Those Confusing I-types by I/O

[Rebelondeck]

When in public settings, I-types often unwittingly mask their true nature because they frequently need to reorient. To engage people or the environment, externally referenced processes have to be brought to the fore. Ij-types put their input processes online while Ip-types have their output take the lead. This creates behaviours that one may associate more with their mirror-types; Ij-types can at times appear very exploratory and inquisitive while Ip-types can seem to take charge and be very goal oriented.

I-types cannot hold priority reversals for very long before having to revert back, so their internally-referenced natures can never be fully cloaked. However, an illusion is created for an observer: Ip-types can appear output oriented and Ij-types input oriented. This seeming behaviour reversal impacts group dynamics and its affects on inter-type relations cannot be minimized, at least in the short-term. People usually will only respond to that which is observable.

I-type descriptions should have “when-engaged” and “when-isolated” aspects. Socionics descriptions seem to better address the isolated mode while MBTI seems to lean more toward engagement characteristics. However, a comprehensive I-type description has to incorporate this switch to external referencing and how this process may be perceived by an observer.

[Soupman]

When in public settings, I-types often unwittingly mask their true nature because they frequently need to reorient. To engage people or the environment, externally referenced processes have to be brought to the fore. Ij-types put their input processes online while Ip-types have their output take the lead. This creates behaviours that one may associate more with their mirror-types; Ij-types can at times appear very exploratory and inquisitive while Ip-types can seem to take charge and be very goal oriented.

I-types cannot hold priority reversals for very long before having to revert back, so their internally-referenced natures can never be fully cloaked. However, an illusion is created for an observer: Ip-types can appear output oriented and Ij-types input oriented. This seeming behaviour reversal impacts group dynamics and its affects on inter-type relations cannot be minimized, at least in the short-term. People usually will only respond to that which is observable.

I-type descriptions should have “when-engaged” and “when-isolated” aspects. Socionics descriptions seem to better address the isolated mode while MBTI seems to lean more toward engagement characteristics. However, a comprehensive I-type description has to incorporate this switch to external referencing and how this process may be perceived by an observer.

You are coming from the MBTI, the "introverts" there are socionics intuitives - the people who are always in their minds detached from tangible reality.

When they reorientate - that is explained in socionics as triggering the superego aspect of their personality. However Sensorics also do that when they feel like they are in uncharted territory. SEI seem very distant and intellectual wearing their ILI mask

[chrys]

how tf am i even SEI then lol, I am a xII-Ne now. :3

[Rebelondeck]

........When they reorientate - that is explained in socionics as triggering the superego aspect if their personality......

@Soupman, I do not think that superego aspects can be triggered; this too is an illusion. I had said the following in another thread:

"I do not think there is, for example, an Se processor that overrides a Ne processor. Input and output processes are not mixed and matched, they evolve in pairs with fixed limitations. One set of limitations cannot be swapped out for another set. When needed, an alternate process pair with a dual-like configuration can be put online but since the primary pair remains in control, any results from this secondary are reassessed by the primary, which distorts information. However, while the alternate is online, dual-like behaviours emerge. Reaching into an area to which I haven't given a lot of thought, an INTj can put ESFj-like processes online but the results from this alternate foray is objectively dissected. INTj processes distort secondary results and perhaps give, for example, the appearance of ISFj thinking."

a.k.a. I/O

[Soupman]

@Soupman, I do not think that superego aspects can be triggered; this too is an illusion. I had said the following in another thread:

"I do not think there is, for example, an Se processor that overrides a Ne processor. Input and output processes are not mixed and matched, they evolve in pairs with fixed limitations. One set of limitations cannot be swapped out for another set. When needed, an alternate process pair with a dual-like configuration can be put online but since the primary pair remains in control, any results from this secondary are reassessed by the primary, which distorts information. However, while the alternate is online, dual-like behaviours emerge. Reaching into an area to which I haven't given a lot of thought, an INTj can put ESFj-like processes online but the results from this alternate foray is objectively dissected. INTj processes distort secondary results and perhaps give, for example, the appearance of ISFj thinking."

a.k.a. I/O

You are not working with socionics theory, you have your own MBTIesque ideas largely incompatible with socionics.

It is best to avoid MBTI semantics like Te, Ne... given the incompatibility of definitions.

[Rebelondeck]

You are not working with socionics theory, you have your own MBTIesque ideas largely incompatible with socionics.

It is best to avoid MBTI semantics like Te, Ne... given the incompatibility of definitions.

@Soupman, My ideas are most certainly not close to MBTI although its classification system does demonstrate a valid perspective. I just spout a different model that happens to be closer to Socionics.

a.k.a. I/O