Curious, analytical ESE or friendly, warm ILE??

[mikesilb]

Hey everyone,

Over the last few days, I have started getting really confused about my Sociotype (and even my subtype). If you look below, you will see that I currently consider my type to be ESE with a Creative/ subtype (DCNH).

I consider myself to be a very friendly, warm, open type of person who often wears my emotions on my sleeve (very ESE'ish).

On the flip side, I also consider myself to be very curious, analytical, theoretically motivated, scientifically driven person (very ILE'ish).

It is almost as if there are two mikesilbs...and I am starting to wonder which really is my type and which one is either a subtype or doesn't even belong within the Socionics system.

Now, the thing is that all my life, I have had this curious, analytical side that simply wants to learn as much as I can and engage my curiosity to the fullest. This drove me at age 4 to study and interpret all types of maps (from the US Interstate Hwy system to the NY Subway Map). To me, the act of engaging in my curiosity towards complex, theoretical subjects is natural to me, and has allowed me to obtain a doctorate degree in a biological/biochemical area. The thing that makes me think that ILE could be my type and not ESE is the fact that cognitively, it is second nature for me to remain open minded and curious towards some fascinating and thought-provoking subject matter. Keep in mind, that Socionics is a subject matter that I find theoretically very rich with these abstract IM Elements, their placement within Model A/B/etc., the subtyping systems, and all other aspects. To me, it is almost as if I am studying quasi-neuroscience in terms of assessing how each IM element matches with how each person naturally and cognitively processes his/her IM Metabolism. It feels like an abstract code that I simply want to understand to the fullest degree and to master.

On the flip side, I am ESE-like. What I mean by that is that I am friendly, warm, enthusiastic, caring. I am certainly reading into and interpreting all types of people-signals in the way that people describe . I deeply care about being liked and I am often nervous about taking an interpersonal risk that might jeopardize friendships, relationships, etc. I am also very passionate, enthusiastic, and like to live life at this level. So, I consider myself to be a man of the heart as much as I am a man of the mind. I will also say that unlike many ESEs, I probably not a natural caretaker and host. I do like seeing people happy and making people happy. However, it is often through my spontaneous interaction with each person rather than through efforted hosting and caretaking that I ensure the happiness of the people in my life.
People have seen in me and have debated as to whether I am an EIE or ESE. ESE feels more right in terms of a softer/friendlier emotionality, and I relate much closer to alpha than beta. However, I am way more abstract/theory (N) driven than concrete (S).

Anyways, so lately the debate of ESE (alpha SF) vs. ILE (alpha NT) has emerged.

I will say that leaning towards IEE or EIE (two types that are somewhat in the middle of ESE and ILE), both feel as if there is an averaging going on, where I simply do not feel like either an IEE nor an EIE at the core. I feel like either an alpha NT or an alpha SF more than a beta type or a -based delta type. To me, the academic/scientific (/pure logic-driven) style of the ILE fits better than the IEE. Likewise, I do not feel that I have the edgy-beta aspects of the EIE (in other words, I don't think that my theoretical interests equate to the EIE's style as much as it is more of a alpha-NT'ish phenomenon).

So does anyone have any feedback about this? Sociotype? DCNH Subtype? What do you think?

[Saberstorm]

I now type people exclusively by the Renin traits.

ESEs are tactical. I think you are tactical. I do not see you pushing for any BIG GOAL. I think you are more orientated to the use of the natural tools you possess, which is tactical. ILEs are also tactical. IEEs are tactical. EIEs are not.

We can therefore eliminate EIE!

IEEs and ESEs are both obstinate, but ILEs are yielding. Read the description here:

COMPLIANCE | OBSTINACY

Compliant (ExTx and IxFx):
1.For the compliant inside of their "personal space" (i.e. something that cannot be compromised), which is outlined with a "personal boundary", are personal resources (Time, funds) and interests are manipulated (Are "played" with). An interest is taken only if it can be supported by adequate/corresponding personal resources.
2.Compliants, while interacting with other people, freely express their interests (They freely express their intimate opinions, voice their disagreements, consider counterarguments, share their interests with other people). They divide interests as "my interests" and "those of other people".
3.The compliant protects their personal resources to a point of conflict, but does not do the same thing with their interests. If a person starts asking/requesting their resources, as they perceive it, intruding into their "personal space", they react by a very sharp reaction which can seem a bit over the edge, aggressive (This reaction is connected with the property of "inviolability" of their resources)

Obstinate (ExFx and IxTx):
1.For the obstinate into their "personal ("inviolable") space", which is outlined with a "personal boundary", are placed interests and for them resources are manipulated. With the usage of their resources they make opportunities for interests.
2.The obstinate in interaction with other people freely operates with their resources (They can "share" and "change" them, refurnish them and use/spend them). They divide resources on their resources and other people's resources.
3.The obstinate guards itself from intrusions into their personal sphere of interests, and do not protect their resources. If a person tries to impose interests on them and thus intrude into their personal space their reaction will be sufficiently deterring/sharp (Such a reaction occurs if other peoples interests do not become the obstinate's interests)

Notes:
The keys for this group are the concepts of "personal space", "resources" (What we have available at our disposal) and "personal interests" (Unlike regular interests these are completely personal, actions that we find interesting and feel personal responsibility and attachment to). "Personal space" is something that an individual feels is an integral part of them, it cannot be renounced and will be defended/guarded from claims upon it and intrusions into it by others. For the compliant this space is occupied by their resources while for the obstinate by their interests. As a result of that complaints manipulate interests (Freely change them, adjust them in accordance with their resources) and obstinates resources (They adjust them to their interests).

Examples:
Compliant: "What you do, your affairs/actions, can either be determined by yourself or by other people who will "burden/chain" you with their wishes and requests" "Interests/hobbies in which I cannot participate anymore (Cannot do for one reason or another) eventually become uninteresting and I grow tired of them. I let go of old interests easily" "I limit my affairs, how many things I'm involved with, how many things I am suppose to do. For instance I may find something very interesting to do/get involved with, but I won't pursue the thing" "if I know that I can't do something, I won't and will forget all about it" "If I have an interest it is, naturally, reflected by capabilities. If something is impossible I won't go wasting my time and effort on it. I don't understand people who list all kinds of numerous interests... personally I clearly know what my capabilities are"
Obstinate: "I never let go of my passions(Interests). But I also won't, because of them, neglect sleep, eating..." "I certainly won't abandon it.... I'm inclined to carry the situation to the end" "I can't let go of my passions for the fear of losing myself, my identity/personality" "My passions (Interests) go the limits of my physical capabilities. When my physical capabilities show me their limits- I will let go of my passions (Interests) but I will do this only as a very last resort... but even then I will not abandon them but I will only "postpone" them and await the moment when I can get back to them. I won't drop/abandon my passions (interests) just because my resources are inadequate..."

Are you yielding?

[Saberstorm]

Another tie breaker is postive negative. ILEs and ESEs are postive, IEEs are negative. Which are you?

[mikesilb]

Hi Saber,

I always find Reinins to be a bit tricky to choose from (especially in the way that many of them have been described). I am positive that for some of them, if they were explained more vividly and with more examples, I could choose amongst them more easily.

However, I'm open to giving it a shot.

Regarding compliance and obstinance, I feel that it is easy for me to talk about ideas and collaborate about them. I like an open collaboration about this, and I don't find myself guarded about them. (However, if someone steals the idea from me and utilizes them, I will be pissed about it). On the other hand, when it comes to my resources, I can lend them to others, but I am more adamant that I get them back. I will also be pissed if my resources are taken from me.

So I guess that as long as an idea remains an idea that has no potential for becoming a physical resource, I am open to sharing those ideas. For example, on this board, I find myself open to explaining and discussing all aspects of my type (and any debated stuff related to it). However, once the idea manifests into something concrete (or even has the potential to manifest into something concrete), I will seek credit for that idea (as that idea's originator). However, until the idea has any visible or potential marketability, I don't really care about how much that idea is discussed and bounced around. However, an obvious resource is something that I will constantly monitor to determine if it is in my hands or has been removed (without my permission).

With all that said, I think that I am yielding. But I am FAR from certain that this is actually correct. I feel that I straddle the middle ground too much to be certain about this.

[mikesilb]

Postivist/Negativist:

While I am generally positive with others, I know that I have an Enneagramatic 6ish aspect of doubt and concern that whatever I gained could be taken from me just as easily. So I can relate to the negativist side of things...however, I really try NOT to look pessimistic about life. I would rather show a more upbeat, positive side to others (despite my internal doubts and concerns). Unless I am probed by others or unless I am talking to someone who I am confiding in (where I feel comfy about venting my frustrations), I still try to put a more positive face to the world.

I'm not sure if this clinches me into the positivist camp, or if the fact that I have clear-cut doubts and concerns that often plague my own self-confidence puts me in the negativist camp.

When times are good, I am usually positivist....When times are bad, I can switch depending on who I am talking to.

[mikesilb]

A preliminary assessment:

Sustained!

ESE is my type. ILE//C is my DCNH subtype.

(All is subject to change! )

[mikesilb]

FWIW you seem to have a strong sense of 'ownership' or overseeing what is yours and isn't. I'd say that's closer to Si "taking care of one's own business/claim" than Ne. Si is certain i'd say.

Hmmmm... Very interesting observation. I never really thought about it that way, but it sounds plausible.

I also wonder if it sounds more EJish than EPish. Kinda has that rational quality to it.

Thanks so much for that insight. In all my 39 years of life, I never really viewed my experience from that particular lens/angle.

[mikesilb]

FWIW you seem to have a strong sense of 'ownership' or overseeing what is yours and isn't. I'd say that's closer to Si "taking care of one's own business/claim" than Ne. Si is certain i'd say.

Now that I think about it, I am admittedly more confused as to why this attribute is very Si-ish. Perhaps this is at odds with how I view Si. I would have thought that this relates to rational IM elements rather than their irrational counterparts. So I am somewhat confused with this.

Could you possibly elaborate as to why a strong sense of ownership correlates (to whatever extent) to Si? Thanks!

[mikesilb]

Silly question...What makes Weird Al Yankovic a dominant type (ILE) rather than a dominant type (ESE)?

Where does the line get drawn (alpha-wise) between an type that shows a certain amount of vs. an type that shows a certain amount of ?

Is it that the types are more emotional and other-focused while the types are more emotionally contained and purely idea-focused?

[Saberstorm]

hmmm. I dunno. But I just use Renin...

I think it has to do with the total function order, like point of vulnerability and so on.

Also, I do not know how correct any celebrity typing is going to be.

[Dionysus]

This is funny, I had you typed as an Alpha NT after this thread http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...going-socially

To be honest we can't make much of a judgement over the internet - but I would say that you are an Alpha NT because your posts show a lot more Ti than most ESEs and less Fe (it could just be that you have a high IQ). Look at this for example: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=ESE_domain

What I mean by that is that I am friendly, warm, enthusiastic, caring. I am certainly reading into and interpreting all types of people-signals in the way that people describe .

Any type with Fe in their Super-Id is going to interpret their relationships this way.

I deeply care about being liked and I am often nervous about taking an interpersonal risk that might jeopardize friendships, relationships, etc. I am also very passionate, enthusiastic, and like to live life at this level

Being nervous about jeopardizing friendships sounds more like Fi Polr. Most of the ESEs I know have a pretty entertaining Fi ignoring function and it results in them sometimes not necessarily maintaining friendships in consistent ways (but then the next day they will grin, smile, and hug you).

I think you are an ILE who just had healthy relationships so you are comfortable expressing your super ID. The best way IMO to determine your type is to look at what you think your suggestive function would be.

[Saberstorm]

I hate this doubt! He is an Alpha extravert.

Now, what about intertype relations? Do ILIs avoid you? They are the conflictor of the ESE, but extinguishment of the ILE. ILIs are not likely to fight in person. They can be mean, like Korpsy and Capitalist Pig, but they are really not that mean and sharp face to face. They tend to avoid who they conflict with. Do ILIs avoid you? Extinguishment is good for research, but can be mentally draining. Are ILIs good research partners?

And ILI will tend to view you as a protocol droid, rather like C3PO from Star Wars, if you are ESE. They often interpret Fe as being ONLY social protocol. As in they think Fe is only a greeting like "Hi." Someone with a lot of Fe will baffle them. They will not understand why everything they say and do results in a yet more "artificial and unnecessary” social protocol. They will think that your Fe is a mark of low intelligence, or that you are humoring them. They are tough guys on the internet, but in person they will mostly retreat from you. If forced to talk to you, they will be slightly whiney (but professional) and to the point, because they do not get why you are emoting to them. They will be likely to avoid using you as a reference, or selecting you as a team member if they have the opportunity to pick their work associates.

Extinguishments can feel like duals, but duals are self-sufficient and can close off the world. Extinguishments do not satisfy each other’s needs, but they can validate each other’s ideas. They are less avoidant and can be friends in a professional way.

[mikesilb]

This is funny, I had you typed as an Alpha NT after this thread http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...going-socially

To be honest we can't make much of a judgement over the internet - but I would say that you are an Alpha NT because your posts show a lot more Ti than most ESEs and less Fe (it could just be that you have a high IQ). Look at this for example: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=ESE_domain

Any type with Fe in their Super-Id is going to interpret their relationships this way. [COLOR=#333333] Being nervous about jeopardizing friendships sounds more like Fi Polr. Most of the ESEs I know have a pretty entertaining Fi ignoring function and it results in them sometimes not necessarily maintaining friendships in consistent ways (but then the next day they will grin, smile, and hug you).

I think you are an ILE who just had healthy relationships so you are comfortable expressing your super ID. The best way IMO to determine your type is to look at what you think your suggestive function would be.

Hey Dionysus,

I think that a lot of what you said appears to make sense. I remember noticing how you wrote that I have considerable in my post. I think that part of the challenge is knowing whether or not is used with a certain level of confidence and expertise or whether it comes from a dual-seeking outlook. The thing is that I am pretty analytical and can suffer badly from a case of analysis-paralysis. It is as if everything that enters my brain needs constant analysis and reanalysis to determine if something makes sense or not. I am a 6 on the Enneagram, and as a mental triad type that is all about analysis and double-checking stuff, I can see how I can use quite a lot. Also, my interest in theories of all sorts backs this up.

Sometimes my confidence in my is not really large. I can be analytical for sure, but sometimes, I think that my logic is skewed or screwy. For this reason, I thought (and some people have told me) that I am -dual seeking. However, I also think that at times, I am good with in the type of analytical way that the last paragraph describes. I think that being so theory/concept/idea-driven and so wanting/desiring a cool 'aha' experience once in a while brings upon the type of analysis that I do (which may be more than your avg. ESE). So I am open to the possibility that I am not necessarily -dual seeking.

It is so interesting that for so long, I thought that I use in a commanding position. But I can kinda see that how I do it might actually be less 'second nature' than my conceptual side. Perhaps I have gotten so comfortable with the desire to be liked that it feels as if I am dominant. But I consider my information/theory seeking () side to be something that got started at SUCH a young age that it may be even more second-nature.

The one thing that ILEs have is a racing mind, and this I undoubtedly have. In this sense, I can picture myself needing to relax a bit and to simply feel myself in my body (which I am not that great at unless I am at a hot tub, massage, etc.) But overall, my brain simply does not stop with its analyses and commentaries, and in this sense, I can totally see how I could be dual-seeking and I can also see how someone supplying for me would be nothing short of a pleasure. If I am -dominant, I definitely am pleasure seeking, but my brain (which is on overdrive) cannot settle on one thing, and so it needs to switch gears or pivot quickly and often. So someone who provides that would settle me down.

So I buy all the arguments that you made...even down to the PoLR assertion. (I never knew that what I did [in terms of reassurance seeking from others that I am in good standing with them out of sheer insecurity] fell into the PoLR category). So this holds water too. The only thing that I need convincing is how can fit in the demonstrative spot. However, I bet you that as a scientist, I think about (with its protocols and procedures) more than I'd like to admit. I don't like to speak language since it feels kinda corporate to me, but I can probably fit in a world as well (at least I think).

Great analysis Dionysus! ...Definitely will be thinking this stuff more and more!

[mikesilb]

I hate this doubt! He is an Alpha extravert.

Now, what about intertype relations? Do ILIs avoid you? They are the conflictor of the ESE, but extinguishment of the ILE. ILIs are not likely to fight in person. They can be mean, like Korpsy and Capitalist Pig, but they are really not that mean and sharp face to face. They tend to avoid who they conflict with. Do ILIs avoid you? Extinguishment is good for research, but can be mentally draining. Are ILIs good research partners?

And ILI will tend to view you as a protocol droid, rather like C3PO from Star Wars, if you are ESE. They often interpret Fe as being ONLY social protocol. As in they think Fe is only a greeting like "Hi." Someone with a lot of Fe will baffle them. They will not understand why everything they say and do results in a yet more "artificial and unnecessary” social protocol. They will think that your Fe is a mark of low intelligence, or that you are humoring them. They are tough guys on the internet, but in person they will mostly retreat from you. If forced to talk to you, they will be slightly whiney (but professional) and to the point, because they do not get why you are emoting to them. They will be likely to avoid using you as a reference, or selecting you as a team member if they have the opportunity to pick their work associates.

Extinguishments can feel like duals, but duals are self-sufficient and can close off the world. Extinguishments do not satisfy each other’s needs, but they can validate each other’s ideas. They are less avoidant and can be friends in a professional way.

Saber,

What a fascinating test for determining ESE vs. ILE (i.e., by determining my relationship to ILIs). The one thing that I notice is that while the tone and energy of our interaction differ quite dramatically (especially when it comes to supposed enthusiasm and energy for discussing the conceptual material...where I feel very passionate with a high interest, while the ILI might show more of a dispassioned, straight-faced outlook in which I cannot as easily detect the same interest in the dialogue), the truth is that both myself and the ILI are very interested in the topic/concepts. The interest is high on both sides and I just might show a higher mental enthusiasm towards the discussion. Yet, I learn a lot from ILIs despite their emotional dispassion, and we could probably engage in a long and interesting dialogue.

To me, this sounds way more like extinguishment than it does conflict. It is as if we both share a common interest, we view that interest in diametrically opposed ways. I feel more like an enthusiastic puppy dog with the material, while I can see the ILI feeling more doberman-like (i.e., more like a serious authority in the topic). But I don't feel that the ILI is all about opposing every aspect of my existence (and viewing everything that I do as stupid or moronic). I feel that mutual respect is there, but the way that it is expressed is often world's apart.

So just like my last reply to Dionysus, this favors ILE. (This is getting real interesting. Perhaps it is almost time to declare a type-switch. We will see!)

Outstanding question Saber...one that may have cut right into the heart of the truth!

[mikesilb]

*if* you're ese-si, then i think it would make sense that the logic function would also be stronger. you sound more rational imo (more contained, purposeful), but that could be tied to other factors i suppose.

maybe you could concentrate on temperament first, clubs second >Model A analysis - imo. sabertorm's suggestion of using intertype analysis is ok, but it would be hard to say how reliable your typing of others is if you're uncertain of yours.

Hi Felafel,

I agree that I have a more rational oriented side. This is yet another reason why I initially did not consider an irrational side. If ESE is right, this all is justified immediately. However, if ILE is right, then we have to potentially chalk it up to a rational subtype (irrespective of the subtyping system that is used).

BTW, since quadra is identical between ESE and ILE, obviously, we don't have to consider quadra here and thus, we could jump straight into the "temperament first, clubs second >Model A analysis" that you refer to. (If we have to step back and reconsider EIE, IEE, etc. then quadra values will need to be considered).

Temperament - Again, I have some mix of rational and irrational within me. Thus, if my type is one, then my subtype will likely be the other. I seriously doubt that I would be a creative/harmonizing ILE, nor do I think that I would be a dominant/normalizing ESE. BTW - while I do consider myself as a social introvert, this carries little to no weight Socionics-wise, and so I feel totally game to considering myself with extraverted types. (I feel that I have more 'out there' energy than contained energy). So either EJ or EP are my top choices for my Sociotype.

Clubs - ESE is the only Social (SF) club type that has any shot (SEI is doubtful). However, either Researcher (NT) (which I am as a scientist by trade), in which I feel like any alpha NT type would be a candidate (and not gamma NTs) or Humanitarian (NF) of any of the four NF types is certainly fair game. Pragmatics (ST) have no shot.

I hope that this helps in any way.

[Dionysus]

Sometimes my confidence in my is not really large. I can be analytical for sure, but sometimes, I think that my logic is skewed or screwy.

Please expand.

[mikesilb]

Please expand.

OK here's the thing...I feel that I am constantly using both and a lot when I am in a strong learning mode (or "information acquisition mode"). It comes out as a strong curiosity for a subject (which also involves shifting between various angles by which I can assess the information). The involves a lot of scrutinizing the material for its general validity/sensibility. I do this a lot, and it seemingly happens unconsciously.

At the same time, after doing a lot of the analysis, I often would like to have a 'reality check' as to whether my thinking was on the right track or was off-base. I want to feel that I am adequately grasping whatever I am learning, and sometimes, I need to perform this type of check in order to make sure that I am truly getting it.

So while I do a lot of assessing and analysis, I still like to bounce my analysis off with other people to get a sense of how I am doing. In this sense, I am only moderately independent in my (...actually better than moderately...Let's say for the sake of argument, 75% independent). I am independent enough to analyze and assess for logical normality, but I am interdependent with a consensus of 'others' to determine whether my analysis is on track with the general arguments as designated in the theory, or if a deviation had been generated. (BTW, there were substantial periods of my childhood where I did not need any assistance in purely grasping the material...this really only happens as problems get more ambiguous, complex, and confusing).

I also have been told that I have thanked others for their ability to help elucidate any theoretical ambiguities for me. I love clarity in a concept, and I will try hard to independently determine this clarity. However, in cases when I have trouble with having a solid clarity, I will seek collaboration to help resolve any ambiguities.

So much of this comes from a desire to seek as much knowledge/wisdom as possible in a similar manner that ILEs would likely tend to do, and to do it in a way that maximizes conceptual accuracy so that more and more knowledge can be integrated in order to form a larger 'big-picture' understanding of the material.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, with everything that I just wrote above, in addition to earlier postings of mine that you (Dionysus) have read, how have you been able to notice considerable from what I have written? I'm really curious as to how you caught this side of my writing so well, how similar my use of relates to your use of (as a LII), and whether or not you can see my as a Creative function or as a Dual-Seeking function? (Yes, this is a time where feedback and clarity would be really helpful from another person's perspective).

Thanks so much in advance!

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

the russians have dominic monaghan down as a warm friendly ИЛЭ
WE SHOULD SEND A SPY

[Dionysus]

OK here's the thing...I feel that I am constantly using both and a lot when I am in a strong learning mode (or "information acquisition mode"). It comes out as a strong curiosity for a subject (which also involves shifting between various angles by which I can assess the information). The involves a lot of scrutinizing the material for its general validity/sensibility. I do this a lot, and it seemingly happens unconsciously.

Any (healthy) Alpha quadra type will have a sense of curiosity towards learning new, "interesting" material simply because of the shared quadra values.

At the same time, after doing a lot of the analysis, I often would like to have a 'reality check' as to whether my thinking was on the right track or was off-base. I want to feel that I am adequately grasping whatever I am learning, and sometimes, I need to perform this type of check in order to make sure that I am truly getting it.

So while I do a lot of assessing and analysis, I still like to bounce my analysis off with other people to get a sense of how I am doing. In this sense, I am only moderately independent in my (...actually better than moderately...Let's say for the sake of argument, 75% independent). I am independent enough to analyze and assess for logical normality, but I am interdependent with a consensus of 'others' to determine whether my analysis is on track with the general arguments as designated in the theory, or if a deviation had been generated. (BTW, there were substantial periods of my childhood where I did not need any assistance in purely grasping the material...this really only happens as problems get more ambiguous, complex, and confusing).

This is easily attributable to being an extrovert in general. I suppose the difference between the ILE and the ESE is that the ESE has a subconscious expectation to be "checked' in daily speech (which psychologically I would be able to see better than any type I suppose - it is glaringly obvious to me) whereas the ILE is more confident in the role of a teacher.

That being said, I have had teachers who were ESEs and so my above statement could lead to a lot of erroneous conclusions (because you would infer that, "yes, I am able to teach +1 for ILE"). The teaching style of an ILE is that of a manner in which he is always drawing pictures on the whiteboard to help other people understand and he will literally talk for hours about his interests. But that probably doesn't help very much.

I also have been told that I have thanked others for their ability to help elucidate any theoretical ambiguities for me. I love clarity in a concept, and I will try hard to independently determine this clarity. However, in cases when I have trouble with having a solid clarity, I will seek collaboration to help resolve any ambiguities.

Right, so would anybody (except for maybe the independent LII who would rather spend hours understanding it himself than hurt his pride...haha).

So, with everything that I just wrote above, in addition to earlier postings of mine that you (Dionysus) have read, how have you been able to notice considerable from what I have written? I'm really curious as to how you caught this side of my writing so well, how similar my use of relates to your use of (as a LII), and whether or not you can see my as a Creative function or as a Dual-Seeking function? (Yes, this is a time where feedback and clarity would be really helpful from another person's perspective).

It would be hard to explain "how" I've seen considerable in your posts but I'll try my best:

I agree that I have a more rational oriented side. This is yet another reason why I initially did not consider an irrational side. If ESE is right, this all is justified immediately. However, if ILE is right, then we have to potentially chalk it up to a rational subtype (irrespective of the subtyping system that is used).

Here you start by showing us the fact that you have been considering possibilities but ruling them out from a criteria based standpoint (independently, of course). You then say, "criteria x is met if the initial truth of condition y was already established, however if the truth of condition y was false then criteria x must change."

Of course, I only phrased it in this technical way to show that the "logic" behind your thought was characteristic of somebody who already had a strong conscious grasp of (Boolean?) logic.

BTW, since quadra is identical between ESE and ILE, obviously, we don't have to consider quadra here and thus, we could jump straight into the "temperament first, clubs second >Model A analysis" that you refer to. (If we have to step back and reconsider EIE, IEE, etc. then quadra values will need to be considered).

The "BTW" shows a confidence in your grasp of already understood logical structure, rather than a request for understanding. You are taking the initiative in connecting the dots here.

Temperament - Again, I have some mix of rational and irrational within me. Thus, if my type is one, then my subtype will likely be the other. I seriously doubt that I would be a creative/harmonizing ILE, nor do I think that I would be a dominant/normalizing ESE. BTW - while I do consider myself as a social introvert, this carries little to no weight Socionics-wise, and so I feel totally game to considering myself with extraverted types. (I feel that I have more 'out there' energy than contained energy). So either EJ or EP are my top choices for my Sociotype.

I could rephrase these sentences in a way as done previously to show the dense, more turgid logic behind it. /END

Thanks so much in advance!

Your use of "BTW" and your other general writing, as well as this sentence, seems like you have a desire for and a mediocre grasp of but it's not really a strong point.

I'll give more examples:

Outstanding question Saber...one that may have cut right into the heart of the truth!

Great analysis Dionysus! ...Definitely will be thinking this stuff more and more!

You put something like this at the end of each of your posts. They all have one exclamation point (and two of them have ellipses) so it's sort of a formulaic approach to .

You're doesn't seem very sophisticated (and if you take that as an insult, don't!. . . mine is obviously worse haha...)

Now here are some other thoughts:

I'm going to infer that you haven't been in any romantic relationships with types of a similar quadra. I also think that you said you were 39. No offense, but not having many relationships at that age is definitely more of an Alpha NT thing than an ESE thing. (I feel incredibly rude making these assumptions, btw - I really don't know anything about your life and am just postulating).

Seeing as how the extinguishment test was already done with the ILI, what have your relationships with ESIs been like?

Have you considered the static/dynamic dichotomies in your analysis? It seems like you think in a more static manner than a dynamic or at least that is the approach you are taking to this problem.

[mikesilb]

Hey Dionysus,

What an extremely perceptive post! You did an amazing job of dissecting everything in order to get to the bottom of how I process information. After reading it, I see how I belong in ILEville. What an awesome job at providing a clarification that totally agrees with everything that I intuitively know about myself. I now declare myself as an ILE!

Any (healthy) Alpha quadra type will have a sense of curiosity towards learning new, "interesting" material simply because of the shared quadra values.

Yes...this is a general trend of alphas. I do think that the nature of that new, interesting material would vary amongst the four alpha types, with the largest divide naturally between alpha NT space and alpha SF space. I would think that ESEs and SEIs would think about (more often) stuff that is somewhat divergent from the type of stuff that LIIs and ILEs would think about. Yet, mutual, crossover interest between alpha SFs and alpha NTs would still certainly happen. This is where solid complementarity between the SFs and NTs (of alpha) would enhance the cohesiveness within the quadra's members.

This is easily attributable to being an extrovert in general. I suppose the difference between the ILE and the ESE is that the ESE has a subconscious expectation to be "checked' in daily speech (which psychologically I would be able to see better than any type I suppose - it is glaringly obvious to me) whereas the ILE is more confident in the role of a teacher.

That being said, I have had teachers who were ESEs and so my above statement could lead to a lot of erroneous conclusions (because you would infer that, "yes, I am able to teach +1 for ILE"). The teaching style of an ILE is that of a manner in which he is always drawing pictures on the whiteboard to help other people understand and he will literally talk for hours about his interests. But that probably doesn't help very much.

It sounds like what you are saying is that the ESE would "-dual seek" more often and more obviously than the way that I was seeking feedback. It is almost as if the gap between my understanding of the conceptual material and the material itself would be significantly smaller than the same gap for an ESE. Possibly because the ESE would not tend to think as much about theoretical, abstract stuff as much as someone who lived on the cutting edge of these conceptual nuances. So naturally, good-ole' interpretive assistance in the form of would be pivotal for guiding the ESE whenever such topics would come up.

In my case, I am more 'into' the conceptual material on a day-to-day basis, and hence, interpretive assistance would not be nearly as necessary and rather, would be used to merely tie up loose ends.

This makes sense all around!

Right, so would anybody (except for maybe the independent LII who would rather spend hours understanding it himself than hurt his pride...haha).

Exactly!! I see the difference.

It would be hard to explain "how" I've seen considerable in your posts but I'll try my best:

Here you start by showing us the fact that you have been considering possibilities but ruling them out from a criteria based standpoint (independently, of course). You then say, "criteria x is met if the initial truth of condition y was already established, however if the truth of condition y was false then criteria x must change."

Of course, I only phrased it in this technical way to show that the "logic" behind your thought was characteristic of somebody who already had a strong conscious grasp of (Boolean?) logic.

The "BTW" shows a confidence in your grasp of already understood logical structure, rather than a request for understanding. You are taking the initiative in connecting the dots here.
I could rephrase these sentences in a way as done previously to show the dense, more turgid logic behind it.

This is one of the most profound statements that I have heard in this regard for a long, long time. To me, this is GOLD!!!

You noticed that implicit in everything that I have been writing has been a strong and reasonable basic logical structure (including decision trees [if...then statements, etc], and all that jazz ). I took it totally for granted that this was in my words. However, as I think about it, this makes a ton of sense. As a scientifically and mathematically inclined person, I was going to utilize this underlying logical activity and do a half-decent job of applying it into a lot of what I do and talk about daily. It is almost subconscious how this is done...yet, this is obviously part of how I process info (i.e., my specific Information Metabolism). I get it, and it is such an incredible 'aha' experience to notice this at work.

Pure gold! Thanks a million!

Your use of "BTW" and your other general writing, as well as this sentence, seems like you have a desire for and a mediocre grasp of but it's not really a strong point.

I'll give more examples:



You put something like this at the end of each of your posts. They all have one exclamation point (and two of them have ellipses) so it's sort of a formulaic approach to .

You're doesn't seem very sophisticated (and if you take that as an insult, don't!. . . mine is obviously worse haha...)

I don't take it as an insult...I am simply taking this in more than anything else, and I find it intriguing actually.

It is funny, because I consider myself a very friendly, compassionate, caring, and passionate guy. Yet, could all this have been adaptive measures (i.e., persona-based which may potentially fall within the subtyping/DCNH realm) rather than stuff pertaining to Information Metabolism. So this is something that I am going to have to ponder that much more. My gut feeling is that you are generally right. Nevertheless, my ability to interpersonally connect with others in a friendly, sincere way still cannot be denied. I do think that this interpersonal, dynamic quality would likely be less dominant in me than in your avg. ESE or EIE (although I am not 100% in this assumption).

So could all this be adaptive? Could it be that I just happen to be a -based subtype (DCNH) of ILE where I bring more of an interpersonal relatability, approachability, and friendliness to the table than other ILEs? I will have to ponder this some more (although any feedback that you have in advance would be awesome).

Now here are some other thoughts:

I'm going to infer that you haven't been in any romantic relationships with types of a similar quadra. I also think that you said you were 39. No offense, but not having many relationships at that age is definitely more of an Alpha NT thing than an ESE thing. (I feel incredibly rude making these assumptions, btw - I really don't know anything about your life and am just postulating).

This feels more speculative than anything else that you have said in the earlier Email. (Please don't feel bad about this, since you overall are being massively more helpful than anything else). I am married to either an SEI or SLI (she feels more Delta-like FWIW). I do have a relatively low # of friends (counted on both hands), and some of this may have to do with my (seemingly) NT (analytic and introspective) style. I also (for a LONG TIME) had not the greatest luck in the dating arena (although now, all that is behind me). So in a way you are on track, but I'm not sure how spot-on you are. It's a mixed bag actually.

Seeing as how the extinguishment test was already done with the ILI, what have your relationships with ESIs been like?

I'm not sure who I know is definitely an ESI, so this answer might sound a bit speculative. In a highly general and superficial way, I do admire ESI's sense of deep trust and loyalty (especially as an Enneagram 6). However, I tend to think that the manner by which they do this would come out as being way more restrictive than I might like. I can see ESIs having a hard time having certain people enter their inner circle. I'd rather live more openly and friendly than being really restrictive over who enters this 'trustworthy' space. I abhor the idea of feeling tested at every second for acceptance into their inner circle. I'd rather have things be relaxed and kick-back than anything else.

I also, see their value as being quite aggressive and pushy. While I admit that sometimes a modicum of in this competitive world is a good thing, I cannot stand living my life solely on those principles. This also leads to an increased judgmental style of ESI that would not necessarily exist for the EII. It sounds as if everything has a cutthroat ('What have you done for me lately?') style that I am not a fan for. Why should I have to feel scrutinized all the time and potentially rejected in a prompt, aggressive manner in a New York minute.

So even though I do not know a confirmed ESI for sure, I would imagine that this would conflict quite easily and obviously from my personal style and preference. Ironically, I can easily see ESIs as Enneagram 6s, and I, myself am a 6. Yet, 6s are known to span the entire typological domain (especially with regards to phobic and counterphobic) and I feel like a very different style of 6 than a staunchly mistrusting (guilty until proven innocent) 6 which feels quite ESI'ish.

I think that the academic interests of the ILI feel a bit more comfy and collaborative than the ESI style. (As stated above) I do admire the trust/loyalty feel of the latter type; yet, the specific manner by which this is accomplished is probably more of a turn-off than the generally reclusive and terse academic style of the ILI. I think that at least for the ILI, common academic interests could keep the momentum going half decently. For ESIs, the relative absence of this would make things even harder.

Have you considered the static/dynamic dichotomies in your analysis? It seems like you think in a more static manner than a dynamic or at least that is the approach you are taking to this problem.

To me, this is the hardest dichotomy to assess. I have no idea how I can strictly tell whether I assess things in a static or dynamic manner. I never figured it out, and I initially thought that I favored a dynamic approach (as a seemingly -dominant type). But now with this switch to ILE, I haven't a clue as to where I stand in this regard. To me, static/dynamic feels incredibly abstract to the point where I cannot really figure it out.

I do understand how each IM Element manifests itself in a discretely static or dynamic way. But I cannot integrate this into a uniquely personal way by which I choose one over the other.

I would love to know how I can confirm my own preference for one so that I can have clarity in this regard. Any feedback as to how I can best do this would be well appreciated!
------------------------------------------------

Thanks again for such a thorough and intricate assessment. This was really eye opening for sure!

[Saberstorm]

You feel like my mirror not my dual. You elaborate and cross reference my ideas. That is mirroring.

[Absurd]

So, I wasn't wrong about the Enneagram part.

[mikesilb]

You feel like my mirror not my dual. You elaborate and cross reference my ideas. That is mirroring.

I like that a lot! Well stated!

[mikesilb]

So, I wasn't wrong about the Enneagram part.

Not exactly the way you said it...You said ESEs and 5s can't coexist. But now it is more about this 6 being an ILE than anything else. So it is a slight shift from what you just mentioned.

But what you said sounded quite good in general, irrespective of my specific type scenario.

[mikesilb]

I feel like having a party after this type switch. Pretty damn good feeling overall!

[Absurd]

Not exactly the way you said it...You said ESEs and 5s can't coexist. But now it is more about this 6 being an ILE than anything else. So it is a slight shift from what you just mentioned.

But what you said sounded quite good in general, irrespective of my specific type scenario.

Disagree. But have an okay time with that party.

[mikesilb]

You feel like my mirror not my dual. You elaborate and cross reference my ideas. That is mirroring.

It is kinda hilarious that we both switched from -dominant types towards where we are! Who woulda' thunk it?

[mikesilb]

Disagree. But have an okay time with that party.

Why do you disagree?

[Absurd]

Why do you disagree?

Simple, everything I say has a reason just like with that people I drank yesterday and that odd lady who couldn't pronounce teflon, and couldn't remember how many sisters her mother has, so I said three, and I was correct.

[mikesilb]

Simple, everything I say has a reason just like with that people I drank yesterday and that odd lady who couldn't pronounce teflon, and couldn't remember how many sisters her mother has, so I said three, and I was correct.

Damn you're good! Excellent guess!

[mikesilb]

OK...Now starts the subtyping question:

Which one? I definitely think a rational subtype (irrespective of which subtyping system we are referring to).

Obviously, in the 2-option subtyping system, that would default to a subtype.

However, in DCNH, with more possibilities, perhaps a (D) subtype is the way to go.

Any thoughts?

[Saberstorm]

I think that could work!

Now add in inert / contact types!

[mikesilb]

I think that could work!

Now add in inert / contact types!

I would say that I am likely an inert (NF) subtype rather than a contact (ST) contact. I feel that I am very NF-ish in general with more of a softer, humanitarian style rather than a more pragmatic ST style that likely fits me poorly. Plus, the inert subtype has both stronger and , which as you know (from participating in this thread) are both relatively strong/noteworthy for me. Contrastingly, I think that + is not nearly as high.

Overall, this preference for the inert subtype is so obvious that it gives me pause as to whether I am right about being a subtype for the 2-subtype system (as I mentioned above). Perhaps, I actually have the subtype in actuality.

Thanks for asking me about inert/contact as that may have illuminated the vs. subtyping discussion above.

[Saberstorm]

How do you do that? You seem to have a better grasp of this stuff that me! Where did you read about the inert / contact system? You seem to have an excellent command of it! Are there threads on it?

[mikesilb]

How do you do that? You seem to have a better grasp of this stuff that me! Where did you read about the inert / contact system? You seem to have an excellent command of it! Are there threads on it?

Thanks so much Saber. I'm really flattered actually, and I think that this is a byproduct of simply enjoying all this material in a highly passionate way and wanting to know and understand as many nooks and crannies of the material as possible. This is why ILE really works as my type here.

(Boy, do I wish that this skill of quickly grasping/analyzing a complex area of study could help me land a good job [which you would think that I might be able to get with a doctorate degree in the biochemical sciences]. I have struggled for a while, and I would love to see a positive development in the very near future. I also wish that there were jobs in the US involving Socionics. Too bad there aren't any at least to my knowledge).

Anyway, I read about inert/contact at the following two articles:
1. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Meged-Ovcharov
and
2. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...types-by-Meged

I actually didn't read any threads on this. All that I did was notice that if you favor the inert subtypes, you are in essence favoring a specific Club. For example, as an LII, if you were inert, you would favor , , , and (in other words, the ST Club). In contrast, if you were a 'contact LII' you would favor , , , and (NF Club). I haven't investigated it, but there has to be quite a lot of threads on this topic, if you want to hear others' perspectives on it all.

Thanks again for what you just wrote! It means a lot to me actually!

[Dionysus]

It sounds like what you are saying is that the ESE would "-dual seek" more often and more obviously than the way that I was seeking feedback. It is almost as if the gap between my understanding of the conceptual material and the material itself would be significantly smaller than the same gap for an ESE. Possibly because the ESE would not tend to think as much about theoretical, abstract stuff as much as someone who lived on the cutting edge of these conceptual nuances. So naturally, good-ole' interpretive assistance in the form of would be pivotal for guiding the ESE whenever such topics would come up.

Also, there is a difference between the conscious and unconscious functions. An ESE will say things and not explicitly reveal that they are requesting logic (it is very implicit, though - at least for an LII). For example, they will come to me and start talking about a problem they have and it's almost always like they don't even know what type of logic they are requesting/ they don't even know what their question is, so my first question is nearly always, "so are you asking me this?"

An ILE, on the other hand, has in his conscious ring - which means he makes his own conclusions about it and if requesting help in this area he will know what he is asking for.

Now obviously a lot of reasoning that occurs in our head will seem subconscious because that is just the way our brains are designed to process language/information and it would be tedious to be always observing this process. I guess the biggest point I am trying to make is that the requests of the unconscious functions are noticeable to others but not necessarily to ones self as much.

Your requests indicate that it is in your conscious ring - because you are capable of articulating the question yourself and are already doing a fine job at it. Once the question is articulated, then like any extrovert you want to bounce the idea back and forth between others.

I will pull one example:

[On static and dynamic]: I would love to know how I can confirm my own preference for one so that I can have clarity in this regard.

This indicates that you already formed a conscious articulation of the question - and you were able to consciously realize the limits of your understanding.

It sounds like what you are saying is that the ESE would "-dual seek" more often and more obviously than the way that I was seeking feedback. It is almost as if the gap between my understanding of the conceptual material and the material itself would be significantly smaller than the same gap for an ESE

It's not just the strength of the that is the issue. It is also the way you engage it.

I don't take it as an insult...I am simply taking this in more than anything else, and I find it intriguing actually.

It is funny, because I consider myself a very friendly, compassionate, caring, and passionate guy. Yet, could all this have been adaptive measures (i.e., persona-based which may potentially fall within the subtyping/DCNH realm) rather than stuff pertaining to Information Metabolism. So this is something that I am going to have to ponder that much more. My gut feeling is that you are generally right. Nevertheless, my ability to interpersonally connect with others in a friendly, sincere way still cannot be denied. I do think that this interpersonal, dynamic quality would likely be less dominant in me than in your avg. ESE or EIE (although I am not 100% in this assumption).

Personally I have noticed that some ILEs can do this actually fairly well, so I suppose you would fit in that crowd. There is a difference though between being a friendly, compassionate, caring guy and having sophisticated . Anybody can become compassionate by practicing loving-kindness meditation, for example. There are probably also some ethically slimy ESEs out there. That all depends on the upbringing.

You could also see this:
http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.co...-function.html

This feels more speculative than anything else that you have said in the earlier Email. (Please don't feel bad about this, since you overall are being massively more helpful than anything else). I am married to either an SEI or SLI (she feels more Delta-like FWIW). I do have a relatively low # of friends (counted on both hands), and some of this may have to do with my (seemingly) NT (analytic and introspective) style. I also (for a LONG TIME) had not the greatest luck in the dating arena (although now, all that is behind me). So in a way you are on track, but I'm not sure how spot-on you are. It's a mixed bag actually.

Haha okay that was very speculative true. I just thought it might be that way because I would have guessed you would have given more relationship analysis had you been married.

The above link I gave says that the activating function is often used by one as an attempt to supply it for oneself (it is also in the "bold" category of functions). Other sources will also say that individuals are prone to try to supply the activating function for themselves, however they rarely achieve a balance and will often be inclined to overindulge or underindulge (I don't think that's a word haha). So if the above link says that it is normally something which our dual takes the pressure off of - then if your wife is an SLI it might be that you have tried to fill in this perceived "void" for yourself more than you would normally be inclined to (because that's her weakest function).

Also I find it hard to believe that an ESE would marry an SLI. Supervision is not a pleasing relationship even for the supervisor.

I'm not sure who I know is definitely an ESI, so this answer might sound a bit speculative. In a highly general and superficial way, I do admire ESI's sense of deep trust and loyalty (especially as an Enneagram 6). However, I tend to think that the manner by which they do this would come out as being way more restrictive than I might like. I can see ESIs having a hard time having certain people enter their inner circle. I'd rather live more openly and friendly than being really restrictive over who enters this 'trustworthy' space. I abhor the idea of feeling tested at every second for acceptance into their inner circle. I'd rather have things be relaxed and kick-back than anything else.

I also, see their value as being quite aggressive and pushy. While I admit that sometimes a modicum of in this competitive world is a good thing, I cannot stand living my life solely on those principles. This also leads to an increased judgmental style of ESI that would not necessarily exist for the EII. It sounds as if everything has a cutthroat ('What have you done for me lately?') style that I am not a fan for. Why should I have to feel scrutinized all the time and potentially rejected in a prompt, aggressive manner in a New York minute.

So even though I do not know a confirmed ESI for sure, I would imagine that this would conflict quite easily and obviously from my personal style and preference. Ironically, I can easily see ESIs as Enneagram 6s, and I, myself am a 6. Yet, 6s are known to span the entire typological domain (especially with regards to phobic and counterphobic) and I feel like a very different style of 6 than a staunchly mistrusting (guilty until proven innocent) 6 which feels quite ESI'ish.

I think that the academic interests of the ILI feel a bit more comfy and collaborative than the ESI style. (As stated above) I do admire the trust/loyalty feel of the latter type; yet, the specific manner by which this is accomplished is probably more of a turn-off than the generally reclusive and terse academic style of the ILI. I think that at least for the ILI, common academic interests could keep the momentum going half decently. For ESIs, the relative absence of this would make things even harder.

Hmmm. Both extinguishment and conflicting are bad relationships, but the depth or your response here compared to the depth of the other makes it sound like you would have a worse time with an ESI.

To me, this is the hardest dichotomy to assess. I have no idea how I can strictly tell whether I assess things in a static or dynamic manner. I never figured it out, and I initially thought that I favored a dynamic approach (as a seemingly -dominant type). But now with this switch to ILE, I haven't a clue as to where I stand in this regard. To me, static/dynamic feels incredibly abstract to the point where I cannot really figure it out.

I have always felt that I understood the difference between these two well but am now having a tougher time putting it into words. I suppose my understanding of it also comes from my perception of the difference between the introverted functions and the extroverted functions. The introverted functions are about the "space" between objects while the extroverted functions are the "bodies," or just the objects themselves.

So
- It is about the logical relationships between things. Logical relationships are generally a non-changing thing, just like the laws of math are universal.
- It is about the permanent, mental attachment resulting from relationships - or the relationship between two people. In other words, "You are my father so our relationship is like this."
- It is about the "raw" power of something. That canyon was huge. Or the president has a lot of power. (- This one seems prone to a lot more change admittedly)
- It is about the latent potential or essence of something. It doesn't make a difference whether or not five years from now that house becomes worn down - it could still potentially be remade.

- The changing emotions of people.
- The changing world of facts (like reading the newspaper)
- The changing inward perception and mental images, and the predicted future which is always changing based on the new present.
- The changing perception of the five senses. It was warm, and then it was cold.


One way to tell whether you are static or dynamic is to go and try to concentrate on a point on the wall for a few minutes. Did you "feel" the flow of time - or does it feel like although the external world may be changing, your general feeling of "being alive" never really changed?

___
Also, it is normal for ENTps to seem to be "introverted extroverts" http://personalitycafe.com/myers-bri...introvert.html

[mikesilb]

Also, there is a difference between the conscious and unconscious functions. An ESE will say things and not explicitly reveal that they are requesting logic (it is very implicit, though - at least for an LII). For example, they will come to me and start talking about a problem they have and it's almost always like they don't even know what type of logic they are requesting/ they don't even know what their question is, so my first question is nearly always, "so are you asking me this?"

An ILE, on the other hand, has in his conscious ring - which means he makes his own conclusions about it and if requesting help in this area he will know what he is asking for.

Now obviously a lot of reasoning that occurs in our head will seem subconscious because that is just the way our brains are designed to process language/information and it would be tedious to be always observing this process. I guess the biggest point I am trying to make is that the requests of the unconscious functions are noticeable to others but not necessarily to ones self as much.

Your requests indicate that it is in your conscious ring - because you are capable of articulating the question yourself and are already doing a fine job at it. Once the question is articulated, then like any extrovert you want to bounce the idea back and forth between others.

I totally see where you are coming from. It is as if I know (generally well) to what degree I 'consciously' know what I know and similarly, I also know (generally well) to what degree I 'consciously' know what I do NOT know. It is as if I am fully cognizant of these things, and I merely want that gap to be filled.

Contrastingly, I can see how ESEs might 'unconsciously' request a answer to some question (by virtue of their specific mannerisms or emotions), but since their request has more of an implicit nature, they might not inherently know that this is something that they are actually trying to attain.

I see the difference, and how I lie in the former category in general. Thanks for clarifying this slight nuance/difference.

Personally I have noticed that some ILEs can do this actually fairly well, so I suppose you would fit in that crowd. There is a difference though between being a friendly, compassionate, caring guy and having sophisticated . Anybody can become compassionate by practicing loving-kindness meditation, for example. There are probably also some ethically slimy ESEs out there. That all depends on the upbringing.

You could also see this:
http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.co...-function.html

I get what you are saying. I think that there is something about the specific archetype (since all IMs are generally archetypes) that is more universal than simply being caring, compassionate, passionate, etc. ESEs and EIEs inherently have a greater mastery of all things in that they know how to turn on a certain level of 'interpersonal emotionality' (Sucky terminology, I know. I just can't think of any better way to say it right now) and to do it in a way that feels like a tailored craft.

As an ILE, I agree that it (meaning ) may not be as perfected to that extent. Sure, certain components of can be refined, but the entire gestalt of probably is not.

What is really interesting also is that I have suffered from a certain level of social anxiety (which I'm not sure if it is related to , my PoLR, or a mixture of both). I am constantly assessing how well I am received by other people, and there is a lot of inner judgement/criticism going on. To me, I would venture to guess (and to me, this is a 100% guess) that an ILE might be more prone to have some level of social anxiety than an ESE since while the ILE wants to be approved and admired (and is unsure as to how well he/she is doing on this front), the ESE may have a better handle on it all and may not need to show the type of anxiety that an ILE might show. Does this make sense to you in general?

The above link I gave says that the activating function is often used by one as an attempt to supply it for oneself (it is also in the "bold" category of functions). Other sources will also say that individuals are prone to try to supply the activating function for themselves, however they rarely achieve a balance and will often be inclined to overindulge or underindulge (I don't think that's a word haha). So if the above link says that it is normally something which our dual takes the pressure off of - then if your wife is an SLI it might be that you have tried to fill in this perceived "void" for yourself more than you would normally be inclined to (because that's her weakest function).

Also I find it hard to believe that an ESE would marry an SLI. Supervision is not a pleasing relationship even for the supervisor.

Here's the thing...I am not 100% as to what my wife's type is. My top four guesses are SLI, SEI, EII, or ESE. The way that she interacts generally would have the type of body-based sensate thing going on. She is the type that thrives on comfort, routines, softness, friendliness, approachability, and loyalty. I also think that she may have a better shot of being -valuing than -valuing (and hence delta > alpha) in the sense that she does not like my loud, boisterous teasing and joking. She would rather have a soft-mannered friend who is caring and sincere than a more emotionally vibrant person. She also tries to be politically correct and to accommodate everyone (including the least fortunate amongst us), rather than to exclude anyone.

Now assuming that she is an SLI (which is a distinct possibilty, even though I would have thought that she would have ethics in her ego block [which lends the possibility of EII working, but then I would say the same about her being very sensate (ad nauseum)]. (By the way, don't those tangents just scream ILE. It is as if I am getting caught in these analytical loops).

OK...lets try this again , assuming that she is an SLI, I think that everything that you wrote about in the mobilizing position makes a ton of sense. I tease her a ton, and try to sound absurd, ludicrous, and insane, all in the same instant (which is akin to combining my base with a bit more of an emotional,-ish amplifier. I kinda like to surprise her (kind of like a shock jock does it, but less intense and more goofy) with a lot of politically incorrect statements. I tend to think that I am doing this for attention (to stir the pot), and I also am doing it because deep down, I wish that I would have a more openly expressive element to our connection (rather than keeping things hypercordial and nice all the time, which can get stale at times for a romantic relationship). I think that if she was an SEI, there might be a bit more of an OK-ness with a more dynamic and expressive relationship.

As a result, I think that your assessment is spot-on once again (assuming of course that she is an SLI)! That is a really good assessment about how my can go a bit bonkers for the reason that you just stated!

Hmmm. Both extinguishment and conflicting are bad relationships, but the depth or your response here compared to the depth of the other makes it sound like you would have a worse time with an ESI.

I think so. I simply have more in common with the introverted NT type in gamma than the corresponding introverted SF type (which now makes sense as I am ILE rather than ESE).

I have always felt that I understood the difference between these two well but am now having a tougher time putting it into words. I suppose my understanding of it also comes from my perception of the difference between the introverted functions and the extroverted functions. The introverted functions are about the "space" between objects while the extroverted functions are the "bodies," or just the objects themselves.

So
- It is about the logical relationships between things. Logical relationships are generally a non-changing thing, just like the laws of math are universal.
- It is about the permanent, mental attachment resulting from relationships - or the relationship between two people. In other words, "You are my father so our relationship is like this."
- It is about the "raw" power of something. That canyon was huge. Or the president has a lot of power. (- This one seems prone to a lot more change admittedly)
- It is about the latent potential or essence of something. It doesn't make a difference whether or not five years from now that house becomes worn down - it could still potentially be remade.

- The changing emotions of people.
- The changing world of facts (like reading the newspaper)
- The changing inward perception and mental images, and the predicted future which is always changing based on the new present.
- The changing perception of the five senses. It was warm, and then it was cold.


One way to tell whether you are static or dynamic is to go and try to concentrate on a point on the wall for a few minutes. Did you "feel" the flow of time - or does it feel like although the external world may be changing, your general feeling of "being alive" never really changed?

The part about how each IM could be explained as static or dynamic makes sense (and I theoretically understood it for quite a while actually). You explained each one in precisely the way that I would have explained it. I also get objects and fields pretty decently as well.

The hard part for me is knowing which one I actually do. So I really appreciate your 'staring at a point on the wall' method. This is what I needed!

The thing is, this point on the wall does not move and so as long as there is no movement around me, I can generalize that subsequent moments are the same as the current moment and it will feel very static in this respect.

However, the moment that any movement happens (or even when I notice that my abdomen expands/contracts via breathing), moment B feels slightly different than moment A. As these moments differ, my mind will naturally try to connect them as if a movie of snapshots is playing. Now in a meditative state, I can detect individualized snapshots of every moment. But in a non-meditative state (of normal wakefulness), it feels as if the moments flow together in dynamic-like properties.

So what makes everything kinda tricky is if I stared solely at the spot on the wall (immobile), things look static (as if Moment A is identical to Moment B).
However, when I stare at life, I see movement and flow all around me (where Moment A is unique from Moment B).

So I have no idea which one I actually am, and I would have thought that dynamic wins because of the latter scenario.

But if I am ILE, how in the world does this converge properly??? Question of the century!

Also, it is normal for ENTps to seem to be "introverted extroverts" http://personalitycafe.com/myers-bri...introvert.html

I massively agree with you! I think that ILEs and IEEs because of the mental/cognitive way in which inherently functions can make many members of both types (but not all!) look very introspective in general. The shyness and or social avoidance can be there while still having an amazingly keen eye as to the events that are happening around them (especially if those events pique their interests). It is almost as if they are be on the fringe/cusp of interacting with others, but still can keep a watcher's eye on all that is going on without necessarily directly participating. (But I would imagine other ILEs and IEEs that are more 'out there' in noticeable ways, as well. Or these two types actually contain a funky mix of both of these states. I tend to think that you would concur with this as well).

All makes sense! Thanks again for such an insightful post!

[Dionysus]

I totally see where you are coming from. It is as if I know (generally well) to what degree I 'consciously' know what I know and similarly, I also know (generally well) to what degree I 'consciously' know what I do NOT know. It is as if I am fully cognizant of these things, and I merely want that gap to be filled.

Contrastingly, I can see how ESEs might 'unconsciously' request a answer to some question (by virtue of their specific mannerisms or emotions), but since their request has more of an implicit nature, they might not inherently know that this is something that they are actually trying to attain.

I see the difference, and how I lie in the former category in general. Thanks for clarifying this slight nuance/difference.

Yep.

I get what you are saying. I think that there is something about the specific archetype (since all IMs are generally archetypes) that is more universal than simply being caring, compassionate, passionate, etc. ESEs and EIEs inherently have a greater mastery of all things in that they know how to turn on a certain level of 'interpersonal emotionality' (Sucky terminology, I know. I just can't think of any better way to say it right now) and to do it in a way that feels like a tailored craft.

The thing is, a passionless, Buddhist, ILI, could practice loving kindness meditation for years and be extremely compassionate. But they are the direct opposite of an ESE. Now there could also be an ESE who has sh*tty ethical motivations, but who constantly uses emotions to manipulate people for selfish reasons.

What is really interesting also is that I have suffered from a certain level of social anxiety (which I'm not sure if it is related to , my PoLR, or a mixture of both). I am constantly assessing how well I am received by other people, and there is a lot of inner judgement/criticism going on. To me, I would venture to guess (and to me, this is a 100% guess) that an ILE might be more prone to have some level of social anxiety than an ESE since while the ILE wants to be approved and admired (and is unsure as to how well he/she is doing on this front), the ESE may have a better handle on it all and may not need to show the type of anxiety that an ILE might show. Does this make sense to you in general?

Yeah it makes sense. It also definitely sounds a lot more like PoLR. Social situations are the ESE's forte and they don't experience much social anxiety - so it's not just that they wouldn't need to show it - they literally wouldn't have it in the first place. And you demonstrate classic ILE behavior:

http://www.socionics.com/prof/entp2.htm

ENTps are far from angels. Don't be fooled by their clumsiness, spaced-out behaviour and over-friendliness. Behind it all is a very cold rational mind, motivated by a starvation for attention. So, if an ENTp is friendly and nice to you: a) they want you to like them; b) they also need something else from you. ENTps care very much what others think and feel about them. In this case the "others" in question are everyone except close friends and family, because close friends and family form a special circle. If an ENTp would open the door to you in their underwear, you are probably already inside this special circle. However, you can find yourself outside this circle as quickly as you found yourself inside it.

(Just ignore the "ENTps are far from angels" if you want to avoid the confusion about your honest intentions lol).

Here's the thing...I am not 100% as to what my wife's type is. My top four guesses are SLI, SEI, EII, or ESE. The way that she interacts generally would have the type of body-based sensate thing going on. She is the type that thrives on comfort, routines, softness, friendliness, approachability, and loyalty. I also think that she may have a better shot of being -valuing than -valuing (and hence delta > alpha) in the sense that she does not like my loud, boisterous teasing and joking. She would rather have a soft-mannered friend who is caring and sincere than a more emotionally vibrant person. She also tries to be politically correct and to accommodate everyone (including the least fortunate amongst us), rather than to exclude anyone.

Now assuming that she is an SLI (which is a distinct possibilty, even though I would have thought that she would have ethics in her ego block [which lends the possibility of EII working, but then I would say the same about her being very sensate (ad nauseum)]. (By the way, don't those tangents just scream ILE. It is as if I am getting caught in these analytical loops).

OK...lets try this again , assuming that she is an SLI, I think that everything that you wrote about in the mobilizing position makes a ton of sense. I tease her a ton, and try to sound absurd, ludicrous, and insane, all in the same instant (which is akin to combining my base with a bit more of an emotional,-ish amplifier. I kinda like to surprise her (kind of like a shock jock does it, but less intense and more goofy) with a lot of politically incorrect statements. I tend to think that I am doing this for attention (to stir the pot), and I also am doing it because deep down, I wish that I would have a more openly expressive element to our connection (rather than keeping things hypercordial and nice all the time, which can get stale at times for a romantic relationship). I think that if she was an SEI, there might be a bit more of an OK-ness with a more dynamic and expressive relationship.

Okay, my perception is that she is an SLI.

EII doesn't make sense from any angle - Se PoLR means that we (LIIs and EIIs) typically aren't skilled at reacting with the people in a sensate way (like...AT all).

I'm going to just exclude ESE right off the bat because there is no way you would feel an emotional void in a relationship with an ESE.

SEI is a little different, but I'm inclined to say the same. Although there isn't as much emotion as the ESE, is their area of creativity and so it's really fun. An SEI also has an demonstrative function - which means that they are inclined to take it as a joke with others and tease it - so they wouldn't be offended by politically incorrect statements.

SLIs (and ILIs) are different though. Types with Fe PoLR and Fi suggestive often put on a the image of a serious person, but in reality they long for environments where they can share their emotions in a "business like" way and they are a LOT more touchy than they put on.

Seeing as how they can be a lot more touchy than they put on, and also seeing that you value ethics a lot, this leads me to something more important. Socionics is not so much about preference. (My perception here One of the basic tenants is that we all desire an equal amount of ethics, logic, sensing, and intuition in the world. But our type isn't about what we value. It is about our strengths. (This is something which separates it from MBTI also). So both you and your wife value ethics equally, but neither of you necessarily feel too competent in filling the void (and there is also a different value on the type of ethics). However because of the coincidental nature of your types - this ethics is in the mobilizing function - and so it is something which you both feel a mediocre degree of skill in providing. Because your ethics is her PoLR, and her ethics is your PoLR - both of you try to provide this for yourselves. This is why your wife acts politically correct in public, and it also why both of you seem more like an ethical type.

However, the moment that any movement happens (or even when I notice that my abdomen expands/contracts via breathing), moment B feels slightly different than moment A. As these moments differ, my mind will naturally try to connect them as if a movie of snapshots is playing. Now in a meditative state, I can detect individualized snapshots of every moment. But in a non-meditative state (of normal wakefulness), it feels as if the moments flow together in dynamic-like properties.

Okay this is what I was looking for. It sounds like you would be static because when you do notice a change it is more like hitting a speed bump than flowing in a river.

Now you say that movements seem to flow together in dynamic-like properties. My question is, during the day does it feel like your most basic sensation of simply being alive doesn't change? Even when individualized things like emotions are changing I often have a feeling that "I" am still there behind it. Dynamic types seem to define their sense of identity with things that are moving. Static types have a sense of identity that is more solid.

So a dynamic type could perceive things that always seem static, but her sense of identity will be seen as more flexible, whereas the daily events of life for a static type could seem to be always moving (...because, after all, they are but the sense of identity is more solid.

This is why I recommended the staring at the dot method. When we do something like this it makes you more aware of yourself because it is a very basic task. But anyways, this is all just a theory of mine, so don't put too much stock in it.
So what makes everything kinda tricky is if I stared solely at the spot on the wall (immobile), things look static (as if Moment A is identical to Moment B).
However, when I stare at life, I see movement and flow all around me (where Moment A is unique from Moment B).

So I have no idea which one I actually am, and I would have thought that dynamic wins because of the latter scenario.

But if I am ILE, how in the world does this converge properly??? Question of the century!

It is a little hard to tell the difference. To be honest, my above theory is pretty shaky - but I am relatively confident now that you are an ILE anyways so it's not that important of a question. The reason I asked originally is because they way you have been looking at this problem seemed more like a static approach. When the change happened it was in a "static jump." You were an ESE for a few months, then you had your reservations but still held to that, then after consideration BAM! - you made the decision to switch to an ILE.

A dynamic approach would have been more like, "Okay so today I feel like an ESE. Update: Meh, I felt like an ILE today. Update: Today I felt like..." you get the point.

Although any static type is going to have nagging doubts and uncertainty - it will be more like, "I realize that this seems more like ESEish behavior in the moment - however I'm going to stick with my judgement of ILE for a while before I switch."

I massively agree with you! I think that ILEs and IEEs because of the mental/cognitive way in which inherently functions can make many members of both types (but not all!) look very introspective in general. The shyness and or social avoidance can be there while still having an amazingly keen eye as to the events that are happening around them (especially if those events pique their interests). It is almost as if they are be on the fringe/cusp of interacting with others, but still can keep a watcher's eye on all that is going on without necessarily directly participating. (But I would imagine other ILEs and IEEs that are more 'out there' in noticeable ways, as well. Or these two types actually contain a funky mix of both of these states. I tend to think that you would concur with this as well).

I would agree with this. I know IEEs who almost seem like introverts, in fact my uncle who is interested in MBTI describes himself as an I/ENFP.

And socionics.com says in the first sentence:

"ENFps are normally either tall and often quiet even though they are extrovert or short and full figured."

Now as for ENTPs - my perception has always been that they are (sometimes) more introverted because they have a far more scientific mind and so they don't like small talk as much. I have one ENTp teacher who acts very goofy, but he has told us, "Although I act goofy with you guys in public if somebody starts a conversation with me that is not interesting I might simply walk away without saying anything."

All makes sense! Thanks again for such an insightful post!

Lol...that is the Analyst's job.

[mikesilb]

Yep.

The thing is, a passionless, Buddhist, ILI, could practice loving kindness meditation for years and be extremely compassionate. But they are the direct opposite of an ESE. Now there could also be an ESE who has sh*tty ethical motivations, but who constantly uses emotions to manipulate people for selfish reasons.

The only extra thing that I will add is that when I think of the compassion that you describe, it feels more like a certain open heartspace/mindspace that has a lot to do with universal descriptions of love (that often Metta practices focus on). When I refer to my compassion (in terms of how I might be applying ), I think that I am aiming more toward the type of caring, devoted, and accommodating sort of interpersonal interaction with another person (or multiple people). I know that there is a huge similarity between the two aspects of compassion, and perhaps they work like two sides of the same coin, but what I am talking about (in my own personality) might have a bit more of an Enneagram 2-ish feel and the type of lovingkindness might feel more 5-ish or 9-ish. Beyond this minor nuance, I completely understand what you are saying.

Yeah it makes sense. It also definitely sounds a lot more like PoLR. Social situations are the ESE's forte and they don't experience much social anxiety - so it's not just that they wouldn't need to show it - they literally wouldn't have it in the first place.

I agree. I have this stuttering (and sometimes hiding/withdrawing quality) when I feel that social anxiety. Contrastingly, ESEs I would think would naturally be fully in command of the interpersonal space. Anyway, this is certainly another piece of ILE evidence.

And you demonstrate classic ILE behavior:

http://www.socionics.com/prof/entp2.htm

(Just ignore the "ENTps are far from angels" if you want to avoid the confusion about your honest intentions lol).

I have read this from the website (a few days earlier than seeing your quote). I know that there is one page where they try to 'roast' each given type, and here is the ILE roast description. Anyway, I agree with you that this description agrees well with my personal style. All makes sense!

Okay, my perception is that she is an SLI.

EII doesn't make sense from any angle - Se PoLR means that we (LIIs and EIIs) typically aren't skilled at reacting with the people in a sensate way (like...AT all).

Right, and that isn't her. She is extremely sensate. EII sounded good because she does serve as a supporter/advocate of others. But first and foremost, she is very sensate oriented, and second, her support of others is in less of a 'rational' style than a more laid back and openly friendly 'irrational' style. So EII never really sounded right to me

I'm going to just exclude ESE right off the bat because there is no way you would feel an emotional void in a relationship with an ESE.

Right. As an activator type, I should feel generally in sync with the emotional pace and tone of ESEs. In my case, while my emotional tolerance is quite high, hers goes quite low for reasons that we already both described. ESE makes sense to be eliminated.

SEI is a little different, but I'm inclined to say the same. Although there isn't as much emotion as the ESE, is their area of creativity and so it's really fun. An SEI also has an demonstrative function - which means that they are inclined to take it as a joke with others and tease it - so they wouldn't be offended by politically incorrect statements.

Completely! There would be more of that general harmony/in-sync-ness with SEI (as a dual). Makes sense to also eliminate SEI.

SLIs (and ILIs) are different though. Types with Fe PoLR and Fi suggestive often put on a the image of a serious person, but in reality they long for environments where they can share their emotions in a "business like" way and they are a LOT more touchy than they put on.

That 'toned down emotionality' sounds like her. She doesn't mind people who sound energetically stale but who are generally good people. So this all sounds right on.

Seeing as how they can be a lot more touchy than they put on, and also seeing that you value ethics a lot, this leads me to something more important. Socionics is not so much about preference. (My perception here One of the basic tenants is that we all desire an equal amount of ethics, logic, sensing, and intuition in the world. But our type isn't about what we value. It is about our strengths. (This is something which separates it from MBTI also). So both you and your wife value ethics equally, but neither of you necessarily feel too competent in filling the void (and there is also a different value on the type of ethics). However because of the coincidental nature of your types - this ethics is in the mobilizing function - and so it is something which you both feel a mediocre degree of skill in providing. Because your ethics is her PoLR, and her ethics is your PoLR - both of you try to provide this for yourselves. This is why your wife acts politically correct in public, and it also why both of you seem more like an ethical type.

Very profound, and it beautifully describes the type of push-pull relationship that my wife and I play. Each one is using the preferred style of ethics to fulfill a certain aim, and since our aims are different (For me, it is to add some novelty or pizazz to the relationship...For her, it is to keep things nice, proper, orderly, and civilized), we keep going through this 'dance' where each person annoys/irritates the other in cyclical and increasing quality.

Really astute observation. Adds a lot of support to the SLI argument.

Okay this is what I was looking for. It sounds like you would be static because when you do notice a change it is more like hitting a speed bump than flowing in a river.

Now you say that movements seem to flow together in dynamic-like properties. My question is, during the day does it feel like your most basic sensation of simply being alive doesn't change? Even when individualized things like emotions are changing I often have a feeling that "I" am still there behind it. Dynamic types seem to define their sense of identity with things that are moving. Static types have a sense of identity that is more solid.

So a dynamic type could perceive things that always seem static, but her sense of identity will be seen as more flexible, whereas the daily events of life for a static type could seem to be always moving (...because, after all, they are but the sense of identity is more solid.

I think that I am seeing the outside world as moving, and at the same time I am seeing myself as a constant observer, Mike whose observation of each moment is a constant. So if your theory holds true, that would make me static.

So let me see if I understand you about this (with a bit of Vedantic philosophy immersed into it all):

1) Static would take all the snapshots of 'movable change' and encapsulate that within a moviescreen of consciousness. In other words, a wide range of changing scenes would be on the moviescreen, but what matters more is that there is a constant 'SOMEONE' there who is watching the moviescreen. This watcher has a constant/static property

2) Dynamic would assert that the 'watcher's identity' is constantly mold-able from one instant to the next since the identity is merged with his/her surroundings. However, while identity changes, the identity's function/role is constant and may be dependent on the events going on (This sounds more EJ-ish).

So static and dynamic (according to your theory sound) actually like the perspective of the conscious watcher's identity. Am I correct with this assumption? BTW, do others generally agree with you on your take of static and dynamic? I am asking this because I have never heard of your unique perspective (It sounds plausible and reasonable) and I am curious if others describe static/dynamic in a similar way (from the perspective of the watcher's identity)? What do you think?

It is a little hard to tell the difference. To be honest, my above theory is pretty shaky - but I am relatively confident now that you are an ILE anyways so it's not that important of a question. The reason I asked originally is because they way you have been looking at this problem seemed more like a static approach. When the change happened it was in a "static jump." You were an ESE for a few months, then you had your reservations but still held to that, then after consideration BAM! - you made the decision to switch to an ILE.

A dynamic approach would have been more like, "Okay so today I feel like an ESE. Update: Meh, I felt like an ILE today. Update: Today I felt like..." you get the point.


Although any static type is going to have nagging doubts and uncertainty - it will be more like, "I realize that this seems more like ESEish behavior in the moment - however I'm going to stick with my judgement of ILE for a while before I switch."

I agree that I was involved in a very static, 2-state jump from the ESE world into a brand new ILE world. I have barely turned back towards ESE ever since. I see how in dynamic, there could be continual identity shifts where at 9 AM, I feel ILEish, but at 2 PM, I feel ESEish, and then at 7 PM, bring back the ILE talk. Honestly, I don't do this at all.

I will say that at times, static sounds kinda rational (as a definitive, 2-state system [like a sigmoidal curve] that changes at critical junctures only, while dynamic sounds irrational [like a sine-wave with a tiny amplitude] since these switches happen as soon as any little evidence points towards one option or the other.

I would agree with this. I know IEEs who almost seem like introverts, in fact my uncle who is interested in MBTI describes himself as an I/ENFP.

And socionics.com says in the first sentence:
"ENFps are normally either tall and often quiet even though they are extrovert or short and full figured."

Now as for ENTPs - my perception has always been that they are (sometimes) more introverted because they have a far more scientific mind and so they don't like small talk as much. I have one ENTp teacher who acts very goofy, but he has told us, "Although I act goofy with you guys in public if somebody starts a conversation with me that is not interesting I might simply walk away without saying anything."

What is really funny is that when I was into the Myers Briggs (in my pre-Socionics and pre-Enneagram days), like your uncle, I considered myself as either an INFP or an ENFP. I also at the time had a tough time determining which one I was, since I was socially introverted and had my focus on a lot of thoughts (which were both introspectively motivated and also motivated by various concepts that came from other/outer sources). In fact, I entered Socionics thinking that I had to be an NF type (and initially translated INFP into EII (INFj.. i.e., the J/P switch in introverts) which turned out to be an inaccurate move.

Even within the Enneagram, the late Don Riso called Enneagram 6s as 'ambiverted types' (which made a lot of sense to me).

Now regarding my brand new ILEness, I remember being in many situations where I really did not like the small talk and would rather detach from it to whatever I had to do at the time. Also, as an undergrad student, I like science exams that required no (subjective) essays, and would rather have more of a clear-cut answer (multiple choice/fill in the blanks) which involved some level of problem solving. When the answer was more vague, I never knew if I could write something that could be misconstrued and counted as an incorrect answer. I felt that there was always more of a slippery slope in terms of answering things subjectively, while in the hard sciences, there was generally a right answer and it was my job to follow some stream of (underlying) logic in order to arrive at the right (or some suitable answer).

So there is certainly a private side of me that wants to avoid small talk and who likes to get to the heart of the matter.

One other thing...Over the last few days, I wanted to convince myself that I am not an IEE and am actually solidly an ILE. I really think that there is a certain journalistic interviewing/small talk quality to the IEE that I really cannot relate to. It seems as if IEEs are very much about utilizing to fulfill their greater needs (by applying their reporting/networking/storytelling/small talk skills with others). In this case, it seems as if they are OK with small talk and can handle it to a greater extent than ILEs. In my case, I would rather want to either a) make substantial/high potential effects on others' lives through a more dynamic interaction (), or b) I would want to filter out any potential for small talk (detach) and focus completely on the conceptual stuff (or even the task) in front of me.

Now, contrastingly, my wife and her parents are happy with all that (low energy) small talk. They can talk to strangers and share stories with them about things that might honestly bore the living daylights out of me. (I guess that this is the difference between alpha and delta).

So anyway, I strongly think that given all this, IEE simply has no shot (even though I entered Socionics as an assuming NF). I also think that given that I relate much better to SEI than SLI, this supports what is going on here.

Lol...that is the Analyst's job.

You do it well and have already illuminated/clarified quite a lot (of my own inner experiences/dynamics) in the process! Thanks again!

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

You are both, don't need to be conflicted.

You are both a warm-hearted, nice and sensitive person and also a logical/rational scientist. They aren't opposites.

Are you more intellectual or more caring? It obviously depends on the context. Obviously since you are a human being you aren't going to sit idly by while an innocent is being tortured by evil. That sort of thing tends to inspire most people to take action, to unleash the hero within us all. But at the same time you want to leave people alone to grow on their own, to be smart enough to show emotional distance when appropriate and to help them learn lessons on their own. It really depends what you are talking about and dissecting yourself this way just seems pointless.