The Sluggish (Ti) HA

[marooned]

So... This post could be a reflection of self-brainwashing... but here we are.

I was thinking about the HA. I was using the one person who I've mentioned before who I think is ESE as a "template." I think that her Ne HA is rather striking. She likes to list every possible scenario that could ever possibly arise out loud, or all the different ways she can think of doing something out loud. She feels the need to point out all possible scenarios, and act upon them with immediacy (even though it's often unnecessary)... she's keeping tabs on Ne, while her ego is focused on Fe and Si, and she wants to make sure she doesn't totally ignore Ne in the meantime, which I think leads to this behavior. Also she likes to go on and on about "well it's a good thing X didn't happen, because then A would have happened. Or worse, B could have happened! ..." etc. I think this is Ne rather than Ni, because the focus isn't on time really (even though it is in those examples sort of), but on potentials.

Going by the above "template" I have noticed something that indicates Ti as my HA. Because I think I do something similar to the person I mentioned. Only it's with consistencies and inconsistencies. I keep tabs on whether things are logically consistent or not. A light goes off when I "spot" an inconsistency and I then feel compelled to address it in some way. Generally I just ponder it, since I tend to be quiet. But at times I have pointed out said "inconsistencies" to others. When I do this, others think that I'm logical (I am after all using logic to point out inconsistencies ). I will then start "Ti-ing" things, clarifying, making distinctions, blah, blah, blah. I don't consider myself to be bad at logic at all, but this is not about ones ability to be logical. It's about something else that I haven't quite pinned down yet.

It sort of hit me today when I was pointing out an "inconsistency" to my ILE (I'm very confident she's ILE, trust me) boss. It all began with my telltale statement of "not necessarily... blah blah blah..." *allow me to elaborate on why there is a logical distinction here*... My boss cut me off before I could finish. This bothered me because I hadn't finished conveying the all-important information. And later it hit me. I tend to cut off the ESE person I know when she goes on and on listing scenarios. Why? Because I've already thought of all these scenarios, have already assessed them, and have finished that process... listening to her go through them all in apparent slow motion when it's so obvious to me is agonizing.

It occurred to me that my ILE boss cut me off because her mind has already covered these distinctions/inconsistencies I was trying to convey, and she knows where I'm going with it and doesn't need to hear it spelled out (it's her tone, and manner that suggested this to me). In other words she's done with her "Ti-ing" while I'm still in the process of going through it (in this case, out loud).

Then this left me feeling confused. Unfortunately at the time my mind was far from Socionics (god forbid!), and it didn't occur to me atm to ask her if she already knew what I was going to say (had already worked it out). I just have a strong suspicion that this is the case. So... that leaves me in a bit of a pickle. I feel compelled to cover "inconsistencies" when I see them... I can't let them go unaddressed. But in this case it was not necessary. The HA seems like something that is hard to let go of. It would be foolish to let go of it... yet it seems to be a rather sluggish function when compared to the speed and ease of the ego functions.

I am at an impasse as to what this will mean in the future. I think I feel like the Ti sidekick. If you have Ti in the ego block, it's like Batman-Ti. If you have it as the HA, it's more like Robin-Ti. So if Batman isn't around, then Robin can take over... but if Batman is there, Robin can just act as a support and allow Batman to run the show (as Batman is more competent). I don't like where that's going though. It reminds me of what Kim said once regarding the ways in which Socionics can be a very bad thing.

Any thoughts? Does the HA have the sluggish quality? Etc. Sorry, I didn't go through and edit this to make it more clear and condenced. I got lazy.

[tcaudilllg]

At the risk of being unhelpful to an IEI (thank you assymetric relations... ), I would like to share my own recent insights about Ti HA. I was asking myself today how it was that one could define a person by history, using it as a guide to assemble character. (a very insightful piece in Newsweek about GW Bush's failures and their relationship to his personal history brought this question into focus.) I thought, "how is it that I am able to find structure in the choices of character ideations?" Then I realized, it was because the history itself subtly implies an underlying structure.

Consider for example the explanation by an author that a man's character is disfigured because his parents thought him incapable. Is this the beginning of the story, or its climax? We assume that there is cause for the parents' labeling of their child, based on the child's behavior. To win the parents' favor, the child attempts to go out of his way to meet their expectations of him -- taking their advice to be more like them, no less -- and invariably fails. His failure is proof to his parents that he is incapable of assimilating their advice, and proof to the child that he must try harder to meet the parents on their own ground, thereby all but assuring that his next failure will be even greater than his last. The problem of this cycle -- the child's inability to meet others' expectations -- is indicative of the flaw in the child's character: he reckless attempts to acheive other's praise by being someone other than himself. Unable to be all things to all people -- and neurotically plagued by the impossibility of reconciling conflicting demands -- the child fails. It is the history of repeated character manifestation in similar circumstances which reveals the trait that points to an underlying skeletal component of his personality.

Of course, one can argue that the cycle will break once the advice of the parents is no longer available, and this is a fair assertion. However, the character trait will remanifest forthwith in a negative quality towards the advice of the parents, which in the child's eyes has failed him for so long, when next his parents attempt to impress their virtues onto him.

The point as regards IEIs, is that merely sticking to a pattern of behavior -- even one supposedly forged by circumstance -- points to the existence of an as-yet unrealized structural component of personality. It is this structual component of which IEI is vaguely aware, and seeks understanding of.

[Blaze]

loki you're on to something i've noticed this also now that you've brought it to my attention. just remember, that everybody has a hidden agenda....like i wonder if i state and restate how i think people are feeling or what the mood is or something....i'll have to watch it.

[Phaedrus]

Going by the above "template" I have noticed something that indicates Ti as my HA. Because I think I do something similar to the person I mentioned. Only it's with consistencies and inconsistencies. I keep tabs on whether things are logically consistent or not. A light goes off when I "spot" an inconsistency and I then feel compelled to address it in some way. Generally I just ponder it, since I tend to be quiet. But at times I have pointed out said "inconsistencies" to others. When I do this, others think that I'm logical (I am after all using logic to point out inconsistencies ). I will then start "Ti-ing" things, clarifying, making distinctions, blah, blah, blah. I don't consider myself to be bad at logic at all, but this is not about ones ability to be logical. It's about something else that I haven't quite pinned down yet.

What you describe here is very uncharacteristic and untypical for an IEI. And it is clearly not an example of Ti HA. IEIs have a totally different attitude towards logic and inconsistencies, and you can read about it in the type descriptions. Since what you describe as a typical behaviour of yours is so typically ILI, maybe you should check your self-typing once again. I am not claiming that you can't be an IEI (because the evidence is too limited), but it is a clear indication anyway that you might not be an IEI.

I feel compelled to cover "inconsistencies" when I see them... I can't let them go unaddressed.

Typically ILI, not at all typical of an IEI. Now check the type descriptions, please.

[tiny_dancer]

I know I do something similar with Te. Poor Robin. No love for him.

[liveandletlive]

an interesting observation i've found with HA people is that they're somewhat nosey, as if to try to find universal laws that work with all people. random- sry.

[Logos]

What you describe here is very uncharacteristic and untypical for an IEI. And it is clearly not an example of Ti HA. IEIs have a totally different attitude towards logic and inconsistencies, and you can read about it in the type descriptions. Since what you describe as a typical behaviour of yours is so typically ILI, maybe you should check your self-typing once again. I am not claiming that you can't be an IEI (because the evidence is too limited), but it is a clear indication anyway that you might not be an IEI.


Typically ILI, not at all typical of an IEI. Now check the type descriptions, please.

And there he goes again!

[Phaedrus]

And there he goes again!

Now I am beginning to get really irritated. If you are not a total idiot, Logos, you will check for yourself what is described in the Socionics type descriptions. What I am saying here about IEIs is correct. Do you dispute that? I didn't think so.

[marooned]

an interesting observation i've found with HA people is that they're somewhat nosey, as if to try to find universal laws that work with all people. random- sry.

Hmm. I don't think that's something I do... It would be silly (and, well, nosey ) to try to find universal laws that cover everything... because those would be hard to find. Maybe people with Ti HA might approach things at first in a way that makes it appear that's what they're doing?

As for what Phaedrus said, I was trying to covey that my use of "Ti" may be "sluggish" when compared with someone who has it in the ego-block.

I have considered ILI as a typing because I relate with Ni-leading, and because there have been times I've wondered if my Fi is weak. But I think that the F is a stronger suit for me than T in general.

Also I was trying to talk about inconsistencies that *do not need* to be pointed out, not ones that many others appear to have missed entirely.

I am not 100% certain of being IEI... but so far it is the best fit.

Also part of me is kind of concerned that you (Phaedrus) would want to use this to say that I'm ILI, and this behavior I've mentioned is similar to yours, and so then it's another support that you are ILI... I don't know if that's what you're doing, but it was the first thing that came to mind... I sometimes think you do that with Snegledmaca. I could be wrong... I mean there are other options... the thought just sort of nagged at me.

--------------------

Edit: Actually I'm not clear if that is the HA. I also haven't gotten to thinking about Tcaudillg's post yet... but I will...

I wonder how other IEIs (or SEIs) feel they experience their HA.

[Phaedrus]

Also part of me is kind of concerned that you (Phaedrus) would want to use this to say that I'm ILI, and this behavior I've mentioned is similar to yours, and so then it's another support that you are ILI...

If you don't watch your mouth I will start to sound like Expat. Stop assuming that I have an interest in proving that I am an ILI. That problem couldn't interest me less, because I already know that I am an ILI, and things that have already been proven and do not have anything further to offer are trivial and boring. I am only interested in things I don't yet fully understand.

And I couldn't care less what your real type is either. Why would I want you to be an ILI? Ridiculous. I don't care what type you are as long as it makes sense. I want people to find their correct type and not live in a world of illusions and misconceptions.

Maybe what you were trying to describe about your own behaviour is something else than what is described in relation to ILIs and MBTT INTPs, but you can find that out for yourself if you read some type descriptions. But you should know that is typically IEI not to bother much about logical consistency. Both Socionics and Keirsey are right on that point.

I don't know if that's what you're doing, but it was the first thing that came to mind... I sometimes think you do that with Snegledmaca.

The only thing that bothers me about Snegledmaca is that he obviously can't be an IEI, if the things he says about himself are correct. It doesn't make sense, and the only way to make them make sense is if he is an ILI. But why would I care if he is an ILI, an IEI, or some other type? I am only trying to release people from their erroneous beliefs. I seek truth and attack false beliefs -- it is as simple as that.

[marooned]

Phaedrus, I do not know how to react to your last post. I'm not trying to be unfair or unkind to you. And I'm not assuming you're trying to prove you're ILI, it just sort of became a consideration... And now I can't think of anything else to say...

Wait, I remember... I wanted to know what you would say... because I was trying to address the consideration... that's why I have nothing to say...

[Logos]

Now I am beginning to get really irritated.

Just beginning to get irritated? Hmmmm....I'm going to have to try harder in the future.

If you are not a total idiot, Logos, you will check for yourself what is described in the Socionics type descriptions.

Well I am trying on becoming a total idiot in your eyes, so I think I will pass on reading this strange Socionics business you keep talking about.

What I am saying here about IEIs is correct. Do you dispute that? I didn't think so.

Is it correct? You do not give me a chance to answer before inserting words into my mouth, so yes, I do dispute your trend of identifying with other IEIs and thinking that their behavior is closer with that of an ILI and I do dispute your interpretations of Loki's posts.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, I do not know how to react to your last post. I'm not trying to be unfair or unkind to you. And I'm not assuming you're trying to prove you're ILI, it just sort of became a consideration... And now I can't think of anything else to say...

I am not really mad at you, but people misunderstand my motives all the time, and you did it in the same way everyone else does. I am bored to death by people's focus on my type, as if it was some kind of problem in need of a solution. It is not, and I don't want to discuss my type; I want to focus on more interesting questions, for example the types of famous people. But people keep questioning the correctness of my typing as an ILI, and that is just idiotic. They refuse to learn the types, and that irritates me.

I want you to have a correct view on your own type -- and that's exactly what I am helping you with. I was criticizing one idea you had about one aspect of your own behaviour that you thought might be linked to your Ti HA. That ideas was incorrect, but we still don't know the exact reason why, because what you described seemed to be typical ILI behaviour, and both you and I have thought that you are not an ILI but an IEI. So, the problem is: which of our assumptions are false here?

[Phaedrus]

I do dispute your trend of identifying with other IEIs and thinking that their behavior is closer with that of an ILI and I do dispute your interpretations of Loki's posts.

Which proves that you don't read Socionics type descriptions. You have incorrect views on the types. Back to your study chamber and study!

[Logos]

I want to focus on more interesting questions, for example the types of famous people. But people keep questioning the correctness of my typing as an ILI, and that is just idiotic. They refuse to learn the types, and that irritates me.

Well if your self-interpretation is wrong, would that not affect your discussions in other areas of Socionics?

I want you to have a correct view on your own type -- and that's exactly what I am helping you with.

And so do I. Phaedrus, I am just looking out for your own self-interest.

Which proves that you don't read Socionics type descriptions. You have incorrect views on the types. Back to your study chamber and study!

How does that prove anything?

[Phaedrus]

Well if your self-interpretation is wrong, would that not affect your discussions in other areas of Socionics?

No. My self-interpretation is correct, and if you can find some evidence anywhere in Socionics why I must be some other type than ILI, you have managed to prove that Socionics is logically incoherent.

It is very simple: I cannot not be an ILI, because according to the core type criteria in Socioncs I am necessarily an ILI. As I have said more than once, I don't care which type I am, and I am actually getting rather tired of being an ILI. But Socioncs says that I am an ILI, and I can't prove that Socionics is wrong, so I must accept the fact that I am an ILI, however reluctantly.

Phaedrus, I am just looking out for your own self-interest.

Then help me to prove that Socionics is logically inconsistent, if that is what you suspect is the case.

How does that prove anything?

What I said about IEIs and ILIs can be found in the type descriptions. Look for yourself if you don't believe me.

[Expat]

Since we're talking about socionics, perhaps Phaedrus could explain the following:

Going by the above "template" I have noticed something that indicates Ti as my HA. Because I think I do something similar to the person I mentioned. Only it's with consistencies and inconsistencies. I keep tabs on whether things are logically consistent or not. A light goes off when I "spot" an inconsistency and I then feel compelled to address it in some way. Generally I just ponder it, since I tend to be quiet. But at times I have pointed out said "inconsistencies" to others. When I do this, others think that I'm logical (I am after all using logic to point out inconsistencies ). I will then start "Ti-ing" things, clarifying, making distinctions, blah, blah, blah. I don't consider myself to be bad at logic at all, but this is not about ones ability to be logical. It's about something else that I haven't quite pinned down yet.

It sort of hit me today when I was pointing out an "inconsistency" to my ILE (I'm very confident she's ILE, trust me) boss. It all began with my telltale statement of "not necessarily... blah blah blah..." *allow me to elaborate on why there is a logical distinction here*... My boss cut me off before I could finish. This bothered me because I hadn't finished conveying the all-important information. And later it hit me. I tend to cut off the ESE person I know when she goes on and on listing scenarios. Why? Because I've already thought of all these scenarios, have already assessed them, and have finished that process... listening to her go through them all in apparent slow motion when it's so obvious to me is agonizing.

If behavior such as this is characteristic of ILIs, why are precisely ILIs the duals of SEEs? Do SEEs particularly enjoy it when others point out to them their inconsistencies? Why would they find the company of such a person most congenial, among all 16 types?

[Logos]

No. My self-interpretation is correct, and if you can find some evidence anywhere in Socionics why I must be some other type than ILI, you have managed to prove that Socionics is logically incoherent.

It is very simple: I cannot not be an ILI, because according to the core type criteria in Socioncs I am necessarily an ILI. As I have said more than once, I don't care which type I am, and I am actually getting rather tired of being an ILI. But Socioncs says that I am an ILI, and I can't prove that Socionics is wrong, so I must accept the fact that I am an ILI, however reluctantly.

Please note the use of "If" to make what I said a conditional statement. See below:

Well if your self-interpretation is wrong, would that not affect your discussions in other areas of Socionics?

So your response did not really answer my question.

Then help me to prove that Socionics is logically inconsistent, if that is what you suspect is the case.

I do not suspect that Socionics is incredibly logically inconsistent, but rather it is much more reasonable and logically consistent to question the type of the person than it would be to question the logical consistency of the system on account of dubious self-typing of a single person.

What I said about IEIs and ILIs can be found in the type descriptions. Look for yourself if you don't believe me.

Would you mind pointing this out for me? And just like with hitta, do not just send me to a link, but actually point it out in nice bold letters so this idiot can see for himself what he clearly refuses to see.

[marooned]

Since we're talking about socionics, perhaps Phaedrus could explain the following:

If behavior such as this is characteristic of ILIs, why are precisely ILIs the duals of SEEs? Do SEEs particularly enjoy it when others point out to them their inconsistencies? Why would they find the company of such a person most congenial, among all 16 types?

Here I go again... there is a difference between pointing out inconsistencies with something or some process or something, and pointing out inconsistencies about people personally to them... the latter is rather rude and would make many people defensive (so I wouldn't tend to do that).

But I agree overall: why would a type with Ti PoLR want to be heavily concerned with inconsistencies in things. That would be sort of like when I'm trying to say something and someone keeps interrupting me to correct all my facts, before I can get it all out... that would probably get on my nerves because I apparently don't care about that so much or have a more difficult time with it. I would like to at least be allowed to say what I'm trying to say before we go and correct facts.

I apologize for over-simplifying "Te" into "facts" again.

[Cudcat]

Since we're talking about socionics, perhaps Phaedrus could explain the following:

Going by the above "template" I have noticed something that indicates Ti as my HA. Because I think I do something similar to the person I mentioned. Only it's with consistencies and inconsistencies. I keep tabs on whether things are logically consistent or not. A light goes off when I "spot" an inconsistency and I then feel compelled to address it in some way. Generally I just ponder it, since I tend to be quiet. But at times I have pointed out said "inconsistencies" to others. When I do this, others think that I'm logical (I am after all using logic to point out inconsistencies ). I will then start "Ti-ing" things, clarifying, making distinctions, blah, blah, blah. I don't consider myself to be bad at logic at all, but this is not about ones ability to be logical. It's about something else that I haven't quite pinned down yet.

It sort of hit me today when I was pointing out an "inconsistency" to my ILE (I'm very confident she's ILE, trust me) boss. It all began with my telltale statement of "not necessarily... blah blah blah..." *allow me to elaborate on why there is a logical distinction here*... My boss cut me off before I could finish. This bothered me because I hadn't finished conveying the all-important information. And later it hit me. I tend to cut off the ESE person I know when she goes on and on listing scenarios. Why? Because I've already thought of all these scenarios, have already assessed them, and have finished that process... listening to her go through them all in apparent slow motion when it's so obvious to me is agonizing.

If behavior such as this is characteristic of ILIs, why are precisely ILIs the duals of SEEs? Do SEEs particularly enjoy it when others point out to them their inconsistencies? Why would they find the company of such a person most congenial, among all 16 types?

Why would SLEs care for hearing something they probably already noticed?

But I recognize this behavior in myself though (the pointing out inconsistencies, that is).
So there might be something to it.

[Expat]

Why would SLEs care for hearing something they probably already noticed?

Their role would be to help the IEI that they are in the right direction towards logical understanding. The point is, that wouldn't repel the SLE; but would annoly like hell the SEE (even if not "rude", as Loki pointed out).

[Phaedrus]

If behavior such as this is characteristic of ILIs, why are precisely ILIs the duals of SEEs? Do SEEs particularly enjoy it when others point out to them their inconsistencies? Why would they find the company of such a person most congenial, among all 16 types?

It is said in the descriptions of duality between ILIs and SEEs that the only type the SEE really can take constructive criticism from is the ILI. I don't think they particularly like it, though. It's more like they can stand it. And it is also said that this particular duality type constellation tend to quarrel more than some other duality constellations, so I really can't see any problem with the described behaviour being attributed to ILIs. And where does it say that ILIs tend to behave like that towards all types (that is also to the SEE) in all kinds of situations?

[Phaedrus]

I do not suspect that Socionics is incredibly logically inconsistent

Neither do I.

but rather it is much more reasonable and logically consistent to question the type of the person than it would be to question the logical consistency of the system on account of dubious self-typing of a single person.

I agree. But since there is no problem with my self-typing, you don't seem to have any valid reason to question it. Assuming that I am an ILI solves all problems you could reasonably have.

Would you mind pointing this out for me? And just like with hitta, do not just send me to a link, but actually point it out in nice bold letters so this idiot can see for himself what he clearly refuses to see.

Sorry, but I will not do that. You need to read the Socionics type descriptions in any case, if you want to learn Socionics properly, so I think it is better to "force" you to spend some more time studying the material. It will do you good, I promise.

[Logos]

I agree. But since there is no problem with my self-typing,

And therein is the central crux to the argument. You think that there is no problem with your self-typing, but I, amongst others, do.

you don't seem to have any valid reason to question it.

Why not? Will the Socionics system implode if you wrong about your type?

Assuming that I am an ILI solves all problems you could reasonably have.

Assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups. Why an ILI would suggest building a basis based on such spurious assumptions is beyond me.

[Phaedrus]

And therein is the central crux to the argument. You think that there is no problem with your self-typing, but I, amongst others, do.

Why? What are your reasons for thinking that there is a problem? Which arguments support the hypothesis that I am not an ILI? I honestly can't see any good arguments for such a belief, so I am very interested in knowing if I might have missed any.

Why not? Will the Socionics system implode if you wrong about your type?

Actually, yes. I am sort of hoping that that will happen (even though it is rather unlikely), because then science will make progress. To prove that Socionics is a logically inconsistent system -- that would really be something, wouldn't it?

A better system could perhaps be built from the ashes, but the most important thing is to realize that Socionics is incoherent if it really is incoherent. We should not be basing our typings on a false model, should we? Anyway, Socionics seems to be a coherent system so far -- but only if I am an ILI. If I am any other type, the system inevitably collapses as it stands in its current form.

[Logos]

Why? What are your reasons for thinking that there is a problem? Which arguments support the hypothesis that I am not an ILI? I honestly can't see any good arguments for such a belief, so I am very interested in knowing if I might have missed any.

All you have to do is read past threads in which your type has been discussed and IEI came out as the conclusion.

Actually, yes. I am sort of hoping that that will happen (even though it is rather unlikely), because then science will make progress. To prove that Socionics is a logically inconsistent system -- that would really be something, wouldn't it?

A better system could perhaps be built from the ashes, but the most important thing is to realize that Socionics is incoherent if it really is incoherent. We should not be basing our typings on a false model, should we? Anyway, Socionics seems to be a coherent system so far -- but only if I am an ILI. If I am any other type, the system inevitably collapses as it stands in its current form.

In which case, why do you so desperately cling to the ILI type of a sinking ship system?

[Expat]

Everybody's wrong and incompetent.

Those who say that Phaedrus is more likely IEI than ILI - quite a few people here - are wrong.

Those who say that snegledmaca's self-description of is a good description of an IEI functiona use - snegledmaca himself, Kristiina, still others, are wrong.

Those socionists who read Keirsey descriptions and saw, overwhelmingly, that the INTJ was far more like SLE or LIE than LII - among other things - are wrong, as are those who (like me, Ezra, etc) who can see that for themselves, easily - are wrong.

Possibly even socionics, as a whole system, does not hold together. It's also wrong.

All of the above are claimed as possibilities. They are, of course, possible.

The only thing - the only - that's impossible, absurd, inadmissable, is that Phaedrus himself is wrong about his own understanding of socionics as a theory. No, that's not even worth considering.

It's a similar thought process to hitta's, only somehow less "in your face".

[marooned]

At the risk of being unhelpful to an IEI (thank you assymetric relations... ), I would like to share my own recent insights about Ti HA. I was asking myself today how it was that one could define a person by history, using it as a guide to assemble character. (a very insightful piece in Newsweek about GW Bush's failures and their relationship to his personal history brought this question into focus.) I thought, "how is it that I am able to find structure in the choices of character ideations?" Then I realized, it was because the history itself subtly implies an underlying structure.

Consider for example the explanation by an author that a man's character is disfigured because his parents thought him incapable. Is this the beginning of the story, or its climax? We assume that there is cause for the parents' labeling of their child, based on the child's behavior. To win the parents' favor, the child attempts to go out of his way to meet their expectations of him -- taking their advice to be more like them, no less -- and invariably fails. His failure is proof to his parents that he is incapable of assimilating their advice, and proof to the child that he must try harder to meet the parents on their own ground, thereby all but assuring that his next failure will be even greater than his last. The problem of this cycle -- the child's inability to meet others' expectations -- is indicative of the flaw in the child's character: he reckless attempts to acheive other's praise by being someone other than himself. Unable to be all things to all people -- and neurotically plagued by the impossibility of reconciling conflicting demands -- the child fails. It is the history of repeated character manifestation in similar circumstances which reveals the trait that points to an underlying skeletal component of his personality.

Of course, one can argue that the cycle will break once the advice of the parents is no longer available, and this is a fair assertion. However, the character trait will remanifest forthwith in a negative quality towards the advice of the parents, which in the child's eyes has failed him for so long, when next his parents attempt to impress their virtues onto him.

The point as regards IEIs, is that merely sticking to a pattern of behavior -- even one supposedly forged by circumstance -- points to the existence of an as-yet unrealized structural component of personality. It is this structual component of which IEI is vaguely aware, and seeks understanding of.

Okay, I've read this now, and I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

Okay, so the child's repeated attempts to please his parents (and repeated failures) points to a flaw in his character: he is incapable in the way that his parents want him to be capable. It turns into a self-encforcing cycle and it is unclear whether the child actually is incapable or has merely been reinforced to be seen as, believe himself to be, and act incapable. The question is, although his incompetence/incapable-ness is evident, whether this is truly a flaw or something that mimicks one. (I know you didn't say that, but I was thinking that. I was thinking it because it can be extrapolated and because it reminds me of the impression I had that you seem to have some interest/theory in transcending the functions, or something similar... that I haven't read enough of your posts to pin down.)

I'm trying to figure out if you're trying to say that the IEI adopts a mimickry of incompetence with Ti (as its own self-caused internal conflict), or if you're trying to say that the pattern of Ti HA behavior reveals the IEI's quest for better logical understanding... and I'm not sure what you're trying to say the IEI is vaguely aware of... obviously there's a pattern and something can be seen through it (like the flaw in the boys character can be seen through the behavior patterns in your example), but I'm still not certain what you're saying.

Perhaps you can clarify?

[Phaedrus]

All you have to do is read past threads in which your type has been discussed and IEI came out as the conclusion.

And I have tried to explain to you that that conclusion is false. All of the arguments backing up that conclusion are erroneous. I am not the only one that has pointed that out; Jonathan (and I think some others but I am not sure exactly who) has done that too. But you refuse to change your mind, despite the indisputable fact (which we ILIs can see clearly from within, since we have privileged access to our own minds in a way that no outside observer can have) that Expat, you, and others totally misinterpreted the motives (and thus the functions involved) behind the things we said.

[Phaedrus]

In which case, why do you so desperately cling to the ILI type of a sinking ship system?

Are you dumb as a bat, Logos? I have no interest in clinging to any particular type -- how many times do I have to tell you that before you understand what I am saying? According to Socionics -- a theory which I didn't invent and which I have no interest in defending -- I am an ILI. There is nothing I can do about that fact. What do you expect me to do? Change the system? Invent a new version of Socionics?

[Logos]

Are you dumb as a bat, Logos?

I must be.

I have no interest in clinging to any particular type -- how many times do I have to tell you that before you understand what I am saying? According to Socionics -- a theory which I didn't invent and which I have no interest in defending -- I am an ILI. There is nothing I can do about that fact. What do you expect me to do? Change the system? Invent a new version of Socionics?

So why are you an ILI again?

[Phaedrus]

I must be.

Please don't be -- if you can prevent it.

So why are you an ILI again?

Check my posts and/or the thread about my type some year(s) ago.

A more interesting question is still why you think I am not an ILI despite the fact that I am telling you that I know that I am one. You must believe that I am dumb as a bat in that case, right?

[redbaron]

Well I dunno if Loki's post was "typical" of IEIs or not but fwiw, I do the same thing with logical inconsistencies. To such a degree that my husband gets annoyed. I'm always saying "not necessarily" and pointing out how he (or anyone else's assertions) could be wrong. I have always tended to play devil's advocate in that way.

[Logos]

Please don't be -- if you can prevent it.

But I can't -- it's in my nature.

Check my posts and/or the thread about my type some year(s) ago.

You may need to start another one, because out of those I also became convinced that you are not an ILI.

A more interesting question is still why you think I am not an ILI despite the fact that I am telling you that I know that I am one. You must believe that I am dumb as a bat in that case, right?

The contradictory gap that exists between the claim of what you claim to know and what you reveal.

[marooned]

Well I dunno if Loki's post was "typical" of IEIs or not but fwiw, I do the same thing with logical inconsistencies. To such a degree that my husband gets annoyed. I'm always saying "not necessarily" and pointing out how he (or anyone else's assertions) could be wrong. I have always tended to play devil's advocate in that way.

Yay, a fellow Ti sidekick!

[Logos]

Yay, a fellow Ti sidekick!

No you are both idiots who are ILIs living in a world of psychedelic technicolor delusion.

[marooned]

No you are both idiots who are ILIs living in a world of psychedelic technicolor delusion.

How dare you! The audacity!

[FDG]

What you describe here is very uncharacteristic and untypical for an IEI. And it is clearly not an example of Ti HA. IEIs have a totally different attitude towards logic and inconsistencies

This is not my experience with the more intellectual IEIs in real life, and I also see nothing in the type descriptions that would prevent what Loki says to be true. Indeed her(his?) position seems to be one of a person with "weak", not "strong", logic.

[Phaedrus]

You may need to start another one, because out of those I also became convinced that you are not an ILI.

That I think would be impossible, and therefore it is even more interesting that you say it, if you are serious. If you are joking it is not interesting, but if you really are serious, I would like to know how you became convinced. I'm sure we will both learn something important from it.

The contradictory gap that exists between the claim of what you claim to know and what you reveal.

Explain the gap then. I can't see any.

Since when has it become customary for IEIs to point out logical inconsistencies? Where in the type descriptions is that behaviour described? (We all know that it is clearly described in the ILI type descriptions, don't we?)

[marooned]

Phaedrus, I think you're possibly misinterpretting what I meant to some degree.

Is it customary for IEIs to point out logical inconsistencies? I don't know. I don't think that's really a strong defining IEI trait (but I don't think having that quality would mean one can't be IEI). Anyway I didn't say that I customarily point out logical inconsistencies, just that I may if I notice them and feel they need to be addressed... If this was something that I did most of the time or found myself primarily concerned with, I probably would be seriously re-thinking my self-typing, and considering LII or LSI as stronger possibilities (not ILI).

What I was trying to get at is the internal "feel" of the HA in general. I wasn't saying I think I have a huge emphasis on Ti, but was saying it's something I try not to lose track of... and that sometimes I might point out the information from the HA to others because I just want to make sure it's being addressed (or perhaps even because deep down I want to make sure I'm on the right track with it?). I need to make sure it's being addressed because I *value* it, not because I feel terribly confident in my ability to assist others with Ti.

The other thing I was trying to say is that if the people one is giving their HA information to are a) not morons and b) have that IM element in the ego block (or super-id block), it may not be necessary to point out that information to them at all. They will likely already know, or do not need to be "helped out." And my general confusion about this matter (where Ti is concerned) suggests (though it does not prove) that Ti is not a strong function of mine, though it may well be a valued one.

I haven't read a great many type descriptions, because I generally find that I don't feel any of them describe me really. Type descriptions often just end up being empty words. This is why I think it's more useful to think about it in terms of the IM elements and the functions, because then you don't actually need the descriptions. Type descriptions translated from Russian (poorly) are especially unlikely to resonate with me. Even if I read a type description where it literally said "ILIs point out logical inconsistencies to others all the freaking time and IEIs wouldn't recognize a logical inconsistency if it hit them in the face" by a reputable source, it wouldn't really sway me. They're just words... it's not enough.