Ip temperament and IEIs

[Creepy-male]

Can I contribute?

I agree with IP temperament, except for being go-with-the-flow. Large changes I find disorienting, so I don't necessarily like them. But, yes, eventually things just smooth out and I'm where I am again, if that makes sense (it probably doesn't... uh, I mean, I feel reconnected with things, and that pleasant blurry feeling returns).

As for joining/starting threads, I tend to start threads because of how many questions I have (maybe more of a thing for SEIs than IEIs). That's lessened recently now that I have Brillsauce on IV drip.

[Sirena]

Yeah, I'd say the definition pretty much fits me, overall. Personally, I never had a problem relating to Ip temperament, even when I was self-typing as IEE. I'll try to address the different points later.

[marooned]

I find these two articles interesting in terms of rationality and irrationality:

P stands for Phenomenon
This one sort of makes the "p" type sound like a person with a drug habit, and its tone seems to be that these "p types" can't be counted on and are deceivers and break their promises, etc. But taking away this kind of "dramatic" (accusatory?) way of explaining it, I do think it does provide a (rather exaggerated) contrast between "p" and "j" that sheds light on p.

The Socionist: rationality
I think this one sort of exaggerates the "wild, untamed nature" thing (I might be changing my mind!). I also think the dichotomy of it (in general, not just this article) isn't very helpful in the sense that everyone has a rational element in their ego block, and I could imagine seeing the "rational attitude" coming out in "irrational types" because of this. But still I find this article very helpful in drawing a contrast between the two. Also I think that people's circumstances can also affect how "rational" or "irrational" they appear, and that this may fluctuate even throughout their life.

[JuJu]

That Socionist article about "wild, untamed nature" is quite misleading.

I love Rick, but that ain't right.

E. G. EIE musicians... John Lennon, Marilyn Manson... Unless one wants to stretch Rick's metaphor EXTREMELY far, one can't rightly say these two are (or even seem) scared of "untamed nature," and shit like that.

Rick's description is too behavior specific to be correct.

The truth of XXXj is easiest to show in pictures or videos. It amounts to a certain (bearly effable) rigidity or uprightness in personality... Whereas XXXp has a sort of, for lack of better words right now, flexability and live and let live adaptability ingrained in their personalities...

Unfortunately, not even my really brief descriptions capture the difference adequately... It is tangible, but almost ineffable, and unfortunately, the cause of hundreds of Socionics mistypings.

[marooned]

I think both the articles I posted are "misleading." I trust that people can evaluate them for themselves. I do find both those articles helpful even if they are misleading, and I would add that I think it's difficult to write about something like temperament without it coming off as "misleading." For instance the IP temperament -- we're talking about something that has to cover both Si and Ni leading (it invites contradiction from the get go). No matter what it says, unless it's some long treatise on temperaments covering every microscopic little point, it will be to an extent misleading if taken verbatim.

[Satan]

enneagram instincts would cover differences

[Satan]

heh... yes... It's more or less how I read it, still I don't identify with any of the descriptions more than the other. I can see reasons why I would fit both. And I disagree with parts of both, too.

I AM very balanced in temperaments, just in the middle of I/E and j/p, and thus I probably won't fit the stereotypes either way. It makes me a bit unsure if I should make these posts, as stereotypes can be good to type obvious types. It's with the more balanced ones it gets difficult, and I guess that's my message.

Juju adviced me to look at intertype relations to figure out if I'm IEI or EIE, and I'm IEI, as my intertype relations make sense only if I am. I used my ILE husband, ESE mother and my ex-boyfriends (two SLEs, one LSI) in addition to more obvious IEIs to figure out. Also, I just feel a bit more comfortable with the IEIs on this forum than the EIEs, - the EIEs all seem so damn serious all the time. :wink:

The point about Si and Ni is good. Si-egos are of course naturally a lot more relaxed.

You know a lot about yourself. How do you apply it?

[Satan]

Apply? I live....

You sure.

[JuJu]

I hope so.... If not, I'm neither rational nor irrational. Can I be omni-temperamental?

hahaha if anyone is, it's you