If I'm Alpha NT, am I most likely to be

[717495]

Neither, because your reasonings for both of them don't sync up to the types in question.

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.

[Galen]

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.

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.

[717495]

Everytime I see you on tinychat your energy is just so consistently low and stagnated.

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:

Calling you "wacky" or "inconsistent" are opposites of what I'd use to describe you.

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.

[ashlesha]

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.

[ashlesha]

also i like your avatar

[EyeSeeCold]

Do you take in new dimensions produce static conclusions(systems)?

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.

Do you take in new systems(analyses) and produce new dimensions?

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 fields and produce dynamic conclusions(applications)?

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.

[717495]

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.

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.

also i like your avatar

Oh thanks. I like it too. And I like the text above yours, I just noticed it.

LIIs work with a system, for the system itself and produce new insights but these are side-effects of the strength of the system.

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

[EyeSeeCold]

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.

You may be ILE, but you shouldn't assume to quickly.

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

I think tcaudilllg is a strong example of LII. With his advanced form of Socionics, there is all kinds of potential yet he's pretty deliberate about following new perspectives.

[ashlesha]

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.

[717495]

you say jungian and socionics descriptions are different because of how well you "relate" to one and not the other.

This is indeed a type thread is it not, and the purpose of asking? I don't think I've described "relating" to things very often in normal Socionics discussions, usually only Socionics discussion about how I could not be this type anymore, or wondering what my type is. Also, me not being able to "relate" to a type, an indication of weak Fi. I got your back.

Don't worry, I know you're talking about Jungian Fi. I completely understand

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.

Yeah, not sure. I think I've been back and forth on this too, so I couldn't say with certainty, because I'm not always personal about it, nor am I always logical about it. Obviously you must agree that there is some obvious level of human activity going on to be able to relate to something personally, and having uncertainties about it or not. Though uncertainty has often been classified as something more related, seeing different perspectives and not knowing which, or a change of perspective. That's how I relate to it in a quite recurrent way, and it might be that you actually don't relate to uncertainty in that regard as much as I do, but in an actual soul-searching ethical way. I've always changed my type based on looking at various systems, and not often by how I am or different, which could be why I might be irrational: logic producing and not ethics producing.

poli - i'm glad you like my user title since i got it from something you said in the chatbox. i should probably credit you there. shit, where did MY Fi go? haha

No need, the cream corn dangle stick has been passed down.

[EyeSeeCold]

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)?

[717495]

Do you take in new dimensions produce static conclusions(systems)?

This sounds exactly like what I do often, in a very inconsistent way.

[717495]

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 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.

While it is true that extroverted types tend to be outgoing and social and introverted types tend to be withdrawn and antisocial, it is not necessarily true. It goes both ways. Personally, I identify more strongly with INTp when going by the dichotomies but the functions just weren't right.

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.

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.

I still haven't really found an entirely satisfactory description of the E vs. I dichotomy, save for that it alters the function orientation.

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.

[EyeSeeCold]

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.

[717495]

So what happened, you couldn't find a cooler one for ILE?

[EyeSeeCold]

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".

[717495]

Ah, that's perfect. Now I don't care which is cooler.

Yeah, I do relate to Fi-PoLR pretty well in these senses (and have been given comments) being pretty impatient/ignorant about Fi, but also not in favor of Se. I would think up something to get out of work, like "working to fight someone." I'm not really too thrilled about work and so I figure out ways to make it easier or get out of it. I guess the big difference though is, LII takes a rational approach to it and tries to get Se completely out of the question, where as I'm just not very attentive or "thrilled" about Se-related things. With Fi its more obvious I'm not really tuned into it, completely escaping it, but then when Fe comes into the same picture, my ethical mind finally reacts.

[EyeSeeCold]

Yea, ILEs relate to in more idealized terms(tremendous force/impact), and LIIs relate to in idealized terms(secret/perfect society) just as well.

[Exodus]

The problem though is that you're sooooo IJ. Everytime I see you on tinychat your energy is just so consistently low and stagnated.

This has very little to do with type, by the way.

[MatthewZ]

If the universe were a giant pair of underpants, the milky way galaxy would be...

[ashlesha]

if i'm supposed to be supervising poli then i am doing something very wrong.

Finally a 16typesmember with brains...

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.

This has very little to do with type, by the way.

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.)

If the universe were a giant pair of underpants, the milky way galaxy would be...

a dingleberry?

[Timeless]

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.

[Creepy-male]

And the stars would be a pubic lice.

polikujm: Next time I see you on tinychat, I'm going to talk you.

Lol poli, better watch out eh!

[Exodus]

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.)

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.

[EyeSeeCold]

Typology must have tons of bias to it. When you know a person is a certain type you can identify all the characteristic mannerisms, but when when freshly typing a person, proposed types extend across quadras. It's mostly because of text-based communication.

Alpha NT = Social Intellectual
Gamma NT = Personal Intellectual
?

[KeroZen]

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.

I'm sorry but this remark bothers me a bit... Poli was talking about temperaments and I fail to see how it's not more than "kind of" related to energy levels. If you look at the history of the 4 temperaments, you'll see there was always a notion of global energy-level/tension and attitude/posture.

At some time they thought it was related to the 4 kind of "biles" but the names they chose were very representative: choleric (energetic/angry) phlegmatic (lazy/calm) and so on... and in this sense, I pretty much liked Timeless's thread with temperament postures pix, as there is definitively something to it.

Also, and this is an open question, how can we explain/define E vs I if we can't use: shy / social / outgoing / talkative / aloof / reserved / low energy / high energy?

It seems the only consensus we got is: "E" is focused on Object, "I" on subjective experience of Object (yes this could be rephrased more properly but it's only to make a point) and while I do agree with that, it's nonetheless very "meager" and most balanced persons will say it's very hard for them to tell if they are one more than the other (for instance I feel quite introverted but there are times where I'm completely outwards oriented/absorbed, to the point of being completely self less)

Sometimes I find it almost easier to think that E vs I determines the polarity of the dominant function only, and then think exclusively in functional terms from that point, but again this makes it a very poor dichotomy for typing purposes...