Hm, good point. It beats working with a dumb meathead.Originally Posted by yifflord
I love nerdy losers
Ti-PoLR in the IEE: Hates someone who is a pedant 24/7.
Hm, good point. It beats working with a dumb meathead.I love nerdy losers
Ti-PoLR in the IEE: Hates someone who is a pedant 24/7.
IEE Ne Creative Type
Someand role lovin too. (
) I
too...
!!!!!!
I don't think too much about the utility of someone who I'm working with until it becomes a problem. In second year I was lab partners with a SEI and we were both relatively weak in the department of being on top of things and working out what to do. I loved him, but but I became sorely aware of both my deficiencies and his.
In the field of personal interactions... intelligence is a bonus, but when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter if someone is a nerdy loser or a dumb meathead as long as I think they're 1) a good person and 2) I get some form of benefit out of being with them (like I find them fun, interesting, inspiring, relaxing etc). I agree with @thehotelambush; this kind of categorisation and reasoning doesn't seem very Delta to me at first glance. But I do agree that Ti-PoLR in the IEE manifests in hating pedantry. This is how I interpret Ti when it's got me under its radar.
The bolded strikes me as particularly true, unfortunately.The main thing is a general lack of organization in their thinking process and/or life.
Another is general obliviousness to the obligations they have towards others, or the rights that others have towards them. They tend to impulsively show favoritism towards/against people and can lack objectivity.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
I think you're on to something, but there still might be more to it. Why? I have a friend that is super meticulous, organized, thorough, detail-oriented, etc. He is extremely precise. He knows every fact, remembers everything you say, even corrects your grammar, if it is a shade off. However, he is not really skilled with logic, analysis, or investigation. Therefore, I don't know if he'd be outstanding as a programmer, scientist, etc. On the other hand, I am really analytical, logical, and scientific. I love formulas, programming books, chemistry theories, and mathematical ideas, and I can really sink my teeth into them. Therefore, I really value Ti, but in a way that is not organized, systematic or meticulous. This makes me really wonder: can you be Ti and not be methodical at all? Or, alternatively, could you be super-methodical and not be Ti? Therefore, all of this makes me believe that socionics is on the right track, but there might be something missing here...The main thing is a general lack of organization in their thinking process and/or life.Another is general obliviousness to the obligations they have towards others, or the rights that others have towards them. They tend to impulsively show favoritism towards/against people and can lack objectivity.
I guess you can be a structured thinker or generally be a structured person without using Ti per se, which is more like linear thinking.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
I don't consider "I have a friend who..." to be a good argument. The only thing I can say is that this is not consistent with my experience of SEEs and IEEs. It's perfectly plausible for an ESI though - I once had an ESI English teacher who was similar, and I think Merrick Garland (the Supreme Court nominee) is also an example of this kind of ESI. The meticulousness you're talking about (which is most characteristic of ESIs and LSIs) is also a function of
I assume it's annoying for Ti-PoLR people too, b/c they probably meant something very different, and Ti people are picking apart the literal meaning.
(tangent: I sometimes find Gamma SF easier too, probably because I can trace better what they care about and don't.)
Last time I interacted with an LII for a prolonged period of time:
IEE: Could you finish this task for me by 5 today?
LII: ... In how many hours is that?
IEE: What do you mean, it's two in the afternoon, that's 3 hours from now.
LII: .... I ask again, how many hours is that?????
IEE: *hesitating for a bit* Fine, I'll do it myself. Sheesh you're lazy.
LII: ................................. no.
IEE Ne Creative Type
Some
To me, that again would be organized, systematic person with no logical abilities at all, as that is something that takes almost zero logical or intellectual skill to compute... i.e., this:
Last edited by jason_m; 06-03-2016 at 12:10 AM.
It took him 15 minutes to decide to say, "no" too. LMFAO
IEE Ne Creative Type
Some
I would say a lot of the recent examples of IEE/SEE's Ti aren't totally wrong or anything, some are even fair enough examples, just I think they aren't typical of the most mature XEE's.
One other remark: the wall-of-possibilities sounds a little more like Ne on overdrive than Ne with a strong creative. This is more a conceptual point than a "this is my experience" point.
My Thank/Like button is currently broken so please consider this a click on the Constructive button.
IEE Ne Creative Type
Some
Most of the examples here read to me like YouTube comments or teenager talk, not just the xEE side but also the thing that supposedly triggers the Ti-polr.
I can't see people with any level of maturity be either that pedantic or that unable to deal with it.
I identify Ti-polr more as an inability to subject myself to anything "inherently given" or "objective system" or "logically infallible"
example; Kants' critique of pure reason establishes a moral rule based on the idea that it's impossible to disagree with it; if you can't make an action apply as a rule to everyone then you should never take the action.
if you steal that would mean everyone could steal and that would abolish ownership. If you kill everyone could kill and life would cease to exist.
now I GET the logic. I just don't agree that it applies since its just a believe, it's an opinion that is elevated to a "higher status" by putting it into a society that values logic as a positive weight to that opinion. I can make people with a kantian moral system admit to having to do horrible things easily which to me devalues the system even though logically correct. (Same btw counts for the other ethic systems, now singling out absolutist ethics because to me it's strongly Ti in origin).
other example;
i get the logic of planning tools like schedules or project plans. I just don't agree that they are more important then my happiness. In the larger "logic" of my life my preferences will precede over external plans or logically "wise" things to do.
why? Because one can live logically or prudently all life long and be unhappy all life long. That makes that person wrong to me.
Maybe I'm not Ti-polr since I don't recognize any of those examples, but then I rarely encounter anyone who can't hold a logical normal conversation and when I do it's obviously IQ/education related rather then type.
An instance of what I think was Ti-PoLR from my LII friend: we used to write stuff together and when I contradicted myself I felt like he led me around in a circle to try to get me to realise my contradiction on my own instead of pointing it out to me, which isn't bad, but I found it humiliating.
That's only happened once to me and he vowed to never try to be subtle again.
IEE Ne Creative Type
Some
@Reficulris: I think it's pretty typical at the higher levels of maturity to find the divergences of type to look more subtle than about an inability from the standpoint of cognition to see what might motivate the other's perspective. It's rather that one knows internally that, when that other perspective's subset of valid demands relevant to oneself is addressed well, typically one can address it from one's own perspective (the ego), making appropriate forays into the role/polr to close the gaps. When one is essentially forced to engage with hard problems in the polr's perspective, usually it's experienced as something of a brick wall, where one can certainly see (if mature) why such demands might be made, but where there's a strong sense that the very reason one is feeling compelled to think from the polr's perspective is having hit a brick wall of sorts at addressing the situation with the ego's perspective. One recognizes that if the situation is to be resolved, one would probably have to address significant higher-dimensional concerns of the polr, but instinctively know if you're at this point (especially as a mature instance of your type), it's probably a sign the situation is somewhat unreasonable.
Yes, I agree. Very true.
IEE Ne Creative Type
Some
A lot of these comments are just examples of people being 'stupid' and does not have to do with the core of Ti.
The key word is rules. xEEs hate when they have to stick to rules because they see no point in them.
True.
IEE Ne Creative Type
Some
An example of how an IEE might try to prove an LII wrong by using a Ne/Te reasoning, failing to disprove the Ti POV of the LII:
LII: the new law on the restrictions for entering university conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights
IEE: How do you know that?
LII: article 25.2 of the convention says so
IEE (after looking up article 25.2): how do you know that this article applies to the new law?
LII: It's pretty obvious, isn't no? the article states it clearly.
IEE: What about jurisprudence? You are sure the European Court on Human Rights are going to take the Convention literally without interpreting it, taking a stand on the if the article is applicable to the new law? That they are not going to decide other laws or treaties will take precedence?
LII: but article 25.2 clear states... and thus is applicable.
IEE: I hope you never have to go to court for anything, because you do do know the law alright, but you haven't the faintest clue about how the legal system works.
LII: I think article 25.2 is pretty clear about the matter. If someone takes the new law to the European Court, they will surely win the case.
IEE (annoyed about LIIs deafness): have it your way.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
He lost the court case though. You failed to mention that.
IEE Ne Creative Type
Some
It might just be me, but I think you got the IEE and the LII switched. The LII should be the one to understand the nuances of the law.
No, they don't, they are more likely to have a black/white understanding, and especially application, of formal and informal social institutions (i.e. rules, laws, and social norms). Especially if they have no formal knowledge about law or the legal system.
Take for example, Immanuel Kant, LII and the father of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative, extrapolated to a broader meaning than just the ethical and philosophical ones, as a general way of dealing with life, is what is typical of introverted thinkers. Ne-base types, especially the IEE, have a more contextual approach to dealing with things, and as such have a far more situational, contextualist way of dealing with life. In modern western countries, the way the law operates, is more in line with this contextualist approach than with a categorical one.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I think this scene might be an good example of Ti polr:
Weak T manifests that people say and do stupid mindless things more than average. Mostly it's because of dominating emotions.
For example, if they don't like some opinion - they will not seek for logical arguments against, they will just refuse or will refuse with stupid arguments. If they need to do something - they will not think how to do it better, they will do how they "feel".
The weaker T - the more of this.
It does not matter much is it Ti in polr of Te, they always are both similarly weak. The difference is in the abbility and interest to follow external recomendations or to copy behavior of other people in region of weak valued function.
Weak T doesn't make anyone inadequate or incapable. It just means we offer information in a different interpretation. For instance, instead of being concise and clear like Ti type, an IEE may offer intuitive insight on something that they've noticed as a pattern
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Getting it done > sticking to rules and systematic approaches.
Schedules are hell.
I have a completely erratic lifestyle.
Randomness galore, I can switch or derail topics willingly or without even noticing.
Algebra is like a foreign language to me.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would value a process over getting something done.
I relateSchedules are hell.
I have a completely erratic lifestyle.
We're both result and Ep types
Ok but I mean speaking outside of socionics for a sec, like just rationally speaking re: the first thing about getting the job done.We're both result and Ep types
Some like to focus on the process all while getting it done. I don't care, the end is what counts. That is socionics, aka irrationality. And well, the "right mind" is far from what is really going on in humans. There are more motivations than just succeeding - and this is coming from an E3. The true point of my elaboration though is simply: Te over Ti, and this is all. Oki doki?
Perfect example of
They may try to achieve this through emotional jabs (trying to guilt trip the other for making they feel stupid is a favorite), personal attacks to the person's "reputation" ("That's rich coming from"), pretending the issue never had any real importance anyway (even though they whole behaviour prior to this contradicts the idea) or even by apparently trying to "calm down" the (as seen by them) opponent. This last tactic is particularly baffling for
I get this from Te polrs sometimes too, and any type can make use of worthless ad hominems (usually they only seem to be taken as valid and somehow appropriate arguments by Fi valuers though), but yeah generally speaking I see this about 3X as much from xEE types.Perfect example of
They may try to achieve this through emotional jabs (trying to guilt trip the other for making they feel stupid is a favorite), personal attacks to the person's "reputation" ("That's rich coming from"), pretending the issue never had any real importance anyway (even though they whole behaviour prior to this contradicts the idea) or even by apparently trying to "calm down" the (as seen by them) opponent. This last tactic is particularly baffling for
You're likely already aware, but this perception of it may be amplified for you (and me) due to Fi polr, is another thing to consider.
It always baffles me why somebody would think to include personal comments on things completely unrelated to the subject at hand when counter attacking someone. Same thing when they decide to "defend" someone (as if criticizing or disagreeing is an attack in itself), they always bring up really ridiculous "arguments" like "He/she/they is a really good person!", "They are going through a lot!", "His mom died when he was little!". There's no correlation between what they're saying (irrelevant details about the people involved) and what you've just said, so you're left stunned.
I can definitely relate. Most people don't know what a good argument is made up of. Besides that though, in all fairness emotional state and personal matters often do leak into discussions and there's nothing you can do about it except deal with things accordingly. I've learned that it's unfortunately simply not realistic to expect that others will be able to be perfectly objective most of the time, or even half of the time--including yourself from time to time actually, on a primitive level. It took me a long time of focusing on this issue to learn how and where to draw the line between when people are being fair about it, and when they are unwarrantedly ignoring the facts and being excessive. At the end of the day this required me to develop some "Fi" myself (and polr still exists and can be accessed of course--it's just the weakest and least controllable). But I digress.
For sure, because I most definitely will refer to "Fi" if it's actually relevant to the point being made, and many times, it's the point itself. Like, I'm always disagreeing with the way people treat others or let themselves be treated, so there's no way to argue aout that without talking about emotions and personal feelings myself.
Erm, this isn't really type related, I've seen plenty of ad hominems from Ti egos and virtually any types really.They may try to achieve this through emotional jabs (trying to guilt trip the other for making they feel stupid is a favorite), personal attacks to the person's "reputation" ("That's rich coming from"), pretending the issue never had any real importance anyway (even though they whole behaviour prior to this contradicts the idea) or even by apparently trying to "calm down" the (as seen by them) opponent. This last tactic is particularly baffling for
You might just experience this less from xEEs because your Ti isn't good enough to set them off in this manner.
Ad hominems was only one of of several different tactics I said they use, yet you're focusing on it as if hey are the sole reason for my claim lol. Also, you're not
Well unfortunately, what you said (not all) were what SLEs are also said to do:Ad hominems was only one of of several different tactics I said they use, yet you're focusing on it as if hey are the sole reason for my claim lol. Also, you're not
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...roverted_logic
And yes, that shit is annoying. Like say, Trump.
Anyway, perhaps LIIs are the least likely to make ad hominem arguments. In my experience.
Last edited by Singu; 03-19-2017 at 01:14 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
