# ILE, LII or IEI



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I figure that it's one of those three. I know that I'm some kind of Nx-Ti=Fe-Sx/Nx-Fe-Ti-Sx type.

I have always gotten the T/F split on MBTI, JCF and Socionics tests and I have typed as an , LII, IEI, ILE and EII and ILI.. I've always considered myself to be an introvert and it is extremely interesting that I have scored as every single INXX type possible but the only extroverted type, I ever get in ILE. I never seriously considered ILI as a possibility since I am warm, friendly _albeit_, extremely socially awkward around other people. I know that I value Ti over Te. That's also one of the reasons I rejected EII as a possibility; I way more rational than emo but since I view myself as "caring"; I'm wondering if I am confusing being very socially awkward with introversion and possibly borderline extroversion? I also view my caring as somewhat unnatural; as I view it as the rational way to be. I see it as _right_, something that is logically sound; as something I _should_ be, as opposed to something I feel is natural. As far as the MBTI forums go, I found the INFP forum too mushy, the INTP forum, too dry but lots of fun and while I like the INFJ forum; I feel that I am not naturally as empathic as most of other INFJs. I _know_ the right thing to do; so I do it but I always feel like I'm putting on an act when I do it.

I am good at understanding other people but I lack the concept of distance in relationships an while I usually know the right thing to do; my emotional expressiveness rarely correlate with what I feel inside; which is usually disconnected and detached. I often don't know what I'm feeling until I can express myself to others but I always know what I'm thinking.

I also view my communication style as being Nx-Ti-Fe-Sx or Nx-Fe-Ti-Sx as is reflected in the following videos:


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

TreasureTower said:


> Nx-Ti=Fe-Sx/Nx-Fe-Ti-Sx typ


 Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. If you're suggesting that you're Ne Ti / Fe Si that is not a type in socionics model A. Between these three types, LII and ILE are much more similar. IEI is very much the "odd one out." While LII and ILE are static, merry and judicious, our IEI is dynamic, merry and decisive - so the question is there for you, really. Are you static or dynamic, and are you decisive or judicious? 

It's a very simple choice actually, a difference between beta and alpha - do you value SeNi or NeSi, which should be very simple so long as you know what they mean and correspond to. If you have narrowed it down to a choice between alphas and betas then that surely will not take too long.

Basically a question of: which of these do you think is more useful to you? Which would you prefer to see first (NOT which DO you see first, but which would you prefer to see first.)

1 Information about spatial territory, ownership, and influence and how something dynamically changes over time. 
_OR_
2 Information about how something dynamically relates and adjusts to its spatial environment and the innate, internal, constant properties of objects, the sources of these properties, and the potential that they contain.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

So in essence, you're certain that you're a Ti-Fe type, so you're struggling to figure out Se vs Si and Ne vs Ni?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

That first video is a mix of Alpha and Beta types. No wonder you're so confused =P

If you relate to dynamic perception of things, then this would rule out LII for certain, and make only the intuitive subtype of ILE a plausible alternative typing (both LII and Ti-ILE are very much static types).


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_cyamitide_: I'm totally ignorant on this topic, how is ILE-intuitive with a road to dynamic perception somehow? I would have said it is because the intuitive subtype could represent an increase in Ni-potential, but that can't be the correct reason because then this would apply to LII-intuitive as well. Unless there's some claim about the difference between ignoring and demonstrative functions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bearotter said:


> @_cyamitide_: I'm totally ignorant on this topic, how is ILE-intuitive with a road to dynamic perception somehow? I would have said it is because the intuitive subtype could represent an increase in Ni-potential, but that can't be the correct reason because then this would apply to LII-intuitive as well. Unless there's some claim about the difference between ignoring and demonstrative functions.


Because more focus on Fe being a dynamic element. ILE-Ne is more akin to NeFe cognitively, so they appear more dynamic since more psychic energy is spent towards Fe as opposed to Ti that is static.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. If you're suggesting that you're Ne Ti / Fe Si that is not a type in socionics model A. Between these three types, LII and ILE are much more similar. IEI is very much the "odd one out." While LII and ILE are static, merry and judicious, our IEI is dynamic, merry and decisive - so the question is there for you, really. Are you static or dynamic, and are you decisive or judicious?
> 
> It's a very simple choice actually, a difference between beta and alpha - do you value SeNi or NeSi, which should be very simple so long as you know what they mean and correspond to. If you have narrowed it down to a choice between alphas and betas then that surely will not take too long.
> 
> ...


Could you explain it some other way? I would attempt to choose one but I'm not really sure what the difference is between the two.



Scelerat said:


> So in essence, you're certain that you're a Ti-Fe type, so you're struggling to figure out Se vs Si and Ne vs Ni?


Yes, and I'm trying to figure out if I'm Ni-Se or Ne-Si. I'm certain about the N-Ti-Fe (or N-Fe-Ti) part.



cyamitide said:


> That first video is a mix of Alpha and Beta types. No wonder you're so confused =P
> 
> If you relate to dynamic perception of things, then this would rule out LII for certain, and make only the intuitive subtype of ILE a plausible alternative typing (both LII and Ti-ILE are very much static types).


Yes, I think that I am probably either IEI-Ni or ILE-Ne. If I am an ILE-Ne; I am a borderline Extrovert but I am convinced that I have an N base with either a Ti or Fe creative. I think I have way too much Fe to be an LII. I am starting to lean more towards Beta; as I really don't feel anything _except_ when I interact with others. If it weren't for my occasional need for Fe; I could be quite content being a hermit. My Nx-Ti keeps me very occupied and highly amused.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Ah, oh boy. This is why I said people should forget about MBTI before attempting socionics. Just so I'm clear, you know that functions don't stack in order of absolute use and preference? 



TreasureTower said:


> Could you explain it some other way? I would attempt to choose one but I'm not really sure what the difference is between the two.


 Er, ok, but I'm not sure they'll be clearer. Again this is preference, not strength. What would you prefer to see?

A information about processes over time, and formation about how to impact an environment.

B information about possible alternatives, and information about interaction between real world processes.



TreasureTower said:


> Yes, and I'm trying to figure out if I'm Ni-Se or Ne-Si. I'm certain about the N-Ti-Fe (or N-Fe-Ti) part.


 Just so you know, nobody in Socionics is Ni-Se instead of Ne-Si, or the reverse. It's a matter of valuing. Take myself, as an SLE, I value Se and Ni, and de-value Ne and Si; but Ne comes to me more commonly than Ni. The point of socionics is that there are things we value that we don't have in ourselves, and that makes up a large part of my type. For an ILE, Si is one of their least used IMs because it is in the super-id block: it's used less often than Se or Ni, but it's actually more valued than both of those because it's an area of your personality you're not good with. That's the point. 



TreasureTower said:


> Yes, I think that I am probably either IEI-Ni or ILE-Ne. If I am an ILE-Ne; I am a borderline Extrovert but I am convinced that I have an N base with either a Ti or Fe creative. I think I have way too much Fe to be an LII. I am starting to lean more towards Beta; as I really don't feel anything _except_ when I interact with others. If it weren't for my occasional need for Fe; I could be quite content being a hermit. My Nx-Ti keeps me very occupied and highly amused.


*Both LII and ILE* have Fe in the super-ego ring, so they both value it but are poor at utilising it. There isn't a huge difference between the amount of Fe used be both LII and ILE: only that ILE would like to use more himself and LII doesn't want to do more but wants someone adept in it around him. Both have an exchange of Ne and Ti in the mental ring: this means their Ni is in the id ring. They are good at using it but don't care about it.

*IEI* uses Fe as his creative, to push the preferences and objectives of the Ni. He is adept in it and values it, but his relation with Ti - he values it, but is bad at understanding it and would prefer to be better: precisely how ILE feels towards Fe. Similarly, IEI's primary function is Ni which puts Ne in the id ring: once again he's good at using it but doesn't care.

So which is it: A person can not be adept at Ni but not Ne, a person can not be adept at Ne but not Ni. They are adept at both but value only one (or are adept at neither and value only one.) It's better to think about what you value, in this case, because it's easier: which is more preferred for you, Ne or Ni?

Same with Fe ego. Person with Ti ego loves Fe. But he's shit at using it. Person with Fe ego loves Ti, but he's shit at using it. But you know this and honestly the first question will define the latter: if you say you are Ni lead then must be Fe creative, and Ne lead then must be Ti creative. 

What you need to know is this is as much a question of what you do as it is what you would like to see being done.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> I figure that it's one of those three. I know that I'm some kind of Nx-Ti=Fe-Sx/Nx-Fe-Ti-Sx type.
> 
> I have always gotten the T/F split on MBTI, JCF and Socionics tests and I have typed as an , LII, IEI, ILE and EII and ILI.. I've always considered myself to be an introvert and it is extremely interesting that I have scored as every single INXX type possible but the only extroverted type, I ever get in ILE. I never seriously considered ILI as a possibility since I am warm, friendly _albeit_, extremely socially awkward around other people. I know that I value Ti over Te. That's also one of the reasons I rejected EII as a possibility; I way more rational than emo but since I view myself as "caring"; I'm wondering if I am confusing being very socially awkward with introversion and possibly borderline extroversion? I also view my caring as somewhat unnatural; as I view it as the rational way to be. I see it as _right_, something that is logically sound; as something I _should_ be, as opposed to something I feel is natural. As far as the MBTI forums go, I found the INFP forum too mushy, the INTP forum, too dry but lots of fun and while I like the INFJ forum; I feel that I am not naturally as empathic as most of other INFJs. I _know_ the right thing to do; so I do it but I always feel like I'm putting on an act when I do it.
> 
> ...


Fuck the videos. (Cyamitide below said that too in another way  )

You sound very much T > F in *this *post. And maybe even LII over ILE. (I can see the Ti/Fe yes and the N as well.)

If you were male I would still think about IEI but you are female... okay not an absolute rule of thumb, more just statistical.




TreasureTower said:


> Yes, I think that I am probably either IEI-Ni or ILE-Ne. If I am an ILE-Ne; I am a borderline Extrovert but I am convinced that I have an N base with either a Ti or Fe creative. I think I have way too much Fe to be an LII. I am starting to lean more towards Beta; as I really don't feel anything _except_ when I interact with others. If it weren't for my occasional need for Fe; I could be quite content being a hermit. My Nx-Ti keeps me very occupied and highly amused.


What do you mean by having too much Fe to be Ti-base? Can you give some specifics on that?

You having an occasional need for Fe but otherwise being a happy amused hermit with NT stuff sounds like Alpha Ti ego.

Not feeling anything except in interaction afaik isn't specifically a Beta thing. Could be Alpha just fine. (Does sound like Ti/Fe and Ti > Fe specifically)

I don't recall anything right now from your other threads that was F > T except you soaking up others' emotions but maybe I'm wrong on that being F over T, maybe it's just Fe suggestive function then?




Diphenhydramine said:


> A information about processes over time, and formation about how to impact an environment.
> 
> B information about possible alternatives, and information about interaction between real world processes.


Meh I don't really get the Si stuff here. (I don't in your original version of Ni/Se vs Ne/Si either) If you have another way of wording Si, that would be great to see.



> Take myself, as an SLE, I value Se and Ni, and de-value Ne and Si; but Ne comes to me more commonly than Ni.


That's interesting though, it seems to me I "get" Ni more easily than Ne. But then this is just a small difference, hard to measure or anything


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> Fuck the videos. (Cyamitide below said that too in another way  )
> 
> You sound very much T > F in *this *post. And maybe even LII over ILE. (I can see the Ti/Fe yes and the N as well.)
> 
> If you were male I would still think about IEI but you are female... okay not an absolute rule of thumb, more just statistical.


?



itsme45 said:


> What do you mean by having too much Fe to be Ti-base? Can you give some specifics on that?


I can act very caring and I am really good at reading other people's emotions.



> You having an occasional need for Fe but otherwise being a happy amused hermit with NT stuff sounds like Alpha Ti ego.


Well, I am quite happy living in my own head but when I need other people; I really do. Are you perhaps confusing introversion with Ti but it's definitely possible. I can never figure it out because whether or not someone sees me as either a T or an F; I can always come up with plausible arguments why the other classification suits me better because I relate equally to both; which is why I think I some kind of Nx base.



itsme45 said:


> Not feeling anything except in interaction afaik isn't specifically a Beta thing. Could be Alpha just fine. (Does sound like Ti/Fe and Ti > Fe specifically)


Well I do feel things; I may not have any clue exactly as to _what_ I am feeling but usually the best way for me to figure it out, is by interacting with others. But perhaps, possibly I am stumped by the male/female thing; in that female NTs exhibit more Fe than males? 

I certain that I am some kind of Nx dom because I love metaphors, looking at things from different angles and finding an innovative ways of interpreting anything and everything.



itsme45 said:


> I don't recall anything right now from your other threads that was F > T except you soaking up others' emotions but maybe I'm wrong on that being F over T, maybe it's just Fe suggestive function then?


Well, I know that some people misinterpreted that as evocative of Si; when I was just utilizing a common expression to explain how I can become enveloped in other people's emotions. I relate to it better as a mobilizing function. I am rarely serious and know how to have fun.



> Fe as a mobilizing (6th) function (ILE and SLE)
> 
> The individual longs for situations where people are having fun, laughing and joking, and feel emotionally free and spontaneous. However, he is generally unable to produce this atmosphere himself and uses other means to create situations where there is a good chance that others will take the emotional initiative and create a fun and emotionally stimulating atmosphere. Failure at such attempts are met with dismay, which the individual either hides or reacts to with frustration and annoyance.


BTW, I disagree with everyone who is discounting the videos. I have watched numerous type videos on YouTube, not just those and I am sure that I have Nx-Ti-Fe-Sx (Nx-Fe-Sx). I know that I cannot be an EII:

*ATTENTION: actual understanding of Socionics Fi, present - alert the typerazzi.* :kitteh:

I am terrible of determining distance in relationships. I either am too effusive, scaring people off, too aloof, causing others to erroneously assume I'm uninterested or most likely; going back and forth between the two. I don't do this to confuse anyone but because I usually can't tell - at least in the beginning stages of any friendship/relationship anyway.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> ?


What's the question?




> I can act very caring and I am really good at reading other people's emotions.


I don't know if Ti-bases cannot be that way at all.

I can act very caring too... reading emotions only if expressed. Can you read them by "reading between the lines"?

There's a test online about reading emotions off faces, I scored above average in that. But I would score really bad if I was to assume feelings from indirect cues.




> Well, I am quite happy living in my own head but when I need other people; I really do. Are you perhaps confusing introversion with Ti but it's definitely possible. I can never figure it out because whether or not someone sees me as either a T or an F; I can always come up with plausible arguments why the other classification suits me better because I relate equally to both; which is why I think I some kind of Nx base.


I wasn't confusing introversion with Ti, I was more thinking about Ti ego vs Fe superid. And alpha because of the N 




> Well I do feel things; I may not have any clue exactly as to _what_ I am feeling but usually the best way for me to figure it out, is by interacting with others. But perhaps, possibly I am stumped by the male/female thing; in that female NTs exhibit more Fe than males?


Interesting on not knowing... I guess for me it's more like I don't even care to figure it out, I either have the feeling conscious enough and then I know anyway or not conscious enough and then I don't care lol

Well yes it was some observations apparently about male/female difference. Just correlation, sure.




> I certain that I am some kind of Nx dom because I love metaphors, looking at things from
> different angles and finding an innovative ways of interpreting anything and everything.


That just means N preference, no?




> Well, I know that some people misinterpreted that as evocative of Si; when I was just utilizing a common expression to explain how I can become enveloped in other people's emotions. I relate to it better as a mobilizing function. I am rarely serious and know how to have fun.


Okay I don't know you IRL...




> *ATTENTION: actual understanding of Socionics Fi, present - alert the typerazzi.* :kitteh:
> 
> I am terrible of determining distance in relationships. I either am too effusive, scaring people off, too aloof, causing others to erroneously assume I'm uninterested or most likely; going back and forth between the two. I don't do this to confuse anyone but because I usually can't tell - at least in the beginning stages of any friendship/relationship anyway.


Oh, oh, maybe really ILE? 

I relate too much to this about Fi :/


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> itsme45 said:
> 
> 
> > What's the question?
> ...


I want to understand why you think this.




itse45 said:


> I don't know if Ti-bases cannot be that way at all.
> 
> I can act very caring too... reading emotions only if expressed. Can you read them by "reading between the lines"?
> 
> There's a test online about reading emotions off faces, I scored above average in that. But I would score really bad if I was to assume feelings from indirect cues.


Yes, I am really good at reading between the lines - _usually_ but then I sometimes make false assumptions based on other people's behaviour towards me; which I then have to logically analyze. For example: I often have to put myself into another person's mind and attempt to figure out - from their point of view - how they would view and react to something. So, when I start projecting negative assumptions about other's behaviour; I need to determine if my fears are viable based on the other person presumably being rational. Most of the time, this does work and other people do behave in a rational way but the odd time; that I encounter someone who's behaviour makes no logical sense to me; I am totally thrown for a loop, because logic cannot not take into account, irrational reactions and the subjectively faulty premises that they are based on.



itsme45 said:


> I wasn't confusing introversion with Ti, *I was more thinking about Ti ego vs Fe superid*. And alpha because of the N


I understand the N part but not the "Ti ego vs Fe superid". Can you explain this?



itms45 said:


> Interesting on not knowing... I guess for me it's more like I don't even care to figure it out, I either have the feeling conscious enough and then I know anyway or not conscious enough and then I don't care lol


No, I don't necessarily care to know what I'm feeling but when I get upset; my suppressed emotion trips me up until I can figure it out. That's why talking to other people can sometimes be the _only_ way I can figure this out. When I try to do this; I just usually just go around in circles.



itsme45 said:


> Well yes it was some observations apparently about male/female difference. Just correlation, sure.


So, you would be slightly more predisposed to viewing a male with even T/F as a F (IEI); whereas a comparable female, as a T?



> That just means N preference, no?


Yeah, guess it does.



itsme45 said:


> Okay I don't know you IRL...


Most people who know me would probably be surprised at that or they might just attribute it to *general social awkwardness* or shyness. That's why I created this thread.



itsme45 said:


> Oh, oh, maybe really ILE?


I don't know; that's what I'm trying to figure out: if I am truly an introvert or a socially awkward borderline extrovert?



> I relate too much to this about Fi :/


Yeah cuz I think I Fi base or creative would actually KNOW this, right?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> I want to understand why you think this.


Well ok,

these parts are more like T > F:

_I am warm, friendly albeit, extremely socially awkward around other people._ 

_I way more rational than emo_ 

_I also view my caring as somewhat unnatural; as I view it as the rational way to be. I see it as right, something that is logically sound; as something I should be, as opposed to something I feel is natural. _

_As far as the MBTI forums go, I found the INFP forum too mushy_ (...) _and while I like the INFJ forum; I feel that I am not naturally as empathic as most of other INFJs. I know the right thing to do; so I do it but I always feel like I'm putting on an act when I do it._

_my emotional expressiveness rarely correlate with what I feel inside; which is usually disconnected and detached. I often don't know what I'm feeling until I can express myself to others but I always know what I'm thinking._

_
the INTP forum, too dry but lots of fun _

...this last one is not specifically T > F but perhaps Fe/Ti valuing there 


And a couple questions while we're at it:

_I am good at understanding other people_

in what way?

_ but I lack the concept of distance in relationships an while I usually know the right thing to do; _

what makes it right?

_I also view my caring as somewhat unnatural; as I view it as the rational way to be. I see it as right, something that is logically sound; as something I should be, as opposed to something I feel is natural. _

I would like to hear more about how it's logically sound. Care to write a bit about that?


And if you want, do write up some things about how you think Fe > Ti if you have such arguments.  (For your IEI typing, I mean.)




> Yes, I am really good at reading between the lines - _usually_ but then I sometimes make false assumptions based on other people's behaviour towards me; which I then have to logically analyze. For example: I often have to put myself into another person's mind and attempt to figure out - from their point of view - how they would view and react to something. So, when I start projecting negative assumptions about other's behaviour; I need to determine if my fears are viable based on the other person presumably being rational. Most of the time, this does work and other people do behave in a rational way but the odd time; that I encounter someone who's behaviour makes no logical sense to me; I am totally thrown for a loop, because logic cannot not take into account, irrational reactions and the subjectively faulty premises that they are based on.


Sounds like you're going at it from a logic standpoint...




> I understand the N part but not the "Ti ego vs Fe superid". Can you explain this?


Well it was this:

_as I really don't feel anything except when I interact with others. If it weren't for my occasional need for Fe; I could be quite content being a hermit. My Nx-Ti keeps me very occupied and highly amused.
_
Sounds like Ti/Fe and specifically Ti > Fe (and N yeah)

But maybe you should say more about this occasional need of Fe. Are you more active or passive in processing/producing Fe?




> No, I don't necessarily care to know what I'm feeling but when I get upset; my suppressed emotion trips me up until I can figure it out. That's why talking to other people can sometimes be the _only_ way I can figure this out. When I try to do this; I just usually just go around in circles.


Well pretty stereotypical T > F...




> So, you would be slightly more predisposed to viewing a male with even T/F as a F (IEI); whereas a comparable female, as a T?


That's a good way to put it.




> Most people who know me would probably be surprised at that or they might just attribute it to *general social awkwardness* or shyness.


Attribute _what _to awkwardness?




> I don't know; that's what I'm trying to figure out: if I am truly an introvert or a socially awkward borderline extrovert?


Which definitions of I/E are we using here...


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> Well ok,
> 
> these parts are more like T > F:
> 
> ...


I am really good at reading them and how I am coming across. I know the right techniques but I always feel a bit fake doing it; although, that doesn't stop me.

I know if they have positive or negative intentions towards me; if they have my best interests at hear or if they are trying to put one over on me. Exploitive people get annoyed with me because I am pretty much immune to emotional manipulation and can always tell when someone is doing it. Very little, gets past me; I can also always tell how someone else is feeling. Sometimes, I need to shut that down and think of what's best for me.



itsme45 said:


> _ but I lack the concept of distance in relationships an while I usually know the right thing to do; _
> 
> what makes it right?


I usually know the best method to use; what's ideally going to work the best. I sometimes view relationships like a chess game in that way. I know what behaviour will yield what response sort of thing. So, I enjoy doing it. I like to be friendly, please people, flirt and banter with other people and when I get the response I seek; it's electrifying and if I don't, I try harder to perfect my technique but that doesn't mean that I'm not sincere or that it's in any way, fake - if that makes any sense?



itsme45 said:


> _I also view my caring as somewhat unnatural; as I view it as the rational way to be. I see it as right, something that is logically sound; as something I should be, as opposed to something I feel is natural. _
> 
> I would like to hear more about how it's logically sound. Care to write a bit about that?


Well, I believe that at a fundamental level that we are all connected so, I think it makes sense to try to have a positive influence over others but unless it's someone who really matters to me; I may express it more than I actually _feel_ it. A good friend recently said to me that 'I was a good friend' but she obviously wouldn't have known that I was occasionally tuning out of the conversation every so often when she was talking. I am so good at this; that no one can ever tell that I'm doing this. My secret's out now. :blushed: 




itsme45 said:


> And if you want, do write up some things about how you think Fe > Ti if you have such arguments.  (For your IEI typing, I mean.)


Well, I am passionate about art because it triggers my intuition in lots of exciting ways. I care about justice and making the world a better place. I place a higher value on how something effects people than anything else; so, in order for me to get behind anything; it must be both ethical and logical. IOW, it must be the _right_ thing to do as well as make logical sense to me. For example, I believe in universal health care. To me; there exist no possible logical argument that can ever convince me that it's okay to let people die due to lack of funds, etc., etc.,. I have the WWF logo in my sig because I feel passionately about the value of making sure that no species goes extinct.




itsme45 said:


> Sounds like you're going at it from a logic standpoint...


Can't a person who has strong values also be logical?



itsme45 said:


> Well it was this:
> 
> _as I really don't feel anything except when I interact with others. If it weren't for my occasional need for Fe; I could be quite content being a hermit. My Nx-Ti keeps me very occupied and highly amused.
> _
> ...


Hmmm . . . well it can depend. I might have this strong urge to interact with specific person or they might feel that way about me. Do you mean, am I more an active as opposed to a passive participant in these interactions? Well again, it's both. But I do hope that all of my effective Fe behaviour will help to keeps things balanced between me and others. I also don't like to let anyone get to close to me; so I don't have to feel vulnerable.



itsme45 said:


> Well pretty stereotypical T > F...


or just a devaluing of Fi, perhaps?

Why should I care what _I'm_ feeling; it's way more interesting to know what _other_ people are feeling.



itsme45 said:


> That's a good way to put it.
> 
> Attribute _what _to awkwardness?


Well even though I _know_ that I'm socially awkward; I manage to hide it well. Most people probably wouldn't guess that about me, since I can act very extroverted if I have to. I've doing that all my life but I'm much better at it now; then when I was younger.



itsme45 said:


> TreasureTower said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know; that's what I'm trying to figure out: if I am truly an introvert or a socially awkward borderline extrovert?
> ...


The idea of energy. Do I get more from other or when I am alone but I think both are true. Too much interaction with other people makes me feel drained but when I am with others; it also can energise me as long as it's positive energy. So, I may not feel like going to some party but when I get there, I might have a great time and not want to leave; but when I get home; I want to go back to being a hermit again.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

edit


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Meh I don't really get the Si stuff here. (I don't in your original version of Ni/Se vs Ne/Si either) If you have another way of wording Si, that would be great to see


 I'm not sure what there is to not get. They are fairly obvious dichotomies to me.

The difference between Logic-alpha and Ethics-alpha should be sort of intrinsic. It's kind of difficult to see how they're being conflated. A Logic-alpha is adept at L and likes E but has difficulty to manipulate it to his standards. An Ethics-alpha is adept at E and likes L but has difficulty initiating it without input from an L type (hence positive intertype relations with creative/base L types and visa versa.)

The difference between base/creative and suggestive/mobilising is also so large that it is also difficult to see how there could be any sort of clash here. I think the OP is plainly an Ethics type, either creative or base, but whether or not it's S/E or T/E I don't know: frankly appears to be S/E to me (either ESE or SEI) but if the OP is absolutely sure she is an intuitive type, I would suggest N/E IEI.

edit: Oh, I read the questionnaire, I would say IEI.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> I am really good at reading them and how I am coming across. I know the right techniques but I always feel a bit fake doing it; although, that doesn't stop me.


Oh that's F > T there.

I don't know if Fe egos can feel fake doing the Fe stuff; I don't feel fake but I'm not Fe ego so... interesting anyway.




> I know if they have positive or negative intentions towards me; if they have my best interests at hear or if they are trying to put one over on me. Exploitive people get annoyed with me because I am pretty much immune to emotional manipulation and can always tell when someone is doing it. Very little, gets past me; I can also always tell how someone else is feeling. Sometimes, I need to shut that down and think of what's best for me.


That too F. Especially last sentence.




> I usually know the best method to use; what's ideally going to work the best. I sometimes view relationships like a chess game in that way. I know what behaviour will yield what response sort of thing. So, I enjoy doing it. I like to be friendly, please people, flirt and banter with other people and when I get the response I seek; it's electrifying and if I don't, I try harder to perfect my technique but that doesn't mean that I'm not sincere or that it's in any way, fake - if that makes any sense?


It does make sense, yes no worries.

Kind of dynamic...




> Well, I believe that at a fundamental level that we are all connected so, I think it makes sense to try to have a positive influence over others but unless it's someone who really matters to me; I may express it more than I actually _feel_ it. A good friend recently said to me that 'I was a good friend' but she obviously wouldn't have known that I was occasionally tuning out of the conversation every so often when she was talking. I am so good at this; that no one can ever tell that I'm doing this. My secret's out now. :blushed:


Eh, typical N. 
But yeah, some Fe for the first part.




> Well, I am passionate about art because it triggers my intuition in lots of exciting ways. I care about justice and making the world a better place. I place a higher value on how something effects people than anything else; so, in order for me to get behind anything; it must be both ethical and logical. IOW, it must be the _right_ thing to do as well as make logical sense to me. For example, I believe in universal health care. To me; there exist no possible logical argument that can ever convince me that it's okay to let people die due to lack of funds, etc., etc.,. I have the WWF logo in my sig because I feel passionately about the value of making sure that no species goes extinct.


What logical sense is in universal health care for you? I'm curious to hear your reasoning
Btw a lot of F in there. 




> Can't a person who has strong values also be logical?


Yes of course but my point was you were emphasizing the logic standpoint. I'm not like this for some reason, I mean I don't expect everything about behaviour to be rational.

As for dealing with your projecting of negative assumptions though, your attitude to that is more refined than someone else's with weak F. 




> Hmmm . . . well it can depend. I might have this strong urge to interact with specific person or they might feel that way about me. Do you mean, am I more an active as opposed to a passive participant in these interactions? Well again, it's both. But I do hope that all of my effective Fe behaviour will help to keeps things balanced between me and others. I also don't like to let anyone get to close to me; so I don't have to feel vulnerable.


I see.




> or just a devaluing of Fi, perhaps?
> 
> Why should I care what _I'm_ feeling; it's way more interesting to know what _other_ people are feeling.


Ok, I didn't know that your preference was for other people's feelings instead of own logic 

I only went towards the logic option because you were talking about how trying to figure out these emotion things isn't easy. But yeah, this also makes sense, what you say.




> Well even though I _know_ that I'm socially awkward; I manage to hide it well. Most people probably wouldn't guess that about me, since I can act very extroverted if I have to. I've doing that all my life but I'm much better at it now; then when I was younger.


If you hide it well, why do you still see yourself as awkward? 




> The idea of energy. Do I get more from other or when I am alone but I think both are true. Too much interaction with other people makes me feel drained but when I am with others; it also can energise me as long as it's positive energy. So, I may not feel like going to some party but when I get there, I might have a great time and not want to leave; but when I get home; I want to go back to being a hermit again.


I see. For me it's different, I feel like going and then if I don't have a great time I just want to leave. If I do (have a great time) then maybe won't think of leaving. If it was all good then at the end when I'm alone again that feels like a switch was suddenly turned off. Low energy. Not good  Don't like to return back home in general.




Diphenhydramine said:


> I'm not sure what there is to not get. They are fairly obvious dichotomies to me.


Well I never quite understood what was dynamic about Si. Or how this exactly works, the following stuff "something dynamically relates and adjusts to its spatial environment" and "information about interaction between real world processes".

Tbh the whole Ni/Se Ne/Si stuff there was described pretty abstractly which is okay for theory but not necessarily so practical when you ask someone to decide their type based on that. 




> The difference between Logic-alpha and Ethics-alpha should be sort of intrinsic. It's kind of difficult to see how they're being conflated.


They weren't being conflated at all, it was never a question that OP is intuitive.

So just T/F (or L/E, bleh) was the issue. Good questions were clearly needed for that. I agree about the rest of what you wrote here about the differences.




> The difference between base/creative and suggestive/mobilising is also so large that it is also difficult to see how there could be any sort of clash here.


There was no such clash here.

Though for other people, I've seen such issues, issue to decide base function against its opposite. So in theory things may sound all nice and simple but in practice they often are not so.




> edit: Oh, I read the questionnaire, I would say IEI.


Yeah this one sounds more IEI than other stuff before.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Why does no one else consider EIE as a serious option? She seems rational base, not irrational. The fact that she appears or at least, stresses some logical point of view despite it not being of logical content i.e. expressed through the act of logic itself, suggests rational base as opposed to irrational. There's also a part where she tends to declare states about what things are, in such a sense, defining them, that I see being common among rational bases, as opposed to simply describe an observation itself.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Why does no one else consider EIE as a serious option? She seems rational base, not irrational. The fact that she appears or at least, stresses some logical point of view despite it not being of logical content i.e. expressed through the act of logic itself, suggests rational base as opposed to irrational. There's also a part where she tends to declare states about what things are, in such a sense, defining them, that I see being common among rational bases, as opposed to simply describe an observation itself.


I could see a case for ESE as well, to be honest. I agree with rational base and ethical type with judicious quadra values (Ne-Si). 


@TreasureTower how do you think that Fe DS, Si DS, and Se DS apply to you if at all?


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

We are _far _from making any realistic headway into the OP's typing - which she really ought to be doing herself, instead of recruiting forum people to throw out the cosmos in possible ideas. There are now no fewer than _five _types at play in this thread: ILE, LII, IEI, EIE, and ESE. That simply will not result in anything but a bumbling clusterfuck.

@_TreasureTower_ I think you need to develop some questions as to what each of the functions and IE's represent, and focus your typing on the patterns you can draw from them instead of simply reeling off a set of self-professed behavioral traits with half-done linkages to IE's. If you type that way, you risk mis-attributing characteristics to IE's they don't have anything to do with. That's the only way you're really going to understand how your type influences your information processing strategies, which is what socionics is about.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

I think one helpful thing is to read descriptions of the information elements _without_​ reading descriptions of the typical manifestations in a type, which generally skew towards something or another.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Ananael said:


> I could see a case for ESE as well, to be honest. I agree with rational base and ethical type with judicious quadra values (Ne-Si).
> 
> 
> @TreasureTower how do you think that Fe DS, Si DS, and Se DS apply to you if at all?


Could you please explain what DS is?
@Figure, ESE is not a even a remote possibility I'm considering. I would sooner consider EII than ESE, SEI or any S type. I read a thread on duality and the one thing I'm certain of is that I'm an N type. I need to read that thread more in depth; I found it to be extraordinarily helpful. Based on this article; I think I can rule out LII and all S types. I see ILE and IEE as possibilities as well but I really think that it's between IEI and ILE.
@bearotter, I continue to do that. ILE resonates more to me in the IMs, then in the actual descriptions.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

TreasureTower said:


> Could you please explain what DS is?
> 
> @_Figure_, ESE is not a even a remote possibility I'm considering. I would sooner consider EII than ESE, SEI or any S type. I read a thread on duality and the one thing I'm certain of is that I'm an N type. I need to read that thread more in depth; I found it to be extraordinarily helpful. Based on this article; I think I can rule out LII and all S types. I see ILE and IEE as possibilities as well but I really think that it's between IEI and ILE.


I know it's not. That comment was more as general message, that considering 87 other types is not going to help the process. 

Understanding Duality and the intertype relationships is extremely important in understanding your type. Each type can in part be defined by the way its IE and function combinations line up with those of other types. Just be sure to study them on the IE level, and not by simply "relating" or "not relating" to the interrelationship descriptions, as this will also run the risk of mistype. 

For what it's worth (and that isn't much) I think your threads have a recurring theme of Te-dual seeking, which is why I said awhile back that I thought you had come to your correct type at EII. I do not mean this as criticism, but as observation - your threads always supply their own ideas as to what type you think you could be (Ne), but lack explicit logical clarity, and seem to want others to supply it (dual seeking Te). I do not see Ni base - at all.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> Oh that's F > T there.
> 
> I don't know if Fe egos can feel fake doing the Fe stuff; I don't feel fake but I'm not Fe ego so... interesting anyway.


Yeah, I often struggle with wanting to let the other person know how I feel about them but I'm often not sure how _I_ feel about them, myself.



itsme45 said:


> TreasureTower said:
> 
> 
> > I can also always tell how someone else is feeling. *Sometimes, I need to shut that down and think of what's best for me*.
> ...


You mean the part that's in bold? I'm very good at reading people but not so good at natural emotional expression.




itsme45 said:


> It does make sense, yes no worries.
> 
> Kind of dynamic...






itsme45 said:


> TreasureTower said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I believe that at a fundamental level that we are all connected so, I think it makes sense to try to have a positive influence over others but unless it's someone who really matters to me; I may express it more than I actually feel it.
> ...


I do view that as logical sound; I view the concept of separateness as an illusion; though I struggle to experience it emotionally.



itsme45 said:


> TreasureTower said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I am passionate about art because it triggers my intuition in lots of exciting ways. I care about justice and making the world a better place. I place a higher value on how something effects people than anything else; so, in order for me to get behind anything; it must be both ethical and logical. IOW, it must be the right thing to do as well as make logical sense to me. For example, I believe in universal health care. To me; there exist no possible logical argument that can ever convince me that it's okay to let people die due to lack of funds, etc., etc.,. I have the WWF logo in my sig because I feel passionately about the value of making sure that no species goes extinct.
> ...


I place an ultimate value on human life. Inaliable rights to the necessities of life always should trump any lesser considerations. 



itsme45 said:


> TreasureTower said:
> 
> 
> > Can't a person who has strong values also be logical?
> ...


I actually do see most behaviour as rational. It may not always _seem_ rational to others but no one does absolutely anything without some underlying _reason_. They may be unaware of their motives but that doesn't necessarily negate their existence.



itsme45 said:


> TreasureTower said:
> 
> 
> > or just a devaluing of Fi, perhaps?
> ...


Not necessarily; I do care about other people's feelings as I think it is wrong to deliberately hurt them but I find it fascinating to figure out how other people tick. I sometimes view PerC (presuming someone isn't flipping out on me - I can't handle irrational people =() as fascinating way to observe and interact with other people from a distance.



itsme45 said:


> If you hide it well, why do you still see yourself as awkward?


I see myself as awkward because relating to other people always seems kind or forced to me; never natural. When I do it; it's like I'm just going through the motions. It's feels stilted to me, almost fake. I think this is because, I do the socially correct behaviour without having the corresponding feelings to go with them. I often experience myself as a highly functioning robot in any kind of social interaction.



itsme45 said:


> I see. For me it's different, I feel like going and then if I don't have a great time I just want to leave. If I do (have a great time) then maybe won't think of leaving. If it was all good then at the end when I'm alone again that feels like a switch was suddenly turned off. Low energy. Not good  Don't like to return back home in general.


Oh if I am having a bad time, then of course; I want to leave and just as you said, the converse. I don't relate to the last part at all. I never feel lonely when I'm alone; only when I'm around people who don't understand me.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Figure said:


> I know it's not. That comment was more as general message, that considering 87 other types is not going to help the process.
> 
> Understanding Duality and the intertype relationships is extremely important in understanding your type. Each type can in part be defined by the way its IE and function combinations line up with those of other types. Just be sure to study them on the IE level, and not by simply "relating" or "not relating" to the interrelationship descriptions, as this will also run the risk of mistype.
> 
> For what it's worth (and that isn't much) I think your threads have a recurring theme of Te-dual seeking, which is why I said awhile back that I thought you had come to your correct type at EII. I do not mean this as criticism, but as observation - your threads always supply their own ideas as to what type you think you could be (Ne), but lack explicit logical clarity, and seem to want others to supply it (dual seeking Te). I do not see Ni base - at all.


I read the types based on the IMs and I came to the very same conclusion that I usually do: I am either IEI (most likely) or ILE. Those two fit me the closest - in _every_ method I've used to far to determine them. That's why I keep insisting that I am an Nx type with either Fe-Ti or Ti-Fe. I just need to figure out which one of the two is the most likely.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> Could you please explain what DS is?


DS = Dual Seeking, Suggestive function.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

bearotter said:


> I think one helpful thing is to read descriptions of the information elements _without_​ reading descriptions of the typical manifestations in a type, which generally skew towards something or another.


While that might be helpful to some extent, IMs play out differently in different types.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Yup, in different types, and also in different instances of the same type. Hence, I'd suggest the next step after getting the IE's is to understand a given type's IE interplay in a language not presupposing the typical manifestations.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

To be clear, I also write this specifically in this context of course -- reading descriptions initially is fine, but to someone later in the game I think it can start majorly messing with getting a clear idea of what must and mustn't be the case in IE interplay/manifestation (understanding of which is more governed by the model the type follows than any specific description).


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Ananael said:


> I could see a case for ESE as well, to be honest. I agree with rational base and ethical type with judicious quadra values (Ne-Si).
> 
> 
> @TreasureTower how do you think that Fe DS, Si DS, and Se DS apply to you if at all?


I don't relate to Fe Ds (or Te Ds) but I do relate to Si Ds and Se Ds. Se Ds, slightly more than Si Ds. 



> The individual tends to be chronically unaware of his own bodily processes, including physiological sensations and a sense of balance and alignment with one's true desires.


Actually, on reading it again, I _am_ aware of my bodily processes; I just often choose to ignore them; but yeah, I think Se Ds is the story of my life. LOL.



> *The individual is often characterized by his inertia. If left to his own devices, he may choose to do relatively little to interact with the outside world. *When he does interact with the outside world, he often finds his activities to be empty and unfulfilling. To this individual, life is often characterized by periods of stimulation. *For him, however, true stimulation is often spontaneous, and interludes between periods of stimulation are often characterized by tedium, inertia, and apathy.* He is often not very adept at finding new areas of interest, and may seek to continue to reproduce past experiences instead of moving on to new things. *In order to break out of this cycle, he requires an outside stimulus of spontaneity and activity. With such a degree of spontaneity introduced into his life, the tedium and perceived meaninglessness is replaced by a constant state of activity in which he can experience new things and escape from the confines of his own mind.*


I think the only reason I can think of that anyone could possibly consider me Te Ds; is in this thread or any other similar thread. Outside of "type me" threads; I don't need to rely on anyone but myself for that; unlike Se which I actually externally _depend_ on.




bearotter said:


> Yup, in different types, and also in different instances of the same type. Hence, I'd suggest the next step after getting the IE's is to understand a given type's IE *interplay in a language not presupposing the typical manifestations*.


Is this about Intertype relationships?


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Oh, I meant the IE interplay in the same person, not through intertype. Basically the key for this is understanding the model for the type and really getting the IE, without needing much reference to a portrait hopefully.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Ananael said:


> While that might be helpful to some extent, IMs play out differently in different types.


Thanks to your suggestion regarding my DS; I've been able to narrow it down to two types: IEI and ILE but that's where I am stuck. I've read through the different IMs for both and I relate to both equally.

So, I know that I am either Ni-Fe-Ti-Se or Ne-Ti-Fe-Si but I keep going back and forth for example I'm now wondering if I have a Fi PoLR:



> The individual does not normally pay attention to the nuances of interpersonal relationships; *he is either overly suspicious or overly assuming of his relations with others when they are not clearly defined*.


As I stated in an earlier post; I have great difficulty determining distance in relationships but then organization of facts, has never been my strong suit either.

I'm probably an IEI-Ni or an ILE-Ne?

My dilemma is that I can't figure out if Ti or Fe is my creative or mobilizing function.

:frustrating:


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> Thanks to your suggestion regarding my DS; I've been able to narrow it down to two types: IEI and ILE but that's where I am stuck. I've read through the different IMs for both and I relate to both equally.


IEI and ILE are two completely different types with no other similarities than Fe and Ti valuation and a few Reinin traits. I suggest looking into Causal-Determinist (ILE) and Vortical Synergetic (IEI) cognitive styles, and consider how consistent the patterns described for ILE and IEI are consistent with what you do on the internet and in real life (not only what you're doing, but how you're doing it). 



> As I stated in an earlier post; I have great difficulty determining distance in relationships but then organization of facts, has never been my strong suit either.


ENTx's and INTx's to some extent have this problem, however the gamma NTs (ENTj/INTp) value determining distance in relationships more so than the alpha NTs (INTj/ENTp). 

Also, could you elaborate on what you mean by organizing facts?



> I'm probably an IEI-Ni or an ILE-Ne?
> 
> My dilemma is that I can't figure out if Ti or Fe is my creative or mobilizing function.
> 
> :frustrating:


Figuring out if you're a static type versus dynamic would determine if you're Fe ego vs Ti ego. This is one of the biggest differences between the two types that you think fit you best.


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

I wonder if anyone ever got the idea to use "The Dark NiTe" as their screenname.
:happy:


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Ananael said:


> IEI and ILE are two completely different types with no other similarities than Fe and Ti valuation and a few Reinin traits. I suggest looking into Causal-Determinist (ILE) and Vortical Synergetic (IEI) cognitive styles, and consider how consistent the patterns described for ILE and IEI are consistent with what you do on the internet and in real life (not only what you're doing, but how you're doing it).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Notes on "The Socion, or Socionics Basics" -- pg. 2



> When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses exceptional personal force/will. *He is a born organizer of anything. He has the ability to mobilize people to achieve a goal and is able to make use of and manage animate and inanimate objects. Is able to work with things (objects) and reproduce almost any objects based on available samples. This is a reflection of his ability to organize material.* These people are known for their striving to materialize their will, energy, and power, and for their desire to impose their will on others.


Is Se about organization because I am terrible at that; packing for a trip, for example; causes me a lot of anxiety because I can never figure out what or how much I will need of any particular thing.

I don't know if this is useful or not but:

It is virtually impossible for anyone to manipulate me because I can both sense the true nature of someone's intentions and deconstruct the logic (or lack there of) of their arguments. I can usually tell if someone is being disingenuous and see right through faulty or specious logic.

I will look at the writing styles but are there any intertype relationships other than duals that may be helpful to look at, as well?

I thought that I'd include a sample of my writing on this forum that was in no way connected to a "type me", thread:



> *I don't understand judgemental people*
> 
> PerC is a forum which is based on self-revelation. People come here to post their most personal thoughts, feelings and vulnerabilities. True, many people on this form are extremely insightful and compassionate but some other people seem to have a sense of superiority and feel that they have the right to sit in judgement - especially moral over others, while keeping a blind eye to the facts. They probably believe that they mean well and that their "moralizing" is helpful but it isn't. It almost never is. You can't just skim over the surface of someone's posts and assume you understand inner complexities of that person which reside underneath.
> 
> I suppose this ought not to bother me so much. After all, I used to post on some of the vilest message boards around where flaming was a considered to be a virtual "job description" to be a member. The difference between those boards and this one, is that everyone had a mask - a façade, that they posted under; some even had fake identities! Since that is generally not the case at PerC; you would think that they might try to be more sensitive. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> Notes on "The Socion, or Socionics Basics" -- pg. 2
> 
> 
> 
> Is Se about organization because I am terrible at that; packing for a trip, for example; causes me a lot of anxiety because I can never figure out what or how much I will need of any particular thing.


Well Se is not so much about organizing so much as it is about knowing how to bring about changes or setting actions into motion. The aspect of Se most emphasized is action, and Se base types are pretty adept at figuring out what actions need to be taken. Se base types are strategic types, so perhaps they can appear more organised in a sense, sure. 



> I don't know if this is useful or not but:
> 
> It is virtually impossible for anyone to manipulate me because I can both sense the true nature of someone's intentions and deconstruct the logic (or lack there of) of their arguments. I can usually tell if someone is being disingenuous and see right through faulty or specious logic.


I'm not sure exactly what to make of this bit but, I will say that some people just don't have logical reasoning as a strong suit. And if you think about it, one use of logic or reason in general is to argue a point so that other people will be convinced of the point of view you want to convey. Your use of that criterion in evaluating whether or not someone is trying to manipulate you rather than having qualms with only the nonsense or a misrepresentation of truth gives me reason to suggest an ethical type for you. 



> I will look at the writing styles but are there any intertype relationships other than duals that may be helpful to look at, as well?
> 
> I thought that I'd include a sample of my writing on this forum that was in no way connected to a "type me", thread:


Supervision and conflict relations help. Also determining your quasi-identical could be useful since those types look alike.

As for your writing sample, I'm inclined to think that you're a rational lead rather than a perception lead, but I supposed that being a rational subtype for an irrational type may lead to one seeming more "judgement heavy."


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> ILE resonates more to me in the IMs, then in the actual descriptions.


Yeah ok but what about NeTi "resonates" to you in IM descriptions?




TreasureTower said:


> Yeah, I often struggle with wanting to let the other person know how I feel about them but I'm often not sure how _I_ feel about them, myself.


That's the thing though, I don't really stop and think about how I feel about someone. And what I "let them know" is my emotional state about whatever, not necessarily about how I feel about the person personally. E.g. if I'm angry I will show it  Do you relate to any of this?




> You mean the part that's in bold? I'm very good at reading people but not so good at natural emotional expression.


Not good at it? Fe egos are supposed to be great with that... Fe in socionics is all about that. 

And yes I meant that part, having to consciously tell yourself to think of what's best for yourself. Though maybe I misunderstand what you meant by "best for yourself", so tell me what you meant by it 




> I do view that as logical sound; I view the concept of separateness as an illusion; though I struggle to experience it emotionally.


Your argument here is not what is typically called logical. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean this way of thinking is invalid or anything, I'm just saying. It's interesting you keep calling such stuff as logical, maybe it does mean ethical and rational type for you?!

Btw the idea is nice but I don't think I'd ever even try to experience such a thing emotionally, doesn't seem possible lol - Maybe possible for you though.




> I place an ultimate value on human life. Inaliable rights to the necessities of life always should trump any lesser considerations.


The same comment as above, placing a value on something isn't really what logic is about but again that doesn't invalidate anything; I believe no moral system is ever truly logical. The last sentence about priorities can be constructed as pretty logical though as long as we don't care about where we start (starting point is certain values, not logic).




> I actually do see most behaviour as rational. It may not always _seem_ rational to others but no one does absolutely anything without some underlying _reason_. They may be unaware of their motives but that doesn't necessarily negate their existence.


Yeah, obviously everyone has some motives or other causes for behaviour. Not sure what you meant by negating existence of a motive...




> Not necessarily; I do care about other people's feelings as I think it is wrong to deliberately hurt them but I find it fascinating to figure out how other people tick. I sometimes view PerC (presuming someone isn't flipping out on me - I can't handle irrational people =() as fascinating way to observe and interact with other people from a distance.


(Please don't get offended) So there are such things as irrational people after all? Even though they have underlying reason for acting the way they do? 

Btw my take on that, if someone flips out at me I never view it as "an irrational person", as I said before I don't usually try to find logical reasons for specific emotions. I am pretty sure I'm a very irrational person lol, I don't think I'd have a chance to analyse my emotions in such a fashion*. For me it's enough if I know what made me feel whatever way and I usually do know.

*: in the fashion I analyse other things. I can of course give some generic framework on emotions in general e.g. an evolutionary cognitive one 




> I see myself as awkward because relating to other people always seems kind or forced to me; never natural. When I do it; it's like I'm just going through the motions. It's feels stilted to me, almost fake. I think this is because, I do the socially correct behaviour without having the corresponding feelings to go with them. I often experience myself as a highly functioning robot in any kind of social interaction.


I see, well I again don't relate, I don't really worry about corresponding internal feeling, I'm more focused outside. The interaction just "takes" me with it, getting/being involved, and that's enough. Also I can't really force myself to be bothered to do the socially correct behaviour in some cases. 

Now all that difference may be because you don't have Fe/Ti in the same position as me or because of something else entirely.




> Oh if I am having a bad time, then of course; I want to leave and just as you said, the converse. I don't relate to the last part at all. I never feel lonely when I'm alone; only when I'm around people who don't understand me.


I didn't actually say I felt lonely when going home, I feel de-energised. Just like, I was running hard and then suddenly switched to a much slower pace and feel the energy suddenly lower too. If that makes any sense 

Like you, I'm more likely to feel lonely if around people who I'm not actively involved with, though that's not the same as not being understood, I suppose. I don't really feel lonely when I'm alone, just this sense of "low energy" is what can be crap.




TreasureTower said:


> I don't relate to Fe Ds (or Te Ds) but I do relate to Si Ds and Se Ds. Se Ds, slightly more than Si Ds.


Why don't you relate to Te DS?




> Actually, on reading it again, I _am_ aware of my bodily processes; I just often choose to ignore them; but yeah, I think Se Ds is the story of my life. LOL.


Some outstanding examples/anecdotes from your life about Se DS then?  If you can remember any.




> I think the only reason I can think of that anyone could possibly consider me Te Ds; is in this thread or any other similar thread. Outside of "type me" threads; I don't need to rely on anyone but myself for that; unlike Se which I actually externally _depend_ on.


How exactly do you "externally depend" on Se? What can someone with Se in ego do to help you? Please don't quote descriptions, use your own words without adding any typology into it.




TreasureTower said:


> for example I'm now wondering if I have a Fi PoLR:
> 
> As I stated in an earlier post; I have great difficulty determining distance in relationships but then organization of facts, has never been my strong suit either.


Organization of facts as in Te PoLR?




TreasureTower said:


> Is Se about organization because I am terrible at that; packing for a trip, for example; causes me a lot of anxiety because I can never figure out what or how much I will need of any particular thing.


I never really understood why anyone would link organization to Se actually. I feel much too irrational for that except for what Ananael said about being strategic 

Well I'm actually good at organizing things but I can't say it's the main focus of my life...just no.

The packing example too, I don't have any anxiety there, I sort the whole job in the last 20minutes before leaving, I figure it all out just fine, maybe I even look organized but I think I just look fast at sorting the job instead because I don't plan ahead at all. 




> It is virtually impossible for anyone to manipulate me because I can both sense the true nature of someone's intentions and deconstruct the logic (or lack there of) of their arguments. I can usually tell if someone is being disingenuous and see right through faulty or specious logic.


I agree with Ananael's thoughts on how this sounds like ethical type.  Just like your earlier stuff that you called logical reasoning but seemed very ethical in nature to me instead.

I see EII typing surfaced again; maybe Fi to the ExI's feels logical in this fashion?! 

Note I'm not at all convinced of any type for you, I'm just throwing out my thoughts here. It's interesting because you seem so different from me in some stuff. Don't take that in a bad way at all though.




> I thought that I'd include a sample of my writing on this forum that was in no way connected to a "type me", thread:


And here too, it seemed rational (T/F as opposed to S/N leading) to me but then this is just one sample so it doesn't have to mean much.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Judson Joist said:


> I wonder if anyone ever got the idea to use "The Dark NiTe" as their screenname.
> :happy:


yeah there was a guy here with DarkNiTe. FiNe SiTe was one too I think.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

TreasureTower said:


> Is Se about organization because I am terrible at that; packing for a trip, for example; causes me a lot of anxiety because I can never figure out what or how much I will need of any particular thing.


 I have been saying that Se is organisational for ages because I read this in loads of literature, but nobody seems to agree or pay any attention. Black sensing directs people towards organisation of assets (as opposed to a more Ne-ish evaluation of possibility)[and explains why SLE is aristocratic; as he organises material assets collectively, but SEE is democratic as he organises emotional assets individually]. Packing for trips isn't necessarily the best example, although it is the example that was used on wikisocion for carefree/farsighted: IEI being a farsighted type, ILE being carefree. Though what you said suggested farsighted, as a panic over being unprepared; but I won't use that as a specific example. 



TreasureTower said:


> It is virtually impossible for anyone to manipulate me because I can both sense the true nature of someone's intentions and deconstruct the logic (or lack there of) of their arguments. I can usually tell if someone is being disingenuous and see right through faulty or specious logic.


 That's a very Ti thing. That is a type of NeTi thing to say, I suspect.



Ananael said:


> Well Se is not so much about organizing so much as it is about knowing how to bring about changes or setting actions into motion. The aspect of Se most emphasized is action, and Se base types are pretty adept at figuring out what actions need to be taken. Se base types are strategic types, so perhaps they can appear more organised in a sense, sure.


 Yea, it isn't so much organisation (a loss in translation from Russian, possibly) as it is, I guess, knowing how to go in the right direction. Both Se base types are strategic and farsighted, which may give a veneer of organisation, but what people really mean by this is how to arrange assets, I think.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Yea, it isn't so much organisation (a loss in translation from Russian, possibly) as it is, I guess, knowing how to go in the right direction. Both Se base types are strategic and farsighted, which may give a veneer of organisation, but what people really mean by this is how to arrange assets, I think.


Things getting lost in translation, for the loss. What would you say about Se in relation to factual organization? I always placed that as the domain of Te and/or Ti if anything.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Ananael said:


> Things getting lost in translation, for the loss. What would you say about Se in relation to factual organization? I always placed that as the domain of Te and/or Ti if anything.


 Yea that's Te/Ti. Se is material organisation.


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> yeah there was a guy here with DarkNiTe. FiNe SiTe was one too I think.


You know what would be a great screenname for a dyed-in-the-wool "Alpha N.E.R.D.?" _*Ni-Dom Prime. *_Anybody, feel free to use that. For max effect, though, it would work best if you actually are a "dyed-in-the-wool Alpha N.E.R.D."
:happy:


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Judson Joist said:


> You know what would be a great screenname for a dyed-in-the-wool "Alpha N.E.R.D.?" _*Ni-Dom Prime. *_Anybody, feel free to use that. For max effect, though, it would work best if you actually are a "dyed-in-the-wool Alpha N.E.R.D."
> :happy:



Alpha as in "head/supreme" or Alpha as in "quadra"?


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

Kanerou said:


> Alpha as in "head/supreme" or Alpha as in "quadra"?


"Alpha" as in John Carmack status.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> [and explains why SLE is aristocratic; as he organises material assets collectively, but SEE is democratic as he organises emotional assets individually].


Mind saying more on "organising material assects collectively"? Collectively how?





> That's a very Ti thing. That is a type of NeTi thing to say, I suspect.


Only a Ti thing if she really meant logic there.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Here is a really fascinating post that I quoted from someone who is typed as an EII-Ne and it really clarified for me that I really am an N base and probably correctly typed after all:




TreasureTower said:


> HKitty said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW, I lead with Fi, and I rarely if ever have "hunches". If anything, I deliberately avoid doing so because I like to be mentally flexible and keep the possibilities open vs. reducing information to a single possibility (Ni?). This is my natural state of being; it helps me to get the overall "big" picture fairly quickly and see connections between various different objects/people/whatever. I attribute this to Ne. (The whole being able to look at multiple viewpoints thing). So, I guess I could say I'm not really interested in or looking to have a "hunch" about something.
> ...


I get all kinds of hunches. If I or anyone else has any kind of problem; I will just see the big picture in my head and frequently come up with either an inspiration or a solution. It's kind of like I can make all of these mental connections in my head and suddenly whatever answer I'm seeking; just kind of comes to me.

So my confusion is still Ni vs. Ne because sometimes I can explain it but often I can't.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Ananael said:


> Things getting lost in translation, for the loss. What would you say about Se in relation to factual organization? I always placed that as the domain of Te and/or Ti if anything.


What about details? Isn't that more Si?




Diphenhydramine said:


> Yea that's Te/Ti. Se is material organisation.


Well what is it when you have no problem organizing it in your head when or when you explain it to others but gets all confused when you try to write it out on paper? But my problem isn't really organizing _facts_; it's _ideas_; that I struggle with. I like to explain everything from a big picture perspective and the come up with ideas that either support or negate the original premise. When I then have to break it down into multiple paragraphs, parts and chapters; then my head begins to hurt.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Lack of ability to organise prima facie ideas would resemble an understrength (tho not necessarily undervalued) intuition, I think. But I wasn't talking about factual organisation, I was talking about material organisation (and theyre not always similar tho I can see why people get them mixed.) Lack of ability to organise structure of ideas and the particulars of ideals in general would probably indicate an understrength ti or fi.

However, ideas aren't things that enter the psyche (always), they are usually generated from the psyche by information provided to it - so I don't think it's as useful as you are suggesting in determining your type. 



TreasureTower said:


> Well what is it when you have no problem organizing it in your head when or when you explain it to others but gets all confused when you try to write it out on paper? But my problem isn't really organizing _facts_; it's _ideas_; that I struggle with. I like to explain everything from a big picture perspective and the come up with ideas that either support or negate the original premise. When I then have to break it down into multiple paragraphs, parts and chapters; then my head begins to hurt.


 However, one could interpret this either as an Ne-sprawl that expands in width but decreases in depth or like an Ni dart that extends only in depth without ever advancing in width: that's for you to decide. 

I would associate ni with seeing the big picture first as an "innate property" of an object, rather than ne which would prefer to see other things (if you see an octopus do you notice its giant head or its eight arms? and I mean that analogically, not literally) that are plausible extensions of a prima facie property rather than the "idea" itself. However, explaining everything from a big picture perspective and then coming up with ideas that support it is deductive, which is a symbol of introversion, as opposed to adding the little things together to get a whole, which is a symbol of induction & extraversion.

I am sort of like this too: my ideas are usually singular, and thematic, and the train of support that follows them advances linearly behind them. In an argument I stick always to a single point, which I identify as the most critical, and attack it mercilessly, rather than drawing upon many different ideas. Additionally my ideas are really unexpansive: whenever I catch myself daydreaming it's usually about one thing that has developed a new side to it, rather than an altogether different idea, and a lot of my creative output is frankly repetitive. I think that this is due to a suggestive ni.

I have found that "famous or historic" SLE's juggle around innate concepts, usually adopting them as favourable ideas, but as a realist-type can sometimes put too much attention into aligning themselves to those ideas to the point where they become obsessed, or self-parodical, even: Churchill and Hemingway I would characterise this way. For ILEs there's no such thing as there is expansion of idea, rather than depth of it, but that only means that ceteris paribus they go the other way: having too many swirling ideas that they struggle with linking and prioritising.

So lets think about the traditional dichotomical difference: depth or width, of ideas? former is ni, latter is ne.

Sorry this was a rant.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> Yeah ok but what about NeTi "resonates" to you in IM descriptions?


I relate to Se DS (suggestive) and Fi PoLR. Although I think I am more NiFe DS. While I often neglect my bodily functions and have trouble understanding distance in relationships; I look more to others to help me become more disciplined and organized. I usually have my head in the clouds and have lots of difficulty doing anything Se-based to improve my situation. I also really relate to this which falls under ILI Te creative:


> A view of the external environment being efficient, reasonable, and making sense is essential to their well-being and sense of inner peace, but they do not feel a pressing need for being proactive or productive themselves in that area.


When other people/things in my environment/life don't make sense; it drives me crazy. I become obsessed with constantly trying to make sense of things.



itsme45 said:


> That's the thing though, I don't really stop and think about how I feel about someone. And what I "let them know" is my emotional state about whatever, not necessarily about how I feel about the person personally. E.g. if I'm angry I will show it  Do you relate to any of this?


Yeah, I relate to this as well. Anger or annoyance is one of the few negative emotions which I can express well but I sometimes hold back if I think the ramifications of expressing it outweigh the potential benefits. I always have a keen eye out for any kind of perceived injustice or unfairness to me or others.




itsme45 said:


> TreasureTower said:
> 
> 
> > You mean the part that's in bold? I'm very good at reading people but not so good at natural emotional expression.
> ...


I think that I did not explain myself very clearly. What I mean is that since I don't always know necessarily WHAT I'm feeling at any given time or with painful emotions which I have a difficult time articulation; I often struggle with those thing OTOH, I excel at expressing positive affectionate feelings and I am a naturally cheerful person.



itsme45 said:


> And yes I meant that part, having to consciously tell yourself to think of what's best for yourself. Though maybe I misunderstand what you meant by "best for yourself", so tell me what you meant by it


Well, I am usually aware of the pros and cons of any type of behavior in any given scenario and being around to much negative emotionality can grate on my nerves and depress me, unless it's something that I can really relate to. I earlier gave the example of not having any problems with hearing about people discuss relationship dynamics: such as "why can't I let go of X, I miss X so much" for example; where as "I feel all of this pain inside of me that's eating away at me", would make me want to vomit.



TreasureTower said:


> Well, I believe that at a fundamental level that we are all connected so, I think it makes sense to try to have a positive influence over others but unless it's someone who really matters to me; I may express it more than I actually feel it.


Your argument here is not what is typically called logical. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean this way of thinking is invalid or anything, I'm just saying. It's interesting you keep calling such stuff as logical, maybe it does mean ethical and rational type for you?!

Btw the idea is nice but *I don't think I'd ever even try to experience such a thing emotionally, doesn't seem possible lol - Maybe possible for you though*.[/QUOTE]

But here I strongly disagree with you. I really DO see this a logical. It is not really an ethical view to me but a logical one. You can look at everyone at isolated individuals who have no connection t each other or view them as being fundamentally interconnected. That has absolutely nothing to do with ethics but perhaps an Eastern vs. Western mindset? My way of viewing the world is much more common in the East rather than the West. I think we may be having an N/S misunderstanding here. This is not about values but what makes more sense to me. Do you understand?

While I could go on to make an emotional argument such as: the world would be a better place etc., etc. more harmony *cue _Aquarious_ song* etc., etc. I would still believe it even if that wouldn't be the case. Our misunderstanding does not fall into the realm of facts. Neither your nor my world view can be proven or disproven. It's like the glass being half empty or half full, or any number of those optical illusion images where you can see a different image, depending how you look at it. You see all people as separate individuals - which is a valid belief. I see all people as interconnected - also an equally valid belief. What I did say is that I do experience some dissonance having this belief because it's something I struggle with emotionally but that is the challenge of an Enneagram 5 to rise above this. Read any book by Sandra Maitri for elaboration about this.



itsme45 said:


> TreasureTower said:
> 
> 
> > I place an ultimate value on human life. Inaliable rights to the necessities of life always should trump any lesser considerations.
> ...


Okay, here I do agree with you that while my statement is logical; it is primarily values driven. Where I adamantly _disagree_ with you is when you compare it to my above comment which IS logically derived first and feeling base, second. The first one is what is - or rather how _I see_ what is; where as the second is about what _ought to be_, which has a logical base. I also disagree with you that no moral system can be truly logical. Pretty much all ethical philosophies (not based in dogma) are based in logic: what is right, the hierarchy of values, utilitarianism etc. The logical dilemma in all moral theories is that different values wind up conflicting with each other. For example, is it ever morally justified to kill a few people to save many - this assuming no ethical devaluation of the few is involved. 



itsme45 said:


> TreasureTower said:
> 
> 
> > I actually do see most behaviour as rational. It may not always seem rational to others but no one does absolutely anything without some underlying reason. They may be unaware of their motives but that doesn't necessarily negate their existence.
> ...


No, not "negating existence of a motive" but not negating a rational motive due to a lack of self-awareness.



itsme45 said:


> TreasureTower said:
> 
> 
> > Not necessarily; I do care about other people's feelings as I think it is wrong to deliberately hurt them but I find it fascinating to figure out how other people tick. I sometimes view PerC (presuming someone isn't flipping out on me - I can't handle irrational people =() as fascinating way to observe and interact with other people from a distance.
> ...


No, I am not taking offense at all. What I meant by that in MY view and likely everyone but said individual's view; their behaviour was irrational. It didn't make sense to me or most others but the individual had some type of logical reason for acting the way that she did irrespective if she understood it or not. I once knew this guy who was convinced that the government had bugged his teeth and were sending him messages in morse code. Most of us would agree that was Coco for Cocopuffs but based on that insane premise; his way of dealing with it was still quite rational.




itsme45 said:


> TreasureTower said:
> 
> 
> > I see myself as awkward because relating to other people always seems kind or forced to me; never natural. When I do it; it's like I'm just going through the motions. It's feels stilted to me, almost fake. I think this is because, I do the socially correct behaviour without having the corresponding feelings to go with them. I often experience myself as a highly functioning robot in any kind of social interaction.
> ...


Well, perhaps that could be a I/E difference? Yes, that is probably true.



itsme45 said:


> I didn't actually say I felt lonely when going home, I feel de-energised. Just like, I was running hard and then suddenly switched to a much slower pace and feel the energy suddenly lower too. If that makes any sense
> 
> Like you, I'm more likely to feel lonely if around people who I'm not actively involved with, though that's not the same as not being understood, I suppose. I don't really feel lonely when I'm alone, just this sense of "low energy" is what can be crap.


Well I do relate to the second part but not the first. Again, that might be an I/E difference. I have a need to be around other people, like I get a craving for Chinese food. Once I've satisfied my craving I am quite content with my own company. After spending time with others, I need time to recharge which is why I am perfectly capable of enjoying an event and experiencing it to the fullest but once I've done it; I've had enough and want to be by myself.




itsme45 said:


> Why don't you relate to Te DS?


Because I am perfectly capable of researching my own information. I really don't need any help with that. Before Google - when I actually was forced to go to the Library to take out books; I might have had some issues with that. 



itsme45 said:


> Some outstanding examples/anecdotes from your life about Se DS then?  If you can remember any.





How exactly do you "externally depend" on Se? What can someone with Se in ego do to help you? Please don't quote descriptions, use your own words without adding any typology into it.[/QUOTE]

Well, before I do that; I think that this quote rather explains it well:



Diphenhydramine said:


> efficiency is an analysis of how well something works whereas organisation is structuring things to work well.



Organization of facts as in Te PoLR?




I never really understood why anyone would link organization to Se actually. I feel much too irrational for that except for what Ananael said about being strategic 

Well I'm actually good at organizing things but I can't say it's the main focus of my life...just no.

The packing example too, I don't have any anxiety there, I sort the whole job in the last 20minutes before leaving, I figure it all out just fine, maybe I even look organized but I think I just look fast at sorting the job instead because I don't plan ahead at all. 




I agree with Ananael's thoughts on how this sounds like ethical type.  Just like your earlier stuff that you called logical reasoning but seemed very ethical in nature to me instead.

I see EII typing surfaced again; maybe Fi to the ExI's feels logical in this fashion?! 

Note I'm not at all convinced of any type for you, I'm just throwing out my thoughts here. It's interesting because you seem so different from me in some stuff. Don't take that in a bad way at all though.




And here too, it seemed rational (T/F as opposed to S/N leading) to me but then this is just one sample so it doesn't have to mean much.[/QUOTE]

*I am still editing this post; it is a work in progress.* :kitteh:


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

NM


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Brief explanation of depth of an idea vs width of an idea.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Diphenhydramine said:


> However, one could interpret this either as an Ne-sprawl that expands in width but decreases in depth or like an Ni dart that extends only in depth without ever advancing in width: that's for you to decide.
> 
> I would associate ni with seeing the big picture first as an "innate property" of an object, rather than ne which would prefer to see other things (if you see an octopus do you notice its giant head or its eight arms? and I mean that analogically, not literally) that are plausible extensions of a prima facie property rather than the "idea" itself. However, explaining everything from a big picture perspective and then coming up with ideas that support it is deductive, which is a symbol of introversion, as opposed to adding the little things together to get a whole, which is a symbol of induction & extraversion.
> 
> ...


Yes, thanks that was extremely helpful; probably the clearest explanation of Ni vs. Ne I've read anywhere on this forum. This illustrate a previous example I gave about how I am not good at brainstorming. I don't like to go from one idea to the next; I prefer to have a single concept and then break it down. I am the happiest whenever I get a single strong idea in my head and can find different ways of seeing, modifying, adding to and exploring and expressing it from multiple angles. In contrast: Too many ideas about different unrelated things and overwhelm me; which is why I do better at studying one or two subjects intensely at one time as opposed to many different subjects more casually.

No need to apologise; I would love to see way more of THOSE type of "rants" on this forum.

:happy:


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Mind saying more on "organising material assects collectively"? Collectively how?


 Sorry I have tendency to miss your posts. I read them and think "ah, difficult question, will answer later" - then forget, lol.

I bold parts of quote that reflect "organising", "material assets," and "collectively." - and underlined collectively, since it was your real question.

According to Filatova,
As a rule they are the innate leaders, organizers of work on any scale... True, sometimes they emanate excessive pressure, in a volitional sense: * everywhere where, in SLE’s opinion,* something is under-fulfilled, or lacks completion, *further work will be managed with their personal interference.* Being energetic and ambitious, SLE assumes that the significance of *an individual is determined by their situation in society. * ... Wonderfully understand *how best to organize work* and the inability of others to act on such an optimal level. Thus the SLE will take upon themselves, not only their own responsibilities, but also the affairs of the surrounding people, to which SLE relates with sympathy and respect.

And Filatova's summary of ti in that article: 
*Know how to precisely organize the forces disposable to them,* to differentiate between primary and secondary objectives. Splendid organizers of any scale. In work focuses on the “large-scale”, not interested in fine details.

From Stratievskaya
*Organization of power structures and leadership* within them is one of the social functions of the representative of this type. Intercalation into a system, search for like-minded people within it, introduction into the sphere of influence and important business interests, followed by introduction of "his people", whose activities he will oversee, coordinate, and who will obey him at the right moments[/U"

*Zhukov usually excels in roles of leader-organizer: *he accurately assesses the qualifications of his workers, asks the top performance from everyone, assigns the work for optimal distribution of forces. He sets the most intensive pace of work in order to achieve the most productive returns in minimum of time. 

And this unsourced thing,
As an organizer SLE is a* principal of an authoritarian type.* Administering, he skilfully applies administrative stress, « turns fast screws ». SLE can organize a legible *operation, maintain discipline, order, cohesion**, active capacity*. He routes the possibilities, practical expertise on eliciting in society and separate people their competence.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

TreasureTower said:


> Yes, thanks that was extremely helpful; probably the clearest explanation of Ni vs. Ne I've read anywhere on this forum. This illustrate a previous example I gave about how I am not good at brainstorming. I don't like to go from one idea to the next; I prefer to have a single concept and then break it down. I am the happiest whenever I get a single strong idea in my head and can find different ways of seeing, modifying, adding to and exploring and expressing it from multiple angles. In contrast: Too many ideas about different unrelated things and overwhelm me; which is why I do better at studying one or two subjects intensely at one time as opposed to many different subjects more casually.
> 
> No need to apologise; I would love to see way more of THOSE type of "rants" on this forum.
> 
> :happy:


 I think you are probably an Ni type, not just because of this answer but because of the way you answer other questions (and actually you don't seem like an alpha to me, much more like some kind of beta or gamma - BUT - one important thing that this thread has been missing is the functions themselves, rather than what IMEs go in them, as we've rly been treading water about this for ages. Ofc everyone in socionics "has" the same functions but it's their order that determines them. An Ni-role or creative wouldn't find Ne difficult, they would just find it boring - each dichotomy (T F S N) is at high strength for all types, its just the value that is all mixed up.

It seems to me at face value that you ignore NE and role NI, but I could be wrong. Have a look at this: from wikisocion:

ILI NE IGNORING: Although ILIs may have the ability to brainstorm and develop lots of new and unconventional ideas, they prefer not to do so while interacting with others. ILIs often believe that a well-developed understanding of a situation is of greater importance than an understanding of several potential outcomes.

IEI NE IGNORING: An IEI is not as likely to give as much weight to external patterns and connections, mostly because they can easily see the crux of things through their (NI.)

GENERAL NE IGNORING:
The individual understands "external" connections made between different areas of knowledge and experience, but prefers to focus instead on "hidden" connections that have a special significance and help understand the mysterious, hidden nature of things. He is able to readily grasp the intrinsic potential of a given thing or situation, but prefers to restrict indulging such assessments in the face of understanding the latent processes underpinning said things. 

-

ILE NI IGNORING:
While the ILE may seem entirely spontaneous to the observer, he will often plan extensively for the fallout of his ideas in order to rally the support of others and guide it towards actualization. As a by-product, most ILEs will view lectures about foresight and planning as irritating and unnecessary. There is no need to go over that which he has already considered, in the privacy of his own mind. 

He prefers to think about immediate possibilities (Ne) and what can be done to materialize them (Ti) rather than to dwell on the outcome of what might or might not be. 

IEE NI IGNORING (a copy of below quote)

GENERAL NI IGNORING:
The individual thoroughly understands discussions and arguments focused on following present trends into the future and their possible implications, as well as on exploring one specific imaginative vision of personal meaning, but he much prefers to explore many possibilities, starting from a present point in time and reality, rather than to concentrate on just a few specific visions or trends.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Brief explanation of depth of an idea vs width of an idea.


Yes, exactly! The one on the right looks just like an example of brainstorming. I definitely relate to the one the left. I get an idea in my head and pursue it, just like the example on the left. Although, in the specific example; I could relate to both but in general, I would definitely say that I definitely relate to the left. I may have to choose from more then one option but I look at each choice and come up with reasons to accept or reject it.

As pertains to the example in that diagram; the other night; I was trying to have a delivery and was craving some items on two different menus. I decided that the pull towards one was stronger than the other; so I went with that. It's never what should I do but rather which alternative is going to fulfill my needs the best; so I guess I am more deductive than inductive.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

I have to work now, sorry. I will try post some more stuff later.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Sorry I have tendency to miss your posts. I read them and think "ah, difficult question, will answer later" - then forget, lol.
> 
> I bold parts of quote that reflect "organising", "material assets," and "collectively." - and underlined collectively, since it was your real question.
> 
> ...




Eh. These quotes says that SLE is good at organizing because of creative Ti. You said it was Se that is good at organizing, which you do not have support for in literature chosen by You.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I think you are probably an Ni type, not just because of this answer but because of the way you answer other questions (and actually you don't seem like an alpha to me, much more like some kind of beta or gamma - BUT - one important thing that this thread has been missing is the functions themselves, rather than what IMEs go in them, as we've rly been treading water about this for ages. Ofc everyone in socionics "has" the same functions but it's their order that determines them. An Ni-role or creative wouldn't find Ne difficult, they would just find it boring - each dichotomy (T F S N) is at high strength for all types, its just the value that is all mixed up.
> 
> It seems to me at face value that you ignore NE and role NI, but I could be wrong. Have a look at this: from wikisocion:
> 
> ...


Yes, I can definitely relate to bother to Ni as a base function for both the ILI and the IEI but unlike the ILI; sometimes discussing my ideas with others can help give my initial idea, legs. Like right now, for example. Nothing excites me more than when another person understands my idea. I really feel that we have the very same interpretation of my functional process and I know it is the correct one. I sort of knew it in my mind but since no one until now, had expressed it as clearly as I saw it; so I was not able to previously put it into words quite as clearly as I am doing now.



Diphenhydramine said:


> I have to work now, sorry. I will try post some more stuff later.


 I look forward to reading it. Seriously thanks, I really was beginning to wonder if I'd ever figure out my type.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Inguz said:


> Eh. These quotes says that SLE is good at organizing because of creative Ti. You said it was Se that is good at organizing, which you do not have support for in literature chosen by You.


 Well, that is partially true: Not all of the examples suggest that although some do (edit: one paragraph out of the whole lot, in fact.) Both of Stratievskaya's observations were Se-derived.

(Edit: Tho there are other sources, namely sociotype.com and wikisocion which say the same thing (in the same words) that attribute organisation of people towards goals as an Se characteristic.)


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Well, that is partially true: Not all of the examples suggest that although some do (edit: one paragraph out of the whole lot, in fact.)
> 
> (Edit: Tho there are other sources, namely sociotype.com and wikisocion which say the same thing (in the same words) that attribute organisation of people towards goals as an Se characteristic.)


How can we not conclude from the following that it is Ti doing the organizing: "And Filatova's summary of ti in that article: 
*Know how to precisely organize the forces disposable to them"*


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Inguz said:


> How can we not conclude from the following that it is Ti doing the organizing: "And Filatova's summary of ti in that article:
> *Know how to precisely organize the forces disposable to them"*


 The difference between knowing how to do something and doing something.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> The difference between knowing how to do something and doing something.


What are you insinuating? That one needs to be a good organizer to be doing something? I don't see the relevance of this reply.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Inguz said:


> I don't see the relevance of this reply.


 You should use your Ni to intuit it.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> You should use your Ni to intuit it.


It is you who says that Se is material organization yet never define it. So please do, I am listening.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Diphenhydramine said:


> The difference between knowing how to do something and doing something.


That is the story of my life and that is why I am a Se DS. I understand exactly how to do pretty much about anything but it is extremely difficult to carry it out.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Inguz said:


> It is you who says that Se is material organization yet never define it. So please do, I am listening.


What is material organisation? It's the organisation of physical assets: how best to arrange things which are useful. Why is Se a materially organised function - because it's information aspect is space. they're related, almost intrinsically: what can be put where with what spatial efficiency is related directly to how to arrange things which are useful, I don't know what else to tell you about that.

Ti is correctly part of the summary but it's an organisation of facts or logical relationships, which is important as a force multiplier to Se's understanding of his surroundings, but not its base: it makes him an efficient organiser, but it won't make him an organiser all of itself (and this is why LII for example is not known as a type of material organisation.)


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> What is material organisation? It's the organisation of physical assets: how best to arrange things which are useful. Why is Se a materially organised function - because it's information aspect is space. they're related, almost intrinsically: what can be put where with what spatial efficiency is related directly to how to arrange things which are useful, I don't know what else to tell you about that.


This sounds an awful lot like Te. The know-how of arranging things into usefulness or efficiency is closely related to what an LxE does.



Diphenhydramine said:


> Ti is correctly part of the summary but it's an organisation of facts or logical relationships, which is important as a force multiplier to Se's understanding of his surroundings, but not its base: it makes him an efficient organiser, but it won't make him an organiser all of itself (and this is why LII for example is not known as a type of material organisation.)


Or maybe they are just not material organizers because they are intuitive?


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Inguz said:


> This sounds an awful lot like Te. The know-how of arranging things into usefulness or efficiency is closely related to what an LxE does.


 The difference is that Se provides a more definitive personal objective or a goal. Also different because 



Inguz said:


> Or maybe they are just not material organizers because they are intuitive?


 I think that rather solidifies the point.

edit: Actually it strikes me again, efficiency is not completely related to organisation. Something can be well organised but not efficient. For a Te type to be efficient is not the same as an Se type to organise, (especially as one is adjectival and the other is verbal); efficiency is an analysis of how well something works whereas organisation is structuring things to work well.

Compare the nomenclature of ZHUKOV to SHERLOCK HOLMES: Zhukov arranged material assets in a way that best served a strategic objective: Sherlock Holmes made efficient analysis of factual data. Not similar but the latter is very much required for the former.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> The difference is that Se provides a more definitive personal objective or a goal. Also different because


It's more an orientation of utilizing the situation at hand. 



Diphenhydramine said:


> I think that rather solidifies the point.


Not really. For example LSI is characterized as being very organized, OCD-ish, and I consider this to speak tonnes towards the fact that it is the Thinking that is organized while Se is its realization in the world. Since LII lacks this focus/attention then they are instead oriented towards the organization/structure of ideas/logic. 



Diphenhydramine said:


> edit: Actually it strikes me again, efficiency is not completely related to organisation. Something can be well organised but not efficient. For a Te type to be efficient is not the same as an Se type to organise, (especially as one is adjectival and the other is verbal); efficiency is an analysis of how well something works whereas organisation is structuring things to work well.


Yes, this is true. Te sees what is unnecessary for reaching a goal. Se is aware of potential disposal of force, power etc.



Diphenhydramine said:


> Compare the nomenclature of ZHUKOV to SHERLOCK HOLMES: Zhukov arranged material assets in a way that best served a strategic objective: Sherlock Holmes made efficient analysis of factual data. Not similar but the latter is very much required for the former.


I do not know enough about these characters (unless you mean types?)


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Inguz said:


> It's more an orientation of utilizing the situation at hand.


 Right but situations at hand still require organising.



Inguz said:


> Not really. For example LSI is characterized as being very organized, OCD-ish, and I consider this to speak tonnes towards the fact that it is the Thinking that is organized while Se is its realization in the world. Since LII lacks this focus/attention then they are instead oriented towards the organization/structure of ideas/logic.


 Mmm, ok, but LSI is also an Se creative type (obviously they are different) If it was the thinking that was the organising factor you would expect LII to follow the same pattern: however I admit that this may be a function of SE+TI block, as I often forget about SEE and ESI.

Lets just compare that SLE and LSE are: Strategic - Result - Static and Tactical - Process - Dynamic which is not a minor difference. That is organisation to achieve a given goal and organisation for efficient process (efficient vs efficiently). for LSE things have _to be done efficiently_, whatever they are, whereas SLE only bothered if organisation suits the goal at that time.



Inguz said:


> Yes, this is true. Te sees what is unnecessary for reaching a goal. Se is aware of potential disposal of force, power etc.


 "Disposal" is a good word really, also linked to organising, but I think that Se organises things _for_ or _to_ whereas I would say Te organises _by_ and 



Inguz said:


> I do not know enough about these characters (unless you mean types?)


 I don't care so much for type name nomenclature, but I felt that the type names given there were good enough for-purpose. And yes, they're actual characters (tho one is fictional.)


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Right but situations at hand still require organising.


Actually, no. The situation at hand simply 'is'. If we look at SEE then they are portrayed very differently from SLE in this sense by socionics authors. This is an exempt by Gulenko on the weakness of SEE found here



> Problem areas: Pretty disorganized, distracted inclined to work on minor details. It is difficult for a long time to focus on one thing. Prone to fluctuations in the choice that leads to inner reflection and doubt that he's hiding. His real confidence are few. Conservative enough for the new: it needs some time to absorb and understand the new technology and make it practical. Is at risk only after all weigh well. Inclined to reverse the tendency of individual people love to everyone acted the same way. Exhibits aggressive, if his freedom restricted. His mood carries on others.
> 
> From it one can not demand and expect:
> 
> ...


The SEE is Ti PoLR.



Diphenhydramine said:


> Mmm, ok, but LSI is also an Se creative type (obviously they are different) If it was the thinking that was the organising factor you would expect LII to follow the same pattern: however I admit that this may be a function of SE+TI block, as I often forget about SEE and ESI.


Yes, exactly. The types with Te in the ego block have a good access to Ti as well as it is within their id block. The opposite is true for Ti ego accessing Te through id block as well. 



Diphenhydramine said:


> Lets just compare that SLE and LSE are: Strategic - Result - Static and Tactical - Process - Dynamic which is not a minor difference. That is organisation to achieve a given goal and organisation for efficient process (efficient vs efficiently). for LSE things have _to be done efficiently_, whatever they are, whereas SLE only bothered if organisation suits the goal at that time.


The similarity between SLE and SEE is the innate know-how about how to and to which degree one should apply the "kinetic energy" that is Se in order to gain desired results. SLE often achieves this through their creative Ti, a logically organized approach. SEE often achieves this through their creative Fi, an interpersonal approach. For this very reason the SLE is sometimes called 'The Marshall' and the SEE is sometimes called 'The Politician'.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Inguz said:


> Actually, no. The situation at hand simply 'is'. If we look at SEE then they are portrayed very differently from SLE in this sense by socionics authors. This is an exempt by Gulenko on the weakness of SEE found here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Well, alright - I agree there are some truths in this - but I would still maintain this is part of an Se-Ti block since it is: 1. not present in Ne-Ti block or 2. Se-Fi block.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Well, alright - I agree there are some truths in this - but I would still maintain this is part of an Se-Ti block since it is: 1. not present in Ne-Ti block or 2. Se-Fi block.


You mean the material organization? Yeah, it's not like that in a Ne-Ti ego block. Ne-Ti is mental organization.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> I get all kinds of hunches. If I or anyone else has any kind of problem; I will just see the big picture in my head and frequently come up with either an inspiration or a solution. It's kind of like I can make all of these mental connections in my head and suddenly whatever answer I'm seeking; just kind of comes to me.
> 
> So my confusion is still Ni vs. Ne because sometimes I can explain it but often I can't.


Interesting. Afaik in a jungian sense Ne has hunches too. In socionics hunches aren't even really used for N IE definitions.





TreasureTower said:


> What about details? Isn't that more Si?


It's a S thing in general. Se egos are described in such a fashion too. Now maybe it's their strong Id Si, I don't know. But I once saw a description of (socionics) Se from this data processing viewpoint and it was defined with orientation to certain details as contrasted with Ne. I would have to find this desc, if you are interested then I can find it.




> Well what is it when you have no problem organizing it in your head when or when you explain it to others but gets all confused when you try to write it out on paper? But my problem isn't really organizing _facts_; it's _ideas_; that I struggle with. I like to explain everything from a big picture perspective and the come up with ideas that either support or negate the original premise. When I then have to break it down into multiple paragraphs, parts and chapters; then my head begins to hurt.


That's interesting, well, stereotypical interpretation is that this is weak Te or weak S.

My problem has never been organizing my writing in such a fashion; my problem is more with building the idea in depth that I will write about. Actually it isn't a problem because I'm well capable of sorting it out all on my own. It's just that I will take a long time on that but once I have that I can sort the writing process very quickly. Paragraphs, chapters, organizing the idea(s) within one single logical flow, none of it a problem for me. Just that initial concept building was taking time. With good results though  At least this is how I functioned at university when writing papers.




TreasureTower said:


> I relate to Se DS (suggestive) and Fi PoLR. Although I think I am more NiFe DS. While I often neglect my bodily functions and have trouble understanding distance in relationships; I look more to others to help me become more disciplined and organized. I usually have my head in the clouds and have lots of difficulty doing anything Se-based to improve my situation.


Sorry I don't understand the "NiFe DS" expression. Also ILE has Si DS not Se DS. But nevermind that, you probably just made a typo . 

I didn't think Se DS was primarily about becoming more disciplined? Btw how do you imagine someone could help you become more organized/disciplined? If you can talk in more specifics here without using any socionics talk, that'd be great.  Do try to remove yourself from socionics context and just answer in an "everyday" way/language.




> When other people/things in my environment/life don't make sense; it drives me crazy. I become obsessed with constantly trying to make sense of things.


Haha I don't relate to that by default. I just take in things and I don't try to make sense of it unless I want to/need it for something. Though then I will be pretty obsessed, sure. It's just an on-off thing for me.




> Yeah, I relate to this as well. Anger or annoyance is one of the few negative emotions which I can express well but I sometimes hold back if I think the ramifications of expressing it outweigh the potential benefits.


Teach me such self control?! 




> I think that I did not explain myself very clearly. What I mean is that since I don't always know necessarily WHAT I'm feeling at any given time or with painful emotions which I have a difficult time articulation; I often struggle with those thing OTOH, I excel at expressing positive affectionate feelings and I am a naturally cheerful person.


Alright. I don't really have the issue of trying to determine what I'm feeling, I'm not bothered by it really. I don't know what that means socionics-wise though. I guess I relate in that I don't show certain painful emotions but maybe due to enneagram.




> Well, I am usually aware of the pros and cons of any type of behavior in any given scenario and being around to much negative emotionality can grate on my nerves and depress me, unless it's something that I can really relate to. I earlier gave the example of not having any problems with hearing about people discuss relationship dynamics: such as "why can't I let go of X, I miss X so much" for example; where as "I feel all of this pain inside of me that's eating away at me", would make me want to vomit.


Issue with negative emotionality, well, enneagram, alpha quadra, IEI "positivity" or something else, I dunno.

Why does that sentence make you want to vomit? What's wrong with that kind of talk exactly?

I myself don't really say either type of sentence by default; I would find the second one (the one making you vomiting) more interesting however. Feels like more strong emotionality so definitely takes my attention more. You are right, the first sentence is relating to relationship directly, the second one is about the emotion itself. Now I'm not sure if that's socionics Fi and Fe in this order or if both are Fi or it's just everyday emotion issues lol.




> But here I strongly disagree with you. I really DO see this a logical. It is not really an ethical view to me but a logical one. You can look at everyone at isolated individuals who have no connection t each other or view them as being fundamentally interconnected. That has absolutely nothing to do with ethics but perhaps an Eastern vs. Western mindset? My way of viewing the world is much more common in the East rather than the West. I think we may be having an N/S misunderstanding here. This is not about values but what makes more sense to me. Do you understand?


What you just described here about people being interconnected is not logic. It's just a way of viewing things so maybe intuition.  Well unless you can logically argue for why you see it this way, then it can be logical. 




> While I could go on to make an emotional argument such as: the world would be a better place etc., etc. more harmony *cue _Aquarious_ song* etc., etc. I would still believe it even if that wouldn't be the case. Our misunderstanding does not fall into the realm of facts. Neither your nor my world view can be proven or disproven. It's like the glass being half empty or half full, or any number of those optical illusion images where you can see a different image, depending how you look at it. You see all people as separate individuals - which is a valid belief. I see all people as interconnected - also an equally valid belief. What I did say is that I do experience some dissonance having this belief because it's something I struggle with emotionally but that is the challenge of an Enneagram 5 to rise above this. Read any book by Sandra Maitri for elaboration about this.


Where did your assumption come from? I never said my worldview was that we are separate individuals; What I actually said was that I would not easily feel emotionally this way, the unity thingie. Generally it depends on situation and on the person too. Biologically the brain can be capable of feeling separate and feeling united as well. I can talk about this more if you want, if you don't feel it's too OT.




> Okay, here I do agree with you that while my statement is logical; it is primarily values driven. Where I adamantly _disagree_ with you is when you compare it to my above comment which IS logically derived first and feeling base, second. The first one is what is - or rather how _I see_ what is; where as the second is about what _ought to be_, which has a logical base. I also disagree with you that no moral system can be truly logical. Pretty much all ethical philosophies (not based in dogma) are based in logic: what is right, the hierarchy of values, utilitarianism etc. The logical dilemma in all moral theories is that different values wind up conflicting with each other. For example, is it ever morally justified to kill a few people to save many - this assuming no ethical devaluation of the few is involved.


Yeah, "ought to be" is a rationality thing. Can be ethical or logical. You are right the first statement was more perceptive than rational. 

I've seen ethical philosophies before and I disagree with you about them being fully logical. E.g. "what is right" is not logical, "hierarchy of values" is not logical. Again it seems like Rationality for you is an ethical function more than a logical function. Ethical type eh?

And as for the dilemma in moral theories, it's of a moral nature to me. Logical dilemma is something else.




> No, I am not taking offense at all. What I meant by that in MY view and likely everyone but said individual's view; their behaviour was irrational. It didn't make sense to me or most others but the individual had some type of logical reason for acting the way that she did irrespective if she understood it or not. I once knew this guy who was convinced that the government had bugged his teeth and were sending him messages in morse code. Most of us would agree that was Coco for Cocopuffs but based on that insane premise; his way of dealing with it was still quite rational.


Alright. That guy was a paranoid schizo clearly, what you are describing is a typical delusion; was he diagnosed?

I thought you meant mentally healthy irrational people originally. I'm sorry but I see that view as invalidating the emotions of people who are called "irrational". I'm not saying I always understand other people's feelings, no, actually I have a problem with that often, but I don't like to consciously invalidate emotions/feelings. If I suggest a practical solution that may still seem as invalidation to the other party but I don't do it consciously by calling them "irrational". No way. Well alright this is getting kind of OT, my point was just that I don't feel the need to try and explain people's feelings in this rational way. They just are, knowing the source of the feelings, they can be dealt with or the problem can be dealt with and that's all, I'm not interested any further in terms of analysis.




> Q: "How exactly do you "externally depend" on Se? What can someone with Se in ego do to help you? Please don't quote descriptions, use your own words without adding any typology into it."
> 
> Well, before I do that; I think that this quote rather explains it well: "_efficiency is an analysis of how well something works whereas organisation is structuring things to work well"._


Well, I'm waiting for you to finish post when you can. 

As for the quote from Diph, I don't really agree, to me both are Logic. The first one is definitely Te, the second one still assumes strong Te and possibly still Te ego. Structure itself is just T in this context. Se is a bit different IMO... I think Inguz explained it better though.




TreasureTower said:


> Yes, thanks that was extremely helpful; probably the clearest explanation of Ni vs. Ne I've read anywhere on this forum. This illustrate a previous example I gave about how I am not good at brainstorming. I don't like to go from one idea to the next; I prefer to have a single concept and then break it down. I am the happiest whenever I get a single strong idea in my head and can find different ways of seeing, modifying, adding to and exploring and expressing it from multiple angles. In contrast: Too many ideas about different unrelated things and overwhelm me; which is why I do better at studying one or two subjects intensely at one time as opposed to many different subjects more casually.


I wanna stir some shit  Sorry. OK, seriously though, I believe that the theory says Ne lead types are different with being much more broad as compared to a Ne creative introvert. For Ne creatives the idea is first and the Ne is servicing that so the Ne creative can outright reject going into "pointless" brainstorming. (LII description has this and I guess EII too, then.) Ne creatives also have demonstrative, that is, very strong Ni, though it's unvalued.

Now what you said here doesn't determine it for me, whether you are Ne creative or Ni base type. I have no idea. Not Ne base type, for sure. 




Diphenhydramine said:


> Lack of ability to organise prima facie ideas would resemble an understrength (tho not necessarily undervalued) intuition, I think.


Why not an issue with Te or S? OP said it was NOT an issue organizing it inside the head, only when writing it down. For me, organizing it in the head is what took somewhat more effort.




> I am sort of like this too: my ideas are usually singular, and thematic, and the train of support that follows them advances linearly behind them. In an argument I stick always to a single point, which I identify as the most critical, and attack it mercilessly, rather than drawing upon many different ideas. Additionally my ideas are really unexpansive: whenever I catch myself daydreaming it's usually about one thing that has developed a new side to it, rather than an altogether different idea, and a lot of my creative output is frankly repetitive. I think that this is due to a suggestive ni.


I relate to what you say about how you flesh out your ideas. I don't really daydream so I can't comment on that. Unless you mean occupying yourself with some thoughts when REALLY bored (nothing to do with environment atm), yeah, I'm like you there. ...well, I don't have a so-called "creative" output  Or if I do it's all done from logic, well unless I get some eureka moment but I don't have those moments under conscious control. I don't relate to that being repetitive though. Repetition has nothing to do with creativity, what did you mean there?




> I have found that "famous or historic" SLE's juggle around innate concepts, usually adopting them as favourable ideas, but as a realist-type can sometimes put too much attention into aligning themselves to those ideas to the point where they become obsessed, or self-parodical, even


So why's that the behaviour of a realist? :/ I believe it's just bad intuition at best. Not realistic thinking.




> So lets think about the traditional dichotomical difference: depth or width, of ideas? former is ni, latter is ne.


That's extraversion vs introversion, actually. Works for Ne or Ni when in leading position. As far as I can see, works less for creative function or other function positions.

Btw the restaurant example, all I saw in that "Ne" example was protesting against the idea. That's not Ne, that's just disagreeing with the suggestion of going to that restaurant.




Diphenhydramine said:


> Sorry I have tendency to miss your posts. I read them and think "ah, difficult question, will answer later" - then forget, lol.
> 
> I bold parts of quote that reflect "organising", "material assets," and "collectively." - and underlined collectively, since it was your real question.


No worries  and thanks. Yes that was the main question there.

As for the organisation part, I agree with Inguz though that it's more Se with T. Ti creative and Te demonstrative both can help. 

Here's an Se definition that mentions nothing about organising: Sensation - WSWiki

IIRC Augusta Se definition does mention the ability to work with material so sure, that can be some kind of organising but I think it's just meant to be directly related to properties of material itself.

Also when you say:



Diphenhydramine said:


> What is material organisation? It's the organisation of physical assets: how best to arrange things which are useful.


No, I don't think Se goes by arranging what's useful... that's a side thing really. (Ti/Te serving Se goal)
At least I don't work in that way, it's side thing for me.

But I guess you do mention that the goal for Se is different. Just this needs to have more emphasis, I believe.




> Why is Se a materially organised function - because it's information aspect is space. they're related, almost intrinsically: what can be put where with what spatial efficiency is related directly to how to arrange things which are useful, I don't know what else to tell you about that.


That reeks of Ti to me 




> Ti is correctly part of the summary but it's an organisation of facts or logical relationships, which is important as a force multiplier to Se's understanding of his surroundings, but not its base: it makes him an efficient organiser, but it won't make him an organiser all of itself (and this is why LII for example is not known as a type of material organisation.)


LII is organiser of N things...




Diphenhydramine said:


> edit: Actually it strikes me again, efficiency is not completely related to organisation. Something can be well organised but not efficient. For a Te type to be efficient is not the same as an Se type to organise, (especially as one is adjectival and the other is verbal); efficiency is an analysis of how well something works whereas organisation is structuring things to work well.


I think structuring from Ti viewpoint is about making a structure that's "nice", but yes better if it works well too (Te demonstrative of SLE here??)




Diphenhydramine said:


> Right but situations at hand still require organising.


Well IMO not always needed. Sometimes just fast response is needed. 

I'm curious, how organised do you look to others when you suddenly mobilize for a goal and try to get to it as straightforward as you can? Because I don't always look that organised I'm pretty sure. I do often make up some structure as I go but that's rather flexible and arbitrary too. And I definitely don't start by thinking over what way to organise things to do everything as efficiently as possible. Sure I like efficiency because it helps me get to something faster but sometimes I go with sheer force instead of true refined efficiency. In some cases I just can't bother to stop and take time thinking.

Are you like that at all?

Maybe Inguz is gonna shout SEE for me again  ...tho' I disagree on SEE typing as I see some Ti in the above process for myself. Just on-off and it takes time to build it all up if it's even needed. Takes time because I often don't take the time separately to think about it, just while on the move if you know what I mean; I also need my own experience to build up it all, I don't really bother to look up information or read instructions unless I can't figure out something fast enough (or there is too much risk in experimenting).

This of course all assuming the situation or task is new. If it's something I'm experienced with then I'm not just quick but nicely efficient too.




> Lets just compare that SLE and LSE are: Strategic - Result - Static and Tactical - Process - Dynamic which is not a minor difference. That is organisation to achieve a given goal and organisation for efficient process (efficient vs efficiently). for LSE things have _to be done efficiently_, whatever they are, whereas SLE only bothered if organisation suits the goal at that time.
> 
> "Disposal" is a good word really, also linked to organising, but I think that Se organises things _for_ or _to_ whereas I would say Te organises _by_


I think that's a really good summary of the contrasts between Te and Se! Inguz's as well.




Diphenhydramine said:


> Well, alright - I agree there are some truths in this - but I would still maintain this is part of an Se-Ti block since it is: 1. not present in Ne-Ti block or 2. Se-Fi block.


I think it isn't simply SeTi block, it only works with strong Te if we mean true great organisation of stuff (in terms of it "working well"). Yes the Te can be in ID block no problem.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> However, explaining everything from a big picture perspective and then coming up with ideas that support it is deductive, which is a symbol of introversion, as opposed to adding the little things together to get a whole, which is a symbol of induction & extraversion


I thought induction vs deduction got nothing to do with extraversion and introversion (not even in context of N). Not in socionics anyway.




TreasureTower said:


> My problem is that I often can confuse anxiety with intuition. While I often try to make my decisions on logic and facts; sometimes you either can't make sense of things logically or your simply don't have enough time.


Forgot to note this. What's N like anxiety? The rest of this quote doesn't sound very T type but I think you're not really worried about being a T type much anymore?


----------

