# ILE-Ne Yet ENTJ?



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

AbioticPrime said:


> Are you kidding? Or are you that simple-minded? Should I spell things out for you?
> 
> You really think I'd make the conclusion of being J because some online assessment put me as 1% J?


so what's the verdict?


----------



## Snoot (Mar 5, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> ENFPs have Ne,Fi while IEIs have Ni,Fe and otherwise they share no functions in common so there is something wrong here.
> 
> Go with ENFP =P if you were IEI you would feel this internal illogic and inconsistency with Ti. IEIs have mobilizing Ti and are sensitive to logical inconsistencies but you don't seem to mind it.


Like I said, I'm rather new to it all. I have hardly looked further in to the socionics thing. For the most part both descriptions of either type feel right. Logical inconsistencies bother me greatly, but that depends entirely on the subject. In the case of personality types, I think people change constantly. Maybe the outcome of the socionics test would be different if I do it tomorrow. Who knows. For now, I'm not too bothered =D


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> You should take a look at MBTI functions and Socionics information elements for typing yourself.
> Trying to type yourself by fitting yourself into the profiles is generally a poor method for typing.
> 
> Socionics ENTj values Te, Ni, Se, Fi while ENTp values Ti, Ne, Si, Fe. So these are very different types. These types are known as quasi-identicals -- they share many _surface_ similarities while being nothing alike in their cognitive layout. Since they can look very similar at first glance, very often people who don't research the types carefully mistype between the two.





tanstaafl28 said:


> My understanding of Socionics is that Extraverts generally are the same type there as they are in MBTI. I am a solid ENTP/ENTp.





tanstaafl28 said:


> Maybe. Did you read the article attached to that chart? I claim no expertise in Socionics. It seems alien to me because it is so heavily Eurocentric. A great deal of the literature is also highly academic and has not been well translated into English.





cyamitide said:


> ENFPs have Ne,Fi while IEIs have Ni,Fe and otherwise they share no functions in common so there is something wrong here.
> 
> Go with ENFP =P if you were IEI you would feel this internal illogic and inconsistency with Ti. IEIs have mobilizing Ti and are sensitive to logical inconsistencies but you don't seem to mind it.


Socionics is based on a theoretical framework which, while inherited from MBTI/JCF and earlier Jungian typology before it, largely diverges from it. My experience, personally, is that not a single Socionics type or function can be fixed to any counterpart in JCF. Some are so clearly distinct from each other that to claim them the same means you never read the definitions for one or the other (Fe jumps to mind). Others yet appear much the same, but can be said to be distinct when you consider context (how the function manifests in an individual type, notably). 

A major reason for that is that the function definitions are Augusta's own, but another reason is that the make up of the types* isn't dictated by the functions themselves*. Instead, each type is a compendium of a series of dichotomies, which are believed by Socionists to explain the different aspects of the psyche. Some of these can be ignored, *but others are effectively paramount to understanding the types*: For instance, Socionics EJs are a *Dynamic* type (whereas EPs are a *Static* type), so generally speaking a Socionics EJ will behave and think in a manner that in MBTI will be easier to associate with an EP type. For instance: I myself am ESFP and Fe-ESFj, and in general the overwhelmingly most likely type for any ESFj is in fact ESFP (ESTP is a distant second, followed by ENFJ, ENFP and _then_ ESFJ). ENTPs, likewise, tend to be about as likely to be some manner of EJ (ESTj > ENFj = ENTj > ESFj ime) as they are to be ENTp. 

Victor Gulenko, co-creator of Socionics, puts it best here:



> What do these signs mean—
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## AbioticPrime (Sep 1, 2011)

Aleksei said:


> Socionics is based on a theoretical framework which, while inherited from MBTI/JCF and earlier Jungian typology before it, largely diverges from it. My experience, personally, is that not a single Socionics type or function can be fixed to any counterpart in JCF. Some are so clearly distinct from each other that to claim them the same means you never read the definitions for one or the other (Fe jumps to mind). Others yet appear much the same, but can be said to be distinct when you consider context (how the function manifests in an individual type, notably).
> 
> A major reason for that is that the function definitions are Augusta's own, but another reason is that the make up of the types* isn't dictated by the functions themselves*. Instead, each type is a compendium of a series of dichotomies, which are believed by Socionists to explain the different aspects of the psyche. Some of these can be ignored, *but others are effectively paramount to understanding the types*: For instance, Socionics EJs are a *Dynamic* type (whereas EPs are a *Static* type), so generally speaking a Socionics EJ will behave and think in a manner that in MBTI will be easier to associate with an EP type. For instance: I myself am ESFP and Fe-ESFj, and in general the overwhelmingly most likely type for any ESFj is in fact ESFP (ESTP is a distant second, followed by ENFJ, ENTP and _then_ ESFJ). ENTPs, likewise, tend to be about as likely to be some manner of EJ (ESTj > ENFj = ENTj > ESFj ime) as they are to be ENTp.
> 
> Victor Gulenko, co-creator of Socionics, puts it best here:


+1. It's really an ink-blot test. 

If you read from the source -- Jung's original works, you'll quickly realize how much bleed there exists between the "types" as he described them; it's all just a game of telephone. 

What's important is to find applications of each system which work for you, and I agree that while both systems share similarities, they are to be approached individually. Though that becomes difficult with the bias which forms.


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

Again, it's impossible to have any hard-and-fast correlations between the two systems, but here's a rough sketch of the sociotypes you could expect to be if you're a given JCF type (list is *not* exhaustive; you could be almost any sociotype, the rest are just rarer):

ENTP- ILE, LSE, SEI, LII, EIE, ILI, LIE
ENFP- IEE, IEI, ESE
ESTP- SEI, ESE, IEE, SEE, SLE-Se (it's almost impossible for an ESTP to be SLE-Ti), LIE.
ESFP- ESE, SEI, IEE, SEE

ENTJ- SLE, LSI, ESI, ESE-Fe, EIE, LIE, LSE
ENFJ- SEE, EIE, ESE, ESI
ESTJ- LSI, SLE, ESI, EIE, ILE-Ti, ESE-Fe, LSE
ESFJ- ESI, EIE, SEE, ESE

INTP- ILI, LII, ILE, LIE, EIE-Ni
INFP- IEI, EII-Ne, IEE, EIE-Ni, ILE-Ne, SEI-Si
ISTP- Almost any type in the Socion (for instance, George Carlin is ISTP and either ESE or EIE)
ISFP- Any Ethical type

INTJ- LII, ILI, EIE-Ni, LIE-Ni, SLE-Ti, ILE, ESI, LSI
INFJ- IEE, EII, EIE, IEI, LII, ESI, SEE-Fi
ISTJ- LSI, SLE-Ti, ESI-Fi, SEE-Fi
ISFJ- ESI, LSI, SEE-Fi, SLE


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

It's pretty weird thinking you are a Si dom (Not in the MBTI sense) in Jungian lore, yet generally being a Ni dom as far as Socionics is concerned (IEI). I just have a more Beta/Gamma persona of being a harsh judger/emotional negativity in the inside, despite being a tad goofy.

Also why is it impossible for an ESTP to be an LSE-Ti?


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

St Vual said:


> It's pretty weird thinking you are a Si dom (Not in the MBTI sense) in Jungian lore, yet generally being a Ni dom as far as Socionics is concerned (IEI). I just have a more Beta/Gamma persona of being a harsh judger/emotional negativity in the inside, despite being a tad goofy.
> 
> Also why is it impossible for an ESTP to be an LSE-Ti?


SLE you mean? Well, Se in Socionics is probably the most obviously distinct function from Se in JCF -- the latter tends to refer to a focus on the present moment, on following your gut instincts and doing what feels right to you; whereas the former is effectively a power function, which is concerned with conquering -- aquiring success, territory, whatever, and keeping it. An SLE-Ti is a very cautious and methodical type of person, anathema to the carefree, impulsive attitude of an ESP. For illustration, here's Gulenko's description of SLE-Ti:



> Prefer to remain in the shadows, not to demonstrate their aspirations, but constantly hold their hands on the pulse of all proceedings around them. Outwardly appears balanced and phlegmatic. Before acting, checks all versions of possible consequences and only then enters into the game. Distrustful and careful, skeptic, conservative and realistic. Because they are not very sociable, may appear to be introverted. If they have their aim on a victim, they act slowly, by the method of the "compressive ring".


Clearly, this is far more befitting of an ENTJ (or even an INTJ) than just about anything else.

SLE-Se is rather more rash and impulsive (though usually in a more confrontational and 8-like manner than is typical of ESPs) than SLE-Ti, but the great majority of SLEs are SLE-Ti at any rate. core SLE descriptions tend to emphasize that SLEs prefer to operate from the shadows (whereas the main goal of any ESP is to awe and dazzle, something far more befitting a Socionics Fe-dominant and especially an ESE).


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Aleksei said:


> *My experience, personally*, is that not a single Socionics type or function can be fixed to any counterpart in JCF. Some are so clearly distinct from each other that to claim them the same means you never read the definitions for one or the other (Fe jumps to mind).Others yet appear much the same, but can be said to be distinct when you consider context (how the function manifests in an individual type, notably).


Of course the mountain looks different from the east like it looks from the north.



> A major reason for that is that the function definitions are Augusta's own, but another reason is that the make up of the types* isn't dictated by the functions themselves*. Instead, each type is a compendium of a series of dichotomies, which are believed by Socionists to explain the different aspects of the psyche. Some of these can be ignored, *but others are effectively paramount to understanding the types*: For instance, Socionics EJs are a *Dynamic* type (whereas EPs are a *Static* type), so generally speaking a Socionics EJ will behave and think in a manner that in MBTI will be easier to associate with an EP type. For instance: I myself am ESFP and Fe-ESFj, and in general the overwhelmingly most likely type for any ESFj is in fact ESFP (ESTP is a distant second, followed by ENFJ, ENFP and _then_ ESFJ). ENTPs, likewise, tend to be about as likely to be some manner of EJ (ESTj > ENFj = ENTj > ESFj ime) as they are to be ENTp.


Completely ignoring the MBTI hybrid theory from Lenore Thomson: The Brain-halves and just focusing on the J/P matter isn´t going anywhere.


Dynamic (Left) Te, Fe, Si, NiStatic (Right) Se, Ne, Fi, Ti-idea oriented​ -general abstract​ -use words and numbers​ -seeks exact conclusion​ -reductive and analytic​ -symbolic​ -temporal​ -proceeds one step at time​ -little appreciation of tone​ -specializes in language skills​ -controls speech​-event oriented​ -concrete and specific​ -use patterns or pictures​ -content with approximate, evolving solutions​ -synthesizing and insightful​ -imaginal​ -unaware of time limits​ -perceives all at ones​ -evaluates intonation​ -specializes in musical and artistic skills​ -controls spatially related activities​


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> Of course the mountain looks different from the east like it looks from the north.


Two mountains by the same name are still two mountains. :wink:


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Aleksei said:


> Two mountains by the same name are still two mountains. :wink:


You must be that ILE guy from 16types. I saw some threads about your typings and as I recall you were discredited in Socionics community for erroneous self-typing, and then accused the entire community of not knowing anything and yourself being the only one who's right: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/36503-Taking-Inventory-Aleksei-s-type-poll



Zero11 said:


> Of course the mountain looks different from the east like it looks from the north.


Aleksei has been talking a lot of theoretical talk regarding Socionics, but he is horrible at applying it to real people. On 16types it was found out that there were some major problems with his self-typing.


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> You must be that ILE guy from 16types. I saw some threads about your typings and as I recall you were discredited in Socionics community for erroneous self-typing, and then accused the entire community of not knowing anything and yourself being the only one who's right: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/36503-Taking-Inventory-Aleksei-s-type-poll


I'm not ILE (if anything LII fits better), and what the people at 16t use is not Socionics. It's an incoherent mesh of Socionics, Lenore Thomson and ass-pulled original research with hardly any regard to Model A. People who _actually_ use Model A (Expat especially) got fed up with Ashton's retard hordes and left years ago. What's left is basically the 4chan of the typology community.

I will give them credit for getting my quadra right at least -- and also admit that my knowledge of the system has advanced significantly since leaving that forum. I do stand by my assertion that they're a useless bunch of morons.

Of course, if you don't believe my theoretical background is sound, I can always source the bits you might have trouble with. Here, let me start with one bit I quoted already:



> What do these signs mean—
> View attachment 64231
> ,
> View attachment 64232
> ...


Basically, according to *the co-founder of Socionics*, they're not the same system. So it's kind of pointless to claim they are, isn't it?


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

Also, for anyone who's planning to go "he's an asshole so he must be ILE" another quote from Gulenko:



> Ethical subtype (The Popular Writer)
> 
> *Victor Gulenko
> 
> Very expressive, it is difficult to withstand their emotional pressure.* Possess high fitness for work; however, *their uncontrollable feelings prevent their work from realizing its potential.* Very scattered; jumps from one thing to another. Straightforward, not average, *Are characterized by their explosive choleric temperament.* Outwardly – has a desire to draw the attention of the opposite sex by bright clothing, which presents an element of demonstrativeness.


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

And yes, there were problems with my self typing in fact. For one thing, any Socionics type is actually a pretty poor fit for me. ESE just happens to be the least poor fit. And for another thing, much as I hate to admit it, Siuntal was right that I self-typed into the wrong quadra -- he was just wrong about my type within said quadra.

Unfortunately for him, the vast majority of ideas which he interpreted as Alpha weren't mine, but sourced from my friend, who in fact *is* EIE (back then we thought he was IEI). And his theoretical reasoning is still hokey.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Aleksei said:


> I'm not ILE (if anything LII fits better), and what the people at 16t use is not Socionics. It's an incoherent mesh of Socionics, Lenore Thomson and ass-pulled original research with hardly any regard to Model A. People who _actually_ use Model A (Expat especially) got fed up with Ashton's retard hordes and left years ago. What's left is basically the 4chan of the typology community.


Well that's a lie considering that you can find a multitude of discussions concerning Model A and virtually no discussions of Lenore Thomson's work or MBTI on that forum, so I don't know where you're pulling this from. Anyone can use the search function to figure out that what you're saying here is not true. 



> I will give them credit for getting my quadra right at least -- and also admit that my knowledge of the system has advanced significantly since leaving that forum. I do stand by my assertion that they're a useless bunch of morons.


How can they be morons if they figured out your quadra way before you did and pointed out your error in self-typing? That doesn't make any sense.



> Of course, if you don't believe my theoretical background is sound, I can always source the bits you might have trouble with. Here, let me start with one bit I quoted already


I'm distrustful of anyone who first makes grandiose claims about how they know Socionics better than most other people who have been studying it for years, calls them idiots and morons, and then it turns out that this person got their self-typing wrong. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that this depicts you in a very questionable light.


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> How can they be morons if they figured out your quadra way before you did and pointed out your error in self-typing? That doesn't make any sense.


Because the line of reasoning I used, which Siuntal used to arrive at that conclusion, was sourced from an _actual EIE_. So the fact I actually am Alpha is just a coincidence.




> I'm distrustful of anyone who first makes grandiose claims about how they know Socionics better than most other people who have been studying it for years, calls them idiots and morons, and then it turns out that this person got their self-typing wrong. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that this depicts you in a very questionable light.


Firstly, _I_ have been studying Socionics for years, and frankly my certainty of the system is less the more I know about it. Anyone who claims clear understanding to it is an overconfident buffoon who probably doesn't know half of it, unless they know Russian.

Secondly, plentiful theoretical knowledge is in fact disseminated in 16types. This is no guarantee that most people in the site use it, nor that they use it correctly, nor that it's accurate. The common view of the system in 16types is that one should observe real people and change the system to fit (which is of course a ridiculous reification -- to make observations about people one first needs their type, which requires the theory), and Ashton (the leader of the main 16t clique) is on record as saying that the way he types is by first figuring out quadra values and then temperament"), which makes no effort at all to fit in with relevant dichotomies, blocking, functions or anything else of importance. Half of their typings are VI-based and rooted on "this guy kinda looks like X random celebrity Ashton shoved into the type gallery, so they're the same type!" Frankly, the Asstonian clique typing system is so incoherent I can't even begin to explain it.

And for the record, I don't know of anything posted on 16t about Lenore Thomson's work, but Ashton himself is on record mentioning her as one of his sources. I was on that thread. And Ashton is basically the leader of 16t/Socionix's zombie hordes 

But don't believe me -- I just ask you not to believe *them* over me. Believe the system's framework. Anything else is an appeal to popularity/authority, thus fallacious.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Aleksei said:


> Because the line of reasoning I used, which Siuntal used to arrive at that conclusion, was sourced from an _actual EIE_. So the fact I actually am Alpha is just a coincidence.
> 
> Firstly, _I_ have been studying Socionics for years, and frankly my certainty of the system is less the more I know about it. Anyone who claims clear understanding to it is an overconfident buffoon who probably doesn't know half of it, unless they know Russian.
> 
> ...


I don't remember seeing many references from MBTI and Lenore and I've searched that site extensively. In any case you seem to have a history on that forum that I wanted to clear up, because it looked very fishy at first glance.

The 16types forum does seem very cliqueish, on this I will agree with you. I've read a couple of old typing threads, and it seems like they often type newcomers there based on friendship and personal sympathies. If the person is likable and sociable, people try to place them into their own quadra. If the person is crazy or unpleasant, they get typed into other quadra because nobody wants to associate with them. As a result I suspect that many of the typings done there are essentially wrong. It's no longer a study of Socionics transpiring on that forum, but some kind of deranged social game based on imaginary divisions. Some of the old material and threads are still good, but currently it's like a played-up circus there.


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

Now _that_ is a reasonable assessment. Glad we cleared it up. :happy:

Sorry about coming off arrogant and grandiose. It's my nature. :tongue:


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

Incidentally @cyamitide: I wouldn't presume to have enough info to type you yet, but you give me a vague impression of ILI. Do you type yourself such?

If so, it explains why you and I got off on the wrong foot. I am, in all probability, your conflictor. :wink:


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Aleksei said:


> Incidentally @_cyamitide_: I wouldn't presume to have enough info to type you yet, but you give me a vague impression of ILI. Do you type yourself such?
> 
> If so, it explains why you and I got off on the wrong foot. I am, in all probability, your conflictor. :wink:


I've considered all of the IP types, intp and the isxp types and currently type as infp which would make me your supervisor if your type is really esfj. I don't know enough about you yet to come to any typing, besides that you were typed as ILE on 16types, but lets hope that through further interaction we can figure this out.


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

Of course. :happy:

Though no offense, but I'm not sure an IEI would pursue the line of reasoning you did just now. Basing one's reasoning on the trustworthiness of its sources is something that Te-egos tend to do. ESEs can do that sometimes as well (being Te-role and torrential), but I wouldn't think either Beta NF type would do so (IEIs are torrential as well, but Te-PoLR -- EIEs are Dialectical thus their reflexive response to any new information is to question and most often reject it).


----------

