Well now, that's not unsettling at all! Nope, totally not unsettling and making me glad I have weapons nearby. No way, totally normalOriginally Posted by Aylen
.
Well now, that's not unsettling at all! Nope, totally not unsettling and making me glad I have weapons nearby. No way, totally normal
Oh dear, I didn't take a moment to consider that I could possibly scare you out of having dinner, with women, (weapon free) for the rest of your life.Well now, that's not unsettling at all! Nope, totally not unsettling and making me glad I have weapons nearby. No way, totally normal
So sorry. It's just play pretend.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
@Simo you might want to play around with the Sociotypograph, to see which Reinin dichotomies you identify with, which ones fit ILI vs SLI: http://zhilkin.com/socio/en/
and here is some further info on Positivism vs Negativism, copied and pasted from this article: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...in-Dichotomies
POSITIVISM | NEGATIVISM
Translator's notes: This dichotomy is very often confused with optimism/pessimism. It is important to note that Positivism/Negativism are not the same thing as optimism/pessimism.This dichotomy describes the structural features of cognitive perception and not one's worldview, outlook on life, or emotional state. Positivism also gets confused with enneagram positive outlook triad (2-7-9), Negativism—with type 6, which is given to thinking of worst case scenarios ("catastrophizing"). Positivism/Negativism has been further described in Forms of Thinking.
Positivists (ILE, ESE, LSI, IEI, LIE, SEE, EII, SLI):
Positivists initially pay attention to what is present in a situation (what exists, what is there) what can realistically occur, what can be interpreted as an affirmative manifestation of surrounding world, situations, possibilities, prospects.
Positivists are oriented at what any situation or contact with people can potentially bring to them rather than what they could potentially lose (for example, moving is viewed as an opportunity to gain new acquaintances, friends, rather than primarily from point of view of losing existing friends). For them an orientation to success is more characteristic rather than avoidance of failure.
Positives are better at assimilating affirmative experiences. They are inclined to "convert" negative experiences into positive ones (they try to find the "silver lining").
They speak more of the positive and try to present negative moments on a positive background ("Yes, this is a problem, but..."—then continue to paint a positive picture). Conversations about the negative (when the other person accentuates deficiencies, absence, impossibility) may be irritating to Positivists.
In speech of Positivists, one can detect mostly affirmative constructions and intonations. If they are giving instructions to someone else, they present them in positive manner: they talk about what can be done or what should be done in different situations (for example, "You can call him only at this-and-this time") rather than what cannot or should not be done.
Negativists (SEI, LII, SLE, EIE, ILI, ESI, IEE, LSE):
Negativists pay attention to aspects of the situation that are insufficient or lacking, which can be interpreted as seeing the negative prospects of various situations and events.
Negativists orient at what they could potentially lose as a result of a certain situation or contact with other people, rather than what this situation or contact can bring to them (for example, moving for negativists primarily means losing friends). Negativists focus on avoiding failures (the "positive" development of a situation is the fact that nothing negative has happened so far).
Negativists are better at assimilating negating, negative experiences. They are inclined to outline negative sides of affairs.
Negativists are more inclined to speak about negative moments. Positive aspects are presented on a negative background ("Well, this is good, but..."—then mentions what is lacking, what is not right). Negativists are irritated by "excessively positive" attitudes (when another person "forgets" to bring up or haven't even considered the negative aspects of something).
In speech of negativists there is frequent use of negating expressions (negative pronouns, adverbs, "not" "cannot" "nobody" "never"). For example: "Negative experiences are not always necessary, I don't need them" "There won't be an occasion to do anything" "I cannot say that this is not true" etc. If giving instructions they first of all talk about the things to avoid, what should not be done (For example "If you call them at such a time it will be pointless").
Notes:
Previous research on this dichotomy was reduced to measuring positive/negative in the "everyday" sense of the word. In our opinion, these attitudes are a consequence of a deeper mechanism: one group perceives and describes something by denoting associated properties (Positivists) while the other group denotes properties that are not associated with it. Positivists describe a subject, individual, phenomenon, attempting to describe it through characteristics inherent in the object, while Negativists focus on properties that do not pertain to the object. The cursory impression of optimism/pessimism being the distinguishing feature of this dichotomy occurs because of this. In reality, both Positivists and Negativists possess these two attitudes and talk equally of "good" and "bad" things. The difference is in the form of presentation—for example, on the same topic of shortcomings: "I cannot say that you have no shortcomings" (negativism) and "You have several shortcomings" (positivism).
Hypotheses:
The difference in assimilating experiences between Positivists and Negativists arises because Positivists better remember events when they did transpire, rather than events that did not occur, while Negativists are better at remembering events that did not occur, that were absent or lacking (for the Negativist, this absence constitutes an event in itself, they remember this better and draw conclusions).
Examples:
Positivists: "At first I trust people, distrust needs to be substantiated" "I always believe in a positive outcome. I will most likely talk about positives. I don't issue warnings of possible failures—why bring people down, may be everything will be ok" "It irritates me when people talk only of character flaws and inadequacies in others" "I try not to give instructions on avoidance or failure" "When giving instructions I avoid giving orders like "Don't do it! Don't go!" "Even negative experience can be positive" "I start off by trusting people and then work from there."
Negativists: "My first reaction to everything is "no!" whatever it might be" "I don't speak of the positives" "One must take into account all the negative aspects. It goes without saying that people are capable of anything" "If the mood is too good - something is not right" "In my instructions I always give people "negative" orientation points. I foresee all the negative moments and try to make provisions for them" "People in general are good, but it's better to keep your distance from them" "When I was authoring a textbook, I constructed my proofs "by method of contradiction"" "Most often I bring bad news" "When asked "How's it going?" I answer "Not well." "How am I going to entertain myself? Certainly I wouldn't go to a restaurant, neither a casino ... but somewhere out to nature..." "There will be a building there, but that's not what you're looking for. After that you will see a street, but don't take it, continue on your path. Go around the building and don't use the first two entrances."
That's the whole reason I made my post to clarify. I think the wiki descriptions are a bit misleading. I already indicated what I think.
That's incorrect. ILI is negativist, SLI is positivist.
I am never without a weapon. I have the good lord at my side. However, I supplement the divine's grace with a sharp mind, a healthy body, and various implements of destruction. Thus, no matter where I go or what situation I find myself in I am always well armedOh dear, I didn't take a moment to consider that I could possibly scare you out of having dinner, with women, (weapon free) for the rest of your life.
So sorry. It's just play pretend.
.
I liked how you defined them, and if you don't mind I would like you to explain Judicious vs Decisive and static vs dynamic.
but what I meant was on what did you base your descriptions, is there better resources or is it your own understanding?
when I said "they" I meant "ILIs" not "ILI and SLI"That's incorrect. ILI is negativist, SLI is positivist.
There is further discourse on the topic if you read down the entire page you've quoted this from
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...tary_and_Notes
So far ILI-Te > SLI, you sound rather similar to InvisibleJim in your quips and jokes.
Sli's seem passive and inert like ILI's but they actually have very strong willpower, they usually stubbornly persist to get what they want, and cannot be forced to do something they don't want. ILIs are naturally more patient and accomodating, from my experience they tend to need larger physical distances from people to compensate. SLIs also tend to get bored more easily, ILI's find a lot of joy exploring their imaginations. And SLIs can be very cautious abut how they use their time, and over plan for the future. ILI's only loosely plan for the future, they take it for granted that things can change and flow with changes much better. Time for an ILI works for them, an SLI experiences time like a dog on a leash.
Also SLIs have a constant subconscious awareness of the nearby surroundings (Se), because that's where they get the internal sensations of Si. SLI's have a stronger need for specific surroundings to stabalize their sense of self, and can be aggressive about securing them. ILI's can be strangely oblivious to their surroundings, are nowhere near as aggressive about securing them, although they appreciate good aesthetics all the same.
I had the impression ILIs are the ones who over plan for the future, which I personally don't do
Actually what made me question if I am SLI instead of ILI, is one of my teammates at work (who I typed as SLI) is very detailed when planning projects
He would try to anticipate everything and plan how to deal with it, which related better to my understanding that ILIs are negativists and great planners
whereas I ,who take it for granted that things can change and flow with changes much better as you said, would relate more to SLIs who are positivists and not future oriented
So I guess this really clarify things, I really appreciate it
You can tell a project is going to succeed or fail so why do you not relate to thinking in terms of A->B?
And yeah, ILI, this and your other thread too.
I guess I didn't explain it clearly
what I meant by A->B was over planning by creating a master plan that foresee the possibilities of the future and provide action plan to deal with each possibility until you reach your goal
In my case I don't think I really plan rather I would just let things happen but if I felt something is going the wrong direction, I would interfere to correct it
So you can say if the first way was designing the future
my way would be more of manipulating the route to reach the desired future while remaining in the background if that make more sense
So any thoughts on this?
That A->B thing sounds like more focus on Ne instead of Ni or at least Ne seems more high dimensional than Ni* where neither Ne nor Ni are necessarily that great if it is really also overplanning.
Your way, if I take into account what you said about seeing projects working out or not is a strong focus on Ni with Ip temperament so ILI works for this.
*: see article on this site on dimensionality of functions if you haven't yet.
Ni timing against Ni timing. How exciting!
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
This is actually quite accurate. I myself don't need much in regards to my physical surroundings, just having a secure shelter, soft bed, and warmth for the night is enough (and in a pinch, the soft bed can slide). Though a stunning view and other luxuries allowed to the wealthy are always nice they are not required. So long as my accommodations are not akin to a "prison cell" things are going just fine.
The thing about time is also accurate. I know I will succeed, the plan is unfolding at an acceptable pace most of the time. Wish it'd unfold faster but you can't really force these issues through without unacceptably large expenditures of resources better left conserved for a true emergency. I plan only loosely because events I have no control over could drastically change my forecasts. Y'know, like if WWIII kicks off that's going to affect a large swath of things and require a complete re-working of any "complex" plan (having to get to an area unlikely to be nuked ASAP being the first major wrench in your plans in that case for instance). By keeping it loose I am keeping it adaptable. Rigid planning is pie in the sky thinking, everyone knows the plan never survives first contact with the enemy and that improvisation will thus be required
dimensionality of functions< seriously don't tell there is 3D socionics
I guess I should see it
come on what is so exciting? everyone know that my timing is better
I would be surprised if it didn't remind you, but seriously you have a unique way of starting your day
me neither, i'm ILI. Though I can see somehow consequences or have a gut feeling. that's probably what the outsiders call seeing time. SLI gets very alert in those situations to compensate for not having a clue how things going to end.
SLI lives in the here and now, one once told me he didn't ever daydream. ILI daydreams almost all day long.
SLI, some are the typical marine/navy seal guy. some are mechanic or firefighter etc. most of them are very 'cool' in their behaviour. While ILI is more laidback, lazy.
there isdimensionality of functions
I guess I should see it
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...y-of-Functions
I just read about half of it and it is really interesting, Thanks for sharing
Hello, I don't really think this is socionics related. But I have to say, my SLI boyfriend loves strategic/RPG games to death.
I find typing someone for a couple of posts on a forum ridiculous. You have the final word on your type at the end.
I would say, in terms of coolness, that LSI would fit this description more.
SLI definitely, almost guaranteed will give off a lazy vibe. They are always saving energy. They are Si base after all. Much like SEI, but oriented towards other stuff.
Btw, career choices are not socionics related most of the time.
yes I know loving strategic/RPG games is not type related, but I believe playing style can give hintsHello, I don't really think this is socionics related. But I have to say, my SLI boyfriend loves strategic/RPG games to death.
I find typing someone for a couple of posts on a forum ridiculous. You have the final word on your type at the end.
for example, Se most likely would focus on attack and can be reckless, whereas Si would be cautious even if focused on attack
I've seen SLI for you.
Thanks, i see that as a compliment. It's probably because I look so badass.
Do you guys mind if I copy these posts into the general telling apart ILIs and SLIs thread (link)? This sounds like an accurate depiction of type differences.This is actually quite accurate. I myself don't need much in regards to my physical surroundings, just having a secure shelter, soft bed, and warmth for the night is enough (and in a pinch, the soft bed can slide). Though a stunning view and other luxuries allowed to the wealthy are always nice they are not required. So long as my accommodations are not akin to a "prison cell" things are going just fine.
The thing about time is also accurate. I know I will succeed, the plan is unfolding at an acceptable pace most of the time. Wish it'd unfold faster but you can't really force these issues through without unacceptably large expenditures of resources better left conserved for a true emergency. I plan only loosely because events I have no control over could drastically change my forecasts. Y'know, like if WWIII kicks off that's going to affect a large swath of things and require a complete re-working of any "complex" plan (having to get to an area unlikely to be nuked ASAP being the first major wrench in your plans in that case for instance). By keeping it loose I am keeping it adaptable. Rigid planning is pie in the sky thinking, everyone knows the plan never survives first contact with the enemy and that improvisation will thus be required
Go ahead
yeah it's fine
Great
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
