This is what I think the 'real' difference is between 'Ne' and its opposing function:
Ne is about possibilities - seeing them, engaging in them, living them out, etc. As a function, it wants to have as many possibilities 'as possible.' It therefore struggles with: things being confined to one option:
- You *must* do ____.
- ___________ is the *only* career that you can go into.
- That idea is possible, but *not right.*
- You *must not* major in _______.
I would even guess that some Ne egos do not like socionics, because it confines them to *one* career, *one* set of college majors, *one* soulmate etc., whereas they would prefer to have many options for all of these things. They could even get stuck in a rut, because there is one soulmate, etc. that is right, because there really are not enough feasible possibilities.
I have experienced this myself with philosophy as a major because of socionics. I could see someone saying that this is the one career that's *right* in socionics terms, but in typical Ne fashion, I had gotten sick of it years ago, and so I became 'ice cold' to it, wanting to move on. Plus, it's important for me to not be confined to one career, but have a multitude of options. But I could still see someone insisting on philosophy because it's the one that's 'right' in terms of its IM, etc. (I've even looked at some MBTI statistics: there are a lot of intuitives and Ne types in philosophy, especially ENTPs and therefore Alpha NTs!)
Anyway, that is my hypothesis about the real difference between Ne and ________ as it's clashing function. Tell me what you think...