Still Uncertain About my Type - FarDraft

[FarDraft]

Deleted.

[WVBRY]

I don't know how to answer all your questions regarding the difference between cognitive and social introversion, but you do strike me as LIE more than ILI. bases are pretty got with the flow, and you seem to want to be more decided on doing one thing and going with that.

Note that I've just read this post, so my impression could be off but based on what you're saying I'm getting LIE over ILI.

I would say that my overall temperament fluctuates between the two. When I have no goal to accomplish, I am usually very passive for a short while and then active once I see another goal that I want to accomplish. However, I think that that passivity is important since it is when I am contemplative, focused on the internal world and can thus regain perspective.

I think this sounds LIE, I go through similar things. It sounds like having a goal itself is what activates you, and this sounds like mobilizing.

[WVBRY]

I should probably rewrite some of the statement you quoted. Honestly, it's likely that the time between goals is longer than I originally presented it as, given that I dislike starting projects for the sake of starting projects. There has to be some sort of purpose or long-term benefit to it, either directly contributing to my long-term goals by providing me a resource to more effectively reach them or indirectly by enhancing my own knowledge base or strategic/analytical thinking abilities.

I think LIE makes sense given that I am more likely to be a rational type than an irrational type. Moreover, I am most definitely a strategic type by nature. In fact, planning and strategy is such a large component to my life that I am seriously considering whatever the most naturally strategic socionics type is and going with that. I think those would be Ni-LIE, Ti-LSI, and Ne-LII, although I know that I shouldn't base my entire type on a singular attribute. Te-ILI seems more tactical than strategic, which I'm not very good at since it requires you to be more present minded whereas I'm more future minded.

You're correct in saying that the goal motivates me. A new thought, idea, or plan that I come up energizes me, especially if I know that it will provide me some use in the future. However, sometimes I need a push to actually execute on these plans since I tend to think more about the costs and benefits of doing something rather than actually doing it. I am naturally poor at execution. However cliché or naïve it may be, my dream is to become a strategic mastermind in business, and I am mobilized by identifying areas I can improve at that lead me to achieve such a goal.

Any more thoughts?

The bolded just sounds gamma seeking benefit/ with a consideration of how this unfolds over time/.

[Bertrand]

what's the difference between strategic in the colloquial sense and the socionics sense

[Rebelondeck]

Gamma NTs are not normally that good at impartially observing their own behaviour; that's more alpha NT. Which description is the better fit?
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...iption-by-I-O?
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...iption-by-I-O?
a.k.a. I/O

[golden]

Comparing what you’ve said to my catalog of personal impressions, the scope of what you describe as your goals and the amount of energy needed sound much more like the thoughts of an LIE. The active intent to manage a number of people likewise. Your post itself is a Te-heavy construct, although you are describing some things you envision.

Can ILI do these things and think this way? I assume yes. Is ILI more apt to do so than LIE? No.

[Rebelondeck]

........This description, too, focuses on Te more than Ni, presenting the ENTJ as a commander or manager rather than as a strategist. It also presents the ENTj as more socially extraverted than most other descriptions I have seen.......I think that both descriptions focus on the Te subtype,........

I don't see gamma NTs as strategists regardless of sub-type; they operate too much by the seat-of-the-pants. They usually have excellent top-down views of most situations and so usually are superb at maneuvering in rather strategic manners. Strategists tend to map out things in more detail well in advance; gamma NTs tend to be a little too impatient for producing maps that will likely have to change as soon as things start happening. Now, they may use one that someone else produced in order to start things off but the ad hoc adaptations would soon negate everything but the objective, and sometimes even that will change. I wouldn't put too much stock into the effects of sub-type; it doesn't usually affect the final output by much. Your reply did seem ILI-ish......

a.k.a. I/O

[Sol]

video

[Adam Strange]

Said by the alpha NT himself, eh.

Just joking. First impression: both types are decent fits since they are presented somewhat similarly in comparison to the other descriptions I have seen. Most other descriptions present the INTp akin to how MBTI presents the INFJ, as a seer or mystic. This description seems to focus more on the Te side of the INTp, like the INTJ in MBTI.

Moreover, the ENTj description deviates from the standard socionics ENTj description, becoming more similar to MBTIs ENTJ. This description, too, focuses on Te more than Ni, presenting the ENTJ as a commander or manager rather than as a strategist. It also presents the ENTj as more socially extraverted than most other descriptions I have seen.

If we are going solely on these descriptions, then I am more likely to be INTp. That being said, I think that both descriptions focus on the Te subtype, meaning that it was ENTj-Te vs INTp-Te. I never considered ENTj-Te in the first place, which is why INTp makes more sense. It still leaves open the possibility of ENTj-Ni though.

I know a bunch of ENTj's (and (INTp's), and the ENTj's whom I classify as the Te-subtype work hard and do things, often through other people, and absolutely do not let themselves be controlled, and if that means controlling others, then so be it. No problem.
I think ENTj-Te's often find themselves leading a group without quite knowing how it happened. Command itself was not the goal, but rather a necessary means to accomplishing something something they wanted to do. It just seems to happen by default. No one else is pushing in the desired direction, so they have to.

The ENTj's whom I think of as being the Ni subtype also work hard, but tend to prefer writing plans to getting out there and directing the troops, although they can do that, too. Just not as much. They don't revel in command, as if it's not their natural environment, but they can do it. They tend to influence with looks, rather than stepping in and getting things back on track. They are also OK with working for someone else, if that someone else isn't an idiot.

Moving on, the ILI-Te's tend to be loners who are extremely perceptive about the people around them. They can work with others, but they tend to keep those others at arm's length and are more comfortable influencing and controlling through written instructions.

I'm not sure if I know any ILI-Ni's.

[Adam Strange]

What would you consider to be a naturally strategic type?

The issue I have with supposing TiNe or TiSe to be strategic is that it seems to be far more tactical than strategic in the non-Reinin sense of the word. Most INTjs I know tend to be very great at chess for this very reason: they analyze the board as it comes, look a few moves ahead, looking at the potential consequences and rewards for making certain moves and then act accordingly. That, to me, is pure tactics rather than strategy since strategy, by definition, is about long-term mapping/planning rather than short-term detailed planning. Chess rewards strong tactical play. I know that gamma NTs are supposed to be impatient, but if NiTe is not about long-term planning, then what is?

Many business leaders as well are supposed to be ENTjs. Business leaders must be strategic in order to survive, so wouldn't that imply that a lot of ENTjs are strategic? Moreover, they are rational types, meaning that they prefer to stick to a plan over improvising. That desire for a plan coupled with Ni's ability to foresee outcomes seems like strategic behaviour. ILIs, on the other hand, I agree may be more seat-of-the-pants, assuming that the socionics definition of Ni is used. Which is actually something else I have a concern with. See my response to golden on this post to hear my questions on that.

Throughout my working career, I have spent all my time on two things. One is figuring out how the company is going to make a profit in the long run (years ahead, which considers where the company is right now in the market and what it needs to do to get where it needs to go), and Two is explaining to people why we need to do this right away.

One of my favorite things is figuring out where the lever needs to be placed to most efficiently move things, and then moving them.

[Rebelondeck]

@FarDraft LIIs are by far the most strategic and better at long-term planning while LIEs are masters of tactics; however, both their capabilities are best applied at a systems or overview level and not in the nitty-gritty. LSIs and LSEs are similar but best for nitty-gritty; they're better at winning grass-root battles while the previous two are better with the wars. There's a big difference between maneuvering strategically (LIE) and strategic planning (LII). LIEs will only stick to a plan so long as they're getting quick closures on issues; otherwise, they adapt quickly - a big strength. LIIs tend to be much slower than gamma NTs to adapt or react; but, ILIs can be overly defensive and develop tunnel vision while LIIs don't seem to be that way inclined.....

a.k.a. I/O

[golden]

Since you have a large catalogue of personal impressions, I will ask you some questions.

First, in your experience, is strategic thinking correlated with particular functions or not? Sources seem inconsistent with respect to this, with some saying that ILIs are the greatest strategists because of Ni or others saying that strategy is more TiNe since it requires detailed logical projection into the future. I personally think that both NiTe and TiNe are capable of strategy but with different methods in play. NiTe would start from the big picture or the end goal and then work backwards, mapping out potential opportunities and pitfalls at different points along the road, whereas TiNe would start from the present and work forwards, perhaps contingency planning along the way.


Second, is Ni really as past/experience focused as the socionics description implies? It almost sounds like how Si is described in MBTI, except the socionics description conflates that view with Jung's interpretation of the function, leading to someone who is paradoxically future-focused and vision oriented while also unable to deviate from methods used in their own past experiences. If Ni is so focused on past experiences, then I may need to reconsider my type, given that
I specifically didn't type as ISTJ in MBTI since I prefer to find new methods to problems or use existing methods to create new, more complicated solutions, kind of like in chemistry.

Third, what is the main difference between Ne and Ni? The MBTI description is that Ne is divergent and Ni is convergent, but the convergent aspect seems to be associated with Ti in socionics, which I guess makes sense. Ni seems to be interpreted as the intuition of time, but if that were the case, then why wouldn't Ni be good at strategy? Moreover, is associative memory more correlated with Ni or Ne. When I need to remember something, I put it into a framework that is linked to something I already know, so my mind becomes like a web of memories with one thing connecting to another. I gave an example of this on my first "type me" thread linked here (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...pe-Me-FarDraft).

Overall, I think my outlook and focus is more reminiscent of an ENTj, but I don't seem to fit the descriptions given that most ENTjs are socially extraverted.

I didn't say my catalog is large. It could be very slim, maybe just a pamphlet or brochure.

With strategic, you're getting into Reinin dichotomies in an effort to type yourself? I wouldn't.

I'm not that into the theory, but what Reinin had in mind was:

strategic = contact intuition + inert sensing
tactical = contact sensing + inert intuition

Setting aside what Reinin meant, the people I have watched be very strategic include IEI and ILI, because I've had a lot of access to some people of those types. And all I mean by this is having a very long-term goal or vision and pushing toward it bit by bit, without major deviation and without giving up. I think it's somewhat true that IEIs are more opportunistic, aligning themselves with evolving situations. ILIs are more able to change the parameters of a situation itself, ime. I don't think TiNe looks the same as these types. Just from my experience, which is more limited, it looks like they have a goal or vision and sort the world into things that do or don't support it. It's as if they feel more easily threatened by agendas that could run counter to their goals, and they don't fold those into the mix, whereas Ni leads can blend it all together somehow.

I don't think of Ni as especially past- or future-focused. It could be either or both. I think of it as states and associations that leap across and outside of linear time and concrete here-and-how, and that the contents will vary depending on the individual. Beta gets more associated than Gamma with "the past" in some romantic way, I think. But I've known Alphas and Deltas who had tremendous interest in things related to history, it's just apparently different than personally embodying a timeless state. I used to be a musician and I remember after a performance, an ENFp asked me if I was born in another millennium. I also anticipate trends pretty well, though.

I find LSIs can blend existing methods rather than slavishly follow pre-existing ones.

Ne vs. Ni is outer vs. inner. I've seen ENTps take physical objects and transform them. If it's not useful, all the better! A propeller hat is a perfect image for me of that kind of Ne. Two things got combined, one doesn't belong there, it has no function except to amuse. Ne can obviously be applied in useful ways, also, it's more that it's hit-or-miss, might be useful, might not.

If I need to alter something, I look at it, I listen to people who use it, observe them using it if possible. I re-imagine the thing in my mind, it's a transformed picture. Once it's more real (more compelling, let's say) than the original thing, I'm ready to implement. If I need to invent something, I go into a kind of mental blank space and let images bubble up and work with those, again, to make them increasingly vivid and complete. Reinventing a thing out there in the world is something I can do, but not as well as an Ne type can.

I self-type EJ and consider myself a social ambivert. I can be as extraverted as most situations demand, but I'm not always running around getting in people's faces. The main thing I see in myself is that I just don't appear to have the same consistent interiority that introverts do. I am almost always engaging with something outside myself. I prefer to speak than to write. Writing long posts on this forum is a difficult way for me to communicate, for instance, even though I can. I don't want to reflect too much--it bores me. Living with an IJ husband, though he's a sensor and has a strong ability to handle physical technical matters, I am the one who is constantly tuned in to what's going on around us. He is often in his own mental world. Introverts often seem to me like they are behind a scrim or veil and I instinctively reach across into it to connect with them.

[Bertrand]

From the socionics website.

Tactical types

1. Focus on methods, and manipulate them, with goals unsettled.
2. Goals are defined by, and modified to fit methods.
3. Prefers to expand options. Doesn't like to have too few of them.

Strategy types

1. Focus on goals, and manipulate them, with methods unsettled.
2. Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals.
3. Prefers to defend goals. Doesn't like to be forced to deviate from them.

The colloquial definitions are similar, except there is greater emphasis placed on the range of time each style of thinking employs. Tactics being short term and strategy being long term. Furthermore, in the colloquial definition, there is a greater emphasis on the interelationship between the two, rather than their simply being a dichotomy.

can you describe, in your own language, what "strategy" in socionics means?

[Rebelondeck]

......Do you have any good resources to compare and contrast the two types?........

Not much. Here's my description for what it's worth but I don't consider myself rigid in an intellectual sense although I can be habitual.......

http://www.socionics.com/articles/on_being_intj.html

a.k.a. I/O

[golden]

Sorry, I assumed your catalogue was large for no apparent reason... but perhaps its the 3000 posts...

It's all mindless drivel and trolling.

I've always been rather poor at techincal matters. It's quite weird actually. I can usually figure out how to do or fix something, but I am unable to do it because my fine motor skills are rubbish.

My fine motor skills are excellent, but I can be slow to figure out how to fix something. I need to shorten the straps of a backpack; I see three ways to do it, but the third, simplest, strongest way didn't occur to me right off and I felt pretty dumb when I realized I'd overlooked it.

Not to complicate your typing, but you're starting to come across a bit Ti-ish in a looser, less presentational mode. Sorry.

[Sol]

I may consider it, although the security risks are present.

To place your typing video here has not higher risks than for millions of people which place own photos in social networks like facebook, vk, etc.
As you do not need to say any secrets to be typed - the risks are close to zero. You may later write on the forum from other accounts.
The risk to be typed incorrectly due to lesser useful data and then to get problems from incorrect typology usage is much higher.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1096450

[Bertrand]

"living" in a world of superificial text screams ILI/SEE to me, its like they were born post-understanding and just play with words and expect everyone to act accordingly (laws are pre existing legos, they don't fully understand what all went into developing them--if they did they would already know why certain moves are dumb including certain negativisms, why certain criticisms are idle, etc). I get the feeling you don't actually understand socionics (as a psychological system tied to something deeper than textual relations) but are just piecemealing descriptions and avoiding presenting a real image of yourself, this strikes me as the world of ILI, and its their deep secret they aren't actually grounded in anything "real".. its weak Se and demonstrative Ti which devalues understanding by making case after case, but it never drills down into anything solid [1]--so called "light" researchers. it just turns laws on their head while trying to present itself as conforming to them (their dual finds this highly useful, since its what they do too, but ILI doesn't get "caught out" at it). the problem is this sort of tactic when applied to socionics is highly counterproductive, just make a damn video, or try to really learn a system before offering what amounts to "counter arguments." socionics is not to the point where it can handle this kind of roundabout shit. your initial gut reaction was probably right, because you already on some level "know" socionics, but no one can prove it to you in the way you're going about it, since there's nothing that can't be doubted and this includes 1) everyones arguments no matter what they might be 2) your own arguments. making a video at least just gets you out of that endless dynamic. mirror relations are actually really different, but there's something about them that people continually struggle with. by limiting the poll to those two options you've already shot yourself in the foot, because it plays to the popular ignorance for no good reason. it sets the whole thing up as a screw up from the get go, even if you do end up being one of those types, although it does speak to wanting a "political" solution, in essence asking the SEE to provide the missing link. the trick to understanding whether one is a or b mirror is not to poll literally a bunch of people who are similarly confused but to actually figure out what the real difference between mirrors is. its not in a description or in a popular stereotype. the main difference between Se suggestive and Se mobilizing is one actually has normative Se which means they understand how power underlies everything in a way that allows them to use it to make sense of the world (on their own). my experience with ILI is they dont really understand there's something like power relationships that intertwine with Ti and Fe that justify laws and you cant replace that with money or other metrics and still have genuinely pro-social relationships, thus any ethical critiques of relationships arising from ILI usually miss the mark. if you understand people but really don't its because you're missing the power and Fe piece... in this sense telling an ILI to "understand" socionics is sort of perverse, since they're already stuck in a theoretical world. gamma NTs have problems with understanding multi party relational dynamics, they're decent 1 on 1 but terrible in understanding groups (which is why they prefer to reduce them to economic entities--they understand individual self interest and they understand how to logically aggregate things--that there is more to a collective spirit than this is beyond them). if we want a dichotomy of stereotypes its very simple, ILI is the critic and LIE is the entrepreneur. are you an entrepreneur?


[1] since their thinking is extroverted their rational "depth" tends to come from feeling, but since it is weak it is usually some kind of pitiful craving to love or be loved. in other words, if you observe them from their introverted ethical "moves" they are actually extremely simple. a lot of the thinking complexity is just a smokescreen over that. the Fi creatives especially know how to play on that

[Overthinker]

@FarDraft, let’s throw something more into the mix, shall we? Becuase I have noticed that you are extremely analytical about the inner processes of your mind and you seem very confident in describing them. Did you ever come across Gulenko’s article about Cognitive Styles?

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Victor-Gulenko

There are four cognitive styles, each assigned to a supervision ring. LIIs, LIEs and ILIs actually exhibit three different cognitive styles, respectively called Holographic-Panoramic, Vortical-Synergetic and Dialectical-Algorithmic.

The article is, shall we say, quite technical and it may not be the most immediate way to differentiate two types (I myself am still unsure whether or not I relate to my own type’s assigned Style, since I can see myself in practically all of them), but if you by any chance relate to one of the three better than the others, it might give us an indication towards your correct type.

[Bertrand]

you're just giving him more material to dick around with

[Overthinker]

you're just giving him more material to dick around with

Well, what else shall we do? He already said he doesn’t want to shoot a video. If you ask me, this forum’s every thread is already filled with dicking around and speculation, because honestly Socionics is not advanced or scientific enough to be able to reach a consensus about... pretty much anything, really. Dicking around is almost exclusively what we do. But maybe if enough people dick around together we could at least have an interesting discussion.

That’s actually secretly what I was aiming at, as well - certain Socionics material, especially by Gulenko, is complex enough that it’s very rare to see it discussed even on this site. And FarDraft’s questions seem so specific that that article may actually be the only direct way to address his concerns, and maybe dispel his doubts (an optimistic prospect, perhaps).

I think I kind of get what you’re coming from when you say that his approach seems way too theoretical in a way, but I just think it’s fair that he gets the full scope of what Socionics currently has to offer theoretically, before he can decide to move on to different approaches.

[Bertrand]

yeah but its not a solution since they need to be brought into the real world.. in any case, it doesn't matter since he's not serious either, so in your own way you guys can be two peas in a pod and argue over semantics for funsies. it makes socionics out to be bullshit though. i happen to not think its bullshit, ergo my position henceforth

[Bertrand]

competitive debate as the answer to type is everything that is wrong with socionics, you can fob that off on the inventors of it as being a flaw they allowed in, but participation is bilateral so whatever. like I said to "freethinker" you're two sides to the same coin. also fuck your feelings, you're part of the problem. the point of posting on the forum is not to endlessly engage in textual analysis but to actually understand what is deeper in humanity. if you want to engage in debate for funsies no one has to accept that as a valid and productive motive, you assume risk on bringing that to the table. sorry, thats life. no one owes you gratitude for showing up. as Jung would say the stature of a group is comprised of its members, so if you bring nothing of substance to socionics except a bunch of wheel spinning, people should be allowed to point that out, for the benefit of the whole, otherwise socionics is reduced to mindless entertainment for a select few and then it really is pointless for everyone else. at the center of this is an egoistic standpoint wherein you think you should be allowed to debate regardless of what the consequences are for everyone else, and inasmuch as such a thing goes unchecked it ultimately just neuters socionics and sucks the life out of it for everyone over time. imagine if everyone treated it as a web of meaningless logical relationships to be sorted out as a version of sudoku with fancy names. that is not why socionics exists, and if you serve to transform the image of socionics into that you can contort yourself into whatever victim stance you want, you'll always be a fuckhead in my mind. if the forums reach a tipping point where more people like the mindless debate they can ban me and they will have done me a favor, since socionics died at the moment the underlying group mentality actually lost the plot <--- here is your real victimhood, but even then it hardly matters, everyone simply must stand up for what they believe in. you happen to believe in your inalienable right to enjoy debate for its own sake, I happen to not. turns out we're on the same forum so this is what happens

[Overthinker]

yeah but its not a solution since they need to be brought into the real world.. in any case, it doesn't matter since he's not serious either, so in your own way you guys can be two peas in a pod and argue over semantics for funsies. it makes socionics out to be bullshit though. i happen to not think its bullshit, ergo my position henceforth

Not sure what you mean by “not serious”, and I actually have no intention of “arguing semantics” beyond a certain point as I have already stated that this article may not be the most “immediate” (read: most likely way too fucking indirect) method to address this issue. Not sure how simply throwing a possibility out there harms Socionics in any way or makes it out to be bullshit, either. I am certainly not advocating this as some sort of premium typing technique.

On the other hand, maybe you’re right that discussing an article like this in a typing thread, with both of us being newbies, is not the most productive thing. So point taken, I suppose.

[Bertrand]

lol is this---is this the power of your debate skills

your entire premise is bogus, my entire point is your "objective analysis standard" is worthless and stupid. you can double down on it as much as you like, it doesn't change anything and calling yourself objective or analytical is a farce in any case. all you do is compare words in a big game of simon says and call it "objective", when in reality it takes a special kind of idiotic subjectivity to even believe such a thing is of value to begin with. that's my point you lower the discourse in the most pernicious possible way, by demeaning socionics on a level that pays nothing but lip service to it, all because you find it entertaining. the idea that this entertainment is holy is nothing but the shallowest egoism dressing itself up as "objectivity" as if that deserves some kind of respect. why don't you just go on Christian websites and debate evolution since you've deduced the semantic links in the Christian narrative are dubious as a scientific theory, I'm sure people will really appreciate the disabuse. its like maybe you should just fuck off and read Jung before trying to critique what you don't understand

[Bertrand]

yeah we get it socionics isn't real enough for you to not play around with it. my point is that's a mindset worthy of contempt, because it mistakes the insights of Jung as just another fantasy, and you haven't treated it "objectively" so much as prejudiced it out of existence prior to even beginning to talk about it. in essence you haven't taken the time to try and understand it, you simply immediately lumped it into "meaningless plaything" category because you can't whip out your ruler or whatever to measure it. this is a droll mindset that I hate in principle because it misunderstands how things come to be taken as "real" to begin with. it severs oneself from the historical development of ideas and passes judgement on them from the point of view of the present, without even trying to be a part of the solution. it sets oneself as up judge or critic without merit and yet goes about its business as if no one has a right to object. it simply offloads the responsibility for making anything real or devising anything of value as something that is prefabricated by the environment and anything not in working condition at the time of your birth is subject to nothing but condescension and critique. the appurtenant egoism and birthright is arrogant beyond belief. and then it tries to spin that exact arrogance into some kind of benefit for itself as if its done everyone a service

[Bertrand]

it doesn't deny the existence of the material world, that is a strawman, it says the dimensions of reality entail more than only the material and it is neither meaningless or useless to admit the non material (and all the rest). this is not metaphysical dualism either. its psychological, which is to say the subjective factor is just as real as the so-called "objective" factor. this is the very first baby step to truly understanding introversion v extroversion. if you treat everyone as nothing other than bodies conditioned from the outside, that is one workable self contained premise, but it is not the only valid and determining one, rather, that it is, is the prevailing cultural attitude at this time. its not post modernism because subjective "interpretations" only superficially capture these true dimensions in a reductive verbal formulation. post modernism is mostly just another textual critique it is not yet fully psychological. it judges psychological factors in terms of verbal output first instantiated in literature, and tries to make sense of a multiplicity of readings and disjuntions between author and audience. this implies psychology but does not go all the way. in this way literary works were proto psychological and post modernism is a way to describe the psychological variety present in the verbal content without going into a full blown psychological theory that gives rise the works themselves, rather it comments on the comments to the works. in this way Jung was far more penetrating and profound than mere post modernism

[Rebelondeck]

I see. I'm not too habitual since I despise normality or constancy, but I'm willing to do so if it is required of me for some purpose. I'll read that. Thanks.

EDIT: I should say, however, that I am very methodical in that I prefer to structure the way I do things in order to remain organized. For example, I may set up systems for coursework to be done or methods for writing down notes that allow consistency and thus make it easy to read in the future. I know this is Ti.

LII habitualness and methodologies usually have specific purposes. LIIs are often discontent with normality but their rebellious natures are usually kept deep in the closet; whereas ILIs tend to be rather overt - often in-your-face, which can sometimes be their undoing. However, with power to do something, LIIs seem to be far more capable of detached ruthlessness. Your edit is very LXI-ish but the part about writing down notes sounds more LSI; LIIs tend to be perfectionists but in idealistic (not as concrete) sorts of ways....

a.k.a. I/O

[WVBRY]

Bert, take a pill.

[WVBRY]

Would the INTp not act similarly? If not, then why?

Yes. Gammas are like that, at least in practice though this can be hard for themselves to see...

...I think Rebelondeck has a point when he says that the way you analyze your own behaviors feels more alpha NT: is the function of knowing how will behave in a given situation, gNTs usually cannot say how they will behave in a given situation usually nor do they care to think about it. So I think the fact you seem to think about how you will behave seems more aplha NT, or at least, ego, but I am witholding judgement. What you describe in your OP( about being strategic) sounds more LIE than ILI, but it could also apply to LII.

I don't know.

[The Reality Denialist]

Well, everyone knows that ILI is schizod, LII is autistic, ILE is schizotypal and no one bothers to diagnose LIE's ̣- although Aushra labelled them as paranoid.

[Adam Strange]

Well, everyone knows that ILI is schizod, LII is autistic, ILE is schizotypal and no one bothers to diagnose LIE's ̣- although Aushra labelled them as paranoid.

I can be paranoid. It’s one of my less attractive features.

If I had to associate paranoia with my type, I would say that LIE’s are the guys who want to move the village away from the volcano, because those virgin sacrifices aren’t going to work forever, no matter what everyone else says.
But my personal paranoia can show up in other, less constructive ways. Most of the time, I really try to tamp it down.

*EDIT* I’ve also seen LIE’s associated with sadism, although I, personally, think this applies to emotions rather than actions. LIE’s can say things that are extremely emotionally cruel, IME. I think it relates to a lack of fine discernment regarding feelings in general.

I mean, my feelings are black and white; murderous rage or feeling normal. Sometimes “happy” slips in. But I read posts by Fi-doms and I see rainbows.

[WVBRY]

Analyzing your personality and seeing how you will behave in arbitrarily created situations is about self-awareness. Does self-awareness necessarily require Ne ego? I ask that both as a genuine question and as a critique since it seems to me like self-awareness is a product of experience and self-reflection - both things that anyone can do.

I can't see how analyzing how you will behave in imagined situations is about self-awareness - I actually see this type of mental excercise as misleading. How do you know you will behave a certain way in a given situation?

But even if we admit it is self-awareness, it is only one form of self-awareness. It seems like a way of viewing oneself related to . Other functions can also have self-awareness but this will manifest in different ways. For example, being aware of one's motives is a form of self-awareness but it's not what I'm talking about here.

But also, one of the things that I must ask is what is the realm of Ni? From what I have read, it seems like if something has to do with intuition and it is not foresight or "mystical imagery", then it must automatically be Ne. And even then, people argue that foresight and imagery could also be Ne since foresight can have to do with seeing possibilities for the future and imagery could be the stimulating creative process that Ne users thrive on. However, if one were to try and claim that Ni could see multiple possibilities, then it is generally considered that the person has mistyped themself. There is no debate to be had.
In other words, what is the true realm of Ni and Ne?

is about how events will unfold over time, not as "maybe" scenarios but rather, perceiving that it is inevitable something will happen if something stays on a particular course of action. For example, driving in your car, encountering a red light and being able to "feel" when you need to slow down in order not to drive past the red light. If you don't slow down, you will drive past the red light, there is no "alternatives" here. This is just something they feel - it can happen in seconds and they do not need to look at a watch to understand time. In fact I like that definition of - feeling time without the need to look at a watch.

is more about "maybe" scenarios than "this will appen if we stay on this course".

works in tandem with and the latter is about impact. Forecasting that some action by a politician will have impact is / for example. This is why ILIs are said to be able to predict socio-economic tendencies. is about possibilities not the expected outcome of a process. If you give an alpha NT a lampstand, they will be able to come up with 100 different ways to define its use - but they are not usually interested in implementing these suggestions, it's more like a brainstorming game.

[Bertrand]

I love the examples in principle, but before all the newfound mystics come in here, lets remember knowing how to correctly gauge Se/Ni with respect to stoplights is more a function of norms. Ni and Se creatives are likely to gamble and do more interesting things in those scenarios, things other people usually find annoying because they don't understand them, but which usually work out. Se doms Ive found actually do genuinely obnoxious stuff, but the same principle probably applies. whenever I see people fuck up stop signs/streelights/driving on the highway/merging/passing this sort of stuff its almost always some species of either Se Ti or Ni polr, as far as I can tell. there's probably some Te ways to screw it up too. I would say why there's so much trouble with driving is it requires norms across a decently broad spectrum and the stakes are kind of high because we're operating these high speed death boxes. its actually a great example of socionics at work because of how people miscommunicate across channels and assume everyone else is a dumbass on the road. I think we've all been in those situations where people just hang out at a four way stop until everyone else goes regardless of who got there first or who has the right of way, or who crosses four lanes of traffic because they just noticed their exit is right there and they paniced. also those people that insist on always letting other people go first even though it slows things down because thats not how its supposed to work so people have to figure out in real time we've got philanthropist on our hands or whatever, or people who speed from point a to point b in stop and go traffic or try to get in front of others for no real reason. I have a habit of not signalling because I can tell what people are going to do anyway, and in any case, if you rely on signalling you're going to be disappointed in just a different way when it fails you because you were expecting it. I remember one time I was exiting a parking lot and trying to make a left turn and a lady drove up and signaled right as if she were going to turn into the parking lot, so I pulled out and she almost hit me because she was actually intending to turn past my position. in essence it would have been better for her not to signal until she got past me, because signalling means you're going to take the nearest turn if your signal is on, otherwise you could mean possibly anything and it would defeat the point of signalling anyway. by not signalling in that circumstance she would have "signalled" her intention to continue going straight (we are always already telegraphing our moves all the time)... anyway of course she flipped out even though she was wrong, and that is socionics at work. she probably turned left in front of someone in the past erroneously and formed a rule in her head that left turns are always evil or something. my driving record is actually perfect except for a few speeding tickets, but I can totally understand why shit goes wrong constantly for people if they don't have a certain understanding on how it all works. I walk whenever I can nowadays anyway, mainly because being good at something is actually kind of a liability in a world of incompetents and the whole car highway parking gas suburban sprawl system is bullshit for a lot of other reasons it mainly doesn't save you any time and deprives you of money all so you can avoid the pain of getting some exercise you no doubt need anyway

[Rebelondeck]

....... I still don't think that I have that highly well developed Se, ......I have realized that I use both Ti and Te very strongly in my life .......

Your wording in several posts seems somewhat LII-like, but LXIs don't use Te; the reach and unbiased nature of their input (Ne or Se) may contribute to an illusion of Te. You'll likely find that your input is quite developed but LXIs tend to ignore it a lot, so it's more a question of learning to pay attention to it when it matters but they'll never reach the level of Eps regardless of subtype. I can see young LXIs using some Fe more than occasionally (which can also contribute to an illusion of Te); if under 25, most can't really be sure of their type due to process instabilities likely caused by continued brain growth.

a.k.a. I/O

[WVBRY]

@FarDraft, I am not really qualified to answer your questions. They are very specific and my answers would probably obscure the truth more than anything. Tbh I don't feel you are asking the right questions. No offense.

All this asking of questions seems ego to me though. Asking a question itself is not type related, but you ask alot of them, in a way that seems to express your need for a caregiver type to reach out to you.

I would type you LII based on your general attitudes and cognitive process.

[Rebelondeck]

Wouldn't all types find it difficult to type themselves under 25 since the brain growth occurs for everyone? .......

What do you mean by "[my] input is quite developed but LXIs tend to ignore it a lot"? What is input in this context?

Yes all types under 25 would have that problem.

Input is either S or N oriented or filtered. The way that Ijs rationalize is with Se or Ne shut down. When their Se or Ne is engaged, rationalization shuts down for that brief time. Note that I have very different views on information processing with which most on this site would not agree - even when they understand.

a.k.a. I/O

[Aramas]

No offense taken. Asking the right questions is about learning what information is and isn't important. I guess I'm not aware of that yet. Do you have any examples of which questions would be considered "right"?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I need a caregiver type to reach out to me, but rather that I'm desperate for specific information, so it seems like that is the case. Everything online is so vague and generalized with no real-world examples. Since the theory isn't postulated on firm, unchanging definitions, the best way to obtain a deeper understanding of the functions is to see patterns in between concrete examples. It's like understanding physics vs understanding literature - to understand physics, one must first internalize the definitions and concepts and then use them as first-principles when solving problems; when understanding literature, we can't expect to find specific rules to build off of given the length and complexity of each individual book. What we can do, however, is read a ton to learn general patterns in between books to answer specific questions. The reason I ask so many questions is because I think socionics is more like literature than it is like physics - I must read and internalize tons of examples to see the patterns in how each of the functions work. Like a neural network, now that I think about it. I must also know which information is important and which isn't, which is why I asked you the question in the first paragraph of this answer. I understand how that can seem like I'm trying to reach out to a caregiver, and I agree that the inherent tone of my questions does make it seem like that.

LII seems like a good choice. I still really need to see, though, if it is the best choice. I may make a video to help with that in the near to mid future. Thanks for your help.

I don't know for certain what type you are, but I can say that your style seems rather formal, step-by-step, and kinda stilted to the point of appearing pretentious. I don't think you're an extrovert, because your thought style is obviously highly self-referential. It's not a good or bad thing, just a noted characteristic.

[Aramas]

I've learned that if I don't write so formally or methodically, then people tend not to understand what I say or mean and there begins to be quite a bit of miscommunication. So, I often overexplain things to prevent myself from becoming irritated over people misunderstanding my ideas. Or to prevent having to explain it later since I'm aware that people may ask questions. For example, had I not explained my literature and physics connection I'm sure many would have been confused. So I spell it out, unfortunately to the point of condescension since I'm not aware of how much I can infer and how much I should lay out.

Post pics or video if you're ok with that. By the way, are you on the autism spectrum?