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

[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.

[717495]

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

Well even though I do feel introverted (yet for some reason not in Reinin dichotomies?), there is always a catch with every type, and its hard for me to say one is more valid than the other. ILE just seems to be the most relateable type with the least amount of catches at this point. People and descriptions have said that ILEs are one of the extrovert types that can go introverted and be rather more pensive and anti-social, and I am not going to take that for granted being that I relate the most to a lot of other points being made about the ILE type. So I do still have a hang up with the idea, but its the best I've got concerning Classical Socionics.

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.

Perhaps, though it seems like there's always someone in every type that may annoy me at different times, and can't identicals annoy each other? I'm definitely taking into consideration intertype relations when I attempt to decide, and I feel in general that "alpha" is where I'd lean right now, and not overlooking "delta."

[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.