The Dark Side of LII

[tcaudilllg]

I remember years ago on this forum, a user named mikeINTJ oft preached about the harder, colder side of LII-dom. Today we have Model B by which to explore this dark side a bit, so why not see what all we can agree on?

The strongest shadow functions of LII are Fi, Fe, Se, and Si in that order. Here's what I think these mean in a general sense:

• LIIs have absolute commitment to justice and are willing to get aggressive to see it respected. They are always fair and command that others be fair as well.
• LIIs reserve the right to reject those who do not respect their norms of fairness. They believe fairness is vital because, they uphold, all people should have the opportunity to satisfy their desire for personal pleasure and to enjoy good health.

[MatthewZ]

My only darkside is that I eat babies without their consent and burn down fledgling orphanages.

LSIs, with their creative get aggressive about justice. LIIs just get passive-aggressive about it.

Anywho, how are either of those necessarily a dark side? Sure, a "shadow" side of a psyche, but a dark side?

[tcaudilllg]

My only darkside is that I eat babies without their consent and burn down fledgling orphanages.

LSIs, with their creative get aggressive about justice. LIIs just get passive-aggressive about it.

Anywho, how are either of those necessarily a dark side? Sure, a "shadow" side of a psyche, but a dark side?

I'm thinking the dark side lies in the weaker functions of the shadow.

I didn't mean justice in the sense of law. I meant justice in the sense of fairness and equal opportunity, in the sense that ESIs mean it.

[sarinana]

Dark side? I think they just need some unburnt cookies there betas and gammas only eat burned ones

[krieger]

Justice is such a vacuous concept.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

tcaud is an IEI mistyped as LII

Why not EIE?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[JohnDo]

I think tcaudillg is probably the same type as I am, LII-IEI.

Is there any English article abut Model B? As long as there is no we don't know what the shadow is...

[buckland]

I think tcaudillg is probably the same type as I am, LII-IEI.

Is there any English article abut Model B? As long as there is no we don't know what the shadow is...

He probably is a "visionary analyst".

[Beautiful sky]

I remember years ago on this forum, a user named mikeINTJ oft preached about the harder, colder side of LII-dom. Today we have Model B by which to explore this dark side a bit, so what not see what all we can agree on?

The strongest shadow functions of LII are Fi, Fe, Se, and Si in that order. Here's what I think these mean in a general sense:

• LIIs have absolute commitment to justice and are willing to get aggressive to see it respected. They are always fair and command that others be fair as well.
• LIIs reserve the right to reject those who do not respect their norms of fairness. They believe fairness is vital because, they uphold, all people should have the opportunity to satisfy their desire for personal pleasure and to enjoy good health.

yes

Plus both of us having Se PoLR, you and I have to be very careful about the battles we pick to uphold these things that we believe in, otherwise, we look cold and mean, when in reality we are no such things.

[krieger]

I think tcaudillg is probably the same type as I am, LII-IEI.

Sounds like a completely and utterly idiotic statement from my perspective. You two are miles apart in almost every respect of your personalities. It's hard to even accept you are the same type to begin with...

[tcaudilllg]

I translated an article or two via machine translation, and put it on Wikisocion. But now it's gone. I think I may have the translation still yet, though.

The most significant article describing Model B is unavailable, because Boukalov hasn't released it publicly. It describes the meanings of "physical" and "supramental" as Boukalov uses the terms.

But in my own personal opinion, I think I can figure most of what's in that article by process of probabilistic elimination. We know he derived it from Jung's own comments on the shadow, which he agrees with. I think we can get along quite fine with our understanding of the functions and our own introspectivity.

[JohnDo]

Sounds like a completely and utterly idiotic statement from my perspective. You two are miles apart in almost every respect of your personalities. It's hard to even accept you are the same type to begin with...

Well, it would be even more laughable if tcaudillg had mistyped himself.

@tcaudillg: Have you ever posted pictures of yourself for V.I.? I think I'm able to visually identify LII-IEIs now. Che Guevara, Carl Jung, a professor of mine, forum member Crispy and me are 5 examples if I made no mistake.

Actually, Carl Jung might be LII-ILI and I might type him LII-IEI to be the same type as he was. I need to see more LII-ILIs in real life not to mix them up with LII-IEI. Mister Spock is certainly the best fictional example of an LII-ILI...

[tcaudilllg]

It is quite possible that Jung was an IEE-IEI. (like Gulanzon) If not that, then something close... I don't have enough experience at this point to say.

My VI is available on my OKCupid profile. I look LII.





Here's an example LII-IEI character. The type has a very characteristic nose.



What LII-IEI does is act as a values center for society. We take all the subjective appraisals of good and evil, right and wrong made by by IEIs and distill them for their value-neutral content. Then we stand by as the arbiters of objective morality. We also double as personality theorists because for us, life is about understanding the people who we would judge and more than anything else, trying not to be a part of the problem we are trying to solve. Understanding people is part and parcel of that.

I want to make the point: LII-IEI is the arbiter, not the prosecutor. (that's LSI-IEI) We are the brain for the prosecution, if that makes any sense.

[tcaudilllg]

But, back to the topic...

One thing I've noticed about myself is that I can get enraged reading about political issues in the news. When I feel threatened by political developments, I switch to my ESI side and "determine" that the entire social progressive U.S. caucus should adhere to my own conclusion, half deluding myself that my determination actually makes a difference. But would you believe it, within the month -- sometimes within the week or even the hour -- I hear about a sudden shift in that very direction by the powerful.

My hypothesis is that certain developments can, by way of the media, strike the weak functions of many people in a brief period. I think that these hits create a collective impulse which manifests itself as shifts in policy. I don't think I have power to control minds, but I do think that situations which trigger the shadow to action can cause people to think in strikingly broad uniformity. (but I'd just as well assume that I have telepathic control over policy makers, because I'd hate to think I didn't have a choice in my views and even worse, I'd hate to think that I'm powerless to influence things that affect me personally. Plausible deniability, indeed).

[krieger]

Well, it would be even more laughable if tcaudillg had mistyped himself.

The less laughable option is that dual types are simply bogus.

[JohnDo]

The less laughable option is that dual types are simply bogus.

Well, I certainly have a different understanding of subtypes than tcaudillg. Gulenko's subtype systems are based on subdivisions of Jungian dichotomies:
- An Intuitive Analyst (Ne-INTj) is nothing but an INTj-xxxp.
- A Harmonizing Analyst (H-INTj) is nothing but an INTj-Ixxp.
- An Expert Analyst (Ni-INTj) is nothing but an INTj-INxp.
- What I call a Visionary Analyst is just an INTj-INFp.

In other words: INTj-INFp = I₂N₂T₁j₁. Very introverted, very intuitive, quite logical, quite rational. Using subtypes can also be explained by Information elements: My Ni and Fe are stronger than usual because my subtype is INFp.

But that is not what tcaudillg thinks about subtypes and dual-types. He is even of the opinion that an INTj-INFp is not necessarily Harmonizing. I think the reason is that he wants to think of himself as Creative subtype...

Nevertheless, we will come to an agreement sooner or later...

[JohnDo]

My VI is available on my OKCupid profile. I look LII.

Possible but hard to say from those 2 pictures...

Here's an example LII-IEI character. The type has a very characteristic nose.

While your fictional example of an LII-IEI might be a good one I strongly recommend not to look at anyone's nose for typing!!

If you know Bill Cosby and Gerhard Schröder you will certainly agree that they are the same type (ESFj-ENFp I think) and they more or less look like twins - except for the nose. You have to take into account that there are racial differences. Afro-Americans and Hispanics often have broader noses. You shouldn't look at the nose for typing.

What LII-IEI does is act as a values center for society. We take all the subjective appraisals of good and evil, right and wrong made by by IEIs and distill them for their value-neutral content. Then we stand by as the arbiters of objective morality. We also double as personality theorists because for us, life is about understanding the people who we would judge and more than anything else, trying not to be a part of the problem we are trying to solve. Understanding people is part and parcel of that.

Not a bad description but I disagree with the "not a part of the problem" part. Are you familiar with the life of Che Guevara and French intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy? Those are LII-IEIs I think.
Jung was less emotional and probably LII-ILI...

[krieger]

In other words: INTj-INFp = I2N2T1j1. Very introverted, very intuitive, quite logical, quite rational.

I arrive at the same type when I apply this method on myself. What is to keep us from simply determining that INTjs are generally less J and less T than is commonly assumed?

INTjs have Se PoLR and Fi role. This is what makes them avoid sensory situations more than ethical ones such that they seem more ethical than sensory.

INTjs value Ne/Si rather than Se/Ni. This is what makes them seem less acheivement oriented and thus less Rational.

[Crispy]

To say that seems to say that all current socionics definitions of dichotomies are wrong.

[krieger]

To say that seems to say that all current socionics definitions of dichotomies are wrong.

Is the Se PoLR and Ne/Si values not part of the "current socionics definitions"?

Really, these are things we have known for years. It isn't in any way surprising for them to surface like this today.