Xe vs. Xi: Discriminating word pairs

[Economica]

This is a thread for people to contribute their experience (please, no armchair theorizing!) with the differences between the introverted and extroverted directions of each of the functions in the form of word pairs. The idea is to distill our collective experience to provide a feel for how the functions actually play out as a supplement to the abstract descriptions and flawed tests.

Go ahead and specify if you think a word pair is only relevant in conjunction with another function.

I'll edit this OP to include contributions I don't disagree with as they come in.

Ne vs. Ni

Springy vs. dogged
Cognizant vs. starry-eyed
Including vs. excluding
Observing vs. envisioning
Chromatic vs. wraithlike
Ever-inquisitive vs. inquisitive-then-satisfied
From the one to the many vs. from the many to the one

Te vs. Ti

No-nonsense vs. academic (in conjunction with dominant or auxiliary N)
Marshaling vs. analytical
Organizing vs. piercing
Accomplishing vs. reflecting
Dominance vs. jurisprudence

Se vs. Si

Promoting vs. retaining
Intemperate vs. temperate
Direct vs. indirect
Photographic vs. derived (impressionistic)
Expansive vs. habitual
Noticing vs. knowing
Awareness vs. recall

Fe vs. Fi

Soothing vs. championing
Appropriate vs. sincere
World-then-ego vs. ego-then-world
Norms vs. ideals
Harmonic vs. certifying

 

[ragashree]

Se vs Si

Awareness vs Recall

Noticing vs Knowing

Fe vs Fi

Harmonic vs Certifying

 

[Blackwater]

Se
Promoting
Intemperate
Direct
Photographic
Expansive

Si
Retaining
Temperate
Indirect
Derived (Impressionistic)
Habitual

Ne
Including
Observing
Chromatic
Ever-inquisitive
From the one to the many

Ni
Excluding
Envisioning
Wraithlike
Inquisitive-then-satisfied
From the many to the one

Te
Marshalling
Organizing
Accomplishing
Dominance

Ti
Analytical
Piercing
Reflecting
Jurisprudence

Fe
Soothing
Appropriate
World-then-ego
Norms

Fi
Championing
Sincere
Ego-then-world
Ideals

 

[Economica]

Blackwater...

Te
(...)
Dominance

Ti
(...)
Jurisprudence

I like where this word pair is going but are you sure jurisprudence is the precise word you mean?

 

[pippi]

Here are some Fe-Fi pairs from another forum:

Fe is the lava that boils out.
Fi is the fire inside that started it all.

Fe sings.
Fi composes.

Fe asserts itself.
Fi just IS.

Fe is the bird.
Fi is the song.

Fe is contagious.
Fi is seductive.

Fe feels for others.
Fi feels for self.

Fe resounds.
Fi resonates.

Fe is the smile that leads to the kiss.
Fi is the butterfly in your chest that led to the smile.

Fe makes decisions based on values.
Fi makes decisions based on PERSONAL values.

Fe reaches out.
Fi pulls in.

 

[Athenian200]

This is a thread for people to contribute their experience

This is why I don't like you. Some of us don't actually remember our experiences clearly, or even see things like this in terms of them.

 

[Economica]

This is why I don't like you. Some of us don't actually remember our experiences clearly, or even see things like this in terms of them.

Hey, I didn't say it had to be RL experience this time! You've got enough forum experience to contribute.

 

[Athenian200]

Hey, I didn't say it had to be RL experience this time! You've got enough forum experience to contribute.

Not really. The problem is the way my mind works. I don't actually see my experiences clearly. I occasionally take one or two pieces of information and create an abstraction regarding a category, but most of the time I can't tell you where it came from, or how many examples have reinforced the idea (because I forget my specific experiences and only remember the theory I came up with to explain the experience at that time).

So essentially, my mind almost never holds on to my raw experiences. They're always discarded in favor of unverifiable theories that seem to explain them. The problem is that I don't know which parts of my beliefs are influenced by my armchair theorizing, other's armchair theorizing, and which parts are based on experience, because it all blends together in my head into a single internally consistent amalgamation. You're asking me to give information that's been sorted according to a dichotomy I don't use internally, and it would be impossible for me to go back and retroactively tag/sort all the mental processing I've done on this issue to fit your specifications. I'd have to start all over again, and it would be really hard.

Regardless, I'll try to give you what I can, but I cannot make any guarantees as to what it's based on, so it may be too tainted to use.

Ni vs. Ne

Future possibilities vs. Present possibilities

Metacognitive vs. Metaphorical

Transcendent vs. Contextual

Te vs. Ti

Achievement vs. Understanding

Efficiency vs. Redundancy (as in engineering)

Order vs. Awareness

Simplicity vs. Precision

Fe vs. Fi

Harmony vs. Integrity

Manipulation vs. Directness

Prose vs. Poetry

Etiquette vs. Personalization

Se vs. Si

Impulse vs. Reflection

Appearance vs. Associations

Casual vs. Formal

Practical vs. Proven

Does any of that make sense?

 

[Economica]

Not really. The problem is the way my mind works. I don't actually see my experiences clearly. I occasionally take one or two pieces of information and create an abstraction regarding a category, but most of the time I can't tell you where it came from, or how many examples have reinforced the idea (because I forget my specific experiences and only remember the theory I came up with to explain the experience at that time).

My mind actually works the same way. Though I feel I have considerable experience with applied MBTI by now, I nevertheless have a hard time coming up with these word pairs off the top of my head. The discriminatory nuances tend to only come to my mind when pondering a specific person's type. For instance, I came up with Ne springy vs. Ni dogged and Te no-nonsense vs. Ti academic when I was trying to crystallize my conviction that Ivy is an Ne and Te user rather than an Ni and Ti user.

But I realize this is probably a Te way of going about it...

 

[Costrin]

Ne vs Ni
Possibilities vs Perspectives

 

[Athenian200]

My mind actually works the same way. Though I feel I have considerable experience with applied MBTI by now, I nevertheless have a hard time coming up with these word pairs off the top of my head. The discriminatory nuances tend to only come to my mind when pondering a specific person's type. For instance, I came up with Ne springy vs. Ni dogged and Te no-nonsense vs. Ti academic when I was trying to crystallize my conviction that Ivy is an Ne and Te user rather than an Ni and Ti user.

But I realize this is probably a Te way of going about it...

Oh! So your point was about whether the PERSON in question has experience using the system and has had their theories reinforced by experience, not about whether the information they used to come up with the distinction is based on experientially-derived understanding rather than a theoretically-derived understanding.

I'd actually say our miscommunication was a good example of Ti vs. Te. I interpreted "experience" to have a very precise meaning referring to inherent qualities in the idea itself, while you were using "experience" to refer to a general category regarding the activity of the person putting forth the idea.

 

[Into It]

I really like this thread! This is a placeholder: I will post more later...

Ne vs Ni

Foghorn vs. Funnel
Explosion vs. Colligation

Possibilites vs. Single (far reaching) Possibility + Contengencies
(Focus on Variegated Ribbons Tied to a Kitestring vs. The Kite Itself, ribbons considered.)

What the Future could be vs. How The Present becomes the Future.
Considering Ideas that fall under a single concept vs. Focus on the Concept in which ideas are similar.

Te vs. Ti

Does this work? vs. How does this work?
Accomplishment vs. Contemplation
(Ignoring all that is not necessary to achieve a given purpose vs. considering all aspects of the whole.)

Se vs. Si
Establishing symbols vs. Recognizing established symbols.
Experience vs. Place in group

Fe vs. Fi

Plagiarizing vs. Trailblazing

(haha)

 

[Economica]

Oh! So your point was about whether the PERSON in question has experience using the system and has had their theories reinforced by experience, not about whether the information they used to come up with the distinction is based on experientially-derived understanding rather than a theoretically-derived understanding.

I'd actually say our miscommunication was a good example of Ti vs. Te. I interpreted "experience" to have a very precise meaning referring to inherent qualities in the idea itself, while you were using "experience" to refer to a general category regarding the activity of the person putting forth the idea.

I hate to disillusion you, Athenian, but I'm afraid you're actually giving me credit for too much Ti use by assuming that I must have had some precise definition in mind. I think my own definition was muddled to begin with, but now that you have provided clarity (Blackwater, did you say Te organizing vs. Ti piercing?) I am going to subscribe to the definition your quoted post above starts out with.

Kudos and thanks for helping me clear this up!

 

[Athenian200]

I have to disillusion you, Athenian, but I'm afraid you're actually giving me credit for too much Ti use by assuming that I must have had some precise definition in mind. I think my own definition was muddled to begin with, but now that you have provided clarity (Blackwater, did you say Te organizing vs. Ti piercing?) I am going to subscribe to the definition your quoted post above starts out with.

Kudos and thanks for helping me clear this up!

Oh. That actually explains a lot. You're welcome.

I guess I unconsciously felt that "experience" would have essentially been a way of saying that only Sensors (and Intuitives with a strong S) that had used the system before were allowed to contribute to your thread, especially since you contrasted it with "theorizing." Intuitives tend to orient to reality via a theoretical structure that explains reality rather than raw experiential data regardless of what they've literally experienced, so the only Intuitives that could contribute would be the ones with a strong S who could completely throw away their mental/theoretical framework and re-process the categories only in terms of raw data. Which is next to impossible for most Ns, especially since they often have poor memories of detail (I actually have a decent one, but it's all episodic, unconscious, and unsorted information that only surfaces in the presence of a similar stimulus, because all the information I consciously judge gets transformed into an abstraction). You unwittingly phrased it in a way that showed disdain for the way Intuitive types process reality. I probably could have resorted all the information in that way if I had really wanted to, but it would have taken me hours (maybe days), been extremely draining and frustrating, and likely produced far less useful and accurate results than my normal way of processing reality. It would have been like what I felt pressured to do all the time in that horrible Algebra 2 class all over again. I still hate math to this day because of that class, and one back in Elementary school.

Come to think of it, your past use of this term, along with a couple of other things, might be one of the main reasons people have accused you of being an ESTJ. I saw the same possibilility when you've done this before, but thought it didn't fit with the rest of your behavior and views on life, especially in contexts other than the one they were using to support their standpoint. Their other evidence mostly seemed to point to what I would call incidences of ESxP shadow behavior with Te mixed in rather than anything else, if I recall correctly. When I pointed this out, they basically resorted to invoking Occam's razor, which I've always thought was extremely lazy reasoning.

Ah, sorry about continuing the derail. I just wanted to share my final thoughts. Ni+Ti can be very prolix and meandering, as you see.