WorkaholicsAnon's type: IEE or ILE? (thread split)

[mu4]

Thanks.

I understand that you do not necessarily "ignore" your superego all the time, but wouldn't you much rather use a Ti ego as much as you can essentially ignoring your Fi?

How good are you at taking a punch or blocking a punch. The super-ego eventually has to be dealt with, otherwise we might as well skip dealing with 1/4 of the world and there are many tasks which requires the specialized capabilities of our superego to process.

I am really interested in Fi PolR because I've self typed as ILE the last few weeks a large part because I believed I understood Fi PolR (and Fe HA)

This has been my working definition:

Fi: using your feelings as a basis for making judgments on a person

What do you think about this? This is sort of how I've been viewing my own Fi...

The way I see Fi PolR manifesting in ILE is that they'd much rather use their Ti to analyze their relationships. Like you said, they do form Fi opinions as well, but they tend not to trust them especially if there is some logical inconsistency presenting itself. Ti always tries and succeeds in overpowering Fi if there is some sort of inconsistency. This'll cause things like easy breakups where their Fi might be telling them one thing but their Ti logic will override it and they will get over it quickly.

They usually try to use Ti but if Fi is used because of exceptionally strong feelings, it will be prone to constant second guessing because they recognize there is no logical reason for them to be feeling this way (trust feelings? NO). Only when the relationship has been "logically" grounded so to speak do they allow themselves to use their Fi and even then use it with caution. They usually won't verbalize it unless very confident through external observation or through actual verbalized reassurance.

How far off base am I with this?

It's good to think of PoLR function as a on-off switch, if it's on, it's on, often to neurotic effect. For Fi-PoLR, it could be a romantic idealization, one coud be a amorous lothario, an avoid-ant recluse, a person that moves from one casual fling to another and back again, a jealous and possessive partner, these are all expressions I've observed in Fi-PoLR types, yet this variation in behavior is rooted in a similar fear.

I find a great deal of variation in behavior in the PoLR, this may apply to other function as well but in the PoLR it is often quite visible, neurotic and caused by insecurity. Fi-polr types often use their Ti ego function to rationalize these behaviors yet the core issue is unresolved and perhaps resolvable.

Anyways when reading topics such as socionics and any sort of psychology, one first have to ask how well does one understand oneself? How well does one understand other people? You could spend a dozen life time and only catch a tiny glimpse. Luckily we have a wealth of existing knowledge to explore, but it still takes time(less so) to do it.

[ryoka14]

Since both T and F are elaborating on rational premises, they both must seek consistency. Otherwise, how could it be said they are rational/reasonable? F operations rationalize ethical and feeling-based content.
.

But they don't act simulatenously do they?

Say a feeling comes, you feel GRATITUDE for someone giving you a gift.

For a Ti-ego they take that feeling in and compare it to its logic: Say for this Ti his internal logic is: A gives to B and B feel gratitude:: B should feel closer to A

In this way it would completely bypass the Fi function.

If there is some inconsistency, A gives to B and B feels ANGER then Ti cannot logically compute that so it moves to the Fi function

Say for this particular Fi function ANGER = DISLIKE so Fi forms the judgment of dislike for person B.

Now if they were Fi dominant this would be it, there might not be further logical analysis of the process itself, it might move to how to fix it

but since Ti dominates they might be disturbed with this logical inconsistency A has done something for me and I dislike him?

[mu4]

But they don't act simulatenously do they?

Say a feeling comes, you feel GRATITUDE for someone giving you a gift.

What is your response, do you say "thanks", do you say nothing at all, do you say, "I don't need this, what a useless thing, but thanks." (honest but kind of tactless)

A Fi-polr type is still a intuitive type, they might just rattle off whatever comes to mind, and that could start a chain of events which can result in hurt feelings and various other issues. Most of you wrote doesn't even matter, who's to say that an individual will even feel gratitude, they might feel annoyed at a gift, especially a bad one.

Also, it's not like a Fi polr type can't use it, they can be genuinely touched by things and act in a really ordinary manner and expresses a sincere gratitude in a very ordinary manner. Anyways I think your thoughts after what I've quoted is full of misunderstanding, I'm not sure if it's something that I can address except to say, it's incomprehensible to me. A more harsh way for me to say it is that I don't think you understand what you've written.

[chemical]

Ryoka, the thing I noted in your post is the "internal logic" you spoke of was one which dealt with ethics. What you "should feel" is not determined independent of ethical judgment. Some primitive ethical functioning individuals essentially just absorb and parrot an ethical code without much deliberation. Some people exhibit great nuance around both kinds of reasoning.

The feeling that they experience (gratitutude, anger, etc) is not a rationalization. It is an automatic response. When you hear of all these apparently fake Fe-leads, responding to the emotional atmosphere present without meaning it, it's because even if they experience boredom or anger or whatever, they have an ethical sense of what they "must do" in accordance with the present atmosphere. It's not always all happy either, some of them may be very dark.

How you ethically respond to automatic responses is what requires reasoning/rationalization, not the ability to experience basic feelings.

[ryoka14]

What is your response, do you say "thanks", do you say nothing at all, do you say, "I don't need this, what a useless thing, but thanks." (honest but kind of tactless)

A Fi-polr type is still a intuitive type, they might just rattle off whatever comes to mind, and that could start a chain of events which can result in hurt feelings and various other issues. Most of you wrote doesn't even matter, who's to say that an individual will even feel gratitude, they might feel annoyed at a gift, especially a bad one.

Also, it's not like a Fi polr type can't use it, they can be genuinely touched by things and act in a really ordinary manner and expresses a sincere gratitude in a very ordinary manner. Anyways I think your thoughts after what I've quoted is full of misunderstanding, I'm not sure if it's something that I can address except to say, it's incomprehensible to me. A more harsh way for me to say it is that I don't think you understand what you've written.

That's what I mean though, you are seeing the output of all this, but not the internal processing that is happening.

It's my understanding that these functions process subjective and objective inputs and continually turn them into usable information which can then be expressed.

Just because the expression is the same doesn't mean that people reach that same expression through the same processes.

I'm just coming at it from a very simplified point of view to try to understand the mechanism of action that an Fi polr might take when turning feelings into information.

[epheme]

Any type is capable of expressing how they feel towards another person, whether like or dislike, and any type is capable of being bad at and misunderstanding relationships. Fi POLR often manifests as an unawareness of how other people feel about them (not just how they feel about other people, but the other way around) - and an inability to manage and negotiate this emotional distance.

This seems right.

It's like my experience with an ILE friend. He has a very, ahem, gross/perverted/un-pc/creepy sense of humor. He's become aware in the last couple of years that he sometimes offends people but he is pretty blind as to why or how or when he's doing it. So, whenever we are out or something he'll kind of tell me a joke secretly and be like "is that an okay one to tell the group?" I'm always like "um, no". Haha. But anyway, he's pretty neurotic about the things he says to people he's not close with and has a lot of nervous energy around new people for this reason.

Or Fi-PoLR in my boyfriend.... My friend and I are talking about her trouble with guys when he buds in (trying to help) with this, "Look when a guy sees you he's judging you off of your face and your ass and your tits." Then she's all . Later when I tell him that she was offended he is surprised and responds with, "But, I mean, that's the truth." Lol.


For the record, they are both very sweet, kind and tolerant people. They love kittens. They give money to homeless people. They help friends move. You get the idea.

They just don't "get" when they're being tactless or whatever.

[ryoka14]

Ryoka, the thing I noted in your post is the "internal logic" you spoke of was one which dealt with ethics. What you "should feel" is not determined independent of ethical judgment. Some primitive ethical functioning individuals essentially just absorb and parrot an ethical code without much deliberation. Some people exhibit great nuance around both kinds of reasoning.

The feeling that they experience (gratitutude, anger, etc) is not a rationalization. It is an automatic response. When you hear of all these apparently fake Fe-leads, responding to the emotional atmosphere present without meaning it, it's because even if they experience boredom or anger or whatever, they have an ethical sense of what they "must do" in accordance with the present atmosphere. It's not always all happy either, some of them may be very dark.

How you ethically respond to automatic responses is what requires reasoning/rationalization, not the ability to experience basic feelings.

Ah I see, thanks. Yeah I think I don't really understand why "should feel" cannot be determined independent of Fi. When it's first encountered I'm sure you have to use your Fi, but once it becomes "coded" into your internal logical system, then why wouldn't you be able to use Ti?

Internal logic might deal with ethics which are internally consistent with your preconceived beliefs, i.e. already experienced them.

Like you said, if a new ethical situation represented itself then you would have to use Fi, but for every other experience which has been "written in" to your Ti function through experience you could achieve the exact same result every time without having to go through your Fi function.

Just like how T dominant types might use perceiving functions (N/S) to deal with their objective/logical view of the world, F dominant types might happily use their perceiving functions to explore new ethical and moral possibilities.

It might follow then that T dominant type would shy away from new ethical situations, which could manifest in using their T functions to deal with most standard ethical considerations, until one presented itself where it is not consistent with their internal logic (new experience)

I don't know, this is making sense to me lol, but I have a very low knowledge of this, so I might have a very basic principle of socionics/psychology messed up here.

[mu4]

That's what I mean though, you are seeing the output of all this, but not the internal processing that is happening.

It's my understanding that these functions process subjective and objective inputs and continually turn them into usable information which can then be expressed.

Just because the expression is the same doesn't mean that people reach that same expression through the same processes.

I'm just coming at it from a very simplified point of view to try to understand the mechanism of action that an Fi polr might take when turning feelings into information.

Socionics isn't really predictive on action, it's information processing. There are perhaps correlations to actions.

Also feelings don't get turned into "information", feelings are information, but information can undergo various transformations as described by the socionics information transformation mechanism. If you want to talk about concrete mechanism of actions in reality, you need to bring in all the relevant particulars which gets really complicated fast and it's not something to simplify. That's a macroscopic simulation requiring vast computing resources, it could be your brain as a whole or a massive supercomputer, but simplifying doesn't really work when dealing something macroscopic like context sensitive behavior. In day to day analysis you can use your brain and use its facilities within those specific context to make an analysis but once you remove that local context, it's much harder to talk about.

[chemical]

"coded" into your internal logical system, then why wouldn't you be able to use Ti?

It is coded into your information bank. Which holds Ti information, Fi information, etc. If a situation merely requires application of a preconceived Fi ethics, then all that is needed is the situation is matched to the ethical system encoded in your existing bank, this information that is processed by Fi doesn't then get encoded in Ti. Ti can analyze what you ethically determined, yes, on its own terms. But your ethics is your ethics, and it is determined by some combination of Fe and Fi (though static types emphasize Fi in their mental processing).

I think the problem you are experiencing is with the unfortunate term "logic" - it's too generic, and you feel like once a function handles something, it gets "relegated" to logic. In reality, all you're doing is applying pre-learned knowledge which still exists in the realm of the function/information element which you first applied.

And yes, ethical types are much more likely to accept new ethical situations (accept meaning, wish to further their ethics) and challenges, I think. New ethical situations which demand subtle ethical adaptation are more the forte of ethics than logic types.

But to some extent, you run into the plain issue of mental capacity. A really mentally active logic type may have more ethics and logic knowledge than a less mentally active ethics type. In such cases, you must decide based on the overall mental priority relative to the individual's psyche, rather than using preconceived standards like "ethical types can do this, logical types can do that." And also understand the interplay among all these information forms - their positions in the psyche beyond mere order, which are detailed in various ways in various models, give you an idea.

[ryoka14]

It is coded into your information bank. Which holds Ti information, Fi information, etc. If a situation merely requires application of a preconceived Fi ethics, then all that is needed is the situation is matched to the ethical system encoded in your existing bank, this information that is processed by Fi doesn't then get encoded in Ti. Ti can analyze what you ethically determined, yes, on its own terms. But your ethics is your ethics, and it is determined by some combination of Fe and Fi (though static types emphasize Fi in their mental processing).

I think the problem you are experiencing is with the unfortunate term "logic" - it's too generic, and you feel like once a function handles something, it gets "relegated" to logic. In reality, all you're doing is applying pre-learned knowledge which still exists in the realm of the function/information element which you first applied.

Ahh yeah I figured that might be where I was confused. I just assumed that this internal logic was... dealing with all the different axioms you've built up through your experiences. But Fi is dealing with all ethical judgments which includes its own logic I see..

But to some extent, you run into the plain issue of mental capacity. A really mentally active logic type may have more ethics and logic knowledge than a less mentally active ethics type. In such cases, you must decide based on the overall mental priority relative to the individual's psyche, rather than using preconceived standards like "ethical types can do this, logical types can do that." And also understand the interplay among all these information forms - their positions in the psyche beyond mere order, which are detailed in various ways in various models, give you an idea.

Yeah that is why it's so dang hard to type yourself lol, every position has so many nuances to it, and the more you learn the more you have to adjust your thinking.

[ryoka14]

It's good to think of PoLR function as a on-off switch, if it's on, it's on, often to neurotic effect. For Fi-PoLR, it could be a romantic idealization, one coud be a amorous lothario, an avoid-ant recluse, a person that moves from one casual fling to another and back again, a jealous and possessive partner, these are all expressions I've observed in Fi-PoLR types, yet this variation in behavior is rooted in a similar fear.

I find a great deal of variation in behavior in the PoLR, this may apply to other function as well but in the PoLR it is often quite visible, neurotic and caused by insecurity. Fi-polr types often use their Ti ego function to rationalize these behaviors yet the core issue is unresolved and perhaps resolvable.

Anyways when reading topics such as socionics and any sort of psychology, one first have to ask how well does one understand oneself? How well does one understand other people? You could spend a dozen life time and only catch a tiny glimpse. Luckily we have a wealth of existing knowledge to explore, but it still takes time(less so) to do it.

I get what you're saying, about the stuff that does go through to PolR Fi as being extremely vulnerable and strong feelings.

But wouldn't you agree that for a majority of people, Fi PolR does not have strong feeling of closeness for them? I mean acquaintences, passing friends, etc... Whereas an Fi creative might develop some feelings of closeness to these people, wouldn't an Fi PolR not really see them as more than acquaintances, they can't really be bothered to use their Fi unless it's for things that REALLY get at them like strong hate or strong love?

[mu4]

I get what you're saying, about the stuff that does go through to PolR Fi as being extremely vulnerable and strong feelings.

But wouldn't you agree that for a majority of people, Fi PolR does not have strong feeling of closeness for them? I mean acquaintences, passing friends, etc... Whereas an Fi creative might develop some feelings of closeness to these people, wouldn't an Fi PolR not really see them as more than acquaintances, they can't really be bothered to use their Fi unless it's for things that REALLY get at them like strong hate or strong love?

No. Keep your enemies closer.

[ryoka14]

No.

Is this Role and Base then?

If Ti base is on Fi cannot be on as well?

[mu4]

Is this Role and Base then?

If Ti base is on Fi cannot be on as well?

You are not just the information you thing about, you are also the information you receive. The reason why conflict can occur between Ti egos and Fi ego is due to receiving incompatible information.

[Suz]

I get what you're saying, about the stuff that does go through to PolR Fi as being extremely vulnerable and strong feelings.

But wouldn't you agree that for a majority of people, Fi PolR does not have strong feeling of closeness for them? I mean acquaintences, passing friends, etc... Whereas an Fi creative might develop some feelings of closeness to these people, wouldn't an Fi PolR not really see them as more than acquaintances, they can't really be bothered to use their Fi unless it's for things that REALLY get at them like strong hate or strong love?

It's so difficult to tell, just because feelings of closeness can be so relative. Whats "close" to me, might not be considered that close by someone else.

Besides, I think Fi-POLRs are capable of feeling close to someone, they just aren't sure or misjudge how close someone else feels to them unless they get enough Fe info to support that. Fi-POLRs might also misjudge how close they feel to someonethemselves without the Fe info.

One thing that has helped me lean ILE over IEE lately also is that i've noticed that I respond well to Fe shows of friendship/approval -- warm hugs, smiles directed at me, positive attention. I also have noticed I get excited when there is a lot of positive energy around me, and i feed off of joking with more joking and i can really help amp things up. I do often doubt how people feel about me, and if i get some negative Fe (or NO Fe) emanating from someone, i always wonder if i did something wrong. Sometimes I assume things, and find out I was worried for nothing.

[chemical]

I think Fi/Fe is really quite shaky in explanations, that's part of the issue. Of all of the description in wikisocion attributed to Augusta even, the only line that struck me as clarifying was this:

The higher feelings of this kind can be called ethical, because relationships between people's needs are mainly regulated by ethical normals. When this perceptual element is in the leading position, the individual possesses the innate ability to perceive and evaluate wishes/desires

In other words, I do not think simply understanding the psychological workings of people enough to estimate what they want is necessarily to do with a feeling/ethical agenda. Good perception function use should help a lot with this too, namely comparing your impressions of people does a good deal more sometimes than referring to a static body of ethical sentiment. Does a scientist need to be an ethical type to know what a tiger wants at a given time? Or a dog? If not, why should it be so different with people? Only with these "higher feelings" where you must make an ethical/evaluative decision based on people's needs and other factors might one say it starts to get into real feeling judgment. If your judgment simply amounts to making sure the needs are met, that's perhaps not so complicated, and I'd think can be done with pretty basic ethics plus a strong scientific backing. Feeling/ethics can help you tune into the higher feeling states though involved in recognizing the ethical meaning of doing certain things a certain way. There is usually quite a lot of nuance about exploring this sort of thing in the base and creative types.

That covers feeling in general. Fe versus Fi should boil down to subjective and objective focus. Fe is generally seen as more responsive to the objective emotional mood, merges with it in order to essentially take part in it. The mood can be seen as a certain balancing of objective factors, i.e. the overall mood balances the individual moods. Fi is on the other hand the individual's estimation of ethical interplays based on an averaging of subjective impressions accumulated, and mostly these interplays should constitute semi universal/stable backgrounds to the objective interactions which incited their understanding, rather than being knowledge of the direct ethical influences present in a collection of objective moods. More on this stability below.
I dislike this concept of "who needs what" being attributed to Fi, because by itself this is just not clear about it being an introverted function, that is, a function which carries the psychological orientation of an introvert with it, withdrawing and retreating from objective situations to focus subjective factors. If the only thing "stable" about the ethics is that you know someone will always need a certain thing, and you are going to provide it out of ethical sentiment of appropriateness, this can easily be done with a more objective ethics. It can be seen based on the dynamic progression of someone's moods that there is a factor of consistency to the many trends taken in by the dynamic functions. Knowing that there are constant factors to a dynamic progression is simply part of knowing changing phenomena. When you wish to analytically decompose the ethical factors inherent to your subjective impressions of this progression of moods, then you need Fi. Which may need to create a static characterization of what lies inherent to even the dynamic progression of moods as a whole (including what is changing, and influencing the constituent which is not changing) in order to truly characterize by judgment, rather than mere perception, the constant need noted in the dynamic case. In other words the contents you are analyzing being stable is not enough to get static judgment. The inherent disposition to acquiring information of static form is beyond this.

[anndelise]

Older stuff i,'ve written, approaching from aspectonics:

Brief summary of terms used: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ary-of-Aspects

Fi: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...elating-via-Fi
Ti: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...6-MCV-Ti-Class

(Please note that yes I do go into more detail on Fi than i can on Ti, because I am intimately familiar with Fi and obviously have weak Ti.)

[Eliza Thomason]

WA is not IEE. Quite sure on that now. ILE seems extremely likely. So says "The Psychologist".
__________________________________________________ ___
Editing to add the following:

And I feel sure on this, particularly after examining ILE and IEE Reinin Dichtonomies, which I did very thoroughly yesterday. The result of that study was that WA seemed to hit ILE not IEE on all of the distinctives.

I started a long post explaining my findings yesterday, but got interrupted here at home and by the time I got back to the lengthy post I had almost finished writing, I had second thoughts, and decided not to finish, but instead delete it.

[I'd say that is due to my being an IEE "Declarer" -- I prefer to ascertain that I have attention before I share all those insights. (Which is also consistent with my "Obstinate"'s hold on ideas, and their sacredness). To further explain, If I was writing to a bunch of IEEs on this thread, I would just launch into it! Because I know they would follow my train of thought, and I would not be wasting words.]

So, instead, I will share a much briefer synopsis of what I started yesterday - just the "bottom line".
Here it is:

ILE is an Asker, not a IEE Declarer. I see Asker in WA.
ILE is Merry. WA is Merry! (IEE is "Serious")
ILE is Constructivist. So is WA (and I wonder curiously about her unique personal "emotional anchors" - that interesting "phenomena" particularly distinctive to the Constructivists!). IEE is Emotivist.
ILE is Yielding. IEE is Obstinate.
ILE is Process! So is WA. IEE is Result! Process and Result approach "how to type" very differently.
And therefore, in this "What's My Type" subforum, a Process type and a Result type are not going to be that helpful to each other with their differing approaches to understanding a subject. Even when they give it their best!
ILE is Postivist. So is WA. IEE is Negativist.
ILE is Democratic. So is WA! IEE is Aristocratic.

[Suz]

It's so difficult to tell, just because feelings of closeness can be so relative. Whats "close" to me, might not be considered that close by someone else.

Besides, I think Fi-POLRs are capable of feeling close to someone, they just aren't sure or misjudge how close someone else feels to them unless they get enough Fe info to support that. Fi-POLRs might also misjudge how close they feel to someonethemselves without the Fe info.

One thing that has helped me lean ILE over IEE lately also is that i've noticed that I respond well to Fe shows of friendship/approval -- warm hugs, smiles directed at me, positive attention. I also have noticed I get excited when there is a lot of positive energy around me, and i feed off of joking with more joking and i can really help amp things up. I do often doubt how people feel about me, and if i get some negative Fe (or NO Fe) emanating from someone, i always wonder if i did something wrong. Sometimes I assume things, and find out I was worried for nothing.

also along those lines, i've noticed myself really aching to lift up the mood in a non-upbeat setting. It does take some exertion for me, though, but it's like when there's that void, I want to fill it. That was something that made me question my IEE typing recently, and why i was so open to receiving the ILE typing when it was suggested to me (later).

[Suz]

WA is not IEE. Quite sure on that now. ILE seems extremely likely. So says "The Psychologist".

LOL Eliza, no offense, but i dont see you as a too-reliable source on socionic typing, so I take your stated opinions on typings with a bit of a grain of salt. But I do agree that we arent' that similar; I've felt that way since you first came on the forum. I mean, not to say i dont like you... i do, but just that I dont resonate with the things you write, how your write, nor your demeanor how it comes across. You are much much sweeter than me.

[ashlesha]

i'm trying to see ILE. i'm trying. you just seem so dang ethical. i will say alpha quadra does make sense to me.

[chemical]

LOL Eliza, no offense, but i dont see you as a too-reliable source on socionic typing, so I take your stated opinions on typings with a bit of a grain of salt. But I do agree that we arent' that similar; I've felt that way since you first came on the forum. I mean, not to say i dont like you... i do, but just that I dont resonate with the things you write, how your write, nor your demeanor how it comes across. You are much much sweeter than me.

There we go, Fi-POLR.

(I'm just being humorous.)

[Suz]

There we go, Fi-POLR.

(I'm just being humorous.)

is that like when i throw out a criticism said "jokingly" and then say "just kidding"?

[Suz]

i'm trying to see ILE. i'm trying. you just seem so dang ethical. i will say alpha quadra does make sense to me.

yeah i guess you weren't wrong when you suggested it before...(alpha i mean)

can you explain why you think i seem ethical?

[Suz]

WA is not IEE. Quite sure on that now. ILE seems extremely likely. So says "The Psychologist".
__________________________________________________ ___
Editing to add the following:

And I feel sure on this, particularly after examining ILE and IEE Reinin Dichtonomies, which I did very thoroughly yesterday. The result of that study was that WA seemed to hit ILE not IEE on all of the distinctives.

I started a long post explaining my findings yesterday, but got interrupted here at home and by the time I got back to the lengthy post I had almost finished writing, I had second thoughts, and decided not to finish, but instead delete it.

[I'd say that is due to my being an IEE "Declarer" -- I prefer to ascertain that I have attention before I share all those insights. (Which is also consistent with my "Obstinate"'s hold on ideas, and their sacredness). To further explain, If I was writing to a bunch of IEEs on this thread, I would just launch into it! Because I know they would follow my train of thought, and I would not be wasting words.]

So, instead, I will share a much briefer synopsis of what I started yesterday - just the "bottom line".
Here it is:

ILE is an Asker, not a IEE Declarer. I see Asker in WA.
ILE is Merry. WA is Merry! (IEE is "Serious")
ILE is Constructivist. So is WA (and I wonder curiously about her unique personal "emotional anchors" - that interesting "phenomena" particularly distinctive to the Constructivists!). IEE is Emotivist.
ILE is Yielding. IEE is Obstinate.
ILE is Process! So is WA. IEE is Result! Process and Result approach "how to type" very differently.
And therefore, in this "What's My Type" subforum, a Process type and a Result type are not going to be that helpful to each other with their differing approaches to understanding a subject. Even when they give it their best!
ILE is Postivist. So is WA. IEE is Negativist.
ILE is Democratic. So is WA! IEE is Aristocratic.

this is nice, but can you explain why you pick those choices for me?
I mean, you just picking one over the other without an explanation isn't very convincing to me... it's a 50:50 chance i'm one or the other. Why do you say i'm an asker, why merry, why positivist, why democratic?

[Reficulris]

Why do you say i'm an asker, why merry, why positivist, why democratic?

Not to add something to the conversation, but to point out the above made me laugh

Edit: A declaring negative aristrocratic type might have written the following:

I'm not an asker, i'm not merry, there is no reason i'd be a postivist, I don't see me being democratic, those people are idiots. You (eliza) are clearly missing the point here. There is only one truth, and it's that i'm ILE. ^^


((obviously based on faulty and not-nuanced understanding of reinin from my side))

[ashlesha]

yeah i guess you weren't wrong when you suggested it before...(alpha i mean)

can you explain why you think i seem ethical?

with the logical types on the forum i see them talking about their types in a different, more analytical way. i see you asking for analytical input and then evaluating it rather than producing it yourself. (i'm usually the same way.)

[Suz]

Not to add something to the conversation, but to point out the above made me laugh

touche', but can't any type ask a question? is that what the "asker" dichotomy necessarily refers to?

[Suz]

with the logical types on the forum i see them talking about their types in a different, more analytical way. i see you asking for analytical input and then evaluating it rather than producing it yourself. (i'm usually the same way.)

maybe that is what is manifesting the "Asker" dichotomy...?
Are ESIs reinin "Askers" too, by chance?

[Reficulris]

touche', but can't any type ask a question? is that what the "asker" dichotomy necessarily refers to?

yes, ofc, that's why I was joking.

I did however try to give a translation from your sentance into a negative, aristrocratic declarative statement. Not sure i succeeded

There's a lot of questionmarks in your text.... depending on how "rethorical" those are in your mind you're asking or declaring i think.

Edit: but i'm in no way an authority on reinin nor socionics in general. I'm playing the fool so don't take my stuff too serious (except as prodding up ideas)

[anndelise]

For an extreme example of askers, watch a reality show from australia. It's not about asking questions? It's partly? About ending phrases? And speaking? With the higher pitch? Of a question? Checking to see if you know what I mean? Or if I should go on? Or if you want to say something now? Cuz here's a good place? To say it?

It's an interesting phenomenon.

[Reficulris]

For an extreme example of askers, watch a reality show from australia. It's not about asking questions? It's partly? About ending phrases? And speaking? With the higher pitch? Of a question? Checking to see if you know what I mean? Or if I should go on? Or if you want to say something now? Cuz here's a good place? To say it?

It's an interesting phenomenon.

I've counted your questionmarks, you're now officially not an IEE anymore ;-)

[anndelise]

yes, ofc, that's why I was joking.

I did however try to give a translation from your sentance into a negative, aristrocratic declarative statement. Not sure i succeeded

There's a lot of questionmarks in your text.... depending on how "rethorical" those are in your mind you're asking or declaring i think.

Edit: but i'm in no way an authority on reinin nor socionics in general. I'm playing the fool so don't take my stuff too serious (except as prodding up ideas)

Even a negative declaring aristocratic will ask questions and for reasonings. WA had a point. Just tossing out a choice of a dichotomy without reasoning offers absolutely no information to consider, to evaluate, or to build off of. (Unless one is seeiking permission to make such claims themselves.)

Also, how often do you see point/hkkmr asking questions??

[anndelise]

I've counted your questionmarks, you're now officially not an IEE anymore ;-)

I was giving you an example? Of how they talk? On those shows?

[Suz]

Edit: A declaring negative aristrocratic type might have written the following:

I'm not an asker, i'm not merry, there is no reason i'd be a postivist, I don't see me being democratic, those people are idiots. You (eliza) are clearly missing the point here. There is only one truth, and it's that i'm ILE. ^^


((obviously based on faulty and not-nuanced understanding of reinin from my side))

no, but i think you may have missed MY point in asking Eliza those things... those were genuine questions... I really dont know and I want to find out. I've tried looking at the Reinin Dichotomies in the past and end up relating to both of the dichotomies, and so have not really been able to implement them in my typing methods. So I'd really like to know what it is about my communication style that clinched Eliza's decisions on the dichotomies that I fit.

[Reficulris]

Even a negative declaring aristocratic will ask questions and for reasonings. WA had a point. Just tossing out a choice of a dichotomy without reasoning offers absolutely no information to consider, to evaluate, or to build off of. (Unless one is seeiking permission to make such claims themselves.)

Also, how often do you see point/hkkmr asking questions??

Oh I didn't disagree with her nor did I think Eliza can type.
I'm just basically prodding for stuff to maybe click for her (WA). I can't do that by telling her what she is (cuz i'm no socionics expert) but I can give perspectives, try to rattle concepts and such, see if she relates.

I think the "questions are mostly rethorical" criteria does do something in asking/declaring. I've noticed some people hardly ever really question something, they'll state something and have someone dispute it if they want the other information, if that makes sense? <- Refi must be asking.


And nah,you are right HKKMR doesn't ask too many questions, not when he's talking about something, he does in one on one conversation. He also likes to monologue his thoughts out. So i'd probably say declaring based on my faulty understanding. Which is why I call my understanding faulty.

[anndelise]

no, but i think you may have missed MY point in asking Eliza those things... those were genuine questions... I really dont know and I want to find out. I've tried looking at the Reinin Dichotomies in the past and end up relating to both of the dichotomies, and so have not really been able to implement them in my typing methods. So I'd really like to know what it is about my communication style that clinched Eliza's decisions on the dichotomies that I fit.

I'm curious about her reasonings too, since she has used you as a regular example of how she identifies with you as iee and how she totally understands and gets you, but can't even understand certain other selftyped iees, and therefore me and these other self typed iees aren't iee, bcuz we arent like you and her.

[Reficulris]

no, but i think you may have missed MY point in asking Eliza those things... those were genuine questions... I really dont know and I want to find out. I've tried looking at the Reinin Dichotomies in the past and end up relating to both of the dichotomies, and so have not really been able to implement them in my typing methods. So I'd really like to know what it is about my communication style that clinched Eliza's decisions on the dichotomies that I fit.

The difference between your original question and the kind of statement I made could be seen as an answer to those questions.... They'd be my explanation for "reinin on a hunch" if you will.

[mu4]

Oh I didn't disagree with her nor did I think Eliza can type.
I'm just basically prodding for stuff to maybe click for her (WA). I can't do that by telling her what she is (cuz i'm no socionics expert) but I can give perspectives, try to rattle concepts and such, see if she relates.

I think the "questions are mostly rethorical" criteria does do something in asking/declaring. I've noticed some people hardly ever really question something, they'll state something and have someone dispute it if they want the other information, if that makes sense? <- Refi must be asking.


And nah,you are right HKKMR doesn't ask too many questions, not when he's talking about something, he does in one on one conversation. He also likes to monologue his thoughts out. So i'd probably say declaring based on my faulty understanding. Which is why I call my understanding faulty.

Asking/declaring/taciturn/narrator dichotomy is very important imo. But how it manifest is something I'm unsure of. This is a old post about it from Labcoat, maybe he can talk about it.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...nin-Dichotomy)

These days, in many ways I'm more concerned about figuring out how to ask the right question or frame the questions in a manner that the answer is not some sort of word salad. I do think I monologue but I think I am also a dialectical person and I view my process as a dialectical one. I do think there is a clear divide on this matter as far as Gamma NT's and Delta NF's(Analytical/narrator) vs Alpha NT's and Beta NF's(Dialectial/tacturn) which constitute the major philosophical divide, it's the most visible narrator/taciturn divide that I've observed.

It is also my belief that when we use our contact(2/3) functions in our mental ring we adopt the Narrator/Taciturn pattern of our supervisee. In this manner we can emulate a different Narrator/Taciturn pattern in our behavior and interaction. As these functions consitute a similar method of thinking(cause-effect/etc/etc) and involves contact functions of relative proficiency, in addition the subdued function is bold, I think it's not a uncommon occurance.

I'm not fully sure of this dichotomy and I am still deeply observing the manifestation of this phenomena, however I think it is quite important especially in the basic communication we do each and every day.

[Eliza Thomason]

LOL Eliza, no offense, but i dont see you as a too-reliable source on socionic typing, so I take your stated opinions on typings with a bit of a grain of salt. But I do agree that we arent' that similar; I've felt that way since you first came on the forum. I mean, not to say i dont like you... i do, but just that I dont resonate with the things you write, how your write, nor your demeanor how it comes across. You are much much sweeter than me.

LOL, I get it. You said little to me right off, even though we are the same type, and when you did say things it was to disagree... Yet I was not examining your type, nothing really jumped out at me as we do have things in common as (ILEs and IEEs do), so took your self-typing at face value, and have aimed any posts to you as if you were IEE and get how I think.. But it all makes better sense to me now. I was going to bow out of this thread all together once I realized that your Process-thinking is not going to jive with my Result-thinking and much of my time is going to be wasted if I explain how I see things. However, you said:

this is nice, but can you explain why you pick those choices for me?
I mean, you just picking one over the other without an explanation isn't very convincing to me... it's a 50:50 chance i'm one or the other. Why do you say i'm an asker, why merry, why positivist, why democratic?

Well I guess that is useful to share. I will share specifics on those distinctives piecemeal throughout the day because I am multi-tasking a bunch of stuff today...

Start with ASKER/Declarer. ILE is ASKER. IEE is Declarer. I noticed our dialogue doesn't match that much. We have a different approach:

Asker -can talk to an audience as a whole very well
Declarer - finds it easier to talk to one person at a time


Asker - has a tendency to interrupt and feels comfortable pausing half way on the speech and with "questions allowed all the time" way, returning to what was said later if necessary; quite often asks a non-rhetorical question and answers it himself
Declarer - before starting to talk, first ascertains that attention is grabbed; prefers to finish the speech before letting others talk, likes closure and that their point was conveyed

[Before I spent a good chunk of time thinking though and writing about IEE/ILE typign here, especially to be helpful to you, as a Declarer needs to, I ascertained I had your attention - and I assumed i had it " because you are IEE", I assumed, so, you would get it. So I launched into my monologue. But my IEE style of typing, either my Declarer's monalougu,e or my use of personal examples (That is one of our ILE/IEE Reinin distinctions), or likely our Process/Result different ways of thinking, did not resonate with you, and you did not have anything to say about what I thought was so useful, and so worth taking the time to explain. And its perfectly fine that it was not useful to you. Chemical's responses were useful to you, and as a "Psychologist" and in interest of Socionics, I am curious as to his typing and what Reinin Dichtonomy makes his analysis' sit better with you. Just an intellectual curiosity with that. I also would not have spent time writing all that if I knew it would be as useless to you as it seems it was. However I am not offended, just, lesson learned for me. Like, don't assume things.]

Asker - As they are naturally prone to a dialogue style of communication over a "meek"(Unrequited) monologue mode, they prefer when they are asked questions when in monologue mode. Also because of that it takes great effort to stay on course and resist the temptation to stray of course by interrupting the interlocutor with questions that could possibly take them of course.
Declarer - Declarers are inclined to communicate in forms of monologues, where each party has "it's turn". Because of that they subconsciously attempt to transform a dialogue into a monologue (Either their own or that of their interlocutor by just listening without interrupting) and as a result of that the conversation ends up sounding like a sequence of two alternating monologues.

I think this thread shows your style is Asker and mine is Declarer. You have all these conversations going on and are juggling them fine. I tend to focus on one at a time, and not a lot of long monologing from you, but yes from me.

Also I probably used NF much in this one. Basically, you seem more like the Askers I know in the Asker/Declarer respects - you seem like SLIs, LSEs, ESIs, SEEs and yes, ILEs I know who are all Askers. None to prone to monologues filled with personal examples, either! All are comfortable with a communication style more like Asker than Declarer. I have happen to have had a lot of Askers in my life who are significant in my life, so, I am sensitive to this distinction.
______________

I have thoughts on ALL the others, thinking of explaining your "Merry" next. I have to make a run to the store to buy sheets of lattice, decking wood, and nails... I am not deserting this topic, it just juggling various things today..

P.S. Interesting point of info: all Duals are opposite on Asking/Declaring...