Let us ponder this question.
LIIs: why choose thinking over intuition?
Let us ponder this question.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 12-11-2009 at 06:37 AM. Reason: typo
Because while Ne can provide a good place to start, it is only by whittling down the possibilities with Ti that we can arrive at the truth.
Quaero Veritas.
It just so happens that LII is the best fit for my intertype relations. If I had my choice, I would choose Ne over Ti (and I probably use it more). Because of my relations, the best description of my type is probably LII-Ne.
Jason
Last edited by jason_m; 12-11-2009 at 09:22 AM.
Why not?
To be an irrational type would give us the unstable, chaotic "empowering" understanding of Ne. INTj want to really grasp concepts, not just allude to them.
Same thing said in other words: to be irrational as an NT type makes you extroverted. This makes you interested in individual facts (Limiting J) rather than in understanding (Limiting P). When you really want to understand things as an Alpha NT, you have to be rational.
You should drop the weaker/stronger model of functions. Dimensionality is worthless compared to Limiting/Empowering theory. INTjs don't really favor Ti over Ne. In a certain sense, the Ti is seen as a bridge to the understanding of Ne. Ti is the enabler, the thing that opens new ventures to us and gives us a measure of power. Ne is what we really try to get a stable grasp of in the end.
Why chose? It's a personality. Why chose to be what you are? What would happen if I were to chose ethics, would I be a different person?
I think the choice that is actually made is to step outside the box, not what the box is.
As usual, the Gamma NT totally misses the whole point of the Alpha NTs' discussion.Originally Posted by polikujm
The underlying question is not "If I could choose, which element would I pick?" but rather "What is the point of being an LII?"
It's also an opportunity to have a serious discussion about why exactly LIIs are better than ILEs.
Quaero Veritas.
ENTps are always the smartest person in the room in terms of performance, but the cost-efficiency of their thoughts is relatively low. Every time they encounter a problem, they need to approach it as unique again and again. INTjs have a greater capacity to form preconceived expectations. This gives them the ability to solve problems with a minimal amount of attention. Being an introvert is a very large part of it. It's not enough to perform well, it also has to happen efficiently so you can be relaxed, introverted.
Actually labcoat, I think the two belong together.
I don't.
I think that's a rhetorical question.
All the endless hours of amusement of my beloved Ne without random aggression or overt competition. I'd say you're about even-matched with EIIs.It's also an opportunity to have a serious discussion about why exactly LIIs are better than ILEs.
i'm not sure it's all that much of a choice. your leading function is your leading function; it defines a big piece of who you are. you can tinker with your leading function using your creative function; and you can develop your creative function so it can reasonably stand up to your leading, but i don't know that you get all that much choice about your leading.
this is why LII's understand Ne better than ILE's...and why ILE's understand Ti better than LII's. information management is more specific, detailed, and disciplined in the creative function.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
eh, y'all just don't have the energey that we do.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
I think I'm going to have to go with Gulenko's energy thesis on this one: LII Ne has lower energy than LII Ti. The reason for this could be debated, but will ultimately be decided through neuroscientific investigation. The lower energy manifests as inattentiveness to wrong ideas... 3d Ne doesn't care to prove itself or even to understand itself (as per labcoat's observation) -- it desires only to be effective with what little energy it has. This is why it strives to be a flexible emulation of 4d Ne. It is a function of assumed imagination, expanding on original ideas without reaching too far past them.
The reason Ne isn't relied on by LIIs is because it can't see how it is changing itself. By improving on itself -- this is the key between 4d vs 3d -- it produces impossible ideas which cannot be chained to realistic principles. It is inferior to Ti because it exceeds Ti. Ti observes these ideas and discerns that their associated principles are rubbish... it's no different than waking from a dream and then quickly forgetting about it after realizing that all the information contained within it is completely irrelevant in the real world. Ti sees Ne as a threat which stands to undermine its own integrity, and scolds it for its misbehavior.
Observing another function as an integral threat is a defining characteristic of even-dimensional functions. Odd-dimensional functions do not regulate themselves when dealing with 4 dimensional information; even-dimensional functions do.
Please don't bring my name in association with dimensionality theory ever again. I consider the hypothesis among the most maliciously wrong that ever circulated in the socionics discussion climate and anyone who uses it deluded beyond revocation.3d Ne doesn't care to prove itself or even to understand itself (as per labcoat's observation)
So you doubt the political theory as well?
The thing in which you posit the existence of a structure similar to the 4 quadras on what seems to be a third level of "type"? It would be silly to believe dimensionality is in any way a necessary foundation for such a theory. Other than that I don't have a reason to believe that your views on politics are anything more than speculation so to say I doubt them is a safe assertion.So you doubt the political theory as well?
I don't believe dimensionality is the foundation of political belief. Rather, I think the categories of political belief/conviction/whatever are the foundation for dimensionality.
There is only one ground for criticizing another, and that is activity outside the scope of your beliefs. So there must be a relationship.
I think these are two of the most insightful comments I've seen on this forum.
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
I have yet to see you describe the relation between the two in a way that makes sense and until you do will regard the issue with scepticism like any independent thinker would.Rather, I think the categories of political belief/conviction/whatever are the foundation for dimensionality.
OK fine, but first I need to pose a question.
LIIs, do you find yourself being criticized for not making enough friends, or trying to make too many?
I am not LII, but I look at intuition as finding the means to solve a problem and thought as solving it correctly and completely...therefore, I would much rather accept thought so I can check it and create intuition so that I am not lmited by focusing on what is relevant to what I generally accept.
That's what I was thinking, that LSIs generally try to borrow LII logic if it's available. You say you check it out though before using it, which is wise.
Not given much thought to how I use LSI logic... now that I think about it, I probably use it to distinguish between realistic and unrealistic propositions, using place as a probabilistic indicator of causation. If there is not a physical link between two substances, then there is no vehicle for causation between them. And for there to be a physical link there must be adjacency, or at least an uninterrupted path.
With regard to the earlier question, I'm pretty sure that most every LII around is criticized for not having enough contacts, but it seems to me that an LII can take one of two positions on the matter: either they do not believe contacts are available to them, or they believe they have enough contacts already. It'd be great to have some confirmation on this hypothesis from other LIIs, because I think we break towards one or the other on an individual basis. (I usually find myself arguing the "contact unavailability" position with respect to myself).
You are correct. The inspector, as a static process type, takes information and continuously tries to isolate the predominant counterfactual mechanisms, using intuition as a means rather than an end, whereas the analyst, as a static result type, will try to pack as much sensory information as possible into a densely packed structure from which to draw resources as the discrete need for intuitive constructs arises.
Last edited by Nexus; 12-27-2009 at 01:09 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
