+/~: Ne vs. Ni and Anxiety vs. Apprehension

[Cygnus]

Socionics - the16types.info - Signs of Functions (+/-)
Socionics - the16types.info - plus/minus by Victor Gulenko




Over time, I've noticed a lot of reports from particularly ENFPs and INFPs (Delta NFs), describing issues with anxiety. Sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly, this is attributed to their Ne function, that infinite negative possibilities in their environment cause them to overanalyze every situation, and, as a result, behave very anxiously.





However, Deltans possess the Ne~ element, the defining feature of which seems to be the unimpeded spread of potentially useful information, no matter how absurd, strange, or unacceptable it may appear:

− Ne - hopelessness, alternatives, negative potential, meaninglessness, absurdity, paradox, the forgotten and the old, insight, mediocrity, commonness, repressed possibilities, reality, disbelief, sensation

-Ne = the unusual, alternative and bizarre. Despite its groundedness, this quadra respects unusual and talented people who offer creative alternative possibilities. The spread of new information is not impeded, no matter how avant-garde it might be. In Delta groups, there occur periodic flashes of sensationalism and spikes of interest centered around original people who put forward alternative ideas of development.

^ This function seems to take the most libertine approach to new ideas, possibilities, and information.





While it may seem quite plausible that Ne~ could result in some sort of anxiety in anticipation of possible dangers in one's immediate environment, this existential "anxiety" described actually seems to match up better with the Ni~ element of the Beta quadra:

− Ni - past, accounting for errors, avoidance of danger, anxiety, a worrying premonition, a warning, the ripening of a crisis, revolution, a leap in time, ability to hedge against troubles, sudden shifts, discordant description, the moment of decisive action, divergence, deviation;

-Ni = desire to bypass danger. They aim to avoid previously committed mistakes. In their groups, experience, skill, know-how, sophistication are highly valued. They feel confident in extreme situations.

^ Ni~ is acutely aware of the development of potential dangers and takes every possible measure to bypass them, resulting in particularly restrained personalities.






In addition, these Delta NF types often self-identify as Enneagram 6, which, if likened to any element in Socionics or MBTI, best matches Ni~:

Beta Quadra possesses many of the elements that would provide the ingredients for a Type Six, including but not limited to the positional hierarchy created by having blocked with , producing the quadra with the most rigid "chain of command" and distinct placements within a group or multiple groups. It features an aversion to Extroverted Irrationality in the form of , an avoidance of unpredictable situations with multiple variables and undefined, raw potential to develop into anything at a moment's notice, with a simultaneous appreciation for guidance, foresight, and a defined future/path as provided by those who favor . Type Six is almost always afraid of what they cannot predict, what is not certain or identified easily and quickly, as that is the incarnation of chaos, and chaos can lead to a breach of security. Alternatively, Type Six seeks guidance, and, in some cases, authority to help them understand what's what in the world, so that they can feel safe without worrying about what might be, or what could be -- what possible negative outcomes there might be awaiting just around the corner that could shatter the Six's idea of reality and his own safety.

Could this indicate large-scale cases of IEIs self-identifying as EIIs, mistaking their Ni (in this case, Ni~) with Ne (in this case, Ne~)?





It should be noted that there is plenty of grounds for Ne+ as it appears in the Alpha quadra to be mistaken for Ni+ (as seen in the Gamma quadra), or Ni in general, due to a focus on fulfilling clearly-defined future visions, rather than the Deltan openness to the avant-garde of Ne~:

+Ne = promising ideas. In this quadra, which can be attributed the element of air, there are frequent talks about the future, the unexplored and unknown possibilities. They may seem to be incorrigible dreamers. And this is so: they look out further than anyone, beyond the horizon, they put forward "crazy" theories and discuss them with pleasure. Some of these theories, however, are destined to have long lives, so long that they will outlast their creators.

+ Ne - prospects, opportunities, positive potential, core meaning, essence, principle, new ideas, advancing hypotheses, theory, insight, interest, originality, unusual, fantastical, hopefulness;

^ Ne+ creates elaborate visions for the future and stops at nothing to make them a reality. This can easily be mistaken for some of the more stereotypical definitions of Ni.







There's also a risk of Ni~ types failing to realize the true nature of their function, due to a misattribution of specifically Ni+ traits to all of Ni and a failure to understand Ni~:

+Ni = constraining their hot temper, these sociotypes prefer to advance gradually into the future, though they may sharply reject obsolete ideas, criticizing past mistakes. Advancing step by step, they generally believe in the linearity of development, i.e. according to their deep convictions, it is only necessary to remove obstacles, remnants of the past, and immediately this will open endless possibilities for growth. This quadra is not afraid of chaos and upheavals: they know how to conduct their work under conditions of change, risk and confusion.


+ Ni - future, change in the situation over time, prediction, premonition, gradual development, evolution, gradual ascent, the dynamics of change, the flow of time, imagination, harmonious description, subtle step-by-step changes, convergence, confluence;

^ Ni+, along with Ne+, seems to be the function that best matches the common stereotype of Ni, of seeing possibilities and visions in the distant future and stopping at nothing to bring them to fruition.






In a nutshell, Ne~ as it appears in the Delta quadra produces an attraction to the strange, the macabre, while Ni~ (Beta quadra) produces an aversion to any possible unforeseeable threat and a strong desire to control one's future. And, be reminded that the portrait of the EIE is named Hamlet.



Could this mean there are several EII INFjs (INFP in MBTI) who are actually IEI INFps (INFJ)?

 

[Oaky]

Thinking Ni and Ne defined by MBTI is the same as Ni and Ne defined by Socionics is the first mistake. One must study the differences well enough. It would allow one to understand why someone of a particular MBTI type can be variously different in Socionics and vice versa.

Study:

1. The differences in the definitions of the same labelled functions between MBTI, Socionics and Carl Jung.
2. What part of psychology Socionics and MBTI tries to achieve. As in how each of the models should be intendedly perceived.

And do not use your understanding of one typology system to understand the other. You'll be incorrect.

 

[Cygnus]

Thinking Ni and Ne defined by MBTI is the same as Ni and Ne defined by Socionics is the first mistake. One must study the differences well enough. It would allow one to understand why someone of a particular MBTI type can be variously different in Socionics and vice versa.

Study:

1. The differences in the definitions of the same labelled functions between MBTI, Socionics and Carl Jung.
2. What part of psychology Socionics and MBTI tries to achieve. As in how each of the models should be intendedly perceived.

And do not use your understanding of one typology system to understand the other. You'll be incorrect.

Well all the information I used to pose these questions was based on Socionics elements rather than MBTI functions. None of this is from any MBTI article. The attributes connected to these +/- functions were listed in the actual Socionics articles themselves.


The only connect I made between the two systems is that these types self-identify as ENFP or INFP. While they may very well be either be or in Socionics, I consider most of the basis behind MBTI to be inaccurate in comparison.


If you're one Socionics type, you should identify with that rather than with whatever you are in MBTI. The reasoning behind this is that MBTI functions have little in-depth analysis behind how a function behaves, giving only vague stereotypes instead. Every purely MBTI functions test, then, is inherently flawed because it analyzes what you alledgedly "value" or how you tend to behave in life situations as can vary in relationship to Nurture/life experiences, whereas Socionics would analyze the more concrete processes behind your actual thought.


Socionics measures the actual cognition itself, MBTI can be tainted in results yielding because factors in an MBTI test can be tainted by upbringing and life experiences. If you know your Sociotype, you should abandon MBTI altogether and identify with your Sociotype instead -- therefore, if these xNFPs in MBTI are actually a "different" Sociotype, they should switch over to that because it's more quantifiable in ways MBTI is not.



Basically you can't be any MBTI type except what you think you are because it isn't very concrete or organized -- but you are always your Socionics type, and you will always process information that way.

 

[Avocado]

Socionics - the16types.info - Signs of Functions (+/-)
Socionics - the16types.info - plus/minus by Victor Gulenko




Over time, I've noticed a lot of reports from particularly ENFPs and INFPs (Delta NFs), describing issues with anxiety. Sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly, this is attributed to their Ne function, that infinite negative possibilities in their environment cause them to overanalyze every situation, and, as a result, behave very anxiously.





However, Deltans possess the Ne~ element, the defining feature of which seems to be the unimpeded spread of potentially useful information, no matter how absurd, strange, or unacceptable it may appear:
^ This function seems to take the most libertine approach to new ideas, possibilities, and information.





While it may seem quite plausible that Ne~ could result in some sort of anxiety in anticipation of possible dangers in one's immediate environment, this existential "anxiety" described actually seems to match up better with the Ni~ element of the Beta quadra:
^ Ni~ is acutely aware of the development of potential dangers and takes every possible measure to bypass them, resulting in particularly restrained personalities.






In addition, these Delta NF types often self-identify as Enneagram 6, which, if likened to any element in Socionics or MBTI, best matches Ni~:






Could this indicate large-scale cases of IEIs self-identifying as EIIs, mistaking their Ni (in this case, Ni~) with Ne (in this case, Ne~)?





It should be noted that there is plenty of grounds for Ne+ as it appears in the Alpha quadra to be mistaken for Ni+ (as seen in the Gamma quadra), or Ni in general, due to a focus on fulfilling clearly-defined future visions, rather than the Deltan openness to the avant-garde of Ne~:
^ Ne+ creates elaborate visions for the future and stops at nothing to make them a reality. This can easily be mistaken for some of the more stereotypical definitions of Ni.







There's also a risk of Ni~ types failing to realize the true nature of their function, due to a misattribution of specifically Ni+ traits to all of Ni and a failure to understand Ni~:
^ Ni+, along with Ne+, seems to be the function that best matches the common stereotype of Ni, of seeing possibilities and visions in the distant future and stopping at nothing to bring them to fruition.






In a nutshell, Ne~ as it appears in the Delta quadra produces an attraction to the strange, the macabre, while Ni~ (Beta quadra) produces an aversion to any possible unforeseeable threat and a strong desire to control one's future. And, be reminded that the portrait of the EIE is named Hamlet.



Could this mean there are several EII INFjs (INFP in MBTI) who are actually IEI INFps (INFJ)?

This is interesting. Will read later.

 

[senza tema]

I think -Si's desire to avoid discomfort and inconvenience also needs to be taken into account, so maybe delta NFs are comfortable with the idea of the strange and the macabre but the actual experience fails to live up to the imagination because weak Si is unable to minimize the unpleasant aspects. Which may lead to the "Oh shit, everything sucks" thing?

I don't actually know what I'm talking about anymore. But yeah, this is interesting.

 

[Oaky]

Well all the information I used to pose these questions was based on Socionics elements rather than MBTI functions. None of this is from any MBTI article. The attributes connected to these +/- functions were listed in the actual Socionics articles themselves.


The only connect I made between the two systems is that these types self-identify as ENFP or INFP. While they may very well be either be or in Socionics, I consider most of the basis behind MBTI to be inaccurate in comparison.


If you're one Socionics type, you should identify with that rather than with whatever you are in MBTI. The reasoning behind this is that MBTI functions have little in-depth analysis behind how a function behaves, giving only vague stereotypes instead. Every purely MBTI functions test, then, is inherently flawed because it analyzes what you alledgedly "value" or how you tend to behave in life situations as can vary in relationship to Nurture/life experiences, whereas Socionics would analyze the more concrete processes behind your actual thought.


Socionics measures the actual cognition itself, MBTI can be tainted in results yielding because factors in an MBTI test can be tainted by upbringing and life experiences. If you know your Sociotype, you should abandon MBTI altogether and identify with your Sociotype instead -- therefore, if these xNFPs in MBTI are actually a "different" Sociotype, they should switch over to that because it's more quantifiable in ways MBTI is not.



Basically you can't be any MBTI type except what you think you are because it isn't very concrete or organized -- but you are always your Socionics type, and you will always process information that way.

I somewhat disagree and actually think it's the opposite but not in terms of accuracy but in terms of mental processes. Because socionics cares more about the attitude towards the use of each of functions it's definitions are less defined as the workings of the mental processes itself but rather how they manifest in an individual and how those manifestations deal with the external world. MBTI's aim is to define the mental workings of one's mind while socionics aim is to define an individual's attitude to the external world. That's why socionics can be more solid and systematic. If you've realised the function definitions in socionics, you'd realise that what they do is give descriptive manifestations of someone's external and thoughtful attitude to a particular function. They do not actually give the process in methods that allow one to empathise the very clockwork of that function. But that's more of what MBTI wishes to do, get the clockwork and then use it to see the external manifestations. This will of course be more difficult because people would find it difficult to empathise psychological processes alternate to manifestations because one is a result (clear), and one is the specific mental process (unclear). MBTI's issue is that it avoided that and tried to do all these... stereotypings and archetypes, with absolutely no help from MBTI enthusiasts like a lot of typoC. You get confusion everywhere. It's only natural because humans presume more of what they perceive and judge before seeing the intricate understandings of it.

So yes, socionics is probably more solid (not sure about accurate) but it's not more about the mental processing. It's more about psychological manifestations. MBTI is less solid because people screw it up because it's tried to start with the processing and because it's difficult to define in manners people understand, people just presume a lot and turn it into some vague nonsense socionics wannabe.

 

[Cygnus]

I somewhat disagree and actually think it's the opposite but not in terms of accuracy but in terms of mental processes. Because socionics cares more about the attitude towards the use of each of functions it's definitions are less defined as the workings of the mental processes itself but rather how they manifest in an individual and how those manifestations deal with the external world. MBTI's aim is to define the mental workings of one's mind while socionics aim is to define an individual's attitude to the external world. That's why socionics can be more solid and systematic. If you've realised the function definitions in socionics, you'd realise that what they do is give descriptive manifestations of someone's external and thoughtful attitude to a particular function. They do not actually give the process in methods that allow one to empathise the very clockwork of that function. But that's more of what MBTI wishes to do, get the clockwork and then use it to see the external manifestations. This will of course be more difficult because people would find it difficult to empathise psychological processes alternate to manifestations because one is a result (clear), and one is the specific mental process (unclear). MBTI's issue is that it avoided that and tried to do all these... stereotypings and archetypes, with absolutely no help from MBTI enthusiasts like a lot of typoC. You get confusion everywhere. It's only natural because humans presume more of what they perceive and judge before seeing the intricate understandings of it.

So yes, socionics is probably more solid (not sure about accurate) but it's not more about the mental processing. It's more about psychological manifestations. MBTI is less solid because people screw it up because it's tried to start with the processing and because it's difficult to define in manners people understand, people just presume a lot and turn it into some vague nonsense socionics wannabe.

Actually -- wasn't it said at one point that Ni in MBTI best matches the description of in Soc, and that Si matches best with ? That may have had something to do with why Jung personally believed "Ni" was the function worst suited for logical thinking.


I don't intend to further mesh these systems together like I seem to have been doing, but I'm wondering on this particular bit. I will look further into the Socionics system though, since ultimately it seems the superior and less ambiguous of the two.

 

[Oaky]

Actually -- wasn't it said at one point that Ni in MBTI best matches the description of in Soc, and that Si matches best with ? That may have had something to do with why Jung personally believed "Ni" was the function worst suited for logical thinking.


I don't intend to further mesh these systems together like I seem to have been doing, but I'm wondering on this particular bit. I will look further into the Socionics system though, since ultimately it seems the superior and less ambiguous of the two.

It's interesting a bit because a lot of the time they can match similarities with other functions, but I'd wager that the coin of Ni/Se in MBTI would have traits of both and in socionics. It is clear in the manner that inferior Se in INXJs in MBTI produce some particular traits of in socionics which may make an INXJ be an user socionics wise. Whereas Si in MBTI is more about experiential memory, in socionics is more about sensorial personal alterations to an external environment.

 

[Cygnus]

It's interesting a bit because a lot of the time they can match similarities with other functions, but I'd wager that the coin of Ni/Se in MBTI would have traits of both and in socionics. It is clear in the manner that inferior Se in INXJs in MBTI produce some particular traits of in socionics which may make an INXJ be an user socionics wise. Whereas Si in MBTI is more about experiential memory, in socionics is more about sensorial personal alterations to an external environment.

That's the same definition I've used for Si in MBTI, and it's often been applied to MBTI discussion. Not to imply I was right about it.

The issue I have with the classical association of Si with memory is that 1) it assumes that Si and Ni process information in different ways (as opposed to the Pi elements of and processing different information in the same way), 2) it implies Ni has some sort of functional superiority to Si, since Si would be nothing but pure recollection of data while Ni would find a "deeper" use of it, and 3) it associates the function Si with a neurological process, Memory, without associating its sister process (Ni) with a similar neurological process in a different "direction." Personality psychology shouldn't assume it understands Neuroscience -- it should be overlaid with all other approaches to psychology, including Neuroscience.



Aside from the association with MBTI types and functions, did this thread show a bad understanding of the +/~ elements, or was it more or less on track? This is really interesting.

 

[Entropic]

Jeez so much fucking confusion going on. I have to sleep soon so I will respond more in depth at a different time but please realize that socionics and the enneagram are different theories and they are not related. Also [MENTION=6071]Oaky[/MENTION] I really disagree with your understanding of Si especially in the MBTI and I think you don't understand it well at all and is reducing a very complex function to something that has little to actually do with it, but I would have to explain at a later time. Si, in a strict sense, has nothing to do with memory. That's a gross simplification of Si as a function. Memory as s cognitive tool is not related to the functions.

 

[Oaky]

That's the same definition I've used for Si in MBTI, and it's often been applied to MBTI discussion. Not to imply I was right about it.

The issue I have with the classical association of Si with memory is that 1) it assumes that Si and Ni process information in different ways (as opposed to the Pi elements of and processing different information in the same way), 2) it implies Ni has some sort of functional superiority to Si, since Si would be nothing but pure recollection of data while Ni would find a "deeper" use of it, and 3) it associates the function Si with a neurological process, Memory, without associating its sister process (Ni) with a similar neurological process in a different "direction." Personality psychology shouldn't assume it understands Neuroscience -- it should be overlaid with all other approaches to psychology, including Neuroscience.



Aside from the association with MBTI types and functions, did this thread show a bad understanding of the +/~ elements, or was it more or less on track? This is really interesting.

Jeez so much fucking confusion going on. I have to sleep soon so I will respond more in depth at a different time but please realize that socionics and the enneagram are different theories and they are not related. Also [MENTION=6071]Oaky[/MENTION] I really disagree with your understanding of Si especially in the MBTI and I think you don't understand it well at all and is reducing a very complex function to something that has little to actually do with it, but I would have to explain at a later time. Si, in a strict sense, has nothing to do with memory. That's a gross simplification of Si as a function. Memory as s cognitive tool is not related to the functions.

Disagreement with the understanding of Si... Rather, I do not think you (both) understand what I mean by experiential memory. I think you've quickly assumed it to mean all those memories you imagine in your mind like the useless definitions of other saying "oh! Im SJ so I have a super memory". Experiential memory is something like a hardcoded sensory effect into an individual based on past sensory experience. And this sensory effect remains every time a particular sense is stimulated that relates to that hardcoded sensory effect. So in essence, memory is talking about sensory memory (a subjective unconscious deposition), not that thing that everybody thinks memory is. I imagine that's why a lot of people confuse Si for remembering things when 'memory' is mentioned.

 

[HongDou]

Memory as s cognitive tool is not related to the functions.

This typo couldn't be more ironic.

 

[Entropic]

Disagreement with the understanding of Si... Rather, I do not think you (both) understand what I mean by experiential memory. I think you've quickly assumed it to mean all those memories you imagine in your mind like the useless definitions of other saying "oh! Im SJ so I have a super memory". Experiential memory is something like a hardcoded sensory effect into an individual based on past sensory experience. And this sensory effect remains every time a particular sense is stimulated that relates to that hardcoded sensory effect. So in essence, memory is talking about sensory memory (a subjective unconscious deposition), not that thing that everybody thinks memory is. I imagine that's why a lot of people confuse Si for remembering things when 'memory' is mentioned.

I still disagree with that this is what Si is about. Si is more about assigning value to very specific sensory information unique to you. That would also cover the physical states that Si in socionics is pigeonholed around. I very well understood that you were referring to how some Si definitions revolve around comparing past to present information, but I just think that's in the realm of Pi in general.

 

[Oaky]

I still disagree with that this is what Si is about. Si is more about assigning value to very specific sensory information unique to you. That would also cover the physical states that Si in socionics is pigeonholed around. I very well understood that you were referring to how some Si definitions revolve around comparing past to present information, but I just think that's in the realm of Pi in general.

You misunderstand a little bit again. Rather, I do not think you fully grasp my language when I explain a particular understanding of a function. Of now, you are talking about the consequence of the Si memory and it is more or less the same as what I had said. The idea of assigning value to sensory information is the consequence of the formulated experience in conjunction with a possible biological disposition. It is subjective to the individual. In relation to Se, the more subjective Se 'experiences' are, the more Si the Se user becomes. This is why Se and Si can be held on a dichotomous scale from introversion-extraversion, just like the other 3 scales for Intuition, Feeling and Thinking.

 

[Cygnus]

I still disagree with that this is what Si is about. Si is more about assigning value to very specific sensory information unique to you. That would also cover the physical states that Si in socionics is pigeonholed around. I very well understood that you were referring to how some Si definitions revolve around comparing past to present information, but I just think that's in the realm of Pi in general.

Would Ni do the same thing to the "substance" of objects/underlying trends and meanings?


Also, are we still talking about and or MBTI Si and Ni? I don't quite think I care about the fallacious MBTI definition of Si at all.

White (Introverted) Sensing
shorthand designation:

An object's internal state we view as the relationship between events that cause each other [!! unclear description]. This element perceives information about how processes are reflected in one's internal state — people's sense of health and sensations that are caused by processes taking place. Interaction in space is essentially the response of one object to another. Objects respond to other objects, creating certain sensations in each other. Such an individual perceives information from without as sensations related to what is happening. For example, the sensation of pain is essentially the reflection in a person's brain of a relationship between his functioning body and a process occurring in some part of the body that impedes this functioning.

How much of this necessarily has to deal with physical sensations at all? Most of this definition seems to imply the function deals with processes -- like , but progressing in the opposite direction. Couldn't it just be more of an internalization of the kind of information processes, dealing with order, mobilization, measure of power, how one object naturally affects another object, but all felt within and on the plane of fields instead of in external objects?

 

[KitchenFly]

Being - Thing - Exzisting - Somthing

Being seems to be related to Ni

Exzisting seems to be related to Ne

Thing seens to be related to identity

Somthing seems to be related to awareness of

Thing and Somthing, is like the Si and Se within the primery of identification an apex between and an apex too Both T&F functions.

Anxiety requires an identification, Being (F) Thing.


Apprehension required an identification (T) Somthing.

Thing is placed in place of Being.

Somthing is placed in place of Exzisting.

Apprehension vs Anxiety requies. -sense -percepton -judgment as a nutral action (three part) , Ni and Ne as a negative (two parts) , Ti and Te and Fi and Fe positive action (four parts).

Nine Parts.

We can include three more parts as the between conecting apex parts and so we have twelve parts.

And the frame work can continue to Sixteen Parts if we include an apex for the four sets of two parts ( I-E , S-N , T-F , P-J ).

 

[Entropic]

You misunderstand a little bit again. Rather, I do not think you fully grasp my language when I explain a particular understanding of a function. Of now, you are talking about the consequence of the Si memory and it is more or less the same as what I had said. The idea of assigning value to sensory information is the consequence of the formulated experience in conjunction with a possible biological disposition. It is subjective to the individual. In relation to Se, the more subjective Se 'experiences' are, the more Si the Se user becomes. This is why Se and Si can be held on a dichotomous scale from introversion-extraversion, just like the other 3 scales for Intuition, Feeling and Thinking.

Then clarify what your definition of Si is and how you can arrive at typing as Ni dom in one system but Si in another.

 

[Entropic]

Would Ni do the same thing to the "substance" of objects/underlying trends and meanings?


Also, are we still talking about and or MBTI Si and Ni? I don't quite think I care about the fallacious MBTI definition of Si at all.






How much of this necessarily has to deal with physical sensations at all? Most of this definition seems to imply the function deals with processes -- like , but progressing in the opposite direction. Couldn't it just be more of an internalization of the kind of information processes, dealing with order, mobilization, measure of power, how one object naturally affects another object, but all felt within and on the plane of fields instead of in external objects?

I do not inherently think they are separate phenomena but I actually think they are one and the same and when I speak of them, I am referring to the Jungian archetype.

You are right that Si understands processes. It is dynamic after all, and the focus is less on the actual sensation as much as how it makes you feel, so to speak. It is usually Se that focuses on the sensation in itself because it is extroverted and thus objective. It deals with sensations as they are, as separate and distinct objects with their own unique properties. Si doesn't reason this way, being a dynamic function. Instead it tracks the changes of objects and I tend to describe it as being attuned to physical integrity, that is, the current state of physical breakdown which has occurred. Si understands how to preserve the physical states of objects, how to maintain and preserve in order to reduce its physical breakdown over time. This is why Si is associated with health in socionics, because when you are attuned to what Augusta here calls inner physical states, you understand how to manipulate its degradation or preservation. Si understands the world as something very living and organic and it understands how every detail of a thing makes up that thing in order to maintain its current function. It understands how leg imbalance is going to affect other parts of your physical wellbeing and understands how to correct this imbalance.

In such a sense it shares similarity in Ni in possessing a predictive ability of what will come, except that it operates more in the present moment based on current level of discomfort. Ni foresees it but Si feels it. A lot of Si types often mistype as Ni for this reason because they think their ability to track inner states and thus predict say, a cold, is intuition. It is intuition in the colloquial sense, just not Jungian.

 

[Entropic]

Entropic you surprise me you all most came across as a rise mystic.

The thing I note that you did not mention is that not part is never really separate from the synergy of all parts.

Si needs Ni as Se needs Ne and these four parts need two parts that work as one part S&N. Wether it's five part nine parts or six parts the reality is it is a working part with many operations.

The same framework applies, Ti needs Te and Fi needs Fe and these four parts need two parts that work as one part T&F. Once again wether it five parts nine parts or six parts the reality is that it is a working part with many operations.

So now we have ten parts or eighteen parts or twelve parts.

With so many parts we can ask questions like anxiety and apprehension is it created because As an example, Tritype utilises six part and and these six parts are only six parts of eighteen parts. And what of the other twelve parts? Are those twelve parts being influenced by nine parts/ three parts or both parts.

Ne and Ni , anxiety and apprehension leads me to think about P and J and the six primary type energies and twelve secondary type energies.

No, they don't, and the fact that you think you think so just proves you don't understand the system and how Jung conceptualized it. Si doesn't need Ni, because Si is paired with Ne. It is one thing to speak of S and N, and another as Se/Si and Ni/Ne. If one side is introverted, then the other must be extroverted. That is how Jung defined the theory. Suggesting anything otherwise just shows that you haven't understood that part.

 

[Entropic]

Dude. How stoned can a single living human being get? How do you not overdose and die from whatever unholy shit you're on?

Tbh, I think it's a much bigger problem than simply being stoned, lol.