LII or ILI?

[Tacey Ruth]

Have you spotted any pattern in your closest relationships? I don't rely too much on intertype, but maybe as an extra tool it can help clarify your type to yourself. Also what makes you confused about it ..just the MBTI or maybe you don't identify with ILI socio-descriptions? I'm quite positive of ILI for you, there's hardly anything in what I've read here to make me think of TiNe. If you ask me, ILI-Ni E5 sp/so.

That is hard… I do not think there is any specific pattern in my closest relationships, I don’t even think I’ve ever been in a “close relationship”; however I am most attracted to sympathetic but vigorous individuals or those who seem soft, whereas I generally attract passionate individuals; those who constantly need emotional feedback annoy me to death while my lack of warmth bores them easily.
Talking of socionics descriptions, I relate a lot to both LII and ILI, but could not identify with one because they are essentially very similar, and I thought I could be LII-Ne or ILI-Ni. I also checked differences between Alpha and Gamma quadras but was similarly not sure which fit me best; the only Reinin dichotomies I can identify for sure are objectivist, declarer and constructivist, making ILI the most likely, but I prefer comparing opinions before approving it.

[Tacey Ruth]

Good. I'd be happy to help if you'd like, there just isn't a whole lot to go on in this thread. Could you tell me a bit about yourself?

What would you want to know exactly?

[JWC3]

What would you want to know exactly?

*chuckles* Yeah, everyone hates this question, but how you talk about yourself unguided is generally most informative.

[Tacey Ruth]

to be honest, you don't seem like a logical type to me

Interesting, according to this information about Ethics/Logic dichotomy http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Ethics_and_logic it's most likely I'm a logical type. What makes you think I'm an ethical type? Is there anyone else who think I'm an ethical type and want to explain why?

[woofwoofl]

I am most attracted to sympathetic but vigorous individuals or those who seem soft, whereas I generally attract passionate individuals; those who constantly need emotional feedback annoy me to death while my lack of warmth bores them easily.

*opens door to glorious Gamma quadra* yeaahh

Hell, I tried to write something more explanatory, but I stayed up all night making sub-bass tracks from raw sine waves, so here goes; you just described all of Gamma SF as amazing, a lot of Fe-ville as intolerable, and you may have two duals in this thread alone. Alpha is more nagging, Beta is more prodding, and I'm gonna get some sleep, niight

[MensSuperMateriam]

*opens door to glorious Gamma quadra* yeaahh

Hell, I tried to write something more explanatory, but I stayed up all night making sub-bass tracks from raw sine waves, so here goes; you just described all of Gamma SF as amazing, a lot of Fe-ville as intolerable, and you may have two duals in this thread alone. Alpha is more nagging, Beta is more prodding, and I'm gonna get some sleep, niight

Careful. DS could behave as something you're oblivious about, as if it doesn't exist. She has only said she dislikes emotional feedback requests (being emotional with others), but nothing about emotions directed to her (as Fe-DS would be). She has even asserted to like soft people, a qualifier which fits much better in alpha than gamma people. I have not seen anything that suggests (or disqualifies) Fi-HA until now.

So be cautious, just in case you were thinking in getting laid...

[Amber]

good warning. conflictor sex is said to have insidious long-lasting effects. it's been scientifically proven it's the main cause of erectile dysfunctions and can even affect the prostate later on.

[woofwoofl]

Careful. DS could behave as something you're oblivious about, as if it doesn't exist. She has only said she dislikes emotional feedback requests (being emotional with others), but nothing about emotions directed to her (as Fe-DS would be). She has even asserted to like soft people, a qualifier which fits much better in alpha than gamma people. I have not seen anything that suggests (or disqualifies) Fi-HA until now.

"Soft" would point towards an introverted subtype of SF, "vigorous" over "passionate" would generally put γSF over αSF. Beyond that, "passionate" in this case may also have to do with how far back sp is in the overall enneagram stacking. Blocking an entire quadra together as if it's some sort of fully homogenous being is a bad idea.

I've never seen SEE/LII interactions, in real life, go terribly bad except for one instance, in which both people involved were douchebags, and the overall situation sucked. EIE/SLI marriages are common; turbulent from what I know, but exciting, stable in its instability, rewarding, and no less eternal than most other marriages.

Duality and conflict are relations of mutual correction, and theoretically, the latter is more inclined to have wildly divergent notions of "correct". Dissonance on rational/irrational and sameness on static/dynamic and asking/declaring all add to the gridlock, or so the story goes, but the most objective and in-depth report (one that doesn't read as if the author started with an idea and mutilated the facts to fit their own suppositions) on the so-called "conflict" relation says it all works out alright:

Partners usually find each other quite interesting. Among socionists the most wide-spread name for this type of relations is "conflict". This is justified only on low level of interaction when both partners are poorly developed and un-dualized. In this case, partners not realizing it will hit each other's weakest spots. This is a very difficult situation if both of them have to live together, sharing a room for example. Situation improves if even one partner is dualized. In this case partners can affect each other positively and even derive benefit from these relations. This aspect of interaction is satisfactory only if there is tolerance between partners. In socionics, there is a tradition to consider this interaction as the most harsh and uncomfortable for the individual. My own research has shown, however, that it is almost always not the case. Over many years of studying socionics, I have not found any cases of such classic conflict as described by A. Augustinavichiute. Our observations and some recent theoretical developments suggest that in general this type of relation falls into the same level of comfort as semi-duality and activation relations.

Beyond that, if I'm wrong about ILI, and the wrongness becomes blatant and evident, then boom, LII would be what's left. Not due to anyone being careful and cautious, but due to the usefulness and greatness of coming to a conclusion.

[Olduvai]

EIE/SLI marriages are common;

No, they're not.

turbulent from what I know, but exciting, stable in its instability, rewarding, and no less eternal than most other marriages.

Conflict relations are neither exciting nor rewarding; what they're like is in the name. I honestly don't understand how you think it's possible for conflictors to have a close relationship:

At a distance, conflictors may find each other interesting, but as they become closer are sure to notice a fundamental difference in their motives and point of view. They can only sidestep this by limiting their relationship to the most formal and superficial interaction possible in a given situation (the most natural psychological distance for this relationship is very long). When interaction is unavoidable, uncomfortable misunderstandings or, most often, a sense of awkwardness and ambiguity usually result, even when both partners have the best of intentions. When actual conflict occurs, conflictors tend to repeat themselves over and over without ever making themselves understood; thus, they are often not even sure why the conflict exists in the first place.Conflictors can have known each other for a very long time without having the slightest understanding of each other's motives. This makes true collaboration and intimacy difficult.
It is quite common for conflict partners at work or in other formal situations to make a point of being civil and friendly to the other and openly demonstrating their good will. In the process of doing this, they usually end up trying to engage one another's vulnerable function, but this only makes the other suspicious and withdrawn. Compare this to the suggestive function, which one readily allows others to engage and support.
Because of their disparate life goals, conflictors seldom have the same interests, but when they do discussion of these interests can provide a means of interaction formal enough to not be impeded by socionic factors.

These relations require maximum carefulness. Leading function of your conflict partner coincides with your most painful function. He, thus, produces a flood of information about those aspects that you don't pay attention to and don't mention. Communication with a conflicting partner places you under constant tension. There is a sense of impending explosion beneath the surface. Opposite encoding of information leads to a feeling that literally every word of one's conflictor is annoying and brings up internal protest. At times, relations seem to be improving, but at the most inopportune moment conflictor suddenly tells something hurtful to you. Conflict relations can transpire smoothly if both partners are aware of their incompatibility and maintain sufficient distance, carefully trying to maneuver around "sharp corners".

Duality and conflict are relations of mutual correction

Here are some internal field statics for you (otherwise known as Fi; yes, I've finally come around to Aushra's definitions): duality is a complementary relationship, conflict is a repellant relationship. Duality is a constructive relationship, conflict is a destructive relationship. Duality is a positive relationship, conflict is a negative relationship.

but the most objective and in-depth report

Who decided this? You?

(one that doesn't read as if the author started with an idea and mutilated the facts to fit their own suppositions)

It reads like something written by someone who doesn't understand the human side of socionics, i.e. someone who a.) doesn't know what the types actually look like and b.) doesn't have much of a grasp on the subtleties of interpersonal relationships. Also, he is the only person claiming that conflict relations "really aren't that bad, you guys"; 13 out of 14 socionists say otherwise.

[woofwoofl]

No, they're not.

Hearsay from the most erratic typer on the site. See this and this.

Conflict relations are neither exciting nor rewarding; what they're like is in the name.

Unsubstantiated, circular reasoning.

I honestly don't understand how you think it's possible for conflictors to have a relationship

Your fault, not mine. I read everything you linked way before you ever had the idea to post it.

Here are some internal field statics for you (otherwise known as Fi; yes, I've finally come around to Aushra's definitions): duality is a complementary relationship, conflict is a repellant relationship. Duality is a constructive relationship, conflict is a destructive relationship. Duality is a positive relationship, conflict is a negative relationship.

Explicit Ji of that level of objectivity would be Ti.

Who decided this? You?

Yes, as did the article itself. All of the other texts don't compare intertype suppositions to what actually happens on the ground, and it's common practice in Russia to change peoples' supposed types if the interaction doesn't play out as written. Circular reasoning everywhere.

Also, he is the only person claiming that conflict relations "really aren't that bad, you guys"; 13 out of 14 socionists say otherwise.

You have claimed that using consensus to determine what's wrong or right is strictly the domain of Fe/Ti types. Absolute horseshit, but congratulations on excommunicating yourself from IEE.

It reads like something written by someone who doesn't understand the human side of socionics, i.e. someone who a.) doesn't know what the types actually look like and b.) doesn't have much of a grasp on the subtleties of interpersonal relationships.

[MensSuperMateriam]

"Soft" would point towards an introverted subtype of SF, "vigorous" over "passionate" would generally put γSF over αSF. Beyond that, "passionate" in this case may also have to do with how far back sp is in the overall enneagram stacking. Blocking an entire quadra together as if it's some sort of fully homogenous being is a bad idea.

I think you could be forcing the meanings a bit, imo. Soft means soft and it fits quite better in alpha than gamma. ESIs are not known for being soft, specially when unbalanced. Sure some of them would be, but that's not the general impression they cause in others. In fact, I would dare to say that some SEEs are (or appear to be) softer than the average ESI, because the latter one is, alongside sensor, rational.

She did not said vigorous over passionate but attracted to sympathetic but vigorous individuals or those who seem soft. I do not see in vigorous anything more specific than assertive sensor, which could apply to both quadras. She seems to attract passionate individuals; this has been a qualifier commonly used for betas. It suggests preference for Fe over Fi, although I agree with your enneagram alternative.

Anyway we're both speculating, Tacey should confirm what she exactly means with those words.

I've never seen SEE/LII interactions, in real life, go terribly bad except for one instance, in which both people involved were douchebags, and the overall situation sucked. EIE/SLI marriages are common; turbulent from what I know, but exciting, stable in its instability, rewarding, and no less eternal than most other marriages.

Conflictors marry too much because miunsterstanding duals with them is too easy; you know, that quasi doubt which is quite common. I could be wrong, but I feel inclined to say that maybe you could have mistyped some of those people. Maybe some of these individuals are really their mirrors and relations must be between superegos. They share temperament which helps a lot. Or it's supervision instead conflict, or any other likely alterntive.

Duality and conflict are relations of mutual correction, and theoretically, the latter is more inclined to have wildly divergent notions of "correct". Dissonance on rational/irrational and sameness on static/dynamic and asking/declaring all add to the gridlock, or so the story goes, but the most objective and in-depth report (one that doesn't read as if the author started with an idea and mutilated the facts to fit their own suppositions) on the so-called "conflict" relation says it all works out alright:

That's quite interesting, and I see it as somehow reasonable. Interactions are not black&white like duals->perfect; conflictors->perfectly bad, agree. Between balanced individuals with a well developed id, interaction style, goals etc could be negotiated.

But having some acceptable level of confort and being rewarding are two different things. I imagine the partners can learn to adapt to each other and find a common ground, but it requires a "nobody wins" attitude. Everyone will have to give up to some part of themselves. So it should cause dissatisfaction, at least. They would lack the catalytic effect duality could have (I become more that myself, no less, so to speak).

Beyond that, if I'm wrong about ILI, and the wrongness becomes blatant and evident, then boom, LII would be what's left. Not due to anyone being careful and cautious, but due to the usefulness and greatness of coming to a conclusion.

Dude, you took my post too seriously, I think. That "warning" was nothing but a joke about the enthusiasm you sometimes display in front of potential duals. Sorry if it seemed to be something different.

[Olduvai]

Hearsay from the most erratic typer on the site.

Your original claim was hearsay from the most clueless socionist on the site (still think you're SEE? lol). If you actually knew how to type people, you would understand that my typings are extremely consistent.

Unsubstantiated, circular reasoning.

Says the "Ti-PoLR".

Your fault, not mine. I read everything you linked way before you ever had the idea to post it.

Evidently you didn't understand any of it.

Explicit Ji of that level of objectivity would be Ti.

Where do you get this stuff? Your ass? Model Way-too-complicated-and-divorced-from-reality?

Yes, as did the article itself. All of the other texts don't compare intertype suppositions to what actually happens on the ground, and it's common practice in Russia to change peoples' supposed types if the interaction doesn't play out as written. Circular reasoning everywhere.

What actually happens on the ground is pretty debatable; most people don't seem to have a good grasp on what types actually look like and how intertype relations actually play out, hence the wildly divergent typings encountered on this site. The idea of conflicting relations is pretty easy to arrive at if you just look at the theory: my conflictor is the person who values and is awesome at the things I suck at and don't consider important, and who sucks at and doesn't consider important the things I value and excel at.

Question: have you ever met someone you just didn't get along with? If so, what were they like?

You have claimed that using consensus to determine what's wrong or right is strictly the domain of Fe/Ti types. Absolute horseshit, but congratulations on excommunicating yourself from IEE.

That was in the context of typing people, as in "most people agree so-and-so is XXX, therefore so-and-so is XXX". Also, thanks for pointing out an inconsistency in my logic; congratulations on illuminating my Ti-PoLR.

You're an asshole.

On an unrelated note, I stumbled upon a post of yours from way back in the day where you claimed to be the dominant subtype of SEE. While I disagree with the latter part (woofwoofl, SEE! what a hoot!), I do agree with your self-subcategorization.

[woofwoofl]

Your original claim was hearsay from the most clueless socionist on the site (still think you're SEE? lol). If you actually knew how to type people, you would understand that my typings are extremely consistent.

Says the "Ti-PoLR".

Evidently you didn't understand any of it.

Where do you get this stuff? Your ass? Model Way-too-complicated-and-divorced-from-reality?

That was in the context of typing people, as in "most people agree so-and-so is XXX, therefore so-and-so is XXX". Also, thanks for pointing out an inconsistency in my logic; congratulations on illuminating my Ti-PoLR.

You're an asshole.

What actually happens on the ground is pretty debatable; most people don't seem to have a good grasp on what types actually look like and how intertype relations actually play out, hence the wildly divergent typings encountered on this site.

Huff, puff, puff.

The idea of conflicting relations is pretty easy to arrive at if you just look at the theory: my conflictor is the person who values and is awesome at the things I suck at and don't consider important, and who sucks at and doesn't consider important the things I value and excel at.

Stupid and clumsy oversimplification.

I think you could be forcing a bit the meanings, imo. Soft means soft and it fits quite better in alpha than gamma. ESIs are not known for being soft, specially when unbalanced. Sure some of them would be, but that's not the general impression they cause in others. In fact, I would dare to say that some SEEs are (or appear to be) softer than the average ESI, because the latter one is, alongside sensor, rational.

For softness, I'd go overall Si-SEI -> Fi-SEI -> Fi-SEE -> Fe-SEI -> Si-ESE, Se-ESI, Se-SEE -> Fe-ESE in descending order. Much of this all depends on who/what's getting related with on an interpersonal level, moods of all parties involved, variance in what constitutes "soft", etc.

She did not said vigorous over passionate

False, due to "whereas".

but attracted to sympathetic but vigorous individuals or those who seem soft. I do bot see in vigorous anything more specific than assertive sensor, which could apply to both quadras. Passionate has been a qualifier commonly used for betas and it suggests a bit preference for Fe over Fi, although I agree with your enneagram alternative.

Anyway we're both speculating, Tacey should confirm what she exactly means with those words.

well yeah, that too, and yep, I'm absolutely in agreeance with ESxx being generally most vigorous.

Conflictors marry too much because miunsterstanding duals with them is too easy; you know, that quasi doubt which is quite common. I could be wrong, but I feel inclined to say that maybe you could have mistyped some of those people. Maybe some of these individuals are really their mirrors and relations must be between superegos. They share temperament which helps a lot. Or it's supervision instead conflictor, or any other likely alterntive.

Definite EIE with definite SLI in one case, definite EIE with definite 9w8 who's probably δST and possibly SEE in another. The former started off good, and soured into a "stay together for the kids" deal; overall, more good than bad. The latter is wildly dramatic; not my thing, but afaik works for everyone involved.

That's quite interesting, and I see it as somehow reasonable. Interactions are not black&white like duals->perfect; conflictors->perfectly bad, agree. Between balanced individuals with a well developed id, interaction style, goals etc could be negotiated.

But having some acceptable level of confort and being rewarding are two different things. I imagine the partners can learn to adapt to each other and find a common ground, but it requires a "nobody wins" attitude. Everyone will have to give up to some part of themselves. So it should cause dissatisfaction, at least. They would lack the catalytic effect duality could have (I become more that myself, no less, so to speak).

Ime the worst experiences had to do with a sort of encroachment with the involved functions; Se, Fe, Si, and Fi; this would also suppose Beta as the most inherently turbulent quadra, works for me. And yes, duality rules, conflict can be clumsy, other relations can be worse, and when in doubt, make pizza for everbody.

[MensSuperMateriam]

False, due to "whereas"

Can't... resist... being picky.

If you say vigorous over passionate, you're comparing two options for the same thing/category. But she used whereas between two different categories, which are what she feels attracted to versus what she attracts to. So tecnically it does not apply in the way you think.

Ok to the rest.

[Offtopic: Those pictures made me laugh a lot]

[Olduvai]

Huff, puff, puff.

Lazy and uninformed dismissal.

Stupid and clumsy oversimplification.

It really is that simple. No messy math or confusing new notation needed.

[Tacey Ruth]

I think you could be forcing the meanings a bit, imo. Soft means soft and it fits quite better in alpha than gamma. ESIs are not known for being soft, specially when unbalanced. Sure some of them would be, but that's not the general impression they cause in others. In fact, I would dare to say that some SEEs are (or appear to be) softer than the average ESI, because the latter one is, alongside sensor, rational.

She did not said vigorous over passionate but attracted to sympathetic but vigorous individuals or those who seem soft. I do not see in vigorous anything more specific than assertive sensor, which could apply to both quadras. She seems to attract passionate individuals; this has been a qualifier commonly used for betas. It suggests preference for Fe over Fi, although I agree with your enneagram alternative.

Anyway we're both speculating, Tacey should confirm what she exactly means with those words..

You are right, I admit my reply wasn’t clear:
I used “sympathetic but vigorous” to indicate people who are energetic, dynamic, proactive, decisive, resolute and anything that makes you think of anyone who knows what he wants and what to do, without being bossy or too aggressive but rather being patient and persuasive.
I used “soft” to indicate those kind of people with and to whom you can do almost anything without fearing conflict or judgment; sometimes the problem is that I get bored or they are too passive considering what I feel I really need.
I used “passionate” to indicate those people who are quick-tempered, ardent, hotheaded and anything which makes you think of a highly emotional person; I like this kind of people as long as they don’t become too demanding and exasperating, but actually they usually make me feel uncomfortable.

[MensSuperMateriam]

You are right, I admit my reply wasn’t clear:
I used “sympathetic but vigorous” to indicate people who are energetic, dynamic, proactive, decisive, resolute and anything that makes you think of anyone who knows what he wants and what to do,

Until now, beyond ES, I cannot say for sure.

without being bossy or too aggressive but rather being patient and persuasive.

This goes against Se, specially if dominant.

I used “soft” to indicate those kind of people with and to whom you can do almost anything without fearing conflict or judgment; sometimes the problem is that I get bored or they are too passive considering what I feel I really need.

Looking for positive emotional feedback (from others) -> Fe favoured.

I used “passionate” to indicate those people who are quick-tempered, ardent, hotheaded and anything which makes you think of a highly emotional person; I like this kind of people as long as they don’t become too demanding and exasperating, but actually they usually make me feel uncomfortable.

Highly emotional slightly favours ESE over SEE. Being emotionally overloaded by others is charcateristic of all logic types. Sure Fe-PoLR will have, on average, less tolerance for emotions but you're complaining about too much of them, like you can get tired at the end, not from the beginning. More emotional tolerance than the average Fe-PoLR, it seems.

All of this favours Fe-DS over Fe-PoLR, although nothing conclusive.


---


But I find much more interesting how you have answered to the question, instead what you really have said. I'll quote you again:

You are right, I admit my reply wasn’t clear:
I used “sympathetic but vigorous” to indicate people who are energetic, dynamic, proactive, decisive, resolute and anything that makes you think of anyone who knows what he wants and what to do, without being bossy or too aggressive but rather being patient and persuasive.
I used “soft” to indicate those kind of people with and to whom you can do almost anything without fearing conflict or judgment; sometimes the problem is that I get bored or they are too passive considering what I feel I really need.
I used “passionate” to indicate those people who are quick-tempered, ardent, hotheaded and anything which makes you think of a highly emotional person; I like this kind of people as long as they don’t become too demanding and exasperating, but actually they usually make me feel uncomfortable.

Let's see how you have expressed yourself. You have changed original qualifiers for your definitions, that is, what you meant by those words. And such definitions has been built as a set of characteristics, nothing more. This style is quite far from what a potential Fi-HA would have done.

You have not described the dynamics of your interactions with those peple, how they personally affect you in a positive or negative way. Although not all LIIs are like that, the only people I have known capable of being so emotionally neutral are them. Enumerating characteristics? For god's sake! You are speaking about your personal interactions!

(That was a joke, I was trying to make a point). Fi people, by general, would have left an emotional imprint in the way they describe their interactions with people (or even objects). You can feel how they like what they like, and how they dislike what they dislike. And they would have developed much more the descriptions of such interactions, its dynamic.

What you've done is a pure Ti at its best. In style, and in the amount of info you've made public. Another usual characteristic of LIIs is their difficult for sharing personal info. Extremely reserved about such topics.

With all of this, I am reasonably confident you are a LII, not an ILI. I would even say Ti subtype.

[Offtopic. This analysis I've made of you has been also useful for myself]

[Whoobie77]

V.I. has a shaky foundation, but, for the record, you look incredibly like this self-typed ILE. So maybe LII.

Attachment 3787