Personality Cafe banner

Towards a more integrated vision of IEs

3K views 23 replies 5 participants last post by  DavidH 
#1 · (Edited)
Cartoon Anime Sky Cg artwork Animation


This is a post where I will rant for an eternity about some systematical observations I've made, and where I envision that things should be headed in Socionics (fully aware of the hubris here, guys!)
I'm an LSI-C-Ti (Ennea 5) and I study Cognitive Science, so a few of my observations are (hopefully) on the relationship between Typology and Neuroscientific evidence (more precisely, the connections between them.)
Finally, as a disclaimer I'd like to point out that I don't claim to be an expert in either Socionics or Neuro, so I'm anticipating correction on some of the finer points, and maybe links to reading material that I've missed and is pertinent to the subjects.

Okay. So here's the topic of the day; if I could wave a magic wand and change how people discuss Type, I would add emphasis on two key things:
  • The important inescapable connections between the I/E elements of each domain (e.g. Ni & Ne)
  • (What I think is) the inevitable synthesis between (Si & Ni) and (Se & Ne), respectively.

The case for connections between the I/E of IEs being underrated

A common objection to MBTI (and I would argue by extension to Socionics, even though it does a better job there) is that people aren't normally that divided between an extraverted and intraverted expression of the same domain.
A friend of mine is a postgrad theoretical Neuroscientist, and this was his criticism too.
I think most people would agree that some kind of preference indeed does exist; but the way our models have been formulated It's easy to make the mistake of thinking that merely one orientation in that domain is necessary for a realized life.
Is it? I'm going to argue that It's clearly not.
Study case: LII - It's practically low-hanging fruit: some LIIs are active in e.g. University like the mentioned friend, but when I take a look around It looks more like an exception rather than the rule. A stereotype has emerged portraying LIIs as the most aloof, unproductive Type of all, and us LSIs aren't much to brag about either.Clearly, regardless of how an LII is supposed to be, an impulse to implement and/or have an outward report for his Ti is necessary to realize his potential. But how does it come about? It isn't simply being in touch with his creative Ne, because playing with ideas just fundamentally isn't the same as playing with logical implementations, though the Ne has a supplementary role to the Ti formation. There is an urgency missing there which only manifests in the Ti-leads that have balanced their dominant I/E dichotomy. (I don't know much about the LII with an implicit Ni, but supposedly that is also a thing, and I'm curious as to how that would compare with and/or differ.)
I know this (Te) from experience, as well. As an LSI I've been both, and even though being in touch with my Se and overall psychological health surely is a contributing condition, having an active implicit Te is a different experience from just pondering systems on the down-low after some recreational Se during the day. If it weren't for implicit Te, I wouldn't bother to make a post like this one; after all, the logical consistency of my Ti doesn't depend on other people's input, but trying to generate some kind of momentum with my thinking does.
Ti fuelled by an Ni vision without Te to generate momentum doesn't actually get us anywhere, because as any Introvert knows, It's quite easy to put the real world on hold. The open question is of course how this Te is generated specifically, whether it is reached through a complex pathway or a burst directly from Ti.
Another example for good measure would be Ni. An ILI's brain requires some kind of implicit Ne to inform him of the substance of his ideas and what is worth pursuing, or perhaps to give substance to his visions to begin with. Without such an equilibrium, It's like it becomes impossible to explain why a vision is worth pursuing, there is a disconnect between what is envisioned and what the world really is like, created by this absence of Ne. We observe this in young Ni-leads who are into mysticism and have an overblown sense of the Ni's importance. They don't know where their ideas come from, because again, they don't know how their ideas work. This is often attributed to Se deficiency, but in my second case I'll explain a connection between Se & Ne that makes this picture potentially more complicated.
I like to explain this role through Ne = how ideas work while Ni = how ideas are related.
If e.g. an ILI has some minimal sense of how ideas work (Ne being the ideas made up out of patterns observed in the spaces between abstract objects) it creates a shortcut for the ILI to create more accurate visions for his lead. I think this is what happens naturally as an Ni-lead matures, the brain stores some understanding of how ideas work, probably indirectly, and the Ni/Ne begins to slowly form a synthesis through it, which leads to more Ne activity subservant to Ni.
An Ni-lead with no Ne would experience his visions as mystical revelations and be prone to superstition, since there's no way to make sense of how his vision works (and relates to abstract mental objects.) There's a process of continual refinement of his Ni course as Te & Se facts informs him, but if we posit that his Ne doesn't play a part at all then the unfolding of NiTeSe over a lifetime would be extremely tedious. Besides, some people are clearly brighter than others, and that difference can't be defined as just doing more of something unrelated to the solution (simply knowing how all ideas can be related will still not give you a wholesome picture of what's going on in the domain of intuition, and neuroscience leaves us no impression that the brain would be that compartmentalized. Most people use most of the brain, most of the time. And Ni, after all, is a whole-brain pattern according to Dario Nardi.) This leads us into:

The case for a better synthesis between sensing and intuition

As a Ti-lead I like to believe that there's a logical strategy, a model I can develop that perfectly gets rid of the problems created by psychological preferences. I've had some limited success, which encourages me to envision a better formulation between primarily Se & Ne (as a Ne-PoLR, I know the struggle!) but also Si & Ni by logical extension.
Si & Ni are notorious for their deceptive similarity, even though they are supposedly wildly different functions. I hear Si is also the least understood. The interesting thing here is that both probably utilize the whole brain to some extent. Si is strongly related to episodic memory - snapshots or even whole sequences of events that actually happened to us per se. And one thing we learn in Cognitive Science as part of basic Neuro is that the brain stores episodic memories all over the Neocortex; if you stimulate a random part of the brain's cortex a random memory can be recalled from it, pretty much regardless of which area of the brain was stimulated. "It was like I was standing there in the hallway when I was 12!"
Let's look at it this way:

  1. Si draws upon the whole brain to recall complex sense-related objects/events and internal states that are pertinent to the individual and central to new sense-experiences.
  2. Ni also draws upon the whole brain but to envision how abstracted objects/events can be related to each other and which of them are pertinent to the central objective and new experiences.
In similar vein, I would posit that:
  1. Se stays vigilant to incoming sense-experiences to respond to novel sense-related objects/events that are focused in the present and central to latent kinetic potential.
  2. Ne stays vigilant to incoming possibilities involving abstract objects (that may or may not have kinetic counterparts) in order to respond to novel patterns/ideas explored in the present and central to those objects/events' inherent form.

Not only is Si and Ni sometimes confused as the same, but so is Se and Ne. For the former, both zone out and appear highly contemplative, for the latter both can appear silly and out of place. I think that ultimately we should view these functions as existing on two transitional axes, going from concrete to abstracted, but potentially still part of a shared organizational system of some sort.
The ILE or LII resembles the Se-ego in the limited sense that Ne is concerned with objective objects. The properties of these objects aren't negotiable, and metaphor is irrelevant. Either they are related or they're not. This is why I think LSIs are more intellectually creative than LIIs. At the end of the day they view it as an impersonal discovery since the objects already exist in a platonic-esque mental space.
But the Se/Ne difference lies in the fact that Ne concerns itself with the latent possibilities of supposed, potentially existing objects, while Se concerns itself with the latent force inherent to objects.
This is where the line between Se and Ne begins to blur: a reason I'm writing this is because as a self-proclaimed cerebral Se-ego, I feel like the differences have been exaggerated, or at least that they're small enough to simply compensate for with another cognitive strategy. Either Se is implicit to the process of using Ne, or Ne is implicit to the process of using Se - but they are both fundamentally concerned with the workings of objects. What's an object, anyway? Does an active imagination coupled with mild synesthesia turn abstract objects into Se processes? If our subconscious throws mental objects on us out of the blue, does it connect to Se and form a feedback loop? I think it all depends on our brain's capability to form syntheses between modes of thinking.
Similarly, in a library of Si experiences, there's no doubt tons of information for how abstract objects can be related (Ni) and high Si and Ni in the same person could begin to blend into a simple technicality of which aspect that is being considered at the time, much like an optical illusion where a face appears between the mountains.

To end on a personal note about my journey, something very simple like opening another browser tab and googling something can give me enough of an Se boost to create a small bridge between intuitive connections to keep me going. In one 'sense,' It's because I'm connecting my thinking process to my sensory reality. But it also connects to Ne, because I'm looking for new connections to feed my envisioning process (Ni), which in turn guides my Ti. The cognitive patterns we've developed aren't necessarily the best ones. They're the ones that were naturally selected for, but evolution is more of a Te process than a Ti one ;) So, what's really the difference between having an Se report versus Ne report in the midst of things? A technicality I think, and one we can integrate.

Q. What do you guys think; do we need a basic reformulation of how the IEs are related and will it set us free from Typism and Typological fatalism?
 
See less See more
1
#2 · (Edited)
I'm an LSI-C-Ti (Ennea 5) and I study Cognitive Science, so a few of my observations are (hopefully) on the relationship between Typology and Neuroscientific evidence (more precisely, the connections between them.)
Are you doing your MA?


A common objection[/I] to MBTI (and I would argue by extension to Socionics, even though it does a better job there) is that people aren't normally that divided between an extraverted and intraverted expression of the same domain.
A friend of mine is a postgrad theoretical Neuroscientist, and this was his criticism too.
I think most people would agree that some kind of preference indeed does exist; but the way our models have been formulated It's easy to make the mistake of thinking that merely one orientation in that domain is necessary for a realized life.
Is it? I'm going to argue that It's clearly not.
Hmm, well, how do you tell people aren't normally that divided there? I'd like to hear more on this.

The socionics model does not assume that only one orientation is necessary. The ID block supports the Ego block by the different orientation being strong operating in the unconscious.


Study case: LII - It's practically low-hanging fruit: some LIIs are active in e.g. University like the mentioned friend, but when I take a look around It looks more like an exception rather than the rule. A stereotype has emerged portraying LIIs as the most aloof, unproductive Type of all, and us LSIs aren't much to brag about either. Clearly, regardless of how an LII is supposed to be, an impulse to implement and/or have an outward report for his Ti is necessary to realize his potential. But how does it come about? It isn't simply being in touch with his creative Ne, because playing with ideas just fundamentally isn't the same as playing with logical implementations, though the Ne has a supplementary role to the Ti formation. There is an urgency missing there which only manifests in the Ti-leads that have balanced their dominant I/E dichotomy. (I don't know much about the LII with an implicit Ni, but supposedly that is also a thing, and I'm curious as to how that would compare with and/or differ.)
I am not following here. Why would Ne creative not ensure the implementation of Ti ideas?


I know this (Te) from experience, as well. As an LSI I've been both, and even though being in touch with my Se and overall psychological health surely is a contributing condition, having an active implicit Te is a different experience from just pondering systems on the down-low after some recreational Se during the day. If it weren't for implicit Te, I wouldn't bother to make a post like this one; after all, the logical consistency of my Ti doesn't depend on other people's input, but trying to generate some kind of momentum with my thinking does.
The momentum, the impact, that is what your Se creative is for.

And yes, I agree that the I/E needs to be balanced... via your creative, IMO.


Ti fuelled by an Ni vision without Te to generate momentum doesn't actually get us anywhere, because as any Introvert knows, It's quite easy to put the real world on hold.
Yeah, I do think you need Se more than Ni. As an LSI, Se is your Producing function in the Ego block which takes further your Accepting Ti's logical picture of reality and implements it.


As a Ti-lead I like to believe that there's a logical strategy, a model I can develop that perfectly gets rid of the problems created by psychological preferences. I've had some limited success, which encourages me to envision a better formulation between primarily Se & Ne (as a Ne-PoLR, I know the struggle!) but also Si & Ni by logical extension.
There are no such problems created by the basic socionics model. Even just using Jung's ideas on how differentiated vs undifferentiated functions work is sufficient.

I do like your ideas on Ni/Si reviewing a lot of internal connections and Ne/Se vigilance on new incoming objects. I do not know what organizational systems are in place in the brain that can be linked to these shared properties of IE but I've wondered before how Dynamic and Static is such an important dichotomy in terms of implementation. This dichotomy is of particular interest to me as Jung never managed to discover it yet it makes so much sense for defining the socionics IEs by dichotomous traits one of which is exactly this dichotomy. I also played with the justification of limiting it to 8 IEs instead of more, where you can't just randomly assign Dynamic/Static to combinations of the other basic dichotomies to generate IEs.


The ILE or LII resembles the Se-ego in the limited sense that Ne is concerned with objective objects. The properties of these objects aren't negotiable, and metaphor is irrelevant. Either they are related or they're not. This is why I think LSIs are more intellectually creative than LIIs. At the end of the day they view it as an impersonal discovery since the objects already exist in a platonic-esque mental space.
I'm not following here. Why do you think LSIs are more intellectually creative than LIIs? In what sense?


This is where the line between Se and Ne begins to blur: a reason I'm writing this is because as a self-proclaimed cerebral Se-ego, I feel like the differences have been exaggerated, or at least that they're small enough to simply compensate for with another cognitive strategy. Either Se is implicit to the process of using Ne, or Ne is implicit to the process of using Se - but they are both fundamentally concerned with the workings of objects.
I think Se is quite different from Ne in terms of how Se strictly delineates objects by what is actually there and sensed while Ne does not do this. Ne sees mental objects that are determined from an associative network of sorts, I'm a bit vague on the exact nature of that network but it somehow determines the Ne object's internal Ne traits. The differences are not exaggerated whatsoever. I do not know how you experience your Ne PoLR but let me tell you, you can't directly replace that Ne PoLR by Se creative. It can only be achieved in a very very roundabout way.

It is OK to be a "cerebral Se ego", you are after all Ti subtype of a Ti lead type.


What's an object, anyway? Does an active imagination coupled with mild synesthesia turn abstract objects into Se processes? If our subconscious throws mental objects on us out of the blue, does it connect to Se and form a feedback loop? I think it all depends on our brain's capability to form syntheses between modes of thinking.
Whoa I am not following again. I have the mild synesthesia too btw :p But no, abstract stuff is abstract stuff, Se is traits that you can sense directly. I think the rest of what you are writing here is quite... speculative Ti going too deep into itself.


To end on a personal note about my journey, something very simple like opening another browser tab and googling something can give me enough of an Se boost to create a small bridge between intuitive connections to keep me going. In one 'sense,' It's because I'm connecting my thinking process to my sensory reality. But it also connects to Ne, because I'm looking for new connections to feed my envisioning process (Ni), which in turn guides my Ti. The cognitive patterns we've developed aren't necessarily the best ones. They're the ones that were naturally selected for, but evolution is more of a Te process than a Ti one ;) So, what's really the difference between having an Se report versus Ne report in the midst of things? A technicality I think, and one we can integrate.
This is again weird to me. If you feel like opening a browser tab is equal to a Se boost, you need to get outside more. :p But honestly, yeah, you sound very deprived of sensory experiences.

I guess it also sounds like you are highly focused on your Ni and sure why not do that if you get somewhere by doing so.

I still disagree that the difference between Se and Ne is just a technicality.


Q. What do you guys think; do we need a basic reformulation of how the IEs are related and will it set us free from Typism and Typological fatalism?
No. None of the typist practices follow from properly understanding the socionics model and from Jung's original ideas either. The socionics model is very much about having all eight functions, them being in blocks organized in a specific way along with differing dimensionalities of information processing. Do you understand how this is highly relevant to your issues?
 
#4 · (Edited)
Are you doing your MA?

Hmm, well, how do you tell people aren't normally that divided there? I'd like to hear more on this.
The socionics model does not assume that only one orientation is necessary.
BA. I should've thought this thread through more.
The division applies mostly to the MBTI community, but I'm not fully satisfied with how It's dealt with in Socionics either. My objection comes from an intuition of how the brain works which simply doesn't fit the conceptualization in Typology including Socionics. I'll try to break it down into more concrete terms.
To put it more tangibly, the processes in the brain represented by Ti simply do not function without some of the processes represented by Te, and vice versa. We don't need to identify brain regions to verify it since we have definitions on both sides and can simply compare models (which is what Cognitive Scientists do.)
Rote math, is it Te or Ti? How do you do Ti without the Ti-centric part of the brain making a rote math connection? Aren't syllogisms inherently mathematical? These modular 'building blocks' of the brain must be shared by functions realistically speaking, and because of that I think we should emphasize how the orientations build on each other and work together if we want to bridge Typology with Neuroscience. Either that, or a complete overhaul.
Don't get me wrong, Socionics and dimensionality has helped greatly in admitting that a Ti-lead will have sophisticated Te to boot. But the picture painted is that this is a seperate category of activity that e.g. an LSI will "be able to do but don't like doing" - well... tough luck.
I don't know, really. The more I think about it the more it all falls apart. What's so extraverted about it, anyway? Some things in the definitions are just general brain modules used all over the place, mashed together with abstract impressions. Is the logic extraverted because It's an extraverted function, or because the person is being extraverted about his logic? This latter view feels more true to the science. And again, this is about accurate representations, not the fact that we could read this into the Socionics if we happen to be wiser and still make it fit somehow.

The ID block supports the Ego block by the different orientation being strong operating in the unconscious.
I've never heard it being described as in the unconscious. Based on descriptions I've taken it as a burst effect, it comes out implicitly but becomes conscious, then quickly goes away in favor of the dominant orientation.
If it indeed operates in the unconscious, e.g. Te in the shadows partly powering Ti, that's exactly what I'm looking for. I just want people to realize that without Te the Ti-lead is practically f***ed.

I am not following here. Why would Ne creative not ensure the implementation of Ti ideas?
The momentum, the impact, that is what your Se creative is for.

And yes, I agree that the I/E needs to be balanced... via your creative, IMO.

Yeah, I do think you need Se more than Ni. As an LSI, Se is your Producing function in the Ego block which takes further your Accepting Ti's logical picture of reality and implements it.
I think what I answered before should clarify it a bit. Here's the thing, to transition smoothly from thinking about logical structure to implementing it into something, there has to be an unspoken Te in the translation process. Or in the other words: Abstract Structure -> Ways to apply -> Momentum to implement -> Result.
Or possibly: Abstract Structure -> Momentum to implement -> Ways to apply -> Result.
The first being TiTeSe and the second TiSeTe.
Whichever happens to be more accurate, Te by definition represents a process we all rely on. Heavily.
If you just get rid of Te and say it doesn't apply anymore when you're talking about Ti users, that's a mess. If you say it works in the unconscious... okay. But nothing I've come across in Socionics literature have told me this, and I never see anybody explaining this as part of advice for us.
The disconnect without a Te stepping stone is actually one you probably recognize if you have any experience with other Ti-leads, or probably with yourself. Some will never be motivated to implement their Ti and prefer to act as if perceiving is their 24/7 job. I think when that happens, we condition ourselves to not act on Ti, eliminating Te, in favor of using Se for 1) mere mental aggregation and 2) recreational activities. At the end of the day Te fills a role which Se is not a substitute for.
If we have to figure this out by ourselves, something is missing, IMO.

There are no such problems created by the basic socionics model. Even just using Jung's ideas on how differentiated vs undifferentiated functions work is sufficient.
That's an interesting point. Maybe the scenario I've been trying to describe is better put as an over-differentiation, then.

I do like your ideas on Ni/Si reviewing a lot of internal connections and Ne/Se vigilance on new incoming objects. I do not know what organizational systems are in place in the brain that can be linked to these shared properties of IE but I've wondered before how Dynamic and Static is such an important dichotomy in terms of implementation. This dichotomy is of particular interest to me as Jung never managed to discover it yet it makes so much sense for defining the socionics IEs by dichotomous traits one of which is exactly this dichotomy. I also played with the justification of limiting it to 8 IEs instead of more, where you can't just randomly assign Dynamic/Static to combinations of the other basic dichotomies to generate IEs.
The static/dynamic dichotomy reminds me of the Two-stream hypothesis


I'm not following here. Why do you think LSIs are more intellectually creative than LIIs? In what sense?
This is partly isolated using Victor Gulenko's Model G. If you're familiar with it, the difference would be in the LSIs +L over the LIIs -L. But It's mostly to do with Ni over Ne. Ni, as a subjective function, doesn't depend on the properties of the mental objects being preserved in the process, at least not nearly to the same degree.
But I realized pretty quickly after I wrote it that it also depends on the LSI having a strong mobilizing. They're not in the equivalent positions, after all. But insofar that the two types intersect in the intuitive... my best friend is an LII. Smart as the stereotypes. But he doesn't really care much about science, and I get the impression It's not a creative field to him. Because It's all just unravelling the platonic web, you see? It's already there. In the world of ideas.
I don't see it that way. I feel like good ideas is something precious and magical, and the fact that we can build something meaningful out of them is not obvious at all. How I organize my thoughts has a highly personal impact on what I can do and what things lead to. One idea could turn into many inventions, or none, or into a screenplay. To the LII tangental ideas are exploded all over the place, but what are they really for? That's the difference.

I think Se is quite different from Ne in terms of how Se strictly delineates objects by what is actually there and sensed while Ne does not do this. Ne sees mental objects that are determined from an associative network of sorts, I'm a bit vague on the exact nature of that network but it somehow determines the Ne object's internal Ne traits. The differences are not exaggerated whatsoever. I do not know how you experience your Ne PoLR but let me tell you, you can't directly replace that Ne PoLR by Se creative. It can only be achieved in a very very roundabout way.
I'm completely with you here. What I'm trying to do is simply offer a different take on it. I'm saying they're isomorphic in pretty much all ways EXCEPT the fact that one deals with the concrete and the other with the abstract. And if they're that similar, maybe they're connected on a neuro spectrum going from concrete observed reality to abstract observed reality. The point of this exercise is that if my brain is motivated by Se, I can maximize my mental output by understanding Ne objects as Se objects. I've noticed that a lot of mental problems come from disassociating and over-compartmentalizing, so this is an exploration in the opposite extreme to see what we can do to improve how well our personality facilitates our potential, through mental strategy.

It is OK to be a "cerebral Se ego", you are after all Ti subtype of a Ti lead type.
Preach it.

I think the rest of what you are writing here is quite... speculative Ti going too deep into itself.
This is again weird to me. If you feel like opening a browser tab is equal to a Se boost, you need to get outside more. :p But honestly, yeah, you sound very deprived of sensory experiences.
Yeah, tell me about it. But I'm going to change strategy now to try something else. The mistake I made was writing this all on impulse in one go and deciding not to wait and review it before I posted it. It would've been a bit more condensed and made a whole lot more sense. Honestly when I woke up today I just wanted to delete the thread.
Bottom line: I HAVE A DREAM, damn it! :unsure:
 
#3 ·
It kinda sucks you only focus on ILI when talking about Ni-leads. Also it is good to understand that Ni leads have Ne on ignore. You say Ni is about how ideas are related. A good example would be Elon Musk who invent all kinds of stuff, well they are all based on old ideas pretty much. And so are many of todays inventions. Electric cars, spaceships but refine design, solar city, even electric jets. They are not really new concepts. But they might be the absolute best solution to todays problems as we know them.

About Ni and Si looking the same, would be for the not direct approach towards objects in the objective reality. Same as Se and Ne would both be direct.
 
#8 ·
Q. What do you guys think; do we need a basic reformulation of how the IEs are related and will it set us free from Typism and Typological fatalism?
Not really. I think you should study on the role of each function first, before you make these claims. For example, Ne ignoring simply means that Ne potential is implicit in a future vision. The greatest potential in the object world is accomplished by focusing on one narrow vision. Demonstrative Ni in the LII works similarly; understanding the development of something over time serves to create the most sound or proof systems because it means they will hold credence even as our understanding of the world changes etc.
 
#10 ·
I want to clarify the part about Ni demonstrative as I realized I was unclear, but I meant that if we can understand development of time, we can create the most consistent kinds of definitions and systems because they will not be changeable due to undiscovered variables that may be unveiled in the future.
 
#9 ·
@Piercie

One more thing. When I mentioned practicing tasks, transfer of learned skill, of ways of information processing to other tasks/situations is also an issue; perhaps if you have practiced a wide enough range of tasks, readiness to transfer in general and globality of processing that type of information can improve. I would imagine this would take a very long time though. I definitely do not see how you could do that via just trying to shift perspectives at will. Practice in tasks is definitely needed
 
#22 ·
@Piercie

Still alive? I enjoyed some parts of our discussion - even if I didn't agree with quite a lot of things - and interested in hearing from you.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top