**So 1D Nes have trouble with this. But so do most people you know. You’ve broadened the experimental group to a point it starts to lose its meaning. Some years ago a job that put me through college was part-time helping m.d.s with their reseach papers.**
I said they have trouble understanding abstract theoretical concepts. You asked me what that meant, and I gave you an example. I might have erroneously stated that everyone in my course has difficulty with Calculus, but that's not exactly the case, but I mean the ones I consider having 1D Ne were the ones that displayed this difficulty as stated before. Of course there are lots of people that get that.
But the point is that they are the least likely to pursue this kind of information, at least in the original abstract format.
**Holding a piece of information contained in a term enough for sustainability (the way you want to present the appearance of Ne in the link) falls under working memory and I could make a case for that being Te-related.**
I am not sure I understand what this means, to be fair, I didn't even read that link, but you asked for an example..so
**(And not to pick on you, you mistook end-result Si with source-Si. I’ve just remembered that now that you mention grasping the essence of things)**
Probably. I've read Jung once about Si, and I see that many descriptions from MBTI to Socionics and they point to very different things, which makes me wonder if it's even possible to correctly describe what source Si is, unless you experience it yourself. Just like you can't tell someone the essence of the taste of something. Ideas fall into a whole different category from experience.
I hope I clarified your original question. If you want to ask anything else I can answer from my perspective. Also your answer was very insightful, congratulations and thanks.



Reply With Quote