SLE INFP E4

[squirreltual]

... Yes. Yes, I know. Could this ever happen?

[redbaron]

could what ever happen?

[squirreltual]

a person fitting the combination in the post title

[redbaron]

you mean one person who is both ESTp and INFp? I guess, if you believe in dual type theory a la tcaud (I don't even know if *he* believes in that anymore).

[squirreltual]

I meant a socionics SLE and an MBTI INFP. I know they are different systems... but it still seems unlikely.

[tcaudilllg]

Ah some think Bush is that type. Others think he's an LSE.

[krieger]

nope.

[Pookie]

Me.

[Gilly]

SLE and INFP? Sure.

SLE and E4? Not likely. An SLE typed/self-typed as 4 is more likely an sx-primary or so-last 3w4.

[squirreltual]

Me.

[World Socionics]

SLE and INFP? Sure.

SLE and E4? Not likely. An SLE typed/self-typed as 4 is more likely an sx-primary or so-last 3w4.

Actually I'd say a moody, hypersensitive (can happen from Fi PoLR) and self-absorbed SLE can quite possibly be a 4. Such an SLE could easily use Se to forcibly push around their surroundings, deriving a needed sense of uniqueness and significance from being the only person in the room with the will to get things done.

[Gilly]

Doubtful. Its "theoretically possible," sure, but that means nothing. I've never met an SLE 4 and I don't see it as likely.

[Gilly]

Also your interpretation of Se strikes me as incredibly simplistic. Please read more.

[Gilly]

You've also grossly misinterpreted the root of the 4 fixation and the developmental process behind it. Being a 4 doesn't revolve solely around "feeling special and unique." The sense of "specialness" stems from social shame, not just "being different." Again, read more plz.

[glam]

idk but the idea of an SLE INFP seems kind of hard to believe.

i don't see socionics information elements and MBTI's cognitive functions as being so radically different from each other as to where a socionics SeTi could reasonably identify with MBTI FiNe above all other MBTI types.

i can understand combinations such as an ILE-Ti typing themselves INTP (TiNe in MBTI), or an intellectually-oriented EIE typing themselves ENTJ (TeNi in MBTI), and stuff like that. but socionics SLE just seems too far off from MBTI INFP, imho.

[World Socionics]

Doubtful. Its "theoretically possible," sure, but that means nothing. I've never met an SLE 4 and I don't see it as likely.

Also your interpretation of Se strikes me as incredibly simplistic. Please read more.

You've also grossly misinterpreted the root of the 4 fixation and the developmental process behind it. Being a 4 doesn't revolve solely around "feeling special and unique." The sense of "specialness" stems from social shame, not just "being different." Again, read more plz.

There are 6 billion people in the world and growing. The existence of unusual type combinations is expected.

Se as in the use of willful force in order to achieve one's desires in the immediate environment. Do you have a more complex interpretation? If it's from a document I haven't already read, do post it or I'll have to continue to annoy you with my ignorance

4 as in someone who is fixated on forming a self-identity and who tries to establish this unique identity through perceived unique gifts, flaws and experiences.

The aspect of social shame is simply a means of forming this self-identity: "I am unique because I alone am inept in this social area. This is who I am: a socially inept person.". It is not fundamental to being a 4 and so is not part of the definition.

A SLE 4 can be like this: "I am uniquely powerful in my ability to take charge of the situation and achieve my desires. I am also uniquely flawed in not being able to see the consequences of my actions and in being insensitive to others. This is my self-identity."
@squirreltual Did he by any chance go to prison? I can imagine a SLE 4 committing a violent crime and seeing his imprisonment, i.e. his suffering and punishment for going against society where others has not, as a result of his unique flaw... a hamartia if you will.

[World Socionics]

idk but the idea of an SLE INFP seems kind of hard to believe.

i don't see socionics information elements and MBTI's cognitive functions as being so radically different from each other as to where a socionics SeTi could reasonably identify with MBTI FiNe above all other MBTI types.

i can understand combinations such as an ILE-Ti typing themselves INTP (TiNe in MBTI), or an intellectually-oriented EIE typing themselves ENTJ (TeNi in MBTI), and stuff like that. but socionics SLE just seems too far off from MBTI INFP, imho.

MBTI Cognitive Functions are cognitive. Socionics Information Elements are metabolic i.e. mostly behavioural, hence they don't overlap at any point. Although intuitively it doesn't seem right for someone to have completely different types in the two systems, there's actually no direct contradiction and so it's perfectly possible.

I've met a few interesting combinations... an ESFJ IEI, an INTJ IEI, 2 ENFJ LSIs, an INTJ ILE, an ISFJ ILI and even an ESTJ IEI. I distinctly remember the last of these feeling as if he were two different people based on how he thought (acquired and evaluated information based on his cognitive functions) and how he acted (metabolised that information into modes of behaviour based on his information elements).

[Gilly]

There are 6 billion people in the world and growing. The existence of unusual type combinations is expected.

This is the only useful part of your post. The rest was just wankery, you taking liberty with functional definitions by abusing popular overly simplified definitions.

By definition, Se is the perception of "external involved statics of objects". That is the only "definition" of Se; anything simpler than that is just a selective medley of commonly associated terms, nothing more than a meme.

Unfortunately for you, socionics.us, the best source for translated and first-hand knowledge of socionics theory, is now defunct. You'll have to do searches for "information metabolism" if you really want to learn something.

@squirreltual Did he by any chance go to prison? I can imagine a SLE 4 committing a violent crime and seeing his imprisonment, i.e. his suffering and punishment for going against society where others has not, as a result of his unique flaw... a hamartia if you will.

What bullshit...one would not have to be an SLE 4 to view imprisonment this way. You are trying to create a fake archetype out of your meddling perception and selective characterization of something that, as far as you know, doesn't even exist. If you did, you would've been giving us examples by now.

[Gilly]

MBTI Cognitive Functions are cognitive. Socionics Information Elements are metabolic i.e. mostly behavioural, hence they don't overlap at any point. Although intuitively it doesn't seem right for someone to have completely different types in the two systems, there's actually no direct contradiction and so it's perfectly possible.

I've met a few interesting combinations... an ESFJ IEI, an INTJ IEI, 2 ENFJ LSIs, an INTJ ILE, an ISFJ ILI and even an ESTJ IEI. I distinctly remember the last of these feeling as if he were two different people based on how he thought (acquired and evaluated information based on his cognitive functions) and how he acted (metabolised that information into modes of behaviour based on his information elements).

Hooooo boy, I smell our next renegade theory quack a-brewing...

[Raver]

... Yes. Yes, I know. Could this ever happen?

Yes, but only in never never land.

Anyways, I think people tend to overestimate the differences between MBTI and Socionics.

[World Socionics]

By definition, Se is the perception of "external involved statics of objects". That is the only "definition" of Se; anything simpler than that is just a selective medley of commonly associated terms, nothing more than a meme.

I'm sorry, weren't you trying to give a LESS simple definition?

Unfortunately for you, socionics.us, the best source for translated and first-hand knowledge of socionics theory, is now defunct. You'll have to do searches for "information metabolism" if you really want to learn something.

Did that a while ago. It was an interesting use of the word 'metabolism'.

What bullshit...one would not have to be an SLE 4 to view imprisonment this way. You are trying to create a fake archetype out of your meddling perception and selective characterization of something that, as far as you know, doesn't even exist. If you did, you would've been giving us examples by now.

I have yet to meet an INFP SLE but similar odd combinations suggests to me that such beings exist.

I never said you have to be one to think that way. I'm just conceiving of a way in which the very different (but not directly contradicting) cognitive and metabolic modes can be reconciled.

[World Socionics]

Hooooo boy, I smell our next renegade theory quack a-brewing...

"Quack" implies falsity. There is a silly duck on this thread and it isn't me.

Look at it this way: Take any type from Socionics, say ILE, and take four likely types from MBTI which uncontroversially can be paired with it in a person without being a perfect fit.... This would most likely be the types that deviate by from the norm by one dichotomy:

INTP, ESTP, ENFP and ENTJ. Assuming that there exists an ILE INTP, an ILE ESTP, an ILE ENFP and an ILE ENTJ then it must be probable that, given enough people, there exists an ILE ISFJ. After all, if you can deviate in any one of the dichotomies, why can't you deviate in all four at the same time?

This same principle would apply to SLE.

[Gilly]

Keep going, wont you?

[tcaudilllg]

We've already been through this. Two types, one which deals with info, the other which deals with data. Information is processed data. The act of processing data is the identification of correlations between two attributes of the same object (or objects). The first type reflects a sort of personal ranking of your competence in each IE. The second type reflects your actual interest in a given IE.

MBTI and Augusta's Socionics both emphasize the prioritization aspect, which Jung identified.

[squirreltual]

@squirreltual Did he by any chance go to prison? I can imagine a SLE 4 committing a violent crime and seeing his imprisonment, i.e. his suffering and punishment for going against society where others has not, as a result of his unique flaw... a hamartia if you will.

Yes he was one of those ones. Arson, armed robbery, fraud, assault and he also took once went in for someone else's more icky stuff. If that makes any difference

I mean, he self-typed as E4 and INFP and I had no reason to doubt that. He talked a lot about how melancholia was beautiful, and felt and projected brokenness everywhere yadda yadda. If he wasn't sx first, I'm Moses. I just can't see the 3-ishness in what I am working with...

His behaviour and physicality were at odds with what he reported psychologically and emotionally. Seemed very Se base. Not sure how to describe properly right now, but a silly example: if I was standing in front of a cupboard he wanted to use, he wouldn't say anything but pick me up and move me out of the way. He always dominated the physical space and was the first to attend to problems and direct other people without fuss.

[Joy]

Yes he was one of those ones. Arson, armed robbery, fraud, assault and he also took once went in for someone else's more icky stuff. If that makes any difference

I mean, he self-typed as E4 and INFP and I had no reason to doubt that. He talked a lot about how melancholia was beautiful, and felt and projected brokenness everywhere yadda yadda. If he wasn't sx first, I'm Moses. I just can't see the 3-ishness in what I am working with...

His behaviour and physicality were at odds with what he reported psychologically and emotionally. Seemed very Se base. Not sure how to describe properly right now, but a silly example: if I was standing in front of a cupboard he wanted to use, he wouldn't say anything but pick me up and move me out of the way. He always dominated the physical space and was the first to attend to problems and direct other people without fuss.

Sounds like trouble regardless of type.

[Joy]

By definition, Se is the perception of "external involved statics of objects".

Curious, where does the "involved" part come from?

[Radio]

Curious, where does the "involved" part come from?

Abstract/Involved dichotomy.

Abstract = N, T
Involved = F, S

[World Socionics]

Curious, where does the "involved" part come from?

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...nt#Dichotomies

[Gilly]

I'm sorry, weren't you trying to give a LESS simple definition?

Well yes it's certainly simplified from a linguistic perspective, but its also harder to wrap ones head around, as we can see by your dismissive attitude.

Did that a while ago. It was an interesting use of the word 'metabolism'.

Or maybe you just don't understand it, which is why you default to these stereotyped, MBTI-esque "definitions."

I have yet to meet an INFP SLE but similar odd combinations suggests to me that such beings exist.

I don't doubt an SLE could TEST as an INFP and/or 4. MBTI is a different system that uses different functional definitions, so I'm with you there. What I'm not with is there being SLE 4s. I suppose its not impossible but you seem to be indicating that its as likely as any other type. I for one have never met one, all of the SLEs I've known have been 3s, 6s, 7s, and 8s.

My point is, if I had a suspicion that someone was an SLE 4, it seems so unlikely based on my experience and studies and the core nature of SLE and 4 as types, that I would look for alternatives and see if they fit better. In other words, because it seems so unlikely to me based on what I know, I would treat it as a diagnosis of exclusion.

For what it's worth I've met someone who I think could easily have been mistaken for an SLE 4; he was a 7w8 sx/sp, with 4 in his trifix, and bipolar. I think an SLE who was depressed could easily look like a 4 and experience sentiments that mirror the fixation of type 4, especially if they've done shitty things in the past, been socially excluded, and/or don't understand themselves very well; my guess is that this is what you were getting at with the Fi PoLR bit, though I don't think it's quite that simple.

There was also a member on here who believed she was an SLE 4 for a while, user ananke. She also believed at intervals that she might be IEI. I and another member who knew her reasonably well both believe her to be SLE-Ti 3w4 sx/sp.

I never said you have to be one to think that way. I'm just conceiving of a way in which the very different (but not directly contradicting) cognitive and metabolic modes can be reconciled.

Thinking of how they can be reconciled is useless. You are doing nothing but generating random scenarios that fit with a type combo in your mind, like you are plucking it out of a book of theoretical stereotypes. That's not what this theory is about.

[World Socionics]

Well yes it's certainly simplified from a linguistic perspective, but its also harder to wrap ones head around, as we can see by your dismissive attitude.

Actually it could be simpler, you don't need 'of objects' as the Static, External and Involved parts already describe . Still, the description is simplistic because it does not explain what the use of does, it just explains what the person is aware of when utilising . After all, at what point can we infer the character described in Filatova's 'An Introduction to Socionics' from this description?

Or maybe you just don't understand it, which is why you default to these stereotyped, MBTI-esque "definitions."

I understand it completely. The information element is a property of the psyche which seeks to act on its associated information aspect, metabolising the information through the 8 functions of Model A.

Actually, your earlier description better describes the information aspect , than the information element because while an information aspect is the thing being perceived/acted on, an information element is that part of the psyche that is doing the perceiving and acting.

I'd hardly call them MBTI-esque. Indeed, to describe MBTI cognitive functions that way is wrong because they are purely cognitive. There is no action or method of acting which necessarily arises from a cognitive function.

I don't doubt an SLE could TEST as an INFP and/or 4. MBTI is a different system that uses different functional definitions, so I'm with you there. What I'm not with is there being SLE 4s. I suppose its not impossible but you seem to be indicating that its as likely as any other type. I for one have never met one, all of the SLEs I've known have been 3s, 6s, 7s, and 8s.

Your reason for accepting the possibility of an INFP SLE would also apply to there being an SLE 4. Enneagram isn't about metabolising information into behaviour but about our fears and desires. Because of this there is no overlap. I'm not saying that SLE 4s are going to be as common as SLE 8s because the more counter-intuitive the combination, the rarer it's going to be. I'm just saying that because there's not direct contradiction, the combination is possible.

Thinking of how they can be reconciled is useless. You are doing nothing but generating random scenarios that fit with a type combo in your mind, like you are plucking it out of a book of theoretical stereotypes. That's not what this theory is about.

It's not useless. It's very useful If I can think of a way in which a person can reasonably be both SLE and 4, then it ceases to be a controversial assertion.

BLAH BLAH BLAH!!! You and your dogmatism again... "YOU ARE THIS!!!"... "YOU ARE THAT"... "THAT IS ********"
Why are you such a grumpysaurus?

[Gilly]

Actually it could be simpler, you don't need 'of objects' as the Static, External and Involved parts already describe .

Well they all describe Se, and yes those 3 terms are sufficient to differentiate Se theoretically from the other functions, but I think using all possible descriptors helps me and others to get a fuller grasp of this hugely abstract concept which NOBODY finds easy to comprehend fully.

Still, the description is simplistic because it does not explain what the use of does, it just explains what the person is aware of when utilising . After all, at what point can we infer the character described in Filatova's 'An Introduction to Socionics' from this description?

Who made Filatova the definitive source on Se?

I understand it completely. The information element is a property of the psyche which seeks to act on its associated information aspect, metabolising the information through the 8 functions of Model A.

Actually, your earlier description better describes the information aspect , than the information element because while an information aspect is the thing being perceived/acted on, an information element is that part of the psyche that is doing the perceiving and acting.

Yes, it is describing the information that is perceived, from which we can deduce the nature of the perceiving mechanism. This is a pretty fundamental concept of life: the predator is designed to catch the prey, the vagina is designed to catch the penis, etc.

I'd hardly call them MBTI-esque. Indeed, to describe MBTI cognitive functions that way is wrong because they are purely cognitive. There is no action or method of acting which necessarily arises from a cognitive function.

And there are no actions which necessarily follow from a certain form of information metabolism, either. People are not that predictable, in Socionics or MBTI. I am saying that your semantics, using words like "power" and "force" to describe Se, are not necessarily indicative of how Se types really think. I think Se types would describe Se more as a type of physical awareness, a concentrated psychological impulse related to physical self-control and acuity of attention, than anything to do with force or power.

Your reason for accepting the possibility of an INFP SLE would also apply to there being an SLE 4.

Only on the most abstract, overgeneralized level. I would have to choose to ignore the differences between MBTI and Enneagram, which are vast. MBTI cognitive functions are very superficial and imprecise, having nothing to do with how the brain actually works and more to do with easy ways of lumping people into stereotypical groups, while Enneagram types delve into deep-seated neuroses that exist and develop over the course of a lifetime, involving a level of constant awareness just below the surface of consciousness. In my mind, and in my experience, these subconscious processes share a level of correlation with Socionics functions that goes beyond that of MBTI's correlation with either, mainly because MBTI descriptions are all hugely overgeneralized and massively susceptible to the Forer effect. Pretty much anyone can identify with any MBTI function on some level; Socionics, on the other hand, is much more specific about the mechanisms it bases its deductive categorizations around, and I think people who understand information metabolism would never mistake themselves for perhaps more than two or three types.

Enneagram isn't about metabolising information into behaviour but about our fears and desires. Because of this there is no overlap. I'm not saying that SLE 4s are going to be as common as SLE 8s because the more counter-intuitive the combination, the rarer it's going to be. I'm just saying that because there's not direct contradiction, the combination is possible.

There may not be a direct contradiction, but I think anyone who reads descriptions of SLEs and understand how the functions work, and has similar insight into how the psychological mechanism of type 4 manifests in the mind of the 4, will see WHY there are so few, if any, SLE E4s. For starters, SLEs Ego block is comprised of two external functions, while the working of type 4 are all clearly based around Internal elements. How could their primary fixation in life be based around something they rarely comprehend or delve into? Especially a 4, the most introspective of types?

I bet you can comprehend an LSE E4, too, can't you? Find me one and I'll buy you an island.

I just think it's important to be clear about highly unlikely combos, because some people, like former user Aleksei, like to come in and start throwing around all sorts of random, nonsensical shit together to make sense of their "type" when they don't understand themselves and are just grasping at straws and want to think of themselves as special and different. SLE 4 just happens to be a very unlikely combo that could very easily be used as such, so I am deliberately emphasizing its unlikeliness.

It's not useless. It's very useful If I can think of a way in which a person can reasonably be both SLE and 4, then it ceases to be a controversial assertion.

No it doesn't! How is it not a controversial assertion if we have no proof of its existence? You are playing Descartes, get away from me.

BLAH BLAH BLAH!!! You and your dogmatism again... "YOU ARE THIS!!!"... "YOU ARE THAT"... "THAT IS ********"
Why are you such a grumpysaurus?

How is it dogmatism? I'm just pissed that you're making shit up in your head and pretending that it's real, just because one other person posed it as a possibility.

[World Socionics]

Well they all describe Se, and yes those 3 terms are sufficient to differentiate Se theoretically from the other functions, but I think using all possible descriptors helps me and others to get a fuller grasp of this hugely abstract concept which NOBODY finds easy to comprehend fully.

Actually the more hugely abstract a definition you use, the easier it is to reconcile the ideas because you cannot see where things specifically contradict.

Also relying on such abstract definitions is what makes you the one being MBTI-esque. If you take a look at personalitynation.com, the cognitive functions were shown to be so vague and abstract that the theory itself has rapidly decreased in usability. A grounding in behaviour is what saves IM elements from this. [/QUOTE]

Who made Filatova the definitive source on Se?

We could say that Filatova was wrong but that just means choosing the ideas of one socionist over another.

Yes, it is describing the information that is perceived, from which we can deduce the nature of the perceiving mechanism. This is a pretty fundamental concept of life: the predator is designed to catch the prey, the vagina is designed to catch the penis, etc.

Therefore, stop confusing your penises with your vaginas.

And there are no actions which necessarily follow from a certain form of information metabolism, either. People are not that predictable, in Socionics or MBTI. I am saying that your semantics, using words like "power" and "force" to describe Se, are not necessarily indicative of how Se types really think. I think Se types would describe Se more as a type of physical awareness, a concentrated psychological impulse related to physical self-control and acuity of attention, than anything to do with force or power.

Actually that's something a lot closer to Se in MBTI. An information element differs from a cognitive function in that it is necessarily evidenced in behaviour (not specifically like punching people, but generally). The act of manipulating external involved statics of objects is seen as forcibly acting in the moment. You cannot predict a specific action from someone's type, but you can predict their preferred mode of action. You can know that they will try to manipulate the external involved statics of objects but you won't know exactly how or for what specific purpose.

Only on the most abstract, overgeneralized level. I would have to choose to ignore the differences between MBTI and Enneagram, which are vast. MBTI cognitive functions are very superficial and imprecise, having nothing to do with how the brain actually works and more to do with easy ways of lumping people into stereotypical groups, while Enneagram types delve into deep-seated neuroses that exist and develop over the course of a lifetime, involving a level of constant awareness just below the surface of consciousness. In my mind, and in my experience, these subconscious processes share a level of correlation with Socionics functions that goes beyond that of MBTI's correlation with either, mainly because MBTI descriptions are all hugely overgeneralized and massively susceptible to the Forer effect. Pretty much anyone can identify with any MBTI function on some level; Socionics, on the other hand, is much more specific about the mechanisms it bases its deductive categorizations around, and I think people who understand information metabolism would never mistake themselves for perhaps more than two or three types.

Actually Cognitive Functions aren't superficial at all, they're just vague as hell. BACK TO THE BOOKS!!!

One's underlying neuroticisms are not one's information elements. Although there's a similarity in terms of HA and PoLR, even these are perfectly compatible with the Enneagram. For instance, 4 - Fe HA and Fi PoLR would have the person desiring to be loved and hating to be reminded of their social clumsiness while at the same time having a deep-seated need to reflect on their self-identity and derive a sense of uniqueness. Either that, or every xLE is a 2

There may not be a direct contradiction, but I think anyone who reads descriptions of SLEs and understand how the functions work, and has similar insight into how the psychological mechanism of type 4 manifests in the mind of the 4, will see WHY there are so few, if any, SLE E4s. For starters, SLEs Ego block is comprised of two external functions, while the working of type 4 are all clearly based around Internal elements. How could their primary fixation in life be based around something they rarely comprehend or delve into? Especially a 4, the most introspective of types?

Then we agree. I'm not saying that there are loads of SLE 4s, indeed I think there aren't going to be too many. I just maintain that there is every possibility of them existing, like planets with life. Actually a 4 can be external, they can derive their sense of identity through their outward actions rather than their internal emotional and mental states. It's an unorthodox method, but it works.

I bet you can comprehend an LSE E4, too, can't you? Find me one and I'll buy you an island.

I'll get looking. Can we get a document signed to enforce this?

I just think it's important to be clear about highly unlikely combos, because some people, like former user Aleksei, like to come in and start throwing around all sorts of random, nonsensical shit together to make sense of their "type" when they don't understand themselves and are just grasping at straws and want to think of themselves as special and different. SLE 4 just happens to be a very unlikely combo that could very easily be used as such, so I am deliberately emphasizing its unlikeliness.

4 is a likely Enneatype for Aleksei, it's just that he's clueless on everything else. That's why he changes his type every few months.
We already know it's unlikely to bump into an SLE 4 on the street. However, when dealing with unusual cases we are allowed to consider the unlikely albeit possible.

No it doesn't! How is it not a controversial assertion if we have no proof of its existence? You are playing Descartes, get away from me.

I prefer Spinoza, now go solipsise yourself

Most great theories in science had no proof except their internal logic. They were accepted on their intrinsic merit and sought to be proven empirically only later

How is it dogmatism? I'm just pissed that you're making shit up in your head and pretending that it's real, just because one other person posed it as a possibility.

You're telling me what I am doing as if you know what I am doing better than I do. Indeed, you don't know what I am doing because that is not what I am doing.

[Gilly]

Actually the more hugely abstract a definition you use, the easier it is to reconcile the ideas because you cannot see where things specifically contradict.

Actually my definition is much more precise, and referencing something that can be connected to a thought process, than lumping a bunch of specifics together that sound nice and coherent to you.

Also relying on such abstract definitions is what makes you the one being MBTI-esque.

Oh really now? Read a Meyers-Briggs type description, and then read your descriptions of Se, and then read my definition of Se. Tell me which of the two are formatted most similarly. Yours and MBTI are just chunks of words; mine is a description of a variety of information.

Socionics is a theory of cognition, not behavior. Any descriptions of behavior are merely examples.

If you take a look at personalitynation.com, the cognitive functions were shown to be so vague and abstract that the theory itself has rapidly decreased in usability. A grounding in behaviour is what saves IM elements from this.

No, there is no "grounding in behavior," there is only theoretical characterization of common observations.

We could say that Filatova was wrong but that just means choosing the ideas of one socionist over another.

I'm not saying Filatova is WRONG, just overly specific, as you are. The typologists I reference and trust are Carl Jung and Aushra Augusta.

Actually that's something a lot closer to Se in MBTI.

Actually it sounds like what Se types describe as Se. Go read some descriptions of Se from generally agreed upon Se dominants. Better yet, just ask them.

An information element differs from a cognitive function in that it is necessarily evidenced in behaviour (not specifically like punching people, but generally). The act of manipulating external involved statics of objects is seen as forcibly acting in the moment. You cannot predict a specific action from someone's type, but you can predict their preferred mode of action. You can know that they will try to manipulate the external involved statics of objects but you won't know exactly how or for what specific purpose.

I am really confused as to where you got this idea that Socionics functions are defined more by behavior than cognition. That is completely unheard of to me. Socionics attempts to predict behavior, but it does not ascribe behaviors to a function.

Actually Cognitive Functions aren't superficial at all, they're just vague as hell. BACK TO THE BOOKS!!!

One's underlying neuroticisms are not one's information elements. Although there's a similarity in terms of HA and PoLR, even these are perfectly compatible with the Enneagram. For instance, 4 - Fe HA and Fi PoLR would have the person desiring to be loved and hating to be reminded of their social clumsiness while at the same time having a deep-seated need to reflect on their self-identity and derive a sense of uniqueness. Either that, or every xLE is a 2

You're trying to make it too black and white. There are no 1-to-1 correlations between E-types and sociotypes, I NEVER SAID THAT. But there are also obviously areas of cognitive overlap, in my opinion, and this has been reflected in my observations, and those of others, so I tend to believe it.

Then we agree. I'm not saying that there are loads of SLE 4s, indeed I think there aren't going to be too many. I just maintain that there is every possibility of them existing, like planets with life. Actually a 4 can be external, they can derive their sense of identity through their outward actions rather than their internal emotional and mental states. It's an unorthodox method, but it works.

I wouldn't deny an SLE E4 if I saw one. I've just never seen one, so I am disinclined to believe in their likelihood of existence in any given circumstance. I acknowledge that it's THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE, sure, but that means nothing to me unless I've seen an example. Otherwise, how would I know how to recognize it?

I'll get looking. Can we get a document signed to enforce this?

You can leave my post quoted. How's that?

4 is a likely Enneatype for Aleksei, it's just that he's clueless on everything else.

Lol no it's not, he's probably a cp6. Way too all over the place for a 4.

That's why he changes his type every few months.

No, that's because he's a confused adolescent.

We already know it's unlikely to bump into an SLE 4 on the street. However, when dealing with unusual cases we are allowed to consider the unlikely albeit possible.

Ok, but how do you know an unusual case when you haven't even see it? Are you going to speculate about life on Mars now too?

Most great theories in science had no proof except their internal logic.

AND THEIR CONSISTENCY IN BEING OBSERVED

JESUS CHRIST

They were accepted on their intrinsic merit and sought to be proven empirically only later

Actually the ones we are sure of were observed before being looked for. Like gravity.

A priori knowledge through logical deduction is only possible under specific conditions, and is predictive at best; never conclusive.

You're telling me what I am doing as if you know what I am doing better than I do. Indeed, you don't know what I am doing because that is not what I am doing.

Or maybe you need to think harder.

[Absurd]

SLE+E4 doesn't fit.

[Gilly]

Why are people from PerWhatever often so prolifically and obstinately bad at socionics?

Because they done got learned wrong

[ashlesha]

lmao

[silke]

whoever claimed this "SLE INFP" typing was most likely just playing a joke on you

[Gilly]

We should've crucified Aleksei when we had the chance.

I tried to help him...but alas...

[mu4]

I would say the connection between the mental and the physical is anomalous so I think let's not talk about cognitive or behaviorism in absolutist terms.

Davidson argued that anomalous monism follows from three plausible theses. First, he assumes the denial of epiphenomenalism—that is, the denial of the view that mental events do not cause physical events. Second, he assumes a nomological view of causation, according to which one event causes another if (and only if) there is a strict, exceptionless law governing the relation between the events. Third, he assumes the principle of the anomalism of the mental, according to which there are no strict laws that govern the relationship between mental event types and physical event types. By these three theses, Davidson argued, it follows that the causal relations between the mental and the physical hold only between mental event tokens, but that mental events as types are anomalous. This ultimately secures token physicalism and a supervenience relation between the mental and the physical, while respecting the autonomy of the mental (Malpas, 2005,

Behavior is only indicative of type when the communication thru the behavior conveys certain information elements, also in socionics the positions of elements changes the nature of the expression. Ego communication being a "novel" product of one's mind(4d/3d) and Super-id being social requests, norms or personal experience(2d/1d).

So an individual could be a INFP due to expression of super-id (requests) within MBTI definitions of dominant function which does not specific the nature of the function only that it is favored and "strong", the strongest requests in socionics would be from the 5th function/dual seeking function. In socionics the 5th function is also a contact function which would lead to a interaction with the world thru this function. However this individual could also be IEI for the same reasons as his 5th function as a IEI is .

The expression of the dual seeking function can be quite strong in individuals so do not dismiss that factor in typing, for example one of my first business ventures as a food blog/review site yet the novelty of this venture was firmly a NT venture as it predated food blogs/yelp/etc by a few years and the market itself was not ready for food blogging to take off. However I've found thru experiences in the dual seeking function a person may gain significant confidence in some narrow areas of life involving the function.

To type this individual accurately, try to see if his confidence in is confined to a narrow area of life, if his is experience based or novel/unique. I have a idea that this individual is unhealthy so it may be difficult to type.

I will note that both the Ego and Super-ID are both verbal blocks.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gory/2-Model-A

This is just one explanation of how someone could be IEI in MBTI and SLE in Socionics. Communication in socionics is not just communication of information that we are confident in but also communication of information that we wish to be helped with.