A preliminary remark: perhaps more so than others (I cannot say for sure of course), I have done a great deal of personal experimentation in terms of psychological applications. This has been going on well before socionics entered my understanding, and through socionics it only became more exact. Also, while the following will come across as perhaps cliche, trite, and expected, that analysis would not accurately convey the immense amounts of energy and time that have been spent to reach the current conclusion...
A second preliminary remark: I say current conclusion, as, like all things, the experimentation never ends, but in this latest series of such, it seems reasonable to mark an official change of periods once more. Consider this thread an accountant's journal entry, or perhaps more accurately, the notes attached.
(questions at the very bottom)
In terms of
In determining how best to go about things in a general sense, the process leads to trial and error - the course of life itself is as such. Certainly we've all tried to see what works. This "note" is about my dealing with logic, and consequently, emotions.
Seeing some recent "Star Trek" episodes on TV, the portrayal of logical characters - like Spock, other vulcans, Data, or 7of9 - they seem comical or unreal to some extent. "How could you really expect anyone, or anything, to be that way?" and of course the understanding of them 'not being human' is there. Yet in looking at 'Logical' socionics types, they are generally noted for their coldness and lack of emotionality.
However, all the people I have ever met, including the smart and reserved people -- those that are clearly T in ego block -- have had vast emotional ties somewhere in their lives. Obviously this includes me as well. Experiencing as well all do the vast array of emotions has been an odd 'struggle' in that there is a conflict between the inherent emotionality and the appreciation of logic. I would say a great part of my life, and I assume (all) others, (at least other T types) has been figuring out how to deal with this seeming "fork in the road". Relationships, 'personal matters', things of importance, things of significance: events and circumstances that would create very expected, common, and accepted emotional responses or ties. Even sheerly being around other people generates an emotional field, an emotional sphere of interaction - something is engaged. Emotion is a part of human interaction.
For a time years ago I denied this, and yet in my youth I believe I was more emotional than I am now in some ways. And another part of me wonders if much has changed at all. Whatever the case, the process of understanding that emotions are a factor has been experienced. Being a T-leading socionics type such as I am, this has generated an uneasiness as to how to do deal with such an experience. I have tried being more emotional - sharing emotionality with others- as well as trying restrain emotions purely for the sake of "I don't want to be emotional". When working with others in groups, at times there are inclinations to emotional activity or "fun things" - which understandably are somewhat of a hallmark of human activity. And especially so for an LII - it is very easy to be somewhat emotionally open with those you feel close to, or live with and spend time with for some time: being 'emotionally cautious' around other people often leads to seeking secure relationships where those restrained emotions can be expressed with less concern.
One result of all of this is that I feel quite comfortable in my understanding of emotions and their impact on human interactions. However, while this understanding is useful and has been interesting, it seems clear that the realm of emotion "what I am cut out for". Obviously, "UDP, you are an LII." is to be expected.
The problem, as it seems at present, is that I have collected a large amount of data, and it invariably has become a part of who I am, and therefore integrated into my actions and behavioral patterns. Not only this, but human society in general, especially here in the US, vastly encourages and supports emotionality, as well as related sensory focus. So consider the perspective that a large number of the things in the surrounding area(environment/culture) encourage and imply the use of"emotionality".
At this point I should say that yes, I do understand I myself am human. And yet, seeing exemplifications of logical ideals (Spock, etc), I was curious to see what it would be like to really try to be 'very logical' in my behavior. I found it to be surprisingly refreshing, (more surprising to me than you, I am sure). But even from an LII standpoint, or standpoint, of having spent much time and energy in determining what is most important and why --- in developing one's ego block and leading function---, a certain emotional energy can be built up, albeit potential and not kinetic. Furthermore, consider the Fi and Fe roles of LII and LIE, which dictate a certain responsiveness, and perhaps even sense of responsibility in terms of presenting to others an emotional setting or disposition. And further still the implications of duality.
What was refreshing in my experience was "accepting" my own logical preference, and not feeling compelled to interact in a certain way with others. For whatever reason (perhaps Fi role), I feel (still) a concern about appearing too much like "spock" or "data" - that I would seem like I am trying too hard to be 'unemotional'. Why this matters so much I am not sure (perhaps my dual seeking function in some way, or polr), but it seems to be something I must embrace as part of who I am. ((I wonder now if much of my suffering has been self imposed, in terms of trying to find emotional causes or motivations where there may be no need.))
As myself, and perhaps LIIs in general, I find I am very sensitive to the emotional presence of others, and in fact rather yielding to such. Just now, as someone enters the room, it distorts my thought patterns.
A large part of this experience seems to be myself understanding that I "like" being T-orientated, and accepting that. Even if that means I come across as someone who is trying too hard. And yet, at the same time, be comfortable with having passions or favorite things, and opening up when it comes to relationships, especially close ones. This sort of balancing is unusual, but I'm sure that's how it is for many. For myself, it seems accepting being comfortable with my preferences my current objective. Even if that means coming off as very detached. ((I assume I am subconsciously looking for an ESE to say: "UDP, even though you are detached, you can still interact and contribute meaningfully. People will be able to understand and respect you even if you are that way")
I wonder if other people have gone through similar processes, and especially if they have found or "rediscovered" an appreciation for their leading function or ego block: logics, ethics, sensing, intuition. I am very curious to see if other people have reached similar conclusions as I have, albeit in their own particular way. (because if everyone went through the same process and found their leading function to be the best for them, I believe that really would have interesting implications). At the very least it is a question worthy of asking.
Perhaps such an extensive analysis on your part is not your way, but I still curious to see if you have found a similar understanding or appreciation about yourself, granted, that there is always fluctuation and growth to be made.