How similar are LIE-logical to ILE-Ti?

[withoutd0ubt]

I type mainly as an ILE-Ti but have typed as an LIE-Logical and LII-Ti.

Where are the main differences between these types? Clearly at times I can flip between introverted/extroverted intuition/logic and firmly exhibit Ti subtypes.

[Beautiful sky]

Not at all. In fact the similarities between them is their demonstrative functions which confuse duals. Ti seeks to categorize as to understand and define while te watches actions and determins organization of tasks ect.

[withoutd0ubt]

Not at all. In fact the similarities between them is their demonstrative functions which confuse duals. Ti seeks to categorize as to understand and define while te watches actions and determins organization of tasks ect.

So, in Myers-Briggs I would always type various ways of xNTx - predominantly INTP or ENTJ secondarily.

Is it possible to simply be "halfway" between - Tx?

[Beautiful sky]

So, in Myers-Briggs I would always type various ways of xNTx - predominantly INTP or ENTJ secondarily.

Is it possible to simply be "halfway" between - Tx?

You can only be one type in socionics.

[Amber]

You are probably ILE-Ne Sx e6/7 zone


nah. Temperament is one way of telling apart LIE/ILE , in case there is some Base-Dem. confusion. Yours is Ep ..very fluid, appears sociable and smooth, spontaneous in many ways ...but you're not chaotic. (seen worse).

Then you have Fe/Fi. Your Fe is developed enough ...you have that social know-how that talks to members as "ladies" and you make Fe-Ne jokes even in and about serious, likely painful, and not-comic situations >> see that 500.000 m2 elephant between you and EII.

*** I say ILE-Ne because I don't sense much impulse to categorize experiences and ppl -- just from what you said. Your stream of thought was more about raw data. Also you don't seem too hooked on socio-language to be super-Ti ... ILE-Tis who are familiar with socionics tend to use lots of details about functions and stuff when talking about ppl. The polr is more sharp ...so to speak. It looks as if they somehow replace what I see as Fi info with Socionics data ...kinda too much.

[withoutd0ubt]

You are probably ILE-Ne Sx e6/7 zone


nah. Temperament is one way of telling apart LIE/ILE , in case there is some Base-Dem. confusion. Yours is Ep ..very fluid, appears sociable and smooth, spontaneous in many ways ...but you're not chaotic. (seen worse).

Then you have Fe/Fi. Your Fe is developed enough ...you have that social know-how that talks to members as "ladies" and you make Fe-Ne jokes even in and about serious, likely painful, and not-comic situations >> see that 500.000 m2 elephant between you and EII.

*** I say ILE-Ne because I don't sense much impulse to categorize experiences and ppl -- just from what you said. Your stream of thought was more about raw data. Also you don't seem too hooked on socio-language to be super-Ti ... ILE-Tis who are familiar with socionics tend to use lots of details about functions and stuff when talking about ppl. The polr is more sharp ...so to speak. It looks as if they somehow replace what I see as Fi info with Socionics data ...kinda too much.

Yes, I'd agree I could be e6/7, both sound like me. I've never done the enneagram.

My writing style on the EII post isn't indicative of my normal style. I was writing as personably as I could to solicit and encourage feedback from EIIs who wouldn't want to hear or read a story with precise grammar, complex syntax, or rational vernacular.

It's interesting that you can know me from a few posts. You're adept at this. I respect that.

[Soupman]

I type mainly as an ILE-Ti but have typed as an LIE-Logical and LII-Ti.

Where are the main differences between these types? Clearly at times I can flip between introverted/extroverted intuition/logic and firmly exhibit Ti subtypes.

There are many models by the way, in model G have the same dominant and creative functions, both of which are active which can add serious confusion. The attitudes of the Pragmatism and Opportunity are what differentiate the functions otherwise the two are confusingly the same.

ILE are enneagram 7 whilst LIE are enneagram 3. Viktor has been getting interested in enneagram which is the reason why he has these comparisons. I have been finding that these help to comprehend model G more accurately.

LIE: PI
ILE: IP

Your understanding of L determines how well you can discern the difference between 4th dimension L and 3rd Dimension L. Pragmatic Logic and Structural Logic actually possess more overlaps than commonly understood. The two identify, build and structure knowledge which the main difference being that L is severely restricted confining it self to systems and categories whilst P is expansive and for a lack of a better term, pragmatic.

ENTs apply L in the third dimension: they only care about categorization only when they help them comprehend their ideas. They discard and contradict the categories and systematic understanding orientating towards utility.

INTs retain the systematized focus never contradicting the systems. There are more stable and reliable in crafting systems.

[lirpa]

You can only be one type in socionics.

There can be only one!

It's a continuum. The boundary lines are arbitrarily drawn at the poles instead of the midlines. Rotate 90 and us mids will have our time to shine!

[chemical]

Well, LIE and ILE are two types with similar strong functions but different values. So really you're asking things like what's Ne-valuation vs Te-valuation.

[Suz]

So, in Myers-Briggs I would always type various ways of xNTx - predominantly INTP or ENTJ secondarily.

Is it possible to simply be "halfway" between - Tx?

I think it's possible....in socionics too...
I think the subtypes try to get at that to some extent.

[chemical]

So, in Myers-Briggs I would always type various ways of xNTx - predominantly INTP or ENTJ secondarily.

This is actually a good question, and I'm pretty sure I've got the perspective needed; the basic difference between socionics and tests like MBTI, is that the socionics way is based on definitions and models fundamentally, whereas the MBTI has no definitions (if we're talking of the actual test, not the speculations about what functions that implies, which AFAIK turn out false half the time).
The point here is that MBTI is based fundamentally on the statistical clustering of responses, so in theory, anything that correlates well with a given side of the MBTI could be said to be loosely a part of that dimension of personality.

So what to make of this? The thing is, I'm pretty convinced I realize why it is that sometimes, someone really seems to say, be strong in something like extraverted intuition, but isn't otherwise very introverted. The reason for this is simple: all the types of introversion/extroversion (For any given version of E/I -- there are many out there) cluster together, so they're loosely part of the same overall dimension of personality, but they are not interchangeable, and it is definitely possible to be strong in one and weak in another.

So when you run into a "introverted ILE", all that means is their main cognitive process may be extroverted...in the statistical dimension view, which doesn't restrict to studying cognition, if they're mostly introverted in all other ways, they would still register as an introvert (by statistical averaging), despite their dominant process being extroverted. These are simply different definitions of extroversion/introversion, even within the same overall superset.

The answer to your question, thus, is yes it's possible to type as xNTx and so forth, but if it helps, treat socionics and Jungian typology as being more about the combination of function-attitudes you employ, even if that doesn't align with your "overall" type (introvert/extrovert) in a more statistically based dimension, because again, the dominant function-attitude is just your main cognitive process -- it doesn't speak to how P, J, I, E you are in other ways. The overall dimension of P is more or less about spontaneity/unstructuredness and J about order, but it's perfectly possible to be J cognitively and P in most behavioral senses.

[withoutd0ubt]

You asking this makes me think you are one of the Te types

Using Te isn't necessarily indicative of having a Te ego, whether base or creative. The reality is that I seem to naturally flip Te/Ti, Se/Si and Ne/Ni as my apparent ego structure depending on circumstantial and situational variables.

I bring it up in this post today: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Divergent-quot

[withoutd0ubt]

This is actually a good question, and I'm pretty sure I've got the perspective needed; the basic difference between socionics and tests like MBTI, is that the socionics way is based on definitions and models fundamentally, whereas the MBTI has no definitions (if we're talking of the actual test, not the speculations about what functions that implies, which AFAIK turn out false half the time).
The point here is that MBTI is based fundamentally on the statistical clustering of responses, so in theory, anything that correlates well with a given side of the MBTI could be said to be loosely a part of that dimension of personality.

So what to make of this? The thing is, I'm pretty convinced I realize why it is that sometimes, someone really seems to say, be strong in something like extraverted intuition, but isn't otherwise very introverted. The reason for this is simple: all the types of introversion/extroversion (For any given version of E/I -- there are many out there) cluster together, so they're loosely part of the same overall dimension of personality, but they are not interchangeable, and it is definitely possible to be strong in one and weak in another.

So when you run into a "introverted ILE", all that means is their main cognitive process may be extroverted...in the statistical dimension view, which doesn't restrict to studying cognition, if they're mostly introverted in all other ways, they would still register as an introvert (by statistical averaging), despite their dominant process being extroverted. These are simply different definitions of extroversion/introversion, even within the same overall superset.

The answer to your question, thus, is yes it's possible to type as xNTx and so forth, but if it helps, treat socionics and Jungian typology as being more about the combination of function-attitudes you employ, even if that doesn't align with your "overall" type (introvert/extrovert) in a more statistically based dimension, because again, the dominant function-attitude is just your main cognitive process -- it doesn't speak to how P, J, I, E you are in other ways. The overall dimension of P is more or less about spontaneity/unstructuredness and J about order, but it's perfectly possible to be J cognitively and P in most behavioral senses.

Thanks. I understand that but I cannot easily conclude what my dominant functions are - no doubt my cognitive process is usually NT as in MBTI or in socionics some permutation of Nx and Tx. However, I also am told I can be Se/Ti but that may well be more related to my Enneagram 8. I believe that I am really someone who doesn't easily type or perhaps cannot be typed.

[withoutd0ubt]

Why do you assume an answer to a question you yourself asked...

I don't assume, or more appropriately presume, to answer any questions I've raised. Now, assuming that you're referring to the post I linked, I used myself as an example to see if it's even possible within socionics. If it's not possible within socionics then I may be mistaken and be perhaps unable to distinguish between ego and role/demonstrative. If it is possible then there should be less declarative statements to the effect that "a person can only be one type".

[withoutd0ubt]

You've came in with your mind made up, you can't be typed, OK, enjoy.

Right. I completely decided that in ignorance. Oh wait, I forgot about the multiple posts I made in the "What's my type?" section resulting in a wide range of potential types.

[chemical]

Well the point I was making is your conundrum about having trouble typing yourself is the norm -- statistical dimensions of personality often are normally distributed, so people are often loosely in the middle. However, they tend to be differentiated in particular senses quite often, which average out.
Socionics will work well if you have a cognitive preference one way or another, and won't very well if your pronounced features are elsewhere.

If this point is confusing just look up an instrument like the Big 5 NEO-PI and note how many facets there are for Extroversion. It's likely people have some preferences somewhere among those, but that their average isn't too extreme across all of the different subcategories.

[withoutd0ubt]

Well the point I was making is your conundrum about having trouble typing yourself is the norm -- statistical dimensions of personality often are normally distributed, so people are often loosely in the middle. However, they tend to be differentiated in particular senses quite often, which average out.
Socionics will work well if you have a cognitive preference one way or another, and won't very well if your pronounced features are elsewhere.

If this point is confusing just look up an instrument like the Big 5 NEO-PI and note how many facets there are for Extroversion. It's likely people have some preferences somewhere among those, but that their average isn't too extreme across all of the different subcategories.

Thanks for the recommendation. I just went and took the test and below are the results. I'm still processing them and reconcilong it with mbti/socionics/enneagram but here are the results... Perhaps you have more helpful insight?




Domain/Facet........... Score 0--------10--------20--------30--------40--------50--------60--------70--------80--------90--------99


EXTRAVERSION...............57 ************************************************** *******


..Friendliness.............37 *************************************


..Gregariousness...........55 ************************************************** *****


..Assertiveness............94 ************************************************** ********************************************


..Activity Level...........27 ***************************


..Excitement-Seeking.......84 ************************************************** **********************************
..Cheerfulness.............18 ******************

Your score on Extraversion is average, indicating you are neither a subdued loner nor a jovial chatterbox. You enjoy time with others but also time alone.



AGREEABLENESS..............2 **


..Trust....................9 *********


..Morality.................19 *******************


..Altruism.................5 *****


..Cooperation..............26 **************************


..Modesty..................11 ***********


..Sympathy.................21 *********************

Your score on Agreeableness is low, indicating less concern with others' needs Than with your own. People see you as tough, critical, and uncompromising.


CONSCIENTIOUSNESS..........43 *******************************************


..Self-Efficacy............80 ************************************************** ******************************


..Orderliness..............33 *********************************


..Dutifulness..............17 *****************


..Achievement-Striving.....56 ************************************************** ******


..Self-Discipline..........57 ************************************************** *******


..Cautiousness.............38 **************************************


Your score on Conscientiousness is average. This means you are reasonably reliable, organized, and self-controlled.




NEUROTICISM................58 ************************************************** ********


..Anxiety..................73 ************************************************** ***********************


..Anger....................82 ************************************************** ********************************


..Depression...............38 **************************************


..Self-Consciousness.......15 ***************


..Immoderation.............77 ************************************************** ***************************


..Vulnerability............48 ************************************************


Your score on Neuroticism is average, indicating that your level of emotional reactivity is typical of the general population. Stressful and frustrating situations are somewhat upsetting to you, but you are generally able to get over these feelings and cope with these situations.

OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE.....65 ************************************************** ***************


..Imagination..............50 **************************************************


..Artistic Interests.......60 ************************************************** **********


..Emotionality.............13 *************


..Adventurousness..........93 ************************************************** *******************************************


..Intellect................87 ************************************************** *************************************


..Liberalism...............43 *******************************************


Your score on Openness to Experience is average, indicating you enjoy tradition but are willing to try new things. Your thinking is neither simple nor complex. To others you appear to be a well-educated person but not an intellectual.

[chemical]

Well, I have done my homework on how this test relates to the MBTI, if that's what you mean. I think all in all it's easier to relate to MBTI than socionics because socionics is modeling the cognitive aspects of psychological type, whereas MBTI plays along with creating 4 broad statistical dimensions that include behavior, cognition, and many other things...which is both good and bad. If you want a totally fact-based theory, this is good because you basically treat people as bundle of correlated traits that serve thematically towards some mode of adaptation. There's still definite parallels though -- the Big 5 notes that emotional feeling is related to extroversion, which goes with how socionics divides F into Fe (the emotional state noting/processing counterpart) and Fi, which notes the ethical relations between objects independent of their momentary arousal/lack thereof.

Overall, I think MBTI-N has two major aspects: fantasy-orientation and conceptual/idea-orientation, the combination of which is the tendency to intangible/abstract concepts. I'd say this parallels the facets of Openness to Experience -- Ideas + Fantasy.

MBTI-T/F is harder -- it's something of a mixed bag, with moderate relation to Openness to Feelings, and stronger to the Tendermindedness aspect of Agreeableness (the part to do with compassion, aka the feelings component rather than the politeness component).
T is more mildly related to Openness to Ideas than F is to Openess to Feelings. I'd say the difference between F and Openness to Feelings is that the latter is more general..the former slants towards compassion, whereas the latter includes creative feelings, angry ones, reward-signaling ones, and so forth.

**overall, Openness to Feelings and Openness to Ideas both are more related to N...than to F or T*

MBTI-E/I covers mostly the sociability aspects of Big 5's E/I.

P/J correlates pretty well overall with Conscientiousness but probably slants towards the orderliness-measuring aspects.

neuroticism doesn't relate very well to any of MBTI and is mostly independent a scale.

[chemical]

Oh wait, I forgot about the multiple posts I made in the "What's my type?" section resulting in a wide range of potential types.

That is a very common occurrence, and I think the best way to resolve it is to keep learning about the systems, realize there might not be a perfect fit, but that once you get more and more in depth on what the types are about, usually something will stick out.
Subtypes + enneagram are a good way for accounting for variation.

I definitely do not slant the same way as posters who essentially jeer at you that you don't get the system if you see yourself in more than one type, because I get the sense they frequently are very sure of their view, but have little way of completely impartially explaining why their view is true and all others are false. Opinionated pigheadedness for the loss. Real human beings don't always fit neatly into 16 structurally symmetrical, nice, logical models.

[chemical]

OK so here's the rough thing I have to say about LIE and ILE's Te and Ne.. Te in a ILE is not valued, but is strong. How can this make sense? I'd say the main value of ILE is to note as fully as possible the potential of an idea, and where Te helps this along is in potentially providing fodder. I'd say LII and ILE differ in that LII is much more likely to be exhausted by the fact-orientation of Te because of looking to fit logical facts into a pretty well-defined structural framework. Whereas, ILE is comparably more fluid and is more centrally concerned with noting the entire potential of an idea. Hence, they may collect many relevant facts, in not a very structurally coherent way, in forming the picture they seek. This can help to clarify the potential, but they don't value Te (aka, factuality, efficiency, algorithms to put things into practice) for their own sake the way LIE does.

[withoutd0ubt]

So I'm the highest in assertiveness, adventure seeking, self efficacy, self discipline, anger, immoderation, adventurousness, and intellect. These aspects fit well with my enneagram 8w7 type. These aspects are also what leads people to believe I'm SLE, LSE, or LIE. The reality is that it takes much deliberation and analysis for me to reach a firm position - firm enough to withstand any logical, ethical, or situational arguments to the contrary. These traits seem to fit with either a Te or Se base so I can understand the types SLE and LIE but there are also aspects of Si and Ni so I can't distinguish. I also can relate to the type descriptions of LIE-logical and SLE-Ti, though unfortunately I have both a Si PolR/Fe HA of the LIE (don't mind disorder unless it prohibits me in some way and I can get stuck in "analysis mode" where I may need someone to push me into action if I'm split 50/50) as well as an Fi PolR/Fe HA of the SLE (cannot perceive illogical emotional expressions or poorly internalized meanings/connotations in others despite clear and logical articulation and I dislike when I'm misperceived or misjudged in group dynamics though I enjoy pleasant/efficient group interactions).

I'm the lowest in activity level, cheerfulness, trust, altruism, dutifulness, orderliness, self consciousness, depression, emotionality, and liberalism. These aspects seem to better relate to an ILE-Ti (a "bigger picture" ego that perceives and analyzes reality logically while having the same Fi PolR/Fe HA of the SLE).

I have no doubt that I'm more N than S in MBTI (normally ~85% N). I personally am very educated and am continuously learning multiple fields of study; along with being "highly gifted" it makes the cognitive processes of Ne/Te and Ni/Ti extremely difficult to distinguish for me. I'm also a lifelong athlete and have played semiprofessionally and/or collegiately in various, unrelated sports; along with my "take charge" mentality this leads me to believe that Se is valued, at least, but I can't distinguish between base, role, mobilizing, or demonstrative.

I have no idea whether I'm P/J in MBTI because I was always/50/50. I also agree with half of each rational/irrational descriptions and static/dynamic of Socionics. It's strange, I'm very "N" until I reach the last analysis of a topic and then I'll defend it in a very "P" style.

I have no doubt I'm more T than F in MBTI (normally ~85% here as well) and that seems to correspond well to being Fi/Fe weak in socionics' cognitive functions. However, in unsure if I'm poor in these areas by default or if I'm poor in them because I don't value them. I think the difference is that I value both Fe/Fi in "life" but give no merit to them in "life decisions".

You've given me the best input I've received yet during my time on this forum, thank you for that. I don't think in any closer to finding a type but I'm not even sure I really are at this point. Shouldn't the goal of personality maturity be the high functioning in whatever aspect is necessary at the time? Who really has a "baseline" of non-activity or non-cognition to determine their base function with any objectivity? I think it's more reasonable to back calculate a type - by focusing on what one is not rather than what one actually is.

[shadowbox]

LIE seems like the best fit from everything you've said. Besides comparing LIE to other types you may also want to look into what types may possibly be you're dual and conflictor (ie what characteristics are you attracted to and what traits annoy the hell out of you)

You mentioned that you "cannot perceive illogical emotional expressions or poorly internalized meanings/connotations in others despite clear and logical articulation and I dislike when I'm misperceived or misjudged in group dynamics though I enjoy pleasant/efficient group interactions." Instead of being a fi polr it might indicate that you have fi as a dual seeking function, meaning that you value people who are clearly able to express and explain "internalized meanings/connotations in others" indicating that your dual is an ESI (or an EII if you're an LSE but that seems less likely).

I'd also ask yourself whether or not you have si polr. Do you find that you have workaholic tendencies and an inclination to neglect your health during the course of your pursuits? do you find picking out clothing tiresome and often stick to blue/grey/brown colored clothes and a lot of windbreakers, sweatshirts etc.?

[Myst]

This is actually a good question, and I'm pretty sure I've got the perspective needed; the basic difference between socionics and tests like MBTI, is that the socionics way is based on definitions and models fundamentally, whereas the MBTI has no definitions (if we're talking of the actual test, not the speculations about what functions that implies, which AFAIK turn out false half the time).
The point here is that MBTI is based fundamentally on the statistical clustering of responses, so in theory, anything that correlates well with a given side of the MBTI could be said to be loosely a part of that dimension of personality.

So what to make of this? The thing is, I'm pretty convinced I realize why it is that sometimes, someone really seems to say, be strong in something like extraverted intuition, but isn't otherwise very introverted. The reason for this is simple: all the types of introversion/extroversion (For any given version of E/I -- there are many out there) cluster together, so they're loosely part of the same overall dimension of personality, but they are not interchangeable, and it is definitely possible to be strong in one and weak in another.

So when you run into a "introverted ILE", all that means is their main cognitive process may be extroverted...in the statistical dimension view, which doesn't restrict to studying cognition, if they're mostly introverted in all other ways, they would still register as an introvert (by statistical averaging), despite their dominant process being extroverted. These are simply different definitions of extroversion/introversion, even within the same overall superset.

The answer to your question, thus, is yes it's possible to type as xNTx and so forth, but if it helps, treat socionics and Jungian typology as being more about the combination of function-attitudes you employ, even if that doesn't align with your "overall" type (introvert/extrovert) in a more statistically based dimension, because again, the dominant function-attitude is just your main cognitive process -- it doesn't speak to how P, J, I, E you are in other ways. The overall dimension of P is more or less about spontaneity/unstructuredness and J about order, but it's perfectly possible to be J cognitively and P in most behavioral senses.

My way of thinking exactly. I trust the I/E and J/P a lot less than the S/N and T/F dichotomies.

[chemical]

There's also stuff out there strongly suggesting that many of the most standard ideas of personality cannot be separated out into one single of the 5 factors studied by the Big 5 -- often times they are more like an admixture of two after creating the 5 broad clustering patterns on a purely logical level.

It's highly likely that this fact was known to Jung when he came up with the 8 function-attitudes, which have kind of a dual nature: in part they are single types of consciousness, in part can be seen as a sum of two theoretically different factors.

[Adam Strange]

I've recently thought that I'm very similar to ILEs, with the main differences being that I won't start a project unless I can see a profit in it (just being interesting isn't enough), and I don't constantly jump from one thing to another all the time.

[FreelancePoliceman]

I've recently thought that I'm very similar to ILEs, with the main differences being that I won't start a project unless I can see a profit in it (just being interesting isn't enough), and I don't constantly jump from one thing to another all the time.

In what ways do you think you're similar?

[Adam Strange]

In what ways do you think you're similar?

Our function dimensionalities are identical, but the valued and unvalued functions of LIEs and ILEs are flipped. Same strengths, opposite preferences.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Our function dimensionalities are identical, but the valued and unvalued functions of LIEs and ILEs are flipped.

Sure, but I thought you'd have more personal examples.

[The Reality Denialist]

ILE's do not make sympathetic approaches (they give room others to collect themselves by observing situation) and they do not wish to design and like to produce workable hacks.