WTF

[Aiss]

Btw, aren't you at all bothered by what happened here between me and Krig? It appears that I can cut the things into two (by the Rational value).

Very well, you've been demanding attention for a while now. I really didn't think you'd come asking for more so soon.

What I'm sure is that you're not an LII abut an ILI and no, it's has no connection with other typings of mine.

Any arguments for Krig being ILI, except a lot of agreeing with LIIs and not being stubborn about absolute truth?

It would be alright to be like this, the problem is that you don't fit with LII for other reasons (those numerous and obvious ones), I don't even know if this Holographic/Cause-Effect is reliable in typing. What kind of thinking ILIs have, btw?

Dialectical-algorithmic, as Krig already said. I would like to add I agree with the description, but I don't know how useful it is in typing - for example, I agree with some points that smilingeyes and Phaedrus criticized about it as inaccurate. Overall I think the idea is spot-on - I was interested in forms of thinking and consciously tried to develop what's called there holographic thinking at some point, because I had it explained to me and it worked for solving certain problems. Needless to say, not very successfully though I'm familiar with the concept (that was all before I knew of socionics). It also makes sense in that your super-ego shares your way of thinking, which explains why - maybe somewhat superficial - understanding isn't difficult in short term.

Lol, no. I'm still fuzzy on functions. I don't really know a good place to learn how they work. I tried learning here, but there's so much disagreement, I just end up annoyed and frustrated. Mostly, just look at every single complaint she makes about "bad people", or bullying or whatever and I don't see anything to complain about. Really, if I had to have a conversation following her criteria on what should be censored or is bad, you might as well cut off my legs and ask me to walk. Even her complaints towards how people address her, and when someone asks a direct valid question it becomes bullying, and I really don't think I could address her in my normal behavior without somehow accidently pissing on her feelings or values. I could when I first got here, but I was kind of on my "best behavior" I guess you could say, and definitely could not maintain that forever. This isn't a personal issue with her though, my main point is that I simply am not offended with anything that offends her, and really if I were to try to talk to her normally, I'd somehow seem a "bully" to her, so I won't try.

Marie made a very good point here. Maritsa doesn't really seem to mind , she is upset by and calls it . Whenever someone gives her evidence, she insults them and say something like that they "failed to point out the fallacy of the argument, therefore it's valid". Basically she dismisses as irrelevant and demands , also reacts far most positively to Ti-dominants. And her act of recent seem taken to the extreme.

That being said, don't type yourself by comparison to Maritsa. Whatever type she is, she's someone's embarrassing identical.

[krieger]

Dialectical-algorithmic, as Krig already said. I would like to add I agree with the description, but I don't know how useful it is in typing - for example, I agree with some points that smilingeyes and Phaedrus criticized about it as inaccurate. Overall I think the idea is spot-on - I was interested in forms of thinking and consciously tried to develop what's called there holographic thinking at some point, because I had it explained to me and it worked for solving certain problems. Needless to say, not very successfully though I'm familiar with the concept (that was all before I knew of socionics). It also makes sense in that your super-ego shares your way of thinking, which explains why - maybe somewhat superficial - understanding isn't difficult in short term.

The problem with DarkAngelFireWolf69's account of those thinking styles is that he assumes that they are very elaborately definable things when in reality they only describe a very superficial property that a number of otherwise unrelated and uncomparable things have in common. It's very hard to find anything that INTp and ENFj have in common, but when you do, you'd end up with something as superficial as the Dialectical thinking (Negative/Process/Dynamic) term.

My own views on the thought styles:
Statics: early concluders (rather, people that seek the quickest shortcut to dealing with the complex parts of the task)
Dynamics: late concluders (people that stick to the simpler parts of the task and postpone finalizing their understanding of the complexities)

Process: obstacle overcoming, oppurtunity ignoring
Result: obstacle avoiding, oppurtunity responding

Negative: the action/belief formed by the person is not a risk
Positive: the action/belief formed by the person is a risk

Negative/Process/Dynamic: gathingering information on a problem; looking at an obstacle from as many viewpoints as possible but not resolving to overcoming it
Positive/Process/Static: making an attempt at overcoming an obstacle using the data currently available to you
Positive/Result/Dynamic: looking around to find as many oppurtunities as possible (this is a risk because you may not find anything)
Negative/Result/Static: defining your attitude/choices on the basis of your current knowledge of oppurtunities that are available

[The Exception]

You didn't justify anything. All you say is "there are other factors" - but this, from my perspective is only a cover-up for the confusion. Other factors, ok, let's say we agree, but what factors make Krig or anyone a typical LII? Here is the question, you guys, Krig, you, JohnDoe and very few others never say something concrete why someone is a certain type. All you do is to make a bare assertion like "I am this type" or "that guy is that type" - but when it comes to justifications you cover it with a blanket. What makes someone LII, what makes him/her typical, what do you din in common, what's LII but not other type?

Good, this is what actually is relevant, but what exactly? With what in Model A is that consistent, can you draw some general but insightful lines?

LIIs use as their base function and as their creative. Which is exactly what all these LIIs I've listed have in common. Here are some definitions of and from www.socionics.us

logical relationships between objects: systems of rules and categories, hierarchies, comparisons of quantifiable properties, logical judgments.

potentiality of objects: inherent possibilities, purpose, abilities, talents, content, values.

From Wikisocion:

The leading function, also called the base, program, or simply first function, is an individual's most dominant psychic function. It describes in general terms the person's most comfortable thinking patterns, perspective on life, state of mind, and behavioral style as well as their positive motivational forces (what they pursue most vigorously when they have a choice). The leading function is critical to interpersonal dynamics because people constantly and inadvertently make judgments, assessments, and assumptions based on it. These comments and judgments portray a particular set of core values and share a common vector or general message, and those who the person interacts closely with must be accepting of this message for interaction to be cohesive and compatible.

Creative function:
This function describes the primary mode of application of the base function. If the base function forms the core of the individual's personal quests and interests ("What's in it for me?", "What do I want to be?"), the creative function describes his main instrument for interacting with the rest of society ("How do I make contact with other people?"). For extroverts this means creating a context for people to interact within, and for introverts — creating a product worthy of being included in interaction.
People use their creative function less than their base function and attach less personal significance to it, although due to the nature of blocked functions it is usually used in tandem with the base function. In their value system, their creative function activities seem less personally significant than their base function activities. When other people try to make this function the main criterion for everything, light irritation can arise, and the person may try to "correct" the other person's emphasis by presenting a perspective from his base function and suggesting that this is more important. Also, when other people express problems having to do with this information aspect, the person quickly takes interest and tries to present solutions — but always through his own base function. For instance, an SEE will try to help other people solve their related problems (relationships and understanding between people) through a perspective (making sure you know what you want and are trying to achieve it; understanding the territorial aspect of interaction; recognizing the obvious "dumb things" that people are doing that are ruining the relationship). When people get to use their creative function to help others' problems, they feel needed and fulfilled and begin to live more fully. Likewise, criticism in this area is more sensitive and unpleasant than in the base function.
Use of the creative function — while frequent and effortless — seems to turn on and off. One moment the person may seem highly interested in this aspect, and the next — totally indifferent. This may jar people for whom this aspect of reality is of more supreme importance and who expect more consistent attention and effort in this area. A good example of this is one's interaction with their mirror partner; each person's leading function is subject to the other's creativity function, so even though both partners do share similar worldviews, they are apt to correct the other in their use of information regarding their creative functions.


What the LIIs I've mentioned all have in common is that they use as a base and as a creative function in the manner described above.

I could also go on to mention that us LIIs all have suggestive- it's a weak function for all of us and its the function we most seek out in our duals. We all have PoLR, we have hidden agenda, we have role, we have ignoring, and demonstrative. These last two are strong functions but they are unvalued.

What more proof do you want Pinocchio?

My uncertainty is actually related more to my Creative Ne than my Ti -- I can too easily see alternative possibilities to my positions, and until I can positively rule them out, I can't entirely discount them. Sometimes it's impossible to entirely rule out alternative possibilities, and in that case, the only way the situation can be rationally expressed is by probabilities.

This explanation is good. It's exactly the way my uncertainty manifests. Pinocchio, take note. Here is another thing that I've noticed the LIIs to all have in common.

Are you always 100% correct in every position you hold? After you've come to a conclusion, do you never uncover evidence that proves you were wrong? The fact of the matter is that no-one is 100% correct in their opinions and conclusions about the world (least of all you), and by rationally and unemotionally examining the evidence, we can find the areas where our opinions are incorrect and correct them. It's a constant process of refinement.

This is also related to the Holographic cognitive style. LIIs, IEEs, ESIs, and SLEs tend to make tenative conclusions which they hold loosely, and then re-examine all the evidence to see if it fits with their conclusion. This is the opposite of the Cause-Effect cognitive style, in which ILEs, LSIs, SEEs, and EIIs start with the evidence, and then step by step work their way through a chain of cause-and-effect until they arrive at a strong conclusion, which they then will defend and are unlikely to change. This is the root of many of our disagreements, Pinocchio. I am a Holographic thinker, and you a Cause-Effect thinker, so the way I think seems vague and too uncertain to you, and the way you think seems inflexible and overly certain to me.

This is an interesting insight and it makes perfect sense to me that this is what's happening betwen you and Pinocchio (as well as between Pinocchio and I).

Like I said, I don't have an opinion on the self-typings of most of the people on this board. Unless I've interacted with them extensively, or I've become interested in them for some specific reason, I have little to no interest in other people's self-typings. This is compounded by the fact that determining someone's sociotype using only text-based communications on an Internet forum, without the benefit of audio or visual cues, is difficult and extremely time-consuming. The only reason you're able to do it so easily and quickly is that you come to a conclusion too soon, and then reject or re-interperet all evidence that doesn't agree with your conclusion. People who are actually interested in the truth, and not just winning the argument, take much longer to arrive at a conclusion, because they don't just reject contradictory evidence, but instead try to understand it.

Totally agree. I think more useful information can be obtained from someone if they have a videoclip of themselves because then you have the advantage of audio and visual cues but not everyone has the means to or is comfortable posting a video of themselves.

*Sigh*. Sometimes I think that banging my head against a brick wall would be less painful and more productive than talking to you, Pinocchio.
'
'
'
Also, the only person I would be less likely to take typing advice from than you would be Maritsa. Actually, it might even be a tie.

LOL!

[Aiss]

The problem with DarkAngelFireWolf69's account of those thinking styles is that he assumes that they are very elaborately definable things when in reality they only describe a very superficial property that a number of otherwise unrelated and uncomparable things have in common. It's very hard to find anything that INTp and ENFj have in common, but when you do, you'd end up with something as superficial as the Dialectical thinking (Negative/Process/Dynamic) term.

I wouldn't call it a superficial property; I've noticed some hints of it before, as I've mentioned, and I'm fairly certain I know at least one SEI who uses same style as I do, as well as IEI whose vortex thinking surprises us at times. I would rather say the problem with this approach is that it's too introspective (which always introduces unreliability) and also hard to justify socionically (thus dichotomy approach). I admit I have no idea how DarkAngelFireWolf69 arrived at it, but it seems more of an empirical thing (that is, differentiating types by forms of thinking and noticing supervisory rings fit them, not looking for what these types have in common and speculating).

My own views on the thought styles:
Statics: early concluders (rather, people that seek the quickest shortcut to dealing with the complex parts of the task)
Dynamics: late concluders (people that stick to the simpler parts of the task and postpone finalizing their understanding of the complexities)

Process: obstacle overcoming, oppurtunity ignoring
Result: obstacle avoiding, oppurtunity responding

Negative: the action/belief formed by the person is not a risk
Positive: the action/belief formed by the person is a risk

I kinda disagree. LIE and to an extent ILI are often described as people who become "experts" within ten minutes of learning about the topic. I also don't see how it would be related to static/dynamic.

I also don't see how these definitions would work any better than Reinin's - many aspects of which don't work, like ILIs doing things sequentially and ESEs not, which contradicts type profiles and observations of many people here. I also think your process/result could be reversed; it seems to me that process is more flexible about goals, easily diverted by opportunities and discouraged by obstacles, whereas result goes for a goal overcoming obstacles and avoiding distraction.

Same about negative/positive; what do you mean by these?

Negative/Process/Dynamic: gathingering information on a problem; looking at an obstacle from as many viewpoints as possible but not resolving to overcoming it
Positive/Process/Static: making an attempt at overcoming an obstacle using the data currently available to you
Positive/Result/Dynamic: looking around to find as many oppurtunities as possible (this is a risk because you may not find anything)
Negative/Result/Static: defining your attitude/choices on the basis of your current knowledge of oppurtunities that are available

This doesn't really work from my POV. Especially multiple viewpoints seem more of what LIIs do than ILIs, regardless of DarkAngelFireWolf69's descriptions.

[Aiss]

The problem with DarkAngelFireWolf69's account of those thinking styles is that he assumes that they are very elaborately definable things when in reality they only describe a very superficial property that a number of otherwise unrelated and uncomparable things have in common. It's very hard to find anything that INTp and ENFj have in common, but when you do, you'd end up with something as superficial as the Dialectical thinking (Negative/Process/Dynamic) term.

I wouldn't call it a superficial property; I've noticed some hints of it before, as I've mentioned, and I'm fairly certain I know at least one SEI who uses same style as I do, as well as IEI whose vortex thinking surprises us at times. I would rather say the problem with this approach is that it's too introspective (which always introduces unreliability) and also hard to justify socionically (thus dichotomy approach). I admit I have no idea how DarkAngelFireWolf69 arrived at it, but it seems more of an empirical thing (that is, differentiating types by forms of thinking and noticing supervisory rings fit them, not looking for what these types have in common and speculating).

My own views on the thought styles:
Statics: early concluders (rather, people that seek the quickest shortcut to dealing with the complex parts of the task)
Dynamics: late concluders (people that stick to the simpler parts of the task and postpone finalizing their understanding of the complexities)

Process: obstacle overcoming, oppurtunity ignoring
Result: obstacle avoiding, oppurtunity responding

Negative: the action/belief formed by the person is not a risk
Positive: the action/belief formed by the person is a risk

I kinda disagree. LIE and to an extent ILI are often described as people who become "experts" within ten minutes of learning about the topic. I also don't see how it would be related to static/dynamic.

I also don't see how these definitions would work any better than Reinin's - many aspects of which don't work, like ILIs doing things sequentially and ESEs not, which contradicts type profiles and observations of many people here. If I'd be using these definition, I'd reverse process/result at least; it seems to me that process is more flexible about goals, easily diverted by opportunities and discouraged by obstacles, whereas result is overcoming or avoiding obstacles to achieve their goal.

Same about negative/positive; what do you mean by these?

Negative/Process/Dynamic: gathingering information on a problem; looking at an obstacle from as many viewpoints as possible but not resolving to overcoming it
Positive/Process/Static: making an attempt at overcoming an obstacle using the data currently available to you
Positive/Result/Dynamic: looking around to find as many oppurtunities as possible (this is a risk because you may not find anything)
Negative/Result/Static: defining your attitude/choices on the basis of your current knowledge of oppurtunities that are available

This doesn't really work from my POV. Especially multiple viewpoints seem more of what LIIs do than ILIs, regardless of DarkAngelFireWolf69's descriptions.

[krieger]

I kinda disagree. LIE and to an extent ILI are often described as people who become "experts" within ten minutes of learning about the topic.

That's exactly because they focus on the simple parts; something I say is a property of Dynamics. It isn't required of an expert in today's culture to have a deep, mystical understanding of the problems they deal with. Only that they get results.

I also don't see how these definitions would work any better than Reinin's - many aspects of which don't work, like ILIs doing things sequentially and ESEs not, which contradicts type profiles and observations of many people here. If I'd be using these definition, I'd reverse process/result at least; it seems to me that process is more flexible about goals, easily diverted by opportunities and discouraged by obstacles, whereas result is overcoming or avoiding obstacles to achieve their goal.

ESFjs and ENTjs have a very typical tendency to quickly touch on any oppurtunity they see in their surroundings. They don't invest much in any of them, just quickly acknowledge them, maybe use them for a while and then pull back from them. INTps have this tendency to spend more time than any one else focussing on analyzing a problem. Process types on the whole are not flexible. They're immersed in whatever task they are doing, to the point they can't notice oppurtunities.

This doesn't really work from my POV. Especially multiple viewpoints seem more of what LIIs do than ILIs, regardless of DarkAngelFireWolf69's descriptions.

The part about multiple viewpoints is just a phrase I used. The important bit is about how the INTps focus on increasing the information that is available on a problem, whereas the INTj focusses on his decision based on information he has right now.

[krieger]

Process types on the whole are not flexible.

Actually, the flexibility they do posess consists in how they are difficult to stop. They don't back away from their problems. Often a Result type can be held at bay by simply bluffing about some difficulty there might be on their path. This doesn't work vis a vis Process types.

[krieger]

I also don't see how these definitions would work any better than Reinin's - many aspects of which don't work, like ILIs doing things sequentially and ESEs not, which contradicts type profiles and observations of many people here. If I'd be using these definition, I'd reverse process/result at least; it seems to me that process is more flexible about goals, easily diverted by opportunities and discouraged by obstacles, whereas result is overcoming or avoiding obstacles to achieve their goal.

There are also a few things that complicate the issue. For example one could easily claim that S means focussing on obstacles, because an obstacle is something physical and concrete. The kind of obstacle that I'm talking about is something more general than that.

[Aiss]

That's exactly because they focus on the simple parts; something I say is a property of Dynamics. It isn't required of an expert in today's culture to have a deep, mystical understanding of the problems they deal with. Only that they get results.

I meant it as a questionable expert, someone who acts as one even if they don't know enough - like, early concluder? These names are misleading one way or another.

ESFjs and ENTjs have a very typical tendency to quickly touch on any oppurtunity they see in their surroundings. They don't invest much in any of them, just quickly acknowledge them, maybe use them for a while and then pull back from them. INTps have this tendency to spend more time than any one else focussing on analyzing a problem. Process types on the whole are not flexible. They're immersed in whatever task they are doing, to the point they can't notice oppurtunities.

I'm not INTp according to this description. I always saw INTjs as much, much more persistent. I also don't have a problem noticing opportunities; I rather hate having my options limited so that I can't follow them (not that I'm active doing this). As far as I know it's consistent with INTp descriptions out there. Also ESE and LII I know, among other people, have much stronger tendency towards sunk cost fallacy, which seems closely related to what you're describing here.

[Aiss]

There are also a few things that complicate the issue. For example one could easily claim that S means focussing on obstacles, because an obstacle is something physical and concrete. The kind of obstacle that I'm talking about is something more general than that.

I wasn't speaking of physical obstacles, or doing anything of the sort.

[reclaimpower]

@reclaimpower: looking through your posts I found this. I'll try to type her, then you're doomed.

I was doomed the moment of my conception. But yeah, it would definitely be interesting to know her type.

Btw, aren't you at all bothered by what happened here between me and Krig?

No not really. Should I be? You question his type. He questions your reasoning skills. Fancy words get thrown about. Someone loses an eye. Somewhere in the world a child just died from starvation, while a pimp just got rich from the labors of a prostitute, and some morally upstanding politician is heading home to tell his wife that he loves her, after fucking a 14 year old prostitute. Typical day. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

It's probably better to do your own research, anyways. At least than it's less bias...

Here's a few links that explain the IE's:

Good point. Thank you very much for the links, they'll definitely be helpful.

On the otherhand, she doesn't react negatively to hostile and commanding language, which she sees as characteristic of Te+Si (I see it as Se).

She uses hostile commanding language herself. I could list quotes if evidence is necessary, but I'm too lazy if it's not, plus she deletes/edits her posts so I may fail anyways. I relate commands and I guess hostility (more appeal to force which I guess is hostile) to Se.

lol. But it is sorta true. I mean, there is truth, but it's hard to access with your mind, and until you understand everything, you don't understand anything (perfectly), because all knowledge "hangs together," you know? (right, you don't.)

Right. Wait, what?

I think SLE is indeed the better of the two - he wants to scream "this is Sparta!". Too Fe, dear, too Fe.

Could be. It was more of a joke though, intended to point out I don't find Se as offensive I initially thought. I don't really show much emotion if any, but that might be subtype.

That being said, don't type yourself by comparison to Maritsa. Whatever type she is, she's someone's embarrassing identical.

Good point.

[Trevor]

How is IJ-Se a Carefree function? Easy stuff. You get pissed off at people and then you send them to hell and say to them what they deserve with no care for consequences whatsoever, you just attack them, k? Off-topic btw

[krieger]

I meant it as a questionable expert, someone who acts as one even if they don't know enough - like, early concluder? These names are misleading one way or another.

It's more like the Dynamics stick close to the given material whereas Statics diverge massively from it with their own ruminations. The better term is "early complexity confronting" or something.

I'm not INTp according to this description. I always saw INTjs as much, much more persistent. I also don't have a problem noticing opportunities; I rather hate having my options limited so that I can't follow them (not that I'm active doing this). As far as I know it's consistent with INTp descriptions out there. Also ESE and LII I know, among other people, have much stronger tendency towards sunk cost fallacy, which seems closely related to what you're describing here.

Unfortunately, the official description of both Process/Result and most INTp descriptions are on my side. Charles Darwin, the archetypal "problem dweller", was a stereotypical INTp. INTps focus on mental obstacles. If you think INTj has any problems regarding "sunk cost fallacies" you are have been making a massive number of mistypings. They are ascetic, conservative with resources and extremely uninvested.

[krieger]

Michael Moore is a great example of what I'm talking about in INTps. When he has resolved to find "the truth" about some societal issue, he won't stop at anything to get there. But he doesn't spend much time "connecting the dots". He confronts the problem with massive amounts of information.

[krieger]

Potholer54, same story; problem dwelling, information gathering INTp:

[crazedrat]

^ILI making fun of Fe.

ILI having no sense of humor.

[krieger]

I'm not INTp according to this description.

I do think you are an INTp, so if there is no way to reconcile these views with your experiences that would bother me.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

On the Process/Result issue, another thing that complicates the problem is the fact that people tend to secundarily behave like the two types of the same temperament and adjacent club. For example, INTj secudarily behaves like INFj and ISTj, meaning they do sometimes focus on overcoming social and/or practical obstacles. It's just not their primary modus operandi.

[reclaimpower]

I tried to but I could not, sorry . She appears, but just appears, to be a Fe-Creative (SEI, IEI), but I think IEI is the better supposition.

Don't be sorry, the woman is extremely private. There's little personal information someone can give to you about her aside from her twitter account: she likes crepes, photography and cats. She also has a fixation on the past and has a tendency towards nostalgia, but I think both SEI and IEI do to a certain degree. I think you're right about IEI though. She values a lot it seems. She also once stated that she loves performing because she can be herself and let out her aggressive side, and then lamented on being in a society that she can't do that any other way.

I know it was not something literal - like screaming in your home, but it is an impulse, a metaphor of something inside you, isn't it? Well that's the issue, Te-Creative (so if you were an ILI) find such passion unleashing as ridiculous or embarrassing to associate with themselves, at least theoretically .

Maybe. That does make sense. Yeah, I sort of do think I can relate to what you said. Doesn't IEI have Te polr though? I don't think I'm particularly threatened by Te.

I guess probably the best thing I can do is shut up, study up on the functions and study myself for a long period of time, then come to an idea of my type. Then I'll storm in this thread again and proclaim what I am, and then you'll tell me I'm wrong, that my reasoning is flawed, and I'm utterly ridiculous. A complete boob completely lacking in intellectual integrity and devoid of any sense. I can't wait :wink:

For now, I know I am not LII.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Marie84]

She uses hostile commanding language herself. I could list quotes if evidence is necessary, but I'm too lazy if it's not, plus she deletes/edits her posts so I may fail anyways. I relate commands and I guess hostility (more appeal to force which I guess is hostile) to Se.

Yah I've seen them too, that's what I meant by her not being bothered by Se

[Marie84]

I guess probably the best thing I can do is shut up, study up on the functions and study myself for a long period of time, then come to an idea of my type. Then I'll storm in this thread again and proclaim what I am, and then you'll tell me I'm wrong, that my reasoning is flawed, and I'm utterly ridiculous. A complete boob completely lacking in intellectual integrity and devoid of any sense. I can't wait :wink:

I like you

[reclaimpower]

Yeah I could not find but one interview and some making-of where she was eating and watching - I don't trust VI alone.
She subjectively appears to me as some sort of Ni counterpart to Greta Csatlós from Die Untoten, who I type as SEI. Just an idea.

I agree with not trusting only vi, and I know nothing about Greta Csatlos but visually, I can see how you could relate her to Shikhee. Especially the third picture. I'll have to have a listen to Untoten sometime. I don't know how to distinguish Ni from Si visually if thats possible. But then, I'm still somewhat new to socionics, one step at a time I guess. For now I'll stick with trying to learn to analyze by behavior.

Depends on what you understand by Te. As far as I can tell, it's the fear or frustration about future dull life - like a long project - too much stability and predictability, with little variation and possibilities to do something else or just give in. As a rule of thumb, Te Rationals prefer stable things with continuous development with less surprises but apply what they know, while Te-PoLRs prefer things that have an end to go then on something else, if possible totally different - even if this forces them to learn something else.

Hmm. I can't say I relate much to Te polr then. I prefer to continously develop things over time, and don't mind long projects as long as they have importance to me, and I can, you know, sleep. Although I like unpredictable people who get me to do stupid things, but I can still value predictability or stability to a certain degree when it comes to my overall life. I do have anxiety towards leading a "normal" life, so maybe though. I don't want fame, but I want to experience everything, getting me to do that on the other hand is another matter. It takes a special person, I've only met two who can motivate me. Maybe that would describe my dual. Someone who motivates you into new, and exotic activity. Erotic works too.

Lol! At least you can bet on me, I never miss an occasion to prove someone wrong .

Hell, if you prove me wrong and actually prove it, I'll consider it a favor for preventing me from making an ass of myself in the future.

I like you

Aw shucks

[Aiss]

Hmm. I can't say I relate much to Te polr then. I prefer to continously develop things over time, and don't mind long projects as long as they have importance to me, and I can, you know, sleep. Although I like unpredictable people who get me to do stupid things, but I can still value predictability or stability to a certain degree when it comes to my overall life. I do have anxiety towards leading a "normal" life, so maybe though. I don't want fame, but I want to experience everything, getting me to do that on the other hand is another matter. It takes a special person, I've only met two who can motivate me. Maybe that would describe my dual. Someone who motivates you into new, and exotic activity. Erotic works too.

Note that contrasting Te rationals (LxE) with Te-PoLR (xEI) applies only to four types, leaving most of the socion - including ILIs - falling in neither category.

I've seen ILI-SEE duality described in this way and I agree. ILIs dislike routines and such, but may have problems with feelings of pointlessness, not looking for something new actively, without a purpose, lack of motivation... sort of inertia that's depressing but hard to get out of on our own.

[Aiss]

It's more like the Dynamics stick close to the given material whereas Statics diverge massively from it with their own ruminations. The better term is "early complexity confronting" or something.

Not sure if I get what you mean - I can see myself both agreeing and disagreeing with this depending on it.

Dynamic, or at least Ni, diverges massively, as you put it, when information is scarce. Early on it might be as good as a guess, but it's already in works. That's the reason LIE/ILI "act like an expert" - because they make predictions based on very little knowledge, which seems to people as they knew more than they do. Except it at times diverges in wrong direction, and it's my observation that most of us learn early on to be careful with voicing these speculations. (I also think the concern with giving only reliable information may be more of a compensation mechanism for Ni than just Te nature, especially as it doesn't seem as pronounced in Delta STs).

So I'd disagree with your assertion about sticking close to a given material. Yet there's something to it in long term, as the speculation is constantly changing as the new information comes. The view of the issue is adjusted to reflect reality (defined by the source of the material) as possible. It works in long term, so I agree with what you say in this context.

When it doesn't work is when the matter is imaginary - when there's no real world data, only inspirations, creation is different - see wikisocion on Ni in ILI, it's very accurate. I think your description may be misleading, especially when typing - since it doesn't seem to work for Ni both when there's little information - when it does the massive diverging - and when the issue isn't directly related to external world - imagination.

Additionally, I don't see how it could be very different for static types, but that might be because it's my way of thinking, therefore it defines "thinking" for me, in a way.

Unfortunately, the official description of both Process/Result and most INTp descriptions are on my side. Charles Darwin, the archetypal "problem dweller", was a stereotypical INTp. INTps focus on mental obstacles. If you think INTj has any problems regarding "sunk cost fallacies" you are have been making a massive number of mistypings. They are ascetic, conservative with resources and extremely uninvested.

The only point of process/result I agree with anyway is that goals are flexible for process types, whereas result types focus on them - it's possible the dichotomy doesn't even work this far, since many people doubt it.

I can't think of any ILI profile I read that mentioned what you speak of. Any direction?

I'm open to retyping the person I see it most in - it's my father. The way "sunk cost fallacy" manifests itself is mostly when it comes to physical world ("resources", not "ideas"); I blame rationality, because I saw it in other rationals too. Whenever the situation changes, the first instinct is to stick as closely to the plan as possible, perceiving changing the plan more as a problem than choosing worse option. "We have to do it now", "well we made this decision, so we need to stick with it", "we need to go along with this", "if we already did all of this, we better continue", "it's too late to change it", "we'd have been better off doing that, but who could have known", all in the situation when there *was* a better option still available. Sometimes starting from scratch is better than going on with whatever plan there is that is no longer useful. (I say "we" because that's how my parents put it. I typed them independently of each other and ended up with duality - makes sense for them). On the second thought, it might relate to static/dynamic. It's like they largely operate on a view of the situation from when they last considered it (i.e. making original plan) and don't pay much attention to all the changes that whatever disturb their plans created. This is pure speculation, though, and I have no idea how you got me to write it down.

The other possible typing is LSI, but I seriously doubt it.

Michael Moore is a great example of what I'm talking about in INTps. When he has resolved to find "the truth" about some societal issue, he won't stop at anything to get there. But he doesn't spend much time "connecting the dots". He confronts the problem with massive amounts of information.

Potholer54, same story; problem dwelling, information gathering INTp:

Not sure what the first video has to do with it, as the guy seems to do more of a street show with throwing in mentions of killings randomly, rather than an investigation.

The other series is interesting, and I think I see what you mean. It's actually consistent with what I thought about - I tend to take forever to reach the conclusion and even then it's always 'doubtful'. This doesn't stop me from dropping issues unresolved, which I noticed bothers many people - a need for closure I don't relate to. I somehow agree about mental obstacles in this context - as long as there's interest in the topic, they're challenges. The problem is that my interest in dealing with them lasts much shorter than many people's, including LIIs (even excluding my parents), though perhaps on the longer side for an irrational.

I do think you are an INTp, so if there is no way to reconcile these views with your experiences that would bother me.

Out of curiosity - why if I don't fit your idea of one?

On the Process/Result issue, another thing that complicates the problem is the fact that people tend to secundarily behave like the two types of the same temperament and adjacent club. For example, INTj secudarily behaves like INFj and ISTj, meaning they do sometimes focus on overcoming social and/or practical obstacles. It's just not their primary modus operandi.

What kind of situations do you mean? Is there a difference for when people act more like the type they share base or creative function with?