one. this is just another mode of "Te is objective and therefore correct" except its "Ne is open and therefore not rigid"--it cuts out all the contextualizing factors that offset this ridiculously one dimensional statement. base rationality is irreducibly rigid. its a basic tenent of socionics right down to how they physically hold themselves. to say its not a different kind of rigid is like absurd on its face without even going into the details. its more rigid by definition in comparison to the perceiving types, thus they're all on the rigid side. what remains is only the distinguishing character of that rigidity. the fact that you happen to find that character agreeable does not objectively shift its position with respect to rigidity. although you have made an impressive effort to that end. rationality has everything to do with it. QED