Types and emotional-objective introspection(?)

[para]

Which type is most likely to:
Introspect and analyze abstract processes and things, and feel incredible emotional energy surrounding thoughts and analysis of a logical breakdown of subjectivity? Or is emotionally attached to the idea of concepts themselves, and the deepness and paradoxical nature of being and reality? Which type is most likely to be involved in the self, while detaching from the self? To romanticize and subject logical analysis to emotional beauty? Which type feels meaning and passion itself from introspection and analysis of various fields and abstract processes?

Which type uses the way of thinking to determine outcomes, not the thing that is thought of

Sorry for the jumbled wording..

[Mudlark]

Analysis of the logical breakdown of subjectivity could be Ti in the form of exploring the outer-bounds of the linguistic system/dialect in question, Ne in the form of entertaining the possibility of seeing things differently in differing contexts, or Fi in the form of contrasting behavior with true intentions as an exercise in understanding how people can mean different things using the same language. The way you write it, it sounds like Ti>Ne with no sign of Fi, so LII probably. To be clear, other types will do that too, but won't find the same profound enjoyment in it that you appear to. Any time I do this, it's to disrupt misconception in the interest of securing a more livable future.

Being emotionally attached to concepts in their own right, devaluing personal sentiments in their favor, and detaching from the self in order to identify an abstract ideal sounds Ti>Fi.

I could use clarification on subjecting "logical analysis to emotional beauty." It doesn't mean anything to me as is. If I had to take a guess, were you trying to say that you find logical analysis beautiful in it's own right and would like to share that sentiment with others in a way that they'll find inspiring? If so, that's Ti, Fe, and Ne in that order.

Valuing introspection could be anyone, but if we're already biased towards Ti (I think we are) that sounds more like Alpha, in that valuing Ne is associated with seeing latent potential and I don't think LSI is traditionally introspective in that sense.

EDIT: Using the dialect as a predictive model rather than imaginative mental simulation of recognized forms is Ti > Ni.

My view is LII.

[para]

By ''logical analysis to subjective beauty'' i mean that in the process of the analysis, you subject yourself and this analysis to value, by making the objective analysis subjectively good. ''Real'' objective analysis would only focus on itself in question, not (consciously at least) valuing the process or ideal of doing so. I'm trying to describe a state of finding beauty in subjectivity by subjecting subjectivity to the fact that it's subjective.

[Mudlark]

Do you mean to say that subjectivity doesn't by it's nature defeat valuation, and that thought doesn't need to result in some external benefit?

I keep rephrasing because I'm genuinely confused.

Do you mean to say that subjective values can be transcended and replaced by an analysis into the true nature of things?

[para]

No, subjectivity defeats valuation. I'm trying to describe the process of ''watching yourself be subjective by detaching from inherent subjectivity'' at least as far as possible. The process of watching yourself watching yourself watching yourself think etc. Looking at the ways thought work instead of the thought itself. To focus on the ways the mind interprets instead of the thing it's actually interpreting.

Sorry if my thoughts are completely cryptic and rambling. It's just a process i've always found myself working by (and enjoying) and i wonder which IE this relates to? Is it Ti, Ni or Fi or something else entirely?

[Mudlark]

I don't think being interested in the philosophy of mind can be tied to any type in particular, but valued Ne is one guess, in that you're trying to contextualize your thoughts differently to gain insight from the exercise. Have you considered ILE?

[para]

ILE is definitely a possibilty, though really can't see Fi-PoLR, Se role or Fe HA.

One the big problems of typing myself is figuring out if i'm logical or ethical. I'm very sensitive and immersive towards my own feelings, and i'm receptive to certain ''moods'' where i will think things slightly differently based on my emotional state.

Logical types are simply described as ''too cold'' to really fit in with me in regards to my worldview. I'm much too idealistic when it comes to spirituality and insight into the self. But i'm still not sure if logical types can have that precise same interest, since it seems inherently ethical in some way.

[Mudlark]

One common misunderstanding in socionics is the conflation of emotion and Ethics in the technical sense, in that Ethics is evaluation of behavior based on consistency with (1) contextual narrative, Fe, or (2) personal values, Fi. Emotion is more of an automatic response to stimulus, and the inability to regulate this effectively strikes me as low order Si, where Si is the internal management of the response to qualia.

ILE is probably the softest of the Researchers, though they can all be idealistic in their own way.

[Audacious]

ILE is definitely a possibilty, though really can't see Fi-PoLR, Se role or Fe HA.

One the big problems of typing myself is figuring out if i'm logical or ethical. I'm very sensitive and immersive towards my own feelings, and i'm receptive to certain ''moods'' where i will think things slightly differently based on my emotional state.

Logical types are simply described as ''too cold'' to really fit in with me in regards to my worldview. I'm much too idealistic when it comes to spirituality and insight into the self. But i'm still not sure if logical types can have that precise same interest, since it seems inherently ethical in some way.

Logical types aren't by default allergic to spirituality or insight. You seem like you have enneagram 4 influences. It is possible that you're trying to fit that part of you into descriptions of a socionics type.

[para]

Well, i'm not really speaking of insight as a whole, more so the kind of insight that depends itself on a very subjective and idealistic searching. As in, insight with relation to attraction between subject and object, in a sense that doesn't neccessarily have to do with objective qualities.

As in, there would be a difference between the introspective insight of ILI, LII vs EII, IEI very broadly speaking?

Maybe i'm just way off my mark, and as you said, trying to project specific qualities onto very broad and flexible types that aren't supposed to be there. I consider myself E 4-9-5, so clear E4 influences in my thinking, yes.

[WinnieW]

That's an discussion that sparked my interest.

ILE is definitely a possibilty, though really can't see Fi-PoLR, Se role or Fe HA.

One the big problems of typing myself is figuring out if i'm logical or ethical. I'm very sensitive and immersive towards my own feelings, and i'm receptive to certain ''moods'' where i will think things slightly differently based on my emotional state.

Logical types are simply described as ''too cold'' to really fit in with me in regards to my worldview. I'm much too idealistic when it comes to spirituality and insight into the self. But i'm still not sure if logical types can have that precise same interest, since it seems inherently ethical in some way.

I can relate. I'm also the sensitive type, especially during my childhood and my teenage years. The reason might be having weak sensing functions.

Acting based on emotions means no rational judgement, based on the theories of C.G.Jung. At least as far as I understand his works.
Judgement is rational, either based on ethics or logic.
Any type use both styles of judgement. The questions is how often and how skilled you use either logical or ethical based judgement.

I'd describe taking actions based on emotions as a form of unconscious judgement.

[para]

Interesting. So determining for example EII from LII would be to look at usage and skill regarding the rational functions. I still have trouble discerning Fi dominance from Ti dominance, though. How does it manifest?

[WinnieW]

Very simplified and abstract:

Ti:
Building your own personal framework of how things work based on your experiences

Fi:
Building your own personal framework of moral codes based on your experiences


Focusing on what is
true or false (Ti) - impersonal or detached judgement
or
good or bad (Fi) - personal judgement


My own view on this:

You need either introverted perception or introverted judgement to steer a course in your life.

You have the choice: Either rational judgement or instinctual judgement.
Instinctual judgement is the "fallback mode" for rational judgement.
Without any judgement you are unable to fulfill your basic needs and to stay alive.

[Mudlark]

Fi assesses behavior based on consistency with personal values, with an eye to whether people are acting in a disingenuous way. Bertrand is EII, for reference, and you'll often find him roaming the forum calling people out on their implied motivations and the inconsistency in their behavior with the types they've assigned themselves. He can also be used as a reference for how low-Si (rather than the placement of any ethical function) is associated with letting emotions affect your decisions disproportionately, by comparing with ashlesha, an ESI, who's fairly stoic in her approach (and I say this as someone who rather likes both of them so it's not personal).

Ti is more concerned with assessing whether a response was correct in reference to an arbitrary system, not so much whether the response was accurate. It transposes linguistic principles onto the world, perceiving the environment as a question for which there's a correct response. It tends not to assess whether or not the response is genuine, and you can see this manifest in people who show up and take the answers to a questionnaire for granted rather than digging to see what they actually meant. On the flip side, Ti is also associated with the ability to parse complicated systems fairly easily, and to fluently apply principled reasoning concerning how an object should behave in response to something else assuming that the object is what they think it is.

EDIT: My view remains LII.

[Exodus]

Which type is most likely to:
Introspect and analyze abstract processes and things, and feel incredible emotional energy surrounding thoughts and analysis of a logical breakdown of subjectivity? Or is emotionally attached to the idea of concepts themselves, and the deepness and paradoxical nature of being and reality? Which type is most likely to be involved in the self, while detaching from the self? To romanticize and subject logical analysis to emotional beauty? Which type feels meaning and passion itself from introspection and analysis of various fields and abstract processes?

Which type uses the way of thinking to determine outcomes, not the thing that is thought of

Sorry for the jumbled wording..

Introspecting on mental processes and the deep nature of reality is a combination of Ni and Ti. Involving from the self, detaching -- Ni. The logical analysis sounds like something you value also so again, I think probably you are LII or IEI (as opposed to ILI). The romanticization also speaks of valued Fe.

The emotional aspect doesn't necessarily point to Fe ego. An IEI would be more distinguished by how they express things or ideas externally.

For example Nietzsche (certainly a Beta NF) could probably be described by all of the above but he also had a uniquely effusive way of writing compared to most philosophers.

[Bertrand]

Bertrand is EII, for reference, and you'll often find him roaming the forum calling people out on their implied motivations and the inconsistency in their behavior with the types they've assigned themselves.

Its probably just a phase and I don't think it derails your main point, but, full disclosure, I've been thinking of myself as IEE lately. This comes from me interacting with what I believe are real EIIs at school (not to mention all the other types), and I think I'm more Fi creative in how I express myself. I think I just had a skewed idea of IEE because I associated Chae with IEE but I think she's more in the camp of "EIE with stereotypically delta values" probably as a product of living in a very delta country. I think Tallmo sort of called it way back when he said either IEE or EII and linked videos. I think maybe I just "wanted" to be EII because of how I attributed many desirable qualities to the type. Maybe things will change but I don't want you to rely on something I know may be false without saying anything. I do think the way I throw my attitude around is definitely indicative of Fi. In any case, I'm not as big as most poster on nailing down type, rather I like to focus on the meaning of the theory unto itself... I feel like people change and our understanding of typology develops so the main thing is to try and understand the Jungian side of how it helps make the unconscious conscious and so forth rather than as a scheme to classify people. if we classify anything classify actions and scenarios but people are much harder to nail down in time. I'm not adverse to other people trying, but just saying as to myself the more I learn the more difficult I perceive such a thing to truly be, so I prefer to leave them in the realm of working heuristics but without much persuasive power unto themselves. I notice when I'm in the presence of real people the theory sort of evaporates anyway and what's left is the tools it leaves to help sort out misunderstandings, and I like it that way

[Mudlark]

@Bertrand I don't like to do this either, and the main reason I periodically lose interest in the theory is my lack of faith in its ability to explain the peculiarities of someone's development; you can think of some people as being developmentally stunted and others not, but in reality I think that everyone is lopsided in some way. The only reason I do this is to give other people the opportunity to call me out on my shit so I can disrupt misconception in both directions, so that whatever utility this has in my normal life isn't impacted by me being an idiot. As for you being IEE, I privately entertained the idea several times.

EDIT: And message received, I won't call you in for this shit lol.

[Bertrand]

@Nehtaro told me I was IEE like a year ago and I resisted him a lot and pretentiously assumed I knew it all; I'm sorry Nehtaro! (even if I change again, I can't say you were totally off base)

[lavos]

IMO, sounds like 4D Ni in ILI and LII. My Ni is somewhat similar, but not so extreme.

[para]

How does this connect with Ni as a ''temporal'' function? Is detaching from the self to gain perspective and insight linked to a time-bound understanding of processes and interaction?

[Mudlark]

Ni is the mental simulation of the extended behavior of recognized forms. Its association with time is in that behavior can only be observed along the axis of time. Disconnecting from oneself is only relevant insofar as you're not paying attention to the present moment when you're fantasizing. I maintain that it's in the service of Ne, in that you're contextualizing your thought process to gain outside perspective.

I do this in the service of nothing, automatically. Sometimes it'll end up in the service of trying to imagine how a situation would realistically play out, but by and large, it's for its own sake.

[para]

I do both, to be honest (both for it's own sake and deliberately to gain outside perspective). So Ni looks at bodies and phenomena, putting it in a chronological axis with which it displays likely developements? And Ne, in comparison does what?

Very concise and well put answer, by the way. I feel like i'm finally beginning to interalize some of these things in a complete way.

[Mudlark]

Ne recognizes traits of items as isomorphic (which is to say that it sees how two unrelated things are similar structurally) and attempts to bridge the gap of context to see how each could be better understood from the other's frame of reference. I'm drawing a blank currently (I'm about to record a video for Sol's satisfaction), and if that definition isn't clear I can try to rephrase, but probably the most common application of Ne is humor.

[WinnieW]

Ne recognizes traits of items as isomorphic (which is to say that it sees how two unrelated things are similar structurally) and attempts to bridge the gap of context to see how each could be better understood from the other's frame of reference.

[Hope]

Sounds like Ne rambling and marvelling about stuff.

If you talk about 'emotions' and not feelings (just in case you were doing the distinction) then Fe Valuer. Like you care more about finding beauty in emotions, maybe Si valuer too.

[para]

Yeah. I care more about experiencing emotion myself than to express it to others.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Which type is most likely to:
Introspect and analyze abstract processes and things, and feel incredible emotional energy surrounding thoughts and analysis of a logical breakdown of subjectivity? Or is emotionally attached to the idea of concepts themselves, and the deepness and paradoxical nature of being and reality? Which type is most likely to be involved in the self, while detaching from the self? To romanticize and subject logical analysis to emotional beauty? Which type feels meaning and passion itself from introspection and analysis of various fields and abstract processes?

Which type uses the way of thinking to determine outcomes, not the thing that is thought of

Sorry for the jumbled wording..

Probably not type related, but the closest to it - a 'detached', that is a world of imagination of emotions is IEI