Which I'm not.Originally Posted by at sirac son of sirac
Which I'm not.
So unless you have to avoid making conflicts/enemies (like new workplace, encounter of family of your partner...), you better go into your leading/auxiliary mode, you would feel better, + it would train your ability to deal with conflict/unconfort of bad ITR and attract good ITR in the same way. Our fear of conflict is our worst enemy to be able to connect with good ITR, especially being a 9 i guess.
Yes, it's about appearing morally proper for me. And it's accentuated by Fe suggestive, aka not willing to make turmoil, so better keep things light, meaning taking a double step to appear proper. How much time did i hear when i was younger, how polite i was, kind of pathological i would say.
It happens automatically in a social situation work etc. Its quite difficult to control it. It also depends on the task or requirements of the situation.
When you switch ftom formal situation to informal one can experience it strongly
LII can have very distinkt Fi role.
I was working with an ILE and he was in Se alot and i in Ni. Then we took a break and went to McDonalds for a burger and coffee. It was a very big change in mood and our personalities suddenly changed. Role to Base
Last edited by Tallmo; 03-12-2018 at 04:38 PM.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Giving formal personal sentiments.
Role is kind of contradicts IE's real meaning.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Hm it is possible to mistake the Role and HA for each other easily.
Fi Role doesn't necessarily always do small talk about morals.
I've found that Fi Role people mostly try to come across as polite and appropriate.
But Fi HA people may act that way too... ^^'
I strongly relate to the Fi role descriptions. As a child, my teachers, my friend's parents, grandparents and uncles always used to tell my parents about how polite, calm and respectful I was. I really didn't understand what was so special about it. It was just that, unlike the other kids, I didn't behave like an uncivil monkey.
Here is a good example of (crazy) Si HA.
An ILI wouldn't do that kind of thing, or at least he wouldn't find Si important on a personal level.
I have known of an ILE-Ti Sx/Sp guy who'd also take tons of supplements to stay healthy.
He probably took over 20 a day himself. On trips, he'd always carry a big container full of supplements.
Besides that...
For Ne Ego: physical relaxation > physical excitation
For Ni Ego: physical excitation > physical relaxation
The lines get blurred a bit when it comes to ENxjs and INxjs, because they may require relaxation or excitation (being 1D Si or Se), but at the end of the day, they value excitation (Se) or relaxation (Si) more. An ENxp is looking for someone to relax them, whereas an ENxj is reluctant to it to some extent, and only lets it happen as a byproduct of something else, it is more of an afterthought for them. Ni egos like high-energy environments, whereas Ne egos would rather prefer the opposite.
Well, IEI talk about their environment which leaves me perplexed.
Also one theme among them is to talk about(food etc.. ) to their cared ones so their cared one can be strong which ultimately has
agenda.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
In terms of overall feel/vibe,
LIIs tend to come off more absolute in their statements like a feeling of "this is how it works and the way things are" (Ti)
whereas ILIs come off more skeptical/exceptions to every rule "no, not always because of X Y and Z" (Te).
LIIs tend to be more general and concise when explaining how something works
whereas ILIs tend to be more wordy.
Also, since LIIs value Fe, they tend to be more aware of how they are expressing themselves
whereas ILIs tend to be more oblivious to this, and may come off rambling/ranting to outside observers
Last edited by Computer Loser; 03-12-2018 at 05:52 PM.
LIIs are more tangential in thought and speech. That's probably the most practical difference.
That's not true. I know a lot of people who don't do that. You can't form sweeping generalizations about types/functions by a few people you know.
I find ILIs more precise. Ti-lead overloads on data, too much data gets dispersed. It's all over the place.
I dunno that passes the common sense test in my experience, my only caveat would be it more or less holds true for every function when not appreciated, Si when Ni is not working, Ti when Fi, Te when Fe, etc. but its more about the dominant/role position that makes it a lens through which to view things and a first call kind of move. In other positions the same thing occurs but its more painful and less skilled, for example the creative-polr move. I do think from an Ne perspective it makes a lot of sense, because its like first you do the Ne thing but maybe its not the right environment so you go into Se mode to adapt (this happens a lot mainly for me in the form of am I about to subject myself to adverse leverage I won't like by continuing to prosecute this Ne). If you double down on base in a situation where its not going to be "appreciated" (Fe) or "work" (Te) or is "irrational" (Ti) or "evil" (Fi) its usually considered bad by your own standards, so I don't see why under those conditions you wouldn't. SLE goes around imposing his will, but when it fails to be "appreciated" they consider the Ne aspect for alternatives or reasons, but the preference is to shoot first ask questions later. Whereas with ILE they prefer to generate ideas and only rely on Se as backup in emergency situations. SEI and IEI are in a similar relationship, in an environment where they can't control the Ni aspect they can at least get comfy and focus on a narrower time frame. In other words, the role is flexible in coming in and not too energetically draining when the base is inadequate to frame the issue, whereas other functional swaps in the face of insufficiency are more annoying to pull off. Which is why temperament such as flexible maneuvering is characterized by use of both. introverted judgers such as LSI will try to logic stuff then go to values if that doesn't work, sometimes looking like a ESI in their stubbornness etc. Perhaps framing it in a Fe context "appreciate" obscures the dynamic, making it sound like everyone applies it that way, but I think the general principle is sound. I would say its something more like HA determines a lot of whether the switch is needed, so people think making stubborn fallback Fi statements are indicators of mobilizing but its probably role in actuality. Reinin does this a lot when he points out "the second on the third" or whatever, what he's doing is showing how functions can interact in different ways. In this way you can have creative application of Role (Se Fi products from LSI--creative Se "Fi roleplaying" switched on by Ni) this is how LSI actors act, etc. (ILI Te Si roleplaying for Fi reasons--buying people shit, the good husband the good father etc)
Lol, interesting.
Didn't think my posts were all over the place.
Curious on your opinion - look at the post just below yours.
Is that more Ti or Te?
Ok, I guess I confused Role and Hidden Agenda. Regardless, I'm
I can handle
Best summary in this thread. Maybe this is from a Ti lead pov or something but yeah I completely agree. Except, I don't really find LIIs aware at all of how they are expressing themselves lol. It's true ILIs are even worse at that, though.
Actually I don't find the ILIs caring too much about what people think of them, that seems more like an Fe thing and I've known some LIIs obsessing over such topics. (Small correction, I suppose it was a typo but they have Fe dual seeking, not Fe hidden agenda.)
This is pretty good in my experience.ILIs dont believe in universal truths and that truth might be relative and pov dependent. They prefer a posteriori and inductive reasoning. Te
LIIs do believe in universal truths and have reductive and deductive structural logic Ti
Maybe the LIIs get overloaded on it, but it doesn't seem like this is a Ti lead issue per se. I don't have this issue, but I have high Si. Otoh the ILIs actually seem to have a visible bottleneck with regard to intake of data. LIIs, if they have a bottleneck, I haven't noticed it in the same way as I do with ILIs.
Yes Ti is about compressing information, dunno where Te got that reputation from. Its more like Te views things in terms of "the case" which is the totality of the factors in play and judges it as a whole with respect to meeting some goal, so the case is judged in relationship to the goal. Whereas Ti is more about universal structure, but to create a universal structure language has to be very dense and specific. Te compresses a lot of facts in proceeding to a result, but as far as pure information is concerned it does not try to compress and structure except inasmuch as information transmission may itself be a case, like when giving explanations. But Ti keeps that all under the hood and can answer by implication. You see Pookie do this a lot. I think Ti/Te in HA is an even more exaggerated example of this in action. Ti can be very laconic. The 4d function flavors it a lot more, ILI is more laconic than ILE for example. Its this crossover that creates blur between whether or not Te or Ti is concise, wordy, etc. A better way to put it is extroverts are wordier, whether they be Te or Ti valuing, because its the extroverted functions that are really either putting it out there or concealing. Fi and Fe is the same wayLol, interesting.
Didn't think my posts were all over the place.
Curious on your opinion - look at the post just below yours.
Is that more Ti or Te?
Hahaha that post is a bit of both Ti and Te but mainly neither (I type Bertrand ESI-Fi).Lol, interesting.
Didn't think my posts were all over the place.
Curious on your opinion - look at the post just below yours.
Is that more Ti or Te?
Btw no, I don't find your posts to be all over the place.
I was talking more LII, not LSI. So Ti/Ne more than just Ti-lead (as far as being too tangential).Lol, interesting.
Didn't think my posts were all over the place.
Curious on your opinion - look at the post just below yours.
That's Ti/Ne to the max.Is that more Ti or Te?
Well, you're ILE, so I wouldn't expect data collection to be one of your main preoccupations.
nah like many people you confuse some permutation of Ti/Se with Te
ILIs might be more wordy and ramble because they think as they talk and they involve others with them when they're talking. But LIIs think alone then talk about their findings so they might appear more precise.
I think this is because of Dynamic/Static dichotomy.
Baloney.
if ILIs ramble its because of their irrationality and then they get caught in loops where they realize they're doing it and keep trying to clarify over and over meanwhile new things are being interjected into the stream. its like they get caught up in the case and its transforming in real time and they get caught in that middlespace between watching and action, gulenko calls it something like when a helicopter is in the process of taking off and its unstably hovering 1 ft off the ground. thats the mechanical version of ILI rambling, they can't overcome the force required to break past the emergent social awkwardness and end up stuck.. I think its precisely why they admire LSI because LSI can get in and out with a word... in other words ILIs aren't rambling because of Ti or Te so much as hyper aware Ni and super weak Fe. if you read a manual written by ILI its not going to ramble. and at long distances they're not going to say anything at all unless forced to. only at close distances do they sort of open that dynamic up and you can see them do their stuttery rambly thing... rambling as an intentional stream of consciousness is more an extroverted irrational trait
IEE has the best rambles, the highest quality rambles, not like those Trump rambles
Last edited by Bertrand; 03-12-2018 at 08:02 PM.
Wordy ILIs still tend to be more precise. Aestrivex, MensSuperMateriam are some local past examples of wordier ILIs. Korpsey could also be really wordy. Still, I wouldn't call them tangential or all over the place.
to be clear im talking in real life, ILIs online could easily be IEE or any other type so its a bad idea to take as true the proclivities of some poster who calls himself ILI as indicative of the behavior because it becomes a weird social loop where that "tradition" begins to define the type and its totally divorced from reality, which is precisely what these forums were suffering from when I first got here
Ti is more competent at real world stuff than Ni is....that would include talking and involving others.
Ni-lead is more involved in one's own inner world.
No, Mens, Korpsey and Aestrivex are clear ILIs. They can't be IEEs. IEE is out of the question.
And I was also talking about real life.
Let's take a look at Bertrand's first mistake. He conflates socionics types to behavior.
Socionics types has to do with cognition, not behavior. It's indicative of the cognition for each type....as indicative of the behavior...
And I can tell you for sure there is an easy crossover between real life and online in terms of cognitive markers each types' exhibit. Sure, they are processing information in different environments, but the processes they use remain the same.
And in many cases, online gives you added insight into the way cognition for types work than real life does because a lot of people can be less inhibited about speaking their mind online. people are often more constrained in real life than they are here perhaps for social reasons, so in some cases you get a deeper look at the type's cognition. you see more firsthand what's going on inside the head of a particular type.
To a certain extent, people can script themselves on threads but eventually the quality of perception will speak for itself, and once they start getting into debates and conversing in real time chat, any typologer worth his/her salt is going to be able to spot a poser ILI from a mile away (certain things about ILI cognition an IEE could not possibly fake).
Alright, your wording was ambiguous, I thought you were saying that LIIs have trouble with processing a lot of data. So I was actually saying that I don't have a problem with processing a lot of data. In other words: data collection is definitely one of my main preoccupations btw, and god I'm not ILE lol... that's such a ridiculous typing still. No, not SLE either, LSI. Maybe one day you will finally wake up and update your notions about me lol
Yeah that's how it seems to be. I don't think it's due to that dichotomy you mentioned, it's simply the difference between Ti lead of LII and Irrational impression-sharing ILI.
"Precision" is an imprecise, near irrelevant, priori delimiting the difference between either types given the fact that it's conditional.
Pondering
When people are in a "pondering state", they are less precise and all over the place thus appear to overload others with irrelevant data - especially when the rhythm of information abstraction is incompatible. Rational (Linear) types, start by reasons, seeking an explanation for the state of the problem/phenomena they are trying to understand; the details reinforcing their explanation follow afterwards. Adaptive (irrational) types get annoyed experiencing this process since they function in reverse - this is why they will dislike the pondering state of Linear styles since we seek the relevant details-perception of the circumstance/phenomena first and then rationalize our conclusion.
Highly intellectual LSIs & SLIs are pretty verbose, if your socionics is still biased you'll mistake them for NTs. The classical S&N delimitation is wrong - the difference is interpretive-perception vs directive-perception, Interpretive types have a distorted perception because they interpret the details in their abstraction - whilst Directive-perceivers are more objective in their abstraction.
After the pondering state, every sociotype is precise especially regarding information from their dominant - for example:
*ILI this is systemic-ideas and evidenced-logic (subordinated to their ideas).
*LII this is systemic-logic and observed-ideas (subordinated to their logic).
*LSE its empirical-logic and illustrative ideas (subordinated to the logic).
*SLE its observations-ideas and illustrative logical explanations (subordinated to their ideas).
Subtype
Secondly, subtype plays a role - the most verbose subtype is the "creative". The creative subtype's distortions lie in seeking novelty, challenging perceptions, being dissatisfied with information unless it truly stands out. They want to think outside the box the most and will challenge accepted norms and ideas for the sake of it - hence they'll be the least concise.
Harmonizers are second, given direction - group census, they like to reform and adapt ideas as inline with the subtype's distortion on the personality; they'll explore plenty of ideas. Dominants are third - they are only interested in ideas - viewpoints, to the degree that it helps them control the situation - their subtype distortion, they ponder less than the other subtypes. Finally, Normalisers are the most concise given their attentiveness to perfection - removing chaos, they are the least all over the place subtype.
Hm I don't think so. I think dynamic types (Ej and Ip tempermants) are more likely to talk while thinking.
This sounds like Ni/Te cognition. Do you self-type ILI?
And I don't see it that way.
I'll put it this way. ILIs are more precise in their pondering state than LIIs are.Pondering
When people are in a "pondering state", they are less precise and all over the place thus appear to overload others with irrelevant data - especially when the rhythm of information abstraction is incompatible. Rational (Linear) types, start by reasons, seeking an explanation for the state of the problem/phenomena they are trying to understand; the details reinforcing their explanation follow afterwards. Adaptive (irrational) types get annoyed experiencing this process since they function in reverse - this is why they will dislike the pondering state of Linear styles since we seek the relevant details-perception of the circumstance/phenomena first and then rationalize our conclusion.
Highly intellectual LSIs & SLIs are pretty verbose, if your socionics is still biased you'll mistake them for NTs. The classical S&N delimitation is wrong - the difference is interpretive-perception vs directive-perception, Interpretive types have a distorted perception because they interpret the details in their abstraction - whilst Directive-perceivers are more objective in their abstraction.
After the pondering state, every sociotype is precise especially regarding information from their dominant - for example:
*ILI this is systemic-ideas and evidenced-logic (subordinated to their ideas).
*LII this is systemic-logic and observed-ideas (subordinated to their logic).
*LSE its empirical-logic and illustrative ideas (subordinated to the logic).
*SLE its observations-ideas and illustrative logical explanations (subordinated to their ideas).
Subtype
Secondly, subtype plays a role - the most verbose subtype is the "creative". The creative subtype's distortions lie in seeking novelty, challenging perceptions, being dissatisfied with information unless it truly stands out. They want to think outside the box the most and will challenge accepted norms and ideas for the sake of it - hence they'll be the least concise.
Harmonizers are second, given direction - group census, they like to reform and adapt ideas as inline with the subtype's distortion on the personality; they'll explore plenty of ideas. Dominants are third - they are only interested in ideas - viewpoints, to the degree that it helps them control the situation - their subtype distortion, they ponder less than the other subtypes. Finally, Normalisers are the most concise given their attentiveness to perfection - removing chaos, they are the least all over the place subtype.
I didn't notice that kind of difference.
And yeah I'm not surprised that this idiot - @Kill4Me - still wants to think bullshit about me - with his having failed to respond to my correction of his bs about me.
Actually this is true for both types but both types can only be energized by their temperament dual. EJs - for LIIs, and EPs - for ILIs. Flexible-Maneuvers are adaptive and respond to the situation when it makes sense to do so - something ILIs can unconsciously sense; however LIIs are annoyed by how this seems to come from nowhere. Linear-Assertives are orderly and stable, over being stimuli-adaptive sensitive - something LIIs unconsciously feel comfortable with, but ILIs feel is unnecessary thus frustrating.
The temperament issue gets a bit more complicated. Given that both types can also reject volitional force - especially subject to subtype or when their preferred mode of working is challenged. LII prefer to work in an IJ rhythm and ILI, an IP... there's more to it.
Yeah - neither is this entirely reliable. I have seen both LIIs and ILIs who loathe people, and care about "group-politics" who likes me, who doesn't... but only seem to do so to the degree they think it affects their interests.
I'm an ILI with Alpha values, I have realized that I do genuinely like a vivid, pleasant and emotionally relaxed atmosphere. It suits my stereotypical Enneagram 5 nature were I'm divorced from my emotions and don't/can't bring them out without a receptive atmosphere. My dual is an SEE with alpha values, not either ESE or SEI, temperament incompatibilities and dissonance information exchange reveal themselves.
Both types cannot provide such an atmosphere on command if demanded by the situation. Although subtypes do affect this - creatives are the most sociable, and most likely to functionally accentuate E and I, attuned to the emotional atmosphere and desiring to entertain others with novel ideas or antiques.
The more "serious" ILIs and LIIs do what you described as pertaining to "ILIs only".
I'm not sure if its just me, but much of this looks like common sense life-values for someone who intends to live a long and healthy life. If those personal values align with you, then it's only logical to care about the quality of your life - materially and health wise.
Socionics is broken when it comes to this manner of defining terms, and critiquing them against observations of real people.
I read about this 5 years ago and couldn't understand this blanket statement and generalization - initially I agreed with it because I'm a skeptic myself, I care about the ultimate truth but philosophically see that as unattainable especially when I got introduced to "epistemology" - how, what, why we construct knowledge and how much faith can we place in what we believe.
Years later I no longer believe that "universal truth" is a delineate between the types since I know that if I subscribed to the philosophy that there's knowledge that can be deemed universal - I'd see myself accepting that viewpoint.
However in trying to precisely explore the difference with my quasi-identicals and getting to understand how and why Gulenko thinks as he does (when he espoused this universal truths mistake). I realized he came up with that generalization after he found the ILIs he's friends with doubting his overarching conjectures without understanding the reason why. But I understand it, ILIs don't like generalizations that aren't backed up by independent evidence; ILIs feel (towards sloppy Ti logic): "just because you've observed a circumstance were what you've concluded is true, doesn't mean you have good or any evidence to generalize your observation onto everything; just because every swan you've seen is white doesn't mean 'every swan is white' is a universal truth".
What is also true is that LIIs feel similarly about "Ni" ideas (which in reality is more like "Ne" but systematized to illustrate a point) were they say ILIs come up with speculations after observing a few facts "Te" and then running away with a conclusion. The long explanation ILIs give won't be respected if it's not based on observations (ILIs feel the same way about useless "Ti" information).
There's always information confusion when the two types aren't taught explicitly why they understand the world differently, something no socionics school has tackled properly as to-date.
What you've written here can be true for both types actually - especially subject to subtypes. The reliability of their "control function" (mistakenly caused the ignoring function in model-a) determines whether you'll easily see a difference with regards to "Ne" or "Te" in a pure information way (not energy wise):
*When ILIs aren't in a fully healthy state - they don't bother making observations - exploring a lot of ideas, thus "Speculate" from limited observations to the annoyance of LIIs. Whereas when healthy, they understand the "Ne" perspective and make sure their ideas are backed up by observations.
*LIIs in an unreliable state, unfortunately don't bother to look for evidence for their grandiose - generalized claims, running away with a few observations to mass generalizations. In science they get laughed at in peer reviews when critics ask for objective impartial evidence of claims. Whereas when healthy "Te" is reliable - their logic is empirical, they don't make run away claims everyone laughs at.
The control function is always active and never ignored, regardless of whether they are making good use of it or not. BTW I find POLR makes sense as the "ignoring function" intellectually, since that information just doesn't get processed.
In energy functions the two types are identical actually - both prefer LT (Structural Logic & Temporal Intuition) the most and PI (Pragmatic Logic & Intuition of Opportunities) less. Both types are low in energy - they are not driven to be overly pragmatic or to chase new opportunities; preferring instead to move at their own pace and timely T (Temporal Intuition) and following rules, systemically and orderly inline with their focus L (Structural Logic).
FE are what their dual both possess and I like that Gulenko has admitted that ESEs are very pushy and demanding, especially the Dominant subtype which amplifies P(Desire for results), E(Emotional dominance), & F(volitional force).
Last edited by Soupman; 03-13-2018 at 03:58 AM.
Okay, well first of all, go fuck yourself.
And second of all, it's not bullshit. You still aren't seeing yourself clearly.
Somewhat yeah - ILI Creative subtype, I have alpha values but my temperament is pretty much IP/Receptive Adaptive with distortions from my subtype - I (novelty) & E (excitement) seeking.
I pretty sure you see it differently because you have a case-state, a precise scenario you've observed were people you classify as ILIs were "precise", offering information you perceive to be relevant/value; whilst comparably LIIs you typed seemed to offer irrelevant conjectures.
You are not so much a fan of the "wall of text" eh?
my entire point was premised on that you can't separate the behavior from the type, except in a meaningless declarative sense. like what soupman says are case-states, except for you your reality is socially engineered [1]. so you come upon a situation where people are acknowledged collectively as ILI and that becomes the standard whereby you judge the type going forward (you can spot a poser, which is just someone who doesn't match your criterion, but what if the criterion is based on a poser, a poser only determined to be such later in time. if you miss the boat on this development you are forever stuck in the past, enforcing an outdated order). the point is that the collective has a zillion and one underlying reasons and motives and is no less working within a stream of development, so you take it up midway and try to harden it in a way that freezes its development (no matter how flawed and absurd) and forcefully extend it as it stands now into time forever, without correcting for errors (you make no intuitive gains, and that is precisely what is lacking in popular typology at large in the west). for you errors are diversions from the orthodoxy you inherited. which is why your pinterest is nothing but a bunch of MBTI cliches. its like you're trying to make the fantasy of some 14 year old IEI reality via sensory instantiation. in other words, progress for you in typology is like striking out in some weird direction and you're sort of just chillin out there because you lack the means to orient yourself, rather you got oriented at some early stage and went in a straight line. Sol kind of does this in his own way too, but basically it has to do with inability to manage transformations as they occur. real progress in typology is actually developing the underlying insights such that instead of building a fake world of logical relationships, youtubes and pictures, the ideas function in a way that justifies their existence (which is therapeutic). now inasmuch as, I don't know, you get likes from dumb groupies on your blog or whatever maybe thats the goal, but its not real, its just a bunch of pandering with surface level instantiations of much deeper ideas, not really meant to function as fan fiction but as a meaningful tool, which was precisely my problem with the socionics community when I first encountered it, which is it was more about social positioning and creating this dream hierarchy than actually promoting real understanding between people
do I expect you to understand this at all? No, because if you could you wouldn't be doing it. but this is for the benefit of everyone else, lest you expand into absurdity
[1] I can kind of understand beta ethicals obsession with social engineering in light of this though, because their dual is totally helpless before it, so it does sort of matter
Last edited by Bertrand; 03-13-2018 at 12:48 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
