If I'm Alpha NT, am I most likely to be

[717495]

So what happened, you couldn't find a cooler one for ILE?

[EyeSeeCold]

Yea I noticed the inconsistency, I tend to do that. :/

How about "for example, justifying the use of the Atomic bomb through objectivity, and ignoring the moral implications".

[717495]

Ah, that's perfect. Now I don't care which is cooler.

Yeah, I do relate to Fi-PoLR pretty well in these senses (and have been given comments) being pretty impatient/ignorant about Fi, but also not in favor of Se. I would think up something to get out of work, like "working to fight someone." I'm not really too thrilled about work and so I figure out ways to make it easier or get out of it. I guess the big difference though is, LII takes a rational approach to it and tries to get Se completely out of the question, where as I'm just not very attentive or "thrilled" about Se-related things. With Fi its more obvious I'm not really tuned into it, completely escaping it, but then when Fe comes into the same picture, my ethical mind finally reacts.

[EyeSeeCold]

Yea, ILEs relate to in more idealized terms(tremendous force/impact), and LIIs relate to in idealized terms(secret/perfect society) just as well.

[717495]

Hah, with that it gets a little more hard to decide, the lines are blurred. I have my religion and morals, I don't have a lot of question about myself in this regard however, I usually believe what I tend to believe and don't show any strictness about it. I just need to remind myself what I believe in. I am very well ignorant of all the other ethics belonging to others. Me being a "good" person has little to do with relating to people. As much as using , I think of things like intellectual or imaginative territory, and can sometimes get kind of competitive, but it's real trivial stuff, talking about going to Mars and who has the nicer spaceship and more heroic character, or really just anything that deals with imaginary territory. Not sure where my ideas fit with yours, or if I'm really that forceful about anything, but definitely more interesting than stuff.

[The Ineffable]

Talking about the "hard days", I noticed that sometimes everything is against you, others everything appears to be "with you". Not only people, but even events, or mechanical things. I don't know the rules - it's maybe some cycle, but I was lazy to keep a journal - but since I was 26-27 (or so), I disciplined myself so that when I notice that things are "against" me I don't become even more assertive and nervous, but the other way around. I just quit and relax, because I know my time will come again. The other way around, too, when runs smoothly, I expect a period of failures.

I think that this happens to everyone, just people react differently to this, even when these highs and lows are caused by people. I recall recent situations when my brother-in-law was refused and rejected by everyone in the house, including me. In my case, at least, I could not do concessions with him because that means to affect myself, for example when he disturbs my work or asks for something, he's the "sticky" kind of man, when you give him something he'll ask for more and more (either attention, help, borrowing things, or something else). But the interesting thing with this guy is that he never becomes depressed, possibly because he's an EIE. He at most gets upset and grumpy for a little while, but he appears always optimistic and has a plan to do something about it, often acting so that he blends with people (eg. suddenly appears to be interested about your problems in a certain field that he normally doesn't give a shit about). But I don't buy this, I keep him at an arm's length with "no, it's nothing", otherwise he'll get again under my skin and interfere with my activities.

So through extrapolation and other observations, sometimes people may reject you even if they sympathize with you, based on some objective reasons.

I speak of Fe and socializing, but it's really just not a part of my character, and I don't consider myself really to be much of a humanist, humanitarian. Really from getting to know me I'm much more of a theorist and researcher, or interested in mental creations, scifi and possibilities, overall I'm just imaginative and thoughtful but not much in relation to the human element. I am though definitely a relativist. I'm one of the least opinionated people I know.

Well don't confuse "humanist" with "humanitarian". You many not care about people, but you're humanist when you reduce most of the things to the human, social or personal interpretation - fiction, art, relativism are some examples. You're not one when everything to you is based on strict "universal laws", or something. Here's a philosopher (typed ESI by me) who I despise, but who I actually recommend to you, Ashton, 1981slater and Timeless alike (Huitzilopochtli is probably aware of his works, even): Paul Feyerabend. Don't "philosophy of science" and "epistemological anarchism" sound good? They sure do. He's just some sort of Ashton born in a different time and place:

For is it not possible that science as we know it today, or a "search for the truth" in the style of traditional philosophy, will create a monster? Is it not possible that an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined will harm people, turn them into miserable, unfriendly, self-righteous mechanisms without charm or humour? "Is it not possible," asks Kierkegaard, "that my activity as an objective [or critico-rational] observer of nature will weaken my strength as a human being?" I suspect the answer to many of these questions is affirmative and I believe that a reform of the sciences that makes them more anarchic and more subjective (in Kierkegaard's sense) is urgently needed.

-- Paul Feyerabend, Against Method. p. 154.

No problem with such currents of thought myself, but I think that science and research should be surrounded by an high-voltage electric fence .

In regards to Fe, it feels in general, emotiveness and feeling expression, as a hidden agenda, I experience as its always something that comes to me and resonates in a soft way, and I experience it through writing and playing symphonic music, but not something I personally give off or am good at giving off (explained more a the bottom of my post), and Ti as (I think we've discussed before) a creative (not primary) function, but one to draw from in little bits and theorize from a non-biased perspective often. It is good with helping me invent and see categories for any of my interests, in a creative pursuit. I always have a sense of potential first and foremost (and that always seems to be the true source of creativity where as Ti is what "can be changed" or "form a new idea using knowledge of categories or systems"). There is not much of a chance I'd think that Ti is my dominant function from reading and witness how they are, or Fi as my dominant as it is explained in Socionics. I think I'm much too open to how things work and the possibilities (filling in what's really there with options) and lack wanting to make judgment, even though I think I've learned that I can be good at judgment. I just feel like remaining relative and open, it seems naturally more comfortable. Some of the ILE descriptions make a very good case for me as Ne+Ti and all the extra things added in. With ILI (a few other descriptions that might fit) does not make complete sense and pins me with the wrong quadra, but both have reasonable instances of being right. IJ type descriptions seem never to fit.

I have often thought I'm both T and F dichotomy, as I fluxuate near evenly as a balanced human, but most of the time it is T, and I think people who introduced me to MBTI and studied it have not seen me as F enough, and I don't feel as though I connect enough to the ethical element to be considered F. Though I think I've come to realize that I do connect well to Fe (emotion/expression) in an obviously non-ego way, as it comes in and out of consciousness a reminder of my passion.

IMO you're not Ti/Fe valuer at all. And BTW, my opinion is that this kind of pervasive relativism is tightly connected to Fi and Ni - possibly because they're Fields + Internal.

Using such twist of words, connotations and "alternative views" one may easily "demonstrate" that Gandhi was a sexual pervert and Stalin was an angel. This is why - not trying to be harsh, but objective - the value of your reasoning in Socionics discussions is usually zero.

[EyeSeeCold]

Hah, with that it gets a little more hard to decide, the lines are blurred. I have my religion and morals, I don't have a lot of question about myself in this regard however, I usually believe what I tend to believe and don't show any strictness about it. I just need to remind myself what I believe in. I am very well ignorant of all the other ethics belonging to others. Me being a "good" person has little to do with relating to people. As much as using , I think of things like intellectual or imaginative territory, and can sometimes get kind of competitive, but it's real trivial stuff, talking about going to Mars and who has the nicer spaceship and more heroic character, or really just anything that deals with imaginary territory. Not sure where my ideas fit with yours, or if I'm really that forceful about anything, but definitely more interesting than stuff.

Ah, well disregard it. The concept is there just not the precision.

[717495]

Thank you for your own interpretation, Bolt. I honestly wasn't aware that ILEs are so confident about strict universal laws

[The Ineffable]

I honestly wasn't aware that ILEs are so confident about strict universal laws

About what in the universal laws, that they exist (and they're strict) or that they (the ILEs) know which are the true ones?

[Exodus]

i don't understand why not. don't temperaments show in energy levels? (this sounds snippy after what i've written already, but i'm really trying to understand your thoughts lol.)

Kind of. Maybe I was a little dismissive, but energy level is something (in fact probably the most noticeable thing) that varies *a lot* within every type. Hence you can't really use it to type people confidently. I know super-energetic ESIs and super-low-key ILEs, for example. Generally initiative-taking is much more indicative than energy level per se.

[EyeSeeCold]

Typology must have tons of bias to it. When you know a person is a certain type you can identify all the characteristic mannerisms, but when when freshly typing a person, proposed types extend across quadras. It's mostly because of text-based communication.

Alpha NT = Social Intellectual
Gamma NT = Personal Intellectual
?

[KeroZen]

Kind of. Maybe I was a little dismissive, but energy level is something (in fact probably the most noticeable thing) that varies *a lot* within every type. Hence you can't really use it to type people confidently. I know super-energetic ESIs and super-low-key ILEs, for example. Generally initiative-taking is much more indicative than energy level per se.

I'm sorry but this remark bothers me a bit... Poli was talking about temperaments and I fail to see how it's not more than "kind of" related to energy levels. If you look at the history of the 4 temperaments, you'll see there was always a notion of global energy-level/tension and attitude/posture.

At some time they thought it was related to the 4 kind of "biles" but the names they chose were very representative: choleric (energetic/angry) phlegmatic (lazy/calm) and so on... and in this sense, I pretty much liked Timeless's thread with temperament postures pix, as there is definitively something to it.

Also, and this is an open question, how can we explain/define E vs I if we can't use: shy / social / outgoing / talkative / aloof / reserved / low energy / high energy?

It seems the only consensus we got is: "E" is focused on Object, "I" on subjective experience of Object (yes this could be rephrased more properly but it's only to make a point) and while I do agree with that, it's nonetheless very "meager" and most balanced persons will say it's very hard for them to tell if they are one more than the other (for instance I feel quite introverted but there are times where I'm completely outwards oriented/absorbed, to the point of being completely self less)

Sometimes I find it almost easier to think that E vs I determines the polarity of the dominant function only, and then think exclusively in functional terms from that point, but again this makes it a very poor dichotomy for typing purposes...

[Exodus]

I'm sorry but this remark bothers me a bit... Poli was talking about temperaments and I fail to see how it's not more than "kind of" related to energy levels. If you look at the history of the 4 temperaments, you'll see there was always a notion of global energy-level/tension and attitude/posture.

At some time they thought it was related to the 4 kind of "biles" but the names they chose were very representative: choleric (energetic/angry) phlegmatic (lazy/calm) and so on... and in this sense, I pretty much liked Timeless's thread with temperament postures pix, as there is definitively something to it.

This is one of those things like correlating socionics with the Zodiac or something...not really core to the theory. Old-school socionists used to think the MBTI types were basically the same, but that idea fell out of favor.

Also, and this is an open question, how can we explain/define E vs I if we can't use: shy / social / outgoing / talkative / aloof / reserved / low energy / high energy?

See, most of that stuff is related to ethics too. On the whole yes, extroverts are more energetic. But it's very case-dependent.

It seems the only consensus we got is: "E" is focused on Object, "I" on subjective experience of Object (yes this could be rephrased more properly but it's only to make a point) and while I do agree with that, it's nonetheless very "meager" and most balanced persons will say it's very hard for them to tell if they are one more than the other (for instance I feel quite introverted but there are times where I'm completely outwards oriented/absorbed, to the point of being completely self less)

Well, like I said initiative is a big indicator. Extroverts generally seem more involved with projects and activities than introverts, who take more time for self-reflection. Introverts talk a lot about what they are feeling/thinking about things, whereas extroverts talk about what's happening (current events e.g.) or things-in-themselves. Extroverts are more opportunistic (and take advantage of opportunities more easily).

Sometimes I find it almost easier to think that E vs I determines the polarity of the dominant function only, and then think exclusively in functional terms from that point, but again this makes it a very poor dichotomy for typing purposes...

It is pretty poor, actually. All the other Jungian dichotomies are about 5x more obvious IMO.

[717495]

Yeah, dichotomies have evolved with Reinin, but simultaneously aren't really all that significant anymore. This isn't MBTI, it's a theory of personal relationships based on values. If people think of the 16 types without dichotomies, it will be harder on the mind at first, but then you'll start to learn more significant things about the types, and that types have all variance within dichotomies. Just read the definition of dominance, for example. How can you say that is used by someone social or reserved, high energy or low energy? I can't even make a clear case for it seeming externally or internally aware, it seems to operate under both conditions. It's dichotomal characteristics really are that of N and P, and show no tendency toward the others. Similarly in MBTI, I type INTP, but I identify a lot more with Ne than I do Ti or Fi (use Fi because I relate to it just as much as Ti, but its not the same in Socionics.)

[717495]

Not sure why you would think that. It's a new idea, and would require some tricky explanation.

"you'd know more about yourself" : well, more like I said, I fit the descriptions of quite nicely and ILE descriptions are the only ones that fit from obvious classical sources, so I'm still wondering more so why I'd be LII rather than something off the mark like SEI. Not really feeling the idea of or PoLR, and seems simply like "dichotomies" don't always help. I do think a type can take on a certain dualistic form of some caliber, simply due to the fact that they value the same functions, but I don't think I'm a full out SEI, that would be rather hard to wrap my mind around. I also think ILE fits because I find myself similar in humor/personality to others here who type ILE, granted there are some who are more gregarious or active than myself. I don't really even seem that upbeat right now, I guess because I am a serious person...but then I think half of the time I am fairly upbeat.

Thanks,
T. Hanks