I thought this was a solid explanation of the external/internal dichotomy.Originally Posted by squark
Do you have similar explanations for the extroverted/introverted and static/dynamic dichotomies?
ILE
LII
ESE
SEI
SLE
LSI
EIE
IEI
SEE
ESI
LIE
ILI
IEE
EII
LSE
SLI
I thought this was a solid explanation of the external/internal dichotomy.
Do you have similar explanations for the extroverted/introverted and static/dynamic dichotomies?
static/dynamic
Anything involving change over time is dynamic. If it’s describing a state or condition it’s static.
For example “that used to cost $1.50” is a static statement even though it is describing a condition that no longer applies, and it’s still static even if followed by another static statement like “now it’s $2.50” or even “and now it is higher” but “Prices keep increasing” is a dynamic statement.
Additional example: “He has grown and matured a lot over the past year” is dynamic as is “He’s growing a lot” and “He will continue to mature over time” but “He is more mature now than he was a year ago” is static even though you’re talking about something that changed. This is because it’s a comparison between two static points (now, and one year ago) rather than referring to the change/movement/action itself like the other statements are. "He has the potential to grow" is also static, because it is a state/condition rather than anything that is happening/will happen/did happen. There has to be movement for it to be dynamic.
I wrote some comparing a couple static and dynamic aspects in another post awhile back, idk if you’ll find it useful. It's more 'thinking out loud' than focused on clarity:
Would attempting to type myself be an example of Vital (Information about myself), Valued (I want this information), Evaluatory (Not on a case-by-case basis) introverted logic? Meaning suggestive Ti, role Te, program Fe and ignoring Fi. I know EXFj seems farfetched, but if that is the case, how is my understanding of the function dichotomies incorrect?
Edit: Upon further analysis, I actually think it could be suggestive Ne as opposed to Ti. I do see my my personality type as internal (Vital), desired (Valued) and consistent (Evaluatory) information. That is static as opposed to dynamic, about an object as opposed to a relationship and implicit as opposed to explicit. Leaving a possible type of ISXp. Much better.
Last edited by ghouse; 08-01-2017 at 07:03 PM.
Took a watch of the video and just going off kinesthetics feel you could be SLI.
I think the second analysis is good, types in typology do involve Ne information like you described (implicit/abstract objects).
Have you had any issue with my earlier summary on "you being so interested in accumulating pure knowledge with interest in also analysing the data and solving tricky tasks with physical objects"? Just curious.
No issue with the summary, I'm just not relating to any descriptions of leading Si I can find. I haven't rejected any hypothesis, just trying to be rigorous.
When i watched your video my first impression was ili. You didnt seem to come of as to care about your environment at all. I would rule out any sensing for you. This all seems like dumb groupthink where someone says sli with some kind of explanation and everyone just jumps on the sli wagon instead of thinking for themselves, just as they did on my thread except it was with the lsi type. Id say intuitive, first impression ili, but wouldnt rule out ile. Probably logical aswel.
I said ili cuz your video reminded me of fe polr (kind of monotone and very calm voice), but your thread about relations and objects triggered my ne ti seeing in you. So i wouldnt rule out lii or ile either. Everything else seems pretty much NT to me. Try looking up differences between gamma and alpha, and SEEs and ESEs, for example. Looking at ur weaker functions and hidden agenda might also help
On alpha quadra - "Alpha types tend to value logically consistent beliefs and ideas, and behavior that is consistent with personal values." - Values don't really register with me. I don't think I have a lot of ideals that I strive towards. I also try not to have any beliefs.
by this they mean they're not inclined to play games (in order to reveal hidden intentions and stuff like that) and that they want to fully understand anything that captures their interest or has an ethical stake to it
^I relate to that more. Is it significant that my structural logic is primarily directed inwardly towards understanding my own mind as opposed to outwardly towards understanding my surroundings?
hm, I dunno. it would be interesting to compare notes with other Ti valuers, especially base like squark. Its hard for me to fully understand what Ti is like as ego function from the first person perspective. again not saying you have to be that, but that I'm not the man for that particular job. I do sort of think as a general idea that Ti wants to understand everything, so the self and the world etc
edit: it took me probably 5 or more months of really seeking out information to feel comfortable with my type so I really like what you're doing by tracking this stuff down. keep it up!
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-03-2017 at 04:22 AM.
What do you mean by understanding your own mind? Don't the thoughts that you think about have to do with understanding your surroundings?
Can you summarize in your own words how you interpreted Si base? Other than focus on inner sensations which you did relate to but not enough to define yourself by just that. If you remember I pointed out how no one would define themselves by "focus on inner sensations". An SLI on this forum did describe Si a bit better in terms of the physical experience, Si egos being experience oriented, including various enjoyments, even sports, adventure, experiencing the world for experience's sake in general (unlike Se which is actively involved in moving-pushing things/people). SEI is more obviously emotionally hedonistic than SLI who focuses more on experiential efficiency. So, saying one is experiential is a bit more realistic than saying one is focused on inner sensations.
Oh and I liked the descriptions on this site before (only loads via archive.org right now though): https://web.archive.org/web/20160116....com/gaben.php
Can you elaborate on what you mean by them not really registering with you?
Just your own mind? You never applied it on anything else throughout your life? Ti egos do utilize their structural logic beyond that.
Something else: when you figured out that stuff in the cave, how were you focused cognitively?
I don't see groupthink here lol, for your thread either, several people said Ni lead for you (me included). Idk why you focused only on the other half of people thinking LSI.
OP's Intuition seems like playing with ideas but not being able to utilize it for other people, just for personal needs so that to me seems Superid. While he did utilize his experiential skills (Si) for other people's needs too.
Usual disclaimer blahblahblah applies the parts that are my impressions (the superid bit).
Yeah, not just the self, the world too, exactly. *end of input from Ti type*
Last edited by Myst; 08-03-2017 at 09:58 AM.
@Number 9 large I mean that I spend a lot of my time right now focused on identifying my type. I'm not very focused on understanding my surroundings at all. I like and pride myself on having an accurate understanding of my surroundings, but it's not anything I'm pursuing vigorously at the moment.
@Myst An Si base user's experience of base Si would be an experience of conscious competence when it comes to matters of perceiving processing and producing information about internal physical states. This means someone with Si base can recognize internal physical states in others and improve them by making changes to that other persons informational exchange with their environment.
I feel like I don't have any values. I can't think of any ideals that I value. I don't focus on embodying ideals, I focus on achieving goals.
I've definitely used structural logic externally before, whether its been constructing legos, or snowmen or hole on the beach. It just doesn't seem that I'm focused on understanding the structure of the external world at this moment, as I mentioned earlier what I'm pursuing most vigorously is internal knowledge.
I was focused on trying out different strategies. "Ok let's try this. Anything? No. Let's modify this technique and see if it works. Which objects in my surroundings can I use to open this gate?"
Edit: Thoughts on my use of Fi and Fe, given that Fi deals with information regarding interpersonal relations, in the past, it seems I've been more aware of Fi than Fe. I can think of two examples. One, when I was able to explain to a large group of people which parts of a particular Facebook post were insensitive or not and another time when I was very affected by seeing someone attempt to steal someone else's food. Both of these examples involve people treating other people insensitively, as opposed to generating negative emotions in others. I'm trying to use these examples to place Fi in my Model A using function dichotomies, but I'm not sure where to go from here.
Last edited by ghouse; 08-03-2017 at 04:59 PM.
My suggestion: try to translate this technical definition to everyday experience.
Gotcha, do you feel anything is lacking for you with having no values?I feel like I don't have any values. I can't think of any ideals that I value. I don't focus on embodying ideals, I focus on achieving goals.
Would you say this approach to trying different strategies in this trial and error manner is characteristic for you throughout your life?I've definitely used structural logic externally before, whether its been constructing legos, or snowmen or hole on the beach. It just doesn't seem that I'm focused on understanding the structure of the external world at this moment, as I mentioned earlier what I'm pursuing most vigorously is internal knowledge.
I was focused on trying out different strategies. "Ok let's try this. Anything? No. Let's modify this technique and see if it works. Which objects in my surroundings can I use to open this gate?"
Yeah, these are good examples for Fi. Since you are Thinking ego (see how you focus on achieving things instead of values, too), this just means you are IxTx. Nothing new here.Edit: Thoughts on my use of Fi and Fe, given that Fi deals with information regarding interpersonal relations, in the past, it seems I've been more aware of Fi than Fe. I can think of two examples. One, when I was able to explain to a large group of people which parts of a particular Facebook post were insensitive or not and another time when I was very affected by seeing someone attempt to steal someone else's food. Both of these examples involve people treating other people insensitively, as opposed to generating negative emotions in others. I'm trying to use these examples to place Fi in my Model A using function dichotomies, but I'm not sure where to go from here.If you think this also means valued Fi (the second example kind of sounds like it) then xLI, again.
@Myst Si Lead - "That person looks tired, I'll tell him to lie down. That person doesn't look comfortable in that chair, I have another more comfortable one downstairs, I'll go get it. I feel cold, I'm gonna put on a sweater"
No, I don't think it makes things harder, it makes it harder to relate to people, but I don't care much about relating to people.
That's exactly how I'm trying to figure out my type, now that I think about it. I'm trying a bunch of different strategies, seeing how they work, and building on the ones that seem to get me somewhere, so I would say this trial and error method is a common mode of operation for me.
What would be some good examples of Fe? I'm trying to come up with my own, but am having difficulty doing so.
a lot of Fe is trying to get your point across but in a way that is least hurtful. its the active consideration of that as a factor, but more than that, because you can make it an abstract thinking factor, its actively tuning into how the other person may be feeling (in the case of Fe ego). In Fe valuers for whom its not an ego function it takes on a more global role wherein they do things that would lead to positive emotional expressions either towards them or in general. Which would be like doing stuff just because you know itll make someone happy (but not because of a pre existing relationship necessarily, it could be a complete stranger). Or responding well to positive emotions for their own sake. In other words, all other things being equal it wants to be in a positive emotional environment, and would even work to create one, either through "thinking/working" type acts (providing resources, going to fetch this or that, etc) or direct contribution via active merriment and stuff like that. It enjoys festivities. Whereas Fi is more serious and doesn't really do that for its own sake except when its taken on as a duty or some other reason justifies it
Fi wants sincere expression, Te wants blunt expression (expedient).. obviously there are situations (like a Te valuer giving a speech) that may require Fe consideration but these are just the bare generalities
Nothing wrong with this world view at all. I just like to point out in my experience this is a SLI mind frame in general. I wonder why you don't care much about relating to people and what that is related to in your case...?
Here's an example I found funny:
SLI - What's wrong?
IEE - I dunno. I'm just in a pissy mood.
SLI - Here -- have some of this [cinnamon toast]
IEE - No, thanks.
SLI - Okay.
IEE - Okay, I'll have some [reaches for toast]
SLI - No, not like that. Eat it upside-down, so the good part gets right on your tongue.
IEE - [bites toast upside-down] Like this?
SLI - Yeah. Wasn't that good? You feel better now?
(From: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tions-from-irl)
I think though that it's a too narrow interpretation of Si if we limit it to food, comfortable sitting positions and rest. It's called experiential sensing for a reason. "If you give a SLI a tool they will start to figure out how to use it by applying the right pressure on it or muscular tension, the feeling on the surface etc." (@Tallmo said this before)
Another SLI was describing it like this when talking about learning to row. "Experience of what I feel between my body and the rowing machine. E.g.: When I was learning to be consistent, something I locked onto was the sensation of the drive phase. Where do I feel the resistance? the pressure? How is that transferred through my body? If I adjust my body to sit taller with a stiffer core and my shoulders back to open up my chest, what is the effect? (...) So for me, attaining a consistent split time at a particular stroke rate is feeling the same amount of resistance and pressure on every single stroke in combination with a consistent rhythm in the ratio of drive and recovery."
From same person: "(...) use has a flavor of, "why should it need further explanation? isn't it obvious?" On its own "absorbing present states" is simply taking in present information without adding meanings to it. It is outwardly focused and non-judgmental.
When I go on walks, the immediate states I'm absorbing include: the temperature, the taste and feel of the air as I breathe, the sky, the space and expanse around me (crowded/open), the sounds of the wind against trees or wheels of approaching cars against the pavement, etc."
"OK, I'm going to try to describe it in a way most everyone has experienced it in some way -- have you ever had a really really long day? You get home and you're so exhausted you can't and don't want to think about anything. You fall into bed/couch and you just embrace the present state that everything about the day is over. There's the smell of home, you have an awareness of the space of the room, the quietness, the stillness. Perhaps the hum of the lights/crickets/roar of the night. You feel the softness of your bed/couch against your skin, the way it saps tension away. You aren't thinking about anything or associating meaning to the experience. This is just what is at the present moment. It is absorbing what simply is at the present/immediate moment."
And I liked this comparison of it with Se leading: "No person can take in everything, just as a sponge has a limit to how much liquid it can absorb. Absorption can be focused. You can direct a sponge to pick up just a little bit of water on a corner, or you can drop the whole sponge flat on a puddle. (The environment and present moment is the water.)"
(Se leading is the one with superficial focus as contrasted with the sensing of this person.)
I agree with @wacey there how SLIs often have this.No, I don't think it makes things harder, it makes it harder to relate to people, but I don't care much about relating to people.
I find it interesting how you think you'd need some values set first to be able to relate to people. Idk if that's a Fi superid thing.
That's a SLI thingThat's exactly how I'm trying to figure out my type, now that I think about it. I'm trying a bunch of different strategies, seeing how they work, and building on the ones that seem to get me somewhere, so I would say this trial and error method is a common mode of operation for me.
Check out this Te creative description also if I didn't link to it yet: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Dmitry-Golihov
Last edited by Myst; 08-03-2017 at 11:28 PM.
@Myst It may be useful to me to compare that person's experience of rowing with my experience of basketball. My jump shot would start having hiccups when I started to focus too much on my internal bodily sensations. I was aware of the feelings inside of my arm that accompanied a shot, but whenever I focused on them too much, my shot would become rigid and unnatural. Is it possible that any of the SLI things you've noticed could also apply to ILI?
What did you focus on primarily/naturally then?
The Fe PoLR/Te creative bits would apply to ILI too. E.g. creatively figuring out how to work with things fits ILI too. But they'd not rely so much on their own experience of sensations in figuring it out.
My shot was best when I didn't think about it at all and it just happened naturally.
In the cave, I wasn't really relying on my experience of sensations. I was mentally thinking what could or couldn't work and then trying it out. At the end what ended up working wasn't some calculated combination of objects, but something that I hadn't consciously thought would work. I just tried it without putting much thought into it. I had to solve the problem in the cave with physical objects because it was a physical problem, but that's not the kind of problem solving I commonly engage in.
My opinion: I don't think 1-dimensional Ne makes any sense for your type, especially from those saying there's too much of it. The "reality may not be real" and "everything could be true at the same time" kind of thinking would be unlikely for an ST considering the nature of those elements as combined within the ego. I think both higher dimensionality Ne and Ti make the most sense . . . so the NTs.
Last edited by squark; 08-04-2017 at 04:47 AM.
I think that's true for everyone. The quote was talking about initial learning if that wasn't clear.
OK, if you mean you mostly engage in finding your type, that's just part of discovering yourself as I said before. I still recommend you reflect on the trends in your life outside this focus on your typing yourself.In the cave, I wasn't really relying on my experience of sensations. I was mentally thinking what could or couldn't work and then trying it out. At the end what ended up working wasn't some calculated combination of objects, but something that I hadn't consciously thought would work. I just tried it without putting much thought into it. I had to solve the problem in the cave with physical objects because it was a physical problem, but that's not the kind of problem solving I commonly engage in.
As for your possibly being Ne ego, I'd have to reconcile that with how so far you didn't really exhibit high level understanding of Ne stuff beyond your interest with going deep into stuff like with your typing. Let alone any kind of broad focus for Ne like Ne leads have it. If you think you could be Alpha NT, this limited focus on Ne would only leave LII if even that. ILE is pretty much out of the question. But honestly I have not seen you doing the abstraction of concepts in a natural way like LIIs do it. As far as my perception goes, you just like to play with ideas (and asking for input on your wonderings) which Ne suggestive can do just fine.
You can go and check typical LII (and ILE) posts dealing with theory on the forum to see what I mean by natural high level use of Ne.
The one interesting thing that has been pointed out here is about how you say things a bit dissociated from reality, statements not typical for STs. I wonder if this has to do with how you've got deep in this typing business for years and whatever other things affecting you going deep in it. As I said before I sense a bit of schizoid-ish attitude from you and this dissociation is part of that possibly (with it not necessarily being healthy). I don't know, though. This goes way beyond Socionics anyway.
If you think hes low ne then check out his thread on function descriptions you wouldnt understand shit lol. There he seems very ti ne or ne ti to me. It seems to go way too abstract to be of any sensing related function. Seemed like typical alpha nt wanting to pinpoint core definitions which have little practical value. ( which is where you leave the gamma nt spheres)
I saw that thread (the fundamental definitions thread). As far as I saw, it was mostly him asking for further Ne input on his wonderings while throwing out a few bits of speculation.
Just because someone is S type, they still have N too. OP wasn't dealing with S there for sure, of course. Squark also was able to participate in there with her 1D Ne (she types as 1D Ne type).
Oh and I agree it had little practical value in terms of relating to tangible reality, from my Se valuing pov.
If i would have to type op based on what ive seen so far id type him ile-ti
Some of that thread was Ne, and post #17 could be considered asking for Ne input, but the majority of it was Ti. The Ne shows up more in his videos and discussion about his views.
I've been playing basketball since I was pretty young so the initial learning is actually pretty hazy. It's always important in basketball to have good form on your shot and I think the only way to focus on that is with Si "muscle memory".
Outside of typing myself I would have to say I don't have a lot of significant interests. Typing myself stands out as the thing in my life that I've gotten the deepest into, ever. This trend of self discovery is significant, from the "What are my instincts?" question when I was young, to conceptualizing out the structure of reality my freshman year of college, to this. It's really hard for me to see any significant trends in my life besides this. Type is what I spend most of my time thinking about now.
What are some examples of "Ne stuff" that I could or could not exhibit a high level understanding of?
Yeah - post #7 also would be considered as that and yes, there was some Ti information going on too. A note on that, Ti demonstrative does have strong Ti, too. As for the videos, if you want to write up a summary on how you see it as strong Ne, feel free to, but you don't have to ofc.
Well the alpha NTs put their ideas in a more structured way (especially LII) where they do apply to situations (from Ne pov) in life in general beyond just having it as a private interest with limited focus. If this makes sense. As for examples, on this forum, look at posts on theories (not just Socionics!) by mu4 or unsuccessfull Alphamale or Rebelondeck or thehotelambush.
So that's why I don't see you as alpha NT (besides not being convinced of strong Ne for you). Not structured enough for LII, not broad enough focus on Ne for ILE. While your skepticism about any set ideology also doesn't sound like Ti leading of LII but a more Irrational pov.
An LII's input could be interesting on this tho'.
Finally watched last video - the 80 questions one. I don't have any good input on it yet, but a question (or 3.) What do you like about improv? What do you get out of it? Is there anything you dislike about it? (Mostly just asking because curious, but talking about something away from typology might shed more light on your type too)
SLI-Ti 9w8 sp/sx
this is great list for enneagram. I think the 9w8 sp/sx is your best fit.
http://stackemup.livejournal.com/
SLI 9w8 was my strong impression from video too and nothing that OP talks about opposes it.
I mostly like the humorous aspects of it, laughing and making people laugh. My end goal with improvising is always more or less to be as funny as possible. I dislike the kind of improvisation that is overly positive and energetic. My sense of humor can be pretty dark. Also, I prefer long form improv to short form improv. Short form improv revolves around playing short improv games while long form improv is usually more of an improvised play. There's a lot of different parts of improv, characters, relationships, environment, but what I focus on the most is being funny. I always feel good when someone I don't know compliments me after a show. Improv for me is really primarily about my own personal enjoyment of it.
My attraction to improv is pretty simple, I like to laugh and improv is funny. What I get out if it is tougher to answer. I don't know if I really get anything out of the experience, I mostly just enjoy it wile it's happening. As far as what I do't like, fake energy, when people are improvising for the audience as opposed to for themselves and their teammates.
As far as any of this is type related, this sounds like Fe PoLR.
Sorry forgot to add that this also sounds anti-Fe.
Some thoughts (basically just notes I took down, incomplete):
Example of high-dimensional Ne: ILE and LIE are 4D, ILI and LII are 3DSome quotes of yours that illustrate high-dimensional Ne imo (and Ni):
Loose thoughts:
-Physically comes across like SLI . . . what about ILI?
-Room efficiency, streamlined . . . Te
-introspection major focus
-Could not write instruction manual, why not?
-Lower-dimensional sensing (?) limited to experience
-Never use force "escalation, dangerous" use logic and persuasion . . .where did I put that example about the ILI? or another type? general that knew when to retreat, won not through aggression, but by knowing when not to fight. Does that apply here? wish I could find that.
-Would not like to organize library - but would like to create or alter or work with a non-physical system
-Relates to EJ temperament - is LIE possible? or Te-ILI? or is this noise in the data
-Says doesn't like to wait, but appears very patient on video with brother's interruptions, and in relating what he'd do if someone was late, comes across as very unhurried
-High emotional stability NTR?
what do you think about this?
anything is possible if you define it into possibility via changing your structural understanding in order to accomodate whatever it is, however there is an overriding logic to when such methods are called for and when they're not. a change you make to your understanding to accomodate a possibility that allows you to do everything you did before, and more is just to be considered better... while that could be debated the consequences of rejecting such a structural principle would also wipe out all meaning all together, because it would imply that its possible that nothing is better than something and if that is possible then its also possible that "anything is possible" is false. so while in a certain sense that does not invalidate that line of thinking, it does render it useless, except when sufficiently qualified
@squark I couldn't write an instruction manual because I don't have a detailed enough understanding of how to do anything complex enough that would require an instruction manual. I could write instruction manuals on simple matters such as how to make cereal or how to build a snowman, but anything more complex like how to build a car or how to make a computer would be outside of the realm of possibility for me.
I connect with parts of the EJ temperament description. The unease with change comes from a fear of aging and death, which I suppose most everyone has though.
@Bertrand I would say it is possible that the proposition that anything is possible is false. A better way of stating my point of view on the subject is that "I think anything is possible", but i think I think that and I think I think I think that etc. I had to read over what you wrote a couple times to get it. I wonder if that's indicative of anything.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote