Neither, because your reasonings for both of them don't sync up to the types in question. If I'm just reading the descriptions, I'd have to go with the first one because I'd say you're far from being wacky, irregular, or inconsistent.
Neither, because your reasonings for both of them don't sync up to the types in question. If I'm just reading the descriptions, I'd have to go with the first one because I'd say you're far from being wacky, irregular, or inconsistent.
Hah, thanks for keeping me in mind for Delta :wink: (I'm guessing), or maybe you're just trying to make a point that I have no idea what I'm talking about. Either way, sounds fine to me. However, it does seem like I'd be an "Ne-INFj" on the basis of Jungian typology and Socionix, I've looked a lot into that as well and it makes sense. The huge thing I'm worried about is that traditional Fi description about typical Fi and EII descriptions seem not to fit me at all, they sound like an overly polite, highly relational, girly, politically correct figure that's sort of opposite from me. I've never found one description fitting me, like I have for ILE and ILI.Originally Posted by Galen
The problem though is that you're sooooo IJ. Everytime I see you on tinychat your energy is just so consistently low and stagnated. Calling you "wacky" or "inconsistent" are opposites of what I'd use to describe you.
This is often true, I don't like move around everywhere all the time. I feel like I go on tinychat when I need some excitement because I'm tired or bored. I'm not really high-strung. I only have bouts of high and random explorative energy, especially when no one is there or I'm not "focused" on something, only then will I be different. Though:
That's a little odd to say. I think most people would disagree. Also, its all about energy and such, what about personality, and the type descriptions that don't go off of physical aspects I said I related to? I certainly can't just limit myself to what I've already said about being low energy, as there are more areas of a type to look into.
i might not know your type but one thing i'm quite sure about is you're not Fi polr. umm..
1. what are the chances of relating a lot to jungian Fi but having it as a polr in socionics. i'm not going into whether or not jungian descriptions are applicable, blah, blah...but it just seems very odd to me.
2. everybody feels at least a little shitty when they get made fun of or find out somebody doesn't like them. i don't understand this reasoning. even if its a major focus for you...idk. i'm sure it would hurt to get hit with a blunt object as well, but that wouldn't be a point for Se polr.
3. i dont relate to the proper and moralizing descriptions of EII either, you'll drive yourself nuts looking for a description that actually fits you without exception.
4. i wouldn't describe you as wacky at all.
By produce I mean output(hurdurr). Granted I haven't seen everything in the universe, but it seems ILEs are quick on their systems. They set up situations for the potential, and may not look back so often on their "systems" if the potential has been milked.
LIIs work with a system, for the system itself and produce new insights but these are side-effects of the strength of the system.Do you take in new systems(analyses) and produce new dimensions?
ILIs are quick on their applications as the goal is new fields, or a greater awareness of their objects. Accuracy or consistency is subject to production.Do you take in new fields and produce dynamic conclusions(applications)?
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
I do this, for example, more often with Socionics as a kind of hobby, finding interesting potential angles and making them just as soon abandoning a system for it, and I've invented various systems for other things that are pretty simple and haven't required a lot of thought, always keeping in mind the potential of it first. That seems to be what I feed off of when I get mentally excited, its not the idea of really going deep, but like pure experimentation. I take it seriously nevertheless it usually not yielding a practical result. You will often see me experimenting with some new thoughts / angles I try to treat as though they're true, on the forum, and then abandon that perspective in light of something newer.
Oh thanks. I like it too. And I like the text above yours, I just noticed it.
This sounds like a good short description, and something I certainly don't identify with because I don't hold on to systems or really work with systems in any depth. I'm consistently inconsistent
poli-
you say jungian and socionics descriptions are different because of how well you "relate" to one and not the other. which imo is perfectly legitimate but its not exactly a clear logical deduction...more like an ethically-based kind of reasoning. i'm not trying to diss on your logic skills or anything, lol. i do the same thing...draw conclusions based on the feelings of relation i have with things. i'm not sure if a Ti ego would do the same, but even if they did i think they would probably describe it differently out loud or externally justify it in some way. i don't know if this means anything conclusive, but its just something i noticed.
and idk, i don't think i supervise you lol.
Once you understand, you have a hard time understanding how you could have not understood, or is that just me?
Do you take in new dimensions produce static conclusions(systems)?
Do you take in new systems(analyses) and produce new dimensions?
Do you take in new fields and produce dynamic conclusions(applications)?
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
This sounds exactly like what I do often, in a very inconsistent way.
I think I'm starting to understand what LII does now, the mirror process. I guess I never looked at it totally that way before, because I've been so into thinking and learning about other stuff, but this actually makes a lot of sense now, hah. I mean I certainly don't relate to it, I'm like the mirror of it. Veerrrry innnteresting, thanks for sparking this insight. For some reason it reminds me of MBTI Ti as the "dominant" way of seeing everything, for some reason I didn't catch on entirely(Ti enfuses its system with the world/perception) It's very obvious using this concept why Ne dominant would fit me perfectly.
And this seems definitely true, as living proof it seems easily verifiable. Extroversion in the context of Socionics doesn't necessarily mean social ability or attentiveness to the world around you even though it is recommended as a proper correlation. Even if Ne in a number of people is often focused on what's going on around oneself, it doesn't have to be (which is what Socionics is trying to say.) It makes sense that Ne+Ti or Ti+Ne could both be stereotypically introverted, I see no contradiction, because extrovert dominant here is merely a focus on the internal static object, of anything, physical or mental.personalitycafe ENTp
Even though they are extroverts, ENTps may demonstrate a subtle tendency towards reservation. Those who have had problems establishing friendships may manifest a quiet nature and a lack of general outgoingness, one day appearing social and friendly only to be indifferent or avoidant the next. Over a period of time specific social patterns may develop, appearing unfriendly and reserved to some and friendly and open to others.
Attentiveness to the object, I guess. I'm not going to say that I don't often focus on external objects around myself, like I need something tangible to look at, but I certainly will say that I don't need to seek out new places and faces every day and am not focused much on activity involving physical reality.
Last edited by 717495; 01-14-2011 at 04:42 PM.
There are many perspectives on type and functions.
Ti-Ne ego also implies that you "creatively" use conceptual aspects to avoid physical aspects. For instance, building a mech to protect you from actual fighting.
Ne-Ti ego implies that you "creatively" use observable associations to avoid implied associations. For example, acknowledging explicit connections to people/objects to protect you from having to measure how you truly feel about something or how close something really is to you.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
So what happened, you couldn't find a cooler one for ILE?
Yea I noticed the inconsistency, I tend to do that. :/
How about "for example, justifying the use of the Atomic bomb through objectivity, and ignoring the moral implications".
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
This has very little to do with type, by the way.
If the universe were a giant pair of underpants, the milky way galaxy would be...
if i'm supposed to be supervising poli then i am doing something very wrong.
if you're going to arrogantly imply that you're one of only a couple people here with brains, then at least back it up by actually saying something more than "he's creative and brainstorms but not like an ILI." lol wtf.
i don't understand why not. don't temperaments show in energy levels? (this sounds snippy after what i've written already, but i'm really trying to understand your thoughts lol.)
a dingleberry?
And the stars would be a pubic lice.
polikujm: Next time I see you on tinychat, I'm going to talk to you.
Last edited by Timeless; 01-14-2011 at 08:22 AM.
Kind of. Maybe I was a little dismissive, but energy level is something (in fact probably the most noticeable thing) that varies *a lot* within every type. Hence you can't really use it to type people confidently. I know super-energetic ESIs and super-low-key ILEs, for example. Generally initiative-taking is much more indicative than energy level per se.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote