The ILE Bias

[1981slater]

Ti - Wasting time making sure everything is correct before proceeding into action.
Te - The initiative, efficiency, and organization needed to get results.
Ni - The insight and perspective to see how things change over time, and what actually matters in life.
Ne - Seeing how random things relate in an impractical, unuseful way.
Si - Being overly sensitive to the things around you, wanting to relax in comfortable environments all the time and being lazy.
Se - Having the drive and willpower to achieve the external objective, overcoming hardships. Observing what's tangible and real.
Fi - A deep understanding of the real distance between people, and how strong relationships actually are.
Fe - All the artificial stuff, the masks people put on, to hide how they truly feel on the inside.



It's all perspective.

Excellent. I am thinking about my own type again. If Creative subtypes tend to have stormy relationships within their own quadra...

[ClownsandEntropy]

As far as Merry v Serious goes, LII's are often described as outwardly serious and I would agree but if I were to choose what I feel inside it would be Merry for sure. In person I look serious but everything I say is in jest.

Agreed.

[consentingadult]

... how easily could you have written a list, if this thread was about ISFj bias?

...

Ne - Seeing how random things relate in an impractical, unuseful way.

...

Very typical for ESIs indeed, and perhaps the most important reason why these security seekers have nothing new to contribute to the world.

[DividedsGhost]

ILEs do tend to be pretty positive, but you are skewing some of the definitions. Also, just because ILEs are positive doesn't make them superior.

Well, I'm sure just talking about them in any capacity means I'm going to being skewing the definitions a bit, as it seems with anything in socionics. But I wasn't actually suggesting ILEs are superior, that's a matter of how you perceive meaning in reality, but that their Reinin descriptions seem most desirable from a child's standpoint or from a standpoint of what dichotomies are most, perhaps naively, 'fun' to have (with the exception of maybe constructivist/emotivist, but that dichotomy is a strange one given that some emotivists can be dramatic to the point of ridiculousness and some constructivists can be rational to the point of projecting a sense that people should be emotionless androids), even though I do understand that given a person's history, it is a matter of how they assign individual meaning to their past.

I agree that there is definitely some bias in some of the descriptions simply based on the fact that the creators of the system were a part of it, but honestly, I read your list of Reinins and didn't think many of them were especially inherently positive, even in the ways you described them. Some of them actually seemed sort of negative (as per my own biases).

I would actually like it if you could elaborate, so that perhaps we can eliminate what might just be a result of simple misunderstandings rather than arguing different perspectives.

[woofwoofl]

Merry/Serious is an excellent Reinin dichotomy, and along with Judicious/Decisive, they're two of, if not the most important dichotomies ever as far as I'm concerned - their names might not be perfectly fitting (are words ever a perfect means of getting thoughts from one mind to others?), but the dichotomies themselves are rock solid!

[Logos]

The Fundamental Socionics Bias: "People (i.e. these descriptions, etc.) fail to adequately appreciate me and what makes me special."

[Jonathan]

i was talking about the ENTp type specifically. i think your views on alpha-centrism are outdated and inapplicable to this forum in it's current state. alphas these days get a lot of flak for supposedly being the quadra that never produces anything useful aside from entertainment that only appeals to themselves. the reality is more along the lines of the latter being applicable to all quadras and the former being simply unrelated to type.

Well perhaps I misinterpreted the intent of your comment, but I was talking about Socionics writings in general, not about the state of the forum. You're right that I don't follow the forum that much, but I wasn't at all accusing the forum of alpha-centrism.

Of course the topic of the thread is the Reinin dichotomy descriptions, which were not created on this forum. And I agree with the original post that they do show a bias. For example, being an "asker" definitely seems better to me than being "declarative." Then again, I've never seen any theoretical reason given for why the "asking" types would fit the asker description, or why the "declarative" types would fit the declarative description. The dichotomies as mathematical groupings of the types are fine, but where is the evidence that the Reinin descriptions are even valid?

[ashlesha]

The Fundamental Socionics Bias: "People (i.e. these descriptions, etc.) fail to adequately appreciate me and what makes me special."

ahahahahaha oh lord