IEI description

[aestrivex]

i am writing an IEI description (edit: the description is here, btw.) and finding it very difficult to write. though the description is very much in the preliminary stages (with the two functions that i expect to be most difficult to convey appropriately covered so far), i would appreciate feedback, suggestions, and any other commentary unless you are any of the following users (the composition of this list is probably fairly intuitive for most of you):

• allie
• ashton
• bionicgoat
• bulletsanddoves
• cogsci
• consentingadult
• crazedrat
• cyclops
• dee
• dioklecian
• dolphin
• drd252
• elena
• FDG
• fever
• hitta
• hoodrat
• hugo
• huitzilopochtli
• jadae
• jarno
• jessica129
• juju
• labcoat
• lastdance
• lefty
• lokivanguard
• machintruc
• mikemex
• phaedrus
• rmcnew
• sergei ganin
• smccosker
• steve
• strrrng
• tcaudilllg
• william conly
• winterpark

[Ritella]

i would appreciate feedback, suggestions, and any other commentary unless you are any of the following users (the composition of this list is probably fairly intuitive for most of you):

I think this is the best illustration of Fe PoLR in INTPs we've had to date.

[JuJu]

In other words, Niffweed doesn't want responses from anyone who could provide a strong counter-point to what he writes.

Some things don't change. (Alas.)

I give you credit though, Niffweed... Recently, you've become increasingly reasonable in other ways--or so it seems. (I think your description is pretty good so far--not that it matters.)

[Satan]

Your language is a bit wanky. Tone it down a bit, you want something that everyone can read.

[JRiddy]

Niffweed, please place me on the list of people you don't want feedback from. I'm insulted at the thought that you might value what I have to think.

[aestrivex]

Niffweed, please place me on the list of people you don't want feedback from. I'm insulted at the thought that you might value what I have to think.

fwiw, you should be.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Screw that. I'm going to tell you what I think anyway.

I liked it! I really have no problems with that. It's one of the best descriptions I've heard.

But this:

They can come across as fickle, indecisive and vapid, and their fantasies can be often esoteric or obscure.

On cam especially, I think I do I come across as rather fickle, indecisive and vapid.... and my fantasies can be somewhat esoteric, but I disagree with 'obscure.'

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Whoever wrote that SLE description sucks though. SLEs really aren't that um... assholeish. Yeah they're definitely in-charge types, but down it tone a few notches.

[Lotus]

Screw that. I'm going to tell you what I think anyway.

I liked it! I really have no problems with that. It's one of the best descriptions I've heard.

Funny. Out of all of the people he has typed as IEI, Esper and I are the ones he is most confident about.

I didn't relate to any of it.




Um, how am I IEI again? Wow.

[betterthan]

Screw that. I'm going to tell you what I think anyway.

I liked it! I really have no problems with that. It's one of the best descriptions I've heard.

But this:



On cam especially, I think I do I come across as rather fickle, indecisive and vapid.... and my fantasies can be somewhat esoteric, but I disagree with 'obscure.'

I would describe my behaviour as changeable rather than fickle, I stick by people, but I am easily won over when someone has done something 'bad' and so I can chop from distant&cold to bubbly&friendly...but I can see how I may come across as fickle.

I love this description! It is awesome !

[Jarno]

Strange that I'm excluded to make any suggestions to this IEI description of God Niffweed, since he is the one who types me as an IEI (!)

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I think IEIs are bad at judging how shy/outgoing they're really being. I'm probably projecting a lot here, but it's like I am unable to accurately judge how quiet/loud I was being - and I have to rely on this trait in others. Like sometimes I think I was being 'too shy' when actually the opposite was true, and vice-versa.

And it might seem to others that IEIs can like understand the subtle nuances in places, and are 'dreamy' but really - I think we're all just more anvilicious than that. I agree that we appear mystical to others, but it's not really necessarily how we see ourselves. I generally trust ESIs and EIIs more to do the whole moralizing/spiritual gig. I'm pretty self-conscious about my magical abilities, and I like things to stay that way because ironically I think it's how I gain the most social support.

[iAnnAu]

I think IEIs are bad at judging how shy/outgoing they're really being. I'm probably projecting a lot here, but it's like I am unable to accurately judge how quiet/loud I was being - and I have to rely on this trait in others. Like sometimes I think I was being 'too shy' when actually the opposite was true, and vice-versa.

And it might seem to others that IEIs can like understand the subtle nuances in places, and are 'dreamy' but really - I think we're all just more anvilicious than that. I agree that we appear mystical to others, but it's not really necessarily how we see ourselves. I generally trust ESIs and EIIs more to do the whole moralizing/spiritual gig. I'm pretty self-conscious about my magical abilities, and I like things to stay that way because ironically I think it's how I gain the most social support.

OMG - I just looked up "anvilicious" and it's exactly what it sounds like. That's friggin' hilarious.
Now I gotta find some conversation to drop it into. It'll probably be in a way that's fairly anvilicious itself !

[redbaron]

I think this description is very good! I don't see myself as mystical although maybe other IEIs do. And I was thinking, if the description is for people other than IEIs, it may be good to include since others could certainly view us as mystical, even if we don't see ourselves that way.

I like so many of the words you used: dreamy, gentle, fickle, indecisive, vapid, inactive, prophetic, profound, rebellious, outspoken. yes, those are all terribly true!

it's a great description. quite likely, the best I've read for IEIs.

[jessica129]

Edit, okay...that was a little rude of me. Sorry Niffweed. Hey, I really like the description of SLI....I've never seen those descriptions before.

[redbaron]

Edit, okay...that was a little rude of me. Sorry Niffweed. Hey, I really like the description of SLI....I've never seen those descriptions before.

it was nice of you to edit that. thanks.

[Jarno]

I don't know why everybody is suddenly going so mild to Niffweed.

Isn't it obvious he started this topic in a very provocative way??

He is always looking for conflicts.

[redbaron]

I don't know why everybody is suddenly going so mild to Niffweed.

Isn't it obvious he started this topic in a very provocative way??

He is always looking for conflicts.

well, maybe. maybe not. but further provocation doesn't contribute positively to the general tenor of the forum.

[JuJu]

I don't know why everybody is suddenly going so mild to Niffweed.

Isn't it obvious he started this topic in a very provocative way??

He is always looking for conflicts.

Take it from one who knows. It's not worth getting flustered... Deep down Niffweed means well.

You have to remember, he is socially handicapped and uses Socionics as an excuse for this sort of unacceptable behavior, e.g. "I insulted you b/c I have a Fe polr."

Once you accept this about Niffweed, you'll be able to take his provocations--which are usually just cries for recognition--with a shaker of salt.

[aestrivex]

Edit: I actually find the description in the ILI section very good. Why not try to get the IEI -description closer to that one? I mean it shouldn't be all that different, should it? As the IEI-description is now, the focus is too much on "fantasy". It isn't wrong, just very one-sided and in my eyes negative. I guess others could perceive SOME IEIs that way, but I know people perceive ME as intelligent, and the same goes for a lot of other IEIs I know. They are school smart, work smart or quite simply smart. The -description here tells more about "mystical abilities" than intelligence. It should be more balanced, IMO.

well, i think that description generally communicates aspects of factual criticalness and skepticism that are more appropriate to Ni with Te than they might be for IEIs. certainly, something of an intellectual slant could be addressed for IEIs, but i certainly don't think it should be the main emphasis of the description.

[aka-kitsune]

IEIs may feel strongly about these types of causes and some may expend considerable effort towards expressing their avidity towards them, even posing toxic criticism to those that do not share these deep moral callings. However, many other IEIs may lack the impulse or motivation to take this type of action at all.

This seems a bit awkward of a statement to me.

I have a feeling I know what you're trying to get at, though... if it is the tendency of IEIs to identify with strong ethical stances, and defend them tenaciously. Whether that's applied to a specific cause, or just a deeply held core belief, their reaction may be triggered by indifference or disagreement in another.

Also, I find IEIs also might display the aristocratic tendency to disdain those not particularly inclined toward introspection as "shallow".

[mikemex]

I bet that if you simply stopped attacking Niffy based in your own prejudice, you'll notice that many of the "annoying" things are in fact a mechanism of defense.

I bet he's simply frustrated because many of us are either unwilling or incapable to deal with the issues that interest him, with the profundity required.

[Jarno]

I bet that if you simply stopped attacking Niffy based in your own prejudice, you'll notice that many of the "annoying" things are in fact a mechanism of defense.

I bet that if Niffy simply stopped attacking people based on his own prejudice, you'll notice that many of the "annoying" things are in fact defense mechanisms of us.

[aestrivex]

Edit: I actually find the description in the ILI section very good. Why not try to get the IEI -description closer to that one? I mean it shouldn't be all that different, should it? As the IEI-description is now, the focus is too much on "fantasy". It isn't wrong, just very one-sided and in my eyes negative. I guess others could perceive SOME IEIs that way, but I know people perceive ME as intelligent, and the same goes for a lot of other IEIs I know. They are school smart, work smart or quite simply smart. The -description here tells more about "mystical abilities" than intelligence. It should be more balanced, IMO.

IEIs may also demonstrate their phrenic activities by assessing connections, patterns, and implications of events in their experience, often with a human slant. They may seek to understand the dynamics and mechanisms of people, groups, relationships, situations, or experiences. They make judgments and assessments of others based on past trends and behaviors and seek to explain what makes others tick.


how about this? i realize it's sort of more "ethics" oriented intellect, but it was mostly a synthesis of things touched on in other IEI descriptions. does this go towards addressing intellectual tendencies related to Ni at all?

i have a hard time seeing how something like this might manifest. to me, an Ni description that reads like:

ILIs are naturally attuned to hidden connections between things and hints of greater implications in everyday reality. They easily recognize patterns of events, repeating outcomes, and contradictory messages. This understanding of global patterns and human behavior often allows ILIs to critically analyze present situations and determine the immediate and far-reaching consequences of certain actions. This skill leads the ILI to be seen by others as generally intelligent. The mind of an ILI is an oasis of sorts where knowledge is treated as a toy or even a vehicle that allows them to visit complex mental landscapes that are shaped and continually revised by new information. Nonetheless, an ILI is likely to find the process of accumulating new information tiresome compared to their mental explorations; consequently, new information is often accumulated and updated in a rather lethargic, periodic, and occasionally incomplete fashion.
ILIs are often stereotypically represented as reclusive scholars, philosophers, scientists, artists, seers, and sages. The ILI, with their often unusual perceptions, may come across as unreachable, esoteric eccentrics. Because ILIs are confident about analyzing the implications of the knowledge that they have gathered, ILIs often appear perceptive, especially in fields of interest, and commonly tend to view the ideas of others with skepticism and scrutiny. ILIs may perceive others' intellectual contributions as deeply misguided or limited in scope.
ILIs predict inevitable disaster not altogether infrequently. This type of fatalism is spurned by their ability to see the negative in anything, which has its roots in the ILI's general dislike of expressing or reinforcing positive emotions. To an ILI, it may be easier to predict pessimistic results in order to avoid an unpleasant emotional reaction. Likewise, the ILI's sense of general self doubt leads him to be very conservative in his general outlook; why unnecessarily subject oneself to the uncertainty of possible disappointment?

i think this is good material for Ni, but i think it also has sort of an invariable Te slant that i don't know how else to translate into Fe terms.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Hey. I just noticed this list. I got a message from Niffweed on his forum saying I don't practice classical socionics. Considering I use dichotomies, temperaments, clubs, functions, type descriptions and real life examples i'm not quite sure what he's getting at.

Needless to say I haven't posted there.

[Jarno]

Hey. I just noticed this list. I got a message from Niffweed on his forum saying I don't practice classical socionics. Considering I use dichotomies, temperaments, clubs, functions, type descriptions and real life examples i'm not quite sure what he's getting at.

Needless to say I haven't posted there.

I once saw a post of Niffweed him claiming that typing should only be done using information elements... And now he says that others aren't using classical socionics?? hehe

[aestrivex]

http://socionics.ws/wiki/index.php?title=IEI

this description is finished insamuch as it now contains content for eight functions.

feedback is highly appreciated.

[redbaron]

it's very very good.

but somehow, I'm in love with this description:

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Socioscope_IEI

there's something about it. I know it's google-translated and sometimes hard to understand, but so charming, so exactly right somehow. For example, the opening line:

Before you, he is the person-riddle, the person-smile, the person-dream... Secret of pleasure. Pleasure of secret.

that's just so great.

[aka-kitsune]

Yes, a strong character trait I perceive within myself is my paranoid persona. I find it extremely hard to trust people until I've nitpicked everything about their character and past actions. I'm as good at spotting out the flaws of ones immoral actions from various data I've picked up as an ILI would be to point out the flaws of a bullshit theory. I find that I avoid personal mishaps because of this.

I prefer to think of it as "analytical" rather than paranoid. :wink:

I do find that I have a very good sense of a person's character, even upon first meeting just by observing their comments and actions. While not judgemental, I can discern certain key points of their personality and ethical (or unethical) tendencies. I'm not easily fooled, but I can occasionally be sidetracked by what I *wish* were there, ie: the potential of someone. Like, there might be someone I really rather like a lot, yet recognize his character flaws, but look past them in the vain hope he'll choose to overcome them. I guess I set myself up to be disappointed this way, as people don't tend to change when you're constantly checking their progress. (And some seem to have no interest in personal growth).

Because I take into account all aspects rather than just focusing on the "positive" aspects of people/situations when making judgements, I've frequently been accused of being a Doomsayer or critic.

I'm wondering if the whole 'being fooled by con's' thing has something more to do with the IEI's Te PoLR? I could think of lot's of examples where I could be 'conned' in various daily affairs that have absolutely nothing to do with the ethics of ones character.

I'd just disagree with being easily conned. It's really difficult to get one past me. I'm skeptical (some might say cynical) and do all my fact-checking before making decisions that involve my money or resources.