Philosophy of Types (Gulenko)

[Cat King Cole]

Gilly, if Gulenko were actually saying that Sensors are driven by sensory information, I'd agree with you. But no, we have fantastic descriptions like "SEIs are about fun" and "ESEs are driven by their feelings", right next to "LIIs build systems to describe the universe".

This article appears to undermine the intelligence of Sensory types, which is stupid.

That said, the introduction actually makes it sound like he's come up with "Philosophy types", as "any type can follow any philosophy"; or maybe it's just a backdoor for the ever-looming outliers like me. At the end of the day, I'd say the LII philosophy fits me best.

[Crispy]

Gilly, if Gulenko were actually saying that Sensors are driven by sensory information, I'd agree with you. But no, we have fantastic descriptions like "SEIs are about fun" and "ESEs are driven by their feelings", right next to "LIIs build systems to describe the universe".

Are there any socionic descriptions that don't describe things in this same way?

FWIW I don't see how it necessarily undermines any types intelligence.

[Cat King Cole]

Just look at the descriptions though. LIIs and ILEs are described as brilliant systemizers of everything forever.

SEIs are described as being driven by "fun". LIEs I can only hope are victims of bad machine translation.

It reeks of bias.

[munenori2]

What are you talking about? LIEs have the coolest one! They're practically Captain Planet.

[Azeroffs]

- The Entrepreneur (LIE): the creator of everything is living nature. This sociotype animates nature, itself becoming a dualist i.e. recognizing in equal measures the material and the idealistic beginnings that unite in the natural realm.

SEIs are described as being driven by "fun". LIEs I can only hope are victims of bad machine translation.

What are you talking about? LIEs have the coolest one! They're practically Captain Planet.

Actually, what I got from the LIE description is that they view things in terms of the world just being what it is. It is what it is and it'll go the way it goes. Nature in the sense of the natural world just functions the way it will. 'Animating nature' is just another way of saying they make the most of what naturally occurs, and so they just make the best of a situation.

I actually think it's a really good depiction of typical LIE mentality assuming I interpreted it correctly.

[Gilly]

Actually, what I got from the LIE description is that they view things in terms of the world just being what it is. It is what it is and it'll go the way it goes. Nature in the sense of the natural world just functions the way it will. 'Animating nature' is just another way of saying they make the most of what naturally occurs, and so they just make the best of a situation.

I actually think it's a really good depiction of typical LIE mentality assuming I interpreted it correctly.

Cogs in the machine...literally. There are some cool LIEs but I have to say, the mentality is creepy and vile.

[717495]

In a lot of descriptions LIEs are painted as having a romantic and imaginative side too that becomes vitalized with action and innovation, similar to EIEs just more practical and logical-process-oriented (much less so ILEish principle-seeking), which is why they can be wild risk takers, far-fetched planners, and not as 'down to earth' as ESTxs. But more than not they easily manifest an out-of-the-box style of thinking when trying for the most effective solutions, that should be more workable to them in the moment than to others or that a general knowledge is, like inventing a technique on the spot that others may not have thought of and eventually copy. So they are in this sense connecting process knowledge to a larger picture that is not always so traceable in reality, but just as much in their ideals and fantasy (and so even though it doesn't always work out for them, they remain thinking in the same ideal direction.) However I can't exactly interpret Gulenko's meaning here; it's not contradictory and could match up well in essence, but also a bit vague.

[silke]

I've posted up the revised version. That explains why Russians keep typing Jung as LII.

Yeah.... the ILI philosophy doesn't work for me either. Surprisingly, I actually hold a very similar view as Uncle Rob. Laws are outside of perception and are not relative. Man's interaction with these laws form order and disorder and also correlate with morality. The disorder is only a product from man's imperfection and if man were perfect he would interact in accord with these objective laws.

I don't think Gulenko means your overall philosophy, but more like your internal predisposition that influences your motivations, which the person is also likely to project on other people and the world at large. What he describes for ILI type, this "agnosticism of the intellect" and "knowledge is possible only when one attains complete inner clarity" is actually similar to what an ILI friend of mine has tried to describe about his mindset. It is also similar to what korpsey has described in this post - epoché, the suspension of judgement that serves as the basis for skeptical thought.

Gilly, if Gulenko were actually saying that Sensors are driven by sensory information, I'd agree with you. But no, we have fantastic descriptions like "SEIs are about fun" and "ESEs are driven by their feelings", right next to "LIIs build systems to describe the universe".

This article appears to undermine the intelligence of Sensory types, which is stupid.

He is talking about the internal perceptions of different types, not their abilities, talents, skills, IQ, or EQ for that matter. Using your example he is not saying that "LIIs build systems that describe the universe" but that "LIIs see the universe as if it's built on systems". That's quite a different matter.

I did cringe a little at the word "materialism" as some people will associate it with some negative connotation or another ("greed" comes to mind) but I suppose he had no better word to use.

[Sumer1an]

I've posted up the revised version. That explains why Russians keep typing Jung as LII.

Yeah.... the ILI philosophy doesn't work for me either. Surprisingly, I actually hold a very similar view as Uncle Rob. Laws are outside of perception and are not relative. Man's interaction with these laws form order and disorder and also correlate with morality. The disorder is only a product from man's imperfection and if man were perfect he would interact in accord with these objective laws.

I don't think Gulenko means your overall philosophy, but more like your internal predisposition that influences your motivations, which the person is also likely to project on other people and the world at large. What he describes for ILI type, this "agnosticism of the intellect" and "knowledge is possible only when one attains complete inner clarity" is actually similar to what an ILI friend of mine has tried to describe about his mindset. It is also similar to what korpsey has described in this post - epoché, the suspension of judgement that serves as the basis for skeptical thought.

alright, alright. This post actually really helped me. Nevermind what I said earlier. I came to those conclusions that I mentioned in that former post using the very philosophy (though Im not sure I would really call it a philosophy) that I was trying to refute. weird. I guess I just misunderstood the application of these types. You are right, it has more to do with your internal predisposition that allows you to form your philosophy rather than the philosophy itself.

[Korpsy Knievel]

I've posted up the revised version. That explains why Russians keep typing Jung as LII.

I don't think Gulenko means your overall philosophy, but more like your internal predisposition that influences your motivations, which the person is also likely to project on other people and the world at large. What he describes for ILI type, this "agnosticism of the intellect" and "knowledge is possible only when one attains complete inner clarity" is actually similar to what an ILI friend of mine has tried to describe about his mindset. It is also similar to what korpsey has described in this post - epoché, the suspension of judgement that serves as the basis for skeptical thought.

alright, alright. This post actually really helped me. Nevermind what I said earlier. I came to those conclusions that I mentioned in that former post using the very philosophy (though Im not sure I would really call it a philosophy) that I was trying to refute. weird. I guess I just misunderstood the application of these types. You are right, it has more to do with your internal predisposition that allows you to form your philosophy rather than the philosophy itself.

In my frequent scuffles with alpha NTs it's common for them to confound the apparent products of my thought with the hidden processes behind them, and not just when I'm playing peekaboo at their expense. To avoid inviting too many tears and recriminations right now we'll just wave away the cause of this confusion as routine - collisions, but on reading Gulenko's description of an ILI agnosticism that denies the existence of objective reality, his conclusion initially struck me as stemming from the same error.

Now, as you stated previously:

Laws are outside of perception and are not relative. Man's interaction with these laws form order and disorder and also correlate with morality. The disorder is only a product from man's imperfection and if man were perfect he would interact in accord with these objective laws.

The general terms of your metaphysic align with mine, including the implication that epistemic limitations are necessarily imposed on imperfect agents' ability to apprehend the true nature of being. This handicap leaves the possibility lingering that one's perceptions and worldview could, in part or whole, be wrong. Suspension of judgment in the course of critical investigations provides a safeguard against dogmatism and the acceptance of faulty premises or conclusions. From wikipedia:

In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about:
(a) an inquiry,
(b) a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
(c) the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
(d) the limitations of knowledge,
(e) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment.

Now in my observations, the external ambivalence attending a "yes, but" mentality that seeks to resolve incongruities and paradoxes often strikes other persons as relativistic when they unconsciously or intentionally fail to appreciate that this habitual doubtfulness is a processual orientation, not an end in itself. (And of course there's also the plain fact that motherfuckers just dislike it when you stroll in and pop their bouncy balloons.) So what Gulenko seemingly labels as a mindset that denies objective reality is actually one that says "Objective laws exists but because of the necessary conditions they create, mankind can only know of them in an imperfect and personal manner." And so as siuntal has surmised from the revised document (which I'll now read more closely; thx for brushing it up), Gulenko has quite possibly identified the operational form of a generalized ILI's analytical mechanism, though not necessarily the conclusions that it produces. In other words, though my initial impression was true in the general sense (i.e. quasi-identical perceptions), in the particular (this article) I might have been slightly wrong, ho ho.

[Gilly]

He is talking about the internal perceptions of different types, not their abilities, talents, skills, IQ, or EQ for that matter. Using your example he is not saying that "LIIs build systems that describe the universe" but that "LIIs see the universe as if it's built on systems". That's quite a different matter.

Thank you.