new ILI

[Bertrand]

Hello everyone.

Some backstory: I've had a shallow understanding of MBTI for like a decade or more, but after a traumatic break up (about a year ago), I found myself in something of a crisis, trying to understand how it is two good people who care about eachother might still come into intractable conflict with one another. Up until that point I had been able to clearly identify flaws in past partners so I never really had to confront this head on. But with this relationship I fully appreciated that my significant other was both intelligent and ethical and there was nothing "obvious" working against us, and yet we still could not make it work. I felt completely destroyed and helpless. Anyway, this caused me to completely re evaluate basically everything and I made a huge effort to try to understand what was really going on with interpersonal relationships. This inevitably lead me to Jung, and after almost a year of reading his books and absorbing as much information as I could possibly get my hands on, to here, where I have many questions.

I consider myself an ILI, which I'm about as sure as an ILI can get about such things, which is to say I'm open to the possibility of being wrong, but I don't think its likely.

I think of myself as an enneagram 1, which I think will come off as odd, but I can explain. My parents, as far as I can tell, were SEI (father) and IEI (mother), and growing up was indescribably difficult for me. I really felt like I could never do anything right and was fundamentally flawed. I really thought of myself as kind of stupid, like I somehow wasn't "getting it", yet outwardly I was a high achiever. I'm not describing autism or anything like that. My social skills are well developed, rather it was a kind of moral recrimination I could never shake. My mother was a hardcore Christian (and not in the deep Kierkegaardian kind of way, but the shallow, typical way that the internet has come to mock and deride constantly), and my father basically just acted as her enforcer, although I doubt he held any personal convictions beyond his simple loyalty to my mom. In any case, this resulted in my ego being under constant attack even as a small child (my earliest memories are of this kind--getting in trouble for not being Fe enough basically), and naturally it made me angry, but I was too young to really own that anger and so I repressed it all up until relatively recently, because I assumed they were right about me and that I was flawed. A hyper active super ego naturally followed.

Anyway the instinctual variants baffle me, because I feel like the descriptions are incomplete and the emergent properties of number/instinct/personality type are so varied that a comprehensive description of some of the more unique outcomes has yet to be written (for example most type1 descriptions seem to have an SLI in mind, etc). So I don't really know where I stand on all that.

In any case, I've signed up here after basically reading damn near every post and now I can no longer remain passive and continue to learn. So that's why I'm here. Also I find visual identification really interesting, because the more I'm aware of it in interacting with others the more I'm sensing there is something to it, so I threw my pic up.

edit: I would also like to add, in the interests of full disclosure, that pure knowledge is not my only motive. The more I understand these kinds of things the more I realize just how important it is to be around people with similar values and understanding as you in order to be healthy (or at least not at-war). I've felt like a fish out of water my whole life, but my general sense of this community (hopefully proven correct) is that you are kindred souls in many ways and so another reason for being here is to find a kind of social acceptance I've never really experienced, but that I've been increasingly hopeful lately actually exists...

[Grendel]

Confession: I read your name as "Beleriand" for a second.


Welcome to the party.

[Theoria]

Welcome home.

Enjoy your stay.

[Adam Strange]

Hi, Bertrand.
I read your post and got suspicious about your type. I know a few ILI's in real life, and you don't write like they sound. You write much more like I think.
What makes you think you are ILI?
Incidentally, I think you VI as an LIE, too.

[Bertrand]

Hi, Bertrand.
I read your post and got suspicious about your type. I know a few ILI's in real life, and you don't write like they sound. You write much more like I think.
What makes you think you are ILI?
Incidentally, I think you VI as an LIE, too.

I think this is one of those things where, like, it won't do to have a proper head on discussion over it just yet. Just engage or observe me on various topics and I think it'll become clear; and after a while, if not, then we can go there. I'll say this: I edited my post before putting it up several times to make it as to-the-point as possible because I felt it was already kind of sprawling in nature to begin with, which is probably that (to me, somewhat-forced) process you're picking up on. Trust me, it was work.

I can definitely think of worse things than being ILE though. Fe PoLR has kind of been a theme in my life, too.

edit: that's also a fresh haircut pic making me out to be more proactive and Te than I really am. Left to my own devices I let it grow out. My job requires a neat appearance so my hand is forced


edit 2: oh what the hell, I'll make a list since I'm bored:

• I hate working with ESEs and they hate me back. They come off as stupid and lazy manipulators who simply marshal social capital in order to make getting them to do anything more costly than simply doing it yourself. It works out though, because even if they did do it, it would probably be worse than if it got left undone. Only injustice is they tend to get paid for being an active detriment to the institution and everyone around them who pulls their own weight.
  
• I'm in love with a SEE (currently locked into what others consider to be a senseless sadomasochistic courting ritual, but I love it and so does she--I think. In true ILI fashion, this could all be in my head because we're not actually together--yet).
  
• I like ESIs but only as friends. But in a relationship I'd find Ne PoLR irritating when it comes to small stuff, and super scary when it comes to big stuff. Can't see myself with them when the stakes are high. Too easily locked into own perspective, stubborn, but not in a good way (e.g.: strong volition) but more like as a product of a real "lack." A negative stubbornness not a positive one. Annoying if you're going to be responsible for it in some way (not worth it long term).
  
• I don't really have Si issues. And I've never experienced anything like a Si PoLR hit. In fact people have always complimented my seeming "cleanliness", which has surprised me because I've always taken it for granted. And this isn't a dunning-kruger kind of thing where they're saying that cause they know I'm insecure about it and I'm totally buying it. Its just been a pleasant theme for me--one that I noticed long before getting into typology
  
• I get Fe PoLR hits sometimes, where I realize almost immediately after I've done something what the Fe consequences are. Upon reflection, I mostly get mad that such a thing was even possible, because from my point of view its always somehow thrust upon me not as a natural consequence but by people being asinine, yet the consequences then happen to become just as real. To me, Fe is the source of a ton of unnecessary, as I see it, pain. I usually make said mistakes when something far more significant seems to be at stake, and then suddenly everyone is hung up on a triviality and I find it really frustrating, although upon reflection I do totally understand it. I understand it and I don't like it.
  
• I feel like LIEs give off a slightly excessive lizard man vibe in everything they do. Not as bad as Trump (SLE, as far as I can tell) but its still there. I don't find it offensive so much as in poor taste when its gamma (over the top, but not "wrong"). I find the beta version totally soulless and evil though. When I read books by Nietzsche, Jung, Miguel de Unamuno, Jordan Peterson, I feel really at home, whereas I've never gotten such a strong memorable vibe from authors I think could be LIE. (I also personally love Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard. Not sure how LIEs feel about them, but I think that's a potential difference).
  
• I work with who I think is an LIE and I think our main difference is he likes to set up a goal and then do basically whatever it takes (within reason) to get it done. Whereas I think in terms mainly of "what is this going to take" up front and ask myself if its even worth it. Obviously this goes both ways, but I think it manifests when I'm working with LIEs as them thinking of me as basically a little lethargic, slow, or lazy. Whereas I think of them as being effective, but overkill. I tend to think there are better ways, and if not better ways, I'd say I'm more interested in self preservation (not in the enneagram sense, but more in the Si sense--like if something takes too much out of me I'm not going to do it--and I weigh those costs subjectively a bit higher, I think). In other words, there seems to be a distinct internal economy to how LIEs evaluate resources and mine seems to be calibrated categorically differently
  
• I did 4 years in the Army, which I think influenced my aesthetic in a Te direction. I was shaggier with a rounder face before all that.
  
• I spend almost all my free time in what I consider an intuitive dreamlike state. I'm a huge loner, and I read non stop (like when I go to gym, walk to work, etc). I don't care about the time I could be wasting doing more productive things. The only time I care is when I think it might impact my (potential) relationship (apartment is a mess, etc), which I think goes to HA (and inferior Se)
  
• speaking of HA, loving another person truly does resonate with me as being the (my) ultimate purpose in life. Making money, punishing bad guys, even changing the world, all seem well within the realm of achievement--trivial even--but loving another person completely occupies a place of transcendence in my heart and mind for me
  
• Maritsa gives me a strong ESE vibe--has no one else seen this and pointed it out?--I find this incredibly irritating because she pops up everywhere

[DeleteMeModsPls]

Hey!

[Singu]

Welcome... you do sound like a Gamma. Your Te is rather relaxed, so you sound IXTp. Not much chance at hitting my PoLR.

Why do every ILIs say "dunning-kruger"?

Huh... that's interesting that you like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche etc. I guess it's the Ni that you like.

Maritsa is definitely EII... I saw her video on YouTube, and she had like almost zero Fe in her expressions. But she seemed cool though.

[Bertrand]

Welcome... you do sound like a Gamma. Your Te is rather relaxed, so you sound IXTp. Not much chance at hitting my PoLR.

Why do every ILIs say "dunning-kruger"?

Huh... that's interesting that you like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche etc. I guess it's the Ni that you like.

Maritsa is definitely EII... I saw her video on YouTube, and she had like almost zero Fe in her expressions. But she seemed cool though.

I feel like Dunning Kruger explains so much. Such a useful concept, and one that Ni + Te tends to be very wary of in regards to itself, because of how Ni + Te can turn itself on itself as an object of its reflection and then potentially see DK in itself. Now I sound like K.

Anyway, where is this video?

[Theoria]

Why do every ILIs say "dunning-kruger"?

Every? Who?

[Singu]

I feel like Dunning Kruger explains so much. Such a useful concept, and one that Ni + Te tends to be very wary of in regards to itself, because of how Ni + Te can turn itself on itself as an object of its reflection and then potentially see DK in itself. Now I sound like K.

Anyway, where is this video?

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post it, but ehh, I guess it's public (sorry if this wasn't allowed @Maritsa) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMAkzRoiDjg

Every? Who?

Ok every is an exaggeration... but I just hear it a lot.

[Bertrand]

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post it, but ehh, I guess it's public (sorry if this wasn't allowed @Maritsa) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMAkzRoiDjg

Yes, total EII, but the volume is so low I can't make much out. Is this an english as a second language situation? cause, and I'm about to demonstrate my PoLR, ESL tends to make people out to be dumber than they are and I associate stupidity with ESE, which would explain my strong (admittedly biased and unfair, possibly evil, definitely morally imperfect) impression

[Theoria]

Ok every is an exaggeration... but I just hear it a lot.

Sorry, my brief question was an exaggeration in itself... I couldn't bother to ask it more specifically, as it would've gotten (and did just get below) strenuously more complicated.

I just wanted to know if there's anyone on the forum you were thinking of who's been mentioning that concept besides Spider and Alioth, both of whose ILIhoods aren't of consensus, or of personal certainty. I've only seen those two say Dunning-Kruger (apart from the present company, and naturally myself), and only lately, so, I'm curious as to whether your claim was based on any other forumites.

Yes, total EII, but the volume is so low I can't make much out. Is this an english as a second language situation? cause, and I'm about to demonstrate my PoLR, ESL tends to make people out to be dumber than they are and I associate stupidity with ESE, which would explain my strong (admittedly biased and unfair, possibly evil, definitely morally imperfect) impression

Well, she says she was born in Armenia -- I'd say it's highly probable that she didn't acquire English "natively". Also, her intonation sounds vaguely unorthodox.

However, I can't offer any insight into the degree of the causal relation between this suppositional situation of ESL and your (admittedly rude to admit) impression.

[Chae]

Welcome welcoooome!
Already productive, cool *^* Keep it up.

[Adam Strange]

OK, I believe you are ILI. In those few posts, you hewed closer to the ILI's Fe-PoLR that I'm used to seeing from ILI's.
I mistook your writing style for mine because of your extremely high intelligence.

[Bertrand]

OK, I believe you are ILI. In those few posts, you hewed closer to the ILI's Fe-PoLR that I'm used to seeing from ILI's.
I mistook your writing style for mine because of your extremely high intelligence.

this is like the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me

[Adam Strange]

this is like the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me

Then you need better friends. Lol

[Jarno]

Yeah the ILI invasion has begun.

How the fuck is he extremely intelligent by the way. ILI's always seem intelligent, but that's just because everybody else is pretty ignorant of big pictures and stuff.

[Adam Strange]

Yeah the ILI invasion has begun.

How the fuck is he extremely intelligent by the way. ILI's always seem intelligent, but that's just because everybody else is pretty ignorant of big pictures and stuff.

That has nothing to do with intelligence.

Some Astronomers studied the problem of finding signals of extra-terrestrial intelligence in the noisy data from their radio telescopes. Astronomers are experts at extracting signals from noise, the best in the world. They invented reverse entropy deconvolution.

In any case, they concluded that pattern length in a communication signal indicates intelligence. The longer the patterns, the higher the intelligence. They tested it on living creatures on Earth, and it seems to hold true.

Bertrand's sentences are long. So are Theoria's. Mine are purposefully short to convey punchy thoughts, but occasionally I forget myself and do a run-on sentence. It's just that simple.

[Theoria]

Yeah the ILI invasion has begun.

How the fuck is he extremely intelligent by the way. ILI's always seem intelligent, but that's just because everybody else is pretty ignorant of big pictures and stuff.

I thought Adam was jesting, drawing attention to and making an unexpected connection between two of the previous events in this thread;1) Adam thinking that Bertrand's language was similar to his own, and therefore trying to retype him as LIE based on that, and 2) Bertrand thinking Maritsa's language was dumb, and typing her as ESE based on that, only to later change his opinion when further information (Maritsa's status as an English second language speaker, and her video itself) was revealed. So, to complete the parallelism, Adam changed his own opinion, after Bertrand disclosed more about himself, analogous to what occured with Maritsa and Bertrand, especially furthering this by imitating the nature of the change of perception -- a regard of the other's intelligence. I have to praise where he highlighted his less than serious attitude by adding "extremely high" before "intelligence", whereas, when people are serious about it, compliments on mental faculties are often conducted through precise, sparse, but "heavy" vocabulary (as opposed to the light but abundant qualities of "extremely high intelligence", consisting of three simple words), like Adam actually did in another thread by calling Avalonia "erudite".


Correction after noticing Adam posted something while I was typing: lol, I was wrong then.



Not being able to endure the mortification of having been mistaken, I'm going to support my lost point with graphs and quotes:

Avalonia is an extremely perceptive, skilled, and erudite socionist.

I mistook your writing style for mine because of your extremely high intelligence.

As is commonsensical, the "light" words float in these charts that denote popularity over time, while their "heavy" counterparts sink. Even though Adam employed four modifying words in his ode to Avalonia (extremely, skilled, perceptive and erudite) as opposed to the fewer three words here (extremely, high, intelligence), the total weights of the word groups he chose differ drastically.


All things considered, my recognition of Adam's remark as humorous was not unwarranted.




On a side note, I'd like to remind everyone that I'm not defending my previous case -- I'm defending my new case, which is that defending my previous case in the first place wasn't completely misguided. Now, of course, I consider everything I pointed out as interpretable by other means, and attributable to other causes or purposes, including the discrepancies in the lexical propensities.

[Raver]

Welcome Bertrand! I can buy ILI for you, you're probably Te subtype. You have a good understanding of Socionics for a new poster.

[Chae]

Then you need better friends. Lol

[Bertrand]

my thinking was that Adam really did appreciate my ability to decisively settle the issue (when they typically, in other cases, drag on--contain frustrating amounts of misconceptions, motivated reasoning, defensiveness, etc), and wanted to offer up an another data point that would explain the initial doubt, which was, although humorously stated, fundamentally sincere in that he liked my initial style of delivery which reminded him of his own thinking, which he privileges on some level as superior (as we all, or most of us, do). I took it in the spirit it was offered which was that of a compliment. Besides, we could all use better friends, so while as a matter of degree it may be more true of me, its trivially true in some sense for everyone (thus it is perfectly agreeable; I also found a hint of heartfelt Te styled empathy to it). I think our style of communication (gamma NTs) leaves a lot out as a way to disarm some of the stronger implications, leaving it up to us whether we want to "activate" them in our minds, but its an elegant way to communicate (dogwhistle, basically) sincere information in a way that is merited if we pick up on it, and inert if we don't.

In any case, I feel like we understand eachother pretty well--and the relations are very positive, despite some of the surface language some other types might find questionable or whatever-- I don't. Not at all. In fact, I prefer it this way.

[Jarno]

That has nothing to do with intelligence.

Some Astronomers studied the problem of finding signals of extra-terrestrial intelligence in the noisy data from their radio telescopes. Astronomers are experts at extracting signals from noise, the best in the world. They invented reverse entropy deconvolution.

In any case, they concluded that pattern length in a communication signal indicates intelligence. The longer the patterns, the higher the intelligence. They tested it on living creatures on Earth, and it seems to hold true.

Bertrand's sentences are long. So are Theoria's. Mine are purposefully short to convey punchy thoughts, but occasionally I forget myself and do a run-on sentence. It's just that simple.

oh oke.

Nice.

Guess ur right.

bout the sentence length.

Laters!

[Pallas]

Hello! Welcome to the forums, enjoy your stay, but I wouldn't recommend for too long. Especially don't stay in the gutter too long lest you become the gutter, and remember, the walls have ears, the hills have eyes, and this reality is under control of the demiurge.

[Grendel]

Hello! Welcome to the forums, enjoy your stay, but I wouldn't recommend for too long. Especially don't stay in the gutter too long lest you become the gutter, and remember, the walls have ears, the hills have eyes, and this reality is under control of the demiurge.

do you think god stays in heaven because he too lives in fear of what he's created?

[Pallas]

there's definitely something about beta that oozes sexuality. in the men its comes off as homosexuality but its actually beta omnisexuality. its gross and extreme from my perspective, but I can see how from a beta perspective, since its the norm, they don't think of it as such

"Omnisexuality" is the 16t Word of the Day. Also, you might want to reconsider typing ILI since that would make your dual the omnisexual of gamma.

[Bertrand]

"Omnisexuality" is the 16t Word of the Day. Also, you might want to reconsider typing ILI since that would make your dual the omnisexual of gamma.

Ive been feeling SLI lately but don't want to pull the trigger just yet

[Pallas]

Ive been feeling SLI lately but don't want to pull the trigger just yet

I thought LII but that'd work to the same end too.

[Bertrand]

I thought LII but that'd work to the same end too.

I genuinely like SEEs and hate ESEs though, and I find Ti boring not to mention intensely disliking Fe. No, definitely not LII

[Pallas]

I genuinely like SEEs and hate ESEs though, and I find Ti boring not to mention intensely disliking Fe. No, definitely not LII

Are you sure you've typed people correctly? You use a lot of for someone who supposedly finds it boring. And you remind me of a definitely-LII guy called Bertrand on an old forum I used to be on. Does sacre du printemps happen to mean anything to you?

Also, this is :



This is :



This is :



SEE = Napoleon, not MBTI ESFP glitter and parties (even if some SEEs act like that sometimes). ILI = Balzac, not MBTI INTP "nerd" types (ditto). Most MBTI INTPs are LII and most MBTI INTJs are ILI, which is largely where the "J/P switch" nonsense comes from (the rest of the justification being that MBTI J and P correlate to socionics Static vs. Dynamic in terms of what the functions are supposed to be), but on the other hand INFPs and INFJs are more likely to be IEE and EIE ("introvert extratims") than EII and IEI as per the "J/P switch", and ESFP would be more likely to be something else entirely like ESE or IEE, and these tendencies are really moderate correlations at best. MBTI = stereotypes, socionics = mathematics.

[Bertrand]

Are you sure you've typed people correctly? You use a lot of for someone who supposedly finds it boring. And you remind me of a definitely-LII guy called Bertrand on an old forum I used to be on. Does sacre du printemps happen to mean anything to you?

Also, this is :



This is :



This is :



SEE = Napoleon, not MBTI ESFP glitter and parties (even if some SEEs act like that sometimes). ILI = Balzac, not MBTI INTP "nerd" types (ditto). Most MBTI INTPs are LII and most MBTI INTJs are ILI, which is largely where the "J/P switch" nonsense comes from (the rest of the justification being that MBTI J and P correlate to socionics Static vs. Dynamic in terms of what the functions are supposed to be), but on the other hand INFPs and INFJs are more likely to be IEE and EIE ("introvert extratims") than EII and IEI as per the "J/P switch", and ESFP would be more likely to be something else entirely like ESE or IEE, and these tendencies are really moderate correlations at best. MBTI = stereotypes, socionics = mathematics.

I'm just well versed in formal logic having a degree in philosophy and having studied logic and having trained as a lawyer. its sort a (second) natural language since I feel like half the world speaks it. If many MBTI ESFP = IEE then I definitely think that militates towards SLI. I identify strongly with this description of SLI, but not so much the others, which I lean Balzac. I find the middle image most pleasing, but I think that could be an Si appreciation for the artist and composition

I find LIIs (and ILEs) childish and find Fe to be stupid. I identify with Si + Te in that I think true love is setting the (material/aesthetic/legal "Si") conditions under which people can flourish and Fe amounts to counter productive lies. I would even say I find Balzac to be a little childish and I have an ILI friend that looks exactly like Beskova's male portrait (and the only other ILI friend I have looks exactly like Filatova's top right corner one--the fat one). I look nothing like either

I think the accumulated wisdom of humanity is (primarily) in its traditions that have withstood the test of time and that people are fools to ignore the great moral traditions of the world (not to say they can't be improved upon or have their clarity refined and enhanced) but radical restructuring, kind of like what beta is always trying to pull off, is bullshit

[dot]

I think of myself as an enneagram 1, which I think will come off as odd, but I can explain. My parents, as far as I can tell, were SEI (father) and IEI (mother), and growing up was indescribably difficult for me. I really felt like I could never do anything right and was fundamentally flawed. I really thought of myself as kind of stupid, like I somehow wasn't "getting it", yet outwardly I was a high achiever. I'm not describing autism or anything like that. My social skills are well developed, rather it was a kind of moral recrimination I could never shake. My mother was a hardcore Christian (and not in the deep Kierkegaardian kind of way, but the shallow, typical way that the internet has come to mock and deride constantly), and my father basically just acted as her enforcer, although I doubt he held any personal convictions beyond his simple loyalty to my mom. In any case, this resulted in my ego being under constant attack even as a small child (my earliest memories are of this kind--getting in trouble for not being Fe enough basically), and naturally it made me angry, but I was too young to really own that anger and so I repressed it all up until relatively recently, because I assumed they were right about me and that I was flawed. A hyper active super ego naturally followed.

,

[Bertrand]

Actually I somehow relate to this to be honest. Not my story or that similar to it, but I was often made feel like a bad or 'malfunctioning' person as a kid and that I had to change/be better (I still have the irrational fear of being a horrible human being, I also was an angry kid). I also typed E1 and I think I might be one, a 1w9 too, though I first thought 1w2 because they apparently are more outspoken. I guess that might play a huge role in why I am so focused on self-development and improvement, life and oneself can always be improved/better.

thanks for sharing. I feel like 1w9s are torn between the hope they might possibly be able to fix things with sufficient moral effort (1) and between total surrender to the hopelessness of tying to please anyone (9); where to really please someone it just means giving up; disappearing.. and it sucks. and I sympathize with anyone from whatever angle they arrived at that from

for what its worth, I spend some nights totally destroyed with this in mind and I think moreso than any socionic type my enneagram types are my truest brothers

[niffer]

@Bertrand how come the cute and fuzzy inquisitive anteater avatar?

[Bertrand]

I've always loved anteaters and thought it matched the background well

[Pallas]

I think the accumulated wisdom of humanity is (primarily) in its traditions that have withstood the test of time and that people are fools to ignore the great moral traditions of the world (not to say they can't be improved upon or have their clarity refined and enhanced) but radical restructuring, kind of like what beta is always trying to pull off, is bullshit

The idea of morality being the primary purpose of religion goes back to some philosopher (I need to find the name again), it's not really how religious people view their own traditions generally. The idea of "moral systems" is more or less "beta radical restructuring" to be honest. But radical restructuring is as old as time, with the only constant is change, Sein ist Werden, and all that. It's mostly just the change from one prototype to another, which is often necessary, and ideas only look new because they're long-forgotten.

[Bertrand]

The idea of morality being the primary purpose of religion goes back to some philosopher (I need to find the name again), it's not really how religious people view their own traditions generally. The idea of "moral systems" is more or less "beta radical restructuring" to be honest. But radical restructuring is as old as time, with the only constant is change, Sein ist Werden, and all that. It's mostly just the change from one prototype to another, which is often necessary, and ideas only look new because they're long-forgotten.

totally agree that in a certain sense, religion-as-morality, is a kind of beta power play and that there is something much deeper to it than just the way beta abuses it...but at that point we're having difficulty with language because we don't have signs nuanced enough to really distinguish the differences between "real religion" and its mere imitators, without really getting into the weeds every time we try to talk about it. I do think it would be a mistake to identify progress exclusively with beta though, I think every quadra has contributed much to philosophy but in a weird way betas the least of all, officially, because they're full time unofficial philosophizers and moralizers and apply it so directly, that they rarely put it all into a coherent treatise (if such a thing could even be done, since if you actually laid it all out the way they tend to use it, it would probably become rapidly apparent how perverse their morality is--it can only be stomached in small doses, a complete picture would be disgusting I'm sure--this is what focault kind of does). I would say theology is a much more beta dominated field rather than pure philosophy which I think is dominated by alpha and gamma, and to a lesser extent has its delta contributors.

I think in regards to Christianity, Kierkegaard waged a one man war on "beta christianity" to try to rehabilitate it from it being a mere tool, which had ultimately eroded its credibility so completely that a few years later Nietzsche would declare that "God is dead." I think in that sense Kierkegaard preceded the prophet even

[Aylen]

this is like the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me

Adam engages his role function frequently. Its how he shows his goodwill. Welcome to the forum.

[Pallas]

@Bertrand That's not exactly what I meant, but still an interesting post.

[Myst]

Hello everyone.

Some backstory: I've had a shallow understanding of MBTI for like a decade or more, but after a traumatic break up (about a year ago), I found myself in something of a crisis, trying to understand how it is two good people who care about eachother might still come into intractable conflict with one another. Up until that point I had been able to clearly identify flaws in past partners so I never really had to confront this head on. But with this relationship I fully appreciated that my significant other was both intelligent and ethical and there was nothing "obvious" working against us, and yet we still could not make it work. I felt completely destroyed and helpless. Anyway, this caused me to completely re evaluate basically everything and I made a huge effort to try to understand what was really going on with interpersonal relationships. This inevitably lead me to Jung, and after almost a year of reading his books and absorbing as much information as I could possibly get my hands on, to here, where I have many questions.

I consider myself an ILI, which I'm about as sure as an ILI can get about such things, which is to say I'm open to the possibility of being wrong, but I don't think its likely.

I think of myself as an enneagram 1, which I think will come off as odd, but I can explain. My parents, as far as I can tell, were SEI (father) and IEI (mother), and growing up was indescribably difficult for me. I really felt like I could never do anything right and was fundamentally flawed. I really thought of myself as kind of stupid, like I somehow wasn't "getting it", yet outwardly I was a high achiever. I'm not describing autism or anything like that. My social skills are well developed, rather it was a kind of moral recrimination I could never shake. My mother was a hardcore Christian (and not in the deep Kierkegaardian kind of way, but the shallow, typical way that the internet has come to mock and deride constantly), and my father basically just acted as her enforcer, although I doubt he held any personal convictions beyond his simple loyalty to my mom. In any case, this resulted in my ego being under constant attack even as a small child (my earliest memories are of this kind--getting in trouble for not being Fe enough basically), and naturally it made me angry, but I was too young to really own that anger and so I repressed it all up until relatively recently, because I assumed they were right about me and that I was flawed. A hyper active super ego naturally followed.

Anyway the instinctual variants baffle me, because I feel like the descriptions are incomplete and the emergent properties of number/instinct/personality type are so varied that a comprehensive description of some of the more unique outcomes has yet to be written (for example most type1 descriptions seem to have an SLI in mind, etc). So I don't really know where I stand on all that.

In any case, I've signed up here after basically reading damn near every post and now I can no longer remain passive and continue to learn. So that's why I'm here. Also I find visual identification really interesting, because the more I'm aware of it in interacting with others the more I'm sensing there is something to it, so I threw my pic up.

edit: I would also like to add, in the interests of full disclosure, that pure knowledge is not my only motive. The more I understand these kinds of things the more I realize just how important it is to be around people with similar values and understanding as you in order to be healthy (or at least not at-war). I've felt like a fish out of water my whole life, but my general sense of this community (hopefully proven correct) is that you are kindred souls in many ways and so another reason for being here is to find a kind of social acceptance I've never really experienced, but that I've been increasingly hopeful lately actually exists...

What's your MBTI?

Yeah, the relationship stuff... I really get your issues there. That's more a Socionics domain though than Jung, Jung had a way way more intrapersonal approach.

Oh and Type 1 isn't really SLIish lol, but sure, it's quite ST-ish in terms of the cognition being described for 1. Though ILIs also often type as 1 and Ni idealism can fit 1 alright minus a few bits of the cognition as usually described for 1s but not every little bit has to match for someone to type as that, obviously.