I am curious as to what socionics ideas can interplay with the notion of a detail-averse type.
The idea of being scattered, vague, and peering into the essence of things and past the extraneous details seems associated often with an intensely intuitive leaning. Yet, there is apparently another consistently present factor related to erasing the details of something (here details refer to something on the order of justification, not precision, I think?), namely the involution/evolution result/process idea, whereby the result types erase what led to the result, and whose thinking aims to reduce the composition of chaotic factors into some essentially sought result. This shows up in VS cognition, where a focal point to a chaotic situation is sought, and also in HP cognition, where the result is seen as a compressed superimposition of various matters, with the constituent matters themselves quite hard at times to decode from looking at the outcome, for the superimposition is far from the more linear logical model, where the constituent parts are not smashed together but laid out as integral to the result. The LII for instance is known to simply spit out a dense construct with what led to it considered less important.
What I am curious about mainly is in the shades of grey here: the ILX are some of the shades of grey because they favor evolution, but are intuitive types foremost, and what's more, their +N(i/e) is what even yields the evolutionary preference. Thus, their process-favoring does not contradict any of their preference for peering straight to the essence of something, which inclines me to believe their process-valuation corresponds to a laying out of intuitive associations.
Similarly, I would look at the involutionary types who have a precision-seeking function, like the LII's Ti. Here, the result is stated in a precise way. One could easily make the mistake of assuming that detail-erasing means vague, but here it simply means precision of outcome sought, whereas the ILI's ideational standing remains in flux, and the ILE's is laid out, but in a sense the outcome itself may be obscured, with a chain of ideation leading seemingly nowhere, but sufficiently intense to the irrational mind.
However I have a doubt: it seems wishful to think that involution and evolution remain stable across all mental activity perhaps. I wonder if one sees traces of a different orientation when considering the two separate IE in the ego block. That is, what happens when an evolutionary type seeks to make contact with the environment, and similarly the involutionary type with the environment? The point is the information sought as the staple and overall aim of cognition should follow the preferred end.
Here, I refer to the ILX who makes contact through the T(e/i) - would they display an evolutionary attitude here? Rather, the ILI may peer straight to the facts pointing to negative Te outcomes when making contact. Similarly, why would the ILE in the realm of Ti be process-oriented? Rather, they may peer straight to a dense Ti construct, but ultimately be more interested in the chain of intuitive associations which led to it.
But this is all my extrapolation. For all I know, ILE are not detail-averse. Here is Gulenko on this
I am trying to understand this better in context of myself, and I must say I'm not convinced some of what I said above isn't made up and potentially contradictory to what is the spirit of Gulenko's meaning here. I am for instance very much the general/broad sort. Anything further must point essentially back to some general idea.Originally Posted by Gulenko
Yet it's hard to say, there's no question being general/broad/vague is an intuitive trait mentioned in a multitude of the socionics sources.
How, then, are the intensely intuitive evolutionary types like ILI/ILE fulfilling the evolutionary model?