Thank you Lapis. I already read that post, so my doubts,  thanks anyway .

My doubt still exists. We consider Ne as a pass-through, then why Se people need Se in order to accomplish what Ne people can without the Se function?

We are suppose to see their brains differently wired, to pretend that there is this difference and period or there is…Read more

Your question seems quite similar to what I asked in this thread: https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/ni-se-vs-ne-si-an-illustrated-analogy/#post-31195

Auburn appeared to acknowledge that Ne has a "pass-through" mode in which literal objects can go straight to storage by Si without any distortions of caused by Ne's creative processes.

Some typos corrected.

I started trying to answer the question about interests a couple weeks ago and realized that timeline would make more sense (starting with my first word ).  I've finally gotten around to doing it:

Hi Auburn! Thanks for creating a thread on my book. I'll react to bits and pieces while looking forward to the further observations you'll have about the remaining portions of the work.

It hadn't occurred to me that Ni's rejection of the ontological status of Se (and consequently both S+E), could yield a metaphysical world in which 'externality'…

Read more

Hello. Reading this topic, brings up some doubts in my mind.

However, first I want to thank once again Auburn and everyone else is involded in the project for the project itself and for the opportunity that you are giving us to participate in the discussion.

So, let's go to the doubts.

P+ has to do objects management and Se actually manage…Read more

Hi all. This is a good amount of helpful information, that clarify a lot of things,  so thanks.

If I should find some other points to clarify, at least for me, are:

V- worldview building that I would say happening, almost all the time, picking up data from long-term memory and

what the function of V+ is in this respect? If it doesn't directly…Read more