# Extraverted Intuition as a leading function (ILE/IEE)



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Extraverted Intuition as Leading Function

Extraverted intuition is the leading function of ILE and IEE


Someone with Extraverted Intuition as their leading function is very dependent on his/her feelings of interest and disinterest. Interest and boredom seem to be the driving forces in such a person's life — more so than for any other types. Other types also find things 'interesting' and 'boring,' however, they are able to derive satisfaction and enjoyment from things that aren't necessarily interesting and novel, as opposed to Extraverted Intuition types. Just as Introverted Sensing types can't make themselves do things that cause internal discomfort or are physically unpleasant, Extraverted Intuition types can't make themselves do things that do not engage them mentally (do not give them anything interesting to think about).

What makes something interesting? A new situation, a new set of people, a new way of looking at old things, or novel or unusual information. There has to be some special quality in the information, situation, or people that creates an open-ended, high-potential situation that engages and energizes the mind. Extraverted Intuition types would rather choose an unknown situation that might have high potential than a known situation that is known to have low or medium potential. Many Extraverted Intuition types have an irrational dread of boring situations and tasks, which usually end up not being as bad as they originally feared.

Always looking for novel information and high-potential situations is like skimming the cream off of everything; one rarely stays around long enough to reap the material rewards. Extraverted Intuition types are more interested in increasing or developing potential than in materializing it. For example, one might become fluent in a foreign language but never seriously consider making it a career. Or one might become on expert on some field, but prefer to discuss it with friends and write about it as a hobbyist rather than entering the field and making it a career. This is especially typical of IEEs, who tend to avoid making binding professional decisions (sensitive Introverted Thinking + Extraverted Intuition that wants to be free of external limitations). ILEs feel more comfortable being part of institutions and organizations that obligate them in some way, because they understand that these obligations are mere formalities that aren't too hard to perform. IEEs blow the importance of formalities out of proportion, as if having to get a few signatures or recommendations is simply "too restrictive" to allow them to work.

Dominant Extraverted Intuition implies a philosophical attitude towards physical territory (Extraverted Sensing). If someone or something forces such a person out of a certain territory (a job, a room, a business, etc.), he or she quickly switches to thinking of alternatives ("that's fine, I was thinking of leaving anyway"). If one has items stolen, one quickly forgets about them and finds one didn't need them much anyway. It's hard to attach a Extraverted Intuition type to material possessions. But if someone attacks their "potential" (talents, opportunities, and any other "unrealized potential") or their intellectual territory (their ideas and vision), that's quite another story. Here Extraverted Intuition types can and will put up a fight and will wear out nearly any opponent. Just as Extraverted Sensing types are able to constantly keep track of opponents' level of will, energy, and power and attack them when they are weak, Extraverted Intuition types are able to constantly keep track of opponents' mental state and thought organization and attack them mentally when their thought processes are disorganized (this applies to confrontational situations).

Extraverted Intuition implies the ability to model other people's thought structures and understand how other people's worldviews fit together. This understanding allows one to explain new information or ideas to them in a way that they can understand, based on their existing level of understanding. Extraverted Intuition types enjoy helping people with hidden potential develop it into conscious and recognized strengths. They like to help others experience insight — or a holistic intuitive understanding of concepts.

What is characteristic of the thinking of Extraverted Intuition types is the ability to make connections between things that might not seem related at first glance. They like to keep a certain mental distance from their objects of study so that they can always keep the "big picture" in mind, i.e. see how the subject connects to other things they know about. This synthetic thinking presumably has a neurological explanation.

Extraverted Intuition types enjoy meeting people who have unusual life experience or novel thinking patterns and probing them for insights and inside information. They have a mental "catalog" of their friends' and acquaintances interests and easily match up people who share common interests and would enjoy learning from each other. They enjoy talking about and sharing their understanding of things and like to have their principles and understanding of things — along with those of their partners' — brought out in the open when doing business. This approach is most distasteful to ESIs and LSIs (with Extraverted Intuition as their vulnerable function), who try to avoid talking about their underlying motives, interests, and long-term goals while doing business.

Extraverted Intuition types experience large fluctuations in their energy state, from great enthusiasm and dynamism to complete physical inertia. In the latter state they can spend the entire day inside, ignoring the things they are supposed to do, even if there are no groceries in the house and they are starving. They tend to routinely recognize physical sensations too late (hunger, illness, physical discomfort, pain, etc.) — unless there are Introverted Sensing types around who constantly keep track of these things. Extraverted Intuition types might think they need to take a trip or begin a completely new activity or make a lifestyle change to overcome a persistent feeling of psychological discomfort, when in reality, getting a good meal and a good night's sleep would likely suffice.

Dominant Extraverted Intuition at the group level is related to open-ended discussion of topics where the creative thinking powers of participants are most engaged. When Extraverted Intuition is at the forefront, the group is in a state of "mental unison," experiencing and discussing their mental images of a subject and trying together to find the best angle to look at it. This state can also be induced by sharing "interesting facts" — information that is intriguing in and of itself and not is not necessarily immediately applicable to anything. In a Extraverted Intuition state, the collective focus is on the content and potential of thoughts and ideas — not on the manner they are presented in, their correctness according to established systems, or the status and authority of who is expressing the idea.

Socionics : Extraverted Intuition as Leading Function


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

So being ILE and ENTP makes sense then?


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> So being ILE and ENTP makes sense then?


Yes, many ENTP's are also socionics ILE's (ENTp). I'm one of them.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

nujabes said:


> Yes, many ENTP's are also socionics ILE's (ENTp). I'm one of them.


What about ESTP? 

ESTp didn't fit. I've gone looking through a bunch of them and had lots suggested to me. I thought maybe SEE but two posters said definitely not. The most recent suggestion is ILE. Who even knows at this point? I'm annoyed at this point and was already ready to pack it in before the ILE suggestion. 

*grumble, swear, grumble*


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

monemi said:


> What about ESTP?
> 
> ESTp didn't fit. I've gone looking through a bunch of them and had lots suggested to me. I thought maybe SEE but two posters said definitely not. The most recent suggestion is ILE. Who even knows at this point? I'm annoyed at this point and was already ready to pack it in before the ILE suggestion.
> 
> *grumble, swear, grumble*


You don't seem an ILE to me but then who knows.

Where did they say/post that SEE doesn't fit and why? I mean if you feel like SEE fits then why not? So curious about the arguments. Might be they are strong arguments and so it does "make" you some other type.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> You don't seem an ILE to me but then who knows.
> 
> Where did they say/post that SEE doesn't fit and why? I mean if you feel like SEE fits then why not? So curious about the arguments. Might be they are strong arguments and so it does "make" you some other type.


http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/153994-gamma-quadra-hangout-thread-8.html (My setting is 40 posts per page, so page 8)

Started toward the end of this page. I started to get impatient and annoyed with them. If I'd known Socionics typing required reading an entire book on the matter, I wouldn't have touched it. I'll read books on something I've already got a strong interest in. I don't have a strong interest in socionics. 

I think I'm starting to get what others have said about socionics and why they don't bother with it. The starting point for interest for most people is finding out their type and then learning more about it. When you have to learn about it to find out your type, most people are going to lose interest.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

monemi said:


> http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/153994-gamma-quadra-hangout-thread-8.html (My setting is 40 posts per page, so page 8)
> 
> Started toward the end of this page. I started to get impatient and annoyed with them. If I'd known Socionics typing required reading an entire book on the matter, I wouldn't have touched it. I'll read books on something I've already got a strong interest in. I don't have a strong interest in socionics.
> 
> I think I'm starting to get what others have said about socionics and why they don't bother with it. The starting point for interest for most people is finding out their type and then learning more about it. When you have to learn about it to find out your type, most people are going to lose interest.


Give it some time. You'll find your way out of the labyrinth soon. Venture.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

monemi said:


> http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/153994-gamma-quadra-hangout-thread-8.html (My setting is 40 posts per page, so page 8)
> 
> Started toward the end of this page. I started to get impatient and annoyed with them. If I'd known Socionics typing required reading an entire book on the matter, I wouldn't have touched it. I'll read books on something I've already got a strong interest in. I don't have a strong interest in socionics.
> 
> I think I'm starting to get what others have said about socionics and why they don't bother with it. The starting point for interest for most people is finding out their type and then learning more about it. When you have to learn about it to find out your type, most people are going to lose interest.


Ah okay, I read that stuff now. 

Have you checked LSE?

Ni-PoLR, Te-valuing and Delta might fit  And I know someone else who seems SEE to me at first for whatever reason but might be LSE actually -.-

If that type again doesn't fit then hey lol whatever.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> Ah okay, I read that stuff now.
> 
> Have you checked LSE?
> 
> ...


SEE and ILE seem like better fits than LSE. I keep at this, I'm going to become a public annoyance on the socionics forum. I should probably just leave it alone.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

monemi said:


> SEE and ILE seem like better fits than LSE. I keep at this, I'm going to become a public annoyance on the socionics forum. I should probably just leave it alone.


no don't worry, many people have trouble typing themselves. 

ESE? I promise this is the last guess from my part


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> no don't worry, many people have trouble typing themselves.
> 
> ESE? I promise this is the last guess from my part


LOL! I'll read up on it when I'm ready. I think I might reject it out of hand at this moment. I'm mostly annoyed with myself. I pride myself on being decisive and I can't find something that I thought would be quick.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

monemi said:


> LOL! I'll read up on it when I'm ready. I think I might reject it out of hand at this moment. I'm mostly annoyed with myself. I pride myself on being decisive and I can't find something that I thought would be quick.


This theory isn't too simple so I would say this is pretty normal not being able to decide right away


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Extraverted Intuition types experience large fluctuations in their energy state, from great enthusiasm and dynamism to complete physical inertia.* In the latter state they can spend the entire day inside, ignoring the things they are supposed to do, even if there are no groceries in the house and they are starving. They tend to routinely recognize physical sensations too late *(hunger, illness, physical discomfort, pain, etc.) — unless there are Introverted Sensing types around who constantly keep track of these things. Extraverted Intuition types might think they need to take a trip or begin a completely new activity or make a lifestyle change to overcome a persistent feeling of psychological discomfort, when in reality, getting a good meal and a good night's sleep would likely suffice.
> 
> Socionics : Extraverted Intuition as Leading Function


I can so relate to this, especially the bolded part.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Extraverted Intuition implies the ability to model other people's thought structures and understand how other people's worldviews fit together. This understanding allows one to explain new information or ideas to them in a way that they can understand, based on their existing level of understanding.


Waittttt. Ni doms can't do this?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Hurricane said:


> Waittttt. Ni doms can't do this?


They can but it's different. I don't understand why big picture thinking is applied to Ne either since I also think big so to speak. But to me big has never been about keeping several ideas open. I think it's fair to say that a lot written in here might apply to intuition in general. I didn't see much focus here to understand Ne as a psychological perspective as much as it just seemed to describe Ne types externally meaning more focus on behavior than actual thought patterns. Therefore it will apply in a more general sense about intuition in general too since these behaviors aren't unique to Ne types.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> They can but it's different. I don't understand why big picture thinking is applied to Ne either since I also think big so to speak. But to me big has never been about keeping several ideas open. I think it's fair to say that a lot written in here might apply to intuition in general. I didn't see much focus here to understand Ne as a psychological perspective as much as it just seemed to describe Ne types externally meaning more focus on behavior than actual thought patterns. Therefore it will apply in a more general sense about intuition in general too since these behaviors aren't unique to Ne types.


I agree, the descriptions don't get into the actual mechanisms of how information is perceived and used. I end up relating to Ni every time when I'm so far from anything resembling Ni.

But the little bit I quoted did strike me. Since Ji in NP's reunites all information into a holistic understanding, makes sure it all fits into a system coherent with itself, I've found I usually just recreate what a person's "coherent theory" is likely to be given the things they say/how they behave when I interact with them, even if they themselves don't see it all as related to each other, it really _is _in the end, since they're one entity. And then I complexify my understanding of their different facets and how they relate to each other over time. I guess this could be a form of projection but it's my only model for understanding others thus far.
I then use my visualization of how they are likely to see the world in order to word things and create a common semantic ground so that they can "hear" me. Communication is an incredibly difficult feat when you realize how much we live in such insanely different dimensions. Yet so similar *_*

I have a lot of trouble visualizing Ni, it's just on a completely different spectrum from mine, so I was wondering if/how you guys do this or if you have a different process that serves a similar purpose?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Hurricane said:


> Waittttt. Ni doms can't do this?


They can, it's called theory of mind -- any person who isn't affected with mental retardation can model other people's worldviews and understand that they are separate from their own.

It's just a poor description of Ne that over-extends itself to include traits that aren't specific to this element. Like what TreasureTower has quoted can be easily said of introverted types in general and doesn't have anything to do with Ne in particular. Good descriptions of functions address that function specifically -- poor descriptions like this one err on the side of over-attribution.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> They can, it's called theory of mind -- any person who isn't affected with mental retardation can model other people's worldviews and understand that they are separate from their own.
> 
> It's just a poor description of Ne that over-extends itself to include traits that aren't specific to this element. Like what TreasureTower has quoted can be easily said of introverted types in general and doesn't have anything to do with Ne in particular. Good descriptions of functions address that function specifically -- poor descriptions like this one err on the side of over-attribution.


Well yes of course everyone does it to a certain extent. But Ni-ers do have a very particular way of relating to people (I never feel like they're speaking directly to me for instance) and I was wondering if a less pronounced tendency to do this would explain it?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Hurricane said:


> Well yes of course everyone does it to a certain extent. But Ni-ers do have a very particular way of relating to people (I never feel like they're speaking directly to me for instance) and I was wondering if a less pronounced tendency to do this would explain it?


I feel same around Ne-ers, commonly with EIIs who sometimes make these generalized statements that reflect some overall abstracted sentiments, rather than address specific persons and talk about tangible things.

This is a trait of intuition in general. Intuitive types drive each other crazy by this indirectness. They are expecting a more direct response of a sensing type, but that's not what they get from each other:

"...Intuitive "lapses" and "mishaps" in communication also complicate their relationship: neither of them turns to his partner voicing concrete proposals, real initiatives, or direct requests – both prefer to signal about their needs vaguely and often speak in hints, being subconsciously oriented at a partner who will figure out what lies behind these insinuations and himself directly and explicitly make the offer and provide concrete assistance."

Socionics - the16types.info - Semi-duality Relations INFj and ENTj by Stratiyevskaya


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Hurricane said:


> I agree, the descriptions don't get into the actual mechanisms of how information is perceived and used. I end up relating to Ni every time when I'm so far from anything resembling Ni.
> 
> But the little bit I quoted did strike me. Since Ji in NP's reunites all information into a holistic understanding, makes sure it all fits into a system coherent with itself, I've found I usually just recreate what a person's "coherent theory" is likely to be given the things they say/how they behave when I interact with them, even if they themselves don't see it all as related to each other, it really _is _in the end, since they're one entity. And then I complexify my understanding of their different facets and how they relate to each other over time. I guess this could be a form of projection but it's my only model for understanding others thus far.
> I then use my visualization of how they are likely to see the world in order to word things and create a common semantic ground so that they can "hear" me. Communication is an incredibly difficult feat when you realize how much we live in such insanely different dimensions. Yet so similar *_*
> ...


That's the problem. NeJi thinks of itself as holistic, but then you also see how NiJe thinks of itself as holistic. Our internal experience might be such, but we understand holism differently. To me holism has to do with narrowing an understanding down to its very core in a very abstract sense. That which exemplifies everything of what something is. You see how it's holistic in that it considers all that which is of the same in a sense. Kind of similar to Plato's idealism if you know what it is. I don't think this is how NeJi types understand holism. At least based on the OP, holism seems to be more about understanding options. I don't understand what the OP is trying to get at either, cognitively. 

So to me, holism is more akin to an archetypal image of what something is, kind of like what Jung was trying to get at with his archetypes and complexes such as the anima, all that which is essentially female/feminine. Now consider an NeJi type. They might think this essential thing is something different that I assume might pertain more to some sense of symmetry. I've seen several people throw around the word "essential" in terms of understanding of theory now, and it's clear none of them understand it the same, myself included. It's colored by our own perception and cognitive processes. You also see this in intertype in how different type will experience the other person to always get hung up on what they find to be meaningless or irrelevant details because the information is something they don't find cognitively relevant.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> That's the problem. NeJi thinks of itself as holistic, but then you also see how NiJe thinks of itself as holistic. Our internal experience might be such, but we understand holism differently. To me holism has to do with narrowing an understanding down to its very core in a very abstract sense. That which exemplifies everything of what something is. You see how it's holistic in that it considers all that which is of the same in a sense. Kind of similar to Plato's idealism if you know what it is. I don't think this is how NeJi types understand holism.
> So to me, holism is more akin to an archetypal image of what something is, kind of like what Jung was trying to get at with his archetypes and complexes such as the anima, all that which is essentially female/feminine. Now consider an NeJi type. They might think this essential thing is something different that I assume might pertain more to some sense of symmetry.


To be honest, I think perception is inherently too flawed to ever achieve holism, it's a bit of a ridiculous pretense when you think about it, it can't ascribe to a human, let alone a type 
But what you described does underline the difference. You look at the core of an idea, basically "distill" it down to it's main components. You mean holism in the sense that you bring everything together into one (I'm insanely jealous of Ni actually, but don't tell anyone). It would be physically painful for me to do something like that. When I say holistic I mean that when I look at an idea, I want to know all the implications it has on other ideas.
Say you look at Zen buddhism for example. I can't really understand it for itself, I just don't see any point to looking at it as a singular idea. I've chosen to outline the model of "a mind with years of meditation behind it" as a model for emotional health, and use that to understand everyday emotions. What makes them diverge or converge towards that perfected internal idea of health, and what wound it is in my history or the history of the person I'm interacting with that made a certain part of emotion "twist" reality from what it is.
It's very difficult to word so I apologize because I don't think that was clear, but to sum it up I need to work through every part on its own, it's not that there isn't an underlying core around which all these ideas converge, but I'm not looking at the core, I'm using the core as a springboard to find other cores, elsewhere. The ideas I've already worked through all bounce back from each other, they can't live independently from the system they are made a part of. And the new ones that come up get integrated to it, I trace lines from them to my existent system. This is what I mean by holistic, but what you do could just as easily be labelled the same.

Edit: What did you mean by "sense of symmetry"?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Hurricane said:


> To be honest, I think perception is inherently too flawed to ever achieve holism, it's a bit of a ridiculous pretense when you think about it, it can't ascribe to a human, let alone a type
> But what you described does underline the difference. You look at the core of an idea, basically "distill" it down to it's main components. You mean holism in the sense that you bring everything together into one (I'm insanely jealous of Ni actually, but don't tell anyone). It would be physically painful for me to do something like that. When I say holistic I mean that when I look at an idea, I want to know all the implications it has on other ideas.
> Say you look at Zen buddhism. I can't really understand it for itself, I just don't see any point to looking at it as a singular idea. I've chosen to outline the model of "a mind with years of meditation behind it" as a model for emotional health, and use that to understand everyday emotions. What makes them diverge or converge towards that perfected internal idea of health, and what wound it is in my history or the history of the person I'm interacting with that made a certain part of emotion "twist" reality from what it is.
> It's very difficult to word so I apologize because I don't think that was clear, but to sum it up I need to work through every part on its own, it's not that there isn't an underlying core around which all these ideas converge, but I'm not looking at the core, I'm using the core as a springboard to find other cores, elsewhere. The ideas I've already worked through all bounce back from each other, they can't live independently from the system they are made a part of. And the new ones that come up get integrated to it, I trace lines from them to my existent system. This is what I mean by holistic, but what you do could just as easily be labelled the same.


Yes, exactly. I was trying to envision your thinking for a while but it got mentally painful. As for the word holism, I think it's most of all a subjective experience just like big picture thinker. What does thinking big picture actually mean? What is the big picture? They are only useful insofar that they convey a specific idea that we use to exemplify the nature of things, but the words or phrases themselves contain no inherent meaning. Holism would in such a sense be holism in how every understanding of holism is a part of what holism is though no distinct definition or use of holism is this idea of holism. It's just an example of.

Considering what you wrote I have a feeling you might disagree though, lol.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, exactly. I was trying to envision your thinking for a while but it got mentally painful. As for the word holism, I think it's most of all a subjective experience just like big picture thinker. What does thinking big picture actually mean? What is the big picture? They are only useful insofar that they convey a specific idea that we use to exemplify the nature of things, but the words or phrases themselves contain no inherent meaning. Holism would in such a sense be holism in how every understanding of holism is a part of what holism is though no distinct definition or use of holism is this idea of holism. It's just an example of.
> 
> Considering what you wrote I have a feeling you might disagree though, lol.


No I do agree


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Hurricane said:


> No I do agree


By symmetry I mean some kind of internal consistency that Ji seeks.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Hurricane said:


> I agree, the descriptions don't get into the actual mechanisms of how information is perceived and used. I end up relating to Ni every time when I'm so far from anything resembling Ni.


Can you say more about how you get to relate to Ni when you're not actually Ni preferring type?




> But the little bit I quoted did strike me. Since Ji in NP's reunites all information into a holistic understanding, makes sure it all fits into a system coherent with itself, I've found I usually just recreate what a person's "coherent theory" is likely to be given the things they say/how they behave when I interact with them, even if they themselves don't see it all as related to each other, it really _is _in the end, since they're one entity. And then I complexify my understanding of their different facets and how they relate to each other over time. I guess this could be a form of projection but it's my only model for understanding others thus far.
> I then use my visualization of how they are likely to see the world in order to word things and create a common semantic ground so that they can "hear" me. Communication is an incredibly difficult feat when you realize how much we live in such insanely different dimensions. Yet so similar *_*


That sounds pretty cool, not something I do myself in a refined way. Though I don't know how well this can work. I've seen some ILEs declare before that they know how I think and so they were going to adjust their style to my thinking. The goddam problem with that was that they declared it after maybe seeing two posts from me and my Socionics type... Another big problem was that this included assumptions of how I would be incapable of understanding this or that put in this or that style. I called bullshit on all that. ...




cyamitide said:


> They can, it's called theory of mind -- any person who isn't affected with mental retardation can model other people's worldviews and understand that they are separate from their own.


But to such an extent Hurricane was describing it? I doubt it... I don't try to model these ToM things so deeply. I don't make up one big holistic entity out of all the aspects of someone's behaviour and thinking, for example. I don't try to infer additional things either. I use just what I've observed and no more. I hate generalized assumptions because they so often go wrong.




cyamitide said:


> I feel same around Ne-ers, commonly with EIIs who sometimes make these generalized statements that reflect some overall abstracted sentiments, rather than address specific persons and talk about tangible things.


Oh hahah. The abstracted nature can be cool but yeah too indirect.




> This is a trait of intuition in general. Intuitive types drive each other crazy by this indirectness. They are expecting a more direct response of a sensing type, but that's not what they get from each other:
> 
> "...Intuitive "lapses" and "mishaps" in communication also complicate their relationship: neither of them turns to his partner voicing concrete proposals, real initiatives, or direct requests – both prefer to signal about their needs vaguely and often speak in hints, being subconsciously oriented at a partner who will figure out what lies behind these insinuations and himself directly and explicitly make the offer and provide concrete assistance."


What? Am I supposed to figure out what a vague hint means? No, tell me if you have a problem with whatever and I'll deal with it. Of course I can make offers for help but that's not because of trying to translate whatever hint but because it's kind of obvious from the situation itself that someone needs a specific kind of help. Though I'll try to observe this more, how I deal with hints.




ephemereality said:


> To me holism has to do with narrowing an understanding down to its very core in a very abstract sense. That which exemplifies everything of what something is. You see how it's holistic in that it considers all that which is of the same in a sense.


Interesting. My holism is - excluding spiritual aspects now - about seeing big picture with everything properly connected and with all the relevant questions answered, having no glaring holes in it, having everything, every element organized well, relative to each other.



> So to me, holism is more akin to an archetypal image of what something is, kind of like what Jung was trying to get at with his archetypes and complexes such as the anima, all that which is essentially female/feminine. Now consider an NeJi type. They might think this essential thing is something different that I assume might pertain more to some sense of symmetry.


Essential thing and symmetry, not sure how those would be linked together? Unless you count my big picture thing with the lack of holes as one example of that.




> I've seen several people throw around the word "essential" in terms of understanding of theory now, and it's clear none of them understand it the same, myself included. It's colored by our own perception and cognitive processes.


Haha yeah, I noticed certain words are really twistable in this way. 




Hurricane said:


> You look at the core of an idea, basically "distill" it down to it's main components. You mean holism in the sense that you bring everything together into one (I'm insanely jealous of Ni actually, but don't tell anyone).


Hmm, I do think this main components thing is something I do as well. Though, warning, maybe I misunderstand what's meant by components here. That's a twistable word too. I think @_ephemereality_ meant it in terms of analogies and I mean it in terms of logical parts. Analogies, are, meh... I do care about essential core of an idea but I don't do that by analogies either, it just "is".

So don't be too jealous of my supposedly one-dimensional Ni  I do all this out of the stronger Ti muscle really




> It would be physically painful for me to do something like that. When I say holistic I mean that when I look at an idea, I want to know all the implications it has on other ideas.
> Say you look at Zen buddhism for example. I can't really understand it for itself, I just don't see any point to looking at it as a singular idea. I've chosen to outline the model of "a mind with years of meditation behind it" as a model for emotional health, and use that to understand everyday emotions. What makes them diverge or converge towards that perfected internal idea of health, and what wound it is in my history or the history of the person I'm interacting with that made a certain part of emotion "twist" reality from what it is.
> It's very difficult to word so I apologize because I don't think that was clear, but to sum it up I need to work through every part on its own, it's not that there isn't an underlying core around which all these ideas converge, but I'm not looking at the core, I'm using the core as a springboard to find other cores, elsewhere. The ideas I've already worked through all bounce back from each other, they can't live independently from the system they are made a part of. And the new ones that come up get integrated to it, I trace lines from them to my existent system. This is what I mean by holistic, but what you do could just as easily be labelled the same.


I only relate to the part about how ideas aren't supposed to be independent of a system they're part of. No springboard and blahblah for me  Zen though can be looked at as a single idea by me just fine.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> Can you say more about how you get to relate to Ni when you're not actually Ni preferring type?


No I don't really relate to Ni, I just meant that most of the function descriptions are so vague that I end up relating to all of them because they say things that could apply to anyone



> That sounds pretty cool, not something I do myself in a refined way. Though I don't know how well this can work. I've seen some ILEs declare before that they know how I think and so they were going to adjust their style to my thinking. The goddam problem with that was that they declared it after maybe seeing two posts from me and my Socionics type... Another big problem was that this included assumptions of how I would be incapable of understanding this or that put in this or that style. I called bullshit on all that. ...


Oh god no some Se doms are actually the only ones that continuously surprise me by switching drastically from their usual patterns. It's like they grow really fast and I can't keep up >.<



> But to such an extent Hurricane was describing it? I doubt it... I don't try to model these ToM things so deeply. I don't make up one big holistic entity out of all the aspects of someone's behaviour and thinking, for example. I don't try to infer additional things either. I use just what I've observed and no more. I hate generalized assumptions because they so often go wrong.


Well, it sounded more amplified than it is because I had to describe it in detail, I don't do it on purpose, I just notice it's there and then when new information about someone comes up I'll say to myself "oh that makes sense given this this and this about them. I wonder how they'll react if I say this? Maybe it'll trigger something"




> Hmm, I do think this main components thing is something I do as well. Though, warning, maybe I misunderstand what's meant by components here. That's a twistable word too. I think ephemereality meant it in terms of analogies and I mean it in terms of logical parts. Analogies, are, meh... I do care about essential core of an idea but I don't do that by analogies either, it just "is".
> 
> So don't be too jealous of my supposedly one-dimensional Ni  I do all this out of the stronger Ti muscle really


I meant this for Ni dom or aux users. I have no idea how it applies to other Ni users



> I only relate to the part about how ideas aren't supposed to be independent of a system they're part of. No springboard and blahblah for me  Zen though can be looked at as a single idea by me just fine.


Yeah I really shouldn't write things when I'm tired. It makes more sense in my head haha


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Essential thing and symmetry, not sure how those would be linked together? Unless you count my big picture thing with the lack of holes as one example of that.


I clarified it later and you pretty much described it yourself. You seek something with no logical holes, where everything is symmetric or some such, has all a shared common quality of how it fits the system. I was thinking how Ti your description was lol. Very far removed from how I understand it. If I were to seek such symmetry, though it doesn't come naturally at all, it would probably be utilizing Fi in that every ethical action or belief makes sense internally so there is no internal discordance with how I am and how I act or how I think. There can be no ethical contradiction because if there is it means I'm a hypocrite and an asshole. It feels good as long as it lines up and also note that it's ok to be an asshole as long as I'm a consistent asshole as in that I treat or judge every situation that is of similar character the same. If it doesn't line up something needs to be adjusted to fit, so I guess in such a sense it shares qualities with Ti. This is a process I really don't do that much though. Most of my thinking goes elsewhere.


> Hmm, I do think this main components thing is something I do as well. Though, warning, maybe I misunderstand what's meant by components here. That's a twistable word too. I think @_ephemereality_ meant it in terms of analogies and I mean it in terms of logical parts. Analogies, are, meh... I do care about essential core of an idea but I don't do that by analogies either, it just "is".
> 
> So don't be too jealous of my supposedly one-dimensional Ni  I do all this out of the stronger Ti muscle really


What do you even mean by analogies? But an example of how my thinking is reductionist is how love and hate are both feelings, so there is one singular idea representing them despite being opposites and very different in that they are feelings. It is this kind of singularity I find to be holistic. I am not sure how that is an analogy. Then we can take feelings on another level and say that feelings and other physical states are caused by chemicals, so feelings are actually chemicals. I kind of liken my thinking similar to an evolutionary tree or such. That's also why I used the word archetype to describe my thinking, in that I always seem to seek some archetypal image that represents everything. I wager this text here is a decent example of DA cognition as well. 



> I only relate to the part about how ideas aren't supposed to be independent of a system they're part of. No springboard and blahblah for me  Zen though can be looked at as a single idea by me just fine.


lol, I'm curious how an alpha NT would think of this.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> But to such an extent Hurricane was describing it? I doubt it... I don't try to model these ToM things so deeply. I don't make up one big holistic entity out of all the aspects of someone's behaviour and thinking, for example. I don't try to infer additional things either. I use just what I've observed and no more. I hate generalized assumptions because they so often go wrong.


We weren't talking about Hurricane's interpretation of it, but about this part of this Ne article: "_Extraverted Intuition implies the ability to model other people's thought structures and understand how other people's worldviews fit together." -_ Hurricane was surprised that Ni-ers wouldn't be able to do this, and I pointed out that this is not true -- everyone models other people in some way or another, however, the methods of getting there will vary from person to person and probably depend on their type.

I do relate to his description of "coherence theory", although I don't model people with this much precision. I think this part applies to all introverts, because if you look at functions of IPs and IJs, both of these temperaments have Ji as inert function -- either dominant or mobilizing. This means that all introverts carry these kinds of "static constructs" to which their understanding is anchored. In case of IPs these constructs are more fuzzy I suppose? 



itsme45 said:


> What? Am I supposed to figure out what a vague hint means? No, tell me if you have a problem with whatever and I'll deal with it. Of course I can make offers for help but that's not because of trying to translate whatever hint but because it's kind of obvious from the situation itself that someone needs a specific kind of help. Though I'll try to observe this more, how I deal with hints.


Haha which is exactly how sensing types cut through all the vague indirect bs and get right to the point. This doesn't happen as often as it should in N-N interactions, because Ns like keeping things only as possibilities and potentials, and with both of them doing this this leads various unpleasant consequences in their relationships (as my dating experience has shown me at least).

Sensing types react differently, they specify, concretize, and "ground" whatever intuitives tell them, as illustrated by this conversation posted on 16T (this is a good example of how aggressors dispel the vagueness and doubtfulness of victim types):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/26278-victim-aggressor




Hurricane said:


> You mean holism in the sense that you bring everything together into one (I'm insanely jealous of Ni actually, but don't tell anyone). It would be physically painful for me to do something like that. When I say holistic I mean that when I look at an idea, I want to know all the implications it has on other ideas.


... while Ni wants to know its underlying, hidden relations to other ideas. But don't worry, it's painful for Ni users too lol. It's like Ni has to relate everything to everything else, which not only takes up immense amount of mental processing, but also serves as a limiting factor -- if you give a Ni user a piece of completely unrelated information, they won't know what to do with it and how to work with it, because it didn't link into their Ni-field of interrelated associations. Most likely they will simply ignore it. 

Which is where Ni-Ne communication feel tiring for the Ni user -- Ne brings up a lot of information without any regard for this kind of contingency and continuity that is vital for Ni. This is most heavily felt in Mirage relations in my experience, where Mirage partners can "unlock" each other's understanding via creative-mobilizing functions, and then inject so much information that is contrary to their base functions that causes a lot of mental strain and brain fog (brain circuit overload =P).


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> ... while Ni wants to know its underlying, hidden relations to other ideas. But don't worry, it's painful for Ni users too lol. It's like Ni has to relate everything to everything else, which not only takes up immense amount of mental processing, but also serves as a limiting factor -- if you give a Ni user a piece of completely unrelated information, they won't know what to do with it and how to work with it, because it didn't link into their Ni-field of interrelated associations. Most likely they will simply ignore it.
> 
> Which is where Ni-Ne communication feel tiring for the Ni user -- Ne brings up a lot of information without any regard for this kind of contingency and continuity that is vital for Ni. This is most heavily felt in Mirage relations in my experience, where Mirage partners can "unlock" each other's understanding via creative-mobilizing functions, and then inject so much information that is contrary to their base functions that causes a lot of mental strain and brain fog (brain circuit overload =P).


So much of this haha ^ !

But I want to get this straight. My reaction to new info is to integrate it to an existing system, no matter how completely unrelated (well there are limits but they're far). If there is no obvious way, I'll do research to find one to bring it up the next time.
In your case, if the info doesn't concern your interests/field of inference, you just zap it?

Also Ne appears to spew info with no correlation (and a lot of times it does) but for the Ne user the connection is evident. Have you found that when you get to know them the way they make connections becomes more obvious to you or does it still seem as aimless?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Hurricane said:


> So much of this haha ^ !
> 
> But I want to get this straight. My reaction to new info is to integrate it to an existing system, no matter how completely unrelated (well there are limits but they're far). If there is no obvious way, I'll do research to find one to bring it up the next time.
> In your case, if the info doesn't concern your interests/field of inference, you just zap it?


Usually, yes. It feels irrelevant or meaningless/pointless concerning the subject at hand. I mean, Ni can also create contingencies, but the way it does so always seems to relate and to deepen the current understanding of the subject. Consider for example that we're talking about a specific subject, and then someone starts talking about something else and people go huh, what do you mean?, but with some explanation an Ni type can show how these two subjects actually explain the same phenomenon. A good example of this is the constant arguments you see here in the socionics subforum about to keep socionics and MBTI separate or whether they actually are the same. Now, I think Pe types in general might experience they are different focusing on the object reality of the models whereas Pi, in this case more specifically Ni, sees how both models explain the same phenomenon so while at face value they can seem different they really are the same and understanding of one system helps to deepen one's understanding of the other. 



> Also Ne appears to spew info with no correlation (and a lot of times it does) but for the Ne user the connection is evident. Have you found that when you get to know them the way they make connections becomes more obvious to you or does it still seem as aimless?


Still seems aimless lol. It's akin to yes, I see your point but this is completely irrelevant because it says nothing about what we are really talking about right now. This is even worse when coupled with Fe since the purpose of spewing information is to emotionally connect then, which seems even more pointless. It feels like Ne just want to expand for the sake of it and somehow it feels incredibly backwards at some level, like, can we please stick to one thing at a time? at least with Ne base types. I don't think I have discussed enough with creative types to get a feel how their Ne operates. I suspect I have an EII friend but she doesn't really show much of any creative use, though her handicraft drive seems very Si-inspired so chances are that she's likely more of an Fi subtype and it probably explains why she doesn't go on Ne rants a lot and it probably explains why she doesn't drive me insane lol. The Si stuff kind of irks me out but I don't need to be around her when she's doing it so it's ok.

Ne types when they go on long Ne rants tend to give me a sense of mental strain after a while when I just go tl;dr and kind of zone the information out. I can't sort it out or take it in anymore. It's too much. I think extroverts are more likely to do this than introverts.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

I'm beginning to seriously consider ILE again... Especially because of this:

_*"Extraverted Intuition types experience large fluctuations in their energy state, from great enthusiasm and dynamism to complete physical inertia"*_


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Usually, yes. It feels irrelevant or meaningless/pointless concerning the subject at hand. I mean, Ni can also create contingencies, but the way it does so always seems to relate and to deepen the current understanding of the subject. Consider for example that we're talking about a specific subject, and then someone starts talking about something else and people go huh, what do you mean?, but with some explanation an Ni type can show how these two subjects actually explain the same phenomenon. A good example of this is the constant arguments you see here in the socionics subforum about to keep socionics and MBTI separate or whether they actually are the same. Now, I think Pe types in general might experience they are different focusing on the object reality of the models whereas Pi, in this case more specifically Ni, sees how both models explain the same phenomenon so while at face value they can seem different they really are the same and understanding of one system helps to deepen one's understanding of the other.


I can't really tell you if I agree on this yet, I've only just started looking at socionics now but your interpretation seems to make more sense.



> Still seems aimless lol. It's akin to yes, I see your point but this is completely irrelevant because it says nothing about what we are really talking about right now. This is even worse when coupled with Fe since the purpose of spewing information is to emotionally connect then, which seems even more pointless. It feels like Ne just want to expand for the sake of it and somehow it feels incredibly backwards at some level, like, can we please stick to one thing at a time? at least with Ne base types. I don't think I have discussed enough with creative types to get a feel how their Ne operates. I suspect I have an EII friend but she doesn't really show much of any creative use, though her handicraft drive seems very Si-inspired so chances are that she's likely more of an Fi subtype and it probably explains why she doesn't go on Ne rants a lot and it probably explains why she doesn't drive me insane lol. The Si stuff kind of irks me out but I don't need to be around her when she's doing it so it's ok.
> 
> Ne types when they go on long Ne rants tend to give me a sense of mental strain after a while when I just go tl;dr and kind of zone the information out. I can't sort it out or take it in anymore. It's too much. I think extroverts are more likely to do this than introverts.


I'm still figuring out whether I lead with Ne or Fi, I appear to be ambiverted but I lean towards introversion.
Ne is quite a common function and a lot of its users use it "for the sake of it" and run around life on an idea binge. Only a few turn to actual, long spanned contemplation, whereas Ni is not only more rare but naturally geared to observe. So the Ne descriptions often tailor to the "bouncy" ones, makes it harder to figure out if I could just be using a mellower Ne in the dominant form.

Anyways, something I think Ne users need to keep in mind is how personal Ji is. Most of the time the things we see won't make obvious sense to another person so it's no use just laying out the whole system in one go because we can't expect people to just shift their entire perceptive basis to understand us. We have to learn to take the time to create a common ground of notions that are agreed upon by both parties or communication just can't take place. Basically we're batshit crazy.
But unless we're unhealthy, our whacko perceptions can sometimes be spot on despite sounding like gibberish (one time my INTP friend sent this long text to me about something conceptual he'd discovered, and I just couldn't understand what he was saying for the life of me, I thought he'd jumped the wagon. And then a week later I got really stoned and it suddenly all came together, and his idea still provides a good conceptual basis for my sociology class to this day). I'll often want to express something but not know how to if the person hasn't spent time thinking about the mechanisms of the subject concerned and therefore doesn't already have some concepts to work with.

So, a tip for reaching a better understanding with your Ne-ers, unless they don't have enough Ji to reign it in, is to try and get them to point out how they're systematizing it all. Since Ne, the "collecting and generating ideas" is what's extraverted and the systematizing is done internally, maybe that's what's making it all seem irrelevant?

For Ni, and correct me if I'm wrong, the mode of perception itself is what's personal and extremely abstract/symbolic, but Je usually gives them a way to externalize it in an intelligible manner?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Hurricane said:


> Anyways, something I think Ne users need to keep in mind is how personal Ji is. Most of the time the things we see won't make obvious sense to another person so it's no use just laying out the whole system in one go because you can't expect people to just shift their entire perceptive basis to understand you. We have to learn to take the time to create a common ground of notions that are agreed upon by both parties or communication just can't take place. Basically we're batshit crazy.


I think this is a problem with all introverted elements in general in that they're personal and thus logically cannot be properly communicated to the outside. 



> But unless we're unhealthy, our whacko perceptions can sometimes be spot on despite sounding like gibberish (one time my INTP friend sent this long text to me about something conceptual he'd discovered, and I just couldn't understand what he was saying for the life of me, I thought he'd jumped the wagon. And then a week later I got really stoned and it suddenly all came together, and his idea still provides a good conceptual basis for my sociology class to this day). I'll often want to express something but not know how to if the person hasn't spent time thinking about the mechanisms of the subject concerned and therefore doesn't already have some concepts to work with.


What do you mean by concepts here? 



> For Ni, and correct me if I'm wrong, the mode of perception itself is what's personal and extremely abstract/symbolic, but Je usually gives them a way to externalize it in an intelligible manner?


I am not sure about Je lol, because I'm Ni subtype so while I categorize I'm not as inclined to place emphasis to link my ideas to external data to clarify my points, making my models always seem very introverted and floating around. I only really utilize Te this way when I write more scientific papers but I don't feel such a need on say, PerC. I also assume that since most of us are familiar with the theories that we should share some basic common understanding of the systems but apparently, no. It's a fallacy I keep doing and I guess one can see how Te plays a role here in that I assume we actually do share some external understanding of a system. But generally speaking, yes though it's really a matter of psychological balance. Je operates exactly the same way Pe does when it is the creative function so theoretically, there shouldn't be any great divergences in such a sense. Pe should ground by bringing more substantial information to support the Ji model whereas Je should ground by validating the Je model using external data to support it. I mean, in the end data is data regardless if it's Pe or Je. I think that's one of the biggest differences in socionics compared to other Jungian systems in that the creative function is always playing the role of information-gatherer regardless if it's a rational or irrational element. For introverts in particular, it's meant to always support whatever introverted model they are experiencing. The MBTI doesn't place this kind of emphasis at all on the auxiliary for example, though it vaguely mentions it. In general I experience that the MBTI doesn't see the functions as operating together as much as they seem to be stand-alone, forgetting that Fi filtered in an INTJ isn't going to quite appear the same as it is in a dominant Fi type because the dominant is always where all information is filtered through. 

But the way I see Ni operating is essentially that I get an impression of something archetypal but being introverted, only I can perceive it exactly the way I perceive it. So while other Ni types can also get an impression of the same data chances are we won't understand it the same. I was discussing this with a friend who is an Ni type and while ago we both agreed that yes, this scene (it was in an anime) created this feel, upon further discussion we couldn't even possibly clarify whether what we experienced was the same thing, despite the fact that the experience itself was similar. It was just too abstract to even put into words. 

Even when I discuss theory with other ILIs, the way we do this seems to be that we still have our own personal models of how we understand something, and discussion seems to be more to place emphasis on how our models converge because they explain the same idea, so sharing personal models means deepening of this idea.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

> What do you mean by concepts here?


Well, when you're looking to understand something you essentially "create" your own concepts to understand it, but if the system is complex there will be many overlapping levels to it, and we don't necessarily all see the same ones. A bit like you describe further down.



> I am not sure about Je lol, because I'm Ni subtype so while I categorize I'm not as inclined to place emphasis to link my ideas to external data to clarify my points, making my models always seem very introverted and floating around. I only really utilize Te this way when I write more scientific papers but I don't feel such a need on say, PerC. I also assume that since most of us are familiar with the theories that we should share some basic common understanding of the systems but apparently, no. It's a fallacy I keep doing and I guess one can see how Te plays a role here in that I assume we actually do share some external understanding of a system. But generally speaking, yes though it's really a matter of psychological balance. Je operates exactly the same way Pe does when it is the creative function so theoretically, there shouldn't be any great divergences in such a sense. Pe should ground by bringing more substantial information to support the Ji model whereas Je should ground by validating the Je model using external data to support it. I mean, in the end data is data regardless if it's Pe or Je. I think that's one of the biggest differences in socionics compared to other Jungian systems in that the creative function is always playing the role of information-gatherer regardless if it's a rational or irrational element. For introverts in particular, it's meant to always support whatever introverted model they are experiencing. The MBTI doesn't place this kind of emphasis at all on the auxiliary for example, though it vaguely mentions it. In general I experience that the MBTI doesn't see the functions as operating together as much as they seem to be stand-alone, forgetting that Fi filtered in an INTJ isn't going to quite appear the same as it is in a dominant Fi type because the dominant is always where all information is filtered through.


Ok I really need to start reading in to socionics, I had no idea it added these kinds of details. It's so much more comprehensive. What would you say MBTI has that socionics lacks?



> But the way I see Ni operating is essentially that I get an impression of something archetypal but being introverted, only I can perceive it exactly the way I perceive it. So while other Ni types can also get an impression of the same data chances are we won't understand it the same. I was discussing this with a friend who is an Ni type and while ago we both agreed that yes, this scene (it was in an anime) created this feel, upon further discussion we couldn't even possibly clarify whether what we experienced was the same thing, despite the fact that the experience itself was similar. It was just too abstract to even put into words.


Interesting, that's exactly the way I would've described my use of Fi. Well, like you said, that's probably just the essence of introverted functions. This makes me want to look into Si.



> Even when I discuss theory with other ILIs, the way we do this seems to be that we still have our own personal models of how we understand something, and discussion seems to be more to place emphasis on how our models converge because they explain the same idea, so sharing personal models means deepening of this idea.


Yes I've definitely had this happen, but only with IN-P's.


Thanks for taking the time to clarify all that


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

I have never, ever heard that the Creative function acted as the information gatherer for a given Socionics type, and I've been around this stuff for five-and-a-half years. I'd be interested to see a Socionics source that says that.

Edit: According to this source, it can accept some information but mostly acts as the support and output tool for the Base function, which is the primary information-gatherer of the two. Hence the Base being Accepting and the Creative being Producing.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I have never, ever heard that the Creative function acted as the information gatherer for a given Socionics type, and I've been around this stuff for five-and-a-half years. I'd be interested to see a Socionics source that says that.
> 
> Edit: According to this source, it can accept some information but mostly acts as the support and output tool for the Base function, which is the primary information-gatherer of the two. Hence the Base being Accepting and the Creative being Producing.


I honestly don't remember where I read this now, but it's likely somewhere on Wikisocion. I have not heard that the base is the primary information-gatherer though, and I also think it depends a bit on what information is understood as in this context. In a strict sense, rationality cannot gather information, only sort it out. 

The way I understood it is that for introverted types, the creative function gathers external data to support the introverted base since we interact with the world through the creative.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Socionics is about how we metabolize different types of information and how those preferences of certain information types clash with or complement others' preferences. All IM elements are types of information. As an Fi-base, I absolutely take in Fi-related information. If I relied primarily on Se to gather data and prioritized that data over Fi data, I would be not ESI but SEE. I don't think rationality means in Socionics what you think it does.


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

I am so used to the energy of my ESI friend that when I started hanging out with my ILE friend I didn't realize how drained I was getting because of the constant Ne. it made me really tired. at the same time I know my ILE friend is intelligent and stuff but the pressure of Ne just took it right out of me. ha ha.
I'd rather talk to an LII. more consistent in their thoughts and ideas and although occasionally saying something that I don't understand for the most part has a consistency and factual accuracy that the ILE just doesn't have.

I will say that the ILE every once in a while will hit me with a perspective that is pretty freaking brilliant. mainly conspiracy theories and stuff.

any other Ni doms have experience with Ne doms. does anyone else feel the same fatigue?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> I honestly don't remember where I read this now, but it's likely somewhere on Wikisocion. I have not heard that the base is the primary information-gatherer though, and I also think it depends a bit on what information is understood as in this context. In a strict sense, rationality cannot gather information, only sort it out.
> 
> The way I understood it is that for introverted types, the creative function gathers external data to support the introverted base since we interact with the world through the creative.


wikisocion says that creative function is a tool for application of base function: Functions - Wikisocion
base + mobilizing gather information, and creative launches from that foundation

creative makes us want to engage with the outside world, but it's more like an ego-exertion/affirmation tool, enabling the type to affect people and things around it, rather than an information gathering tool, which is the role of base and observing functions


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Socionics is about how we metabolize different types of information and how those preferences of certain information types clash with or complement others' preferences. All IM elements are types of information. As an Fi-base, I absolutely take in Fi-related information. If I relied primarily on Se to gather data and prioritized that data over Fi data, I would be not ESI but SEE. I don't think rationality means in Socionics what you think it does.


I know, and I think you misunderstood my point. Rationality describes the same idea as judgement outlined by Jung. When socionics understands metabolism, it does so from the point of view not so much based on the cognitive actions performed (rationality-irrationality) but more based on how it informs our worldview. That's the information. That's why I pointed out that in a strict sense of how information is understood as in, irrationality is akin to Jung's idea of perception and rationality judgement, then rationality cannot take in information. However, it can and will inform our worldview and how we understand the world around us. I also find that people seem to have issues understanding the latter, often focusing more on the former when typing themselves.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> I know, and I think you misunderstood my point. Rationality describes the same idea as judgement outlined by Jung. When socionics understands metabolism, it does so from the point of view not so much based on the cognitive actions performed (rationality-irrationality) but more based on how it informs our worldview. That's the information. That's why I pointed out that in a strict sense of how information is understood as in, irrationality is akin to Jung's idea of perception and rationality judgement, then rationality cannot take in information. However, it can and will inform our worldview and how we understand the world around us. I also find that people seem to have issues understanding the latter, often focusing more on the former when typing themselves.


Would it be correct, then, to say that according to the way you think of rationality, not according to the way Socionics defines rationality, it cannot take in information?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Would it be correct, then, to say that according to the way you think of rationality, not according to the way Socionics defines rationality, it cannot take in information?


Yes and no. It depends on how you understand information in this context. In the sense of informing how someone understands the world, then it informs how we conceptualize reality, but in a strict sense of being able to focus on perceiving the world around us solely without an attempt to categorize, no.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> Yes and no. It depends on how you understand information in this context. In the sense of informing how someone understands the world, then it informs how we conceptualize reality, but in a strict sense of being able to focus on perceiving the world around us solely without an attempt to categorize, no.


Alright. Rational bases do take in information and categorize it according to their internal filter (and then move to make changes as needed). That doesn't necessarily translate into your statement that their creative must then be their information-gatherer, though.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Alright. Rational bases do take in information and categorize it according to their internal filter (and then move to make changes as needed). That doesn't necessarily translate into your statement that their creative must then be their information-gatherer, though.


As I mentioned, in terms of metabolism the creative would always partly serve such a role regardless if it is a rational or irrational element fulfilling it.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> As I mentioned, in terms of metabolism the creative would always partly serve such a role regardless if it is a rational or irrational element fulfilling it.


how would it work if it's a rational element?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> how would it work if it's a rational element?


Becuase it creates a specific awareness of information e.g. the world as how you understand it. With an ILI for example, the ILI is first a logical type, meaning that the ILI will always first come from a place of systematic categorization based on impersonal logic even though Fi can have a very strong presence being the HA. But that's the thing, despite a strong presence it is unconscious in the sense that it borders on psychological unconsciousness, so for most of the part an ILI isn't going to pay active conscious attention to Fi matters, seeing the world through an Fi lens or categorizing utilizing Fi.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I clarified it later and you pretty much described it yourself. You seek something with no logical holes, where everything is symmetric or some such, has all a shared common quality of how it fits the system.


Oh that, it doesn't have to be symmetric in the literal sense of the word. Sometimes yes in that sense too. But in the sense of data fitting the system, sure it always is so. Though not sure if that's still supposed to be called "symmetric".




> I was thinking how Ti your description was lol. Very far removed from how I understand it. If I were to seek such symmetry, though it doesn't come naturally at all, it would probably be utilizing Fi in that every ethical action or belief makes sense internally so there is no internal discordance with how I am and how I act or how I think. There can be no ethical contradiction because if there is it means I'm a hypocrite and an asshole. It feels good as long as it lines up and also note that it's ok to be an asshole as long as I'm a consistent asshole as in that I treat or judge every situation that is of similar character the same. If it doesn't line up something needs to be adjusted to fit, so I guess in such a sense it shares qualities with Ti. This is a process I really don't do that much though. Most of my thinking goes elsewhere.


Yeah, makes sense 




> What do you even mean by analogies? But an example of how my thinking is reductionist is how love and hate are both feelings, so there is one singular idea representing them despite being opposites and very different in that they are feelings. It is this kind of singularity I find to be holistic. I am not sure how that is an analogy. Then we can take feelings on another level and say that feelings and other physical states are caused by chemicals, so feelings are actually chemicals. I kind of liken my thinking similar to an evolutionary tree or such. That's also why I used the word archetype to describe my thinking, in that I always seem to seek some archetypal image that represents everything. I wager this text here is a decent example of DA cognition as well.


Oh heh by analogies I meant you talked about linking different things together by the same idea. I mean, examples of the same core concept. I don't think in that way. Maybe a better word would be associations instead of analogies, then 




> lol, I'm curious how an alpha NT would think of this.


Yeah me too.




Hurricane said:


> Also Ne appears to spew info with no correlation (and a lot of times it does) but for the Ne user the connection is evident. Have you found that when you get to know them the way they make connections becomes more obvious to you or does it still seem as aimless?


You weren't asking me but let me add that I do see it random still unless it's explained logically. I can see the point in some ILE and LII explanations




ephemereality said:


> Ne types when they go on long Ne rants tend to give me a sense of mental strain after a while when I just go tl;dr and kind of zone the information out. I can't sort it out or take it in anymore. It's too much. I think extroverts are more likely to do this than introverts.


Hehe I understand you. My problem is more when it's really random things juxtaposed together. Typical Ne jokes as an example... okay I can get used to those jokes after a while, kind of... if it's more verbal information not just jokes then it's not really something that I'd even make an effort to try and get used to. *shrug*




Hurricane said:


> I'm still figuring out whether I lead with Ne or Fi, I appear to be ambiverted but I lean towards introversion.
> Ne is quite a common function and a lot of its users use it "for the sake of it" and run around life on an idea binge. Only a few turn to actual, long spanned contemplation, whereas Ni is not only more rare but naturally geared to observe. So the Ne descriptions often tailor to the "bouncy" ones, makes it harder to figure out if I could just be using a mellower Ne in the dominant form.


EII-Ne subtype then?




> Anyways, something I think Ne users need to keep in mind is how personal Ji is. Most of the time the things we see won't make obvious sense to another person so it's no use just laying out the whole system in one go because we can't expect people to just shift their entire perceptive basis to understand us. We have to learn to take the time to create a common ground of notions that are agreed upon by both parties or communication just can't take place.


I think you put that very well.




> So, a tip for reaching a better understanding with your Ne-ers, unless they don't have enough Ji to reign it in, is to try and get them to point out how they're systematizing it all. Since Ne, the "collecting and generating ideas" is what's extraverted and the systematizing is done internally, maybe that's what's making it all seem irrelevant?


I'm not sure about that. I don't think Ne lead types always systematize it all?


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> EII-Ne subtype then?


Apparently. But how does that work? I'm so uninformed



> I think you put that very well.


Thank you !



> I'm not sure about that. I don't think Ne lead types always systematize it all?


Yes, I just meant that for the particularly reflective Ne types. A lot of them don't, or they do so unconsciously so they won't be able to tell you why they're going in every direction, it's essentially aimless. It's always these guys that I mistype as sensors because intuition should form a web IMO. And even so, a lot of sensors know how to systematize ideas. I just can't fathom the "bouncing off the walls" Ne folk x)


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Hurricane said:


> Apparently. But how does that work? I'm so uninformed
> 
> (...)
> 
> Yes, I just meant that for the particularly reflective Ne types. A lot of them don't, or they do so unconsciously so they won't be able to tell you why they're going in every direction, it's essentially aimless. It's always these guys that I mistype as sensors because intuition should form a web IMO. And even so, a lot of sensors know how to systematize ideas. I just can't fathom the "bouncing off the walls" Ne folk x)


I just assumed you can't be Ne lead with all that said here. 

And because you do still have a lot of Ne, EII-Ne over EII-Fi.

If you have a specific question about subtypes do say it of course.


----------



## CupcakesRDaBestBruv (Aug 6, 2013)

IEE ENFP here brudda >


----------

