Apparently he's an ILI, however, I'm doubtful of that.
What type would you guys say he is based on what he said about himself?
What's his type?
Apparently he's an ILI, however, I'm doubtful of that.
What type would you guys say he is based on what he said about himself?
I agree with his self assessment, I think he is ILI. He seems less dismissive and more polite compared to average ILI. He explain this by having Harmonizing type, which make sense. If I am wrong and he is LII, I think he LII-Ti. Why are you doubtful about him being ILI? What type do you think he is?
yeah he seems ILI, harmonizing. Comparing him with a Normalizer of the same type can be useful, N-ILI
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
glasses cover important nonverbal
Gulenko allows this as he uses verbal part much
Im leaning more towards LII, i don’t get Fi. I have a feeling he is more expressive than he’s putting on.Originally Posted by myresearch
On a more personal note, he answered every single question the way I would, from what he said to the way he would structure his sentence. Just that I’m more expressive. Hmm
Looks Alpha NT
~* astralsilky
Each essence is a separate glass,
Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
A thousand colors, but the Light is One.
Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet
Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...
Reasons??
20 years typing experience.
A good hint with learning VI for the NTs is paying attention to how their eyes are set. Alphas usually have an emphasis at the upper level and Gammas at the lower levels. This is not a ardfast clear rule but may help guide others in knowing what to look for. I am often attracted to the eyes of alpha NTs some of which get very heavy (versus gamma light and brooding at the bottoms).
~* astralsilky
Each essence is a separate glass,
Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
A thousand colors, but the Light is One.
Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet
Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...
I have to agree that this is EIE. ILIs don't manifest like this, too much Fe going on here for alpha NT. Plus, he seems to drop hints of DA cognition, someone who 'switches' worlds in his head, so both ILI and EIE are likely, but I'd go with EIE.
Wait u don't like the brooding?
I guess everyone has their own cup of tea lol.
EIE 2w1
I thought this as well.
What makes you think so?
i just have a picture in my mind of how they manifest
I think it would be great if he also had a video with one of his close friends. His type would be more apparent. I agree with vesstheastralsilky that gamma NTs have emphasis at lower level but his hand and body movements are very ILI-ish. I think ILIs can be expressive sometimes. Maybe others are right and he is EIE. All EIEs aren't expressive all the time, but all EIEs are emotionally expressive when they are with their friends having fun, their Fe pops out, they seem stereotypically Fe-dom in those times.
mb ILI
not EIE, definetely
I saw a lot of reasons to consider LII and very few for ILI. It's not just the interest in math and philosophy but the drive to seek fundamental knowledge to connect things to an "overall worldview". Plus there was a ton of Ne, consuming information voraciously from a wide variety of sources, having countless interests, etc.
Si (and a bit of Fe) came out in yes, the being "unobtrusive" and calm, polite, and the being a "helpful person", liking to help. Also the other interests like tennis and doing puzzles to relax and have some fun.
There was some Ni for sure in terms of being critical and noticing flaws, plus the spiritual/introspective inclination, but an ILI also has to value Se and Fi which there was very little of.
Of course, if you think things like DCNH and cognitive styles are more important than basic things like quadra values, then you may disagree.
Last edited by Exodus; 03-12-2019 at 11:52 AM.
Amusing, people are typing me and they didn't even tell me.
So, the suggestions are ILI, LII, and EIE? That's no surprise because those are the three types I've always related to most. None of them are absurd to think, and I can address each.
First of all, I want to say that I actually don't believe that trans-methodological diagnostics exist yet in any reliable fashion. When people use words like ILI, LII, EIE, etc., it's important to remember that they don't even mean the same thing as each other. Therefore, I don't really think any of you are wrong per se. The more interesting question for me is, what can I actually take from your assessments besides the labels. i.e. What's under the labels? That's the reason I value the perspective of Gulenko so much; it connects so many ideas in a way which illuminates. None of the labels being given exist in some purely deductive information system, but rather in the context of a vast semantic network which differs in content and coherence for each one of you.
For ILI: it is not simply a question of DCNH and Cognitive Styles. DCNH should come after the typing anyways, rather than being used to rationalize it. Cognitive Style does matter though and I've found it to be very consistent; I very much have Dialectical-Algorithmic cognition as people are noticing. What also matters is temperament. That is to say, Gulenko sees my temperament as Ip, because I am introverted, and importantly, irrational and dynamic. Many people don't use dichotomies like Irrational and Dynamic since they lack consistent semantics in their methodology; for Gulenko they do have consistent semantics. My pronounced mood swings and intense sensitivity argue for an unbalanced, weak nervous system (dynamic), and apparently, the large number of eye movements up also confirms a dynamic temperament (i.e. Gulenko uses nonverbal signs as well which might be somewhat esoteric and require a bit of practice, he looks at things from a few angles). Dismissiveness has little to do with ILI IMO; that's just a negative personality trait that is ridiculous to assign to a type. As for Quadra values, there are many different takes on what those mean, and moreover, Quadra values IMO are not something which flows solely out of people. They do in some sense, but people's values also come from the integral types of their family, friends, organizations, groups and nations that they participate in. Another way of putting this is: Quadra values are multi-level, rather than flat, as I see them, and as Victor Gulenko does. Since the Axial Age as spoken of by Karl Jaspers, it might be said that humanity has an integral type of EIE, so this type and its values are especially influential.
For EIE: There is no type of person that has influenced me more than this. I have been very close to several people of this type and they have deeply influenced my thought process, ambitions, and habits. So, my interpretation of this is that you are seeing an integral type of EIE shine through me, and that is no accident. It's like a footprint of them. I have really looked up to these people and their extraordinary personalities and talents, but they can be a little overwhelming at times (not just for me, in fact I can handle much more than most people). However, I would not be the person I am today without them. Let's just say that it's been a very complicated, heart-wrenching, twisty-turney journey full of pain, trauma, love, controversy, spirituality and enlightenment that these videos don't even begin to delve into. I plan on writing a lot more about it in the future. Short forum posts are not my natural way of expressing myself; I prefer long dialectical stories and arguments to really tease out all of the issues.
For LII: On the one hand, this is another type that has influenced me a lot. Less so at a personal level, but I have learned a lot from LII scientists, psychologists and philosophers (including Victor Gulenko himself) and thus have adopted some of their Holographic thinking habits. On the other hand, based on other views of Socionics, I can see how I appear as one. If you focus on certain interpretations of Quadra values, like being kind, friendly and unobtrusive as an indication of not valuing Se, think that having many interests is Ne valuing (I see it as being a pronounced irrational), don't include things like Irrationality/Dynamic/Process, and think that seeking fundamental knowledge is primarily about Ti (which a number of Socionists think), then I must admit that your assessment makes a great deal of sense. We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are, so if it is helpful for you to consider me in this way, then I don't resist it... yet. However, I haven't found it to be as useful as the ILI assessment at a personal level, and according to Humanitiarian Socionics, the most common types among philosophers is the pair EIE and ILI, so I absolutely think that these types are interested in such things from another point of view.
My main thrill in Socionics is dealing with the methodological issues, which I think almost no one pays anywhere near enough attention to. The dialectical process of understanding the deep worldview of another person is what is most important to me in this context, and cooperating to create something greater while being conscious of the assumptions we are making. That means trying to build coherent harmonies which further illuminate reality, and constantly hanging question marks on our ASSUMPTIONS and personal psychologies, not just our assessments from certain assumptions. I don't think people tend to make errors just due to lack of rigor, but from being asleep to their own assumptions and psychological limitations, and not having empathic and open-minded people to dialogue with to allow the real radical thinking that is necessary for serious improvement to have some kind of home or sustainability. It's a very fragile and sensitive process, and this is why I consider it so important to be kind and friendly. I think that's the only way to be in the world, upon any reflection; there isn't enough of it in the world, and I don't think that's limited to quadra values or something only certain types can understand. I do understand the need for pressure sometimes, and that's a mode none of you have seen me in so you are only seeing my compassion. The pressures that do exist should be a clue as to what motivates people and what we should be considering. That said, it does take a lot of work to develop quality rigorous systems, so kudos to people who attempt it as long as you aren't too dogmatic about it. I do really like thehotelambush's work, for example, and all its mathematical analogies. I hope it flourishes, it is beautiful, but it's not my natural way of thinking.
Last edited by Varlawend; 03-12-2019 at 03:44 PM.
@Varlawend I would have tagged you but I wanted to respect your privacy in case you wished to maintain it.
So, according to Gulenko are open-mindedness and friendliness associated with irrationality as well, or what? And what about "cooperating to see something greater"? Or being aware of one's assumptions and learning from different points of view?
I fully agree re DCNH. But cognitive styles for me have little to no meaning. Certainly not enough clarity to type with.
And what are the methodological issues you are dealing with?
That's an appreciable sentiment, I just found it amusing that this was happening without my awareness. And this is an old thread too!
No, open-mindedness and friendliness are not associated with Irrationality to my knowledge. They seem like good personality traits in an uncontroversial, general sense. Cooperating to see something can revolve around Ethics, I would say. Or the Central dichotomy, in some cases, an Ni sacrifice of the self for a greater cause or ritual. Or Fe and Ti, purposeful collective uses of emotional energy. Or tightly knit Aristocratic communities. I suppose it depends. Being aware of one's assumptions (and especially growing more awareness of this) would be an example of philosophical intuition (Ni), especially Ni-, which well sees contradictions in abstract categories. It is a process of discovery IMO, painful but wondrous. I don't want to put functions on a pedestal though, because that seems to go against the spirit of Socionics. All the functions are extremely important and have their role to play in making this participatory reality a better and more magical place.So, according to Gulenko are open-mindedness and friendliness associated with irrationality as well, or what? And what about "cooperating to see something greater"? Or being aware of one's assumptions and learning from different points of view?
That is fine, type with what works for you. If a version of Socionics doesn't work for you, then it's of little use for your understanding. I'm still learning about the Cognitive Styles myself, but I like them a great deal. I can see how they would be somewhat vague.I fully agree re DCNH. But cognitive styles for me have little to no meaning. Certainly not enough clarity to type with.
Ugh, too many to write about here unfortunately. I'd like to explain it very much. It is more like a process of thinking, and a glut assumptions that exist around so much of typology. I really like typology and it has meant so much to me, but the issues and assumptions I encounter with it are enough to leave me in a nearly constant state of existential angst. At some point, I will write at far more length about these things, but also in a more organized and polished fashion so that it is hopefully more interesting.And what are the methodological issues you are dealing with?
Please do explain at some point. I've had methodological problems with socionics as well since there could be bias in the means by which we type. For example, which information is most important with type and which is less important? That's an important quandary for settling type disputes where there is evidence for one type using one aspect of socionics and evidence for another using other aspects. I, too, have been typed LII by some while personally relating to the ILI descriptions more so than the LII descriptions, so I may be able to learn from you if you have a clear DA cognition.
I'm not sure if the methodological holes you have in mind are identical or even similar to the ideas I have, but I would certainly like to compare.
----- FarDraft, 2020
They are more controversial than you might think. You see, the competitive, dominating nature of Se is directly opposed to open-mindedness. When you want to win or beat the other guy, you don't want to be "friendly" with him. And you don't want to be "open" to him winning or being right, either, you want you to win and not him, because then you lose. That's Se, which is directly opposed to Si and Ne.
The fact that you're not sure suggests that the system you're using isn't quite as tight or illuminating as you say.Cooperating to see something can revolve around Ethics, I would say. Or the Central dichotomy, in some cases, an Ni sacrifice of the self for a greater cause or ritual. Or Fe and Ti, purposeful collective uses of emotional energy. Or tightly knit Aristocratic communities. I suppose it depends.
It's not about contradictions though, it's about seeing things from an outside point of view - which is Ne. Ne is also about openness to possibilities, such as the different ways of interpreting typology.Being aware of one's assumptions (and especially growing more awareness of this) would be an example of philosophical intuition (Ni), especially Ni-, which well sees contradictions in abstract categories.
The problem with Gulenko's new stuff is that it goes against the basic definitions of the IM elements and what it means to value them. If you don't have a good definition of Se and Si and why they conflict, then quadras simply don't work, there is no explanation for why ILIs should conflict with ESEs (if they even do anymore), etc. And Gulenko has said as much: he thinks DCNH (!!) has more of an impact on relationships than the basic types! This suggests a very serious break from classical socionics and its truly illuminating relationship structure.
Yes, I know many people like that, I also see competitive people like that as what you would call Se-valuers. But I disagree that all Se-valuers are this way, if that is what you are implying, and I don't see a basis for such an assertion. But yes, here are we are getting to some assumptions. You say this is what Se is (I agree that these things have to do with Se of course). But how do you know? Because it is part of the system you use to make sense of things? That's not wrong in itself of course, but it's hardly a license for implying that it is the only or best way of seeing things. Se and Ne have complicated relationship, and I don't really agree that they are entirely opposed. In a sense, they are. In fact, an excess of Se will lead to outbreaks of Ne in Humanitarian Socionics, and vice versa. Si and Se do in fact have an effect on another that mutually constrains action in that system. So yes, I do see more of a Dualism there.They are more controversial than you might think. You see, the competitive, dominating nature of Se is directly opposed to open-mindedness. When you want to win or beat the other guy, you don't want to be "friendly" with him. And you don't want to be "open" to him winning or being right, either, you want you to win and not him, because then you lose. That's Se, which is directly opposed to Si and Ne.
The fact that you're not sure suggests that the system you're using isn't quite as tight or illuminating as you say.
I have no idea what to make of this. First of all, do you understand the principle that different things can have similar properties? I was talking about something abstract, not a concrete instance of something, that is why it can have multiple meanings. And frankly, even a concrete instance of something can have meanings contributed to it from multiple angles, so even in that case I'm not sure what you're getting at. Lastly, I don't really use one system for typology, so I don't even know what you mean about "the system I'm using being so tight and illuminating". That is a problematic assumption of yours from the start.
Being aware of one's assumptions has a lot to do with noticing contradictions in the systems that you use to make sense of your experience and your own behavior and that of others, and noticing contradictions also has a lot to do with expanding one's point of view. What is seeing things from an outside point of view, anyways? Seeing things from a point of view that's not your own? And how could you see things from such a point of view, if it is not your own? If you are seeing them, then apparently it is your point of view, so it is in some sense inside. Why does only Ne do this? Because you have defined it that way, and that works to break down your experience to some extent? Is Ne in charge of all empathy now as well? The way I see things, all of the Irrational IME's have to do with expanding our point of view, and there are more things besides which expand our point of view.It's not about contradictions though, it's about seeing things from an outside point of view - which is Ne. Ne is also about openness to possibilities, such as the different ways of interpreting typology.
Any "basic definition" of an IM element or what it means to value it can be challenged; it doesn't just get to be some sacrosanct given. I don't really see much widespread agreement in Socionics about what such things mean in practice, even disregarding the work of Gulenko, so that seems like a rather unsolved problem to me from the get-go. Gulenko does have extensive definitions for Se and Si, the dualism between them, and how the Quadras work, which I find pretty impressive and interesting. ESE and ILI have a conflictor relationship in Gulenko's model, but that doesn't actually mean they always conflict in practice; conflictor relations can train one to survive in harsh conditions for example. I haven't seen him say that DCNH has a greater impact on relationships than the basic types, but I can see how it would be at a comparable level. His model is indeed a very serious break from classical Socionics, that much I agree with. I've never been impressed by any classical Socionics understanding; it was interesting to me from the start, but I quickly found it rather flat and simplistic in practice, and I'm very far from alone in that. But maybe others can find more use for it than me, like yourself, and I'm rather interested to see how far that can go. I don't dismiss it. I don't doubt that even classical Socionics can be a helpful tool for better understanding people and seeing some patterns in relationships. However, my own relationships make far more sense in the context of Humanitarian Socionics than anything classical Socionics has ever produced. That's my review of such things, and since it's my experience, I'm the only one who gets to write that review, but I understand if you see things differently.The problem with Gulenko's new stuff is that it goes against the basic definitions of the IM elements and what it means to value them. If you don't have a good definition of Se and Si and why they conflict, then quadras simply don't work, there is no explanation for why ILIs should conflict with ESEs (if they even do anymore), etc. And Gulenko has said as much: he thinks DCNH (!!) has more of an impact on relationships than the basic types! This suggests a very serious break from classical socionics and its truly illuminating relationship structure.
Last edited by Varlawend; 03-12-2019 at 06:45 PM.
Yeah, this is a very serious break with classical socionics, probably one of the biggest I've seen from Gulenko. The leading function is supposed to be the "accentuated" one. This seems to me like a poor way to explain away the problems in a bad underlying model. I am honestly puzzled how Gulenko went from making arguably significant contributions to the theory...to this.
EIEs and ILIs can often be philosophical, but it's more straightforward to associate this with TiNe...and oddly enough Gulenko actually does: -Ti for him is the "logic of contradictions and paradoxes". So why are EIEs supposed to be more philosophical and attuned to paradoxes than LIIs who have -Ti as a leading element? That makes no sense. (Contradiction is a logical concept, btw.)The two types that are most to the philosophical understanding of life are EIE and OR. I think so, because it is they who possess intuitive dialectic thinking and, better than others, see contradictions in theories and reasoning as operating with abstract categories. In addition, they reach out to each other psychologically (hysteroids often agree with schizoids), they are interested together because they quickly perceive information from each other, and both are lovers of the argument. No one in socion is so focused on the process of thinking as these two types.
In the future, many philosophical problems will be posed and even solved through the cooperation of various forms of thinking, including artificial intelligence. The latter so far reflects only deductive cause-and-effect thinking. However, the next step should be the re-creation of the most complex of thinking styles - the dialectical one, aimed at identifying and synthesizing opposites."
The best way of seeing things is the one that gives the most understanding. And yes, you have to evaluate the coherence and power of the system as a whole.
All Se valuers must share some one thing that makes them Se valuers. That's what we call having Se and/or Ni in a valued position. Of course this can manifest in different ways but they all share the same root. But the "example" I gave was very general, enough to represent the conflict between Se and Si as a whole.
The way you test an abstract system is by applying it to specific examples. The better it's able to explain those multiple examples as a consequence of type, the better the theory. A theory has to constrain to explain, and in this case you haven't constrained anything.[/COLOR]I have no idea what to make of this. First of all, do you understand the principle that different things can have similar properties? I was talking about something abstract, not a concrete instance of something, that is why it can have multiple meanings. And frankly, even a concrete instance of something can have meanings contributed to it from multiple angles, so even in that case I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I was referring to Gulenkoan Humanitarian socionics which you said "connects so many ideas in a way which illuminates" and apparently used to justify your typing as ILI.Lastly, I don't really use one system for typology, so I don't even know what you mean about "the system I'm using being so tight and illuminating". That is a problematic assumption of yours from the start.
"noticing contradictions also has a lot to do with expanding one's point of view"Being aware of one's assumptions has a lot to do with noticing contradictions in the systems that you use to make sense of your experience and your own behavior and that of others, and noticing contradictions also has a lot to do with expanding one's point of view. What is seeing things from an outside point of view, anyways? Seeing things from a point of view that's not your own? And how could you see things from such a point of view, if it is not your own? If you are seeing them, then apparently it is your point of view, so it is in some sense inside. Why does only Ne do this? Because you have defined it that way, and that works to break down your experience to some extent? Is Ne in charge of all empathy now as well? The way I see things, all of the Irrational IME's have to do with expanding our point of view, and there are more things besides which expand our point of view.
TiNe
"Why does only Ne do this?"
Because Ne is internal (deals with hidden information, such as perspectives), extroverted (expands rather than limiting), and abstract (deals with phenomena that are disconnected from immediate experience).
If you disagree, then what is Ne? How should it be defined? All these questions don't mean much unless you can provide a better interpretation of your own.
Oh he does? I don't recall seeing any recent writing of his on the relationships between IM elements. The only Russian article I could find was older and didn't talk about specific examples. Likewise I've seen a lot about "quadra progression" and very little about the intertype relationships.Any "basic definition" of an IM element or what it means to value it can be challenged; it doesn't just get to be some sacrosanct given. I don't really see much widespread agreement in Socionics about what such things mean in practice, even disregarding the work of Gulenko, so that seems like a rather unsolved problem to me from the get-go. Gulenko does have extensive definitions for Se and Si, the dualism between them, and how the Quadras work, which I find pretty impressive and interesting.
I don't think I said anywhere that the basic definitions are "sacrosanct". I've put a lot of effort into refining them and seeking out their essence. What I have a problem with is definitions that apparently undermine the established predictions of socionics. It's a step backwards.
You might find this interesting, it's an answer to a question I asked Victor Gulenko:
https://socioniks.net/consultation/?id=105
I actually disagree with him about advanced AI at its current stage. I think that modern Deep Learning architectures reflect mainly Vortical-Synergetic/Stochastic thinking, but he might not be aware of those innovations. But besides that, this may give you an idea of how he views philosophers. I do think there are some LII philosophers too, tbh, but I can see why EIE and ILI would be the most common by his way of thinking. One of the key differences I see with Gulenko as compared to others is multi-level thinking, as in, incorporating multiple levels to the psyche. Some people don't like this, but I'm one of those that do.Victor Gulenko
A person’s worldview and beliefs mainly reflect his individual functional profile, especially the subtype and accentuated function. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the type of the author himself and the theories created by him, which, as a rule, line up around his accentuated function. It is accentuation that excites a person and is realized by him as the leading principle, which he is inclined to transfer to any other psyche.
The two types that are most to the philosophical understanding of life are EIE and OR. I think so, because it is they who possess intuitive dialectic thinking and, better than others, see contradictions in theories and reasoning as operating with abstract categories. In addition, they reach out to each other psychologically (hysteroids often agree with schizoids), they are interested together because they quickly perceive information from each other, and both are lovers of the argument. No one in socion is so focused on the process of thinking as these two types.
In the future, many philosophical problems will be posed and even solved through the cooperation of various forms of thinking, including artificial intelligence. The latter so far reflects only deductive cause-and-effect thinking. However, the next step should be the re-creation of the most complex of thinking styles - the dialectical one, aimed at identifying and synthesizing opposites.
(although it totally ignores the point pupil makes subjective logical system interepted as an opinion which is possibly just lack of accepting the definition of non finalized system. Which in itself shows delicious contradictions of verbal reasoning whatever it might reflect besides the point that we are living in a world that posseses lots of things to uncover.)
Anyway, I would rather see something bit more objective [as we are dealing with something overtly complex] before calling a day finally in socionics... but it is just me.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
LII, or EII. I only say EII because his talking style matches my talking style, maybe it's an IJ thing.
Anyway, here' some sloppy VI.
Your beard looks LII, your hair looks LII, your voice sounds LII. lol sorry but that was my initial reaction to the video.
Last edited by Lord Pixel; 03-13-2019 at 12:14 AM.
EIE is not a good typing! Definitely ILI. Reminds me a bit of my ILI uncle when he was young. Also uhhhh let’s just say I zero in on Gamma NT’s and know one when I see one (ie I am attracted to them). Also it is silly to rule out ILI based on the multiple interests; I’m ESI and have always had a ton of interests and trouble developing just one or two. I think many many people are this way for a multitude of reasons. Intellectual curiosity is probably a big impetus for this.
You have creative Se, so yea you would have multiple interests.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote