Member Questionnaire Manatroid92

[qaz00]

VI ILE-Ti

[Manatroid92]

VI ILE-Ti

Hey @qaz00.

Is there anything specific that you think points to ILE-Ti?

Delta NF, EII/IEE.

@CecaniahTzu Is there anything in particular regarding the VI that makes you think one of those two?

[Metaphor]

@CecaniahTzu Is there anything in particular regarding the VI that makes you think one of those two?

Not really except that your peace-loving attitude sounds Delta NF, not sure for the VI, ILE probably doesn't seem to be a bad one, but you are an Ne-ego of course.

[Manatroid92]

Being practical relates both Si and Te to a certain extent, probably why Delta ST is the most pragmatic ST type by elements alone.

Yeah, I'm not a very pragmatic/practical person myself. I do respect other people who can demonstrate it, but it's not the most important thing in the world to me, per se.

Not really except that your peace-loving attitude sounds Delta NF, not sure for the VI, ILE probably doesn't seem to be a bad one, but you are an Ne-ego of course.

Two sources of Ne-ego is pretty comforting to know.

After looking into it and thinking over it more, I think ILE kind of makes sense.

I've always though that my Fi was sort of strong, but looking back, I don't always deal well with getting 'closer' to people. I want friendship and relationships, of course, but it's quite difficult for me to express, say, commiseration or certain
'deep feelings' to others, and I sometimes have a bit of difficult figuring out how I feel about someone, or vice versa. It's not necessarily 'painful' to do so, it's just *hard*, like I feel a lot of internal resistance to be able to do so, and the end result of such expression ends up feeling more insincere.

This doesn't point to PoLR necessarily, of course, just a likely weakness. However, Ti-base seems kind of not quite like me. I don't feel that my perspective on the world is primarily one of logic or rigidity, and it's possible that I'm just using it creatively.
I think my own perception of Ne-base individuals was probably an inadvertent exaggeration, possibly due to how other people seem to view them. A lot of stories seem to paint Ne-bases as fundamentally erratic, 'random haha' and just in general difficult to deal with. After ILE was first recommended, I thought it was ridiculous, because I didn't want to 'be' someone like that, but looking at those peoples' experiences objectively, I also can't deny that I have acted like that in the past, and had no idea that others could've viewed me that way, too.

In a way, I think I was blinded to it because a lot of my friends actually embraced who I was and never criticized me for it. When you don't have people confronting you harshly about the things you've said or how you've acted, you don't really get a great perspective on how those outside of your circle might view you.

Moreover, I kind of viewed a lot of my past behaviours as merely by-products of autism (which I definitely do have!), but as I've come to learn, neurodivergence does not actually determine what cognitive functions you use.
So there's that too, I guess.

[Metaphor]

Hm, LII probably also makes sense.

[Manatroid92]

Hm, LII probably also makes sense.

Yep, that’s a good point.
It’s why I finally decided to ask for VI, since I figure that it could solidify any potential conclusions.

There’s also trying to type via Reinin dichotomies, but I know that not everyone uses them.
That or just deciding on rationality/irrationality, but I hear that those two are probably the most difficult to actually determine.

[Metaphor]

Hmmm, I'd suggest you to define yourself by 2 dichotomies, which are process/result and positive/negative.
ILE and EII, both are positivist and process, while it's vice versa for LII and IEE. Just to keep in mind that each type has own way to discern the analytical assessment of their perception according to the Ego's elemental functions as well, yet as for the rational vs irrational, it's either "makes sense" or "doesn't make sense" according to the priori/posteriori of causation according to either the reasoning or perceiving of elements in general, which creates the definition of "to know but do" or "to do but know".