# Female ILE?



## Knightsbridge (Mar 28, 2013)

Guys, female ILEs are sooo under discussed. They aren't really rare, but I would like famous examples. Shoot!


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

I'm drawing a blank, but I know there's a whole load in anime!


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

archyonder said:


> Guys, female ILEs are sooo under discussed. They aren't really rare, but I would like famous examples. Shoot!


Have you seen the typing list they have posted on this socionics forum? They have several female ILE examples on it: Socionics Type Examples with Videos.

There is also this database of types that has some female ILEs: Ne-ENTp and Ti-ENTp.

If you have any specific questions about them, something you'd like to know, do share with us.


----------



## Knightsbridge (Mar 28, 2013)

I have. *Lots* of them are wrong. Like 40%+, and this is with comparison to Russian communities (e.g. sss.socioland.ru), which has aggregated estimates by 20+ people for each celeb, rather than just lone typings.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

archyonder said:


> I have. *Lots* of them are wrong. Like 40%+, and this is with comparison to Russian communities (e.g. sss.socioland.ru), which has aggregated estimates by 20+ people for each celeb, rather than just lone typings.


I've seen some of the Russian type databases and the question that popped into my mind as I was browsing them is: *How can Russian communities accurately type foreign celebrities if they don't know the language neither the culture?* If they don't understand what these celebs are saying, don't see them in news, never watch their interviews, never see them outside of movies, never know who they are as people outside of their hollywood roles? The gap between American and Russian cultures is a wide one, it's not another western european country sharing values and heritage and the language is very dissimilar.

Ask any Americans to type Russian celebrities and you'll see this enormous culture and language barrier dilemma that going to completely wreck the accuracy of American typings. So why do you think that Russian community typings are more correct while native English speakers typings are wrong?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

How about Astrid Lindgren?
Or you're more interested in contemporary ILEs?


----------



## Knightsbridge (Mar 28, 2013)

That's a specious argument friend. Socionics typing at its most thorough form relies upon forms of cognition and quadra. Cognitive style is one which can be interpreted as per flow of reasoning as opposed to word choice, and because each cognitive style has a lone member from each quadra, and of different clubs, this is very hard to mistake. There is a world of difference between a ILE and a SEE, for example, who are termed as a superego relation noted for being markedly different by others.

This is the premier form of typing used by the Russian socionics boards, and is falsifiable unlike the spectrum based (relative strengths) judgements found on most Western boards. It is also worthy to note, Socionics literature and their primary texts are in Russian, and those on the Russian boards do not read translated versions, they understand, the very wordings that Ausra and Gulenko for example use in their explanation of socionics, and this is far more critical then the endlessly restrictive requirement of being from _the same society_. This is especially as many of those typed aren't even American to begin with!

Adding on, if you were to say there is a great polarised difference between American and Russian societies, then you might as well go on to say that the professors of socionics cannot apply their observations (and they have done a myriad of typings on 'Western' celebrities) to the West, and most of their writings and analysis therefore only reflect the 'Russian' way of life, and in no way communicates an understanding of the global nature that human psychology has. This parochial talk of more than a third of typings being lost to translation is a slap to the face of socionics typing, where it is unlike MBTI not an analysis of spectral strengths in the IEs but of information processing, which as a bilingual person can say has none to do with vocabulary choice, but all to do with presentation of information.

Also, you have failed to address how can a lone typing be far more accurate than aggregated and databased typings by 30+ people. Everyone makes errors in typing, and to say that a lone person's view should be the reference source as opposed to crowdsourced polling leaves the list undebated and unopposed. You wouldn't take a single movie reviewer's commentary as the be-all-and-end-all to a movie's judgement would you? I wouldn't.



Sylas said:


> I've seen some of the Russian type databases and the question that popped into my mind as I was browsing them is: *How can Russian communities accurately type foreign celebrities if they don't know the language neither the culture?* If they don't understand what these celebs are saying, don't see them in news, never watch their interviews, never see them outside of movies, never know who they are as people outside of their hollywood roles? The gap between American and Russian cultures is a wide one, it's not another western european country sharing values and heritage and the language is very dissimilar.
> 
> Ask any Americans to type Russian celebrities and you'll see this enormous culture and language barrier dilemma that going to completely wreck the accuracy of American typings. So why do you think that Russian community typings are more correct while native English speakers typings are wrong?


----------



## Knightsbridge (Mar 28, 2013)

Ah, looks great! Haven't heard of her before, but I think you got it  Yea, was looking for contemporary cases. She does remind me of Ester Boserup, another intellectual from 20th century continental Europe.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Me!!! Imma female ILE baby


----------



## Knightsbridge (Mar 28, 2013)

Yeeha! The poster and the Doctor Who signature checks out !


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

archyonder said:


> Socionics typing at its most thorough form relies upon forms of cognition and quadra.


If you're referring at all to Gulenko's cognitive styles, I'm finding a lot of "issues" with it. It seems to me that socionics would be better off turning to more scientific research for this kind of thing.


----------



## Knightsbridge (Mar 28, 2013)

Then you need to mull over it for longer, and understand the Russian text for it. It comes from three distinct modules which build up into the each cognition style, and is mathematically sound. It isn't expository, but explains succinctly how a certain algorithm melds into the cognition styles. It is lazy to deem it unscientific.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

archyonder said:


> Then you need to mull over it for longer, and understand the Russian text for it. It comes from three distinct modules which build up into the each cognition style, and is mathematically sound. It isn't expository, but explains succinctly how a certain algorithm melds into the cognition styles. It is lazy to deem it unscientific.


It's also lazy and laughable to try to use "you just need to understand it better/longer" as an argument. That's not fucking proof. Neither is the fact that a person can mathematically compare it to something that is also just purely theoretical. Where's the actual data? Bullshit that it isn't expository - what a cop out. Again, actual data?

Insult _me_...


----------



## Knightsbridge (Mar 28, 2013)

To me it is readily understandable as a computation, thus my belief that you have not given it due diligence, for the text is understandably long and detailed. I honestly do think you are the lazy one, for his permutations are readily fleshed-out within the article.

Since you are unable to grasp this (for laziness or confusion), let me break it down for you. Each of the four are built directly atop the fundamental dichotomies of process/result, positivist/negativist, as well as static/dynamic. *All *of these have been scientific surveyed and detailed, ready for your perusal on sites such as Wikisocion, and there are many, but I believe the very laughable uttering of yours that these are purely theoretical shows that you have both not read the article in full, and also not seen this prior research.


----------



## Knightsbridge (Mar 28, 2013)

To me it is readily understandable as a computation, thus my belief that you have not given it due diligence, for the text is understandably long and detailed. I honestly do think you are the lazy one, for his permutations are readily fleshed-out within the article.

Since you are unable to grasp this (for laziness or confusion), let me break it down for you. Each of the four are built directly atop the fundamental dichotomies of process/result, positivist/negativist, as well as static/dynamic. *All *of these have been scientific surveyed and detailed, ready for your perusal on sites such as Wikisocion, and there are many, but I believe the very laughable uttering of yours that these are purely theoretical shows that you have both not read the article in full, and also not seen this prior research.



Shiver said:


> It's also lazy and laughable to try to use "you just need to understand it better/longer" as an argument. That's not fucking proof. Neither is the fact that a person can mathematically compare it to something that is also just purely theoretical. Where's the actual data? Bullshit that it isn't expository - what a cop out. Again, actual data?
> 
> Insult _me_...


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

archyonder said:


> To me it is readily understandable as a computation, thus my belief that you have not given it due diligence, for the text is understandably long and detailed. I honestly do think you are the lazy one, for his permutations are readily fleshed-out within the article.
> 
> Since you are unable to grasp this (for laziness or confusion), let me break it down for you. Each of the four are built directly atop the fundamental dichotomies of process/result, positivist/negativist, as well as static/dynamic. *All *of these have been scientific surveyed and detailed, ready for your perusal on sites such as Wikisocion, and there are many, but I believe the very laughable uttering of yours that these are purely theoretical shows that you have both not read the article in full, and also not seen this prior research.


So what you're saying is that you don't have a proper rebuttal and are just going to restate what you posted before in a different way. I'm sure you're quite used to getting away with this elsewhere, but "you have not given it due diligence" is not a valid rebuttal. What a pathetic attempt.

Post this actual legitimate evidence or take asinine attitude elsewhere. Actually, let's just go with the latter since I've dealt with plenty of pompous internet nobodies to the point where I know that, despite all of your posturing and going out of your way to underhandedly insult me from the very start, you're never going to be able to provide me anything of value because you don't _have_ anything of value.


----------



## Knightsbridge (Mar 28, 2013)

The only reason you continue to press on this is intellectual dishonesty, where I've already stated my points in all prior posts, and have answered your queries, treating them as if they were sincere questions.

However, you refuse to give up your prejudiced misconceptions, and have made it all about not being wrong. Defeated on your point of cultural relativism, you cling on to some bullshit call that all the work here is non-scientific, in the face of a tome of research data. You haven't even taken a look at those sites!


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

archyonder said:


> The only reason you continue to press on this is intellectual dishonesty, where I've already stated my points in all prior posts, and have answered your queries, treating them as if they were sincere questions.


You've answered nothing. I asked for research, relevant data, etc. You provided none of those things and instead have only succeeded in restating your opinion over and over again as if it stands on its own. It does not.



> However, you refuse to give up your prejudiced misconceptions, and have made it all about not being wrong.


Read: I refuse to agree with someone who is not providing a valid argument. You've provided absolutely no reason that anyone finding fault in Gulenko's theory could _be_ wrong.



> Defeated on your point of cultural relativism,


Who the fuck said anything about "cultural relativism"? What is this nonsense? Are you referring to this post? From a _different user_? Wow, you can't even keep straight who you're arguing with.

On that token, you create a thread asking for examples, only to argue that a large number of the ones provided to you are wrong. Did you create this thread for the express purpose of being a condescending ass? Why ask at all if you believe yourself to have all of the answers?



> you cling on to some bullshit call that all the work here is non-scientific, in the face of a tome of research data. You haven't even taken a look at those sites!


lel, "those sites"? Literally all you mentioned was Wikisocion, which is not only something that I've already looked at extensively, but half of the sources at the bottom of the "Gulenko Cognitive Styles" page are references to Gulenko's own theories, not to mention random other theoretical works which offer no real research to prove the validity of these supposed styles. Moreover, there are a number of flaws and plain bias in the text itself where it becomes evident that the author is speaking very much from the perspective of his own perceived cognitive style.

You may as well have linked Wikipedia. Actually, at least that would have been a direct mention, which is more than I can say for "there are many". What, you can't even name them? And "intellectual dishonesty"? Have you ever performed or read actual scientific research in your life? From all of this I highly suspect that you have not. What a joke.

Once again, provide actual sources and relevant data that _undeniably proves_ your position, or get lost.


----------



## Knightsbridge (Mar 28, 2013)

Regarding Wikisocion, I was giving credence to the experience you two ought to have with the number of posts, as I am usually a lurker on the site. Gulenko might not be a prophet, but if just a cursory look would have shown you the derived proofs. Since, in the long duration you have not found it. I shall point them out more *clearly*. Reinin Dichotomies: Study Results - Wikisocion. Here in lies Gulenko's proof for the various dichotomies, on which he built the cognitive styles on. I apologise that it doesn't reflect in the English description, but I did recall him writing in the Russian original thesis that this was one of the foundational studies he based his cognitive styles upon.

And on that note of pointing out that the list is wrong. That's why I drew the links together. Your view is the same, as the one I had already negated. The least of which is that that if you were to discount the *aggregated *list of the Russian community for being culturally irrelevant (corollary to your esteem for the less structured methodology used by the few who put together that list), then Socionics as a tool for psychological would be broken due to its Eastern European origins. So all explanations are considered moot just because you refuse to read or acknowledge them?


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Wow, two weeks later and you want to dredge this up again?



archyonder said:


> Regarding Wikisocion, I was giving credence to the experience you two ought to have with the number of posts, as I am usually a lurker on the site. Gulenko might not be a prophet, but if just a cursory look would have shown you the derived proofs. Since, in the long duration you have not found it. I shall point them out more *clearly*. Reinin Dichotomies: Study Results - Wikisocion. Here in lies Gulenko's proof for the various dichotomies, on which he built the cognitive styles on. I apologise that it doesn't reflect in the English description, but I did recall him writing in the Russian original thesis that this was one of the foundational studies he based his cognitive styles upon.


That page is just a big collection of personal observations with a loose attempt to tie into a theory; it does nothing to display that those observations are even accurate. *Clearly* you wouldn't know actual proof if it bit you in the ass, despite all of your posturing. Where's the data? You know actual professional journals give the actual info from their studies, right? I want a study with all of the info, not "thinking real hard; take my word for it".



> And on that note of pointing out that the list is wrong. That's why I drew the links together. Your view is the same, as the one I had already negated.


Simply claiming that you countered an argument doesn't mean you actually did. And how do you figure we have the same views? I didn't bring up any "cultural relativism". Looks like you're stretching yourself to save face more than anything.



> The least of which is that that if you were to discount the *aggregated *list of the Russian community for being culturally irrelevant (corollary to your esteem for the less structured methodology used by the few who put together that list), then Socionics as a tool for psychological would be broken due to its Eastern European origins. So all explanations are considered moot just because you refuse to read or acknowledge them?


They're not "moot" (in fact I find them an interesting framework to think about), but they aren't undeniable proof, either. So many people in the socionics community want to treat the theory like it's this infallible explanation and then act like arrogant pricks when you show even the slightest hint of the fact that you don't believe in it 100%. Even having read it, you just insist that I don't because I don't agree with you. It's insufferable - nobody wants to put up with that. Not acting like you do would go a long way towards people being more patient with you as well.

See you when you come back to the forums to talk down to everyone in another two weeks or so, I guess. Though frankly if your entire stance is going to be "here's some garbage, if you don't agree with me it's because you're dumb" then we have nothing else to discuss: data or gtfo.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

archyonder said:


> You wouldn't take a single movie reviewer's commentary as the be-all-and-end-all to a movie's judgement would you? I wouldn't.



You know, funnily enough, that example you use was used elsewhere to illustrate Te PoLR.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

archyonder said:


> You wouldn't take a single movie reviewer's commentary as the be-all-and-end-all to a movie's judgement would you? I wouldn't.





Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> You know, funnily enough, that example you use was used elsewhere to illustrate Te PoLR.


Hah, the OP might be SEI seeing how he's doing the very same thing he's protesting against:



To_august said:


> How about Astrid Lindgren?
> Or you're more interested in contemporary ILEs?





archyonder said:


> Ah, looks great! Haven't heard of her before, but I think you got it  Yea, was looking for contemporary cases. She does remind me of Ester Boserup, another intellectual from 20th century continental Europe.


Single type "review" and he accepts it without any arguments or supportive evidence.

This whole thread is basically him looking for individual opinions on types, which he poses to be critical of - yet here he is, doing that very same thing he's balking against. It's self-defeating.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Sylas said:


> Hah, the OP might be SEI seeing how he's doing the very same thing he's protesting against:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Huh. So he was. Now I wonder if I have been doing the same thing, seeing as type Te PoLR.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Huh. So he was. Now I wonder if I have been doing the same thing, seeing as type Te PoLR.


You're waaay better than most Te PoLRs I come across.

It's not easy to embarrass me, but they have a real talent for it.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> You're waaay better than most Te PoLRs I come across.
> 
> It's not easy to embarrass me, but they have a real talent for it.


Why thank you. Perhaps its due to the way I was raised. My mom has studied the system and decided her type is LSE. So...imagine the Te arguments I had growing up.

I don't want to think about that anymore. Happy thoughts now!


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Knightsbridge said:


> Guys, female ILEs are sooo under discussed. They aren't really rare, but I would like famous examples. Shoot!


Here I am! :kitteh: Ask me anything.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

Fried Eggz said:


> You're waaay better than most Te PoLRs I come across.
> 
> It's not easy to embarrass me, but they have a real talent for it.


How do they embarrass you? Do you mean they make fun of you, or act in a cringy awkward way?


----------

