Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: detail-aversion

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default detail-aversion

    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko
    Evolutionary types see small to large. Details are distinct. Scale is specific and precise like geographical map. Involutionary types on the other hand, see large to small. Details are vague. Scale is general and broad. The scale will alternate in Negativists, since they think more alternatively, but the same priority will remain.
    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.
    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?
    Last edited by chemical; 07-14-2014 at 11:34 AM.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    At least a few Reinin dichotomies are founded on where some IE stands relative to the inert/contact dichotomy, so I daresay this is a generally important thing to consider, which is why I felt it fitting to include as part of some of my justifications.

    For those hard pressed to read all the above, the essential question is basically at the bottom of the post. The rest is basically justification as to where the question comes from at all.

    The issue is I'm personally 100% not the kind to give "details" if I perceive them as not contributing some essential concept. If it seems like a formality, I automatically leave it out. But I'm not really able to reconcile what to make of Gulenko's quote up there in assessing where I really stand. The stuff above that quote is my own independent extrapolation as to the likely meaning of the concepts in the types considered.

  3. #3
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This seems really awesome, want to reply very much, will reply as soon as I can 1) parse the OP and 2) have time to post without sneakily looking over my shoulder while at work. In the mean time, questions and sketch-thoughts:

    1) VS cognition and HP cognition---can you provide a reference for these terms? I think I understood your description of them but having two descriptions to work off of usually helps me understand both better.
    2) I think of Te as not detail averse? For ILIs? I know there's a more nuanced idea/answer, I just wanted to throw that out on a first blush rough reading. I would buy it more for ILEs, just intuitively, without really understanding your argument?
    3) I'm detail averse. Hate details. And I work at a super detail-oriented job. Great plan, me. I'm IEI. This is not what your thread is about, but again, a thought.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9
    I'm detail averse. Hate details. And I work at a super detail-oriented job. Great plan, me. I'm IEI. This is not what your thread is about, but again, a thought.
    Well that fits neatly in, in theory, as IEI is intuitive and involutionary.

    VS = vortical-synergetic, HP = holographic-panoramic

    These are explained here: http://forum.socionix.com/topic/3855...nitive-styles/

    The gist being VS could be said to be the dynamic, involutionary type, while dialectical algorithmic is the dynamic, evolutionary type of cognition. Gulenko derives these forms from a combination of Reinin dichotomies.

    I think of Te as not detail averse?
    Right, definitely. The interesting point though is ILI's evolutionary type is in theory caused by +Ni base rather than the creative Te, and I gave a description of where the -Te might play in.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    84
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Process 'sees' something specific (+accepting) and 'produces' something vague (-creating).

    Result sees something vague (-accepting) and produces something specific (+creating).

    Accepting is like your worldview, how you 'see' the world's data.

    Creating is like your original output. A new idea or an application.

    - tries to minimalize the idea, reducing it to dense core principles that will apply broadly.

    + tries to preserve the differences between separate instances. It perceives detail as how instances contrast with each other.


    ILE produces something broad that applies for all cases (like a model), while LII produces something small that addresses a niche portion of the whole (like a category).

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your +/- take is interesting. You're getting at the idea that - is about minimizing violations of the essence of the IE, while + is more constructive and cares for the particulars of what can be achieved by staying true to the principle of the IE.

    This is for e.g. beta's +Ti/+Fe resulting in an interest in maximizing attentiveness to the particulars of emotional ethics, bringing out as much of it as possible.

    An additional idea I had is one could place the minimization of the -IE relative to the +IE it is blocked with. For instance, -Ti and +Ne makes for attempting to capture through logical principles the essence and potential perceived of an object, as it relates to others. +Ne indicates that the highest potential and the deepest essence of the in-the-moment perception must be captured, so -Ti seeks to capture this through certain minimization of violations of what is seen as the essential qualities of Ti. This tends to entail a fitting definition/prescription along with highly coherent and thorough explication of the laws required, and thus one strives through seeking out the most universal/general version of the principles one is formulating to capture the stated essence/potential.
    Delta does this with respect to mobilization.

    And it works out interestingly because for delta, the point of -Ti with respect to Se might be said to correspond to their devaluation of Se over Si. Mobilizing something being less important than its long term role/function, so the laws of mobilization are stripped down. With alpha - Ti, the negative is with respect to a valued IE so the minimization is actually valued rather than about reducing what is devalued. Striving for the essentials and generality of logical principles is gravitated towards.

    What I am having a hard time getting right now this instant is what producing Ne looks like. I can more easily envision producing something through reason than producing something that is irrational in content.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I guess producing Ne might differ from accepting in the sense of producing new potential somewhere through the logical analysis, as opposed to absorbing abstract potential-oriented data and producing a logical model capturing it in the most generality possible. For instance, Ti information could be used to architect a new object which carries potential for some objective situation.
    Interesting. The creative potential probably is, as Saberstorm wrote in another thread of mine, related to Fe seeking, since this is also I think a producing element.

  8. #8
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,617
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Being scattered and vague is usually associated with low and , so EIEs and IEEs would be at a maximum for it.

    Intuitive logical types will have sort of a mix then: they will be attentive to the details of reasoning but also seek more general principles. Likewise sensing ethical types will generally be oriented towards details of immediate experience but also somewhat disorganized or lacking carefulness in their thought process.

  9. #9
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    3) I'm detail averse. Hate details. And I work at a super detail-oriented job. Great plan, me. I'm IEI. This is not what your thread is about, but again, a thought.
    People will often tell me I'm good with details. I work in a LIIbrary and I'm really good at rapidly shelving books in the proper order, organizing information, things like that. Also, I'm careful, I'll double check and even triple check my work to make sure I didn't miss something. I get anxious when there are also of details to attend to because the more there are, the greater likelihood of screwing something up.

    I tend to be good at the Ti types of details- like organizing according to certain rules like the Dewey Decimal system. However, I can be really lousy with more Te oriented logistical types of details.

    Here's a case in point: One of the libraries I sometimes substitute at offers exam proctoring services. Proctoring is a great service that the library offers. It's convenient for the students, but its a hassle for library employees, particularly logistically challenged ones like me.


    First of all, there's all of these details as to what types of exams we can or cannot proctor. We have to make sure they fill out a proctor agreement form and show photo ID upon taking the exam. Sometimes we have to enter a special password for an online exam. There are also rules as to what times of the day a student can take an exam, how many simultaneous exams one can proctor, or where exactly the student can or cannot sit. Then we are supposed to ask if they need a quiet study room or if they need to borrow one of the library's computers and if so, do they have a library card in order to do so?


    For me all of those details are exhausting. When there are so many rules and details one must attend to, the probability is great that I will miss one or get it wrong. One time the manager got mad at me because I scheduled an exam right when the library was opening and I was told it was not a good time. Then another time I got chewed out because I forgot to ask the student if she needed a quiet study room- turns out she did and as luck would have it there were none to be had.


    It isn't just the proctoring but all of the other logistical things I'm asked to do. Book meeting rooms, track registrations for programs, track library-use only items to make sure they are only used in a certain space, etc.


    Registering people for library cards is also complicated. Do they live in county where the library is? Are they outside of the county? Separate registration procedures for each. Is it a child who is registering? An adult? Do they have appropriate ID or not? What about customers who are disabled and can't physically come into the library but still want to borrow items? What about customers who live in a shelter and/or have no permanent address? What about customers who are paranoid about giving out their real address? What about a library card specific for an organization and not an individual? So many specific scenarios and there is a separate policy for each. How do people keep it all straight? Even after several years, it's something I still struggle with. Luckily, I mostly handle reference questions and technology assistance and there are support staff that usually handle the issuing of library cards but sometimes I'm expected to help out when no one else is around.


    It's embarrassing that I seem hesitant and unsure of something that so many other people find easy and 'automatic.' Something that doesn't require a college degree to do. On the other hand, my work, supposedly more advanced and complex suits me better because often there are many different ways of arriving at the same answer and as long as the customer is satisfied with the information or help you provided, how you got there isn't so important.


    Also, every time the library offers a new service to the customers I get a bit anxious. Not because of the change itself. I'm good at change from a big picture perspective and oftentimes I'm excited by the possibilities the new service can provide. But rather, its the logistical details of implementing it.


    Quote Originally Posted by esq View Post
    Process 'sees' something specific (+accepting) and 'produces' something vague (-creating).

    Result sees something vague (-accepting) and produces something specific (+creating).

    Accepting is like your worldview, how you 'see' the world's data.

    Creating is like your original output. A new idea or an application.

    - tries to minimalize the idea, reducing it to dense core principles that will apply broadly.

    + tries to preserve the differences between separate instances. It perceives detail as how instances contrast with each other.


    ILE produces something broad that applies for all cases (like a model), while LII produces something small that addresses a niche portion of the whole (like a category).
    I would be a result oriented negativist by this. I think I like producing broad things that would apply for all cases as well as creating categories. I seem to go back and forth between the two.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  10. #10
    Heart Chamber Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    IEE 3w4
    Posts
    7,505
    Mentioned
    590 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Can't deal with details either, I can only do that when I get into a state of flow but details require constant attention. Making citations in scientific texts drives me nuts. Put me into a math class, I grasp the basic concept and understand it well practically but execute all these equations so carelessly that I overlook the small but important parts (commas, minus/plus, certain rules for special numbers and so on). I'm especially bad at fractions and division, so many particularities and I think to myself "why? WHY? why should I do that?". Same with grammar, I often don't get the tenses right. When talking German, I often lose my train of thought and just blurt out key words mid-sentence lmao
    On the other hand, I have high standards of perfectionism so I'm somewhat in a torn state between wanting to execute details and just delineating the overall draft. If it's more abstract, nitty-gritty, I can handle it.

  11. #11
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think I have a problem dealing with details in the areas of my interest and passion. Rather, I'm one of the people who can be depended on to notice all the details and whether they're right. "Right" means (1) that the details match the big-picture intent, experience, or goals, and (2) that a product or experience is more than a bare-bones framework, that's it's fully realized and rich.

    I don't appreciate details and procedures in themselves, but I care about them greatly in service to a larger matter. Details add up. A few wrong details (sometimes even just one detail) can wreck a design or product.

    But I have a hard time figuring out which details are salient, and in this regard I find good plans, clear values, and light, sensible, context-responsive procedures or practices helpful.

    I'm offering this information because I am widely seen here as EIE, and upthread I see my type singled out as detail-averse. Not only do I not mind details in general, but I don't see the dislike of details being so strong in other EIEs. It may depend on what kind of details you mean.

  12. #12
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,617
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @goldenbane I wouldn't say all EIEs are averse to or bad at dealing with details, and maybe not even most. More often they do prefer that others take care of the mundane, everyday aspects of work. The idea is more that IF somebody is detail-averse then they are likely a type low in and/or .

  13. #13
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    @goldenbane I wouldn't say all EIEs are averse to or bad at dealing with details, and maybe not even most. More often they do prefer that others take care of the mundane, everyday aspects of work. The idea is more that IF somebody is detail-averse then they are likely a type low in and/or .
    I agree that a mountain of mundane details is a killing climb. Attending to the details of an intellectual or creative project will probably be a quite different matter for the EIEs I know.

    IEEs appear to home in on details about people and interactions that I don't find intriguing enough to follow.

    Perhaps what one considers to be "details" has to do with what one's perception is focused on in the first place.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •