i'm an ILE
Why you ask?
1. I love Fe creatives
2. fi is boring.. boring shackle.
3. structural logic is sexy
4. Te is te..dious
5. i'm typed as ILE by both my mother and my girlfriend.
6. ILe is liberation
7. I am no expert on social expectations
8. I can be socially awkward
9. I make up logically absurd and morally questionable mental games.
ThankYou.
I'm glad you've finally accepted the truth. I will retype to my TRUE typing in accordance.
Know I'm mistyped?
Why I amnow.
Why I was, once.
DISCLAIMER
The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.
You will be spared in the revolution.
And welcome to the home of those who are detached and twisted, yet seeking emotional comfort.
marry me.
D-SEI9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
Fi isn't boring or a shackle.
Te is just as tedious as Ti, only if you're ego it doesn't seem that way, depends on which you value.
This is a joke, right? Maybe you are ILE or not, but these are pretty poor reasons for typing yourself as ILE except for number 5. Number 8 is just silly as IEEs can be socially awkward as it is not something that only logical types can be.Originally Posted by somavision
Last edited by Raver; 08-21-2011 at 11:14 PM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
You talk about Socionics with your mom and girlfriend? Like in person? How nerdly of you. I guess you can be ILE in that case.
What type are your mom and girlfriend by the way?
IEE Ne Creative Type
Someand role lovin too. (
) I
You always did seem less retarded than the other ENFps.
No joke. Number 1 is a good reason, in general I often seem to get on with Fe creatives better than Te creatives, intertype relations are a valid tool for self typing. However I am considering the situation for a while longer.This is a joke, right? Maybe you are ILE or not, but these are pretty poor reasons for typing yourself as ILE except for number 5. Number 7 is just silly as IEEs can be socially awkward as it is not something that only logical types can be.
There is still one significant reason for doubting myself as an ILE and that is, whilst i tend to have a strong natural understanding of novel logical concepts, I have difficulty in reducing these down to their simplest form and expressing these systems verbally, for me this is the key to having strong Ti.
If only I couldmarry me.
There is a tendancy to think and act in ways that support and confirm the identities that we create for ourselves. Once we take on a type, we will adjust our ways of thinkig to match the identity. In this sense whether I am a Te ot Ti ego is not what is significant, what is significant is how my self typing affects my cognition. I wish to avoid my personality type becoming a self fufilling prophecy
what a fascinating sentence.
Last edited by somavision; 08-21-2011 at 11:19 PM.
I see, fair enough. Perhaps you are either Ne-IEE or Ne-ILE, which makes it difficult for you to figure out if you have strongerNo joke. Number 1 is a good reason, in general I often seem to get on with Fe creatives better than Te creatives, intertype relations are a valid tool for self typing. However I am considering the situation for a while longer.
There is still one significant reason for doubting myself as an ILE and that is, whilst i tend to have a strong natural understanding of novel logical concepts, I have difficulty in reducing these down to their simplest form and expressing these systems verbally, for me this is the key to having strong Ti.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Yes, that's my problem exactly. I identify greatly with IEE's, really it's just theI see, fair enough. Perhaps you are either Ne-IEE or Ne-ILE, which makes it difficult for you to figure out if you have stronger
heavy atmospheres
I am certain that i have a natural disposition towards being either an IEE or ILE however I have this suspicion that due to the relative closeness in inherent ability in both
Thaks for the reply, it has been food for thought.
You seem like a pretty serious person, and by that I mean a non-merry type (
IEE Ne Creative Type
Some
I always thought that avatar of yours screamed ILE, or at least it appeals strongly to me. That might just be a coincidence though...
Ah ok, this is interesting. Yes, perhapsYou seem like a pretty serious person, and by that I mean a non-merry type (
Cool, cheers. It's the Sacred Chao of Discordianism, I too think it's very ILE. Discordianism itself I think is ILE.
1. yes
You talk about Socionics with your mom and girlfriend? Like in person? How nerdly of you. I guess you can be ILE in that case.
What type are your mom and girlfriend by the way?
2. yes
3. LII and SEI respectively.
Last edited by somavision; 08-22-2011 at 09:12 AM.
This is really, a counter-argument for ILE and it correlates with your good observation that Ti types, esp Alpha NTs, narrow things down to the core principles, because this is how they can grasp things, structurally. Now if you are careful enough, these two traits are contradictory, my opinion is that the only reason for believing that ILEs use to make absurd games in their minds as a hobby - even if spontaneously - is the word of mouth, false attributions that are cast onto this type by the forum culture. I'm saying that because really, the reference doesn't mention such things, they were only deduced [1] by a boundless, equivocal interpretation [2], because in fact the "crazy/absurd" ILE ideas are not intended as nonsensical/absurd in themselves, certainly not consciously, but they make inner logical sense to them, and precisely because they transcend immediate factual reality at the same time being so "real" to them - sometimes the future proves they were right - they are so assertive in teaching others such things, that are wrongly considered by others as personal to the ILEs [3], quirky, creative anti-conformist, "nuts".
The same goes for morally-questionable thoughts and deeds, firstly the ILEs are generally amoral persons, their technical, lawyer-like view on things forbids them to truly recognize morality, something of theirs that ends-up as judged as "questionable" by the society is only a matter of a 3rd person perspective, subjective at the same time, something that IMO by definition should fall outside the philosophical scope of the ILE. Playing with such things sounds even more weird - the type most prone to them IME is IEI.
If my views can be taken as directly springing from at least some fundamental ILE attributes, as a representative of this type I would add that fanciness was never my strong point, but I find it pointless and a turn-off. I'm somehow confident that even with a different life track I would have been similar to my current personality regarding this aspect, having that although I changed a lot with age, I always considered this kind of creations (as well as morality) as human, artificial, cultural, formal, while I have found value only in the Nature itself, or anything that I could believe to be natural, fundamental, or universal.
I also gather that some approaches you use, somavision, are not something common among ILEs, inappropriate, I'd say. One would be that you're a good, very detailed, social observer, something that reminds me of SLIs, or Sensory Introverts in general. You memorably impersonated several authentic (IMO) characters. This is, talking solely by my experience, unfit even for IEEs who like ILEs are big picture persons, vague/fuzzy and more self-centered.
And finally, as someone else noted, you present yourself as a Serious (Te-Valuing) type. You base your arguments on factual and historical data, quotations, extensionality instead of intensionality; the important, fundamental truths you're learning and synthesizing rather than deducing, having a good memory for them - correct me if I'm wrong in all this statement. Packing this together with the former insights, my options narrow-down to ESI and SLI. However, I have reasons to consider the former, much more. I think first of all that you're a Static type, besides Fi Ego always making sense, I think it's safe to qualify you as a portrayer, rather than an evaluator of deeds, namely unlike Dynamic types in general and SLI in particular. Besides, if I'm interpreting your history correctly, although socially awkward, you're more inclined towards the hectic rather than leisurely, distinction that contrasts the Decisive Rationals with Judicious Irrationals [4], thing that would make complete sense when one compares the two mentioned types. In important matters, you seem usually limited to (and spontaneously mobilized by) the official, academic and authoritative, or in anything that has the potential of being qualified as such, many times you have hinted to this interest already.
As you know, my former typing on you is ESI as well, and while this analysis may not be sufficient to confirm a certain type, it helps me in explaining my disagreement with the hypothesis in OP and, to a lesser extent, with Ne Irrational. Hmmm... would be my suspicion correct if I believe you associate creativity with Ne up to some extent? If you think it would be of some use, you could sum up your reasons for considering Ne (and especially Ne Irrational) in a precise manner, in order to analyze them and figure out whether they are fully justified, or can be interpreted differently.
---
[1] - if we can call such incorrect inference like that.
[2] - yes, we may call Don and perhaps other ILE characters as "absurd", just in specific respects - see the follow-up.
[3] - while in fact ILEs, Logical types, consider that their insights make independent sense, something that should apply to anyone.
[4] - basically, these are the extremes, in theory.
Last edited by The Ineffable; 08-22-2011 at 01:30 PM.
I'm sure if you learnt how to read, you'd realize that I would find it of no use whatsover.
To answer the rest of your post, your reasoning for me not being an ILE from this thread is good.
Your'e arguement for me not being an IEE, from my ability to occasionally play-act is not sufficient, and does not stand up to any kind of thorough examination. Nor does your assumptions regarding my understanding of Ne.
If you think it is worthwhile having a serious discussion re my type, please re-address this and we can continue.
Perhaps focus on cognitive exploration rather than subjective assumptions based on perceived behaviours.
**edit** I will describe how I see Ne, I will describe how it effects my life. This will be posted shortly. We can code it together. Please let me know what perspective you will be approaching the coding from.
This purpose of this post is to respond to Ephys suggection that i write about my understanding of Ne. This is something that i am
happy to do, however having studied this subject for so long and as I have explained in a earlier post, as concerned about my typing
becoming a self fufilling prophecy, to avoid self confirming schemas. What would the best way of doing this be, IM's don't exist in isolation,
to talk about Ne without considering the other IM's as ego functions (of course this has been considered, reflected upon, cross checked using blind
conditions with those I know, and explained to humour affable yet awkward Romanians), of course this will not totally eliminate any risk of
bias, however by typing as a stream of consciousness (I may edit the grammar and spelling before posting, but not the content) I hopwe that I will
present my subjective understanding of the IM and how they relate to me. Once this has been done a thorough, consistent and methodical analysis
can be undertaken.
Ne The word that I will choose is interesting. When I first read the description of Ne this
is the one that stood out. Amoungst anything else this is what sparks my mind. Novelty,
I'm in a novelty band, I started a novelty religion, I have began so may half baked philosophies.
EDIT - Of course these things will not prove to anyone that I'm an Ne ego, another reasonable explanation
can be found if someone is looking for one, however the point is these behaviours are examples of how my mind works, what it does- I look for potential within people and things and then move on, which I shouldn't (I'm actually on a stable career trajectory now - so hopefully all good. -
and started so many jobs and ventures it drives me mad, I've been an art dealer and . I want to be where possibilities are pregnant.
If I were to describe what I'm strongest at it is looking at multiple perspectives over a short period of time, not making conclusion, however looking for inconsistencies, patterns, trying to see what can exist that would produce these patterns. By looking for meaning rather than assuming meaning, I am able to gain an unusuakl understanding of situations (this has been measured and assessed)
Se how do I understand this, volitional force.
I have have a weak awareness of the concrete physical world around me, it has often been said that I seem disconnected from the world in which I live
I have a poor understanding of how to get what I want, when I do try to be forceful (when stressed for example) , I tend to be incredibly
clumsy and disproportionate, I cannot use the measured exacting level of force that Se egos use, I'm not in control.
Si I cannot look after myself, I have no need to for details or my physical wellbeing, I appreciate those who look after me,
who make my living easier, those who allow me to explore ideas and situations. I like food, I often don't eat well, my girlfriedn is so good in that
she makes sure I eat well and regularly, she does the laundry, I help but it's so good knowing that she has this structure.
She often tells me what to do, she mothers me in some respects, "make sure you eat" "do you need washing done" This of course is the
gritty unglamourous side of Si, The best part is her knowing where to go out to eat, knowing what places are nice, her aesthetic taste,
she decorates the house so well, everything is balanced in colour and comfort. She rock.
Ni, during times of stress I have have drifted into a dream like imgaination, but I don't really get it, it seems too centred, visionary.
It is imagination but one that either is or isn't. It's good but not for me.
Thanks Ephy, perhaps this was of some use after all..... or not...
Last edited by somavision; 08-22-2011 at 03:50 PM.
This is perhaps a misunderstanding, that was not my argument regarding IEE. There were two proeminent ones against it:
- being detailed and accurate in your observations; as I said, IEEs are big picture persons, vague and "main idea" in their reproductions. ILEs as well.
- relying to a large extent on the official and on authority - things that you have not yet confirmed or infirmed, though.
That's what I did, or at least I proceeded for. The perception, motivation and mindset emerge indirectly from these details as usual, the fundamental methodology for typing, unless we consider typing someone else requiring mind reading, literally, which was never the case in personality diagnosis. As an additional note, I can't overlook this recurrent "you don't know me" coming from Fi types [1] that was previously discussed on this forum. The idea that the personality of a 3rd person can't be determined objectively would invalidate the raison d'etre of typing [2], though, we have to have this agreed upon, even if you consider it to be merely formal.
That would be a pretty convincing point in a certain interpretation, just it lacks precisely a condition you specified earlier: cognition. The important thing is how you view these things, why do you do them, what do they mean to you? I hope we agree that Ni valuers are with nothing below Ne valuers in this respect, starting with the revolutionary and idealistic Betas, ending with the visionary and venturing Gammas.
That belongs, in my understanding, to the realm of Ni. Multiple perspectives and possibilities are already a distinctive sign for Ni Valuing, and if you let in the Model A theory, it is not possible to be Ne, Bodies information, where the actual cognitive usefulness stands in the *actual objects* - the big picture and potential do not depend on the number of perspectives you take, but in how much empirical information you can connect. Additionally, the conclusion is one (at a certain time) and bound to this available information, holistically, one can change it oneself solely by having a better understanding, which anyway means just seeing more details that are already there anyway and dismissing the older one at the point. Since you say your view is mutable without changes in the objects, it means it is not object information.
In layman's terms: you can't produce Bodies (Objects - Extroverted) information by seeing something differently than you actually see! The internal process that reveals the radiography of reality for the two Intuitions differ radically. Take this analogy: the sight of a reptile on a simple (ground) background. Immediate perception can distinguish whether it is a lizard or a dinosaur based on its morphological traits, or cannot tell anything about it at all - that would correspond to Sensorial perception. However, Intuition requires a greater context that may override the immediate perception [3] but in different manners:
- the first one, that corresponds to Ne, mandates the usage of other objects in order to draw the bigger picture, in our case zooming out and see a larger background, like either too high grass or too small trees. You draw a conclusion that you cannot change unless the bigger picture changes again.
- the other one, corresponding to Ni, does not require the other objects, the context is internal, imaginary, all you need is a different perspective on the object, you decide how you see it, what possibilities if offers in different scenarios. Not only that you can do this in the absence of the original object entirely [4], but you cannot draw a conclusion since all the perspectives are equal and also you can transcend all the objective constraints to see them both at the same time [5].
Remember that ESIs are not forceful, but compliant. They're not direct go-getters and cannot manage concrete activities that brings a gain or power, but they are often the allies of the majority, the authority and the powerful. That is a big confusion people make regarding the manifestation of Se, associating with forcefulness literally, which AFAIK is not applicable (again, literally) to Se-Base, too.
Here I remind you once more about your former argument of cognition: someone being forceful or aggressive in behavior is not an indicative for Se, but in fact it is when someone indicates that he/she perceives the world through power, influence or strength [6]. One example is the stereotypical career politicians, to whom the naive ideal of someone up there being sincere and taking care of us is not applicable, but who understands that personal freedom means power and the rest is merely means for this purpose. Really, these people are nothing even close to being forceful, but the opposite, they are diplomatic and know how to speak and earn the trust of people.
Not sure about your detachment from the physical world, that may be a point... many people can be detached, and I'm not saying that to trivialize this distinction which I sometimes use as an indicative, but I personally know detached Sensory people, especially highly busy, preoccupied or intellectual persons. I honestly never asked specifically this question to Sensory types - in our case ESIs, who are primarily Fi, remember - neither I think my experience IRL would be credible to you, but I think you could ask around for testimonies. I don't consider this too much since one's information processing, the way one understands and views things, weights much more to me than these superficial details, which often depend on the lifestyle.
What do you think about giving up your pursuits in times of hardship, when they become a burden, too stressful or not worthing the effort? What do you think about finding excuses for giving up, do you think they are overall justified, since you're anyway not motivated enough anymore? Do you think promises necessarily must be kept if there is no reason to drop them (eg. the person has done soemthing unacceptable)?
Interesting things you said relating to Si. What do you do when you're not taken care of? Are you always surrounded by caring people?
Your gf sounds like an Ej. That is not necessarily Si - although appears so - though that is apparently Te or Fe Base. Irrationals reject to be told what and when to do, being scheduled so strictly, if you're not bothered by that - let alone finding it welcome - I have good news for you: you likely have finally found your real temperament.
---
[1] - also Te, who however mention the complete factual knowledge of the "real" background and behavior as doing the trick. We already know why this happens, because of the distinction between the wide factual knowledge that makes immediate sense in its totality of Te Valuing and the internal inference of what makes rational sense, regardless of the amount of detail, of Ti Valuing.
[2] - Socionics would be entirely "subjective" otherwise, like you mention to be my case.
[3] - which is precisely why they conflict with sensing two-by-two, one is the negation of the other.
[4] - I assume it is noted that the case is particular and deals with objects, which in absence of other details reveals the former as the usage of a standalone Extroverted function, while the latter as the application of an Introverted function to Bodies information already assimilated by another.
[5] - metaknowledge and relativism, intrinsic to Fields Internal information (Ni, Fi).
[6] - instead of say expecting unanimous agreement on truth, understanding or sympathy. The simple and obvious "you can't do something unless you have the strength to do it".
- I am interested in why you see me as being detailed and accurate in my observations. based upon the example you provided. all I have seen from this is that you have drawn a conclusion of my cognitive processes based upon a generalised behaviour. Is your point of objective value/ a the moment, I don't think so.This is perhaps a misunderstanding, that was not my argument regarding IEE. There were two proeminent ones against it:
- being detailed and accurate in your observations; as I said, IEEs are big picture persons, vague and "main idea" in their reproductions. ILEs as well.
- relying to a large extent on the official and on authority - things that you have not yet confirmed or infirmed, though.
- O.K. so why did you mention this? If you are really on an objective search for truth, pleae avoid the danger of these kind of schematic conclusions.
Very interesting, what type of information do you place greatest value on, when seeking these hidden motivations. I do not argue that you do not know me, rather I am interested in how you select information when you construct your 'knowledge of others'. Of course, you know me from the information I have transmitted, you have received and in turn interpreted. I am, in particular, interested in what information you choose to accept, and what information you choose to discard. I am also interested in your method of interpretation.
For example, what value do you give self reporting in comparison to your interpretation of perceived behaviour.
What value do you place testing. To what extent do you account for your own position when reaching your conclusions?
I would also be very interested in how you gauge peoples understanding of socionics on their own terms.
I'm generally going to ignore responding to the bulk of the rest of your post, again we're looking at cognition, you have misunderstood everything I have said and followed no method whatsoever. If anything you seem to be using some kind of pseudo-psychodynamic quackey, claiming this as objective, when even if what you weren't saying was a load of bollocks, this kind of interpretation is a subjective apporoach. I have never read so many bad interpretations of words or thought.
Please don't waste my time or yours any further with this psuedo-objective bullshit. Look at what is being said and in the context it is being said. If you are trying to be objective, please do this and avoid presenting qualitative interpretations as an objective truth. However if you wish to present your interepretations in a measured, considered and insightful qualitative fashion, this would of course be welcome.
If you care to, please try again.
Last edited by somavision; 08-23-2011 at 01:15 PM.
No you're not; you're declaring something in this thread making you a declaring type; ILEs are an asking type.
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p..._and_declaring
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Making a declaration does not in itself make me a declaring type.No you're not; you're declaring something in this thread making you a declaring type; ILEs are an asking type.
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p..._and_declaring
Although you are right of course.
ILE AND in London? You shall be my new friend
I think ILE's are about order, not chaos, about explanation and understanding and revealing more of the world.Ah ok, this is interesting. Yes, perhapsYou seem like a pretty serious person, and by that I mean a non-merry type (
Cool, cheers. It's the Sacred Chao of Discordianism, I too think it's very ILE. Discordianism itself I think is ILE.
1. yes
You talk about Socionics with your mom and girlfriend? Like in person? How nerdly of you. I guess you can be ILE in that case.
What type are your mom and girlfriend by the way?
2. yes
3. LII and SEI respectively.
I'm not typing you but I think it's a common misconception that ILE are random or what not, this is imo far from the truth.
I agree. I stated that I saw discordianism as ILE, actually to be more specific I see it as pure Ne. The actual basis of the book seem less about chaos and more about that point where chaos and order meet, a questioning of certainties whilst recognising the structures that are made within the mind. it is essentially a system that subverts humourosly faith based beliefs.
I think ILE's are about order, not chaos, about explanation and understanding and revealing more of the world.
I'm not typing you but I think it's a common misconception that ILE are random or what not, this is imo far from the truth.
However if you have the time, I'd value any further contribution to this thread
IEE-Ne
Well the good news is I am in (near..ish) London. Bad news is....ILE AND in London? You shall be my new friend
I'm not really an ILE, I'm an IEE who sometimes likes to kid myself into thinking I might be an ILE.
Actually more specifically I'm interested in seeing the IM's as dynamic and competing elements, rather than static and stable (although I see our overall type as stable) in that the operational strength and our ability to use any particular IM may be influenced by the general psychic environment, potentially giving rise to transient changes in apparent types. This would only happen where the range of potential strenghts of the creative and polr overlap.... this is really only speculation at this time, however I think that there is a body of evidence relating to other areas of psychology, that suggest there may be some truth in this.
Anyhoo, If you still wish to make a bold declaration of friendship, I'll not oppose such a statement.
IEE-Ne
At the end of my last post, there are two sets of questions. They are just questions, not interpretations, I see no reason why you avoid answering them.
What you see is possibly the source of the problem. Perhaps in the interests of understaning motivation, it is worth considering, what reason have you given me for answering them, rather, do you not agree?
I am interested to know why you attribute 'avoidence' to my lack of response to your questions?
Frankly I do not find you to be a reliable or engaging witness. It makes little sense for me to spend energy to answeryour questions when historically, the majority of your intereptations of semantic information and speculations regarding motivations is fundamentally flawed. Regardless of whether any new interpretation shines any new yet undiscovered light or whether you again spout your usual off the mark interpretations is yet to be seen, however even a child should be able to infer from my last post reason for my lack of response to your questions. However...
You are wrong in your interpretation of my temperement (although EII is far less ridiculous than ESI) and also totally wrong in your initial impression of my girlfriends. Her energy patterns and temperement is overwhelmingly IP
Which pursuits?What do you think about giving up your pursuits in times of hardship, when they become a burden, too stressful or not worthing the effort?
**Edit** In general terms, I have a broad long term path, what I am doing immediately is of little consequence as long as I continue to move in that general direction of becoming all that I can be then it is all good. If anything times of hardship give me a stronger perspective on those things that are really important to me; In the immediate, food, shelter clothing. In the general, friends, family, work and in the future; growth, learning, progression, success, hopes and plans.
Some promises have greater weight than others. I tend to overbook myself, try to do all things at once, sometimes something has to give, then I prioritise, usually depending on who was the most recent person I let down. Most people know I'm not particularly reliable, however I try to be dependable when it is required.What do you think about finding excuses for giving up, do you think they are overall justified, since you're anyway not motivated enough anymore? Do you think promises necessarily must be kept if there is no reason to drop them (eg. the person has done soemthing unacceptable)?
Please clarify what you mean in this respect?What do you do when you're not taken care of? Are you always surrounded by caring people?
In general terms, if I live by myself, when I've been single. I tended to live a very unregulated life, no structure or routine whatsoever, I'll sleep too much, too little or not at all, I'll get lost in thought or a book, game or project, I'll leave my laundery and washing until tomorrow, then the next day and then the day after, until I have no more clothes. I'll go out and meet a friedn or go to a new town and city just for the sake of it, I'll spend all my money and realise I cannot eat or get to work, so I end up walking for miles to get where I need to go. I'd see that something was happening in the city an event that might prove to be a catalyst for future events and I would call in sick and go see it. Now that I am in this Si relationship, I find it far easier to focus my attention, to refine and prioritise my thinking and pursuits. I have found a satisfying balance in my life that is helping me to reaslize my potential. I do not mind being told that I need to eat as I know it is something that I forget to do. I don't in general like being told what to do though.
With regards to your second question, I am not always surrounded by anyone.
If you wish to continue this discussion, it would perhaps be helpful to me if you could answer my question. I particular regarding your perception of me as detail>big picture.
I am also your aim of obtaining an objective result from a subjective methodology?
Thank You and I look forward to your reply
Last edited by somavision; 09-13-2011 at 12:51 PM.
IEE-Ne
That's just absurd.
Might be more troll related. As in, prod for response, measure response thing. Kind of as an objective litmus test to gauge external perception of self.That's just absurd.
Last edited by somavision; 09-13-2011 at 11:59 AM.
IEE-Ne
Because that's what you've done... this is a thread about your type, but instead of answering the questions and talking about your personality, you turned it in a questionary addressed to me. This was surprising, you make too much fuss about my opinion for no obvious reason.What you see is possibly the source of the problem. Perhaps in the interests of understaning motivation, it is worth considering, what reason have you given me for answering them, rather, do you not agree?
I am interested to know why you attribute 'avoidence' to my lack of response to your questions?
I don't see any problem with making suppositions about you, there's no need to be concerned. When the physician, asks you whether your <whatever body part> hurts in connection to something else, it does not mean he/she believes it actually hurts, but expects input from you in order to qualify your state among several possible ones existing in his knowledge. That's how such investigations go.
Most of it is things people generally do, the bold however is an indicative of Se. This is the distinction I wanted to make, tough challenges generally make the purposes more valuable for Se/Ni valuers, but less appealing for Ne/Si valuers. If this can't precisely point towards a type, I can at least easier contrast ESI (Se Rational, my typing) and IEE (Ne Irrational, your typing).
Being taken cared of does not necessarily mean something when one is surrounded by caring people, that was my point. Generally, people who are overly pampered don't learn to take care of themselves.
The difference in perception between Se and Ne types is one of the most important differences between the corresponding types, AFAIK. Seomeone who approaches things directly, literally, as they are, is improbable to be Ne type; and the vice-versa, someone who makes his/her impression on things indirectly, through connections in a big picture only.
Because that's what you've done... this is a thread about your type, but instead of answering the questions and talking about your personality, you turned it in a questionary addressed to me. This was surprising, you make too much fuss about my opinion for no obvious reason.What you see is possibly the source of the problem. Perhaps in the interests of understaning motivation, it is worth considering, what reason have you given me for answering them, rather, do you not agree?
I am interested to know why you attribute 'avoidence' to my lack of response to your questions?
I don't see any problem with making suppositions about you, there's no need to be concerned. When the physician, asks you whether your <whatever body part> hurts in connection to something else, it does not mean he/she believes it actually hurts, but expects input from you in order to qualify your state among several possible ones existing in his knowledge. That's how such investigations go.
Nonsense, my questions are perfectly reasonable. When a man assumes the position of a physician and ascribes the other the role of patient being investigated. It is necessary for an understanding to be developed, the physicians espertise must be understood, his skills and methods. I have prodeed you to see whether you display any aptitude in mentalization. I have asked you how you use subjective methods to acheive objective results. I have asked you why you draw conclusions where evidence is not presented. Now of course you have told me why you ask questions around the topic, of course I knew what you were aiming to acheive, you had of course already informed me that you were looking (sorry i cannot remeber your exact words) either hidden or deeper motivations, now of course this is fine, if you have the understanding to see and interpret these with some accuracy, however without the non-verbal clues, or skilled understanding to interpret psychological defense mechanisms (do you recall me asking you about projecting in the 'mistyped' thread all that time ago? ) far better results to self knowledge are to be gained from self reporting. Besides, the relationship between a physician and patient is one of expert and novice. You are no expert, you have done nothing to demonstarte that you are an expert. On the contrary, when it comes to understanding others (perhaps the most important matter when it comes to typology) you are amoungst the worst on this forum. I am happy to answer questions, when there is a point to answering them, when the person that asks them has demonstrated key qualities of mentalisation and placement of themselves within their analysis.
This aside, the theories and concepts of socionics are so simple that given time, and discussion, anyone with average intelligence, reasonable emotional congruance and self knowledge can easily determine their own type. (This, by the way is part of the reason i find discusiions with you so irritating, if we were looking at this from the viewpoint of a transactional analysist, I would be trying to engage you on adult to adult terms, however you assume the role of parent talking to a child.) Saying that I appreciate that you answered one of my questions. To follow up on this.
I tend not to take things literally. I am an abstract thinker, I am mainly concerned with placing snippets of information into a broader scheme ( although not necessarily a logical one), I am very interested in context and meaning. I am drawn to post-structuralist thinking and when not caught up as the central subject of the conversation, tend to be more than dept at finding and interepting multiple layers of meaning, however I am relfective of course of my own position and subjectivity when interpreting meaning (as of course with all inferences, it is ourselves that create the illusion of not only the mind that creates the text but also the one the reads the text). So in this sense I am not one who tends to take things literally. I've always got an eye on the big picture.
[quote=The Ineffable;809154]EDIT. I neglected to respond to this. I agree with you, however the opposite is also true. The socionic relevance of any information I give, is of course dependent on a far wider range of circumstances.
Within me, strong cognitive resonance exists towards the semantic descriptions of Si seeking, in particular as my suggestive function.
Interesting I'm inclined to disagree with you. You have asked a generalised and leading question and picked up on a point of shifting priorities dependent on external circumstances as a symptom of decisive>judiciousness. If anything this refinement of immediate immediate physical and emotinal requirements combined with the abandonment of fixed goals in favour of generalised long term growth aims (as implicitly stated in my post) is more akin to the judicious attitude. My post does not talk about the "purposes becoming more valuable", my meaning of perspective does not equate to value. Merely to an awareness of shifting priorities. e.g. abandoning a plan for a holiday which would have previously had a high priority, in favour of realising that eating is more important. Deciding that maybe I don't need that amazing new job and that any job will now do. This meaning as intended does not seem to be what you interpreted it as.
If you wish to use this kind of discourse analysis in typing people, it may help you to start using a system of paraphrasing before reaching conclusions to establish a clear understanding of shared meaning. What do you think about this?
I apologise for my sloppy syntax, thoughts get written in the way they do, often half finished.
Last edited by somavision; 09-15-2011 at 03:01 PM.
IEE-Ne
Oh okay, then.Might be more troll related. As in, prod for response, measure response thing. Kind of as an objective litmus test to gauge external perception of self.
Effy
I've edited part of my response to your last post re my type. And have addressed your comment regarding purposes and the value placed upon them and your extrapolation of meaning from my posts with regards to this.
I hope you find time to respond to this and the other points raised. I'm particularly interested in your opinion of my (attempted) critiques of your methods of psychological investigation.
Last edited by somavision; 09-15-2011 at 02:01 PM.
IEE-Ne
It's due to confusion with Effie, who is ScarletLuxx.
Maybe I started it with calling him Ephy. I don't know.
Know I'm mistyped?
Why I am
Why I was
DISCLAIMER
The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.
I answered your questions. I see no reason why you avoid answering the questions I have asked in response to your questions and conclusions.
IEE-Ne
I like Effie, where does it come from, does it have a connotation I don't know? Sounds strange it can be applied to both me and Scarlett...
@somavision: I haven't even answered yet, you could have said that if I had answered ignoring the imperative issues, it's a difference. But there are a lot of things I want to reply to on the forum and I don't have that much the time anymore (after all these years, I'm again full-time employee).
Cheers Effie, understood. I enjoy our discussions and I'm sure that they'll continue into the future. And I am sure that the quality of my responses have been compromised by hasty responses and hazy replies. I'll hear from you when I hear from you.
IEE-Ne
Sounds like one of those "I like the type better" arguements.
Perhaps, yes certainly it may seem that way. It was certainly not a proper arguement. I certainly don't like the idea of ILE more than IEE though. The post was inspired by a range of motives, that specifically (in the sense of 'liking' one more than the other) was not one of them.Sounds like one of those "I like the type better" arguements.
IEE-Ne
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
