# Is it possible to be both a cognitive extrovert and a social introvert in Socionics?



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I am wondering this because I think that the answer to this question will help me decide once and for all if I am an IEI (Beta) or an ILE (Alpha).

I know for sure that I am an N base with Ti and Fe as my creative and mobilizing. In terms of both type description and IM elements, I relate best to IEI, ILE and IEE. Since I am pretty convinced that I utilize Ti-Fe over Te-Fi and am not a delta or a gamma; that would leave IEI and ILE as the only two possibilities. Nothing else even comes close; so, if I am a cognitive introvert, than I am correctly typed, at least as far as the main type goes and if I in fact am a cognitive extrovert - despite being a social introvert - than the only other possibility what have to be ILE.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Why is say, alpha ESE not a possibility? If you are going to consider options you should consider all them. If you are going to type as ILE you need to demonstrate creative Ti, and thus far I would say you have been unable to do this with how you dodge questions when people ask you to describe and define something with your own words.

Nor do you strike me as a cognitive introvert.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Yes, it is highly possible. To me it seems to be more frequently occurring in logical types. For example an LSE that prefers to spend time on various projects than to interact with others. Although I have known a few socially introverted IEEs too.


Imo ESE does not fit even the slightest for you.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Yeah, it's perfectly possible, in fact I've seen the reverse case with my mother, which is an EII, as her strong Fi and bad Te are really easy to spot, but she's a social extrovert. Besides, your posts show a lot of cognitive extroversion, being Fe-Ne two clear functions that I've spotted, while Ti-Si really don't seem to appear, so I doubt that ILE could be a viable option, otherwise your Ti would be more notorious and I would see a lot of logical nitpicking if that were the case. I know that this post could be difficult to digest, but sometimes the truth can be painful to accept.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Inguz said:


> Yes, it is highly possible. To me it seems to be more frequently occurring in logical types. For example *an LSE that prefers to spend time on various projects than to interact with others*. Although I have known a few socially introverted IEEs too.
> 
> 
> Imo ESE does not fit even the slightest for you.


Thank you for actually answering the question! LOL.

I know, the description talked about how they get "lonely"; something that I don't even relate to.

So, I still not sure. I relate to the CT videos of the ENTPs the most but in Socionic pictures, I tend to resemble the IEIs. How is a cognitive extrovert different from a social extrovert and the same with cognitive and social introverts?



I actually relate to this:

ENTp uncovered



> ENTps are far from angels. Don't be fooled by their clumsiness, spaced-out behaviour and over-friendliness. Behind it all is a very cold rational mind, motivated by a starvation for attention.


Just the beginning mind you; the rest of it sounds like E8.

Anyway, the reason that I made this thread was to understand the difference between cognitive I/E and social I/E; so, if I can be both a social I and a cognitive E; than I might be an ILE but I do I figure this out?




I know for sure that I am a social introvert. I prefer my own company to spending time with others. I scored SLUEI which I think is Sloan/Big 5 ENTP. So, if there is a difference, than the vast majority of tests don't differentiate between them as I usually score as an IN but the only extroverted result that I have ever gotten on both Socionics and MBTI, is ENTP.
*
Does Socionics differentiate between social introversion/extroversion and cognitive introversion/extroversion?*


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> Yeah, it's perfectly possible, in fact I've seen the reverse case with my mother, which is an EII, as her strong Fi and bad Te are really easy to spot, but she's a social extrovert. Besides, your posts show a lot of cognitive extroversion, being Fe-Ne two clear functions that I've spotted, while Ti-Si really don't seem to appear, so I doubt that ILE could be a viable option, otherwise your Ti would be more notorious and I would see a lot of logical nitpicking if that were the case. I know that this post could be difficult to digest, but sometimes the truth can be painful to accept.


There is nothing painful to accept; being an ILE would really explain a lot.
Thanks for answering the question.

ETA: I'm still not sure that I actually _am_ a cognitive extrovert _or_ that I am currently mistyped as an IEI but I can definitely see now how ILE is a viable possibility.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> *Does Socionics differentiate between social introversion/extroversion and cognitive introversion/extroversion?*


Yes, and this is one of the reasons why it is called extratim or introtim. I won't go into details, but I/E in socionics is about information element metabolism and not like social/reclusive in Big5. This is about what kind of information it is that you focus on, and this is in it self does not carry any necessity whatsoever of sociability, even if correlations can be seen. As an example of the opposite, I score as S on SLOAN tests but am otherwise a clear introvert.

I think IEE could fit you rather well actually.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> *Does Socionics differentiate between social introversion/extroversion and cognitive introversion/extroversion?*


That's my impression yes. Although I don't know if there are any good descriptions of Socionics extroversion and introversion out there, but from what I've seen most agree that it doesn't equal how social you are or are not. 

(And I wouldn't get too hung up on test results. If you're unsure of your type anyway, I agree that it can be useful to consider all the options. Especially if you don't quite understand Socionics yet.)


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

There are multiple things differentiating IEI and ILE based on socionics principles that suggest the answer to your question is "Yes" -- I would suggest examining all of these markers of cognitive difference, and consider if there's anything directly affecting these differences that has to do with social introversion. For instance, assuming my memory from a while back serves, N-lead T-creatives as pattern fall into the evolutionary rather than involutionary cognitive style (your IEI option's a vortical style), whereas it's the opposite for N-lead F-creatives. That would appear to not have too much with social introversion. ILE is a static type -- again, being a static type has nothing to do with whether one is socially introverted as far as what comes to mind.

Being static/dynamic seems to be kind of a big deal in the socionics world. For instance the IE in the (super)-ego block are all static or dynamic -- one or the other, and the rest of the IE are the opposite. 

So I'd say just as well to ask in your title -- does being socially introverted have anything to do with being static-ego, and it would appear there the answer is even a slight bit more obviously "no".


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Inguz said:


> Yes, and this is one of the reasons why it is called extratim or introtim. I won't go into details, but I/E in socionics is about information element metabolism and not like social/reclusive in Big5. This is about what kind of information it is that you focus on, and this is in it self does not carry any necessity whatsoever of sociability, even if correlations can be seen. As an example of the opposite, I score as S on SLOAN tests but is otherwise a clear introvert.
> 
> I think IEE could fit you rather well actually.


But doesn't IEE use Fi-Te over Ti-Fi? Does that mean that you see Fi over Fe and Te over Ti? I have an IEE friend and she is really good at discussing her feelings and I am terrible at it. I was also reading some typing threads where some people got their panties in a bunch - particularly in the Enneagram forum and while I had no trouble understanding the different points of view, but I was at a complete loss as to why anyone was upset and I started to seriously wonder if I was a Fi PoLR. 

So, I guess if I am FiTe and a Delta, than IEE could fit but I just don't relate very much to Delta. I still relate to Beta and Alpha the most but I do relate to both Researchers and Humanitarians as far as clubs go; so it's a possibility. That's another reason that I know I can't be an ESE; because I relate to Socials last; I have way more in common with Pragmatists than I do Socials. Anyway, I understand that some people see Ne and Fe in my posts but *that does in no way cancel out the fact that I am still an N base*.


I still relate to IEI the most as concerns the IMs; though the IEE description fits me pretty well but so does ILE but neither of them come anywhere close to IEI.

Appendum: I don't know why I made this thread when nothing fits me as well - both in the description and the IMs as IEI; plus, I can't see how I can be anything other than Se Ds. I think that perhaps, I am allowing my Fe to run roughshod over my Ni.

:dry:


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> That's my impression yes. Although I don't know if there are any good descriptions of Socionics extroversion and introversion out there, but from what *I've seen most agree that it doesn't equal how social you are or are not.
> 
> *(And I wouldn't get too hung up on test results. If you're unsure of your type anyway, I agree that it can be useful to consider all the options. Especially if you don't quite understand Socionics yet.)


I am not a social introvert because I'm shy; I really enjoy living in my head and the external world often seems unreal to me; so maybe I am in fact a cognitive extravert like I thought. I know I am an introvert by Jungian definition; so I guess that settles it; I am definitely an IEI - just need to figure out which subtype.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Yes, you can be cognitively extraverted while being socially introverted (or the other way around even). Socionics is about cognition, not behavior. 

Here are some potential differences I've observed (which may or may not be accurate) between the two:

*Cognitive Extraversion:*
-Focus on external tasks, demands, rules, input, situations, people, etc.
-Value external effects (such as creation/production, external change, meeting external demands, etc.)
-Take a more 'objective' view of reality (people, systems, values, or objects can be objectively judged and compared; people should all be able to agree on these things because they are objective)

*Cognitive Introversion:*
-Focus on internal states, thoughts, feelings, ideas, memories, etc.
-Value internal effects (physical and emotional well-being, comfort, pleasure, personal growth, acquisition of skills or knowledge, personal sense of meaning, etc.)
-Take a more 'subjective' view of reality (people, systems, values, or objects cannot be directly compared or judged because they are meant to be different for each individual)

This page gives detailed information as well: Socionics :: Extraversion / Introversion


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

bearotter said:


> There are multiple things differentiating IEI and ILE based on socionics principles that suggest the answer to your question is "Yes" -- I would suggest examining all of these markers of cognitive difference, and consider if there's anything directly affecting these differences that has to do with social introversion. For instance, assuming my memory from a while back serves, *N-lead T-creatives as pattern fall into the evolutionary rather than involutionary cognitive style (your IEI option's a vortical style), whereas it's the opposite for N-lead F-creatives. That would appear to not have too much with social introversion*. ILE is a static type -- again, being a static type has nothing to do with whether one is socially introverted as far as what comes to mind.
> 
> Being static/dynamic seems to be kind of a big deal in the socionics world. For instance the IE in the (super)-ego block are all static or dynamic -- one or the other, and the rest of the IE are the opposite.
> 
> So I'd say just as well to ask in your title -- does being socially introverted have anything to do with being static-ego, and it would appear there the answer is even a slight bit more obviously "no".


Yes, I was reading about the evolution/involution descriptions and I definitely relate more to involution; yes, what you're saying as well as everything that I've read in Socionics thus far, clearly point to IEI. Perhaps, my 5 E type is contributing to the confusion as well? Everything about IEI - including VI - pretty much fits me to a T. I get confused when other people question my type and suggest alternatives - particularly when I can also relate to ILE and Alpha and even IEE! I do think that I'm a Beta because I enjoy intellectual stimulation with an emotional connection, the most but based on my observation of the different quadras; it seems that I value NiFe much more than Se and I appreciate equally both Ti/Ti. I read on the 16types forum that it is usually the SLXs that are concerned with hierarchies; not so much the Beta NFs , particularly IEIs.

Thanks, your post is the most helpful one in this thread. =)


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Silveresque said:


> Yes, you can be cognitively extraverted while being socially introverted (or the other way around even). Socionics is about cognition, not behavior.
> 
> Here are some potential differences I've observed (which may or may not be accurate) between the two:
> 
> ...


Yes, thanks; that's exactly what I was looking for. Although I am interested in a lot of things in the external world; I live in my head; so I'm leaning to slight to moderate cognitive introvert, for now.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> I am not a social introvert because I'm shy;


Oh, well I didn't say that.



> I really enjoy living in my head and *the external world often seems unreal to me*; so maybe I am in fact a cognitive extravert like I thought. I know I am an introvert by Jungian definition; so I guess that settles it; I am definitely an IEI - just need to figure out which subtype.


Hmm, what do you think when you look at the external world then?


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Yes, it would make sense to me that the beta-NF's would be less hierarchy-concerned. When the static elements like Ti/Se are subdued, that is probably what's going to happen. Actually in reference to the other thread where we discussed aristo/democratic quadras, this is why I think it was important that people chimed in with a few different perspectives from the standpoint of what happens with the IE, namely it might be useful not to just characterize which rational IE is blocked with S, but also look at it from the other standpoint -- which rational is blocked with intuition. I think a few people did this sort of analysis, which I thought was a good idea. 

As for confusion - I strongly think with regards to introversion/extraversion, there's going to be shades of grey, but one of the challenges yet interesting nonetheless things with socionics is there are so many ideas going into characterizing a type that you really have to ultimately go with the one that matches on a central level best. 
Since IEI and ILE actually have a _lot_ of things differing between them, it's probably a good idea to get a cohesive picture of what really is an ILE or IEI than nitpicking one or two points necessarily unless they wind up being proven really important. 

As a last note, if you do decide to consider the ESE and such types in the future, note that F-lead S-creative is also, to my memory, of the involutionary style, whereas for instance the EIE is a DA-cognition type.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> Oh, well I didn't say that.
> 
> 
> Hmm, what do you think when you look at the external world then?


I didn't say that you did.


Well, if you really want to know . . .

:kitteh:


No seriously: I "view" everyone and everything outside myself as a part of my imagination or mental constructs. That does not mean that I am unaware that external reality exists outside of me or that it isn't real; *I just don't experience the external world as real as what's going on inside my head at any given time.* I really do fit the description of a disembodied mind. I often experience life as a waking dream. That's the #1 stressful thing about socializing for me. While I do enjoy spending time with close friends; I literally have to fight against my introversion in order to relate to others. While I am more than capable of being friendly, socially aware and intellectually interested in the world around me and while I do trust my perceptions of it to be accurate; I often feel like I am living in an ongoing movie. I don't know if this is making any sense or if it is an E5 thing?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bearotter said:


> Yes, it would make sense to me that the beta-NF's would be less hierarchy-concerned.


Chiming in here but I don't think this is true at all actually. I think EIEs in particular are extremely concerned about hierarchy, social hierarchy, that is. When you think about it, it makes perfect sense because what Fe does is precisely the organizational structure of the social/personal sphere. Because it is also extroverted, it orients itself towards creating external social standards of hierarchy of how say, people should behave at any given social situation in relation to other people. That it is a dynamic process is irrelevant, because what matters is that each situation is seen as logically coherent across time despite their varying contexts. For example, you always say thank you after dinner. The dynamic aspect of Fe and Ni would only operate in such a sense that it is capable of interweaving a lot of different contexts that all intuitively are meant to operate the same from a logical point of view. People always follow the general. 

Generally speaking, I would say that the beta extroverts are very organizational in this way in general. The introverted types would be naturally more concerned about their introverted world first and foremost. I can for example imagine that in an EIE-LSI duality that what feels meaningful to the LSI is that the EIE is capable of providing a social context for the LSI to operate within that is logically consistent over time, which helps to ease the LSI who can only see each static moment but cannot create any longlasting plan of how to behave beyond the current dynamic presented to them.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> No seriously: I "view" everyone and everything outside myself as a part of my imagination or mental constructs. That does not mean that I am unaware that external reality exists outside of me or that it isn't real; *I just don't experience the external world as real as what's going on inside my head at any given time.* I really do fit the description of a disembodied mind. I often experience life as a waking dream. That's the #1 stressful thing about socializing for me. While I do enjoy spending time with close friends; I literally have to fight against my introversion in order to relate to others. While I am more than capable of being friendly, socially aware and intellectually interested in the world around me and while I do trust my perceptions of it to be accurate; I often feel like I am living in an ongoing movie. I don't know if this is making any sense or if it is an E5 thing?


It could be a withdrawn type-thing, but I don't know. Personally I don't experience the world as "unreal" but it can at times feel empty and uninteresting. Maybe it's a type 9-thing or Si-Ne because I look to the external world for inspiration, rather than something I want to deal with on its own terms. Was talking about something similar with @Flatlander earlier (hope you don't mind the mention dude).


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

bearotter said:


> Yes, it would make sense to me that the beta-NF's would be less hierarchy-concerned. When the static elements like Ti/Se are subdued, that is probably what's going to happen. Actually in reference to the other thread where we discussed aristo/democratic quadras, this is why I think it was important that people chimed in with a few different perspectives from the standpoint of what happens with the IE, namely it might be useful not to just characterize which rational IE is blocked with S, but also look at it from the other standpoint -- which rational is blocked with intuition. I think a few people did this sort of analysis, which I thought was a good idea.
> 
> As for confusion - I strongly think with regards to introversion/extraversion, there's going to be shades of grey, but one of the challenges yet interesting nonetheless things with socionics is there are so many ideas going into characterizing a type that you really have to ultimately go with the one that matches on a central level best.
> Since IEI and ILE actually have a _lot_ of things differing between them, it's probably a good idea to get a cohesive picture of what really is an ILE or IEI than nitpicking one or two points necessarily unless they wind up being proven really important.
> ...


Yeah, that makes lots of sense. No, despite what some other people are suggesting to me; there is no point for me to consider ESE or any S type as even a remote possibility; I could not be convinced so strongly otherwise that I was an S DS. Based on my evaluation of the quadras, I am very strongly NiFe, moderate Ti and very weak Se.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Chiming in here but I don't think this is true at all actually. I think EIEs in particular are extremely concerned about hierarchy, social hierarchy, that is. When you think about it, it makes perfect sense because what Fe does is precisely the organizational structure of the social/personal sphere. Because it is also extroverted, it orients itself towards creating external social standards of hierarchy of how say, people should behave at any given social situation in relation to other people.




In my more general understanding of feeling, yes feeling can work to create social standards -- especially as is emphasized in the MBTI's presentation, this would probably be the function to do it, and probably both of us aren't averse to seeing there's a common thing called feeling in between. So certainly if I weren't trying to apply knowledge of feeling in the specific context of how I see it presented in socionics, I guess I'd say what you say is true.
In socionics though, Fe being a dynamic feeling IE, I'd think is typically more likely to concern itself with things like the exchange of emotional energy in the social sphere than delineation of a stable thing such as hierarchy (e.g. this might be why wikisocion attributes the interest in such delineation to Ti/Se being blocked together in the beta types). Perhaps still, Fe-ego types in socionics may wish to take these hierarchies into account in how they pursue emotional dynamics though -- I'll have to think about that; it would appear to me that this happens in some Fe-ego types more than others.
Given Ti/Se is subdued, I'd think some best-fit Fe-ego types might pursue Fe in contexts that have very little to do with hierarchy.

FWIW though I'd be interested in what you think about how Fi vs Fe in socionics figures into the theme of hierarchy.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

@TreasureTower What did you mean with "some people got their panties in a bunch"?





ephemereality said:


> Chiming in here but I don't think this is true at all actually. I think EIEs in particular are extremely concerned about hierarchy, social hierarchy, that is. When you think about it, it makes perfect sense because what Fe does is precisely the organizational structure of the social/personal sphere. Because it is also extroverted, it orients itself towards creating external social standards of hierarchy of how say, people should behave at any given social situation in relation to other people.


Back to the school bench with you. Fe is dynamic and therefore adapts readily to the situation at hand, it does not create an interpersonal framework similar to how Ti creates a logical framework.



> That it is a dynamic process is irrelevant, because what matters is that each situation is seen as logically coherent across time despite their varying contexts.


Absolutely not, the Fe perception (in particular in tandem with Ni in ego block) makes for a view that can and should be expressed in a fashion that should be adapted to the dynamics of the situation at hand. For example that you treat different people in a way that you do not treat other because they are not the same individuals and that you do not treat the same person in exactly the same way as their mood varies and so on.



> For example, you always say thank you after dinner. The dynamic aspect of Fe and Ni would only operate in such a sense that it is capable of interweaving a lot of different contexts that all intuitively are meant to operate the same from a logical point of view. People always follow the general.


You got this backwards. Ni is inherently applied differently depending on the circumstances. 



> Generally speaking, I would say that the beta extroverts are very organizational in this way in general. The introverted types would be naturally more concerned about their introverted world first and foremost. I can for example imagine that in an EIE-LSI duality that what feels meaningful to the LSI is that the EIE is capable of providing a social context for the LSI to operate within that is logically consistent over time, which helps to ease the LSI who can only see each static moment but cannot create any longlasting plan of how to behave beyond the current dynamic presented to them.


Actually no. EIEs are generally quite unpredictable and LSIs do readily enjoy the context-specific interpersonal dynamics that gives rise to a lot of rapidly changing contrasts, highs and lows.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bearotter said:


> In my more general understanding of feeling, yes feeling can work to create social standards -- especially as is emphasized in the MBTI's presentation, this would probably be the function to do it, and probably both of us aren't averse to seeing there's a common thing called feeling in between. So certainly if I weren't trying to apply knowledge of feeling in the specific context of how I see it presented in socionics, I guess I'd say what you say is true.
> In socionics though, Fe being a dynamic feeling IE, I'd think is typically more likely to concern itself with things like the exchange of emotional energy in the social sphere than delineation of a stable thing such as hierarchy (e.g. this might be why wikisocion attributes the interest in such delineation to Ti/Se being blocked together in the beta types). Perhaps still, Fe-ego types in socionics may wish to take these hierarchies into account in how they pursue emotional dynamics though -- I'll have to think about that; it would appear to me that this happens in some Fe-ego types more than others.
> Given Ti/Se is subdued, I'd think some best-fit Fe-ego types might pursue Fe in contexts that have very little to do with hierarchy.
> 
> FWIW though I'd be interested in what you think about how Fi vs Fe in socionics figures into the theme of hierarchy.


I don't delienate the two. Judgement is judgement in my book. When I think of the FeNi, what I think then are more ideological standards that concern group behavior. Given in what I've observed in various EIEs, this actually seems to hold true especially because of Se HA. They desire power so they will seek to create social structures around them based on these notions of power that they seek. Some are power hungry as fuck, others more subtly so, but they always create groups and group organizations even if they are essentially the sole member of that group. This is because groups exist on an ideological plane as opposed to strictly concrete.

As for emotional energy, it has to do with Ni, where this energy is being sought and observed in say the EIE. EIE being aristocratic sees the group and group energy and group organization and hierarchy as such. Disruption of the group is not tolerated. The only thing about Fe and Te respectively being dynamic elements is that they are contextual so the information they take in is based on the current context. Fe would for example observe how people are behaving emotionally right now. That's the dynamic aspect of it. However, when it is blocked with Ni it sees larger social structures and inner mechanisms of such, so then the EIE or IEI would be concerned to understand this in a much broader sense too. I think the more stereotype Fe description is actually more accurate for the Fe as it appears in alphas than it is betas.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Inguz said:


> Back to the school bench with you.


I will consider you having the right to correct my understanding of how things work cognitively the day you actually learn to see cognition for what it actually is which you currently don't. You are nothing but a blind man. Until then, do not speak unless you wish to make yourself a fool and pretend to be a wolf when you're merely a lapdog and think you are independent when your master releases your leash.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Inguz said:


> @TreasureTower What did you mean with "some people got their panties in a bunch"?



* *




I will PM you the links.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I will consider you having the right to correct my understanding of how things work cognitively the day you actually learn to see cognition for what it actually is which you currently don't. You are nothing but a blind man. Until then, do not speak unless you wish to make yourself a fool and pretend to be a wolf when you're merely a lapdog and think you are independent when your master releases your leash.


Says he who still does not consider Ni to be related to time in socionics. Clever.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I don't delienate the two. Judgement is judgement in my book.




By two, did you mean Fe as emphasized in different presentations, or is this about Fi v. Fe?







> However, when it is blocked with Ni it sees larger social structures and inner mechanisms of such




Certainly can see these things. I think Ni can pick up trends in emotional dynamics including data involving hierarchical or social structures. I can see an Fe-ego type being concerned with crafting the right emotional response in such a way that does take the hierarchies into account. But, with the hierarchies themselves (a delineation of this < that), probably not so much dynamic judgment there. 
Ni blocked with Fe may perceive abstract data as to what underlies the emotional dynamics of a group, in such a way as to account for the effect of hierarchies but what I mean is there, still, it is not focusing on the hierarchy (here to reach any understanding, one has to bear with what I mean by "focus on hierarchy" --- I think it's evident), but on the dynamic information -- the emotional dynamics themselves. And the thing is a priori such dynamics can exist in situations _without_ a hierarchy/power structure -- that's really all I am getting at. Hope this clarifies.

As to whether in practice the Ni+Fe tends to be concerned with data that does involve hierarchies -- who knows. I haven't observed IRL examples of EIE / IEI in large enough numbers to know this. From a cognitive standpoint, I can see an IEI not being terribly concerned with them, as I can see a road for Fe concerning itself with information of a general enough nature that I don't see it having to be so.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bearotter said:


> By two, did you mean Fe as emphasized in different presentations, or is this about Fi v. Fe?




Sorry, I meant Fe in the respective systems.

As for Fi, see my posts about aristocracy and democracy. It should honestly clarify how I see things. The way I understand Fi as within myself though I cannot speak for other Fi types, is that Fi essentially weighs the personal value of things. It measures and puts them into hierarchies of importance-less importance, like-dislike and so on in a similar manner I assume Ti operates but with logic. So the way I classify people within any given hierarchial system is more based on my personal relationship towards them and how much I like or dislike them. It's like a scale people can climb up and down depending on their actions. 

No idea if that answers your question or not. 


> Certainly can see these things. I think Ni can pick up trends in emotional dynamics including data involving hierarchical or social structures. I can see an Fe-ego type being concerned with crafting the right emotional response in such a way that does take the hierarchies into account. But, with the hierarchies themselves (a delineation of this < that), probably not so much dynamic judgment there.
> Ni blocked with Fe may perceive abstract data as to what underlies the emotional dynamics of a group, in such a way as to account for the effect of hierarchies but what I mean is there, still, it is not focusing on the hierarchy (here to reach any understanding, one has to bear with what I mean by "focus on hierarchy" --- I think it's evident), but on the dynamic information -- the emotional dynamics themselves. And the thing is a priori such dynamics can exist in situations _without_ a hierarchy/power structure -- that's really all I am getting at. Hope this clarifies.
> 
> As to whether in practice the Ni+Fe tends to be concerned with data that does involve hierarchies -- who knows. I haven't observed IRL examples of EIE / IEI in large enough numbers to know this. From a cognitive standpoint, I can see an IEI not being terribly concerned with them, as I can see a road for Fe concerning itself with information of a general enough nature that I don't see it having to be so.


Yes, thank you for that clarification. I was trying to get at that but I probably formulated it very poorly. I mean, it's not like they are the ones who create the rules to follow and enforce them, but they make sure people stand in line but in a very different sense, definitely. 

And I admit most of my data is not RL samples unfortunately, but more based on their archetype presentations in fiction. I realize they are not as this black and white but I think it does highlight the core aspects of their cognition and how they operate.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> As for Fi, see my posts about aristocracy and democracy. It should honestly clarify how I see things. The way I understand Fi as within myself though I cannot speak for other Fi types, is that Fi essentially weighs the personal value of things. It measures and puts them into hierarchies of importance-less importance, like-dislike and so on in a similar manner I assume Ti operates but with logic. So the way I classify people within any given hierarchial system is more based on my personal relationship towards them and how much I like or dislike them. It's like a scale people can climb up and down depending on their actions.
> 
> No idea if that answers your question or not.




Yes, this is kind of what I was asking -- regarding how we discussed aristo/democracy on that thread, I was thinking there should be some comparison between Ti blocked with Se and Fi blocked with Se waiting to be made here. I think Ti blocked with Se is more likely to delineate the hierarchies on a sort of general concept based scale, and thus you get the aristocratic outlook, whereas Fi would involve a static personal relation characterization, and this personalized relation-drawing might be more conducive to the democratic mentality.




> people stand in line but in a very different sense, definitel




Yeah like in some cases I can see them emotionally guilting someone to behave a certain way in line with so and so standards ...


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

And FWIW I do think Fe is just Fe and judgment is judgment as well -- that's definitely how I see things. I guess in typing people, sometimes different aspects of the common thing I see as Fe may be emphasized or de-emphasized, so I try to present what aspect I'm referring to in the particular point I make, especially since some aspects seem emphasized in particular presentations.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> And I admit most of my data is not RL samples unfortunately, but more based on their archetype presentations in fiction. I realize they are not as this black and white but I think it does highlight the core aspects of their cognition and how they operate.


Wait, what? You learn about people through anime? 0o


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Inguz said:


> Wait, what? You learn about people through anime? 0o


:O wait, what!?

[HR][/HR]

:ninja: I'm a social introvert, cognitive extrovert and social first non prussian E6 (ok maybe the SO first is a mistype) ninja....ask me anything.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Inguz said:


> Wait, what? You learn about people through anime? 0o


Lmao.

Although, it's not much worse than going by stereotypical type-descriptions. Actually I think it can be better provided the characters are well-written. The advantage with some fiction is that it puts you in the shoes of another person, so it can be easier to understand another mindset that way.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> Lmao.
> 
> Although, it's not much worse than going by stereotypical type-descriptions. Actually I think it can be better provided the characters are well-written. The advantage with some fiction is that it puts you in the shoes of another person, so it can be easier to understand another mindset that way.


You have to match the theory against actual people. The problem with learning from fictional characters is that they often lack depth, and if they do not, are very often in situations that you do not see when you arrive at work in the morning.

I do see your point however, but I would not recommend it to anyone as something beyond supplementary.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

TreasureTower said:


> I am wondering this because I think that the answer to this question will help me decide once and for all if I am an IEI (Beta) or an ILE (Alpha).


I don't know what you mean by "cognitive" and I haven't read the entire thread. 

It's possible to be a "social" extravert and socionics introvert, but a "cognitive" one? No in my opinion, socionics defines E-I as a function of your cognition to start with. It depends on whether your perception is primarily objective (subject independent) or subjective (you orient by the internal impressions that you get from the outside objects).


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> I don't know what you mean by "cognitive" and I haven't read the entire thread.
> 
> It's possible to be a "social" extravert and socionics introvert, but a "cognitive" one? No in my opinion, socionics defines E-I as a function of your cognition to start with. It depends on whether your perception is primarily objective (subject independent) or subjective (you orient by the internal impressions that you get from the outside objects).


Well, some people on this forum are suggesting that I may be a "cognitive" extrovert. Based on everything that I have read about Jung's _Psychological Types_; I don't see how that's possible. When I read through the different types, I related most to the introvert intuitive type the most. @itsme45 asked me about the introverted thinking type and I related to that one as well but not as much as the introverted intuitive. I did not relate at all to any of the extroverted type descriptions or the introverted feeling type, That is not to say that I can't have a Fe creative but based on PTs, there is no way that I could be a Fe base. As far as the introverted sensation type, I had some difficulty understanding the description but since I am both out of touch with my body and the fact that I get overwhelmed by too many details; I doubt that one fits me either.

If I am an IEI - which even fits according to VI :shocked:; then it makes sense that I would relate to both the introverted intuitive and introverted thinking types, the most.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

TreasureTower said:


> Well, some people on this forum are suggesting that I may be a "cognitive" extrovert. Based on everything that I have read about Jung's _Psychological Types_; I don't see how that's possible. When I read through the different types, I related most to the introvert intuitive type the most. @_itsme45_ asked me about the introverted thinking type and I related to that one as well but not as much as the introverted intuitive. I did not relate at all to any of the extroverted type descriptions or the introverted feeling type, That is not to say that I can't have a Fe creative but based on PTs, there is no way that I could be a Fe base. As far as the introverted sensation type, I had some difficulty understanding the description but since I am both out of touch with my body and the fact that I get overwhelmed by too many details; I doubt that one fits me either.
> 
> If I am an IEI - which even fits according to VI :shocked:; then it makes sense that I would relate to both the introverted intuitive and introverted thinking types, the most.


Do you feel like you're observing objects around yourself as independent entities or are you mostly observing the internal reflections that they impart on you? Introverts observer their internal reflections, and then externalize those reflections by means of their creative function (the observing:externalizing ratio depends on their subtype).

This description has been true in my experience. Introverts do talk more of their personal opinions and attitudes than extroverts.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/255-Visual-Type-Identification

EXTROVERTS: open look, lively in communication, active, with somewhat superficial curiosity (with no intention to go deeper into the subject), strive to grasp as much as possible, unconstrained gesticulation "from the shoulder on", quick movements, tendency to dominate in interaction and upon contact. In conversations extraverts express impressions about the things they've seen rather than evaluate them.

INTROVERTS: they are looking "from inside a shell", alert, reserved behavior, submission in contacts, their curiosity slowly awakens (they have a tendency to go progressively deeper into the discussed topic), reserved gesticulation "from the elbow". Introverts express their attitudes rather than facts (I like or dislike; it is ok or not ok, etc.).


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@cyamitide 
@TreasureTower Is asking for the difference between being social and actual extroversion.

<.< one can be extroverted based on what IE the base function is and at the same time socially introverted due to other factors like social phobia, disinterest in superficial conversation, not having a group of people with whom one can share information, being bored in social situations and not getting any energy out of it because the interaction sucks.

Extroverts depend on the interaction between the self and the outside and when that interaction fails to deliver, the extrovert gains no energy (lack of meaningful exchange). The problem here is that alone time doesn't do it either (can't share stuff if there is nobody on the receiving end) so the extrovert will seek other means and will look like he/she is introverted when in fact its not true.

I am socially "introverted" as I do not get much out of superficial talk and uninteresting activities like drinking at a club, dancing and having loud music which obstructs any meaningful conversation I could be having with someone which is in itself likely to be 0 even if there is no music...ppl don't go to clubs for such things. For me most stimulation is mental and involves interaction with others, drinking, dancing and brain dead talk is not fun.

I substitute most of my social needs with debating on the forums, videogames, photography and talking with others at the office about our hobby, with the IT guys about the latest and greatest hardware / software advancements etc..

 *I seem highly introverted, yet I am not. I'm not a social extrovert. I am reclusive.*


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> Do you feel like you're observing objects around yourself as independent entities or are you mostly observing the internal reflections that they impart on you? Introverts observer their internal reflections, and then externalize those reflections by means of their creative function (the observing:externalizing ratio depends on their subtype).
> 
> This description has been true in my experience. Introverts do talk more of their personal opinions and attitudes than extroverts.
> 
> ...


I don't find this to be particularly helpful as I relate to neither or both. I express both attitudes and facts; it all depends on the context of what is being discussed. However, I am always more interested and fascinated by anything going on in my mind; then anything in the outer world However, based on these two examples, maybe I should hold out in writing ILE off then? 

Thanks for the link because, OTOH; I find this to be extremely helpful; as this proves what I have been saying all along: that I am a (irrational) perception type:



> IRRATIONALS (dominant S or N): *their whole appearance seems "fluid", loose, their body easily bends, takes the shape of the arm-chair, sofa etc…; when they sit down, they may lean upon the chair elbow-rests or back, their own back may bend a lot. Their gait is floating, rolling, soaring, their motions may make impression of being unexpected or poorly coordinated. When an Irrational stands, some parts of his body are moving "separately from the others" – hands, fingers, torso, or head. It is difficult for an Irrational to keep his body in a steady position. They do not like long meetings, reports, or performances – in the duration, they often want to "leave for a minute to have a cigarette", distract themselves, or take a nap.
> 
> Their speech contains cyclical repeats i.e. when they complete a thought, it is as if they recall something and come back to what they already said; it is often either too slow (introverts) or tangled and "stumbling" (extraverts). Compared to Rationals, it more often contains parasite words ("here", "um", "like", "you know" etc). Their phrases are lacking in verbs (this is especially characteristic of intuitive irrationals), are often preceded by "Um", or by hand gestures, as if they are catching something in the air – from aside it looks as if the person is trying to find the right verbal form for the image he has already created in his mind. Irrationals like an abundance of sensory impressions, especially visual*, and get tired of lengthy conversations.


Totally relate to the above! If I had a dollar for every time that people have criticised me for either fidgeting, repeating myself, using too many filler words not watching where I'm going or being a space cadet in general; I'd be a millionaire.

I also completely relate to this as well: 



> INTUITIVE: *they are keen on talking about ideas rather than practical needs; they don't live in the "here-and-now" reality but rather in themes and general topics. Intuitive types often have a defocused look that looks into the distance, into infinity, somewhere above or through the partner, which is especially observable in their photographs. In conversations, Intuitive tends to make generalizations; often he perceives in larger, universal scale * but does not easily pick up on smaller things. *Very often Intuitives are negligent in dress, their rooms are disorderly. Their speech, compared with Sensors, is more associative-figurative, often with humor or irony, rich in adjectives* and nouns, but poor in verbs.


Hmmmm . . . could I be mistaking perception/intuition for introversion? I knew that there was no way in hell that I was an extroverted judging type but I could see how a lot of this description sounds like introversion to me. 


However, I also can't decide between this as well:

Logic vs. Ethic (or Thinking vs. Feeling in MBTI)



> LOGICAL: *his face is contemplative; emotions are contrasting; his interests are related to objective reality*. Eyebrows are lower compared to the Ethical types and approach eyes. Look is somewhat dull, "without a glimmer". Sensing Logicians, though, may have a fixed and attentive look, but most of the time it remains cold and unlively. Their emotional dynamics are only vaguely reflected on the face, but can manifest in voice modulations. Very often Logical types make the impression of being unflappable. *They pay attention to facts and possess great erudition. Often they allow themselves to make unethical remarks, because "they want to say the truth". Their speech, compared to Ethical types, is more strict, "dry", and logically relevant; it may include foreign words or special terminology. They easily operate long complex or compound sentence*s.
> 
> ETHICAL: their faces are changeable depending on their mood, and exhibit a spectrum of feelings and shades of emotions. *Their interest often lies in people and their relationships. Their own mood is depended on the mood of others. They are sensitive, even touchy. They often have a smile on their faces*. Eyebrows are often raised over their eyes, and even bent upwards. To a Logical type, the speech of an Ethical type to be fragmentary, as if built on hints. However, the "hints" of the Ethical types can be distinguished from the associations made by Intuitive Logical type in that they lack the "second associative layer". Their seeming incompleteness is perceived by the Ethical type himself as total completeness: he has marked an object with certain emotionally colored words and thus gave it a full characterization – "why cannot others understand then what I meant?"
> 
> When they are speaking of somebody, Ethical types make personal evaluations and qualitative estimations: "good", "bad"; by contrast, Logical types prefer to avoid personal estimations and instead express only facts.



So, this basically confirms for me something I already knew: I am Intuitive and something that I suspected which has now been verified: an intuitive/perceptive/irrational base.

So based on this; with a now confirmed N base and a strong belief in TiFe over FiTe: What I have already decided: I am either an IEI or an ILE. I am still slightly leaning to introversion and feeling over extraversion and thinking. I will have to look to other aspects of Socionics to figure that out, I guess. :dry:


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

FreeBeer said:


> @cyamitide
> @TreasureTower Is asking for the difference between being social and actual extroversion.
> 
> <.< one can be extroverted based on what IE the base function is and at the same time socially introverted due to other factors like social phobia, disinterest in superficial conversation, not having a group of people with whom one can share information, being bored in social situations and not getting any energy out of it because the interaction sucks.
> ...


Okay, I do not relate at all to the bolded part. I am reclusive as well but not necessarily for the reasons that you mention. I can get tremendous enjoyment out of my interactions with others as long as they are positive, inspiring and harmonious - *in small doses*. No matter how much I may enjoy my forays in to extroversion and while - during the time that I am engaging in it - I take it for all it's worth; somewhere in the back of my mind; I am thinking to myself: I am having a lot of fun; *I can't wait for it to be over and I can be by myself and just think about ideas, alternate realities and free associating*. Hmmmm . . . I think I just answered my question. 

I actually always prefer my own company to even the friendliest, caring, safest and interesting people. I don't live in my mind because I can't find interesting to do or fun people to do things with - although I likely might be _slightely_ more extroverted than I am now; if that were the case - but _not to any significant degree_. There is no one's company I find more mentally stimulating than my own. Other people can hold my interest for short periods but *what I am really looking forward to; is assimilating in my own mind later, the fascinating gems that I took away from those conversations*.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

TreasureTower said:


> Okay, I do not relate at all to the bolded part. I am reclusive as well but not necessarily for the reasons that you mention. I can get tremendous enjoyment out of my interactions with others as long as they are positive, inspiring and harmonious - *in small doses*. No matter how much I may enjoy my forays in to extroversion and while - during the time that I am engaging in it - I take it for all it's worth; somewhere in the back of my mind; I am thinking to myself: I am having a lot of fun; *I can't wait for it to be over and I can be by myself and just think about ideas, alternate realities and free associating*. Hmmmm . . . I think I just answered my question.
> 
> I actually always prefer my own company to even the friendliest, caring, safest and interesting people. I don't live in my mind because I can't find interesting to do or fun people to do things with - although I likely might be _slightely_ more extroverted than I am now; if that were the case - but _not to any significant degree_. There is no one's company I find more mentally stimulating than my own. Other people can hold my interest for short periods but *what I am really looking forward to; is assimilating in my own mind later, the fascinating gems that I took away from those conversations*.


*_* ye iz Introvyrt!!! I always found this funny:



> Introvyrt Stryfe Chronicles
> 
> hello
> 
> ...


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

If "social introvert" is something like a man with low quantity of interations with people, - yes, it's possible for some extraverts. Type is not the only factor forming behavior.


----------

