Quote Originally Posted by FarDraft View Post
I'd agree that ILI are generally more pessimistic than IEI. Most of the sources indicate that as well. It's just that IEI, being irrational and dynamic and having strong Fe- (beta), would lead to quite a bit of emotional fluctuation/mood swings, meaning that periods of pessimism shouldn't be unexpected. However, overall, the subtype profiles paint them as optimistic.

This is just speculation based on my impression of beta and gamma, but it seems like gamma is more prone to hate whereas beta is more prone to sadness. While negative emotion encompasses all of that, expression of that emotion is more Fe than Fi. "Dwelling" has to do with expression (e.g. writing, singing, etc.), which is why I think beta is more prone to dwelling in negative emotion than gamma.

I never specified the length of the periods (not that you explicitly accused me of doing so). For IEIs, these periods should be more like swings (at least for Fe subtype), as indicated in the subtype profiles you used. Internally contradictory, prone to abrupt mood swings: from laughter to tears and in reverse.

True. I think that that could be because they both have strong Ni and are negativists since not all negativists are so critical/pessimistic about future endeavours. I remember DarkAngelFireWolf69 writing about how LIIs quickly forget about past failures (in his standard description) and tend to have a more optimistic outlook (in his model G diagram). I'll see if I can find the source.
Thanks for clarifying. I keep looking for those diagrams and never seem to find them when I want them. I should probably bookmark things more. If you can find it that would be cool.

I have lived with ILI for more than half of my life. I remember well the hate an ILI-Ni sub had toward others although he could be polite and quiet in social situations if he was unfamiliar with people. Some people thought he was rude or thought himself above the group. If someone left a strong negative impression on him he did not let that go. He had a hit list of people to kill if he were given short time to live. I took it about half serious. Sometimes I wondered though. I don't think he had it in him but just the fact he had one at all says a lot. It was not something he dwelled on for ages. It would be stored away and only remembered if he saw the person again.

The ILI-Te would lean toward being very rational when it came to this stuff. Not socionics rationality just plain rational and practical (I guess?). He was not one to contemplate things for hours like the Ni sub. At least not visibly but he had kids to deal with. He was more outspoken around strangers and would give his opinion even around new people. He debated my mom's priest on their religion once. lol He was not an atheist but he was agnostic. In a way he could be the friendlier one (life experience perhaps) but also the one to tell you faster if he thought you were being illogical or you could not provide proof.

Both of them could be negative and when they were angry (not frequent but most common visible emotion.) it eventually would leave me shaking inside. Maybe the worst part is I had to repress Fe (in a playful way when they were mad and in general) in order to get along with both better. The cool thing is I had never heard of socionics before so I figured out what worked with them on my own. Sometimes I would fall back on Fi ways to make them stop stressing others out when they were angry. Keep in mind these weren't casual relationships. Both leaned toward skepticism (toward theories and philosophies they didn't agree with) and pessimism (toward humanity, I think). It was even more pronounced in the Ni sub when he was depressed (which he wouldn't admit to because I don't think he even knew).

I am aware this is mostly describing behaviors. :/

I don't think "sadness" is an inherently negative emotion. It can be beautiful. It is how we grieve and remember our losses. Hate on the other hand is pretty much a negative emotion no matter how it is justified. Do you agree with that at all?

I had this article open from a couple days ago. In socionics rational is J and irrational is P.

“I conceive reason as an attitude whose principle it is to conform thought, feeling, and action to objective values. Objective values are established by the everyday experience of external facts on the one hand, and of inner, psychological facts on the other. Such experiences, however, could not represent objective “values” if they were valued as such by the subject, for that would already amount to an act of reason. The rational attitude which permits us to declare objective values as valid at all is not the work of the individual subject, but the product of human history.”

He went on to explain that reason is “…nothing other than the expression of man’s adaptability to average occurrences, which have gradually become deposited in firmly established complexes of ideas that constitute our objective values. Thus the laws of reason are the laws that designate and govern the average…“

Jung defined irrational “not as denoting something contrary to reason, but something beyond reason, something therefore, not grounded on reason. Elementary facts come into this category; the fact, for example that the earth has a moon, that chlorine is an element, that water reaches its greatest density at four degrees centigrade, etc… The irrational is an existential factor which, though it may be pushed further and further out of sight by an increasingly elaborate rational explanation, finally makes the explanation so complicated that it passes our powers of comprehension…

“A completely rational explanation of an object that actually exists (not one that is merely posited) is a Utopian ideal. Only an object that is posited can be completely explained on rational grounds, since it does not contain anything beyond what has been posited by rational thinking. Empirical science, too, posits objects that are confined within rational bounds, because by deliberately excluding the accidental it does not consider the actual object as a whole, but only that part of it which has been singled out for rational observation.”

So far, the range of experience falling under the category of irrational and accidental includes all elementary facts of existence, known or not: given properties of the world and how we perceive them. It also includes all objects to the extent they’re unique and individual, as well as all chance events occurring in the relations between individual “objects.” It includes the unconscious psyche, which by definition is unknown and so unlimited. Aspects of these irrational factors have been “singled out for rational observation” as Jung noted; yet they remain, in fact and basis, irrational.

Excerpt from: Jung’s Definitions of Rational and Irrational
I think that blog post is relevant to this thread somehow. Theoretically speaking, I can see how ILI are P (irrationals) even with the rational subtype. The descriptive characteristics by Reinin seem off to me though. Especially if there is a such thing as subtype or DCNH. Now I can close that window.