Explaining situations and Socionics

[para]

When i am to explain a narrative, or tell a story, or present a situation where something happened in a concrete manner, with concrete interactions between things, i often have a hard time actually getting that information IN my presentation. For example, if i were to hold a speech, i would have a hard time explaining concrete actions that follow each other, and have a hard time explaining and interacting with concrete information, but have an easier time expounding on my overarching impressions of what the situation meant, where this part trumps the concrete interactions supremely. For example, ''He said this, and this, and this to me. Then he asked me to do this.'' is hard for me, but ''She was explaining her views about this subject, and i found that she had a generally nuanced and positive consideration of this element'' is easy for me. Can this be explained ''Socionically''?

[Exodus]

Yeah, sounds like a tendency to abstract which again is primarily Ni. The opposite would be Si which means putting things in simple, everyday terms.

Read Jung if you want to see a lot of this Ni style abstraction.

[Allegra]

Yeah, sounds like a tendency to abstract which again is primarily Ni. The opposite would be Si which means putting things in simple, everyday terms.

Read Jung if you want to see a lot of this Ni style abstraction.

I thought strong factual details was part of Te. How would Te be different then?

[Exodus]

I thought strong factual details was part of Te. How would Te be different then?

Yeah that could be it too. If @para is IEI for example these things are sort of a reflection of the same thing.

The way I would distinguish is e.g. if I asked you about specific details could you explain them in a coherent way? E.g. if you were trying to solve some computer issue, could you describe exactly what the problem is or would you say something vague like "I don't know, it's acting funny". That's more about logic. An ILI may veer into abstraction or complex language but will have a better grasp on factual details when the situation demands it.

[FDG]

Two components:
Introversion and intuition generally prefer the way you mention
Extroverted and sensing it's the opposite

[para]

Thank you all.
@thehotelambush
You mention Ni's capacity for abstraction, in a very overarching, general way. How would this abstraction differentiate from Ne style abstraction? From what i've read Ne seems to be more commonly associated with ''abstracting'', finding essence of concepts, seeing main points etc.

[Exodus]

Thank you all.
@thehotelambush
You mention Ni's capacity for abstraction, in a very overarching, general way. How would this abstraction differentiate from Ne style abstraction? From what i've read Ne seems to be more commonly associated with ''abstracting'', finding essence of concepts, seeing main points etc.

Sure, Ne is about the "main idea" of a thing. But it's more associated with simplicity and simple concepts, and things which are novel combinations of known things, rather than innately obscure things like Ni. Augusta's writings are an example of Ne to Jung's Ni. She had a couple of "main ideas" (people have bad relationships because they perceive the world differently, yet we all perceive the same information, etc.) from which she derived everything else. Jung's ideas and writing style (with a few exceptions) are not quite so accessible.

[para]

Ne - the core speaks for all
Ni - the all speaks for all