ILE or IEE? What's the difference?

[HandiAce]

So the majority of people that have typed me have me down as IXE. Immediately, people say I'm ENXp. Could ILE be a possible choice in addition to IEE?

I wonder about this because I was recently typed on MBTI as an INTP which means I suspect I have a much more logic analyzing side within me that I keep in my private life....

If I was to show my parents the two descriptions of the ENXp's creative functions:

Ti - "ILEs are obsessed with how things work, and how they will work together. Understanding how something works is merely the baseline for the ILE. When the ILE finds something new or interesting he thinks about how it could be used in conjunction with other objects he has come into contact with in the past."

Fi - "IEEs are naturally sensitive to mood, atmosphere, and feelings. They rarely say or do anything that would worsen people's feelings, preferring instead to distance themselves from people and social situations that produce negative feelings. IEEs are naturally skilled at regulating the degree of emotional intimacy between people, which can mean being businesslike (yet polite) as well as warm and inviting."

They would think the Ti description would describe me much more accurately. I would have to say I relate to the Ti description better too.

I have mentioned how I don't like to come by as obnoxious or an asshole, but I think part of it as to do with how I was raised. Always being told to be polite as I grew up...

[HandiAce]

neither. imo

Ok, what do you propose then?

[Suz]

So the majority of people that have typed me have me down as IXE. Immediately, people say I'm ENXp. Could ILE be a possible choice in addition to IEE?

I wonder about this because I was recently typed on MBTI as an INTP which means I suspect I have a much more logic analyzing side within me that I keep in my private life....

If I was to show my parents the two descriptions of the ENXp's creative functions:

Ti - "ILEs are obsessed with how things work, and how they will work together. Understanding how something works is merely the baseline for the ILE. When the ILE finds something new or interesting he thinks about how it could be used in conjunction with other objects he has come into contact with in the past."

Fi - "IEEs are naturally sensitive to mood, atmosphere, and feelings. They rarely say or do anything that would worsen people's feelings, preferring instead to distance themselves from people and social situations that produce negative feelings. IEEs are naturally skilled at regulating the degree of emotional intimacy between people, which can mean being businesslike (yet polite) as well as warm and inviting."

...

These are weird descriptions--where are they from? The bolded part sounds more like Fe actually.

[Phthalate]

INTP in MBTI... What? Who? How? Why?

Huh? Sorry... I'm always skeptical about people who say they are Ti-dominant (Jungian function wise) and 9s. That can be a bit of an oxymoron. Either you have the e-type wrong (which I doubt), or the MBTI type wrong (which I do think so. ISFJ seemed to fit well).

[FoxOnStilts]

I can't see you as ILE, and had a little trouble with IEE tbh. Though I guess you could be Fi-subtype. Who told you that you were INTP in MBTI though? ISFJ was awesome for you. From the way you've always talked, you've seemed very anti-Ne and super Si from an MBTI stance.

[HandiAce]

hi handiace, i was wondering if you could describe what you mean by 'finding out how things work'? several types could be associated with this, but in different ways.

Lets just say every aspect of life has rocket science to it. I need the rocket science in order to move forward, do my job, life my life, etc.
@Phthalate @FoxOnStilts - One thing is certain. In MBTI, Si, Ne, Ti, and Fe are the major functions impacting my perception and decisions. That means ENTP, INTP, ISFJ, or ESFJ is possible.

Here are some general observations I've seen:
ISFJ and INTP under Jungian Cognitive Function theory work well for me, though if my parents were to read a description of the INTP and the ISFJ, INTP would fit well. Likewise, there are two counselors I've talked to in person who are MBTI certified. They narrow me down to the INXXs.

In terms of ENNEAGRAM, everyone thinks I am either a 6 or a 9 because I have traits from both.

Back to SOCIONICS. VI-wise, Almost everyone on here and in Tinychat pins me down quickly as an ENXp or an Ne-ego. One or two claim that I am Galen's brother .

[Absurd]

Huh? Sorry... I'm always skeptical about people who say they are Ti-dominant (Jungian function wise) and 9s. That can be a bit of an oxymoron. Either you have the e-type wrong (which I doubt), or the MBTI type wrong (which I do think so. ISFJ seemed to fit well).

That places him SEI.

[FoxOnStilts]

That places him SEI.

MBTI uses differnet definitions for the functions. There is not a 1:1 definite correlation for being Si:Fe in MBTI and Si:Fe in socionics.

[Absurd]

MBTI uses differnet definitions for the functions. There is not a 1:1 definite correlation for being Si:Fe in MBTI and Si:Fe in socionics.

I know that, I just pointed it out to Flattie there in my own way, who is trying to correlate E-types with MBTI/Sociotype telling people what they can be and what they can not be.

[The Ineffable]

Fi - "IEEs are naturally sensitive to mood, atmosphere, and feelings. They rarely say or do anything that would worsen people's feelings, preferring instead to distance themselves from people and social situations that produce negative feelings. IEEs are naturally skilled at regulating the degree of emotional intimacy between people, which can mean being businesslike (yet polite) as well as warm and inviting."

That is IMO off.

[FoxOnStilts]

I know that, I just pointed it out to Flattie there in my own way, who is trying to correlate E-types with MBTI/Sociotype telling people what they can be and what they can not be.

Ohhh my bad then. :]

[Phthalate]

Here are some general observations I've seen:
ISFJ and INTP under Jungian Cognitive Function theory work well for me, though if my parents were to read a description of the INTP and the ISFJ, INTP would fit well. Likewise, there are two counselors I've talked to in person who are MBTI certified. They narrow me down to the INXXs.

INXX = No function is associated with this pairing. This means nothing to me.

Additionally, MBTI certified doesn't mean anything in the spectrum of jungian cognitive functions. Remember that MBTI was created as a way to assign people jobs in a hierarchy. Anything other than is asking too much for the system, and people tend to extrapolate tremendously from it.

In terms of ENNEAGRAM, everyone thinks I am either a 6 or a 9 because I have traits from both.

Bad reasoning here too. Everybody has traits of every e-type. You can't distance yourself altogether from an e-type ALL of the time.

What people think of you means absolutely nothing (but then again, this is something that 9s often find it hard to distance themselves from).


I don't like pushing a type unto people. I like guiding them through, as well as bringing up contradictions between what one person might think. For example, when you say you are Ti-dominant (INTP), you are saying you relate to this:

His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject. One can feel nothing in it that might possibly confer a higher value upon the object; it always seems to go beyond the object, leaving behind it a flavour of a certain subjective superiority. Courtesy, amiability, and friendliness may be present, but often with a particular quality suggesting a certain uneasiness, which betrays an ulterior aim, namely, the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and set at ease lest he prove a disturbing- element. In no sense, of course, is he an opponent, but, if at all sensitive, he will feel somewhat repelled, perhaps even depreciated. Invariably the object has to submit to a certain neglect; in worse cases it is even surrounded with quite unnecessary measures of precaution.

Whereas with 9s, it's about self-forgetting and mental inertia. Inner demands and virtues are often shadowed by a need to be accepted and to merge with people (and not disarming it, as the Ti paragraph points out). This is where I am uneasy seeing how people think they can be IxTPs and 9s.

I recommend reading Character and Neurosis by Claudio Naranjo for a deeper understanding of the enneagram.

Haven't you been asking people long enough for answers already? What have you found during your own research? What books have you read from ANY system? What associations with the information have you found about yourself? Why do you think you might be a type and not the other? Why? Why? Why?

Don't trust people's opinions (who are often flawed, especially around here) so much.

[HandiAce]

Don't trust people's opinions (who are often flawed, especially around here) so much.

Then this whole system is flawed. I can't make any relevant judgements about my own type and insight if it is not analyzed with other people. One HAS to be compared to others in order to have a specific type. Trying to fit these descriptions simply does not cut it for me anymore. It's a matter of acting naturally and being assessed by others later on about your type/role. I can then chose whether to agree or disagree and potentially provide people further insight in the event that there is a misunderstanding on their part or my own.

[Phthalate]

Then this whole system is flawed.

Depends on how you want to use it. Are you expecting it to describe you completely? They are super flawed then.

Are you expecting to use it as some sort of survival guide? Flawed.

Are you expecting it to use to gather insight as far as how you communicate information with people, and what barriers you might have within yourself and others? Socionics might help.

Do you want to learn about some personal traits that might fog your perception when analyzing and understanding the world? Enneagram might help.

What do you want out of this system? What exactly does having 'a type' mean to you? What role does it play personally?

I can't make any relevant judgements about my own type and insight if it is not analyzed with other people. One HAS to be compared to others in order to have a specific type. Trying to fit these descriptions simply does not cut it for me anymore. It's a matter of acting naturally and being assessed by others later on about your type/role. I can then chose whether to agree or disagree and potentially provide people further insight in the event that there is a misunderstanding on their part or my own.

1) Just understand that you might be comparing yourself to a red herring then. Several people here have changed their type over the pass of time, some more than others. Say (and this is not a criticism against him, this is an example) you relate strongly to Snaps/Mt. Dew. Well as far as I know, he's fluctuated through at least 3 types (LSE/ESE/IEE. Maybe others and I didn't notice) so far from what I've been here. This is all because he's been compiling information about the system, he's realized he's misinterpreted some information (whether about the system, or about himself). If you would've gone by JUST comparing to him, for example, you would've found yourself jumping through types just because you wanted to see how you measure up against a person, instead of first identifying who you are.

Now, tell me why you should trust that comparison you have with Galen more than the example I gave you?

I already pointed out my favorite source to gather some more information about the enneagram. If you want more information about socionics, I know this is known as a reliable source (can't say this out of personal experience though... it bored me to tears) to get more valid information about your socionics type than... say... galleries of actors where you might be biased in choosing your favorites as your duals.

2) None of this people know you that well to be able to provide anything else but a reference. Most people have only interacted with your through monitors, and that is a HUGE short-coming. From personal experience, you have NO idea how many times I've been told that I'm too different online than I am in person. Heck, I remember a blog you posted in PerN talking about some issues you were having, and that was NOT an impression I had gathered from you based on previous posts.

Of course EVERY perception, in real life or online, is flawed. I know that. The fact that it's online makes it much, much worse though.

3) At the end, what 'your type' comes down to is up to YOU and only YOU to really know what you are like and identify your character. Not a person that tells you 'well you are sort of bubbly like _____ " or "your neck is too long, so you can't be an IEI" or so forth.

[HandiAce]

Are you expecting it to use to gather insight as far as how you communicate information with people, and what barriers you might have within yourself and others?

This.

I just want a reliable source. I look up how Fi-creative plays into the IEE and I have people saying, "That's not Fi." Suggesting that it's not reliable. I've also heard people dismiss Renin dichotomies.

Nevertheless, I'm looking at the Guleko Cognitive Styles link you posted, my good sir, and I'll get back to you on those. So far, it is extremely clear that I am a static type which I believe is in line with my strong MBTI Si.
I find it really cool in the source how dynamic types are prone to developing something along the lines of synaesthesia. I wonder if Static types are more likely to develop perfect pitch like I have?

[Phthalate]

I think @hkkmr and @Ashton are more familiar with these... so i'm mentioning them in hopes they might be able to help you.

[HandiAce]

For what it's worth, I also studied the dichotomies of Evolution-Involution and Positivism-Negativism. While it was difficult to determine whether I am a positivist or negativist, I relate more to the side of evolution than involution. I think I've been accused more of making something more complex than it should be than simplifying it. That means I could be one of the following: ILE, EII, LSI, or SEE (Nice try, Maritsa!).

[mu4]

I think you're IEE

I think thread I think you display some level of holographic thinking by bringing up multiple possibilities of type including MBTI type which is largely unusable. You also bring up enneagram which is also fairly irrelevant to the discussion. It's better to use your actual traits vs whatever MBTI/enneagram description are.

[mu4]

For what it's worth, I also studied the dichotomies of Evolution-Involution and Positivism-Negativism. While it was difficult to determine whether I am a positivist or negativist, I relate more to the side of evolution than involution. I think I've been accused more of making something more complex than it should be than simplifying it. That means I could be one of the following: ILE, EII, LSI, or SEE (Nice try, Maritsa!).

You picked the wrong types to make things more complex then it should be. I would say casual deterministic thinkers are the streamliners, they often are simplifying and can oversimplify a situation.

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.

[HandiAce]

You picked the wrong types to make things more complex then it should be. I would say casual deterministic thinkers are the streamliners, they often are simplifying and can oversimplify a situation.

This source doesn't say streamlined, where are you getting your reasoning from?

Isn't simplifying finding an explanation for something that could potentially be ignorant?

[mu4]

This source doesn't say streamlined, where are you getting your reasoning from?

Isn't simplifying finding an explanation for something that could potentially be ignorant?

I have a mind as does Gulenko, I can think for myself, my thoughts are sourced from my mind.

[HandiAce]

I have a mind as does Gulenko, I can think for myself, my thoughts are sourced from my mind.

You, like many other people have taught me that the mind needs more guidance than it thinks. Sure I have a mind, but it can't make judgements unless there is one, perfect answer. Something that positivists, according to the article are inclined to do.

[mu4]

You, like many other people have taught me that the mind needs more guidance than it thinks. Sure I have a mind, but it can't make judgements unless there is one, perfect answer. Something that positivists, according to the article are inclined to do.

Convergent thinking which Gulenko links positivism with doesn't concern perfect answers, it concerns best possible answer given available information. If you seek for a perfect answer, you will find that what you've done is collected a lot of imperfect ones to form a holographic assessment. Convergent thinking discards this way of thinking in preference for a actionable best guess, it is practical, but far from perfect, only correct within its criteria.


I want to note Gulenko's article is very nuanced, he means some very specific things based on his observations, but it's hard to really understand without really thinking about it.

Take this part for example.

I will frame this dichotomy in the second sense, namely as simplification vs. complication of thought structure. Meaning that in deductive thinking, given a set of simple and obvious statements (axioms, postulates), the resultant consequences can be necessarily derived (theorem). Reasoning flows in the direction of simple to complex. Evolutionary types therefore mentally complicate the situation.

In inductive thinking reasoning proceeds the other way around. Observing and comprehending complex phenomena, inductive thinking reduces them to generalized diagrams and models stripped of details. Involutionary types break down and simplify the situation in order to understand it. Reasoning flows in reverse order from complex to simple.

Also imo Gulenko has a slight bias against evolutionary types. Flowing from simple to complex is the same in mental complication as flowing from complex to simple.

What Evolutionary types do is however different from Involuntary types although Gulenko's general idea is right.

It's not really about simple or complex, but rather how individuals go about reasoning.

I want to note one thing however and that Gulenko leaves out something very important and that is he disregard that after making something either "complex" or "simple", that there are often new beginnings or progressive reformations that can occur.

So "simple" that becomes "complex" can result in "simpler", and vice versa. A evolutionary individual may reason one way for a period of time, but after creating the complex structure start from the beginning again and create a new complex structure based on knowledge gained in the previous process. It's important to understand that the perception of simplicity and complexity only occurs when individuals are clashing on how to go about these different stages of development.

In a sense a evolutionary type and a involuntary both have areas of complexity and simplicity but what differentiates them is the clash at the beginning and end of a reasoning process.

[HandiAce]

Convergent thinking which Gulenko links positivism with doesn't concern perfect answers, it concerns best possible answer given available information. If you seek for a perfect answer, you will find that what you've done is collected a lot of imperfect ones to form a holographic assessment.

How do I know that my assessments are "holographic"?

Another note, the H-P types are said to have "a stable, self-possessed psyche resistant to conditioning." If I am a type nine enneagram, would that not be a contradiction?

[mu4]

How do I know that my assessments are "holographic"?

Another note, the H-P types are said to have "a stable, self-possessed psyche resistant to conditioning." If I am a type nine enneagram, would that not be a contradiction?

As I said to read Gulenko, you have to really read him in a nuanced fashion. He's speaking in a very specific fashion based on his large inventory of knowledge concerning philosophy and many topics.

I don't think E9 is relevant or easy to correlate but...
I would say Enneagram 9 are not very conditionable.

Nines are accepting, trusting, and stable. They are usually creative, optimistic, and supportive, but can also be too willing to go along with others to keep the peace. They want everything to go smoothly and be without conflict, but they can also tend to be complacent, simplifying problems and minimizing anything upsetting. They typically have problems with inertia and stubbornness.

Given the general description of them is this, I think they're not that conditionable.

9's aren't true believers but they're accommodating.

Causal deterministic types are the most prone to conditioning, because once they accept a certain idea is true(or best), they will use this idea as a foundation for extrapolating their thought processes.

Also the kind of conditioning that Gulenko talks about is mostly outside conditioning, imo internal conditioning, self-condition also occurs.

[HandiAce]

I really need help distinguishing positivism and negativism as well evolutionary and involutionary. If I am IEE as hkkmr concludes, what makes me NOT a positivist and NOT evolutionary?

[anndelise]

I really need help distinguishing positivism and negativism as well evolutionary and involutionary. If I am IEE as hkkmr concludes, what makes me NOT a positivist and NOT evolutionary?

[insert joke comment linking Negativists with the above focus on NOTs ]

[HandiAce]

[insert joke comment linking Negativists with the above focus on NOTs ]

It's NOT that I like being told what I am not, quite the opposite. It's in order to understand an important concept, you have to highlight what is most important and what is not. The comparisons between the dichotomies are great. The problem is the validity of the source as some people like hkkmr and Phthalate don't fully embrace the ideas...