# Female ILIs?



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

lets mosey said:


> @*owlet* and I had considered EII, yes.


 @To_august I initially did think EII, but if you compare her to, say, Neil Gaiman, her work is a lot more 'real', even when she's writing scifi and fantasy. Gaiman's work is a lot more similar to Terry Pratchett's like that, in the way it's not very... physical, I guess. The reader isn't immediately grounded in a physical space.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

owlet said:


> @*To_august* I initially did think EII, but if you compare her to, say, Neil Gaiman, her work is a lot more 'real', even when she's writing scifi and fantasy. Gaiman's work is a lot more similar to Terry Pratchett's like that, in the way it's not very... physical, I guess. The reader isn't immediately grounded in a physical space.


I remember we referred to this quote (part of her introduction to her novel The Left Hand of Darkness) as preference for Ne:



> The only truth I can understand or express is, logically defined, a lie. Psychologically defined, a symbol. Aesthetically defined, a metaphor.
> 
> Oh, it's lovely to be invited to participate in Futurological Congresses where Systems Science displays its grand apocalyptic graphs, to be asked to tell the newspapers what America will be like in 2001, and all that, but it's a terrible mistake. I write science fiction, and science fiction isn't about the future. I don't know any more about the future than you do, and very likely less.
> 
> ...


What are your thoughts now that you've dipped a bit more into socionics?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

lets mosey said:


> Are you suggesting your dislike of her work likely means she's from a different quadra?
> 
> Also, which book? She's quite varied.


I just never liked her style. 



> I'm not sure what you're referring to here. You were actually the one to suggest ILI for Le Guin several months ago when I posted that same video in another socionics thread (actually, the video was slightly different in that Neil Gaiman introduced Le Guin).


Yeah, the video was different. I don't have a strong opinion in general on Le Guin, as I don't think any of her speeches or interviews that I've seen are particularly revealing.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

owlet said:


> I think public speaking can be dodgy territory, as the person speaking has been brought in to speak on a particular subject for a particular purpose - the context of where the talk's being held is extremely important in those cases. In interviews, there's less pressure to achieve a specific aim and it's more about the person than the topic.


Agreed. I find that both of the interviews I've seen her in are quite "orchestrated" in that none of them seem to be very natural but have had some planned intent from the get go behind them which makes it much more difficult to gauge whether it's something she'd say naturally on her own or something that was written to be said beforehand. 

In general she just has a vibe I don't quite like and is making it difficult for me to get a good feel for her type. She doesn't flow very naturally. With that said, there's something about her in the last video, I can't even remember on what basis I suggested ILI on the first video, that makes me think delta. 

Also, I think Neil Gaiman is an IEE.

Examining the quotes a bit more carefully, though:



> “It is our suffering that brings us together. It is not love. Love does not obey the mind, and turns to hate when forced. The bond that binds us is beyond choice. We are brothers. We are brothers in what we share. In pain, which each of us must suffer alone, in hunger, in poverty, in hope, we know our brotherhood. We know it, because we have had to learn it. We know that there is no help for us but from one another, that no hand will save us if we do not reach out our hand. And the hand that you reach out is empty, as mine is. You have nothing. You possess nothing. You own nothing. You are free. All you have is what you are, and what you give.”


Very Fi quote, but delta NF style.



> Children know perfectly well that unicorns aren’t real, but they also know that books about unicorns, if they are good books, are true books


Very Ne. 



> Truth is a matter of the imagination.


More Ne.



> “As you read a book word by word and page by page, you participate in its creation, just as a cellist playing a Bach suite participates, note by note, in the creation, the coming-to-be, the existence, of the music. And, as you read and re-read, the book of course participates in the creation of you, your thoughts and feelings, the size and temper of your soul.”


Kind of N-ish, but it's the same feeling I had watching the last speech of hers; while she is in a sense, speaking of Ni content, she doesn't seem to approach it in an egoic Ni way. Strikes me as something you see in delta more so than gamma.

To compare to a definite ILI, Alan Moore:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/3961.Alan_Moore

And Marilyn Manson:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/marilyn_manson.html

I use both of them because they are much heavier on the Ni and Fi end, especially Manson. Eepecially if you watch interviews with Manson and Moore, you see a fluidity to their thought that just isn't there with Le Guin, which is why I felt ILI didn't make sense in the video of her in this thread.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Entropic said:


> I just never liked her style.


I tend to prefer her science fiction and especially her take on gender and sexuality.



> Yeah, the video was different. I don't have a strong opinion in general on Le Guin, as I don't think any of her speeches or interviews are particularly revealing.


That's reasonable. Are they not natural enough, you think? I may go searching for a more organic interview later on.



Entropic said:


> *In general she just has a vibe I don't quite like and is making it difficult for me to get a good feel for her type.* She doesn't flow very naturally. With that said, there's something about her in the last video, I can't even remember on what basis I suggested ILI on the first video, that makes me think delta.


In this case, her quotes/work would be a better gauge of her character.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Le Guin always struck me as more of an Se type than intuitive...


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Tad Cooper said:


> Le Guin always struck me as more of an Se type than intuitive...


How so?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

owlet said:


> @*To_august* I initially did think EII, but if you compare her to, say, Neil Gaiman, her work is a lot more 'real', even when she's writing scifi and fantasy. Gaiman's work is a lot more similar to Terry Pratchett's like that, in the way it's not very... physical, I guess. The reader isn't immediately grounded in a physical space.


Do you think Neil Gaiman is EII or what is the reason you brought him as a comparison to Ursula Le Guin? 

I kinda understand, _I think_, real vs physical thing, but it doesn't tell much in terms of type. Ni can be freakish and unreal as well as Ne, as well as Si and so on. I think reader's own perspective and preferences may play a role here too in how they read or understand work of a writer.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

lets mosey said:


> How so?


Her books always have some form of groundedness and focus you don't get with Ne authors (like Gaiman who I think is EII, his ideas bounce along and you can see how many he's had to smoosh down, and Pratchett who I think is probably Ne base doesnt even try and smoosh his ideas but goes with it). Her fantasy is very focused on the areas and scenery, characters are generally pretty earthy. The feel of the Earthsea books is a lot softer than her short stories which are usually feminism focused or at least related to gender and sexuality - the Earthsea ones still have a groundedness though...you get a really good idea of the setting and the feel of the world. (Not sure I'm explaining well as I'm being talked to while typing...)


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

To_august said:


> Do you think Neil Gaiman is EII or what is the reason you brought him as a comparison to Ursula Le Guin?
> 
> I kinda understand, _I think_, real vs physical thing, but it doesn't tell much in terms of type. Ni can be freakish and unreal as well as Ne, as well as Si and so on. I think reader's own perspective and preferences may play a role here too in how they read or understand work of a writer.


Perhaps because the video I posted features both Gaiman and Le Guin, but also because Gaiman is generally and strongly considered delta NF. His work is certainly more whimsy than Le Guin's, and it may or may not be due to him being IEE rather than EII.



Tad Cooper said:


> Her books always have some form of groundedness and focus you don't get with Ne authors (like Gaiman who I think is EII, his ideas bounce along and you can see how many he's had to smoosh down, and Pratchett who I think is probably Ne base doesnt even try and smoosh his ideas but goes with it). Her fantasy is very focused on the areas and scenery, characters are generally pretty earthy. The feel of the Earthsea books is a lot softer than her short stories which are usually feminism focused or at least related to gender and sexuality - the Earthsea ones still have a groundedness though...you get a really good idea of the setting and the feel of the world. (Not sure I'm explaining well as I'm being talked to while typing...)


Could this earthiness perhaps be due to Si? I understand the point you're making. 

-











Not all of her interviews/speeches/talks are contrived, I'm sure.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

lets mosey said:


> Perhaps because the video I posted features both Gaiman and Le Guin, but also because Gaiman is generally and strongly considered delta NF. His work is certainly more whimsy than Le Guin's, and it may or may not be due to him being IEE rather than EII.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Haha xD not at all contrived..
I don't see Si, because Brian Jacques screams Si and his books are so focused on the homely environment - how the characters are spending their time in a safe space thats warm and happy, lots of references to things he thinks are important like good food and friends and adventures (that are usually not too perilous, or written to seem less bad). Le Guin doesnt do that with her books and it's a lot more focused and impersonal, with less focus on how character interact and more how they act and affect the world. Everything is shown through action generally.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

lets mosey said:


> Perhaps because the video I posted features both Gaiman and Le Guin, but also because Gaiman is generally and strongly considered delta NF. His work is certainly more whimsy than Le Guin's, and it may or may not be due to him being IEE rather than EII.


Ok, I didn't know he was generally considered Delta NF. I was referring to EII specifically though, since there's barely anything whimsy about Fi. If we have material to work with, I think it's better to rely on it, rather that on something that is generally and strongly considered.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ok, I am not sure I buy that Ne egos must always be whimsical in their writing. Are you guys familiar with Parasyte?






The mangaka of the original manga is definitely an EII. If you read the plot, it's all about understanding and respecting the life essences of those around us and seeing the potential value we all have and can bring to the table, even if it's very foreign to us. A couple of examples:



> I have also done much research on humans. What are parasites for humans and what are humans to us? My conclusion is this: we are two halves of the same whole. We and humans are one family. We are the children of the human race.





> If you have the right to live, so do we. Granted, I believe rights are a concept unique to the human species.





> What are you saying? I do not understand your logic. My kind are simply eating. It's natural for life forms to eat. Is it so unpleasant to you that your kind are being eaten?


And so on. And by most people, I think they would deem it very dark and realistic in its setting. 

I mean, by the same token, I don't think most people consider Harry Potter whimsical either, but I think we can agree on Rowling being an EII.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

To_august said:


> Ok, I didn't know he was generally considered Delta NF. I was referring to EII specifically though, since there's barely anything whimsy about Fi. *If we have material to work with, I think it's better to rely on it*, rather that on something that is generally and strongly considered.


I assumed several of us were familiar with his work. Personally, from what I've read, yes, I'd consider him delta NF. Of course, my opinion will have no value if my understanding of socionics is paltry.



Entropic said:


> I mean, by the same token, *I don't think most people consider Harry Potter whimsical either*, but I think we can agree on Rowling being an EII.


How are we defining whimsy? I would certainly consider some elements of it whimsical. That's not to say the content shouldn't be taken seriously or doesn't have any depth to it.

For the record, I do support an EII typing for Le Guin.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

vandieu said:


>


Christ.



> Carrie Anne Moss for reference (I like the contrast here between the two actresses).


;nod;


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

I've got to collect my thoughts properly before making a serious reply, but I do think Neil Gaiman is EII rather than IEE. His focus is always, always on the relationships between his characters before anything else, and there are very strong personal ethical qualities to his work. He doesn't get lost in world exploration as Pratchett does, nor does he leave all the characters as ethically ambiguous like Pratchett.
I think Le Guin also tends to focus on general societal ethics and in making the reader focus on things which are purposefully uncomfortable to them in that area (like reversing the roles of men and women in one of her scifi short stories). She also tends to have a serious focus on the world and how it works over the characters themselves - yes, they are important, but their relationships don't run the show like you could argue for Gaiman, or even Atwood or Tartt. I wonder if she could indeed be LSI. I feel more sure of her valuing Se-Ni over Si-Ne (I mean, can anyone give an example of Si in her writing? If you can, I'm open to it).


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

owlet said:


> I've got to collect my thoughts properly before making a serious reply, but I do think Neil Gaiman is EII rather than IEE. His focus is always, always on the relationships between his characters before anything else, and there are very strong personal ethical qualities to his work. He doesn't get lost in world exploration as Pratchett does, nor does he leave all the characters as ethically ambiguous like Pratchett.
> I think Le Guin also tends to focus on general societal ethics and in making the reader focus on things which are purposefully uncomfortable to them in that area (like reversing the roles of men and women in one of her scifi short stories). She also tends to have a serious focus on the world and how it works over the characters themselves - yes, they are important, but their relationships don't run the show like you could argue for Gaiman, or even Atwood or Tartt. *I wonder if she could indeed be LSI.* I feel more sure of her valuing Se-Ni over Si-Ne (I mean, can anyone give an example of Si in her writing? If you can, I'm open to it).


I'm interested in this argument (although I wonder if we should move it to the celebrity typing thread).


----------



## inabox (Oct 3, 2015)

ot but Gaiman is LII, his works are some of the most alpha (NT) stuff I've read.


----------



## Elisa Artista (Aug 23, 2016)

I'm largely unfamiliar with Guin's work, so I couldn't say my impression from her novels. I have little interest in reading novels with the kind of ideology she is pushing in the guise of science-fiction. For my taste I'm not sure the original Dune series will be surpassed in the near future.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

lets mosey said:


> I assumed several of us were familiar with his work. Personally, from what I've read, yes, I'd consider him delta NF. Of course, my opinion will have no value if my understanding of socionics is paltry.


I've read American Gods and Iv'e read some of the stuff he's co-authored with Pratchett. I've also seen (but not read) Stardust. 


How are we defining whimsy? I would certainly consider some elements of it whimsical. That's not to say the content shouldn't be taken seriously or doesn't have any depth to it.

For the record, I do support an EII typing for Le Guin.

The context suggested something along the lines of Pratchett or Gaiman. One can argue that anything not rooted directly in what can be literally observed and done "whimsical". 

@inabox how is Gaiman an alpha? I considered it, but based from what I remember I think delta NF still makes more sense. He reminds me a bit of Tobias Sammet from the band Avantasia:






For comparison. I could see how someone could superficially type Sammet as an alpha also, but I think he's a delta NF, IEE-Ne, probably, and that's where I'd place Gaiman as well, based on what I've been exposed to his works, anyway. Stardust was a very relationships-driven story imo. Sammet reminds me of an IEE friend that I have, also.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

owlet said:


> I do think Harry Potter does contain whimsical things, especially in the first few books. Things like the moving staircases, moving pictures, talking letters etc. are all very whimsical. I think the characters are more on the serious side, however - although I am comparing them to Diana Wynne Jones' characters (like Howl, Chrestomanci and so on) who are very overtly whimsical just in their personalities.
> So I think I'd say Harry Potter actually falls into a sort of grey area when it comes to whimsy, at least for books 1-4 (I haven't read the others, so I can't say for those). Also, if you've read books like The Lives of Christopher Chant or Charmed Life, those show serious themes being dealt with in a whimsical story and they still come across seriously.
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I disagree on your commentary about ability or inability to draw comparisons due to different styles, demographics etc. I think what's more relevant here is the essence of the writing itself with regards to the cognition being expressed which was my point. The point was that there is a wide range of styles an Ne ego author can endorse in order to express their thoughts on something, and this essence of thought is unrelated to the context of the situation. Ne is Ne no matter where, how and when.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Entropic said:


> Yes, I disagree on your commentary about ability or inability to draw comparisons due to different styles, demographics etc. I think what's more relevant here is the essence of the writing itself with regards to the cognition being expressed which was my point. The point was that there is a wide range of styles an Ne ego author can endorse in order to express their thoughts on something, and this essence of thought is unrelated to the context of the situation. Ne is Ne no matter where, how and when.


Hm, I do think you need to take external factors into consideration though. The expression of certain IEs will be different depending on the culture and age of the person, not to mention their life experiences in general. But yes, Ne valuing people will generally have a focus on exploring the potential of the idea in their writing, which lends itself to a slightly different tone than Ni.
I don't think anyone's said Ne authors can't have a variety of styles. The whimsical aspect, as far as I remember, was looking at one particular thing, rather than making a generalisation about how Ne authors should write (I think it was more noting the similarities in focus between ILI authors and Le Guin when compared to the focus on authors like Pratchett, Gaiman, and others).
Ne will always be Ne, but the expression of that Ne can differ.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

owlet said:


> Hm, I do think you need to take external factors into consideration though. The expression of certain IEs will be different depending on the culture and age of the person, not to mention their life experiences in general. But yes, Ne valuing people will generally have a focus on exploring the potential of the idea in their writing, which lends itself to a slightly different tone than Ni.
> I don't think anyone's said Ne authors can't have a variety of styles. The whimsical aspect, as far as I remember, was looking at one particular thing, rather than making a generalisation about how Ne authors should write (I think it was more noting the similarities in focus between ILI authors and Le Guin when compared to the focus on authors like Pratchett, Gaiman, and others).
> Ne will always be Ne, but the expression of that Ne can differ.


Yes, but in essence if it remains a thing it ought to in essence remain that thing regardless of the context in which it is situated within. The external expression of it may change, but the inner nature of it does not. Again, the argument was that because Le Guin does not write stories in the same manner Pratchett does which, I agree is much more typical of Ne types though his is definitely alpha-flavored, then it is unlikely for Le Guin to value Ne as well. 

My entire point, in all of this, was that I don't think that's true; Le Guin can write her stories and still do it in a way that values Ne.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Yes, but in essence if it remains a thing it ought to in essence remain that thing regardless of the context in which it is situated within. The external expression of it may change, but the inner nature of it does not. Again, the argument was that because Le Guin does not write stories in the same manner Pratchett does which, I agree, is much more typical of Ne types though his is definitely alpha-flavored, then it is unlikely for Le Guin to value Ne as well.
> 
> My entire point, in all of this, was that I don't think that's true; Le Guin can write her stories and still do it in a way that values Ne.


Going back to the original discussion, @owlet and I had been considering Ne (with Fi) preference for her because of excerpts like this (part of her introduction to her novel The Left Hand of Darkness):



> The only truth I can understand or express is, logically defined, a lie. Psychologically defined, a symbol. Aesthetically defined, a metaphor.
> 
> Oh, it's lovely to be invited to participate in Futurological Congresses where Systems Science displays its grand apocalyptic graphs, to be asked to tell the newspapers what America will be like in 2001, and all that, but it's a terrible mistake. I write science fiction, and science fiction isn't about the future. I don't know any more about the future than you do, and very likely less.
> 
> ...


Would you say this reflects anything about her type?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@lets mosey I say that reflects a strong Ni-devaluing feature. It seems she's very averse to the idea of making predictions even though it seems that she is also very good at it. EII like @To_august suggested, isn't a terrible start there, because they have 4D Ni.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Entropic said:


> Yes, but in essence if it remains a thing it ought to in essence remain that thing regardless of the context in which it is situated within. The external expression of it may change, but the inner nature of it does not. Again, the argument was that because Le Guin does not write stories in the same manner Pratchett does which, I agree is much more typical of Ne types though his is definitely alpha-flavored, then it is unlikely for Le Guin to value Ne as well.
> 
> My entire point, in all of this, was that I don't think that's true; Le Guin can write her stories and still do it in a way that values Ne.


Oh, I agree Pratchett's writing focus is very Alpha. I also agree that Ne will always be Ne, but I still think that, when judging the type of another person, you'll be picking up on external signs that show their internal workings and those can differ based on culture and life experiences. I don't remember the argument being that just because Le Guin doesn't write like Pratchett she can't be Ne - it was just pointing out she writes with a more similar focus to Atwood etc.
Like I said though, I need to go have a read through some more stuff on Le Guin because it's not accurate for me to go off memories from almost 12 years ago, really.

@lets mosey Man, I've forgotten my old arguments for EII. I need to have a think..


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Entropic said:


> @*lets mosey* I say that reflects a strong Ni-devaluing feature. It seems she's very averse to the idea of making predictions even though it seems that she is also very good at it. EII like @*To_august* suggested, isn't a terrible start there, because they have 4D Ni.


Thanks, that's what we had initially settled on. Even though her tone is similar to Atwood's, for example, Le Guin is much more outspoken and willing to risk practicality and efficiency (such as with regards to marketing and spreading her work) in order to stay true to certain personal values. She comes across more Fi and less Te than Atwood in that sense, and as you say, she appears capable of making predictions but does not prefer it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

owlet said:


> Oh, I agree Pratchett's writing focus is very Alpha. I also agree that Ne will always be Ne, but I still think that, when judging the type of another person, you'll be picking up on external signs that show their internal workings and those can differ based on culture and life experiences. I don't remember the argument being that just because Le Guin doesn't write like Pratchett she can't be Ne - it was just pointing out she writes with a more similar focus to Atwood etc.
> Like I said though, I need to go have a read through some more stuff on Le Guin because it's not accurate for me to go off memories from almost 12 years ago, really.


Yes, those external signs can be different based on external factors, but I fail to see how external factors are relevant with regards to the type of a person?



lets mosey said:


> Thanks, that's what we had initially settled on. Even though her tone is similar to Atwood's, for example, Le Guin is much more outspoken and willing to risk practicality and efficiency (such as with regards to marketing and spreading her work) in order to stay true to certain personal values. She comes across more Fi and less Te than Atwood in that sense, and as you say, she appears capable of making predictions but does not prefer it.


I wouldn't know since I'm not overly familiar with any of them.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

@lets mosey Just by chance, do you happen to have a link to that topic where we discussed the EII typing? I need to see what my reasoning was to see if it actually held water or not (no faith in past me).



Entropic said:


> Yes, those external signs can be different based on external factors, but I fail to see how external factors are relevant with regards to the type of a person?


It's because people can only express themselves externally to others, so the impact of society and culture can lead to different expressions of the same basic principle. Like if you compare Chaucer as a satirist to someone like Evelyn Waugh, or even a more modern satire writer, the impact of society and even linguistics at the time of writing will lead to different expressions. But then, beneath that the focus should be generally similar.
For Fi to show in a novel, I'd expect the author to have a particular focus on the interpersonal relationships between the characters, and have that as one of the main focuses of the story, as that's what will be a major focus for them in life generally.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

owlet said:


> @*lets mosey* Just by chance, do you happen to have a link to that topic where we discussed the EII typing? I need to see what my reasoning was to see if it actually held water or not (no faith in past me).


Have faith!

I will PM you some of our discussion, if I can find it. I may also link to one of her short stories, again if I can find it.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

lets mosey said:


> Have faith!
> 
> I will PM you some of our discussion, if I can find it. I may also link to one of her short stories, again if I can find it.


Thank you very much!


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Greyhart said:


> _If_ Stewart is IxTJ it's probably ISTJ. The interview is funny, though.


I don't know much about Stewart, but I wonder if anyone else has opinions on her as ILI or SLI?


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

Greyhart said:


> _If_ Stewart is IxTJ it's probably ISTJ. The interview is funny, though.


She is an INTP. 

Im sorry but its outrageous that you would type her as ISTJ. Its like when someone said lucy hale is an intj lmao


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@owlet but you failed to answer the question: how is this relevant when trying to type someone or figuring out their type? That they are all of these things doesn't affect their type in any way. 

The point I'm making is at the irrelevance of the aspects you mention with regards to typing. Knowing that Rowling writes for children but Stephen King for adults doesn't change that both are authors. 

You're getting bogged up in small nitpicking details that don't affect the bigger picture and that picture is what type they are, not how, where and when they write.

If you want a different comparison, take the Bleach anime/manga vs Harry Potter then. Same demographic by and large, both fantastical with an otherworld in our world, it's clear Kubo is Se valuing but Rowling Ne. bleach is also much more cheerful overall than HP that's actually in a way, more serious. 

No, that manga is a visual and a static medium does not affect the outcome of the story. It only affects how it's told.


----------



## Aridela (Mar 14, 2015)

We're not numerous, but we're out there. 

I've met one other ILI female in rl; a few on here.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Entropic said:


> @*owlet* but you failed to answer the question: how is this relevant when trying to type someone or figuring out their type? That they are all of these things doesn't affect their type in any way.
> 
> The point I'm making is at the irrelevance of the aspects you mention with regards to typing. Knowing that Rowling writes for children but Stephen King for adults doesn't change that both are authors.
> 
> ...


I think I'm explaining very badly, sorry. To be concise, my point is that external factors affect the expression of a person's cognition so even if two people share the same functions and both of them are authors, the way they go about expressing their way of thinking will be shown differently. It's why typing by behaviours is extremely difficult, because that's based in an expression of cognition which is heavily influenced by the environment.
Different media can express the same thing in different ways, as certain things are more appropriate to, say, a visual medium. There are also different cultures for different media, genres, age ranges etc. which I think it's important to be aware of to get a good overall picture.
That's why I was saying it's necessary to look at focuses, as those tend to remain relatively consistent (or so I think).


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

@Entropic Her point is clear enough to me, and I don't think the indirect comments about her type or focus (nitpicking details suggesting Ti for example) are necessary.


----------



## Greyhart (Oct 13, 2014)

'


Aladdin Sane said:


> She is an INTP.
> 
> Im sorry but its outrageous that you would type her as ISTJ. Its like when someone said lucy hale is an intj lmao


I said _if_ IxTJ.  I have not seen her outside of that funny video from above.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

I lost the thread of conversation somewhere along the discussion of the whimsicality degree, importance of external factors that influence whimsicality of the writing style and significance of it all to Le Guin's type. 

It's largely irrelevant whether something is whimsical or dark, or serious, or anything like that. These characteristics has little to do with what IEs are in and of themselves and areas of information they cover. It's okay to use them for fun typing, but that's about it. Comparison to someone/something else isn't necessary either, since it may be misleading. It's enough to judge information against definitions and model. 

Find a quote or a passage written by a person (preferably lengthier one) where they talk about their own views, ideas, experiences etc. on any given topic, identify element of information (or several IEs) the quote deals with. If you can't figure out IE, then throw the quote away and find another one. Not everything is type related or relevant within Socionics context. Identify dimensionality of the quote and other markers, if possible, like valued-devalued or super-id/ego etc. This way you will get _one _piece to a puzzle that is person's type. Repeat until you'll have enough puzzle pieces to assemble more or less complete and noncontradictory picture. 

Alternatively, you can type off whether something is whimsical or serious enough. That's easier and takes less time, of course.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

I have to say, I'm experiencing a bit of frustration here because I provided several videos (pre-written speech, informal discussion, and reading from a book) as well as references to specific quotes and points of view and went largely ignored. EII is a type I've been considering for Le Guin for some time now, long before this thread and discussion, and I certainly didn't base it on whimsy vs not whimsy.


----------

