ILE-ENTp weaknesses

[JRiddy]

I can empathize because i cannot sympathize. (Herein lies another fault: an unnatural obession with parallelism and other linguistic tricks.)

Actually I do care about people. But few know. I was asked quite recently why i chose to remain in the city in Norman, OK after I graduated from school (OU). This caught me enough off-guard to elicit a genuine response: namely, that I care about my friends here.

It came as quite a shock to many of those gathered there, who had grown accustomed to my tendency of answering questions with questions in an attempt to get them to think or argue for fun (yet another one of my ILE weaknesses). I went on, in this surprisingly vulnerable state, to let my friends know that though I can only become close to others with great effort, I still felt that they were among my closest of friends, and I would miss them all very much if I moved away.

What I mean by all this is that I don't think that ILEs don't experience meaningful relationships or feelings, but rather find them difficult and confusing. PoLR does not imply an absence of relational emotions, but a marked vulnerability when using them. In the same way, my younger brother, an IEE, will become visibly agitated when asked to systematically describe the logic behind something.

As far as some of the other faults go, procrastination, disinterest and distractibility are par for the course for ILEs. Becuase of this, any ILE who wants speed can get diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed Adderall (which is just a combination of 4 amphetemine salts).

As far as being easily annoyed by perceived slowness, this can become particulary insidious with very intelligent ILEs (as well as LIIs), but i believe it presents in less intellectually gifted ones as well. The ego block of with grants the individual very strong fluid intelligence relative to others of similar general intelligence with a different ego block. As people tend to spend much of their time with others of similar levels of intelligence, this creates a strong disparity between ILEs or LIIs and others in the time it takes to fully grasp (or "grok," as we say in the IT world) a new concept.

For example, take a few ILE geniuses: Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Ashura Augusta, Adam Smith. (Yes, I realize that not everyone agrees with these typings, but I can defend them, and they illustrate my point too well to ignore.) Each one of these thinkers absorbed a wealth of existing knowledge and later spat out something entirely new. Einstein read everything he could about physics, and even used his time working at a patent office to read about others' inventions, which had largely nothing to do with advanced physics. Sigmund Freud, though perhaps more observationalist than the traditional ILE, essentially pulled psychoanalysis out of his ass. Augusta came up with socionics after becoming dissatisfied with Jung's meager work on personality, bringing in the theory of information metabolism, and synthesizing the two in an unexpected way. Adam Smith, though heavily influenced by David Hume, provided the first systematic description of economics, much of which is still considered groundbreaking today.

Then common element here is that each one of these thinkers developed a highly systematized understanding of their field from many pieces that don't seem to have a meaningful pattern. This manner of thought, which ILEs apply to any dearly-held endeavor, is both a great gift and a horrible curse. It propels our minds beyond what we or anyone ever though possible; it subjugates our hearts to a search for that selfsame fascination among those who will likely not have it.

[Strutopolis]

For example, take a few ILE geniuses: Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Ashura Augusta, Adam Smith. (Yes, I realize that not everyone agrees with these typings, but I can defend them, and they illustrate my point too well to ignore.) Each one of these thinkers absorbed a wealth of existing knowledge and later spat out something entirely new. Einstein read everything he could about physics, and even used his time working at a patent office to read about others' inventions, which had largely nothing to do with advanced physics. Sigmund Freud, though perhaps more observationalist than the traditional ILE, essentially pulled psychoanalysis out of his ass. Augusta came up with socionics after becoming dissatisfied with Jung's meager work on personality, bringing in the theory of information metabolism, and synthesizing the two in an unexpected way. Adam Smith, though heavily influenced by David Hume, provided the first systematic description of economics, much of which is still considered groundbreaking today.

Hmm, Im a bit confused by this. As far as Ive understood ILI are the more fact-collecting synthesizers (and sir Adam Smith has been typed ILI/INTP some places). So, in short, how would you describe the difference in ILI and ILE working processes?


I agree with most of the weakness points for ILE:s (I'v tested ENTP and fit quite well into ILE-descriptions). However, the whole argue-thing is not that apparent in my behaviour. Im really annoyed when people use personal or feeling-based argumentation, and I have also hard to let off an argument afterwards (unless its pure intellectual). On the other hand, the fact that I actually take part in debates this way, may suggest the same type of problem as other ILE:s seem to have, but from a slightly different angle.