Questions, Questions Ev'rywhere

[Cat King Cole]

Between the two types, which do you think is the more likely to extensively use questioning as a cognitive tool? Why?

For example, ILE could win the honor through either being a Reinin Asker, or through being a highly verbal External function. IEE could also take home the prize by virtue of questions being another aspect of their Holographic "x-ray vision" cognitive style.

[consentingadult]

Between the two types, which do you think is the more likely to extensively use questioning as a cognitive tool? Why?

For example, ILE could win the honor through either being a Reinin Asker, or through being a highly verbal External function. IEE could also take home the prize by virtue of questions being another aspect of their Holographic "x-ray vision" cognitive style.

IEE, because of uncertainty resulting from Ti-PoLR. Ti-valueing types, especially Betas, are more likely to implicitly assume that all parties have the same interpretation about what is being said and meant. And it is not only when asking, but also when explaining a point of view: IEEs will go into great detail to make sure the thing is being understood as they meant it and not otherwise.

LSI: when you go out for groceries, get me a kilo of apples!
IEE: what kind of apples, red or green?
LSI: green.
IEE: what kind, golden delicious or granny smith?
LSI: who cares?
IEE: I do, golden delicous are sweet whereas granny smith are sour.
LSI: JUST GET ME SOME FUCKING APPLES!

ETA: just happened a minute ago:

SEI: can you straighten the bed?
IEE: what do you mean, straighten the bed?
SEI: (annoyed) well, straighten the bed!
IEE: what's wrong with it then?
SEI: My knee hurts, I can't do it myself
IEE: (looking at the bed which seems perfectly OK) Okay, but what is wrong with the bed that it needs to be straightened?
SEI: the covers are a mess and the curtains are still closed.
IEE: ah, make the bed, I get it now!

(of course, all of this was in Dutch. My GF used a word that means "straighten" as in "realign")

And this:

My Te HA seems to take the form in a couple notable ways. First off, I almost never speak in absolutes. I tend to qualify my speech with "tend to," "generally," "often times," anything else to qualify that my observations are of repeated patterns and not necessarily set-in-stone formulas. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I habitually badger people for exact precision when they have serious ideas to convey. I don't take too kindly to vague definitions, instead wanting to know exactly what the other person is trying to say instead of trying to follow along a chain of logic they aren't talking about. Generally though, this is something I have some trouble doing myself, although I do try to hold myself to those expectations when asked.

[Codie]

IEE they have +Ti polr.

[consentingadult]

IEE they have +Ti polr.

I don't believe in + and -. But for what it's worth, what does that mean in your opinion?

[Codie]

Well IMO... -, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory, doubting & questioning . + is more narrowing & concerned with confirming things and categorizing them. I've noticed a lot of IEE's have a tendency to as more than 1 or 2 questions in paragraphs & sometimes write walls of text to list all the possible detail instead of narrowing it down to the most important.

[Suz]

IEE, because of uncertainty resulting from Ti-PoLR. Ti-valueing types, especially Betas, are more likely to implicitly assume that all parties have the same interpretation about what is being said and meant. And it is not only when asking, but also when explaining a point of view: IEEs will go into great detail to make sure the thing is being understood as they meant it and not otherwise.

LSI: when you go out for groceries, get me a kilo of apples!
IEE: what kind of apples, red or green?
LSI: green.
IEE: what kind, golden delicious or granny smith?
LSI: who cares?
IEE: I do, golden delicous are sweet whereas granny smith are sour.
LSI: JUST GET ME SOME FUCKING APPLES!

ETA: just happened a minute ago:

SEI: can you straighten the bed?
IEE: what do you mean, straighten the bed?
SEI: (annoyed) well, straighten the bed!
IEE: what's wrong with it then?
SEI: My knee hurts, I can't do it myself
IEE: (looking at the bed which seems perfectly OK) Okay, but what is wrong with the bed that it needs to be straightened?
SEI: the covers are a mess and the curtains are still closed.
IEE: ah, make the bed, I get it now!

(of course, all of this was in Dutch. My GF used a word that means "straighten" as in "realign")

And this:

give some more examples!!

[consentingadult]

give some more examples!!

Why? You're not convinced yet?

[Suz]

Why? You're not convinced yet?

Oh no i'm convinced just from my own example of myself! But i just like examples like that of socionic moments. It helps drive the point home.

[Cat King Cole]

That's a cool thought, CA

I meant "cognitive tool" in the sense of, when engaged in a dialogue with someone, imaginary, real or self, the person brings up lots of questions, or goes into consequences a lot, with phrases such as "which leads to the point", "which raises the question"/"which makes me wonder", "which in turn implies". I could see this as being since the train of thought is being illustrated as it happens.

"Cognitive tool" refers to the fact that one way in which the person thinks is to explore things as being a branching tree of questions; possibly even one of the primary ways.

[consentingadult]

That's a cool thought, CA

I meant "cognitive tool" in the sense of, when engaged in a dialogue with someone, imaginary, real or self, the person brings up lots of questions, or goes into consequences a lot, with phrases such as "which leads to the point", "which raises the question"/"which makes me wonder", "which in turn implies". I could see this as being since the train of thought is being illustrated as it happens.

"Cognitive tool" refers to the fact that one way in which the person thinks is to explore things as being a branching tree of questions; possibly even one of the primary ways.

This makes me wonder how many questions I will need to ask before I understand what you are saying

J/K, you're right, that's another way of looking at it. What you, in effect, are saying, is that answers lead to new questions, and in such terms ILEs are definitively better than IEEs. I can do this line of investigation, but I need a damn good reason before I get involved in such a thing. Perhaps there is a point to what diamond said. Is the Ti in ILEs -Ti? Or is it just creative Ti vs. Ti-PoLR?

[consentingadult]

Oh no i'm convinced just from my own example of myself! But i just like examples like that of socionic moments. It helps drive the point home.

Perhaps we should start a new thread for that in Intertype Relations, so anyone (except Maritsa) can contribute.

[aixelsyd]

I'm inclined to say ILE. ILE's want to know as much relevant information about a subject as possible in order to construct the most accurate model of how something works so they typically ask without discrimination if they feel someone knows important information of something that might aid them in reaching a more complete understanding.

I find IEEs less inclined to ask a lot of questions unless it is in regard to someone who stands as some authority on some particular body of knowledge or unless they want more information about a person to assess that person's psychological motivation and latent talents. However, I imagine that IEEs may be more uncomfortable letting their lack of knowledge or understanding show than ILEs are.

Though I am largely basing this off of my own experience with both types where I'm used to being interrogated by ILEs and lectured by IEEs.

Though I don't know if you mean internal questioning or external questioning. But either way, I think ILEs make it more obvious. If something doesn't make complete sense, they question the reason why without feeling vulnerable in doing so.

[Suz]

I'm inclined to say ILE. ILE's want to know as much relevant information about a subject as possible in order to construct the most accurate model of how something works so they typically ask without discrimination if they feel someone knows important information of something that might aid them in reaching a more complete understanding.

I find IEEs less inclined to ask a lot of questions unless it is in regard to someone who stands as some authority on some particular body of knowledge or unless they want more information about a person to assess that person's psychological motivation and latent talents. However, I imagine that IEEs may be more uncomfortable letting their lack of knowledge or understanding show than ILEs are.
Though I am largely basing this off of my own experience with both types where I'm used to being interrogated by ILEs and lectured by IEEs.

Though I don't know if you mean internal questioning or external questioning. But either way, I think ILEs make it more obvious. If something doesn't make complete sense, they question the reason why without feeling vulnerable in doing so.

YES. u hit that nail right on the head, wookie!

[Creepy-]

Ti-valueing types, especially Betas, are more likely to implicitly assume that all parties have the same interpretation about what is being said and meant.

I think this is oftentimes true, though perhaps alpha NT's are most guilty of this because they are prone to either create new terms or take some already established term but create a new meaning for their own theory/idea and then not define their terms very well if at all. I see definition as being supremely important in a discussion, especially one involving one specific field where there is a lot of technical language, because two people could be saying the same word and think they mean the same thing, while in actuality they are using two completely different definitions for that one word. It is for this reason that I usually ask people how they define certain words if they appear to be using it in a way not consistent with the colloquial or denotative definition of the word. A lot of people get annoyed by my semantic nitpickery and requests for clarification on terms. It is for this reason that I tend to define terms as I am using them in an argument/discussion.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Hello... um lol, if the title were a bit confusing, before I go about describing myself and asking everyone to type me, I was wondering if there's a best way to write about myself? After all, what kind of write-up I do and how I describe myself will certainly bias people toward a certain type! And I want to do this as neutrally and objectively as possible, so I can figure out what my true type is.

There weren't any "how to" threads stickied in here, which by the way I find kind of strange for a "Type Me" forum. It'd be easier if you guys included a model. So I'll try to ask my questions here briefly... because I tend to be long-winded, but anyway. How much detail should I include about myself? What exactly should I write about? My preferences for certain things? What I like to do for fun? What do I do when I'm angry? What do I like to do with friends? What kind of music do I listen to? Etc...

Should I try to do the write-up when I'm in a neutral mood? Or is that being too nitpicky, and it probably won't matter... but do you find it easier to type people when they are happy/angry/sad/XXX/whatever? Should I include examples of me in the writeup where I acted based on different emotions, including what I did, how I acted toward other people, what I thought and felt, etc.

Should I describe my physical self? I looked at the socionics type portraits, and they include physical descriptions. Would describing myself physically bias people's answers? Should I stick mainly with personality type traits?

Also, should I include pictures of myself? I read somewhere that some photos are useless for VI, if the person is making a funny face. Can I include pictures of me smiling? Or do I have to not be smiling so you can see my features better. If I do include pictures, should I include some of me from the side? With friends? Is half-smiling ok?

Whew! Hopefully that's long enough lol. Whatever type I am, I like to have an idea ahead of time of what I'm doing! I like to have things planned out. I definitely like to think before I act. I'm not one to rush into things or take risks... then again, if I have something thoroughly planned out, I feel perfectly comfortable with it, even if it is different from the norm. I tend to be a completionist, leaving no stone unturned...

Hopefully this gives enough clues of my type and thinking style that I won't have to write a long description of myself. Although I'm more than willing to if you need more information! But I do tend to think things through very thoroughly, and if you think you can type me based on what I wrote, go ahead. Much appreciation in advance for either answering my questions or guessing my type.

^ That was my very first post on this forum, from my introductory thread, almost a year and a half ago now. When ENFp was the first suggestion for my type, before I considered all the possibilities, and self-typed pretty much the plethora of the socion. I'd say it shows a good example of Ne.

I'd also say IEEs are more likely to ask more questions, and go on rants asking questions... Ti POLR. ILEs can be long-winded in explanations, but the nature of Ti is to minimize conversation as much as possible. And although ILEs don't favor Te, they are good at it... and I think they aren't up for asking questions in small-talk either. I think IEEs can ask a lot of questions for fun.

What do you think?

[Cat King Cole]

I think it would be safer for this discussion to exclude you as a test subject .

@wookie: excellent that you raised internal vs external questioning. I'm interested in internal questioning. How that might manifest, I'm not sure. Directly in speech is probably a good indicator, since how we interact with imaginary interlocutors sets the patterns by which we interact with real ones. Perhaps; feel free to disagree with me on that one.

[Creepy-Snaps]

You're probably right.

[consentingadult]

I think this is oftentimes true, though perhaps alpha NT's are most guilty of this because they are prone to either create new terms or take some already established term but create a new meaning for their own theory/idea and then not define their terms very well if at all.

This is true. Beta are more stable in this respect, which might in part result from effective socialization mechanisms. Once ingrained, definitions don't change that easily. Alphas are more fluid in that respect. It's the one thing that annoys me most about my SEI gf: her memories of events are constantly evolving.