Dual-types theory: LII-IEI

[tcaudilllg]

So I took the time to work out my IM-EM functional relationships today using the "best way to be X is by Y" method. Pretty true to form.

1st function: the best way to be ethical and make prudent decisions is to be smart.
2nd function: the best way to be positive is to be imaginative.
3rd function: I cannot help everyone equally.
4th function: people should not assert rights without authority.
5th function: I should not win by being disagreeable.
6th function: I can only draw as close to people as they are willing to comfort me.
7th function: The best way for me to increase my capability is to get money by which to commission work.
8th funciton: The best way for me to acheive goals is to draw out plans with the willing.

Collary to #6: unfair behavior disgusts me to no end.

[JohnDo]

The only reason you're even arguing about this is because your understanding of the Harmonizing subtype is different from Gulenko's, and you don't want to admit it.

Everyone who is interested in socionics has his own understanding. Simply because it is absolutely impossible to describe anything objectively in this field of knowledge...

All I can say is that you must not know many EIIs and LIIs, or you've mistyped the ones you think you know. Not all IJs are extreme or pronounced examples of this behaviour, but all do it to one degree or another.

In general, LII is famous for non-standard solutions, not for standardization. I'd rather call them "denormalizing" than "normalizing"...

Ni Harmonizing focuses on a more abstract mental and spiritual harmony, but both Si and Ni subtypes try to create harmony. If you want to disagree with Gulenko on this, feel free, but you should then make it clear that you're proposing your own theory. Your understanding of DCNH is not the same as Gulenko's understanding.

In a way I agree: Adolf ****** (Ni-ENFj) wanted to "harmonize" the world by killing all Jews. Che Guevara (Ni-INTj) wanted to "harmonize" the world by destroying capitalism. Richard Dawkins (Ni-ESFj) wants to "harmonize" the world by abolishing religion.
Alright, they are all harmonizing. But not the way a Si-subtype would be...

I'm not sure what you're saying here. "Pleasing or congruent arrangement of parts, internal calm, and tranquility, blah blah blah, blah blah blah" is a paraphrase of the Merriam-Webster definition of the word "harmony", which you don't want to apply to the IP subtype.

Err, yes. I didn't click on the links, thought it would link to Gulenko's descriptions. But that's just what I mean: It doesn't make much sense to look up technical terms in a dictionary. Example: Do you really believe that ISTp and ISFp are strategists? Are they necessarily "skilled in strategy"? Certainly not...

[tcaudilllg]

****** was so dom.

[tcaudilllg]

From what I can tell, IEI EM is strongly associated with activism.

Ni 1st means always trying to do the right thing. Restlessness and determination to act in the name of good.
Fe 2nd means a sense of responsibility for others' positive emotions and a need to honor ethical principles.
Si 3rd means (very scrupulously) avoiding harm to others, only doing as much as is asked for.
Te 4th means emphasis on honor and a tendency to go it alone in the name of it.
Se 5th means limited energy for conflicts, and a tendency to tire of debates and quarrels.
Ti 6th means resolve. Determination to go the distance. (and openness to others' destruction as a means of resolving conflicts quickly)
Ne 7th means looking to myth for purpose.
Fi 8th means ambiguity as to others' motives, walking blindly in the world with myth as the only real guide. Real relationships mean require the sharing of common myths and ideas.

It's not a good set of skills to have to rely on. Which is probably why I can only point to one or two notable LII-IEIs. I feel my culture doesn't appreciate my skills... in fact I think LII-IEIs are the least appreciated dual-type, and that's why we can't point to any of note other than the guy who did the EEGs on psychopaths. Part of the reason why comes from socionics, no one's a bigger thorn in the side of ENTJs than LII-IEIs, who feel the responsibility to crusade against the schemes. But all that angst and bad feeling takes its toll. I wish ENTJs would stop trying to control everybody, and to think about what others want and feel.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Out of concern for what has befallen many of your previous threads, I'm responding to this one in case no one else does.

[Birdie]

What are your skills? And do you mean marketable skills or skills in general, like being able to hula hoop for 42 minutes without stopping?

[Saberstorm]

Are you saying you are some kind of subtype?

[tcaudilllg]

Are you saying you are some kind of subtype?

You really are just a troll, aren't you? Ignored.

[Birdie]

): maybe it's because you're mean you're not received well.

[Raver]

Are you saying you are some kind of subtype?

You really are just a troll, aren't you? Ignored.

Overreacting much?

[tcaudilllg]

Don't blame me for your insanity.

[Korpsy Knievel]

To your credit, tcaud, this functional EM-IEI description provides a fuller picture of your thinkinz than you frequently provide.

[tcaudilllg]

To your credit, tcaud, this functional EM-IEI description provides a fuller picture of your thinkinz than you frequently provide.

See that's just it: you'd think it'd be obvious. But people are just so CYNICAL.

[woofwoofl]

how do I find my EM type? I've been thinking about the variance within the general pool of SEEs, and how I've got a shit ton in common with some of them, and less in common with others, also wondering about Identical types with Conflicting EM types and all sorts of stuff along those lines...

I have an LII friend/acquaintance on Facebook who is VERY likely LII-IEI...

[tcaudilllg]

I'm trying to deduce them. I will post information on here as the types become clearer.

[Raver]

Don't blame me for your insanity.

Look who's talking.

[Nowisthetime]

Was Jung LII-IEI?

[tcaudilllg]

Was Jung LII-IEI?

I doubt Jung was LII.

[Creepy-male]

Ni 1st means always trying to do the right thing. Restlessness and determination to act in the name of good.

Alright not personally attacking you, but I have a lot of problems with this definition of Ni.

From what I've read Ni as a function has nothing to do with the doing the right thing. The other confusing aspect of this is what do you mean by the "right thing" or "good". Do you mean "right" by the standards of others or "right" by the standards of one's own assessment of a situation. Likewise by "good" do you mean good for someone else, or good for the individual, or do you mean good based on a particular dogma or belief system that mandates what is good. If so is this dogma personal or something that is shared among a group. Is being determined mean they are unable to change their views on what is "right" or "good" even when they feel like their previous ideas are not applicable to a situation.

At a certain basic level I understand what you are saying, you kind of alluding to Ni mean a person is a bit of a "moral crusader" but I find that in reality this is more complex, so I want to understand exactly what you mean... and how this is associated to Ni, because usually Ni is discussed as meaning something different than here. http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ation_elements

Ni : development over time (processes), cause and effect, history, planning, forecasting, past/future, rhythm, speed, urgency, fantasy

[tcaudilllg]

Beta Ni, in EM terms, is like a path. The path of life. When NiFe is in the EM ego block, it tries to avoid harm. At least, when it's used healthily. When used unhealthily, it is indifferent to or even maximizing of Si negativity. Avoiding harm through one's actions, even if it means doing harm to others to prevent harm to someone else. You're right: it's very nuanced. The idea is to bring about "the end" of harm some way or another by taking appropriate action. The harm itself is seen as troubling to other elements, which is the motivation for acting. Of course it can go both ways, towards the very "good" or the very "evil". Contrast it with justice, which loops around in an endless chain of hurt and battle. Ni EM asks, "where exactly does this end? This hurt and anger... this really isn't what we want... if we have to do it then fine, but we should at least try to keep it to a minimum." But Ni EM can't really be appraised like Ni IM, because it's only the element itself that is focused on, not the function. The function is not something that can be combated, nor can you rethink it: it -IS- you and to deny it is to deny yourself. It's almost completely unconscious, simply a fact of your existence. Our base EM functions dominate our lives. You can rethink your approach, granted, but the function must still be satisfied, or you will go unsatisfied.

In a nutshell, Ni EM distinguishes between actions that bring about a better world, and actions that bring about a worse one, and lives in avoidance of the latter.

[Saberstorm]

Extraverted thinking should be your observing function if you are LII, and your PoLR if a IEI. You watch carefully what you are blind to.

A person with functional Te would have a working link to explain his theory. He says EM type - no definition of it. His links don't work.

[Pookie]

Fi as Demonstrative is what causes the IEI type to have so much concern with doing the right thing with their actions.

Ni+Fe works in tandem to help alleviate emotional conflict with a mix of emotional reciprocation/manipulation(Fe) and an active conscious framework(Ni) of what insights and footnotes you've stored in your memory(Ne as ignoring allows for a larger data bank of insights to be remembered, and thus strung together cohesively through the base Ni).

If Ni could accurately be described as "...means always trying to do the right thing. Restlessness and determination to act in the name of good." The gamma NT's behave totally differently.

The pursuit to act in the name of good is very much having to do with being an IxFP in my opinion. Fe creative, and Fi Demonstative.

[Brilliand]

Extraverted thinking should be your observing function if you are LII, and your PoLR if a IEI. You watch carefully what you are blind to.

The ignoring function is also called the observing, or limiting function.

Hmm, apparently ignoring and observing are the same thing. The theme of the description that follows seems to be that's it's the "little-used" function. I think the 7th function and the PoLR can be easily mistaken for each other in individuals that don't visibly suffer from their PoLR weakness.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

Te 4th means emphasis on honor and a tendency to go it alone in the name of it.

you go,mulan

[tcaudilllg]

The seventh function is strongly associated with the id. There is a sense that it is prone to violation of the creed of the 5th and as such is a "road to perdition". LIIs take the phrase "the love of money is the root of all evil" very seriously.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm seeing a pattern here: it would seem that the superid and id blocks are antagonistic to each other.

[Brilliand]

The seventh function is strongly associated with the id. There is a sense that it is prone to violation of the creed of the 5th and as such is a "road to perdition". LIIs take the phrase "the love of money is the root of all evil" very seriously.

Interesting general idea (specifically, the 7th function being defined by its conflict with the 5th - and, presumably, likewise with the 8th and the 6th). I don't quite agree with your specific example, however, as the "love of money" is easily construed as - which LIIs also dislike, but for different reasons. Also, I don't think that a strong opposition to the 7th function would be particularly common, as it is a strong function, and the individual is capable of using it well (read: cautiously enough to not violate the 5th function). It is prone to violation, but this does not make it a "road to perdition".

[tcaudilllg]

Have you ever heard of the notion "time value of money"?

[Brilliand]

Have you ever heard of the notion "time value of money"?

Yes. It's a very way of looking at money, but not everyone who talks about money is thinking in those terms, even if they are familiar with that notion.

[tcaudilllg]

My entire class on finance emphasized the importance of the time value of money.

Let's look at it in IM element terms.

Time is Ni. IEIs are all about shaping objective time (history) and subjective time (lives). ILIs are all about figuring out what to make of the time available, creating plans and emphasizing the processes needed to carry them out. We know that beta Ni (time) is at the far end of Te, while gamma Ni (process) is at the near end. Gamma Te and gamma Ni are right next to each other, separating beta Ni from delta Te cognitively. We know that rational/irrational block pairs are dependent on each other, so asking what you need to execute gamma Ni, we get "resources". Which is exactly the reason that LSEs work their butts off, to procure resources enough to realize theirs and society's grand aims and goals. If you've ever known an LSE, they will tell you that they don't work their butts off for free. Not for long, anyway. So gamma Te is resources. Money of course is not resources -- it's the ability to make people work, which is exactly why LIEs hoard the stuff, because when other people are working for them, they don't have to think about difficult Si stuff.

You see, you have to see model A in totality, not as what the authorities have suggested to you that it is, but as a symbol for the real progression of ideas, the content of the EEG activity in the neocortex.

The time value of money reflects prioritization of both gamma Ni and delta Te, and the observation that gamma Te is the means to satisfy either. One in hand is worth two in the bush.

[Brilliand]

My entire class on finance emphasized the importance of the time value of money.Let's look at it in IM element terms.

Time is Ni. IEIs are all about shaping objective time (history) and subjective time (lives). ILIs are all about figuring out what to make of the time available, creating plans and emphasizing the processes needed to carry them out. We know that beta Ni (time) is at the far end of Te, while gamma Ni (process) is at the near end. Gamma Te and gamma Ni are right next to each other, separating beta Ni from delta Te cognitively. We know that rational/irrational block pairs are dependent on each other, so asking what you need to execute gamma Ni, we get "resources". Which is exactly the reason that LSEs work their butts off, to procure resources enough to realize theirs and society's grand aims and goals. If you've ever known an LSE, they will tell you that they don't work their butts off for free. Not for long, anyway. So gamma Te is resources. Money of course is not resources -- it's the ability to make people work, which is exactly why LIEs hoard the stuff, because when other people are working for them, they don't have to think about difficult Si stuff.

You see, you have to see model A in totality, not as what the authorities have suggested to you that it is, but as a symbol for the real progression of ideas, the content of the EEG activity in the neocortex.

The time value of money reflects prioritization of both gamma Ni and delta Te, and the observation that gamma Te is the means to satisfy either. One in hand is worth two in the bush.

I'm starting to get an inkling that we're not talking about the same thing...

When you mentioned "time value of money" to me, I thought of investments. If you have a sum of money, and you manage it wisely, then you expect it to grow by a reasonable percentage each year. I decided to just call that , but in actuality, there is probably a fair amount of mixed in.

You seem to be talking about wages for time spent, which is almost what money is: something provided in exchange for a good or a service. I'm not willing to call that basic idea of exchange type-related at all.

[tcaudilllg]

Then you need to have more discussions with ENTJs. Because ENTjs always keep money concerns front and center. In the mind of ENTJ, money is the solution for everything.

[Brilliand]

Then you need to have more discussions with ENTJs. Because ENTjs always keep money concerns front and center. In the mind of ENTJ, money is the solution for everything.

Hmm, I've seen some ENTjs on this forum. They don't focus on money all that much, possibly because this forum isn't really about money. Oh, Ashton talks about things that are tangentially related to money (such as government and economy) quite a lot, but he doesn't spend all that much time on money itself, and I don't think he even entirely approves of money, ideologically speaking.

Money's too much of a specific thing. It might appeal to some IM elements more than others (probably the Concrete Objects ones, that is, and ), but it can't be the main point of any element. "Resources" is much better; I can actually see that as a primarily idea, because it implies that you are going to use said resources for something. It's also a vague enough term that it could likely apply to everything that cares about, not just some specific things.

[tcaudilllg]

Right but, in today's age money is the ultimate resource. Money is the associative medium between resources. Functions process both elements themselves and associations between them via assumed associative mediums.

It seems like the gamma Te EM function should contain the arithmetic neural processor. However I think that the ability to do math is something not native to the mind, but an evolved cultural capacity. Math seems to me the Aspie's answer to money.

[Brilliand]

Right but, in today's age money is the ultimate resource. Money is the associative medium between resources. Functions process both elements themselves and associations between them via assumed associative mediums.

However, money can only be involved in a few of the steps in the actual process. A constant equivalence relation (i.e. "A bag of flour is worth $15.00) is more of a thing - I would expect an ENTj to think of it as "Today, I can buy a bag of flour for $15.00" - that is one step in the process, and the next step will likely not involve money, unless it's to buy something else to use with the flour. If the money is not in active use, but is simply being held on to for some reason (i.e. as a way to weather or mobilize quickly against a new threat, such as a lawsuit), I would place that under some static function, likely . Only the quantity of money that can be actively used is meaningful, as far as is concerned - and having that money is not quite as good as simply having the thing that you want to buy, although it helps quite a bit as a stand-in for two things that would otherwise be hard to convert between.

The motive to obtain more money, because I'm running low, and my lifestyle would be crippled if I ran out is not type-related, imo. The method of doing so by getting a job is in form, but is far too commonplace to require actual use to think of.

It seems like the gamma Te EM function should contain the arithmetic neural processor. However I think that the ability to do math is something not native to the mind, but an evolved cultural capacity. Math seems to me the Aspie's answer to money.

Math involves both and . There's clearly quite a bit of involved, what with most of it being built up from various contortions of the fixed number line and the concept of addition. comes into play as well, both as a user of mathematics as a means to some other end, and a provider of procedures for discovering certain facts within a reasonable amount of time (the latter use of is usually backed by some sort of confirmation that the described method does indeed get the correct answer, or at least one that is within a given margin of error). I've always had a tendency to ignore the procedural aspects of mathematics in favor of the structural aspects.

The growth of mathematics tends to be guided by the Perceiving functions, moreso Intuition than Sensing; this is instrumental in keeping mathematics applicable to the real world.

[tcaudilllg]

You need to read up on Gulenko. He disagrees with you vehemently. And because he makes good points, so do I.

I have no time for conflicts for their own value. I won't entertain them and unless you can point out specific reasons I'm wrong I won't respond.

BTW you are totally taking what I said before out of context and wildly extrapolating my suppositions. But again, I've no energy nor responsibility to set you straight.

Arithmetic has nothing to do with Ti. It's completely process without rule.

Don't think you're teaching me anything. You're the learner here, not me.

[Pookie]

Don't think you're teaching me anything. You're the learner here, not me.

A haughty attitude is totally detrimental to acquiring understanding. If you actually seek progress on your knowledge(s), humility will take you a lot further. That is, of course, unless the whole point of this topic is to just simply show the world how you're right, rather than to hear from different perspectives and reflect upon it for personal growth. The former will unfortunately put a limit on your progress as a person, and the latter is how you iron out your own inconsistencies within your internal framework. Something that cannot be done without an outside perspective.

[Saberstorm]

The money system explained.

[tcaudilllg]

A haughty attitude is totally detrimental to acquiring understanding. If you actually seek progress on your knowledge(s), humility will take you a lot further. That is, of course, unless the whole point of this topic is to just simply show the world how you're right, rather than to hear from different perspectives and reflect upon it for personal growth. The former will unfortunately put a limit on your progress as a person, and the latter is how you iron out your own inconsistencies within your internal framework. Something that cannot be done without an outside perspective.

I'm not the one lacking for humility in this particular case.

[Brilliand]

You need to read up on Gulenko. He disagrees with you vehemently. And because he makes good points, so do I.

I don't see why I should have to read up on some other guy who isn't even here. It would help quite a bit, though, if you had your ideas in some easily accessible place online; I searched around for your descriptions of the EM elements, and came up empty-handed, so I could only answer in terms of the IM elements. I suggest opening up a free wiki for that purpose.

I have no time for conflicts for their own value. I won't entertain them and unless you can point out specific reasons I'm wrong I won't respond.

BTW you are totally taking what I said before out of context and wildly extrapolating my suppositions. But again, I've no energy nor responsibility to set you straight.

I've been working this stuff out as I go along. It looks to me like you have too.

Arithmetic has nothing to do with Ti. It's completely process without rule.

The beginning and ending points of the arithmetic processes are parts of a system that defines how all the various numbers, vectors and such relate to each other. It would be completely legitimate to come to the same answer by a different means, provided that you were able to prove (within the fixed system of mathematics) that your method would indeed always get the same answer. Oh, it might not get you passing marks in elementary school, but when you're trying to actually demonstrate a point among capable mathematicians, no one cares that you didn't follow instructions - you just have to show that whatever you did do was also correct. (If the context is formal enough, the other mathematicians might demand that you construct a proof that follows a sequential process, but even then, you're applying the rules of mathematics in whatever order you see fit.)