Phaedrus as an IEI

[Joy]

From what I've seen, ILI's are more critical in a "that won't work" or "that isn't a good idea" way (as opposed to more of a "that's incorrect" or "you're wrong" kind of way). I think Toby from The Office is a good example of an ILI. He's probably more "go with the flow" than most people ILI's are, but the character demonstrates the type and style of criticisms you'd hear from an ILI. I think Robin from One Piece is another good example of an ILI. She's less critical than Toby (but then again, she has fewer reasons to be critical ), more "bookish", and more morbid (at least that's what the other characters on the show call her observations).

If I think of any other examples I'll post them.

[Cudcat]

[/crapjoke]

[Joy]

Lol

[Ezra]

He is a natural sceptic who points out every contradiction and every imperfection he can find in the world. He is not in balance, and he doesn't know how to control his mood. He is often unpleasant and grunting, a person whose emotions affect others.

He is also a person whose pedantry and perfectionism make it difficult for him to bring what he has started to an end. He tends to hesitate, and he dislikes new endeavours. He does not like to hurry, is a lazybone. He is distrustful of people. He can be stubborn if he is convinced that he is right about the facts. He dislikes compliments and prefers to talk about weaknesses. He is difficult to persuade or pressure to do something.

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.

[Joy]

Diplomacy and a way with words

?

[Ezra]

?

As an Eight, Joy, you should know what I'm talking about.

[Joy]

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.

[Phaedrus]

Diplomacy and a way with words is normally associated with, hmmm, what temperament? Oh yes, NF.

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.

[Ezra]

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.

There's a difference between 'going with the flow' and one's external energy being inconspicuous.

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.

I think he does. He knows how to twist things to his advantage.

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.)

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.

[aestrivex]

From what I've seen, ILI's are more critical in a "that won't work" or "that isn't a good idea" way (as opposed to more of a "that's incorrect" or "you're wrong" kind of way).

why do you see the latter as being incompatible with ILI?

[Joy]

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.

[aestrivex]

no. i don't agree.

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.

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.)

pointing out the problems with a plan > routinely challenging and strongly criticizing others

both, depending on the situation.

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 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.

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.

And Te isn't about who is right and who is wrong.

i think it can be.

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.

[Joy]

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

[misutii]

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'

[aestrivex]

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.

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.

[Expat]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Phaedrus]

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.

A totally correct analysis. But of I can only be reasonably certain of niffweed's subtype.

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.

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 . His exact subtype is open for discussion, though. But you should keep in mind that Wittgenstin was clearly unbalanced -- that might cloud people's perception of him. He suffered from depressions and aggressive outbursts throughout his whole life.

[Ezra]

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.

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".

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.

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.

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'

No no no no no.

[Joy]

I dunno, I guess all logical state things in a "summed up" way for their ethical counterparts, it's just done differently.

[Phaedrus]

if Phaedrus is an IEI, Estonia is Mexico.

That is an objectively true statement.