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

[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.

[717495]

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

I've been debating these types for a long time, and have read descriptions and recurring ideas about Socionics a lot, I feel as though me as LII personality wise just doesn't make enough sense yet. There are no good LII descriptions for me, they seem to be describing rather LIIs I know on here, and I've talked with people in my past who think I'm ILE and gave me rather fitting information about the type. I'm just not into stereotypes. I'm definitely not assuming too quickly, I think that's the least of my problems. I'm still here to listen and try to change my type to something better.

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.

Yes, and just a side comment is he reminds me kind of of Bolt, or rather Bolt reminds me of him, because they both have some advanced knowledge of their own system and have been developing it and searching all the various perspectives, like a Ti with creative Ne feel. But I don't want to say he's not ILE either, it might be that Bolt is just very more so established in what he's learned by now and has a lot of confidence in his information, whether it be valid or not, and is into a lot of theoretical experimentation compared to the more established LII types. If not oh well, but it wouldn't be surprising that he's Ti dominant or Ne dominant.

poli, just some minor thoughts here, in case you're interested. they're only based on posts of you i've read here and there, so i don't know if they're any reflection of you irl.

imo perceiving leading function (irrational type) seems more fitting for you.

you don't strike me as someone whose primary way of interacting with the world is Ne, fwiw. your point of departure quite often seems to be the "self" or subject. this would make me think introvert. combine with point above i'd say Ip type.

i'd also be hard-pressed to see how you're Fi-PoLR, haven't noticed anything to support that.

if you're Te-creative, perhaps you're not focused on Te. you *could* be heavily Ni. not sure i could describe you as someone whose leading function is Si, never seen anything to support that either.

as for dichotomies, don't know which ones aren't making sense for you. at any rate, alpha democracy, for instance, is quite different from gamma democracy. they're almost "opposites", for lack of a better word.

my 2 cents

Thank you, can you elaborate on the two styles of democracy for me? For the most part it does seem like it comes down to ILI or ILE, because those are the only descriptions and points being made I can relate to, however, traditional explanations of Alpha IMs seem to fit me a lot better, and as lots of people say Ne, and I have trouble relating to other Gammas or Gamma quadra descriptions, and seem to get along fine with Alphas and Alpha values. Like I said just earlier though, there are different interpretations for all of these, and that's why I am confused.

[Crispy]

If both the reinen dichotomies and the general ENTp description fit well, that's usually good enough. That is unless you feel strictly introverted.

[Aiss]

If you're so unique you can't relate to anyone enough to consider them for an identical, perhaps you could consider people that annoy you and see if there are patterns of how they do that.

[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.