Yeah.. I'd agree with that actually. I tend to be perfectionistic in my work to the extent that I'll quite happily destroy everything I've done and start from scratch if I think it's worth it, just to iron out some minor creases. I'm like this with my music.. I'm far behind on recording anything just because there's something minor I'm not happy with, so I end up deleting the whole recording and starting again. I know it sounds like a waste of effort, but meh.Originally Posted by FDG
ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
5w4 so/sx
"IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"
Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
Stickam music performances
Writing a description of supposed ILI (how would a Fe PoLR individual's emotions affect others?) neither indicates nor points away from your being an ILI. Yet again you've proven how ineffective you are at answering the question at hand. Diplomacy and a way with words is normally associated with, hmmm, what temperament? Oh yes, NF.
?
why do you see the latter as being incompatible with ILI?
They may point those things out, but they'd tend to do it in a more indirect/non-confrontational way than other temperaments would. "Going with the flow" is, after all, the opposite of making waves/rocking the boat/whatever. This is the most laid back temperament we're talking about here, and Se is one of their weakest functions. ILI's are one of the least "in your face" types.
pointing out the problems with a plan > routinely challenging and strongly criticizing others
Think about who the ILI's dual is. SEE's are awesome for many reasons, but one of their shortcomings is the inability to judge whether or not something is worth putting effort towards or what's a good idea and what's a bad idea (in terms of things going wrong, it not working out, consequences, etc.). That's what they need ILI's for. They don't want to hang around people who tell them that their ideas are stupid or that they're illogical or they're just plain wrong or anything of that nature.
And Te isn't about who is right and who is wrong.
As an Eight, Joy, you should know what I'm talking about.
I was just wondering if you think phaedrus has these qualities. Cause if he does, this forum has sure had an interesting response to him.
no. i don't agree.
in short, these are wrong associations. IP temperament is not about "not rocking the boat." SEIs and IEIs may want to "not rock the boat" in order to maintain a comfortable emotional atmosphere (obviously this is more stereotypically associated with SEIs.)
however, i interpret temperaments to be much more about lifestyle; in the case of ILIs, the lifestyle is determined by Ni. largely it means inaction, contemplation, and extensive mental activity. however, with Se and Te as quadra values, "not rocking the boat" -- at least with regards to intellectual matters, which the ILI cares about -- is not something an ILI would need to shy away from.
similarly, low focus on Se is not about lack of confidence in confrontation over ideologically oriented discussions. an ILI will not be confident about physical confrontation, but intellectual confrontation is not necessarily something that an ILI would shy away from. this is probably a characteristic that varies by individual; it would make perfect sense for an ILI to keep everything in his head and never say anything to anyone, but it also makes perfect sense to have an ILI who is intellectually active with respect to other people. i'd fall into the latter category (i don't know whether you think i'm more likely ESI or not; so i don't want to dwell on my own experience entirely, but know that it does control the bulk of my perceptions of the way Ni and creative Te are manifest.)
both, depending on the situation.pointing out the problems with a plan > routinely challenging and strongly criticizing others
and an ESE would "want to hang around people who tell them that their ideas are stupid or that they're illogical or they're just plain wrong or anything of that nature." yes, that makes perfect sense.Think about who the ILI's dual is. SEE's are awesome for many reasons, but one of their shortcomings is the inability to judge whether or not something is worth putting effort towards or what's a good idea and what's a bad idea (in terms of things going wrong, it not working out, consequences, etc.). That's what they need ILI's for. They don't want to hang around people who tell them that their ideas are stupid or that they're illogical or they're just plain wrong or anything of that nature.
actually, i think that SEEs -- while perhaps not interested in very logically oriented topics -- are reasonably receptive to an more in-depth analysis of intellectual topics, given that it's presented in a way that they can follow and that doesn't demean their intelligence. my reasons for saying this should be easily surmisable; i can give you a somewhat more comprehensive overview via PM.
i think it can be.And Te isn't about who is right and who is wrong.
as far as topics such as socionics go, or other such topics where misinformation can be difficult to navigate through, a more pertinent example would be about why the people that are right are right, and vice versa.
overall, i think you're significantly diminishing the intellectual qualities of ILIs, which represent an important trait. for obvious reasons this is something i believe i understand very well.
Correct view.
How could I miss that!? I have yet to meet a person that is more diplomatic than I am, but that will probably never happen.
There's a difference between 'going with the flow' and one's external energy being inconspicuous.
I think he does. He knows how to twist things to his advantage.
This is all good. And for a minute there, I thought Phaedrus was writing this, in which case we mighht have actually gotten somewhere. Alas, it's you niffweed, and it merely serves to show that you know your stuff.
I see your point about the things I said, but I still think that he's too "in your face" for an ILI or any other IP type, regardless of how much he cares about Socionics.
I've just read over the thread and certain things caught my interest.
Originally I typed Phaedrus as an ILI and was quite confident in this until, after reading a myriad of explanations by others here on why he doesn't value Te, I couldn't help but doubt my own understanding of Te. Although I'm not as confident that he's ILI I still can't see what other type he could be. I wasn't witness to the events/arguments that turned people against Phaedrus, (I'm supposing repeated arguments, over and over, but really it's none of my business), but in my interactions with him I've found him to be as kind and honest as anyone else. For this reason amongst others I'm strongly opposed to him being labelled as a "broken" type as I find that term tends to be interpreted by others as having malicious cannotations.
Ezra made a comment about Phaedrus being diplomatic, maybe it was sarcasm, but regardless it brought up some thoughts. Really, Phaedrus is possibly one of the least diplomatic active forum members. Many posters seem to outright scorn him. The prevalently negative view of him, in my opinion, has hindered much success in typing him. What I mean by this is that because Phaedrus has acquired a certain negative reputation, other forum members are bound to respond vitriollically if it's decided that Phaedrus is the same type as them. After all, people tend to be comfortable defining themselves by traits they share with people they respect, and define themselves by their differences in regards to people they don't. When people enter a new environment - i.e. the 16types.info forum, who they respect will be shaped to a degree by the prevailing widespread biases. Just something to keep in mind.
Ok back to his type. Why would Phaedrus be ILI? What about the Enneagram? Phaedrus seems to me to be an INTp-Ni subtype 5w4. This is in stark contrast to an INTp-Te subtype, like Niffweed, who's probably a 5w6. At least this is how it seems to me, I'd be interested in what others have to say here.
While Phaedrus's writing does sometimes have an element of flowery style in it, that Ezra hinted at, I think this is natural for many INTps. Of course these words mean nothing if you don't know what I'm talking about when I say INTp so hopefully you'll be familiar with one of those I've typed. Take for instance the novels/authors "Tropic of Cancer" by Henry Miller and "Journey to the end of the Night" by Louis-Ferdinand Celine. I think both these famous authors were INTp-Ni 5w4. Their style of writing has that flowery Ni-ish base, but also is cold, cynical, valuing the truth above all, even if it should only be expressed, ironically, in fiction. Now compare this with INFp writers, like Alduous Huxley (Brave New World) and W. Somerset Maughan (Of Human Bondage) - these have the Ni-ish base but focus on moral/ethical issues one step more removed from reality.
I agree with Niffweed that Ni types are not as "laid back" as Joy makes them out to be. Joy wasn't wrong in her observation though, Ni-types do appear to be very 'laid back', but that's only because you can't see inside their/our heads (where we spend most of the day). Now returning to those novels I listed you'll notice they were all controversial when they were released, in fact Tropic of Cancer was banned for a period in the 30s. I think these are useful when typing Ni-types because books let you get inside a seemingly laid back person's head where you learn that they're possibly the most chaotic crazy person you've ever known.
EDIT: I also noticed that the way I described Phaedrus' 'treatment' makes him out to be the 'victim' which is telling because IEI and ILI are being mentioned for him and both types are "victims" according the Gulenko erotic attitude theory, so it makes sense that he'd appear 'victimized'
Last edited by misutii; 03-24-2008 at 02:44 PM.
INFp-Ni
this i'm not sure i agree with but i'm not completely sure what you're talking about. other than w somerset maugham, i'm not familiar with any of these writers.
I believe something like that does happen, and it's unfortunate; however, I think it's obvious that we have to separate what some people see as undesirable traits that will be enhanced due to the person's type from the typical traits of the type as such.
This is where you follow Phaedrus's dark path -- we'd have to first establish that Henry Miller is INTp, and also that such perceived similarities in writing are really so strongly type-related.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
In regards to typing a writing style, I'd be rather suspect that a particular 'style' of writing would be a clear indication of type. I mean, a skilled author would be able to write in a number of different style, just as a skilled songwriter can write in a number of different styles.
Even if we did establish a particular type of writing was Ni, who's to say the author didn't write for short periods of time using his role function. It would be easier to do that sort of thing if someone wanted to in prose rather that IRL interactions.
For instance, if we took Phaedrus style of writing as INTp, I think we'd be making an error, as it's still different from other INTp's. I guess there's not enough info in writing to be accurate-we look for aspects of functions-just like we do when we type on line. And in that regards most people would prefer to type IRL than on line interaction. There must be similarities in terms of increased margin of error there at least, when comparing written works by an author as a set type. Using this as conclusive or at least informative comparables, is setting up for a fall to begin with it would seem to me.
Last edited by Cyclops; 03-24-2008 at 04:08 PM.
I read too much and can't help but looking for patterns in the words. Like surely three hundred genuine handwritten pages tell us a lot about a person's type. I know you've typed authors before, Ray Bradbury, for example, you typed IEI. Was that just through biographical information or from his work itself?
We just need a way of efficiently identifying functions in writing. I mentioned those two authors because even though they're separated by culture both of their books share an underlying style that's difficult to describe. I don't want to go to the dark side so I'll include an example, it's what I call the Ni Rant. First of all though would you agree that this guy is ILI (a game critic, he actually shows himself about half-way through the 5-minute review): http://www.escapistmagazine.com/arti...rake-s-Fortune
Here's one of my favourite Ni Rants from Tropic of Cancer (246-)
--"A glance at the dark, unstitched wound and deep fissure in my brain opens up: all the images and memories that had been laboriously or absent-mindedly assorted, labeled, documented, filed, sealed and stamped break forth pell-mell like ants pouring out of a crack in the sidewalk; the world ceases to revolve, time stops, the very nexus of my dreams is broken and dissolved and my guts spill out in a grand schizophrenic rush, an evacuation that leaves me face to face with the Absolute. I see again the great sprawling mothers of Picasso, their breasts covered with spiders, their legend hidden deep in the labyrinth. And Molly Bloom lying on a dirty mattress for eternity. On the toilet door red chalk cocks and the madonna uttering the diapason of woe. I hear a wild, hysterical laugh, a room full of lockjaw, and the body that was black glows like phosphorus. Wild, wild, utterly uncontrollable laughter, and that crack laughing at me too, laughing through the mossy whiskers, a laugh that creases the bright, polished surface of the billiard ball. Great whore and mother of man with gin in her veins. Mother of all harlots, spider rolling us in your logarithmic grave, insatiable one, fiend whose laughter rives me! I look down into that sunken crater, world lost and without traces, and I hear the bells chiming, two nuns at the Palace Stanislas and the smell of rancid butter under their dresses, manifesto never printed because it was raining, war fought to further the cause of plastic surgery, the Prince of Wales flying around the world decorating the graves of unknown heroes. Every bat flying out of the belfry a lost cause, every whoopla a groan over the radio from the private trenches of the damned. Out of that dark unstitched wound, that sink of abominations, that cradle of black-thronged cities where the music of ideas is drowned in cold fat, out of strangled Utopias is born a clown, a being divided between beauty and ugliness, between light and chaos, a clown who when he looks down and sidelong is Satan himself and when he looks upward sees a buttered angel, a snail with wings."
Excerpt from Journey to the end of the night"(9)
--"Could I, I thought, be the last coward on earth? How terrifying!... All alone with two million stark raving heroic madmen, armed to the eyeballs? With and without helmets, without horses, on motorcycles, bellowing in cars, screeching, shooting, plotting, flying , kneeling, digging, taking cover, bounding over trails, root-toot-tooting, shut up on earth as if it were a loony bin, ready to demolish everything on it, Germany, France, whole continents, everything that breathes, destroy, destroy, madder than mad dogs, worshiping their madness (which dogs don't), a hundred, a thousand times madder than a thousand dogs, and a lot more vicious! A pretty mess we were in! No doubt about it, this crusade I'd let myself in for was the apocalypse!"
From reading and watching interviews, and - broadly - from a sense of what his writing is about, rather than his writing style as such. Another factor is his life-long friendship with moviemaker Ray Harryhausen, who I'm convinced is ISFp (I had the chance to observe him "live", as well) and how they describe it.
But the point is, I'm not opposed to typing authors through what they write, I just think we have to be aware that professional authors who write to make a living will inevitably "bend" their writing to the taste of the public. For instance, I think Jack London's writing, as such, has way too much Si-detailed descriptions for ENTj, and I think it was done on purpose.
Sticking with INFp: I have typed Robert Graves as INFp, from his life and from what he chose to write about, and some underlying themes. However, personally I wouldn't type him as INFp at all just from his style in commercial novels such as I, Claudius; which he personally despised, by the way.
Now, three hundred handwritten pages tell us a lot about the person's type if, as with Marcus Aurelius's Meditations, they were written spontaneously and not for publication. If written as an author's way of making a living, I'd be more careful.
Great examplesI agree that it's Ni, but to me it seems INFp > INTp. Why do you see the opposite?
A totally correct analysis. But of I can only be reasonably certain of niffweed's subtype.
All of that can be correct, as I as I can tell, but I have to check those supposed INTp-Ni 5w4 writers in more depth. Another clear INTp-Ni 5w4 writer is of course Robert M. Pirsig. If people would only bother to read one or both of his books Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Lila, they would get a much better understanding of the INTp-Ni 5w4 type and a good example of its behaviours, its attitudes, and its world outlook. You would see things from that type's perspective, have a look into its mind.
I am also now totally convinced that Ludwig Wittgenstein must be typed INTp -- that's the only type he can be in Socionics. He fits every stereotype description of typical INTp behaviour and attitudes, and from a functional perspective he simply must be
Diplomat was the wrong word. He does what politicians do. He finds a way around the question; he doesn't know how to answer a question head on. For example, if I ask why he believes the temperaments are more important than the functions, he'll write four sentences which in reality amount to "because they do". He completely fails to answer the question with an actual reason. He employs nothing but dogma, and pretends he is spreading "the truth".
The thing is, his flowery style means nothing when you see how Te manifests itself in Phaedrus i.e. it doesn't. He simply doesn't have any Te. It's laughable to me and the rest of the forum who are completely adept in Te to see someone who clearly isn't a Te ego type thinking he is even proficient in it. It's infuriating to see him completely blind to this, and unwilling to realise it, even when he's faced with the obviousness that he is not Te ego.While Phaedrus's writing does sometimes have an element of flowery style in it, that Ezra hinted at, I think this is natural for many INTps. Of course these words mean nothing if you don't know what I'm talking about when I say INTp so hopefully you'll be familiar with one of those I've typed. Take for instance the novels/authors "Tropic of Cancer" by Henry Miller and "Journey to the end of the Night" by Louis-Ferdinand Celine. I think both these famous authors were INTp-Ni 5w4. Their style of writing has that flowery Ni-ish base, but also is cold, cynical, valuing the truth above all, even if it should only be expressed, ironically, in fiction. Now compare this with INFp writers, like Alduous Huxley (Brave New World) and W. Somerset Maughan (Of Human Bondage) - these have the Ni-ish base but focus on moral/ethical issues one step more removed from reality.
No no no no no.EDIT: I also noticed that the way I described Phaedrus' 'treatment' makes him out to be the 'victim' which is telling because IEI and ILI are being mentioned for him and both types are "victims" according the Gulenko erotic attitude theory, so it makes sense that he'd appear 'victimized'
Indulge me a bit then.
Did you see niffweed's "subjective analysis" of Ashton in the wiki? What he describes is, to me, a similar phenomenon: starting from a position as "obviously correct" because it simply is; "explanations" are nothing but re-stating the same over and over, without the willingness to give an inch even for the sake of fair-mindedness. Unwillingness to agree with their positions is seeing as either "not being a Ni type" in Ashton's case or, in Phaedrus's case, increasingly, stupidity.
well - i know i was talking about how ashton is EIE, but recently i'm increasingly seeing him as SLE again. so, take that for whatever it's worth.
That illustrates the stupidity of your typing methods. Changing one's mind about a person's most likely type from EIE to SLE is totally ridiculous. That is childish typing. A mere guessing game with almost no relation to empirical evidence. A sign of insanity. Puke-worthy behaviour. A lunatic's lullaby.
But the precise type you think he is doesn't invalidate the point I was making.
I suggest that, for whatever reason, they're both caught into "logical loops" or whatever we call it, where the systems, the "logic", etc, are just tools at the service of sustaining what they have decided "must" be true about themselves, ie their types, "ENTj-Ni" in Ashton's case and ILI in what's-his-name's case. I suggest that the motivations are subtly different, though: I think that in one case the drive is, "why am I so messed up? Ah, that's why: I am that type" and in the other, it's rather, "I'm not messed up, I'm someone special, meant for bigger things".
I once thought this, but after talking to him, a few things became clear: He loves Te and is indifferent to Ti, he is of a rational temperament and most definitely Ni.
Define Te and Ti.
I'm not a big fan of typing by comparison, but it might be useful to compare his use of Te and Ti to Herzy's and Ezra's, for instance.
Or better yet, describe how you felt about his Te. Was it boring? Alienating? Admirable? Did it seem like he was going on about things that don't matter, or was he making a lot of sense?
Te = external dynamics of objects, which can manifest as a focus on the objective activity of external events. The focus is more on concrete logic, comparing things through a prism of externally measurable logic.
Ti = external statics of fields, which can manifest as a focus on the internal logical structure. Instead of noticing activity of events, the focus is on creating a framework through which to view, and correlate, such events.
how I felt about it...it always seemed prevalent. when asking for explanations, I would continually seek some general structure, but he would always give answers as separate ideas, like 'this is accurate, that's what happens,' but not so much trying to sum them up in some general idea. also, when he talks about an idea, he typically has done research and will provide an overly-thorough account of all the factual data he has acquired. he made sense, but it wasn't my style, as contrasted to when I exchanged ideas with steve, a Ti-ENTp.
and he's neither my dual nor my mirror...
This sounds much more like a Te role (that's heavily focused on) than Te dominance.
LIE's are great at summing things up as a general idea. Of course, IEI's may not see it like that... not sure. My experience is that when I do that, they disagree and then I offer the reasons, they argue more (often in ways that are irrelevant to the reasons I just gave). In the end they're sometimes like "I don't care" and sometimes like "you always have to be right" or whatever. Of course, I've known IEI's that I haven't had this experience with. I've also known a number that I have though, so I figure it's at least one of the ways LIE's hit the PoLR of IEI's.
Anyways, I've witnessed him quite a bit, and I've never seen proper Te from him. But I don't expect anyone to take my word for it.
well, the reason why the descriptions seem overly-thorough to me is precisely because I am Te polr
when I said he didn't try to sum things up in a general idea, I was trying to illustrate his distaste for Ti. He could explain something in simple, clear manner, but he doesn't try to come up with short, abstract phrases for things, which seems to be more prevalent in Ti types.
I tend to see it the opposite way.
what type do you think he is?
augusta (Ti-ENTp) came up with the phrases, "external statics objects"...that's kind of what I'm referring to.
EIE > SLE > any other Alpha or Beta > anything else
yeahaugusta (Ti-ENTp) came up with the phrases, "external statics objects"...that's kind of what I'm referring to.
The way I see it, his Ti is not satisfactory for you, indeed, but not because it's Te: it's simply poor Ti, backed at most by "selective" Te. It's not that he "could" explain something well but chooses not to. He starts from a given set of assumptions and elaborates from there, more or less logically, sequentially, but not in an overall structured way. It's similar to hitta, with the distinction that hitta's reasoning is more transparent since he started from one single source ie the Gulenko descriptions, while Ashton's sources are scattered.
great observation about Ti and the way it "sums things up"
negative
Yeah, but I think there is a point to that being the self-image of Ti types:
Ti types: "what I have written is a perfect summary of the issue".
Comment from Te types: "uh? No it isn't. You just dismissed the bits that contradict your conclusion, rather arbitrarily".
Ti types: "those bits were irrelevant".
Etc etc.
Woah, woah, woah. I find this highly insulting. This suggests that Ti types will actively withhold the truth. I certainly do not do this.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote