INTx and Strategic Thinking

[Exodus]

I can easily see the difference, but that's hard to describe in writing.

Instead:

ILI's are extremely logical (Te) and are great future planners (Ni). They secretly want to rule the world from behind the curtain and often relentlessly and unceasingly collect education to do so. They like BMW's (Se-seeking). ILI's tend to think that other people are idiots (Fe-PoLR). Males tend to like party girls who can be sexually dominating (Se-seeking). (Victims).

SLI-Te's can also be very logical (Te), but they place a higher emphasis on physical comfort (Si) and and are attracted to frivolity (Ne-seeking), and they want to retreat from the world, not rule it (Fe-PoLR). They tend to collect material resources that will serve them in their old age (Si), which they think can't come soon enough. (Caregivers).
SLI's tend to think that their lives are terminally boring and live in fear that they will lead a life where nothing ever happens. Males tend to avoid women but they do like women who like to travel and who spring infantile surprises on them.

Both types can be perfectionists and both types can be pretty hard on themselves sometimes.

Just from your chosen name, @superflousman, I'd say you are more likely to be SLI than ILI. SLI's tend to think that the world is passing them by as they stand and watch, and that they are entirely superfluous to the world. It is their duals, the IEE's, who forcefully bring them into an exciting reality.

The first part is essentially on point, but how does the bolded part not describe Se seeking?

[Adam Strange]

The first part is essentially on point, but how does the bolded part not describe Se seeking?

@thehotelambush, I think of Se as sensing the external world and exerting personal force on it. I think of Si as sensing one’s internal world (comfort and health) and ensuring that one has the personal resources to maintain that health and comfort.

The difference could be illustrated by imagining the senses of a simple robot. The robot has Se sensors which monitor the outside world and Se actuators which exert force upon it. But it also has Si sensors which monitor its internal energy levels, temperature, function health, and subroutines which keep track of the external sources of energy and maintenance areas for rest and repair.

You can see the difference in the interests and actions of Se-doms and Si-doms. The former are interacting with the external world and the latter are taking care of their inner world.

Since Si-users focus so much on their own internal state of comfort, they tend to focus less on the external world, except where doing so would increase their personal comfort or health levels. Other than that, they tend to retreat from the hustle and bustle of the world. This means that once they have a certain level of comfort, they stop interacting.
They still see the world go by, but they aren’t naturally adept at mixing in with it the way Se-users are. This doesn’t mean that they don’t want to interact, but it means that they tend to fall into comfortable routines where nothing new ever happens. Thus, they seek novelty, but it has to be a safe (self-preserving) form of novelty. Not Se action, but rather Ne alternative possibilities.

IEE’s don’t actually force (Se) SLI’s to do something. They first and foremost keep at them to get them to focus on the external world, and once they have the SLI’s attention, they offer endless suggestions as to what they can do together. The SLI can then select something that sounds fun and interesting but is not too dangerous.


*EDIT*

After looking over what I just wrote, I see that this also applies to ILE’s and SEI’s. ILE’s offer endlessly new things to SEI’s, and SEI’s in turn offer health, indulgence, and appreciation to ILE’s.

And if there is one thing, only one thing, that an SLI wants, it is to be appreciated.

[Exodus]

@thehotelambush, I think of Se as sensing the external world and exerting personal force on it. I think of Si as sensing one’s internal world (comfort and health) and ensuring that one has the personal resources to maintain that health and comfort.

The difference could be illustrated by imagining the senses of a simple robot. The robot has Se sensors which monitor the outside world and Se actuators which exert force upon it. But it also has Si sensors which monitor its internal energy levels, temperature, function health, and subroutines which keep track of the external sources of energy and maintenance areas for rest and repair.

You can see the difference in the interests and actions of Se-doms and Si-doms. The former are interacting with the external world and the latter are taking care of their inner world.

Since Si-users focus so much on their own internal state of comfort, they tend to focus less on the external world, except where doing so would increase their personal comfort or health levels. Other than that, they tend to retreat from the hustle and bustle of the world. This means that once they have a certain level of comfort, they stop interacting.
They still see the world go by, but they aren’t naturally adept at mixing in with it the way Se-users are. This doesn’t mean that they don’t want to interact, but it means that they tend to fall into comfortable routines where nothing new ever happens. Thus, they seek novelty, but it has to be a safe (self-preserving) form of novelty. Not Se action, but rather Ne alternative possibilities.

IEE’s don’t actually force (Se) SLI’s to do something. They first and foremost keep at them to get them to focus on the external world, and once they have the SLI’s attention, they offer endless suggestions as to what they can do together. The SLI can then select something that sounds fun and interesting but is not too dangerous.


*EDIT*

After looking over what I just wrote, I see that this also applies to ILE’s and SEI’s. ILE’s offer endlessly new things to SEI’s, and SEI’s in turn offer health, indulgence, and appreciation to ILE’s.

And if there is one thing, only one thing, that an SLI wants, it is to be appreciated.

Yeah but that wasn't my point. The point is that Ni is even more "internal" than Si and Ni leadings tend to be more reclusive than Si leadings, all other things being equal. Likewise "bringing them into an exciting reality" sounds just as much Se as it does Ne, if not more.

[superflousman]

I can easily see the difference, but that's hard to describe in writing.

Instead:

ILI's are extremely logical (Te) and are great future planners (Ni). They secretly want to rule the world from behind the curtain and often relentlessly and unceasingly collect education to do so. They like BMW's (Se-seeking). ILI's tend to think that other people are idiots (Fe-PoLR). Males tend to like party girls who can be sexually dominating (Se-seeking). (Victims).

SLI-Te's can also be very logical (Te), but they place a higher emphasis on physical comfort (Si) and and are attracted to frivolity (Ne-seeking), and they want to retreat from the world, not rule it (Fe-PoLR). They tend to collect material resources that will serve them in their old age (Si), which they think can't come soon enough. (Caregivers).
SLI's tend to think that their lives are terminally boring and live in fear that they will lead a life where nothing ever happens. Males tend to avoid women but they do like women who like to travel and who spring infantile surprises on them.

Both types can be perfectionists and both types can be pretty hard on themselves sometimes.

Just from your chosen name, @superflousman, I'd say you are more likely to be SLI than ILI. SLI's tend to think that the world is passing them by as they stand and watch, and that they are entirely superfluous to the world. It is their duals, the IEE's, who forcefully bring them into an exciting reality. As in this clip:

Thanks for the response. I definitely relate to your description of Si and Ne. I do find myself or rather I prefer to be an obersever than a go-getter or doer. I believe many of my values and interests are indeed superfluous to the greater world.

This is also why I think Ni and Si are similar and perhaps I confused the two. Lot of descriptions characterize Ni as being passive, in the background, not really engaged which I related to. I consider myself an individualist, don't really care about political/civic duties, social pressures, religion, gossip, etc...What I like is enjoying my time through reading, surfing, being with family/friends, traveling and general leisure. It all comes down to healthy and humane living if I had had to state a theme.

[vesstheastralsilky]

Plausibly common sample Te v. Ti scenario

ILI: starts as a computer programmer at a corporation, writes code, later heads the accounting dept, later becomes CFO.

LII: starts as a research technology specialist, moves onto engineering project management, later invents a new method of rocket propulsion with a breakthrough in materials science.

[Exodus]

Plausibly common sample Te v. Ti scenario

ILI: starts as a computer programmer at a corporation, writes code, later heads the accounting dept, later becomes CFO.

LII: starts as a research technology specialist, moves onto engineering project management, later invents a new method of rocket propulsion with a breakthrough in materials science.

In what world do computer programmers go into the accounting department??

[vesstheastralsilky]

In what world do computer programmers go into the accounting department??

That example was based on a real ILI I know. Retired very wealthy but was motivated to.play business games to get it like buying company shares then selling off etc.

[Number 9 large]

Strategic thinking involves vision and goalsetting/ rallying the resources to get to that vision.

Ne Ti is about incorporating new ideas into a conceptual framework.

So strategic thinking belongs to the gamma NTs

[FarDraft]

Strategic thinking involves vision and goalsetting/ rallying the resources to get to that vision.

Ne Ti is about incorporating new ideas into a conceptual framework.

So strategic thinking belongs to the gamma NTs

This is pretty much the conclusion I've come down to as well. Obviously with more nuance in relation to time-scales and different situations, but this is the gist of it.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I disagree that it's easy to fake Fe, more like Fe can appear to be 'Fake' but that doesn't mean it's easy for anybody to fake.

When an ILI or LII tries to use Fe, it always feels like they are mocking it, or using it sarcastically- meaning they actually aren't using it well, and people can see right through it. The mocking tone can often feel like a defense mechanism that they are insecure about it, it's hitting a weak point. The LII gets away with this a bit more because they value Fe as opposed to not valuing it, but even when they do it you can sense the sarcasm in their voice when they use it.

LIEs with role Fe, 'fake Fe' much better, along with LSEs.

I don't mean to be a negative nancy here but just face the music that Fe is the ILI and LII weakness just like Te is my ultimate weakness.

[FarDraft]

I disagree that it's easy to fake Fe, more like Fe can appear to be 'Fake' but that doesn't mean it's easy for anybody to fake.

When an ILI or LII tries to use Fe, it always feels like they are mocking it, or using it sarcastically- meaning they actually aren't using it well, and people can see right through it. The mocking tone can often feel like a defense mechanism that they are insecure about it, it's hitting a weak point. The LII gets away with this a bit more because they value Fe as opposed to not valuing it, but even when they do it you can sense the sarcasm in their voice when they use it.

LIEs with role Fe, 'fake Fe' much better, along with LSEs.

I don't mean to be a negative nancy here but just face the music that Fe is the ILI and LII weakness just like Te is my ultimate weakness.

You're correct, which is why I said it doesn't fool people for long. I dislike the idea that the PoLR is the ultimate weakness, though. Life circumstances require the development of every single function, so the idea of an "ultimate weakness" would be much more personal. The PoLR function is more like the function that you would only use as a last resort, and the function that you hate to see a lot of in others.

[vesstheastralsilky]

You're correct, which is why I said it doesn't fool people for long. I dislike the idea that the PoLR is the ultimate weakness, though. Life circumstances require the development of every single function, so the idea of an "ultimate weakness" would be much more personal. The PoLR function is more like the function that you would only use as a last resort, and the function that you hate to see a lot of in others.

Yeah I am not sure I like the idea of Fe being a weakness. I mean weak how? Just because a function isn't dominant in someone does not mean it isn't good enough. Perhaps I am sensitive to the pejorative implications here.

[ouronis]

I like to develop solutions that make successful intervention or adaptation easy in the future. I find the differences between myself and people who think similarly to me revolve around breadth of concern and lack of planning for future adaptability.

In my mind, it is bad to design solutions that appear to be correct at the outset but cannot support any additional modifications without breaking the well-proportioned logic of the system. So to me, it is not about either/or when it comes to planning ahead or adapting on the fly, because both have their strengths. I wouldn't put this to type (at least within I/e t/f based groups) because these differences usually manifest because of a combination of your attitude towards your intellectual self and your educational background.

[WinnieW]

I doubt that any function is a general or permanent weakness, a function can be a weakness situationally or temporally, however.

[The Reality Denialist]

Weakness. Ummm... I think PoLR can be overwhelming personally while it can become more manageable inter personally.

[FarDraft]

Here is a summary of my thoughts so far.

Strengths

• LII: more rational and thus more likely to plan and make early decisions than ILI. Does not think as far ahead as ILI but structures short-term actions more effectively.
• ILI: less likely to plan but more likely to think further ahead than LII. Thinks, in detail, about likely prospects through a practical viewpoint but doesn't structure actions unless forced.

Weaknesses

• LII: may not look at things from a practical perspective, preventing their plan from being realistic. May also settle too early, missing too many small details or important pieces of information that arise over time.
• ILI: tunnel vision (Ne ignoring) can occur from not considering enough perspectives on how things could play out. Could forecast too much into something that is built upon a faulty assumption, which leads the entire idea to fail.

EDIT: Removed a bunch of stuff since I think the analysis was dumb.

[Alomoes]

Well, hold on, I have an answer. Don't know if it's right. Strategic though can be done differently. For example, one person will look over all the choices, and then pick the best one, while the other will just fumble around with platitudes. As an example, I like my platitudes. If I outproduce the enemy, I will win. *Proceeds to get killed in micro.* >> Litterally every SupCom game I play. Well, that and my terrible offensive strategy, which amounts to throwing all my forces at one enemy, sitting there, waiting for reinforcements while my force gets attritioned, then proceeding to get donked on at my base. Sending troops in waves is not good, but it's either that or sending them in a wave, and then reinforcing in piecemeal, which means the troops will be more vulnerable to encirclement. The obvious solution is to make transports, but that's expensive and risky, because then I'll need adequate air superiority.

Compare Quill18's spreadsheets for playing Civ games.