muddy's type

[nondescript]

That's a good point about formal logic though certainly it's related to Ti too. My stance towards formal logic is that it's something pre-installed for me and so I don't feel the need to focus on formal logic for its own sake, though sometimes delving in related topics can be interesting if it allows me to discover more (logical) concepts. Also when you are required to express your thoughts with the highest precision possible, it's going to look like formal logic a lot, though I do not focus on that aspect consciously. Beyond that, it does feel rather unnecessary.

Ah also about maths, I liked it for the same reasons (feel of stuff being pre-installed and discover deep logical concepts). Again, it's often taught via a Te approach which I would find boring, yeah. But it doesn't obscure the hidden Ti depth for me

Maths is...Te? Wtf O.O .
Precision speaking as well?

[Muddy]

To that last line there, a relevant question from my previous post: If you compare the descriptions for how ILE is using Ne and Ti vs how LII does it, what do you see?

The ILE's leading Ne seems a bit too loose and reckless while the LII's leading Ti is a bit seems a bit too rigid and formal. I am very much in between. I get the sense that that my Ti is stronger but I try to use Ne more. Maybe I'm just an LII in who is bored with being LII.

I know I've made a lot of very loose correlations but this is just the way I like to figure stuff out so forgive me. If there is something I believe might be possible I like to throw everything I at so I can weed out the flawed ideas.

[Myst]

Maths is...Te? Wtf O.O .
Precision speaking as well?

I didn't say maths or speaking in precise terms is Te, jesus.

I said that the approach some (not all) teachers use to teach maths is Te oriented.

The ILE's leading Ne seems a bit too loose and reckless while the LII's leading Ti is a bit seems a bit too rigid and formal. I am very much in between. I get the sense that that my Ti is stronger but I try to use Ne more. Maybe I'm just an LII in who is bored with being LII.

I know I've made a lot of very loose correlations but this is just the way I like to figure stuff out so forgive me. If there is something I believe might be possible I like to throw everything I at so I can weed out the flawed ideas.

I'll forgive your Ne, ok. You want to weed out flawed ideas and you doubt Ti leading? lol..

"The ILE only makes use of structural frameworks if he can see some kind of intuitive relevance in them, e.g. to make sense of and solve a problem he is interested in"
vs
"The LII naturally assesses statements, opinions, and actions in terms of conformance to certain principles."


Anyway, I was asking about changeability, not about generic strength. Your wording on "trying to use Ne more" sounds more LII-Ne again than any sort of ILE. Also, by strength you meant you take it more seriously, too?

I'm still interested in this: Do you accept more help in Si or in Fe?

[Muddy]

I'm still interested in this: Do you accept more help in Si or in Fe?

I gladly accept help with Si but some people take it too far in my opinion. I love a well cooked meal and having a clean comfortable house but I don't need much Si beyond that and what I said in the other thread about Si HA. I know this from my mother who floods me with Si. I ask her to just sit down and some watch TV shows I found interesting but then she goes off and starts vacuuming the carpet or some shit.

Fe, hmmm, depends on the context. I don't know how I would react to someone trying to get me emotional in public, but in a more comfortable setting I think I would be more accepting to Fe. I've never really been flooded with Fe the way I've been flooded with Si so all I can really do is theorize how I would react to it.

[Myst]

I gladly accept help with Si but some people take it too far in my opinion. I love a well cooked meal and having a clean comfortable house but I don't need much Si beyond that and what I said in the other thread about Si HA. I know this from my mother who floods me with Si. I ask her to just sit down and some watch TV shows I found interesting but then she goes off and starts vacuuming the carpet or some shit.

Fe, hmmm, depends on the context. I don't know how I would react to someone trying to get me emotional in public, but in a more comfortable setting I think I would be more accepting to Fe. I've never really been flooded with Fe the way I've been flooded with Si so all I can really do is theorize how I would react to it.

Ok lol that's Fe DS right there

[nondescript]

Ok lol that's Fe DS right there

DS? Demo lol?

[Myst]

DS? Demo lol?

DS as in Dual Seeking / Suggestive.

[Myst]

@Muddytextures

So you decided on LII in the end? What was the decisive factor?

[Muddy]

What was the decisive factor?

That I am very clearly not extraverted. I took a step back from my over analysing and just went with the most obvious factors.

Now I just need to make sure of my instinct stackings. As I said I think Sx/sp is probably the most likely but Sp/Sx could also be possible given my private nature, although I can't say I highly value security. It is very unlikely that I am So first because I give the least fucks about expanding my social network out of everybody I know IRL, even the other fives.

[huiheiwufhawriuhg]

you may make a typing video

sorry, but what's your problem sol? Do you jerk off to those vids, are you a stalker? a lurker? It's creepy when every second post you make is about asking someone making a typing vid.

[Muddy]

@chemical I'll respond to you here.

What are some key differences between LII-C and an ILE-H? I feel the IP temperament fits me the best, that's why I originally typed as ILI, but I don't relate at all to gamma. I feel relate to the ILE functions more but I seem a lot more passive and less social the alot of other ILEs.

[tejing]

I originally voted ILI here, but after reading more from you I think you're right about LII.

[chemical]

I tend to attribute the C, etc more to temperamental inclinations; so for example you could have a LSI or SLE C, whose main cognitive values involve Se, but is ever in search of the novel -- nonetheless, they aren't interested in gauging the potential of something in the abstract way Ne types may be, so much as they seek fresh, new situations of sensory significance, and so on. In practice it involves some Ne-cognition, yes, but primarily just to gauge whether something is worth looking at for their temperamental inclinations, not the actual substance of information processed.

(As a note, I hate the idea that Se = force, and I think the more sophisticated explanation is that Se is your interface/interaction with tangible reality, whence the cognition of the "impact" you can have on a situation... in fact, again the idea of "forceful personality" strikes me as mixing temperament with cognition, and that flops eventually... I think attributing forceful personality to EJ temperament is much better, and actually in line with the empirical psychology studies of temperament, e.g. the five factor model.... leave socionics to theorize about offshoots of Jungian theory of cognitive type, rather than foray into things that are probably better explained by another domain anyway.)

I think a standard thing about the H consciousness is that you look for experiences that to the largest extent harmonize with your inner nature (it involves Si, Ni, and to a lesser extent some Fi), which can act on a further screen/slant on how exactly you go about seeking out your valued information type.

I gave the LSI/SLE example because I think it really shows how the C and the cognitive values are separate things.

[Muddy]

I do think ILE-H is quite possible. The extra emphasis on Ni might explain why I outwardly resemble an Ni base with my passive behavior. My temperament is IP and I am certain of this. Of course there is LII-H too which also has strengthened Ni, but that doesn't explain why I relate more to Ne as a base function then Ti. The Ti is still there, I love figuring things out, but deep down I'm more of hedonist then a bookworm.

[Myst]

(As a note, I hate the idea that Se = force, and I think the more sophisticated explanation is that Se is your interface/interaction with tangible reality, whence the cognition of the "impact" you can have on a situation... in fact, again the idea of "forceful personality" strikes me as mixing temperament with cognition, and that flops eventually... I think attributing forceful personality to EJ temperament is much better, and actually in line with the empirical psychology studies of temperament, e.g. the five factor model.... leave socionics to theorize about offshoots of Jungian theory of cognitive type, rather than foray into things that are probably better explained by another domain anyway.)

Well Se isn't simply force, sure, but "forceful" in this context is to be interpreted as "high in vitality". Not as "controlling". Hence it's Se and not EJ.

I do think ILE-H is quite possible. The extra emphasis on Ni might explain why I outwardly resemble an Ni base with my passive behavior. My temperament is IP and I am certain of this. Of course there is LII-H too which also has strengthened Ni, but that doesn't explain why I relate more to Ne as a base function then Ti. The Ti is still there, I love figuring things out, but deep down I'm more of hedonist then a bookworm.

I don't think the type LII should be simplified down to the inclination to be a bookworm or that the type ILE should be simplified down to hedonism. I noticed from your posts that you do skillfully operate with Ne ideas but then sometimes you make up correlations that just make me want to cry. Like these, here. It's usually the LII's that have the ability to make me cry in this way Not the ILE's. Not sure why, though.

I do not see any extra emphasis on Ni in you at all, unless you mean behaviour and not information processing. And then sure, you can be H in DCNH.

[Muddy]

I do not see any extra emphasis on Ni in you at all, unless you mean behavior and not information processing. And then sure, you can be H in DCNH.

Yes, I'm talking more about my physical behavior then my way of thinking, e.g passiveness and lack of attention to the immediate physical world.


I insist on Ne>Ti. I've never much cared for purely logical systems like algebra, geometry, architecture, etc. I found all those to be painfully boring and pointless. My mind is more occupied with things such as finding entertainment or new developments in science rather then perfecting some logical system. Some of my friends I that knew in the past would probably agree that I'm more Ne then Ti, I've had periods of chaotic craziness. I also have a thing for mocking those who demonstrate rigid morality, which may be another manifestation of Fi polr in addition with what said before about being sensitive towards the attitudes people give me.

[chemical]

@Myst -- what is "high in vitality" and how is it information-oriented > either energy-oriented, temperament-oriented, or affective disposition (even if those things can certainly interact)?

Because the way I was intending use, it's not terribly information-oriented.

[chemical]

From my guess as to what you mean by that, I would say high in vitality in modern personality psychology is an overall E thing (meaning it is an aspect of it, among others).

When I said forceful though I did mean the domineering kind that often gets attributed to Se -- like this:

his ability to make use of his willpower or position and exercise his will in opposition to others'.

I don't prefer to attribute this to E+P even temperamentally, let alone informationally.

I think of the whole "impact/moving objects" interpretation of Se as a good one though, because it really highlights to some extent why it has an additional concreteness as compared to say Ne. It also highlights why Se is extroverted rather than Si, i.e. one actually interacts with objects/moves them, rather than simply noting more passively how they affect one's state as an example.

[Myst]

I insist on Ne>Ti. I've never much cared for purely logical systems like algebra, geometry, architecture, etc. I found all those to be painfully boring and pointless. My mind is more occupied with things such as finding entertainment or new developments in science rather then perfecting some logical system. Some of my friends I that knew in the past would probably agree that I'm more Ne then Ti, I've had periods of chaotic craziness. I also have a thing for mocking those who demonstrate rigid morality, which may be another manifestation of Fi polr in addition with what said before about being sensitive towards the attitudes people give me.

I've yet to see 4D Ne from you, honestly. Maybe one day.

Periods of chaotic craziness, I've seen LII-Ne's do that enough, sigh, lol. And they are pretty sensitive towards people's attitude too.

I recommend you get into dimensionality of information processing and into discovering how that looks like for each IE.

@Myst -- what is "high in vitality" and how is it information-oriented > either energy-oriented, temperament-oriented, or affective disposition (even if those things can certainly interact)?

Because the way I was intending use, it's not terribly information-oriented.

I was putting the Se forcefulness into context of vitality instead of a context of control orientation which is what you seemed to be doing when you linked it with EJ.

When I said forceful though I did mean the domineering kind that often gets attributed to Se -- like this:

That's not an EJ thing, however.

I don't prefer to attribute this to E+P even temperamentally, let alone informationally.

Well that's because it's not EP in general, it's just something that can result from the ""impact/moving objects" interpretation of Se" as you put it.

[chemical]

@Myst if by EJ you mean the kind coinciding with Te/Fe, yes I agree it's not EJ. But I wasn't meaning EJ or EP in a cognitive sense, more a personality psychology sense -- where I would certainly say J is more related to strong-willedness than P. I was saying a lot of things falling in typical Se-descriptions, I'd say are better studied in a more personality psychology oriented framework than a more cognition oriented framework.

Being domineering and the like gets way outside cognition as far as I'm concerned.

[Muddy]

I've yet to see 4D Ne from you, honestly. Maybe one day.

Periods of chaotic craziness, I've seen LII-Ne's do that enough, sigh, lol. And they are pretty sensitive towards people's attitude too.

I recommend you get into dimensionality of information processing and into discovering how that looks like for each IE.

Links would be more then welcome, I've pretty read everything I could find here and to no avail.


What are some of examples of things that WOULD qualify 4D Ne in your opinion? What are some things that are characteristic of ILE's Ne but not LII's? Where do you instead see 4D Ti?

[Myst]

@Myst if by EJ you mean the kind coinciding with Te/Fe, yes I agree it's not EJ. But I wasn't meaning EJ or EP in a cognitive sense, more a personality psychology sense -- where I would certainly say J is more related to strong-willedness than P. I was saying a lot of things falling in typical Se-descriptions, I'd say are better studied in a more personality psychology oriented framework than a more cognition oriented framework.

Being domineering and the like gets way outside cognition as far as I'm concerned.

I wasn't talking about being domineering at all. I was talking about an orientation that is focused on the tangible world and on interaction with it. That's Se just fine, to me. Forcefulness as vitality, not as being domineering.

Links would be more then welcome, I've pretty read everything I could find here and to no avail.

What are some of examples of things that WOULD qualify 4D Ne in your opinion? What are some things that are characteristic of ILE's Ne but not LII's? Where do you instead see 4D Ti?

Look at the things ILE's say to get examples.

Your Ne seems more concrete to me than ILE's, meaning I can evaluate it better, meaning it is not as far from mine in terms of dimensionality as 4D Ne would be.

I see the 1D Fe more than the 4D Ti but that also makes sense, you constantly seem to try and make sense of all this stuff.

Link: http://en.socionicasys.org/teorija/d...cii/razmernost

[chemical]

OK fair enough; I was just letting you know I was talking about the domineering kind initially (which was the thing I was saying I don't consider that related to Se).

[Myst]

OK fair enough; I was just letting you know I was talking about the domineering kind initially (which was the thing I was saying I don't consider that related to Se).

Yeah I get you, you were right in how it's a misconception and that's why I wanted to point out how "forceful" Se is often misinterpreted and what the right interpretation is