What are some real life examples of two IE pairings when it comes to planning and making decisions? Also how do these two pairings deal with information that contradicts their ideological beliefs?
Ti-Se vs Ni-Te
What are some real life examples of two IE pairings when it comes to planning and making decisions? Also how do these two pairings deal with information that contradicts their ideological beliefs?
Are you talking about LSI's and LIE's?
LSI and ILIOriginally Posted by Adam Strange
LSI: harder to deviate from plan once committed to it. Otoh ILI: more easily spontaneous in updating their plans to some other direction.
For real life examples, I can only tell you how I deal with things. I type as LSI, though what I say should not be taken as indisputable fact for all LSIs or anything like that.
Planning - well, I can give an example of how I budget things. I have a spreadsheet with categories, and a certain amount set aside for each category. So, say my car breaks down unexpectedly - I know how much I have set aside in my auto maintenance/repair category that I can use, and if it's going to cost more than that, I rearrange amounts in the categories so that I can pay with a credit card now, but still be able to cover the costs within a short amount of time without shorting any other category. I average how much I spend in each category and then spread the amount out into each month for the upcoming year. I know how much my yearly property taxes are, and so divide that by 12 and set aside that much each month, so it's completely covered when they come due.
I know when things are due, and when they need to be completed by, and act accordingly. So, as far as knowns go, I plan to cover all the known events, appointments, due dates and expenses by the time they come due. And I leave room to cover for some unexpectededs.
However, making a decision where I cannot see the outcomes, or planning for some goal far in the future - these things I utterly fall short at. I have no idea what will happen, so how can I plan for it? If I make a decision - for instance when I decided to go to a particular university and undertake a certain area of study, then I am set on that course and follow it until it is done. I don't think much about the ending or what comes next, I take the steps that are the best to take right now, and continue taking them until it's finished. I did things like I do with my budget as far as arranging classes, and deciding which ones would be best to take when, and how to fit things in, so that I graduated in 3 years with 4 year degree, but had no set plan beyond graduating.
Information that contradicts my ideological beliefs, hm. I'm initially resistant to accepting it and stubborn about it, but if I see that they have good points, I can come around. I will take the points that I thought were good and think about them, considering them and arguments against them for some time before conceding. The amount of time this takes depends on how deeply entrenched my beliefs were to begin with. But, if somebody makes crappy points, I won't even bother considering their argument. (Normal information, not about deeply held beliefs and just typical discussion I'm far more open-minded about imo)
OK input from another LSI too to give more information to OP.
As for budgeting as the example - I don't bother with writing down all that in a spreadsheet. My mind automatically calculates such things and I adjust automatically if needed. Consciously I have an outline or draft of the overall goal on my spendings by having a sense of how much things cost, what things I need, how much or how soon I need each thing, all of it also in terms of how much I need to pay attention to expenses in a given time period and why, as a big part of the outline. The same thing with the university studies, I did arrange things like that in a plan without having to use a spreadsheet since it was not too much data to deal with (I just kept the documents given out by the university as references to look at if needed) and so I also finished sooner like that
I do write down other things, mainly things that need to be done, a lot of categorized lists etc. Tbh I do actually remember most of that too but I like having it documented. I did document all the data on my actual expenses very closely for a while too before I changed my approach to just having main expenses documented.
I don't need to focus on possible outcomes that much to make a decision and plan. What I absolutely need to see is what I want to achieve and then I'll just plan for that. Of course I wouldn't know what will happen for things that are not under my control but I try to plan in a way that that doesn't matter so much. If some unexpected shit gets in the way then, I do get very angry, raging even. I'm a bit too "Positivist" (I don't believe in Reinin otherwise) with "charging ahead" on my course not looking at what possible negative outcomes there may be for some steps where it could get in my way. EIE friend has been useful there. A bit too tunnel-vision-ish beyond that too, the more pushy I get when some shit gets in the way, the more like that I get until I stop and rethink the approach if needed.
Ideological beliefs, it takes a long time for me to see, let alone accept a very different perspective. Whether I can update my view on something doesn't really simply depend on how deeply entrenched the stuff is, though I relate if you mean how deeply justified of a foundation I have for it - otherwise it depends more on how much I'm able to see how to upgrade my view, I cannot just drop the old system on a whim, I need something better in its place so I have to actively work out how it can be upgraded, what basic principles may need a fix and as a consequence, I'm able to reorganize the relevant data and the entire system.
@Myst @squark
I definitely relate to you guys in terms of budgeting, like Myst, I usually plan out everything in my head. Sometimes I write things down that I need to remember, because my memory is terrible, especially with details and bills lol. Like the both of you, I hate when unexpected things happen and I get extremely agitated. When planning I do consider possible known outcomes that are likely to happen in a give situations and I set up contingency plans in case things don't go as plan, it's almost like playing chess for me
Does that seem Ti-Se or Ni-Te to you guys?
Also for ideological beliefs its also the same as you guys. I'm very resistant at first, because I'm usually extremely confident, if not arrogant at times about my world view. My problems is that I usually consider what makes logical sense to me, as opposed to what is empirically true, which is why I went through a whole libertarian rabbit hole for awhile. But if I can be convinced, I can completely change my whole world view on a dime, which I read is a Beta quadra trait.
Back when I didn't have as much to keep track of, I paid my bills as soon as I received them and just kept track of my balance. That way you never have to remember if you paid something or not. Contingency plans is sometimes pointed to as a feature of Ne (because you're considering alternatives and possibilities) but if it's something you've seen or experienced before then it's not really Ne any more. For example, I added that category for car repairs only after my car broke down a few times, so that wasn't Ne on my part. So, it kind of depends on what you're describing.@Myst @squark
I definitely relate to you guys in terms of budgeting, like Myst, I usually plan out everything in my head. Sometimes I write things down that I need to remember, because my memory is terrible, especially with details and bills lol. Like the both of you, I hate when unexpected things happen and I get extremely agitated. When planning I do consider possible known outcomes that are likely to happen in a give situations and I set up contingency plans in case things don't go as plan, it's almost like playing chess for me
Does that seem Ti-Se or Ni-Te to you guys?
Trying to think of all the different ways something could go and trying to take into account each one sounds like a nightmare to me. It does sound like chess, which I avoid if at all possible. I think the way you described it sounds more like ILI.
Lol, yeah, I can be confident to the point of arrogance too. I'm not sure about the rest of it. I do care about what is empirically true. I also have a science background where empirical data is kind of the mainstay so...I'm very resistant at first, because I'm usually extremely confident, if not arrogant at times about my world view. My problems is that I usually consider what makes logical sense to me, as opposed to what is empirically true, which is why I went through a whole libertarian rabbit hole for awhile. But if I can be convinced, I can completely change my whole world view on a dime, which I read is a Beta quadra trait.
I guess it has to do with experience, because my contingency plans are there to cover scenarios that I realistically think are going to happen, but that only occurs when I am uncertain of what's going to happen in a given situation.
Its not necessarily speculations, it more based on what I think is realistically going to happen based on my experiences in life. Like for example, if I'm dealing with a person, its more about how I know their tendencies and behavior, so I can create a contingency plan based on how I expect them to act. Its really useful in talking your way out of any situation lol. It's just that even after I posted on the what's my type forum, the almost everyone said LSI-Ti, but I'm still having a hard time differentiating between LSI and ILI. I've read both descriptions and I relate to them both, but my ego is more Ti-Se than Ni-Te. I feel like its much harder for introverts to type themselves, I wish I was an extrovert lol.
I don't know if it was because I was teenager at the time, but nowadays I heavily rely on empirical evidence in decision making and beliefs. Its just that my first instinct is to consider whether it makes rational sense, if there are any contradictions, is it a well defined principle, and etc.. But yeah I definitely feel you, empirical data is a mainstay especially if you are doing business, public policy, or science.
This sounds like Ni to me. I also think that you best fit the dialectical-algorithm thinking style (if-then-else) if you're interested in Gulenko's cognitive styles. While I find them interesting and useful, not everyone puts much stock in them. ILI belongs to this cognitive style though, along with EIE, SEI and LSE.
Yes there were a lot of LSI suggestions. I remember my impression in that thread was LIE. You had said some things that were very stereotypical for that type. I don't know if it's harder for introverts to type themselves, but it can take some time to sort things out and figure out what makes the most sense overall for your own typing.It's just that even after I posted on the what's my type forum, the almost everyone said LSI-Ti, but I'm still having a hard time differentiating between LSI and ILI. I've read both descriptions and I relate to them both, but my ego is more Ti-Se than Ni-Te. I feel like its much harder for introverts to type themselves, I wish I was an extrovert lol.
Yeah, I automatically start looking at how much sense something makes when I first hear about it too. If it doesn't make any sense, then I'm inclined to be skeptical of supporting evidence someone cites for it. I remain skeptical until I've looked into it for myself.I don't know if it was because I was teenager at the time, but nowadays I heavily rely on empirical evidence in decision making and beliefs. Its just that my first instinct is to consider whether it makes rational sense, if there are any contradictions, is it a well defined principle, and etc.. But yeah I definitely feel you, empirical data is a mainstay especially if you are doing business, public policy, or science.
Thanks for the recommendation, I just finished reading it and I relate heavily to the Casual-Determinism cognition. The whole passage spoke to me, that's exactly how I present my arguments. Words like therefore,because, consequently are staple words of mine.
I don't do the playing chess thingy, I don't think this much about outcomes etc, I just see/plan out the route that is best. If there are points in the plan where more information will be needed once I reach those points in the course, then I don't speculate, I'll just go and get there and get the necessary information, so depending on that it could go in direction A or B, that's the closest I have to contingency planning. My memory is good for details, is another difference here in our thinking.@Myst @squark
I definitely relate to you guys in terms of budgeting, like Myst, I usually plan out everything in my head. Sometimes I write things down that I need to remember, because my memory is terrible, especially with details and bills lol. Like the both of you, I hate when unexpected things happen and I get extremely agitated. When planning I do consider possible known outcomes that are likely to happen in a give situations and I set up contingency plans in case things don't go as plan, it's almost like playing chess for me
Does that seem Ti-Se or Ni-Te to you guys?
My LIE ex did say something about hating uncertainty. I don't really care for it either but I don't think about it like he would a lot.
This is again not the same. For one, I don't change my whole worldview on a dime. I never said anything like that. I don't think this is Beta related, either. Also, I don't simply consider what makes logical sense, it has to be also anchored in tangible reality or it's bs. I'm a total nazi about having my logical map match to tangible observations as much as possible. And I don't like to go down rabbit holes without such anchoring.Also for ideological beliefs its also the same as you guys. I'm very resistant at first, because I'm usually extremely confident, if not arrogant at times about my world view. My problems is that I usually consider what makes logical sense to me, as opposed to what is empirically true, which is why I went through a whole libertarian rabbit hole for awhile. But if I can be convinced, I can completely change my whole world view on a dime, which I read is a Beta quadra trait.
Anyway a way for you to decide on the LSI vs ILI (LIE?) conundrum is, describe how you think, what you do, how you adjust or don't adjust when something changes for your course that you have a plan for that you are very committed to.
I usually don't know what's going to happen lol, I don't think about that, I just go ahead with what I want to do/achieve. Do you need to think ahead all the time about what's going to happen?
It's not true that "almost everyone" said LSI-Ti, quite some of us said gamma NT for you.Its not necessarily speculations, it more based on what I think is realistically going to happen based on my experiences in life. Like for example, if I'm dealing with a person, its more about how I know their tendencies and behavior, so I can create a contingency plan based on how I expect them to act. Its really useful in talking your way out of any situation lol. It's just that even after I posted on the what's my type forum, the almost everyone said LSI-Ti, but I'm still having a hard time differentiating between LSI and ILI. I've read both descriptions and I relate to them both, but my ego is more Ti-Se than Ni-Te. I feel like its much harder for introverts to type themselves, I wish I was an extrovert lol.
I don't prepare to try and talk my way out of any situation. Again I find this unrelatable.
I relate to you here more. I do similarly notice if a claim is not well defined.I don't know if it was because I was teenager at the time, but nowadays I heavily rely on empirical evidence in decision making and beliefs. Its just that my first instinct is to consider whether it makes rational sense, if there are any contradictions, is it a well defined principle, and etc.. But yeah I definitely feel you, empirical data is a mainstay especially if you are doing business, public policy, or science.
CD != usage of the "therefore, because, consequently" words. But if you relate to the formal logic deduction stuff as described for it, then okay.
I find it a very unreliable way of trying to type by cognitive styles. Some of it is very interesting descriptions of thinking but I can't really link them to types like Gulenko claims it can be done. To me it seems bogus, the idea of such a link. What on earth makes four so different types (different on the most basic level in the theory, wrt function dichotomies, etc) have the same style of thinking? It's a useless generalization that doesn't even seem to exist in any tangibly operationalizable way. There's my Ne PoLR skepticism
Yeah I also have to experience it first. I really relate to you with this being dependent on repeated experience with that.
I don't mind taking it into account if I see it somehow, e.g. if calculated by a logical method or I am told about it or something but I can't make myself brainstorm.Trying to think of all the different ways something could go and trying to take into account each one sounds like a nightmare to me. It does sound like chess, which I avoid if at all possible. I think the way you described it sounds more like ILI.
Out of curiosity - which science?Lol, yeah, I can be confident to the point of arrogance too. I'm not sure about the rest of it. I do care about what is empirically true. I also have a science background where empirical data is kind of the mainstay so...
Oh here's a good example to differentiate between LSI and ILI (or LIE). From Beta NF friend of mine.
Earlier she promised to take out the trash, and when she does it a few hours later, she then comes over to you with the following vague sentence: "I took it".
How do you respond?
CD and DA have similarities, since both are deductive styles. CD is more like following chains of reasoning to a single converging point or solution, while DA is branching flowchart-style thinking. Going from converging chains of reasoning to a dynamic flowchart is the difference between "if-then" and "if-then-else" but both can use the linkage words of therefore, because and so on.
What ties the thinking styles together can be simplified down to static/dynamic and inductive/deductive. Dynamic deductive = DA. Static deductive = CD. Dynamic Inductive = VS and Static Inductive = H. (Deductive is process and inductive is result) Static/dynamic is a basic component of the theory. I know you said that you agree with the positive/negative dichotomy so: Negative Dynamic = Process. Positive Static = Process. Positive Dynamic = Result. Negative Static = Result. And you can form the same four groups using static/dynamic and negative/positive. Negative Dynamic = DA. Positive Dynamic = VS. Negative Static = H. Positive Static = CD.
Edit to add: Positive is converging. Negative is diverging. Process builds things up step by step. Result goes to the overview or end picture first. These things together form a default thinking style.
Last edited by squark; 03-26-2017 at 02:50 PM.
lol reminds me of college.
Me and an ILI had a genetics class together.
We were very good study buddies but our attitudes toward studying/preparing was very different.
For me, I wanted to get the assignments out of the way and study ahead of time, that way, I won't be freaking out the night before trying to figure everything out.
For the ILI, he had this laid back, confident, "we'll figure it out" attitude about him. He always studied/prepared at the last second because he knew things would turn out okay.
By the way, my major was biology and his computer science haha
I'll post more examples but that's the first one that popped out in my head lol.
That's funny, I'm actually in college right now and I always study ahead of time, like 2 weeks before an exam. I create a 2 week schedule to study at set amount of hours, but it ends up being sporadic instead of daily studying. When it comes to assignments and homework though, I always procrastinate.
That makes sense though if you majored in biology, because it requires you to remember a whole lot. Computer Science on the other hand is more about holistically understanding the material and how to solve problems.
Please tell me this isn't supposed to be an EIE's statement. A pronoun with no antecedent in a decontextualized statement -- ack!
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
She self-types as IEI but that is beside the point, OP's response is what matters for this.
PS. I've seen EIE do this too but I wouldn't say it's "supposed" to be an EIE statement. I do see IEIs doing it more often if that makes you relax lol
I'm aware of the theory behind the styles but I call all that the meaningless kind of generalization. Whatever you call "ties" isn't proper logic to me, it requires too much Ne to create the "ties". (I know you disagree that Ne sees any kind of connections but it obviously has to, to be able to connect such disparate things. See below for more.)
So. Where I say it's a meaningless general idea is things like: "In the scientific sphere so thinks ILE, in the managerial-administrative sphere is methodical LSI, in the social sphere SEE calculates chains of material interests, in the humanitarian sphere subject to the same categorical imperative is EII." Putting such disparate things together... Again, the attempt at linking them together in that idea of C-D thinking does not directly follow from anything and is not demonstrable properly in any way.
I don't agree with much of the Positivist/Negativist dichotomy btw, as to the ways it's concretized, absolutely not agreeing with it - the only one thing I can see validity in is the idea on how Positivists see similarities when building concepts and Negativists build them from contrasts. This seems like an actual aspect of cognition. I have however not investigated enough as to how much it's type related since again it does not follow directly from type ideas. Static/Dynamic is a good dichotomy for another aspect of cognition, yes.
I absolutely don't agree with those equations on "Negative Dynamic = Process. Positive Static = Process. Positive Dynamic = Result". That to me is way too much Ne and logical jumps, so again it's completely without any tangible grounding and without any way to directly logically deduce those things.
When I say there is no tangible and logical demonstration, I also mean I have never seen any demonstration of analysis of information in communication either that would show these things unambiguously. I never ever managed to see anyone type people reliably using these ideas, either.
Also, that whole Gulenko article on cognitive styles is full of irrelevant details that do not meaningfully link to anything in the concepts being presented. Like, things like "Negativists gain leverage in communication from positions opposite the partner, Positivists from positions alongside or at an angle deflecting a straight-on gaze" (randomly grabbed example). Seriously? That Ne of Gulenko ran away a bit too far
PS: I hope you don't take this as too aggressive or something. The disagreement is not directed against you personally.
Last edited by Myst; 03-26-2017 at 08:54 PM.
Eh for me it depends. If it's more than one (or two) crazy (and I mean crazy) intense day's work then I plan the work into sections over a longer time period than that and I do keep to the plan. It's a daily plan then, usually. If it's just one (or two) intense day's work I will leave it to last minute usually. The rationale is that the result wouldn't suffer if it's just a day's work or so. If it's more work to be rushed then I would not trust that the result doesn't suffer from it. For the last minute things I will appear pretty relaxed until I launch into it, I think. By being "relaxed" I don't mean I do absolutely nothing but I'm not worried about the upcoming task. My ESI mom would be much more nervous much sooner. I attribute that to low Te/Ti in her case.
So have you seen the two things I brought up for you to help with your typing?
Last edited by Myst; 03-27-2017 at 07:46 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
