The ILE bias and you: one very simple question

[Cat King Cole]

Why ILE?

Why not any of the other three Merry Extratims? There is a pre-existing bias toward ILEs in Socionics that you need to adjust for. Jumping on an ILE typing because "it seems obvious" is the wrong way to go.

(Some further, related questions: Why are SLE and EIE not easily confused? Why are LSEs and IEEs unambiguously one or the other? There is a very good reason people are likely to mistype others as ILEs or logical types.)

EIE -> ILE is a very big jump:

ENTP
ENFJ

Only Extraversion and Intuition are maintained. Two dichotomies are lost, which completely and radically alters the way a person processes the world. A controlled and measuring Rational becomes a radical and spontaneous Irrational; he stops thinking about things in terms of feelings and meaning, and starts conceiving of them in terms of imagery and internal state (this is less bad than swapping I/E, N/S or F/T, though; functional resonance can draw your creative function into a "base-like" state, inverting J/P and I/E in terms of communication: what is said and how it is sent between people). Confusing T/F is more acceptable, but only under very restrictive circumstances; namely any context that demands facts over feelings, and that also restricts the Ethical's emotional expression. An IEI is not going to write a science report filled with nothing but poetry, equivocation, and factual liberties.

ESE -> ILE is even worse:

ENTP
ESFJ

Now only Extraversion is maintained. This is flatly unacceptable, considering that S/N and static/dynamic are unambiguous under scrutiny. A details-oriented Sensor is now a big-picture oriented Intuitor, in addition to what I highlighted above about T/F and J/P.

[Raver]

I don't think you should look at it in terms of letters as that would be the MBTI approach, which is wrong more often than not. If you look at it from a Socionics standpoint, it is possible to confuse ESE and EIE with an ILE. For instance, an ILE highly values as their hidden agenda, so much that one may confuse it as their dominant function. can be perceived as dominant in an ILE because it is their demonstrative function and can also be perceived as dominant because it is their dual seeking function. An ILE could be blind to their use of as they are surrounded by it like a fish is surrounded by water and the same could apply to to a lesser extent.

[Cat King Cole]

http://socionics.us/theory.shtml

I think the dichotomies are really useful because they take a way a lot of spurious ambiguity (though, granted, I used to say this of temperament, and I've since softened my stance on that a bit...)

Also, unlike MBTI, the Socionics dichotomies are either/or affairs. S/N is a really good one, and J/P is typically useful, but more abstract/reliant on broad themes in a person's presentation and what they talk about.

For me, functions are mainly useful for looking at vocabulary, and especially useful for isolating functional resonance (e.g. if you got an LSE and an SEI together, they'd both start talking about stuff like food and health and stereotypical stuff like that).

http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml

[MisterNi]

What? Where's the ILE bias? Maybe you think it's ILE biased because you're an Alpha, and probably an SEI. Because I'm sure people from the other quadras would disagree with you, CKC.

[Cat King Cole]

Yes, I could be seeing patterns where I want, but I notice Gilly and myself "keep" getting typed as ILEs.

That said, I've had IEE typings thrown at me occasionally, so it might just be process/result ambiguity between benefit types.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...s_in_socionics

The ILE bias is brought up on that page.

[Galen]

yay gulanzon made another thread in which he passive-aggressively accosts the people who type him as entp

[MisterNi]

Yes, I could be seeing patterns where I want, but I notice Gilly and myself "keep" getting typed as ILEs.

What makes you think people are typing the two of you ILE for positive reasons? LOL

[bionic]

ILE could definitely fit you tho

you look a lot like Douglas Hofstadter who is ENTp-Ti:

[Cat King Cole]

This thread was more about Gilly being typed as ILE than me. More to the point, it isn't about anyone in particular, but about adjusting for biases and how to type with clarity; and what's a solid typing and what's not.

These are all my standards though, so YMMV.

[Galen]

Guess I have to.

ESE -> ILE is even worse:

ENTP
ESFJ

Now only Extraversion is maintained. This is flatly unacceptable, considering that S/N and static/dynamic are unambiguous under scrutiny. A details-oriented Sensor is now a big-picture oriented Intuitor, in addition to what I highlighted above about T/F and J/P.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...Intuitive_bias

Extending upon the crux of what that section is trying to get at (no to stupid stereotypes, if I'm not mistaken), I'd call it fair to say that the rest of the MBTI doublespeak you threw out there in your post doesn't amount to anything more than stereotypes that should immediately be discredited anyways.

[Cat King Cole]

I'm not seeing it. If you look at socionics.us the dichotomies work out as collections of observable traits, not "stupid stereotypes".

[Galen]

I'm not seeing it. If you look at socionics.us the dichotomies work out as collections of observable traits, not "stupid stereotypes".

I redirect you again to http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...Intuitive_bias. If nothing else, your talk about sensors being "detail-oriented" and intuitors "big picture" simply doesn't work if we're gonna bother to take into account the link that you yourself posted.

[Cat King Cole]

Yes, I read that.

IME though, sensors consistently focus on details and events, while intuitors consistently focus on context and imagery.

Rick's theory dump here: http://socionics.us/theory/int_sen.shtml says the same.

Rick's theory dump on his blog, here: http://socionist.blogspot.com/2006/1...revisited.html also says the same thing.

Socionics theory and my personal experience align on this matter.

[Skeptic]

...

Te is ILE's demonstrative, ILEs are Ni ignoring.

Anyway, one has a bias for his valued elements and no more, and if we could better recognize our elements and how we use them there would be no such thing as any collective bias. It is only through a warped understanding of the elements that we settle on any sort of self devaluation or praise based on element superiority - reliance on stereotypes and descriptions is particularly damaging at this point, seeing as they would lead us all to believe that all SFs ride the short bus and that all NTs rise above man's intellectually defective dribble.

In short, any perceived bias is born out of a lack of understanding.

[somavision]

I haven't seen any evidence for a bias in this respect. The example of Gilly is just one example of people believing they were one type before setting on another, although I admit that it may be particularly salient to you. In fact from there seem to be frequent cases where people have been initially typed beta extraverts.

I think it is reasonable to suggest that there may be a tendancy for Fi/Fe ego males to initially type themselves as Te/Ti, although I'd like to see some supporting evidence.

However I may be missing the overall context of your opening post.

[consentingadult]

Why ILE?

Why not any of the other three Merry Extratims? There is a pre-existing bias toward ILEs in Socionics that you need to adjust for. Jumping on an ILE typing because "it seems obvious" is the wrong way to go.

(Some further, related questions: Why are SLE and EIE not easily confused? Why are LSEs and IEEs unambiguously one or the other? There is a very good reason people are likely to mistype others as ILEs or logical types.)

EIE -> ILE is a very big jump:

ENTP
ENFJ

Only Extraversion and Intuition are maintained. Two dichotomies are lost, which completely and radically alters the way a person processes the world. A controlled and measuring Rational becomes a radical and spontaneous Irrational; he stops thinking about things in terms of feelings and meaning, and starts conceiving of them in terms of imagery and internal state (this is less bad than swapping I/E, N/S or F/T, though; functional resonance can draw your creative function into a "base-like" state, inverting J/P and I/E in terms of communication: what is said and how it is sent between people). Confusing T/F is more acceptable, but only under very restrictive circumstances; namely any context that demands facts over feelings, and that also restricts the Ethical's emotional expression. An IEI is not going to write a science report filled with nothing but poetry, equivocation, and factual liberties.

ESE -> ILE is even worse:

ENTP
ESFJ

Now only Extraversion is maintained. This is flatly unacceptable, considering that S/N and static/dynamic are unambiguous under scrutiny. A details-oriented Sensor is now a big-picture oriented Intuitor, in addition to what I highlighted above about T/F and J/P.

It's not bias, I for example, do not go around typing all people ILE. As to Gilly, I wouldn't know his type (although his strong vocal language to me definitively is very un-ILE), I have never seen a video of him, but I have seen ample of you, and as far as I'm concerned, my ILE typing of you has nothing to do with any sort of bias, but with plain facts spread out all over YouTube.

[Cat King Cole]

I haven't seen any evidence for a bias in this respect. The example of Gilly is just one example of people believing they were one type before setting on another, although I admit that it may be particularly salient to you. In fact from there seem to be frequent cases where people have been initially typed beta extraverts.

I think it is reasonable to suggest that there may be a tendancy for Fi/Fe ego males to initially type themselves as Te/Ti, although I'd like to see some supporting evidence.

Thanks, that raises some excellent questions:

Where self-typings disagree with typings in the community,

Which groups of people disagree? And with whom?

What are the patterns of these disagreements? Swapping I/E? T/F? Sticking to a "historical" self-typing?

Do different groups manifest different preferences for different types of disagreement?

[Raver]

...

Te is ILE's demonstrative, ILEs are Ni ignoring.

Anyway, one has a bias for his valued elements and no more, and if we could better recognize our elements and how we use them there would be no such thing as any collective bias. It is only through a warped understanding of the elements that we settle on any sort of self devaluation or praise based on element superiority - reliance on stereotypes and descriptions is particularly damaging at this point, seeing as they would lead us all to believe that all SFs ride the short bus and that all NTs rise above man's intellectually defective dribble.

In short, any perceived bias is born out of a lack of understanding.

Who says I rely on stereotypes and descriptions to type people and that I think SFs are stupid and NTs are geniuses? I never said that once in what you quoted from me. If I type people ILE it's because of their overall behaviour or how they appear to me after seeing several video clips of them.

[tcaudilllg]

I've noticed that IEEs and ILEs often have extraordinary difficulty settling on a type. Maybe it's because they want to explore whatever horizons they think living under the impression they are a different type might offer them?

[Raver]

I've noticed that IEEs and ILEs often have extraordinary difficulty settling on a type. Maybe it's because they want to explore whatever horizons they think living under the impression they are a different type might offer them?

I've had moments where I doubted my type, but they do not last long. My hypothesis is that the difference between IEEs and ILEs is IEEs will look into what the public consensus is in depth as a result of not fully trusting their own reasoning. This then results in them eventually reverting back to their original typing. However with ILEs they will ignore the public consensus in favor of their own reasoning, which they are more confident in and may not return to their original typing for a very long time if ever.

[Trevor]

ILE bias, although existing here as well, seems to be more of an issue in eastern socionics communities (as well as EIE bias).

[Skeptic]

Te is ILE's demonstrative, ILEs are Ni ignoring.

Anyway, one has a bias for his valued elements and no more, and if we could better recognize our elements and how we use them there would be no such thing as any collective bias. It is only through a warped understanding of the elements that we settle on any sort of self devaluation or praise based on element superiority - reliance on stereotypes and descriptions is particularly damaging at this point, seeing as they would lead us all to believe that all SFs ride the short bus and that all NTs rise above man's intellectually defective dribble.

In short, any perceived bias is born out of a lack of understanding.

Who says I rely on stereotypes and descriptions to type people and that I think SFs are stupid and NTs are geniuses? I never said that once in what you quoted from me. If I type people ILE it's because of their overall behaviour or how they appear to me after seeing several video clips of them.

Haha, only the first sentence was directed at you. The rest was directed at the topic's topic.

[Raver]

Who says I rely on stereotypes and descriptions to type people and that I think SFs are stupid and NTs are geniuses? I never said that once in what you quoted from me. If I type people ILE it's because of their overall behaviour or how they appear to me after seeing several video clips of them.

Haha, only the first sentence was directed at you. The rest was directed at the topic's topic.

Haha, Okay.

[somavision]

I've noticed that IEEs and ILEs often have extraordinary difficulty settling on a type. Maybe it's because they want to explore whatever horizons they think living under the impression they are a different type might offer them?

I've had moments where I doubted my type, but they do not last long. My hypothesis is that the difference between IEEs and ILEs is IEEs will look into what the public consensus is in depth as a result of not fully trusting their own reasoning. This then results in them eventually reverting back to their original typing. However with ILEs they will ignore the public consensus in favor of their own reasoning, which they are more confident in and may not return to their original typing for a very long time if ever.

Ha! yes, I agree. Not necessarily as a fixed rule, but generally this is a pattern that I've seen expressed to a noticible extent in others and myself.