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

[Eliza Thomason]

Yes, and I love that book! Touch is my secondary. Words of Affirmation is first.

Do you have a secondary?

EDIT: Sorry! I just realized I'm contributing to derail!

WA is Merry and doesn't mind interruptions - or derails!

I used to think my first was Words of Affirmation but it seems to have slipped to third. Touch is second for me too, and 1st is Acts of Service. Which is what my SLI does for me all the time. I feel so loved. I know his 1st, and I am thinking his 2nd is Acts of Service. I know he sure loves it when I cook and serve him!

But what is Srider's 2nd??

[Suz]

To me, this just confirms IEE. I can relate to everything you've said. I absolutely love Fe affection, but I assume it's because I'm so awkward about giving it out myself. As a child, I remembered every time a teacher I admired touched my shoulder or gave me a hug. Similarly, I too feed off of energy. Two of my closest friends are Fe, and I'm sillier, happier, and louder around them because they bring out a different flavor of fun and excitement when they're around me.

Like you, I find myself walking on egg shells if I notice a negative Fe, or if someone doesn't seem to want to open up. My toughest music student is a 13 year old boy who says no more than two words at a time, and because I can't read him, it's harder to get through and see what works best in teaching styles, songs, etc. It's like I need positive, nonverbal feedback in order to perform without doubts. That's probably why public speaking is so difficult for me. I'm constantly wondering if I'm getting through, but it's too hard to read audience nonverbal cues, and my internal dialogue doubts and wonders.

So... I'm not sure I'd lean ILE just for those reasons.

Come back, long lost IEE!!!!

But maybe that means you're Alpha NT...

[Suz]

This page explains.

WA, is there any part of you that feels Aristocratic? Because you sure seem all-around Democratic to me.

Really, it sounds a lot nicer to be Democratic than Aristocratic when you read those descriptions. I read the Aristocratic explanation and you could make a lot of negative connotations from it, and in fact on this forum when I am grouping people in types, or making generalizations about there type, I usually get annoyed, rather put-down protests about slotting people my into groups -- which , well, isn't that what Socionics is about? and isn't this a Socionics forum? I think its always Democrats that do that and yeah, they sound more righteous and more ideal and evolved than me. Its just not "correct" to be Aristocratic. Its easy to marginalize the trait of Aristocrat into something its not, that's for sure.

Anyway, do you have any problem identifying as a Democrat, which I think you clearly are?

No problems with identifying democratic

[Eliza Thomason]

But maybe that means you're Alpha NT...

......................

[Words]

Yeah I'm starting to think maybe I should stick with my old self-typing. I've been trying to gain a revised understanding on what Fi is...But more in-depth interaction at least with one ILE here in private chat kind of brought what i think was his Fi-POLR to the surface and it REALLY bothered me. Like, I don't treat people that way, and I'm embarrassed to call myself an ILE if that's typical behavior of them.

You're right, things did feel right before.

Dunno boss, many still say I am SLI (could well be) and I find lots of delta boring, heh, me and my big mouth darn.

Well I think you are Ne leading either way as you always struck me with good advice and make a good life coach, which goes well for Ne leading either way. As for ILE: This woman, Judge Penny

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Ju...ed=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

You can catch her on youtube I am sure!

[chemical]

For what it's worth Eliza, I don't like to use traits of Reinin in a way that strays too far from model A, meaning when I analyze things like involutionary/evolutionary (process/result) and things like that, I like to link it up with the type's proposed ego block.

Of the alpha NT, I lean Ti-Ne over Ne-Ti for me, and I have indeed analyzed this to see if it checks out with the relevant Reinin you mentioned, because both those are components of holographic-panoramic. I'm not sure how neatly forms of cognition translates to the 16 types, because it seems conditional on believing in +/- signs, but I seem to fit the +/- version of Ti-Ne actually quite directly.

The difference in those styles is process static types resemble a more direct formal logic flow in how they process, because the idea is they start with simple premises, and use well-defined logical deductions to attain a more complicated situation (by building the process from small premises and reaching more and more complicated conclusions by, for instance, seeing what complicated logical implications can be drawn from them).

The negativist-involutionary paradigm is different, and I can explain it in the analytic (that is, static orientation) setting. The result-orientation tends to see the outcome as stripped of the process leading to it, with only hints and remnants of it in sight. With negativism, the aim isn't to build so much as turn over either a process or a result on its head in order to get a better understanding. The dialectical-algorithmic method would be seeing the opposition of forces in a process and aim to seamlessly unite them by the end of it (or, see it as two parallel processes taking place, viewed as a single major process with two minor parts which threaten to diverge). With holographic cognition, it is the result which is turned on its head, so the "opposing sides" are seen as components of a finalized product. Gulenko gives the analogy of projecting a geometric shape's dimensional constituents into lower dimensions in order to see it in simpler form. One could imagine opposite faces or angles in a shape corresponding to the negativism. Involutionary cognition has the idea of a result in mind, and is simply building hints of the process (one could say the process is known with much less awareness, rather than saying it is simply unknown, since I don't view dichotomies as exactly binary, definitely a scale/ranges), which in this case would be a knowledge of the various paths to the sought aim. In place of paths, however, only angles are remembered, hence you get a geometric shape that resembles a dense compression rather than a series of paths.

In a way, this makes me wish to speculate as to the two negativist cognitions further. They are sort of odd, because in positivist cognition the manner in which you would think to obtain an outcome (whether emphasizing the process or not) is pretty easy to guess. With negativist cognition, somehow what it seems like is the nature of what one is seeking from the cognition is a little less clear. CD looks for the implications of certain premises. DA on the other hand could be seen as diverging processes looking to be rendered convergent. Which is the stranger form of process cognition, because usually a process has a destination of its own, you'd think, instead of its aim being conditional on its distance from another process.
With the HP, there are no processes, because there's no situation to reduce down or to build up, rather there is angle after angle to give shape to the dim vision of sought outcome. You're giving form to something rather than deriving it, because there is no emphasis on process to get a derivation. By giving form to the result, you're making its shape clearer. There's a lot of detail lacking as to why the form is exactly as it is to the casual observer, and it has to be inferred from the relative positions of the angles presented. Again, without a process, there cannot be a result of a process, thus the "result" in result-orientation is hinted at by angles presented. Basically, this is really far from the structured formal logic style.

[mu4]

With the HP, there are no processes, because there's no situation to reduce down or to build up, rather there is angle after angle to give shape to the dim vision of sought outcome. You're giving form to something rather than deriving it, because there is no emphasis on process to get a derivation. By giving form to the result, you're making its shape clearer. There's a lot of detail lacking as to why the form is exactly as it is to the casual observer, and it has to be inferred from the relative positions of the angles presented. Again, without a process, there cannot be a result of a process, thus the "result" in result-orientation is hinted at by angles presented. Basically, this is really far from the structured formal logic style.

I would like to comment here slightly. I think it's not there is no processes(processes are determined by reality) and necessity as much as cognition. It's only that process types acutely focus on processes and it's a area of concern and agency.

[chemical]

Sure, point; probably similar to what I had in mind when writing this:

Involutionary cognition has the idea of a result in mind, and is simply building hints of the process (one could say the process is known with much less awareness, rather than saying it is simply unknown, since I don't view dichotomies as exactly binary, definitely a scale/ranges),

Overall, dichotomies in typology I view through the notion of relative levels of conscious orientation by certain paradigms.

[mu4]

Sure, point; probably similar to what I had in mind when writing this:

Overall, dichotomies in typology I view through the notion of relative levels of conscious orientation by certain paradigms.

Yea it's just a technical detail, but those can matter a lot when misinterpreted.

[chemical]

True; I got lazy towards the end and stopped making the fact everything is relative explicit by then.

[Eliza Thomason]

For what it's worth Eliza, I don't like to use traits of Reinin in a way that strays too far from model A, meaning when I analyze things like involutionary/evolutionary (process/result) and things like that, I like to link it up with the type's proposed ego block.

Of the alpha NT, I lean Ti-Ne over Ne-Ti for me, and I have indeed analyzed this to see if it checks out with the relevant Reinin you mentioned, because both those are components of holographic-panoramic. I'm not sure how neatly forms of cognition translates to the 16 types, because it seems conditional on believing in +/- signs, but I seem to fit the +/- version of Ti-Ne actually quite directly.

The difference in those styles is process static types resemble a more direct formal logic flow in how they process, because the idea is they start with simple premises, and use well-defined logical deductions to attain a more complicated situation (by building the process from small premises and reaching more and more complicated conclusions by, for instance, seeing what complicated logical implications can be drawn from them).

The negativist-involutionary paradigm is different, and I can explain it in the analytic (that is, static orientation) setting. The result-orientation tends to see the outcome as stripped of the process leading to it, with only hints and remnants of it in sight. With negativism, the aim isn't to build so much as turn over either a process or a result on its head in order to get a better understanding. The dialectical-algorithmic method would be seeing the opposition of forces in a process and aim to seamlessly unite them by the end of it (or, see it as two parallel processes taking place, viewed as a single major process with two minor parts which threaten to diverge). With holographic cognition, it is the result which is turned on its head, so the "opposing sides" are seen as components of a finalized product. Gulenko gives the analogy of projecting a geometric shape's dimensional constituents into lower dimensions in order to see it in simpler form. One could imagine opposite faces or angles in a shape corresponding to the negativism. Involutionary cognition has the idea of a result in mind, and is simply building hints of the process (one could say the process is known with much less awareness, rather than saying it is simply unknown, since I don't view dichotomies as exactly binary, definitely a scale/ranges), which in this case would be a knowledge of the various paths to the sought aim. In place of paths, however, only angles are remembered, hence you get a geometric shape that resembles a dense compression rather than a series of paths.

In a way, this makes me wish to speculate as to the two negativist cognitions further. They are sort of odd, because in positivist cognition the manner in which you would think to obtain an outcome (whether emphasizing the process or not) is pretty easy to guess. With negativist cognition, somehow what it seems like is the nature of what one is seeking from the cognition is a little less clear. CD looks for the implications of certain premises. DA on the other hand could be seen as diverging processes looking to be rendered convergent. Which is the stranger form of process cognition, because usually a process has a destination of its own, you'd think, instead of its aim being conditional on its distance from another process.
With the HP, there are no processes, because there's no situation to reduce down or to build up, rather there is angle after angle to give shape to the dim vision of sought outcome. You're giving form to something rather than deriving it, because there is no emphasis on process to get a derivation. By giving form to the result, you're making its shape clearer. There's a lot of detail lacking as to why the form is exactly as it is to the casual observer, and it has to be inferred from the relative positions of the angles presented. Again, without a process, there cannot be a result of a process, thus the "result" in result-orientation is hinted at by angles presented. Basically, this is really far from the structured formal logic style.

...So, Postivist and Process?

[chemical]

Eliza, basically my answer in short to that was embedded here:

Of the alpha NT, I lean Ti-Ne over Ne-Ti

within all the rest. Though I qualified becauseif I were to not accept the +/- signs version of construing types, there's in principle nothing preventing someone from being ILE-Ti and HP.
Between CD and HP there's almost no question that I fit the latter better. I also think it's something you have to infer, because I don't think it's just how you compose your writings (though those leave traces) but the process that happens before any writing takes place (unless you basically think out loud).

[Eliza Thomason]

Eliza, basically my answer in short to that was embedded here: within all the rest.

LOL, so your type "embeds" the answer and my type over-explains the answer?
(I wonder which type is the type that just answers the answer?)

So, you are saying you type yourself as LII. I was leaning towards thinking you are "Process"... making you, in the two types I was thinking you might be, possibly ILI. The other type I had in mind was the LII... however, my first leaning was ILI for you. I follow my LII friends' lofty thoughts easier than my ILI friends' lofty thoughts, and so, since I was not following your thoughts so well while you were explaining something, I thought you might be going about it by way of "Process" - vs. the "Result" style that I pick up on faster.

Yeah, so I was REALLY checking to see if you are "Process"... which would add support the genesis of my idea that the explanation for my having trouble understanding other forum members' explanations of Socionics might be due to our differing Process/Result cognitive styles...

Though I qualified because if I were to not accept the +/- signs version of construing types, there's in principle nothing preventing someone from being ILE-Ti and HP.

So lost. What "=/- signs version of construing types"?
What is HP?
Holographic/Panoramic maybe? I am only somewhat familiar, but none of it is clear enough in my mind to discuss it to compare or contrast it with Reinin Dichtonomies. Why do you bring it up?
And what is CD? And why do you bring it up?

Between CD and HP there's almost no question that I fit the latter better..

You mean you fit Process better than Result?? Really, what are you saying here??

I also think it's something you have to infer,.

What is something I have to infer?

because I don't think it's just how you compose your writings

Do you mean how I compose my writings, in particular, here?

(though those leave traces)

Traces of what?

but the process that happens before any writing takes place (unless you basically think out loud).

Sort of I do. When I write, it sort of comes from inspiration - I have to get it down. I am driven to write a thing, and I just start writing and some of it does seem like the thoughts are written as they come. Then I have to go back and edit or organize it, at least parts of it.

However, I am not sure you are referring to my writing, or to something else!

[I could come up with SO MANY questions for your longer post, questions that would most likely seem tedious. So I thought I would see if our minds could meet over this smaller post.]

[Words]

What's your type Works? @WorkaholicsAnon

[chemical]

You're right holographic-panoramic is what I meant by HP. I was just abbreviating. CD=causal deterministic. The reason I brought them up is process/result and positivist/negativist are two things going directly into your form of cognition. For instance, negativist+result is HP. Positivist+process is CD. Since you were asking if I was positivist+process, I brought up that this is exactly CD which would apply if I were ILE for instance.

I'm curious what the best fit for energy type would be, assuming I jump on that bandwagon (could it be ILI?! who knows), though it seems like there are varying levels of belief in that concept at all. I know Tcaud (who I never interacted with since he wasn't around when I joined forums) worked on this stuff. It seems like he approached it from a different angle slightly though, but it wasn't unrelated. I think Gulenko's energy type seems to be about how you allocate energy, meaning, the form of informational intelligence used to command the way you distribute your energy. Some people thus said it sounds like this has to do with your motivations, sort of the informational intelligence used in defining these, which is reasonable. Tcaud seemed to approach this by trying to determine people's interests. I don't know if he saw these as basically determining the energy type, but personally I think it's best to stay very general and say, a part of energy allocation hinges on interests. The two types would be related, though not in a way that really rid us of the necessity of defining them separately, in that energy allocation does determine what opportunities you have to process information, yet the information you have processed necessarily feeds into how you distribute your energies.
It's probably best to separate the word "behavior" from all this, because various aspects of behavior might be too low level to be modeled using anything akin to information elements, even if some are not irrelevant. Also, I for one can't say that your information type won't have any correlation to your interests. I think it's pretty obvious that if someone naturally thinks a certain way, there's a chance they will be enamored by interesting discoveries and ideas which require a specific kind of knowledge-bent to tune into. This however doesn't mean any more that your information type determines your interests, in so much as first, interests aren't always determined by cognitive focus in socionics language, and second, the information you are attuned most to does not translate into what you are interested in acquiring/dealing with. For instance, you could be into understanding one kind of mental processing through another. Exploring ethics through intuition, or logic for instance. This would lead to new logical discoveries, not new ethical discoveries, or new intuitive discoveries. But, you could still reasonably say such a person has an interest in ethical reasoning.

[Words]

You're right holographic-panoramic is what I meant by HP. I was just abbreviating. CD=causal deterministic. The reason I brought them up is process/result and positivist/negativist are two things going directly into your form of cognition. For instance, negativist+result is HP. Positivist+process is CD. Since you were asking if I was positivist+process, I brought up that this is exactly CD which would apply if I were ILE for instance.

I'm curious what the best fit for energy type would be, assuming I jump on that bandwagon (could it be ILI?! who knows), though it seems like there are varying levels of belief in that concept at all. I know Tcaud (who I never interacted with since he wasn't around when I joined forums) worked on this stuff. It seems like he approached it from a different angle slightly though, but it wasn't unrelated. I think Gulenko's energy type seems to be about how you allocate energy, meaning, the form of informational intelligence used to command the way you distribute your energy. Some people thus said it sounds like this has to do with your motivations, sort of the informational intelligence used in defining these, which is reasonable. Tcaud seemed to approach this by trying to determine people's interests. I don't know if he saw these as basically determining the energy type, but personally I think it's best to stay very general and say, a part of energy allocation hinges on interests. The two types would be related, though not in a visible way, in that energy allocation does determine what opportunities you have to process information, yet the information you have processed necessarily feeds into how you distribute your energies.
It's probably best to separate the word "behavior" from all this, because various aspects of behavior might be too low level to be modeled using anything akin to information elements, even if some are not irrelevant.

I'm just curious if you type yourself as delta and you come out with all that?

[Eliza Thomason]

process static types resemble a more direct formal logic flow in how they process, because the idea is they start with simple premises, and use well-defined logical deductions to attain a more complicated situation (by building the process from small premises and reaching more and more complicated conclusions by, for instance, seeing what complicated logical implications can be drawn from them).

The negativist-involutionary paradigm is different, and I can explain it in the analytic (that is, static orientation) setting. The result-orientation tends to see the outcome as stripped of the process leading to it, with only hints and remnants of it in sight...

You can see how a Result person's conversation with a Process person would be frustrating. The Result would be happy with enough info to get the result. The Process person 1st woudl say, "Um - where is the process here? Everything is missing!" Then they do what you say, here:

"..by building the process from small premises and reaching more and more complicated conclusions by, for instance, seeing what complicated logical implications can be drawn from them."

[and hey, that looks EXACTLY like what you did in this post, btw, chemical!] to explain themselves, leading me down this long path, pulling in all these premises to support the premise that was started with, and I am not trusting to go down that path if I do not know ALL about those other premises being pulled into the process, but the path trudges on and I have to suspend my judgement to stay on it, and I start hating the process - because I have had to suspend judgement on SO MANY things just to follow the logic - and the process begins to make me tired and I am wondering why I am on this path, and how I can get off it...

And I feel bad if the person explaining the thing has put a lot of effort into the explanation. I realize it helps them clarify their thoughts, so that's a good thing. But I can't validate it if I cannot follow it, and if I am lost any commentary I have is stupid and tedious.

That's what Process cognitive style seems like to me sometimes. Of course in my education I had to put up with it from various professors. I just took a lot of notes and dealt with all my questions later. Sometimes I'd have someone re-explain it to me more satisfactorily... All that because I had to, though.

[Words]

@WorkaholicsAnon I think ILE is a nice fit fwiw.

[Eliza Thomason]

I'm just curious if you type yourself as delta and you come out with all that?

He is Alpha Gamma Delta?

Sounds like a fraternity.

(Whats wrong with Beta?)

[Words]

He is Alpha Gamma Delta?

Sounds like a fraternity.

(Whats wrong with Beta?)

No idea his type Eliza but why on earth an SLI would come out with all that is beyond me. - Well why I asked his type. Could be ILI cause it never went anywhere, don't think LII cause LII's do actually get to the point.

[chemical]

Anyway, I don't want to steal Workaholic's thread too far in discussing me, but suffice it to say ILI isn't positivist+process but negativist+process!

[Words]

Anyway, I don't want to steal Workaholic's thread too far in discussing me, but suffice it to say ILI isn't positivist+process but negativist+process!

What?

[chemical]

Words, I don't know where the idea I type myself as delta came in, but no I definitely do not think I am delta. Eliza was wondering if I'm positivist+process, but then said I sound like her ILI friends, but I pointed out ILI is not positivist.

I actually did answer her question, as she herself saw, it was just part of a longer post.

[Eliza Thomason]

No idea his type Eliza but why on earth an SLI would come out with all that is beyond me. - Well why I asked his type. Could be ILI cause it never went anywhere, don't think LII cause LII's do actually get to the point.

LOL. We all have our ways of typing! You sound like a Result, like me. I think ILI, too! [Not final answer, but my current strong leaning for chemical! I put it at 75%) (And SLI-Te at 2%!)

[Eliza Thomason]

Anyway, I don't want to steal Workaholic's thread too far in discussing me,

Only a Declaring person would worry about that, chemical.
(So far Asker-WA says "have at it"!)

but suffice it to say ILI isn't positivist+process but negativist+process!

Oh! You are right. Thanks for the correction!

Words, I don't know where the idea I type myself as delta came in, but no I definitely do not think I am delta.

Phew! You are not a fraternity after all.

[anndelise]

Only a Serious person would worry about that, chemical.
(So far Merry WA says "have at it"!)

Earlier you kept saying it was Askers who weren't bothered by it.

Edited to add:

Yeah, so I was REALLY checking to see if you are "Process"... which would add support the genesis of my idea that the explanation for my having trouble understanding other forum members' explanations of Socionics might be due to our differing Process/Result cognitive styles...

Some of these forum members you've claimed were Process types are actually Result types. Just because you can't follow someone's reasonings, terms, nor theoretical underpinnings being referred to, that doesn't mean they are process types. It might just mean you have some more research and learning to do.

[Eliza Thomason]

Earlier you kept saying it was Askers who weren't bothered by it..

Did I? Apparently at least one of the times I was wrong. Now I am curious...

Edited to add:
Some of these forum members you've claimed were Process types are actually Result types. Just because you can't follow someone's reasonings, terms, nor theoretical underpinnings being referred to, that doesn't mean they are process types. It might just mean you have some more research and learning to do.

Oh, you are totally right. My idea that what trips me up is Process/Result is just the beginning of an idea that might prove wrong after a bit...

_________

Thanks, @anndelise - I had it right the first time - its Declarer's who prefer no interruptions. Askers can handle it better. I am going to edit what I wrote before now that you have corrected me on it. And it happens to fit: ILE-WA would be Asker, also LII is a Merry-Asker and ILI is a Serious-Declarer! (Thank you!)

[anndelise]

Did I? Apparently at least one of the times I was wrong. Now I am curious...

You've already forgotten the extended fight we had in PM regardng your Asker/interruption comments(snipes/goading)? The one that just happened the night before last night? Wow. Selective attention and selective memory must be an awesome power to have!!

[Suz]

What's your type Works? @WorkaholicsAnon

I guess i'm still straddling ILE and IEE... leaning more ILE in the present time pending more info to convince me otherwise.

[Eliza Thomason]

I guess i'm still straddling ILE and IEE... leaning more ILE in the present time pending more info to convince me otherwise.

Or, in the words of a more typical IEE:

"I haven't decided yet if I am not ILE or not IEE... presently I have not seen enough reason to lean back to not being ILE.. and I just wasn't feeling comfortable with the typing of IEE, and I don't feel as much discomfort with ILE. But I feel bad leaving the group I was in and hope that peoples feelings aren't being hurt over it because I wouldn't want to offend anyone or make anyone feel not happy with me..."

[Suz]

Or, in the words of a more typical IEE:

"I haven't decided yet if I am not ILE or not IEE... presently I have not seen enough reason to lean back to not being ILE.. and I just wasn't feeling comfortable with the typing of IEE, and I don't feel as much discomfort with ILE. But I feel bad leaving the group I was in and hope that peoples feelings aren't being hurt over it because I wouldn't want to offend anyone or make anyone feel not happy with me..."

well the way i see it, your example is just a forced example of what negativist expression is. However, ime, most people express themselves in a combo of positivist- and negativist-speak, myself included.

[Eliza Thomason]

well the way i see it, your example is just a forced example .

Naw, just a silly one...

of what negativist expression is. However, ime, most people express themselves in a combo of positivist- and negativist-speak, myself included.

Yes, and discerning how to sort that out in terms of the dichtonomy is a challenge...

[Eliza Thomason]

You've already forgotten the extended fight we had in PM regardng your Asker/interruption comments...

I don't fight. I will engage to sooth feelings and to try to bring about understanding though. IRL it normally works. My SLI called what I read him "Flaming". At any rate I am not allowed to stay up and do that any more - he wants me with him! (I am a newlywed after all...)

[anndelise]

Sorry WA, please ignore the following.

 

I don't fight. I will engage to sooth feelings and to try to bring about understanding though. IRL it normally works.

You don't even try to bring about understanding, because that would mean you would have to try to actually understand the other person and/or the problem, instead of ignoring it and allowing it to fester. You don't try to reach a mutual understanding, nor to find possible resolutions, nor to clear the air. Instead you talk "me, me, me," and have to keep telling the person how you are so good and kind and generous.

Your selective attention and selective memory allows you to see only what you want to see, or what you've presumed from the start. I'm sure you do this irl too, and that many people just get so frustrated trying to reseaon with you that they just give up and placate you by telling yes, ok, you're a good person, (which is the only "reasoning" you respond to). And then that's what you cling to and remember, quickly forgetting what the topic of the conver had even been about. As witnessed by you not remembering the original topic of the PMs we had just exchanged.

For a small example of your selective attention/memory and your functioning off of preconceived presumptions..., even in this own thread, when *I* don't want to derail WAs thread, I'm an "Asker", but when someone else doesn't want to derail it, then you tell them that only a "Declarer" would be concerned about that. But do you alter your understanding of the person or the dichotomy? No. You continue with your presumptions you made of them before you had even spent time studying socionics.

Another example...Like how for a few years you kept saying how you and WA were sooo much alike, which meant you and she were iee and anyone not like you both wasn't iee. But now that she's thinking ile, suddenly you see all those differences you hadn't noticed before because you were responding to her on the presumption that she was iee like you. This is more like what a rational type does than an irrational type. Which is one, of many, reasons why i don't believe you are iee, but instead are ese.

[Eliza Thomason]

I don't know how to hide this like you did, @anndelise. I am "me, me" because I am explaining me because I KNOW I have been misunderstood. And yeah, its probably too overriding in my responses because I happen to REALLY HATE hate being misunderstood and I should just let it go. However yes I probably don't listen well. I feel helpless because I do want to understand, but yes, I can see I am not. And I do consider myself good at understanding, and I actually am good at that a lot of times, but in this case, yeah, not so much. I get the booby prize. As to "I'm great, I'm good" I'm not seeing that. As to selective memory, I think its not so much that but just plain old regular bad memory or sloppiness in thinking. Like ADD or tiredness or time for vitamins! As to ESE, well, you know I think its impossible, but then, you also disagree as much with a type I typed you at once. So, look, we found a point of agreement! We probably are different types, not same, and that's why we aren't getting each other. (Right? We agree we don't get each other.)

[Suz]

Intuitive subtype ILE-Ne

Makes an impression of a detached, floating in the clouds, and childishly naïve person. Socially adept conversationalist. Reads much and is inquisitive. Willingly discusses new information with his friends and associates, shows interest in their opinion. His seemingly soft demeanor is combined with obstinacy and imperturbability when he has to defend his views. Likes to discuss things but rarely if ever ends these discussions in conflict. Often smiles at others even if they haven't provided any occasion for this. With the same smile talks about both ridiculous and serious subject matters. Usually he is kind with everyone and doesn't readily take offense at critical remarks. In his undertakings and projects he is patient, and, despite being somewhat forgetful and scattered, if he is really interested in something he will follow it through to completion. His gestures and speech seem either slowed down or accelerated. His pose seems at ease, gaze is scattered and defocused, gait and movements lack in certainty and firmness.

Character:
Interested in new, unusual or poorly understood phenomena. Curious. Usually reads a lot and has a wide circle of interests. Likes to surprise others with sensational news. Good at seeing potential prospects of various ideas and undertakings. If he is sufficiently provided for, prefers to occupy himself with that which is interesting instead of that which brings a return. Can get thoroughly engaged with one project or problem if for him it is interesting or beneficial.
Needs periodic emotional shake-ups. Feels delighted to have fun in a circle of friends. Loves those who are friendly, confident, optimistic, and can elevate the mood with provocative humor. Poorly sees how people relate to him. Afraid to show his feelings first and doubts them for a long time. Dislikes rushing things. Due to this, may manifest initiative with much delay, when the opportunity is already gone.
Does not hurry with the implementation of plans or ideas, because he believes that the main results are still ahead. Occasionally suffers from disorganization, lack of will and initiative. At times he will rush his work, attempting to make up for lost time. Resourceful and inventive in difficult situations. When at rest, shows little initiative, unless he is faced with a crisis situation, which stimulates him and increases his vitality. Then he begins to actively engage in work, he promptly carries out his assignments not sparing time or resources. Dislikes routine and any regimented, monotonous work. Cannot live by a strict schedule.
His character combines qualities of kindness, idealism, and trusting nature. Because of his innate impracticality and gullibility, he can be easily fooled. A sense of justice and faith in the best qualities are inherent to him, so he finds it difficult to come to a realization of such let-downs. Rarely gives compliments but is usually well-wishing towards other people, tries to understand their wishes and needs, to be helpful to all. Gladly gives advice on how to get out of difficult situations. Avoids disagreements and conflicts. Supports good, friendly relations. If necessary, attempts to explain the reasons for his mistakes and unethical actions.
Not vain. Defends his own interests with less vigor than the interests of those whom he cares for, although sometimes he can become principled and unyielding in matters that are of importance to him. Not always responsible and can promise that which he isn't able to deliver. Knowing this, he sometimes resorts to never giving promises to anyone not to spoil his relations.
Reluctantly deals with everyday life, yielding initiative to others over such matters. In issues that concern aesthetics often relies on tastes of his partner. Quite absent-minded and sometimes forgets what he needs to do. Getting distracted by the little things, sometimes runs out of time to meet important deadlines. Having to live by a schedule and constantly maintain order feels like a burden for him.


Logical subtype ILE-Ti

The logical subtype projects an impression of a serious person. Can be sharp and even inconsiderate from time to time. Self-assured, speaks rapidly and usually in a categorical tone. Can be unduly categorical in his judgments with a tendency of imposing his opinion on others. At times appears assertive and self-confident. Impatient, cannot always wait for someone else to finish before interrupting. Often takes up something new and tries to find it a practical embodiment. Actively and vigorously defends his interests. While doing so, he may flare up and offend someone, but noticing this tries to correct the situation. Rather self-centered and may take offense at minor things, however, after some time he once again becomes well-wishing and amicable. His behavior is unpredictable and full of contrasts. His gaze is at times scattered and at other times testing and tenacious. Gait and gestures are swinging, seem confident but poorly coordinated. His pose is free and unrestrained. Easily closes the distance, may hug and kiss his conversation partner.

Character:
Loves to expose everything to logical analysis. May be engaged in theoretical development if it has the potential of being implemented into practice. Critically thinks over old theories and methods and is able to create qualitatively new ones. Can turn vague ideas into well designed, easy to implement, concrete projects. Can feel potential and future prospects, has a good marketing sense. Quickly loses interest in what has been done. Due to this can scatter himself and not finish everything that he has started, unless it concerns something that is important and fundamental for him. Often completely changes his types of activity and plunges into something new. Avidly engages in projects and opportunities that cannot be fully exhausted.
Has an inclination to impose his views on others. In cases when he has been proven wrong, it is difficult for him to admit it. Does not succumb to intimidation. He can issue a challenge to a superior opponent even without any actual chances of success. In arguments and discussions he is excitable and often hot tempered. When he is put under pressure he boldly and aggressively fights back. When there is panic, he calmly and confidently takes the initiative in his hands, becomes focused and decisive, acts quickly and logically. Can find a way out of any difficult situation.
Active and energetic. Savvy in strategic questions and enterprising. Readily attracts people to new undertakings if he considers them promising. He is constantly on the lookout for new approaches and solutions to the present problems. Doesn't stop on what has been accomplished. Suggests radical solutions. Ambitious. If necessary can be tough and assertive. Does not like to compromise.
As a leader prefers that everyone would be in their places occupied by their work. Encourages people around him to activity, teamwork, and cohesion. Democratic by nature, tries to be the first among equals. Not inclined to show respect for ranks and conformity. Easily switches to a more familiar language in his conversations with others. Shows his positive predisposition by a handshake and a friendly smile. Tries to be fair to all but is not afraid to say the truth directly. Wants to be respected. Can be unrestrained in arguments and disputes. Tries to distance himself from imposing people who want to use him to their advantage.
From time to time needs to spend time in a good company or engage in other activities (sports or hobbies) in order to raise his vitality and spirits. Likes to make useful contacts. Since he is not always a good judge of character, sometimes keeps questionable acquaintances. As a consequence of this, he is inclined to periodically become disillusioned with people. Has difficulties creating positive, stable relationships, but despite being scattered he usually tries to keep his promises.
Mistrustful of feelings. Afraid to show how he feels being uncertain in subsequent reaction of his partner. Painfully experiences uncertainty in relationships. If he believes the reciprocity is there, he will honestly speak of his shortcomings because he is afraid of letting down the hopes and expectations of his partner and well as being let down himself. Afraid of becoming dependent on his partner. Often puts work interests above personal attachments. Any reproaches or criticisms irritate him. Can vehemently and sharply defend his independence and point of view, but later regrets it and tries to smooth things over if he cares for the person.

@point

I kind of like these descriptions -- what do you think?

I relate a lot to the Ne-subtype description here... except i'm pretty free with (sincere) compliments.

and you seem to totally fit Ti-sub, except that you dont seem to take offense at minor things (unless you just dont admit it, which could be the case...). I'm not always sure when you're facetious vs not.

[mu4]

@point

I kind of like these descriptions -- what do you think?

I relate a lot to the Ne-subtype description here... except i'm pretty free with (sincere) compliments.

and you seem to totally fit Ti-sub, except that you dont seem to take offense at minor things (unless you just dont admit it, which could be the case...). I'm not always sure when you're facetious vs not.

Yea, I pretty much fit Ti-subtype to a T so to speak. I do take offense at minor things.

I don't fit the Ne subtype at all.

[Cerelict]

IEE.

[Suz]

IEE.

Your reasoning please?

[Cerelict]

Your reasoning please?

When you've spoken to an ILE, you'll have a vague feeling that something was said too vaguely even if it wasn't. They have a unique sort of detachment in their communication style.
If you read an ILE's post it'll sound very frank, like a list of raw facts without very strong influence of tone.


IEE actually matches the "mad scientist" archetype more suitably than the ILE. Fi is what makes them "silly" under some circumstances, Ne makes them and the ILE constrained and cerebral.