The LIIs on this forum and their lack of what I thought was Ne

[Ezra]

I thought Ne was about possibilities, but the LIIs on here like tcaudilllg, hitta and machintruc seem to be closing off possibilities.

thehotelambush, Logos and labcoat are what I would have believed were more like LIIs. They consider alternative possibilities while retaining their own world view which they have formulated.

[BLauritson]

It may be wise to bear in mind that the first three users you've quoted have at some point or another had their types questioned, so I don't know if that affects your view at all. I must admit I don't know if the latter three users have had their types questioned or not. Not to say that having one's type questioned means they're not that type but meh, you know what I'm trying to say.

[Phaedrus]

I thought Ne was about possibilities, but the LIIs on here like tcaudilllg, hitta and machintruc seem to be closing off possibilities.

The only indisputable LII of those three is tcaudilllg. The types of hitta and machintruc should be in doubt for obvious reasons.

[marooned]

perhaps Hitta and Tcauldillllllllg are Ti-IEIs.

Or Machintruc and Tcauldilllllllllllg could be Ti-LSIs.

In time, perhaps Labcoat will also be a Ti-LSI or Ti-IEI. Who knows.

[Phaedrus]

Wait. What are you saying? Shouldn't they all be in doubt?

No, I can't see that I we legitimate reason to doubt the correctness of tcaudilllg's type. And his way of writing can probably be used as an example of a style that is typically (if not over-typically) in both form and content.

[machintruc]

I thought Ne was about possibilities, but the LIIs on here like tcaudilllg, hitta and machintruc seem to be closing off possibilities.

If you were thinking of CONCRETE possibilities, it was , not .

I'm LII, and despite what some dudes/girls think here, I have nothing to do with LSI.

[Phaedrus]

perhaps Hitta and Tcauldillllllllg are Ti-IEIs.

No. Both hitta and tcaudilllg are clearly T types. (Perhaps you are joking?)

Or Machintruc and Tcauldilllllllllllg could be Ti-LSIs.

No. LSIs are not interested in theory. (It really is as simple as that.) But machintruc is a mystery, because he is so obviously wrong about a lot of things. So, how do we know what information to trust about him?

In time, perhaps Labcoat will also be a Ti-LSI or Ti-IEI. Who knows.

Not likely.

[marooned]

I was being sarcastic.

[Phaedrus]

I was being sarcastic.

Okay, but it is easy to miss such subtleties on the Internet -- especially if you are a retard like me.

[marooned]

Wait...........there's no such THING as a Ti-IEI!!! Loki, you utter imbecile!!!!

(I JUST now figured that out, so go figure.)

I think there could be Ti-IEIs... they focus too much on their super-id... but... where are the other insane super-id focusing people? Like the Ni-ESIs or the Te-IEEs... sigh...

it is easy to miss such subtleties on the Internet

Yes.

[aestrivex]

"possibilities" is a vast oversimplification.

[leckysupport]

Wait...........there's no such THING as a Ti-IEI!!! Loki, you utter imbecile!!!!

(I JUST now figured that out, so go figure.)

I don't really think the Ti-IEI arguement really works for Hitta particularly and generally. All I see from Hittas ideas is (emaculatly constructed model) with no realistic insight of socionic phenomena (or ).

He tried to break love down into a phenomena that had observable concrete and logical causes (something that STs do IMO) and refused to 'let go' and accept that this is not the case with love (too much ).

Anyway he looks like a LSI to me and not very much like IEI (unless he's a IEI who has decided to go against a great deal of what IEIs are about).

[Phaedrus]

Anyway he looks like a LSI to me and not very much like IEI (unless he's a IEI who has decided to go against a great deal of what IEIs are about).

If so, you have a totally incorrect view on the LSI type.

[leckysupport]

If so, you have a totally incorrect view on the LSI type.

How is that?

[Phaedrus]

How is that?

I have now said it at least three times -- LSIs are almost totally uninterested in theory. A typical LSI is totally different from hitta. Don't you compare people with clear-cut examples of each type?

[Logos]

"possibilities" is a vast oversimplification.

::nods head in agreement::

[leckysupport]

I have now said it at least three times -- LSIs are almost totally uninterested in theory.

I think by 'theory' you mean overarching theory, that would be in my mind. I'm not sure we should even use the word 'theory', it might be too vague, but IDK.

But IME LSIs definately do a lot of explaining, comparing (hence the categories, you can't compare without categories and labels) and making up rules based on those explanations and comparisons and if you where to write that down it would look a lot like what Hitta creates.

[marooned]

I don't know why, but I can't see Hitta as LSI. Where's his Se? I hate to say it, but I could more easily see him as IEI than LSI.

My question really is why couldn't Hitta just be an LII? What is it about him that means he *can't* be LII?

[Phaedrus]

My question really is why couldn't Hitta just be an LII? What is it about him that means he *can't* be LII?

He believes that he is an LII, so of course he could be one. It is very difficult to prove that he is not an LII. But SG had some seemingly strong arguments against LII (supporting creative and thus either SLI or ILI), and hitta has described his attitudes and behaviours in a way that makes the LII hypothesis look far from certain. That's why we have reason to doubt the LII claim in his case, even though we may not be able to suggest a more likely type either.

[hellothere]

I have now said it at least three times -- LSIs are almost totally uninterested in theory.

Hey Phaedrus, just interested as to what type you think Christopher Langan is?

[Phaedrus]

Hey Phaedrus, just interested as to what type you think Christopher Langan is?

In the first thread about his type on this forum (initiated by Rick) I suggested ISTp or maybe even ILI, because I thought that he seemed to have IP temperament and to argue like a creative type would. I think that Rick settled for LSI and that SG has suggested SEE. I am not convinced by their arguments, but I am not sure of Langan's type by any means.

[hellothere]

the reason I ask (you probably have guessed), is that before a lot of people seemed to think he was LSI, yet he does seem very interested in theoretical things

[Phaedrus]

the reason I ask (you probably have guessed), is that before a lot of people seemed to think he was LSI, yet he does seem very interested in theoretical things

Yes. But I have never thought that he is an LSI, so I have no problem with it. One could perhaps argue that SLIs are not very interested in theoretical things either, but that doesn't give me a strong reason to reconsider LSI, because I still think that he seems to have an IP temperament.

[Brilliand]

Closing off possibilities? I think that's - cover many possibilities with , then prune them down to one or two sensible options, and test those against new information. Particularly if they're trying to make a point (as machintruc is) - in that case, the first thing to do is find reasons why all other options aren't possible.

[akeaneau]

I thought Ne was about possibilities, but the LIIs on here like tcaudilllg, hitta and machintruc seem to be closing off possibilities.

thehotelambush, Logos and labcoat are what I would have believed were more like LIIs. They consider alternative possibilities while retaining their own world view which they have formulated.

I have questioned tcaudillg's type in posts on more than one occasion. I really don't think he is an LII. My guess is LSI, but I know others disagree. I don't know much about machintruc and hitta so much but I would hazard that the situation is probably the same - IF they are particularly inflexible, closed-minded or absolutist (and as I say I don't know), or provoke alot of conflict I doubt they are LII's - maybe they just like to think they are. But maybe I'm just being biased here towards LII here

[Jonathan]

I thought Ne was about possibilities, but the LIIs on here like tcaudilllg, hitta and machintruc seem to be closing off possibilities.

thehotelambush, Logos and labcoat are what I would have believed were more like LIIs. They consider alternative possibilities while retaining their own world view which they have formulated.

This was one of the first things I noticed about Socionics, and one of the main differences between Socionics and MBTI....namely that the Socionics conception of Ti-Ne does not necessarily imply someone constantly open to alternative possibilities and averse to closing off possibilities. This possibility was evident when I first came to Ganin's site and was confronted by the fact that he considers himself LII, but clearly is on the side of "closing off possibilities." Some Socionics descriptions, particularly Weisband's, also do not emphasize the idea of LIIs being perpetually open-minded observers. (As Phaedrus loves to point out, it is the ILI that is given the title "observer" by some Socionists.)

On this forum, the matter has been one of continuous contention, in part because people think since LII's creative function is Ne, then the LII's personality must be primarily about Ne. I think it would be reasonable to say that LIIs are interested in the matter of possibilities and ideas (Ne) as opposed to practical action (Se), but take the approach of coming to a definite, organized, "closed off" position (Ti). One might even say, to an extent ,that "TiNe" is shorthand for "Close off (Ti) possibilities (Ne)," at least in a certain sense.

(People think Se is about anti-possibilities or something, but actually Se types are simply more oblivious to Ne, not necessarily against it. Hence, if someone cares enough about possibilities to bother to close them off, it would make sense that the person would be a type with strong Ne.)

Anyhow, this issue has led, then, to the question "What about labcoat and others who seem clearly accepting of a variety of different viewpoints, and constantly refining their own points of view?" If, in fact, we accept the "rigid" type of LII and the "open" type of LII as being both LII, we must then consider that there is a great diversity within the given type.

Labcoat himself has suggested that he is "INTj-ENFp" based on Tcaud's dual-type theory. Perhaps the "rigid LIIs" are "INTj-ISTj" or something. There is, of course, the matter of different competing views of Socionics wherein all of these people's types would be different depending on which definitions you're using.

[krieger]

Labcoat himself has suggested that he is "INTj-ENFp" based on Tcaud's dual-type theory. Perhaps the "rigid LIIs" are "INTj-ISTj" or something. There is, of course, the matter of different competing views of Socionics wherein all of these people's types would be different depending on which definitions you're using.

A good first attempt. I suggest looking at the Result/Process dichotomy for a better understanding of this openness aswell. Result types generally have a less difficult time entertaining multiple views, because it takes them less energy to guage the worth of an idea.

The dual-types I am considering for Logos and Hotelambush are both "double-result" types. My own type, INTj-ENFp is also "double result".

- the following descriptions should characterize the forms of J/P under dual-type theory quite well:
Master J: rigid behavior
Master P: flexible behavior

Slave J: structured worldview and beliefs
Slave P: amorphous worldview and beliefs

[Phaedrus]

This was one of the first things I noticed about Socionics, and one of the main differences between Socionics and MBTI....namely that the Socionics conception of Ti-Ne does not necessarily imply someone constantly open to alternative possibilities and averse to closing off possibilities. This possibility was evident when I first came to Ganin's site and was confronted by the fact that he considers himself LII, but clearly is on the side of "closing off possibilities."

I tend to agree with almost everything Jonathan says, and I agree with this too; I just want to clarify the issue even more, if possible.

The difference between Socionics and MBTT is only a chimera. It doesn't really exist when we look at the types (instead of the functions descriptions). Both theories agree that it is the IPs that are open to alternative possibilities and that it is the IJs that are on the side of closing off possibilities. The Ti-Ne perspective that is described in MBTT and attributed to the INTP is the same perspective that is called in Socionics and attributed to the ILI.

Some Socionics descriptions, particularly Weisband's, also do not emphasize the idea of LIIs being perpetually open-minded observers. (As Phaedrus loves to point out, it is the ILI that is given the title "observer" by some Socionists.)

No Socionics description emphasizes the idea that LIIs are open-minded observers -- that is no more than a myth, created by people who have got the totally wrong idea that INTPs in MBTT are LIIs in Socionics. LIIs are no more, and no less, open-minded than INTJs are described as open-minded in MBTT. It is not incorrect to say that they are open to new possibilities, but that is something different from the open-mindedness of an irrational type like the ILI. And it is totally incorrect to describe LIIs as passive, contemplative "observers".

One might even say, to an extent ,that "TiNe" is shorthand for "Close off (Ti) possibilities (Ne)," at least in a certain sense.

I agree.

If, in fact, we accept the "rigid" type of LII and the "open" type of LII as being both LII, we must then consider that there is a great diversity within the given type.

LIIs are "rigid" in the exact same sense as every Judging type is "rigid" in MBTT. Every single aspect of J that is true of the INTJ is also true of the LII. But the LII is an N type, and in comparison with every S type the LII is of course more open-minded in a certain sense.

[mikemex]

It's a temperament thing. I believe that my dad annoys me more with his Ij temperament than anything else.

[krieger]

No, I can't see that I we legitimate reason to doubt the correctness of tcaudilllg's type. And his way of writing can probably be used as an example of a style that is typically (if not over-typically) in both form and content.

I should remind the forum that the last time Phaedrus fingered a person as the typical example of an INTj, he choose UDP, a person who later came to declare himself ESTj.

[tcaudilllg]

as defined by Augusta has several definitions which have only one thing in common: they are all internal properties of objects or of groups of objects.

If you appraise the internal properties of one object, you'll observe as aspect of its internal content. (something I do particularly well -- particularly its program); if you refer to a possibility, you're doubtlessly observing the potential of many objects simultaneously by relating their internal characteristics through , because it takes many objects, not just one, to create a mental universe.

[Phaedrus]

I should remind the forum that the last time Phaedrus fingered a person as the typical example of an INTj, he choose UDP, a person who later came to declare himself ESTj.

I should remind you and the forum that at that time UDP described himself in a way that clearly suggested INTj as the most likely type. And I don't think that I have suggested that UDP's style of writing would be the best example of . But tcaudilllg's style of writing really is very much . You must agree on that.

[mikemex]

I must add, is an extroverted function and, as such, it is not spontaneous. This means that a person who possess a strong is not "generating possibilities" all the time. In fact, such possibilities are generated only when a new piece of information is stored and the mind has to figure out how to relate it to existing information. This happens, for example, when a problem is presented and has no precedent. An existing problem, and thus a known solution, is probably the domain of .

dominants, being extroverts, are more susceptible to external information than creatives and for that reason are more creative when it comes to "possibilities". In fact, it is a known trait of introversion to limit the amount of external information to allow the internal state to balance. During such a period a creative is likely to trigger a convergence period, that mimics behavior.

[leckysupport]

I don't know why, but I can't see Hitta as LSI. Where's his Se? I hate to say it, but I could more easily see him as IEI than LSI.

My question really is why couldn't Hitta just be an LII? What is it about him that means he *can't* be LII?

The reason I went for LSI is mainly because he shows a lot and shows almost no intuition at all. Everything is very dryly related to his very strict model (something I just can not see a IEI doing), there appears to be no mixing of ideas (or perceptions) no model independent insights into socionics, just no .

He could be a LII who just doesn't use his creative function, but I doubt it.

[Hitta]

LII=

"I see all the possibilities and they are frightening"
"I must be openminded to all possibilities"
"I like new and original ideas and anything unique"
"Everything happens for a reason, everything is connected"
"I like to rebel against the structure of society and I like to do anything that stimulates change"
"I am able to make complex deductions that most people aren't able to"
"I have a hard time feeling saddened or feeling discontent for people"
"I usually have a hard time doing routine things, like getting out of the bed in the mornings"

ILI=
"I see only one possibility and this makes me feel secure"
"I must follow the truth strongly"
"I like things to be normal routine, I just want to fit in and be normal"
"Things just are, I should accept it"
"I'd prefer to keep everything as it is, I am going to follow the rules because I believe that society knows best"
"I am able to make implications about things that have no logical connections"
"I must stand to my idea of truth, and disassociate myself from the people that do not follow it"
"I have a hard time starting new things, like new projects which some people would find interesting"



Reasons that these quotations are correct(going to use common sense because the people here can't make simple deductions).

INTj Ne is known as the intuition of possibilities or perspectives. This means that INTjs see all perspectives. This means also that INTjs are open minded to things.

INFps are known for like novelty and new things. This is due to their Ni.

Hmm, open-minded, new things?!?! Wait a minute, these sound similar. Could they be using the same functions. INFps like new things and INTjs see all the different perspectives of things, they like new possibilities. Holy shit, I think they do use the same function. Duh.

INTj Ti is known as analytical Ti. It means that INTjs break things down and understand how things really are.

ESTjs are known as having an affinity towards facts due to their Te.

Hmm..... so the ESTj Te and the INTj Ti sound similar because INTjs break things down and understand them, and ESTjs see the facts do to their Te and have to have things proven. Hmm, can they actually use the same function?

Now if you can't see that this is how it is and you still argue with model B, you are just fucking retarded. Its quite obvious. So if you don't see it, I'd suggest going to get your head examined because you are pretty dumb. Good-bye.

[XoX]

LII=
"I see all the possibilities and they are frightening"
"I must be openminded to all possibilities"
"I like new and original ideas and anything unique"
"Everything happens for a reason, everything is connected"
"I like to rebel against the structure of society and I like to do anything that stimulates change"
"I am able to make complex deductions that most people aren't able to"
"I have a hard time feeling saddened or feeling discontent for people"
"I usually have a hard time doing routine things, like getting out of the bed in the mornings"

ILI=
"I see only one possibility and this makes me feel secure"
"I must follow the truth strongly"
"I like things to be normal routine, I just want to fit in and be normal"
"Things just are, I should accept it"
"I'd prefer to keep everything as it is, I am going to follow the rules because I believe that society knows best"
"I am able to make implications about things that have no logical connections"
"I must stand to my idea of truth, and disassociate myself from the people that do not follow it"
"I have a hard time starting new things, like new projects which some people would find interesting"

uhh

[Phaedrus]

"I like things to be normal routine,

Correct.

I just want to fit in and be normal"

Incorrect. (And it doesn't follow from the first part of the sentence.)

"I'd prefer to keep everything as it is,

Correct in most situations.

I am going to follow the rules because I believe that society knows best"

Totally incorrect. No NT type reasons like this. Every NT type follows his own judgment and reason and criticizes societey whenever the rules do not make sense to him.

"I must stand to my idea of truth, and disassociate myself from the people that do not follow it"

Correct. It is a direct consequence of the NT attitude I was referring to in my previous comment. And it contradicts the false statement about ILIs following the rules because "society knows best".