am being contradicted

[ambivalent existence]

and this is no BS... I don't like switching types for the fun of it or whatever. I try to focus on deeper things than the surface behaviours in descriptions but I run into issues with that too. so, I thought it would be interesting or constructive to write about contradictions that make me confused about my possible typing.

if I'm assumed to be ILE - the idea of Si-seeking, Si valuing and Si helplessness is definitely false. and I'm not sure I'm Ne-valuing at all. (EP temperament and Ti-creative OK though.)

if I'm assumed to be LSI - IJ temperament and Ti absoluteness as leading function is probably not right. (Fe DS may be OK though, cannot reject this idea atm. so in that case it would be IJ..)

if I'm assumed to be SLE - Se absoluteness as leading function seems to be incorrect too. (EP temperament&Ti-creative is OK though, and Ni DS may be OK, haven't found anything against that.)

if I'm assumed to be LIE - I'm Ti/Fe-valuer... or not?

if I'm assumed to be some other type - what, which one? I'm even less like those other types.

interesting riddle to me, which route of the five listed above should I take now to get closer to the solution?

[ambivalent existence]

btw here's in a nutshell how I determined what functions I value

Ti > Te --- I need logical and spatial structure, efficiency comes second, and only comes up situationally when I'm doing tasks... though I do like to be productive, I like working towards goals, but the goals are not necessarily Te based, because the main focus for me is just achievement, not productivity.

Fe > Fi --- I'm more interested in emotional states than in those vague relationship thingies.

Ne ? Ni --- I'm not sure. I do like to know what direction I'm heading, so perhaps Ni valuing. (also because of Se valuing)

Se > Si --- I absolutely cannot focus on body sensations for long, because it will "drain" me. even focusing on eating good food is impossible for me. I have to get at least mentally active.

[Leader]

Se > Si --- I absolutely cannot focus on body sensations for long, because it will "drain" me. even focusing on eating good food is impossible for me. I have to get at least mentally active.

Nonsense.

[ambivalent existence]

Nonsense.

what's nonsense about it? I'm really this way.

the first time my ILE-ness was questioned by someone was when I mentioned I'm not interested in hedonism. (well it was also questioned because of how I prefer to be focused instead of being overly scattered..)

[Leader]

what's nonsense about it? I'm really this way.

the first time my ILE-ness was questioned by someone was when I mentioned I'm not interested in hedonism. (well it was also questioned because of how I prefer to be focused instead of being overly scattered..)

You don't understand Se. If anything, Se is hedonism. Its the most stimulation seeking function. Both functions, Si and Se have to hedonism, the difference is that Si has to do more with relaxation and reveling in ones own comfort. Se has to do with intensity and actually being in the moment of the experience itself.

[stray]

You don't understand Se. If anything, Se is hedonism. Its the most stimulation seeking function. Both functions, Si and Se have to hedonism, the difference is that Si has to do more with relaxation and reveling in ones own comfort. Se has to do with intensity and actually being in the moment of the experience itself.

That sounds like mbti Se, but I haven't ran across that definition in socionics (model A at least). A lot of socionics Se seems to be a mix of MBTI Te and Se, with a focus on power, heirarchies, and acquisition. And Si can be intense. What's comfortable to Si types is subjective.

Wikisocion:

"Unlike Si which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), Se is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in."

[ambivalent existence]

You don't understand Se. If anything, Se is hedonism. Its the most stimulation seeking function. Both functions, Si and Se have to hedonism, the difference is that Si has to do more with relaxation and reveling in ones own comfort. Se has to do with intensity and actually being in the moment of the experience itself.

okay, by hedonism I meant the reveling in comfort stuff. I very much like being in the moment, but didn't know that was also considered hedonism. =)

[The Ineffable]

Se > Si --- I absolutely cannot focus on body sensations for long, because it will "drain" me. even focusing on eating good food is impossible for me. I have to get at least mentally active.

This is wrong, you may use that to help distinguishing the Ego, or eventually the Strong function, just not the Value. Your attitude means Ni or Ne Ego, rather than Se Valuing. In fact Si-Dual Seeking (Ne-Base) is precisely so. Depending on what's your reception of Si information, your description denotes either Ne-Base (ILE, IEE) or Ni-Creative (LIE, EIE), IMO. These types have this attitude of not minding such "trivialities", however, Subdued Si translates in taking it condescendingly (from someone else), while Valued Si in welcoming that someone thinks about it. It is up to you to tell which is the case, just make sure you don't take this too literally and think about cases in your real life.

Besides, Si is not only about food and body sensations, that is an very small part of it - and one of the greatest misinterpretations among Socionics enthusiasts. Si is rather the precise perception of limits, requirements, consequences and necessities (in everything!), what we can do and what we can't. What we need in order to do something, and if we have it satisfied. What necessarily (not possibly!) happens if we do this or that. I strongly believe that I won't ever be able to find one Si Ego to believe in such things like mind over body, meditation to have a greater strength, or resist cold or hunger for large periods of time. And this is not strictly about the human body, but about how things work.
---

Ni-Creatives (Si-PoLRs) are people who think big, who refuse being told about their limits, they think there's always a way to accomplish what they aim for, sometimes against all practical odds, they have a very blurry perception of consequences, all they need is too have as many open roads, acquaintances and means as possible. This is something I find foolish, I dislike calls for "think big", "if you want something, you can", or romantic shit like this, it just makes you dive into the unknown. Although I prefer to think constructively, which to me is anything besides necessities and limits, I always appreciate someone who is good at it, even when my zeal is cut, because they can make me avoid dead ends.

I remember a Ni-Creative (not sure which) guy who was trying to convince us in a club to go on trips with him around Europe taking no money in our pocket. I immediately thought about "what if this and what if that?", all about necessities and urgencies. Although this sounds too Si for my liking, I found that proposition crazy, and although the guy insisted that he successfully completed such trips before, I found that impossible to accomplish, perhaps he was very lucky [1]. A saying that IMO Ni-Creatives (if not all Decisive types) don't truly understand: "The pitcher goes so often to the well that it is broken at last"; the more they do something unlikely to succeed in, the more confident they are that they will be able to do it again, while Si-Base (maybe Valuers, Judicious) on the contrary, the more you do that, the more probably is that you will finally fail. The opposition between an IE and its contradictory is just a matter of perspective, isn't it?

Here's two examples of two LIE self-typed or mistyped by other pitiful fellows as ILE:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...833#post614833
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...078#post768078
(BTW, I'm notoriously finding myself most of the time in opposition to the consensus of this forum, although I have a fairly good consistency in my explanations; so when you question my typing, do that based on my arguments, to me "everyone besides you types this person as XXXx" is just nonsense)
---

Once again I call for not taking anything literally, but understand the principles behind this. If you think "risk = not Si", then it is wrong. In fact, many SLIs are very "brave" (they don't see themelves like that, though), they can do stunts or go into danger. That is because on the contrary to the daredevil style, they don't dive into the unknown, they are "certain" of the outcome based on their experience and reason. Their base function, Si, is as rigid as Ti (Fields External, too): in cognition, seeing no way to fail is the same as seeing no way to succeed [2]. Now add to that that their Creative function is Te - only fact is true, has to have happened to be true -, Fe-PoLR, they won't overemphasize or exaggerate anything, having a pretty clear and practical view of the situation. When the SLI don't know everything that is required to perform an action, you can't convince them to step forward, but when they do know, you can't convince them to step back. Pretty stubborn folks.
---

[1] - one thing is to find unexpected solutions on the scene, another is to expect them in advance. I associate the former with Ne (Bodies), the later with Ni (Fields).
[2] - though that "seeing no way to fail" is more typical to Si Ego Rationals, LSE and ESE (Si-Creative/Ni-PoLR). But both have a rigid opinion on how things work.

[ambivalent existence]

This is wrong, you may use that to help distinguishing the Ego, or eventually the Strong function, just not the Value. Your attitude means Ni or Ne Ego, rather than Se Valuing. In fact Si-Dual Seeking (Ne-Base) is precisely so. Depending on what's your reception of Si information, your description denotes either Ne-Base (ILE, IEE) or Ni-Creative (LIE, EIE), IMO. These types have this attitude of not minding such "trivialities", however, Subdued Si translates in taking it condescendingly (from someone else), while Valued Si in welcoming that someone thinks about it. It is up to you to tell which is the case, just make sure you don't take this too literally and think about cases in your real life.

Besides, Si is not only about food and body sensations, that is an very small part of it - and one of the greatest misinterpretations among Socionics enthusiasts. Si is rather the precise perception of limits, requirements, consequences and necessities (in everything!), what we can do and what we can't. What we need in order to do something, and if we have it satisfied. What necessarily (not possibly!) happens if we do this or that. I strongly believe that I won't ever be able to find one Si Ego to believe in such things like mind over body, meditation to have a greater strength, or resist cold or hunger for large periods of time. And this is not strictly about the human body, but about how things work.

hey, thanks for this detailed explanation.

yet another new definition again... surely there should be a way to get everyone to agree on using the same definition. this is rather difficult without that -.- it's not that I can't manage several definitions of the same symbol, but it's always so easy to get into misunderstandings if not using the same definitions.

I do take Si from someone else in a condescending way, I simply don't welcome people reminding me of Si matters, I can decide myself what I want to do about that stuff, though my solution isn't necessarily a "proper" Si way of doing it. at times it's more like improvising. so, I think my evaluation was correct in terms of Si being subdued.

also, I read somewhere that the DS function is about stuff that the person can be suggestible to. I don't find myself being suggestible to Si from other people (see above about not really welcoming Si). considering that perspective of DS function, I do have a better way to pick out my DS function... suffice to say, it's not Si.

that topic about meditation is something I find very interesting myself. my opinion is, the mind does have a certain kind of control over the body. I willingly use such control when I want to/need to. of course we exist in a physical world, so we are subordinated to physical laws - though we do not know all those laws yet, and so I don't know about those cases where seemingly the mind controlled the body to an unusually far degree. (seems like interesting stuff though.)

the stuff you wrote about Ni creative, isn't that a bit like Ne base/creative as well? at least that part about wanting to have many open roads... I don't really want too many open roads at a time because I prefer to select one... but I don't mind thinking big, my life is just not "worth" as much if I don't do that at times. oh and yes I have done things before that did not seem likely to other people, I didn't know myself if it was going to work out, but usually it did work out. I'm a bit confused here though, don't Ne egos also like to "think big"?

but yeah, before you say I'm irrationally optimistic, no, I wouldn't have done this europe trip without taking money (some cash and bank cards) with me. I would happily do such a trip, but not without the money. I would not really plan ahead about all the little necessities though, intelligence and money solves many things (well there are other factors too, this was just two factors I mentioned now). or they can be just ignored when not important enough... btw, I do expect solutions in the future, unless immediately required/wanting it in the moment...then I will try to sort it there and then.

as for taking risks. I always think there is a chance for failure, I take risks based on how much chance I think there is for that, and also based on how important the thing is to me. (and perhaps also depending on whether I need some stimulation at the moment or not lol.) overall I don't have a rigid opinion about things like that. sometimes I jump into really big things without knowing what's going to happen and I enjoy that. but I only do that with stuff that motivates me enough.

let me ask you, maybe I misunderstood - do I come off as a LIE to you now, instead of ILE?

any chance you could write a nice detailed description about Ni too? I mean, I'm a bit confused about that too now. I thought Ni had a sense for consequences as it's focused on the future but you said that's only Si and Ni has no idea about it...? what is Ni then?

[HandiAce]

I think when AE receives lots of loving hugs and admiration, the answer for her specific type will stare her straight into her face.

[ambivalent existence]

I think when AE receives lots of loving hugs and admiration, the answer for her specific type will stare her straight into her face.

LOL so this was why you asked on the chat if I need a hug...

[The Ineffable]

yet another new definition again... surely there should be a way to get everyone to agree on using the same definition. this is rather difficult without that -.- it's not that I can't manage several definitions of the same symbol, but it's always so easy to get into misunderstandings if not using the same definitions.

What do you mean by "new"? I think it's a development on the Socionics description of IEs and types, to me I went on the same line with the classical description of Ni-Creative, just I used observations and conclusions from my real life experience, too. Or otherwise what do you mean, a confusion between Strong/Weak and Valued/Subdued? I'm just telling you with certainty that your first description, assuming you described Si correctly (which you partially did), implies N > Si, not Se Valuing. Ne Ego has those issues (officially), too, while a Ni-Base is likely to take concern of those matters (my experience), perhaps because of Introversion and Si-Role.

I do take Si from someone else in a condescending way, I simply don't welcome people reminding me of Si matters, I can decide myself what I want to do about that stuff, though my solution isn't necessarily a "proper" Si way of doing it. at times it's more like improvising. so, I think my evaluation was correct in terms of Si being subdued.

Possibly, yes, just not Se.

the stuff you wrote about Ni creative, isn't that a bit like Ne base/creative as well? at least that part about wanting to have many open roads... I don't really want too many open roads at a time because I prefer to select one... but I don't mind thinking big, my life is just not "worth" as much if I don't do that at times. oh and yes I have done things before that did not seem likely to other people, I didn't know myself if it was going to work out, but usually it did work out. I'm a bit confused here though, don't Ne egos also like to "think big"?

Hmm maybe Ne-Base. Just my understanding in "think big" is not as things with personal importance, or things that can make an impact - where I agree with you - but rather bold things, things that are challenging to accomplish. For instance, changing the theory of relativity or inventing perpetual motion is such a big thing a Ne type would go and invest time for, but convincing/forcing all people on the planet to not have contact with animals (PETA), or starting from scratch a company to become number 1 in a certain field [1], or becoming the president are different things, the latter require confidence, risks and a huge leap of faith, while the former requires just having sufficient interest in the subject and finding a reason to believe one will succeed (in this case a theoretical flaw or realization). Of course, Ne Base often have such crazy ideas that nobody would believe in, but it's a totally different thing, especially because it's not about *how* to accomplish them, but *what* to accomplish, the goal itself sound unrealistic and crazy, not the effort to do it.

let me ask you, maybe I misunderstood - do I come off as a LIE to you now, instead of ILE?

I don't know, I still think you are probably ILE, the way you come accross, what questions you put and how you interact with people. I'm not the person to believe what I'm told, but believe what I see.

any chance you could write a nice detailed description about Ni too? I mean, I'm a bit confused about that too now. I thought Ni had a sense for consequences as it's focused on the future but you said that's only Si and Ni has no idea about it...? what is Ni then?

I told you before to look into the different interpretations of causality. Ni has a sense for possibilities, abstract causation in the big picture, not consequences, because consequences are strict. If the consequence of A is B, then how to find that the consequence of A is C, where B is not C? Ni focuses on the distant future, not immediate implications, therefore Ni Egos are very good with forseseeing unexpected results. Ni is an abstractization of Si, it does not mean understanding all this complex timeline in detail - that would either be too much or too obvious for anyone - but noticing patterns in the chains of events, which will switch focus to the possible final outcome, from the certain outcome of each detail.

Example:
- something good that something bad ends into is Ni. The good consequence was not a necessary consequence of the bad thing alone, though still a possible one.
- some bad effect that naturally follows a bad cause is Si.

Can you believe that a mad dog bite can make you rich? It can actually happen. Ni is this connection of complex causation that brings that cause and that effect together, although they are totally unrelated (Si). The butterfly effect: can one tell with certainty that the flap of a butterfly will necessarily (External, Si) cause a hurricane? That is absurd, we would have hurricanes around us all day long. But can one deny that the flap of a butterfly can possibly (Internal, Ni) cause a hurricane? No, it can be demonstrated, which includes other factors, so yeah in the big picture it may cause a hurricane.

Ni and Si are mutually exclusive; from modal logic (which includes Internal reasoning, unlike normal logic):
Thus it is possible (Ni) that it will rain today if and only if it is not necessary (not Si) that it will not rain today;
and it is necessary (Si) that it will rain today if and only if it is not possible (not Ni) that it will not rain today.

In law:
- Ni = cause-in-fact. Example: you throw a small ball, suddenly someone steps on it, falls in the street and a car comes at the same time hitting him mortally. Throwing a ball doesn't kill a man, though doing that killed him, along with the other causes.
- Si = proximate cause. Example: you push someone in the street when a car comes. Doing that actually kills a man, the effect is forseeable.
---

[1] - the bug #1 of Ubuntu Linux distribution on the official bug tracker is "Microsoft has a majority market share": https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1

[ambivalent existence]

What do you mean by "new"? (...)

I obviously meant new definition of Si. I've yet to see it anywhere else, so I call it new. I will admit I don't read the russian sites though.

I do take concern of Si matters when needed but by default I don't care. also, Ne base is supposed to be suggestible to Si. I am not suggestible to it, therefore I am not ILE. I don't know what type I am, but ILE is fully excluded based on the definition of suggestive function. just no.

I like challenge, in terms of what you listed I'm not choosy about what kind of challenge, I make a challenge out of everything.

it's cool you believe what you see, but it's rather subjective unless you can apply it in concrete objective terms.

thanks for the Ni explanation. I like the butterfly effect thing

[JWC3]

*chuckles* Your very restless about this.

[ambivalent existence]

*chuckles* Your very restless about this.

naah, it's on and off. I dont think of this all day =)

[JWC3]

naah, it's on and off. I dont think of this all day =)

Well, would you like my honest assessment of you as opposed to us just discussing socionic ideas via PM?

[ambivalent existence]

Well, would you like my honest assessment of you as opposed to us just discussing socionic ideas via PM?

of course I'd like it =)

[JWC3]

of course I'd like it =)

I think that you understand socionics surprisingly well for someone who is only recently picking it up. It's nice to see people not just immediately jump into the dogmatic asshole mentality that seems so pervasive here. That being said I think your intellectual understanding falls apart when you try to apply it to reality. This disconnect between your intellectual understanding and it's practical application is what's confusing you I think. You have a very obvious understanding of what Fe/Fi and Te/Ti are but when you try to pick out behavior that seems indicative of valuing one over the other it seems to me like you have a very narrow focus and it's causing you to make judgments about yourself that seem too hasty. In general I think you are too eager to make all of this make practical sense and this rushing is causing you to get fairly confused about what makes sense and what doesn't.

I would describe this mentality as a bit frantic, but I doubt you feel the same as this rapid intellectual pace is something that you most likely bring to everything your involved in. It just seems quick to me, but is probably normal for you.

With regards to your type, you know what I think and I'm more than happy to keep discussing it via PM but perhaps it will help to consider this;

If Si values jump out at you as so readily contrary to your own nature and are the part of socionics that seems most contrary to yourself why not just consider Si PoLR as extremely viable?

[Roro]

naah, it's on and off. I dont think of this all day =)

Chat archives would suggest otherwise.

[ambivalent existence]

Chat archives would suggest otherwise.

btw, chat archives would show I hardly had time for this today. this is actually why I'm taking it to a forum thread, it takes less time this way. hopefully interesting exercise for the socionics experts, and perhaps other newcomes can learn too.