Talk:Intuitive logical introvert

From Wikisocion

Talk:Intuitive logical introvert/archive1

Contents 1 General critique 2 Archiving 3 Page dispute 4 Page dispute resolution

[edit] General critique

Great effort and good ideas. Hope you don't mind some very general, big-picture comments...although these are quite subjective, personal opinions. As I mentioned with the LII description, I still get the sense here that these type descriptions are shaping up to be more portraits of individual representatives of each type, rather than general descriptions of the types themselves. A number of things, such as the idea that ILIs have such poor control of their emotions, or that they don't care for aesthetics at all, seem to me to possibly either be exaggerated or not really applicable to ILIs in general. There are quite a number of things here that seem as if they come from past descriptions, and I think those should be specifically annotated or sourced, if included at all, because one of the biggest problems in Socionics as a whole is that descriptions are gooked up by all the plaque that forms from previous descriptions. (I hope I'm not seeming too harsh here...that's just my general impression of Socionics descriptions, and I was thinking that this wiki is an opportunity to get away from that somehow.) I realize I'm partly at fault by not contributing....hopefully I'll be able to contribute something at some point. :) --Jonathan 06:05, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Ah, I see now from your response to what I said in the LII description that this was exactly what you were trying to avoid. I may be over-reacting to certain things too...maybe I should read it more carefully. I personally don't identify with certain things such as "ILIs have an extremely limited command of their emotions." Anyhow, it is a hard task...I think we agree about the general concepts of how it should go, though. --Jonathan 06:23, 20 July 2007 (BST)

I agree that there are some elements of these descriptions that don't at all belong there. The limited command of emotions thing definitely qualifies; I would especially expect that from the Fe part because I almost completely synthesized that from parts of other descriptions which I found to be particularly accurate. If you see things like that, please feel free to get rid of them; chances are it didn't fit anyway. If it did, I'll certainly inquire as to its deletion. Niffweed17 06:34, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Okay, I made some edits to Ni and Te. See if these still fit your conception of ILI, or if they seem to indicate some other type. I realize that the flavor is a bit different (going from a very self-confident, hard-nosed, practical, "other people are unfit to live in the world" view to a more self-questioning, introspective view). This may, again, reflect my own particular personality, but I tried to consider other people I consider to be ILIs. --Jonathan 14:29, 20 July 2007 (BST)

In retrospect, I'm wondering if my edits are even helpful, as they may be merging two highly different conceptions of what ILI might be, with the result of ending up with some sort of mud. I know someone who perfectly fits the description of believing that people who don't know facts and the way the world works aren't fit to live in it, and who sometimes seems not to care much about aesthetics. In MBTI I had considered him INTJ (NiTe); in Socionics, I think he's probably LIE. I know a number of people whom I believe to be ILI, but who really don't fit that description at all. Now I'm more curious than ever if upon meeting, I seem to be more like Niffweed, or more like theHotelAmbush (or neither). --Jonathan 15:43, 20 July 2007 (BST)

I thought all of your edits were for the most part good. The only serious issue I had was the idea that ILIs find themselves more capable in the area of criticism than in production. They may be more capable criticizing logical flaws, but they don't naturally see themselves this way, and I don't believe the reason that they criticize rather than contribute practical solutions isn't because they see themselves as "better" at it. Niffweed17 17:59, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Thanks. One part I'm a little cautious about changing is "ILIs place little importance on such aspects as comfort, sensations, and aesthetics." (This gets back to Si again, but I'll mention it here.) I don't know if I'm an extreme exception or what, but I'm actually completely the opposite of what it says.

My living space is full of pictures on the wall. (My wife got me to put them up, but I like them there. Most of them are my own photographs.) I love to eat good food, and I eat slowly to savor every bite. I like to go places that have nice views. I stop a lot and take lots of pictures, and then I pick out the best-looking ones. (I hate pictures that are just for showing that one was at a certain place.) I like it when people dress nicely, and I compliment them for it (although I can be kind of sloppy myself). Also, I like comfortable places to sit, sleep etc. (though mostly so I don't have to be distracted by discomfort). So I'm kind of the opposite of what it says here. (However, I do lose track of my surroundings when I'm in deep thought, and I don't usually like to focus on very physical tasks such as gardening, etc.) --Jonathan 05:10, 21 July 2007 (BST)

That is not something I would delete at all. What you describe differs entirely with both my experience and with my understanding of the ILI type. Niffweed17 05:25, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Well, maybe my "exertion type" has Si somewhere or I'm unique, or am really an Alpha type. But that aside, I know quite a few ILIs who seem to be aesthetically aware to varying degrees...interested in art, good music, etc. Even some ILI descriptions I've seen on various sites distinguish between ILIs who are aesthetically aware, and those who aren't. More significantly, it's easier for people to agree that IEIs are quite aesthetically aware. Many IEIs are into art, poetry, dress nicely, etc. But their orientation to Si should be rather similar to ILI's theoretically, shouldn't it? ...which leads to the question...

~For me this is the most jarring part of the description. ILI's might lack initiative in improving aspects of comfort or sensations, but that in no way equates to "placing little importance." If anything, I identify with Jonathan's description. There is a certain amount of passivity and tendency to adapt to the situation, but not the complete disregard for aesthetics, such as seen in the ILI's attitude towards Fe.~

To what extent can ILIs be aesthetically aware, and how does it relate to the role function?Isolda Biloruka 01:48, 18 august 2008(BST)

I now believe that the extent to which ILIs are aesthetically aware is widely variable and largely dependent on personal background. This is an old discussion which is based on old edits which have since been completely rewritten; I think the present flavor of the     description here is very decent as a role function. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:47, 18 August 2008 (BST)

I would argue that the ILI presented in the current version of this article does not value Fi on a level representitive of ILIs in reality. My ILI benchmarks are big softies deep down, unlike the ILI portrayed here. While I'm here, I should let you all know that I think I have a lot of positive contributions to make to this page that will enhance the usefulness of this type description. This is all of course assuming my work goes unimpeded... --Hoodrat 13:52, 2 October 2008 (BST)

I reject the notion that your interpretation, as superficially described herein, is especially contradictory to the archetype described by this page. I guarantee you that, however lazy I might be elsewhere, I will go through your edits with a fine toothed comb here if you contribute some information that I disagree with. Also note that the     description here is incomplete, but the     description I am happy with. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 14:29, 2 October 2008 (BST)

[edit] Archiving

moved all non-recent discussions to an archive page. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:50, 18 August 2008 (BST)

---

Aww isn't that sweet.... After your blatant Ti opening retort, you show your soft side , thinking that that's how ILIs hint things to SEEs in duality. Listen man, NO ILIs talk like that.... they just don't. You sound like the architect from the fucking matrix. LII for the win. (note: LIIs usually don't talk like this in public however, being far too unconfident due to fear of confrontation from Se PolR, and social awkwardness from weak Fe; they will rarely speak out against confident opinions unless they feel respected within the group. Online discussions are LII paradise though :D).

All the ways you've watered down and "proofread" this ILI description take away from the power it gives SEEs to find real ILIs such as Jonathan.. It's a fucking crime. I'm going to do this through the proper channels, because I know that's the price I have to pay for working in a wiki community like this, but trust me, I'm going to get this thing as close to Jonathan's original way of stating things as possible.

It's funny, I'm reading back on the talk:ILI conversations between you (Niffweed) and Jonathan. Throughout the whole dialogue, he's kinda gently nudging in his polite ILI way "err.... this is wrong", and you kinda jump back, also being kind and respectful, but obviously misinformed and confused, and oblivious to Jonathan's obvious hints... Speaking of which, you guys are fucking lucky you have a dude like Jonathan around here. Most ILIs I know simply wouldn't give a fuck about a wiki like this.)

Anyway, this is a lot of work to do for a fucking wiki, and being as I have little to gain from this (because I already know what an ILI is), you guys should fucking thank me. Sorry for all the fucks. --Hoodrat 19:01, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Fuck... I'm really not motivated to do this tedious labor kinda shit. Aren't ILIs good for that stuff? Jonathan... help! Revert things back the way you had them and spruce them up! I'll see to your defense on the discussion page!--Hoodrat 19:14, 8 October 2008 (BST)

dude, please go the fuck away and die. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:30, 8 October 2008 (BST)

I'm seriously just trying to get things right Niff.... It's alright to have typed yourself wrong. I thought I was IEE back in my socionics.com days, lol. Intuition sounded so sweet :o --Hoodrat 19:36, 8 October 2008 (BST)

lol @ hoodrat calling it perfectly. How niffweed's precise, structuralist "I am not particularly inclined to accept the validity of such an argument" thinking/speaking style doesn't scream blatant INTj in the ears of everyone is beyond me. Must be the *obvious* Fe polr lol.--nicki 03:20, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Why did you revert from the former, more accurate version? Explain. --Hoodrat 03:57, 9 October 2008 (BST)

lmao--nicki 04:21, 9 October 2008 (BST)

No, I want Jonathan involved in this cleanup process. Try for half a second to step back and be mature about this niffweed. Accept the possibility that you may be wrong...--Hoodrat 04:46, 9 October 2008 (BST)

i will formally state that i disagree with your assertion that this the old page was better. are you happy now? does that make it any clearer to you why i'm reverting the page?

if jonathan has grievances i'll happily listen to his grievances. you, however, are wasting my time. if you want jonathan's input, why don't you go find jonathan, talk to him, and ask him what he thinks, and then make up your mind about what he thinks about the page. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:51, 9 October 2008 (BST)

I have solicited Jonathan to make his input. Organized conversation over a wiki can sometimes take a while. While we wait for Jonathan, I'd like the old way back. You've had your garbage up long enough. You've admitted many times all over wikisocion, most notably on the LII talk page that this ILI page comes largely from your own theories and personal examples. However, considering the fact that your type is up for question, I think a member who is part of the last completed benchmark list as an ILI type should have the final say in this.

I find the old descriptions MUCH more helpful for identifying ILIs.--Hoodrat 04:59, 9 October 2008 (BST)

almost all of it is still written by me. and, no, as far as i'm concerned you're a jackass who has no basis for changing this page, which i think is very good and which most people i talk to think is very good. i still think a lot of the old version is very good, but the new version is better. and for your information, the new version is some changes based almost entirely on hostage child's long description here. the stupidity and inconsistency of everything you're trying to do is obvious. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 05:21, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Hostage child isn't ILI either. Listen, I don't think you understand. The reason I came to socionics is duality. I know my beloved ILI and I don't want you fucking with them anymore.--Hoodrat 05:47, 9 October 2008 (BST)

hoodrat: "niffweed, your ILI description doesn't match my experience at all." ... niffweed: "It is correct, you are a dumbass." ... hoodrat: "I would appreciate having the old version back, as it is more useful on a practical level." ... niffweed: "My description is right. I don't like you so you have no say." Yay for insularity!--nicki 05:51, 9 October 2008 (BST)

[edit] Page dispute

I have chosen to freeze this page until I can study the description and try to determine how much subjectivity there is in it on Niffweed's part. Probably, some revisions will be made. I don't see how else to peacefully and productively resolve this issue. Hoodrat and others, in your critiques of the page please leave Niffweed's type out of it and focus on the value of the description itself. Criticism of the description is fine, but there is far too much badmouthing going on. --Admin 14:53, 9 October 2008 (BST)

rick, from your perspective, find me anything contained in this description that could be interpreted as overly subjective or controversial. if you can't do that, i don't see how you can justify protecting the page on the basis of this alleged subjectivity. i don't think that any part of this description is remotely controversial and hiding behind or taking seriously hoodrat's disagreement does not justify his positions as being remotely sane. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:13, 9 October 2008 (BST)

I protected your version of the page (because it has the most text). I will review the page thoroughly within the next 2-3 days and get the feedback of ILIs at the16types. After that, some changes may or may not be proposed, and the page will be reopened. --Admin 15:31, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Fair enough. Just please make sure you get well recognized ILIs in the process. --Hoodrat 18:43, 9 October 2008 (BST)

I read the comparison between the recent version and the one from about a year ago (which I believe was written by jonathan) and the old one was definitely better. It was more concise, and delivered the points more accurately. For example, the base function description. In Jonathan's description, it sufficiently described the internal focus on abstract processes and whatnot of Ni. Niffweed's description of the base function was incredibly subjective, and sounded like he was spilling his own little matrix world onto it to aggrandize the type. Compare the previous: "ILIs are naturally attuned to hidden connections between things and hints of greater implications in everyday reality. They easily recognize patterns of events, repeating outcomes, and contradictory messages. This understanding of global patterns and human behavior often allows ILIs to critically analyze present situations and determine the immediate and far-reaching consequences of certain actions." to "They may be prone to excessive day dreaming, in creation of intricate inner worlds or universes, or on considering their past or future. ILIs may even have novelistic tendencies where they create intricate plots, characters, and places. However, ILIs are not always inclined to share their imaginative tendencies or thoughts with others." The former sheds some light on a cognitive process, whereas the latter just sounds like niffweed describing himself sitting around, bored. And I think niffweed's type is incredibly important here. Yes, I believe him to be INTj. Why people are fooled by some apparent Fe void and IP temperament is beyond me. So, if hoodrat and I are correct, which I know no one will ever accede to, this nullifies anything niffweed has written about the ILI's, at least in comparison to real ones.--nicki 20:14, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Thanks for the useful comments. --Admin 20:43, 9 October 2008 (BST)

i wrote the vast majority of both versions. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:49, 9 October 2008 (BST)

note also that the entire section of the version strrrng quoted is still repeated verbatim in the present version. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:06, 9 October 2008 (BST)

That's because hoodrat added it back a few days ago. Don't lie, niffweed, it wasn't there several days ago. I remember reading it. And that is just a tidbit of the general idea I was trying to convey. Do you want me to find and quote every single discrepancy? That would be a waste of time.--nicki 22:28, 9 October 2008 (BST)

no, it was not added a few days ago, you fucking moron. it was still there on this old revision on september 6, before hoodrat ever edited the page. [1]. stop making shit up, idiot. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:37, 9 October 2008 (BST)

I saw what hoodrat removed, and it was erroneous crap that you had written. You then added this stuff back. Now both versions are combined. don't bullshit lol--nicki 23:05, 9 October 2008 (BST)

please learn how to read an edit history, learn what a reversion is, and stop changing your tactics in mid-sentence. now fuck off. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:27, 9 October 2008 (BST)

The whole thing just doesn't take the attitude of a real ILI... I don't know how else to put it. I guess with the old version, I was kind of able to take a glimpse into an ILIs personality and it just fit a lot better with my past experience with ILIs..... the new version just sounds so... artificial?

There's no reason to be rude throughout all of this Niffweed, please watch the hostilities. This is really nothing personal... I really just wanna get things right.

note: while I recognize that you (NW17) had contributions to the "old" version of the ILI type page, your contributions were minor in comparison to today, and had little to do in the way of subjective experience of the ILI type as the current version does. --Hoodrat 01:09, 10 October 2008 (BST)

that's really not true. i wrote almost the whole thing then as well as now, and almost all of it was and is largely based on my subjective experiences, tweaked (mostly to both parties' satisfactions) in a couple of places where other people have complained. it's actually less about my subjective experiences now and more integrated with hostage child's description, which for several things is very very good. don't take my word for it however; check the edit histories and see how much of the text of the old version is written by me. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:36, 10 October 2008 (BST)

to be honest i don't really give a fart who wrote what... the old version is more accurate and that's the version that needs to be displayed. At least Jonathan was making input back then... I'd be interested as to how well your self-typing has held up to the test of intertype relations in real life (if you have a semblance of such a thing, which in my experience most LIIs don't; not compared with real ILIs anyway)... or maybe the people you are close to are "gammas" as well... --Hoodrat 02:28, 10 October 2008 (BST)

jonathan had very little input in the page. he basically complained about how the     description didn't fit his perceptions and so i tried to change things around a bit iirc. i think the present version of the     thing mostly takes his ideas rather than my old ones, which were probably pretty contrived. i still think "who cares" would be pretty good as descriptions go. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:43, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Niffweed is correct here. He wrote the vast majority of the "old version." I just tweaked or commented on a thing here or there. The "may be prone to excessive day dreaming, in creation of intricate inner worlds or universes, or on considering their past or future" wording seems legitimate for describing base-Ni types, and I think the word "may" adequately suggests that it doesn't apply equally to everyone in the type. I haven't read through the newer descriptions thoroughly. Overall, I believe that there is some value in having a concise description. And even in the earlier version some the edits or comments I made were intended to remove a few small things that I felt were too individual-specific. However, until I get a chance to read the newer version, I can't critique it. Just from skimming, it seems that he was trying to get away from the more formulaic language of type descriptions and use everyday language. Perhaps each type description could have a summary version with just the key points, and a longer version that keeps getting added to.

As to the idea that Niffweed is "really LII"...well that whole thing about ILIs really being LII is as old as the hills. Because of competing definitions and schools, and because people regularly use their "id block" in a certain way, this dispute is unlike to ever end. But suffice it to say that if Niffweed is "really LII" then there's even less reason to think I'm ILI either. --Jonathan 03:57, 10 October 2008 (BST)

PS...After skimming it a little more, I don't really think it's too long. Strat...'s descriptions are longer, I believe. Perhaps after the dust settles, a little bit of reorganization of the thoughts might make it more readable. And, one of the goals of reorganization may be to avoid duplication between the IM element sections (if there is any). Actually, the "older" version of the Ni section (with "critically analyze present situations") could be said to mix Ni and Te a bit, whereas the newer version was perhaps intended to remove references to Te and just talk about Ni...which is probably not a bad idea. I also wouldn't remind seeing any of the parts about how "only the dual SEE can do this for ILI..." or whatever be removed, as they're too reminiscent of the Weisband descriptions in my opinion....but that's just an opinion. --Jonathan 04:06, 10 October 2008 (BST)

PPS...One other thought...Per Nicki's criticism of the "may be prone to excessive..." wording, I think the issue is that there should be a balance between the constructive use of each function and the potential problems associated with it. Probably the constructive use should come first. In the case of the base function (for any type), the problems are generally over-indulgence at the expense of everything else (as noted originally in Jung's "Psychological Types"). So, the Ni section might begin with something about how ILIs "use imagination, creation of intricate inner worlds, and considering past and future to better understand the world around them, potential future events, and wise courses of action." Then later on it could say that sometimes ILIs may be prone to excessive daydreaming and lose touch with or interest in current needs. --Jonathan 04:57, 10 October 2008 (BST)

My main beef is that everything is just way too wordy. It usually isn't this hard to read stuff written by other ILIs... Also, there seems to be a tendency for flowery language. We aren't trying to win the pulitzer here.... this is supposedly an "encyclopedia." Simple, straightforward, and to the facts, please. --Hoodrat 06:52, 10 October 2008 (BST)

[edit] Page dispute resolution

I am going to reopen the page for editing. General consensus from self-typed ILIs seems to be that the description is pretty good. I took a close look at it and made comments here. Please take a look. From here on, I expect constructive criticism of the description, not edit wars, personal insults, or appeals that so-and-so has mistyped himself and so can't contribute. People who revert to those behaviors in the ensuing debate will be disciplined, i.e. blocked for a period of time. Consider yourself warned.

Also, because of the derogatory and destructive personal bickering that has gone on here and elsewhere, we will have to have clearer policies for contributors' behavior. I am taking behavioral guidelines from Wikipedia that are relevant to our project (basically all of them) and adding them to the policy page. --Admin 03:46, 13 October 2008 (BST)

I question the typings of many of the "ILIs", and "Gammas" in general at the16types. I agree with your opinions in your word document though. I appreciate your time going through this, but I still fear that this page is influenced by a VERY strong misconception of the ILI. This problem probably wont ever get resolved either as real ILIs would rather make suggestions how to fix this problem than fix it themselves based on personal insight. Guess it's time to clean up the translation and promote the accuracy of the Stratievskaya description.... --Hoodrat 05:18, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Thank you Hoodrat, and I appreciate your channeling your energy into constructive causes. --Admin 21:19, 13 October 2008 (BST)

interesting.... none of the ILIs i've met we were really into computers. they certainly didn't especially "lack experience in real life social situations." Most ILIs I know are able to adapt to and mimick social norms in different situations fairly well. As for the whole "computer geek" thing, yikes. ILIs I've met just consider computers an ends to a mean... like... the flusher on a toilet or something. They've got bigger stuff to worry about than fucking computer codes and shit like that. There's the world to contemplate..... --Hoodrat 02:33, 1 November 2008 (GMT)

Maybe you are mistyping ILIs? All of the ILIs I know- and I know about 40- are into computer. I think the stereotype that they have no social skills is wrong; some are rather "suave." But, yeah, all into computers and definitely an air of unabashed "dorkiness" once you get to know them. Ritella 02:36, 1 November 2008 (GMT)

I'm going to have to agree with Ritella. While computer geek or computer junkie won't apply to all ILIs, it's a rather accurate stereotype otherwise. And even if they aren't hanging on the computer when you are around or if they're busy, I wouldn't be surprised if when they have their own space and time that that is what they will be doing most likely. ILIs tend to be very secretive about what they do on their own time, even when with their closest. --HC 16:24, 1 November 2008 (GMT)

bleh, fuck these archetypes of ILI's being the virtual world master or autistic genius. IME it has been the LIIs who assume those roles (Ti is a lot more "virtual" than Te), and the ones who learn socionics typically type themselves ILI because they're lazy fucks with no social skills (zomg IP + Fe polr = perfect excuse to suck at life and maintain self-esteem). The ILI's I've observed, whether irl or not, have been much more prone to pragmatic ventures, physical activity and just general realistic thought than the LIIs. Fuck all the pseudo-mystical crap that gets associated with Ni; it's the TiNe of the INTjs that leads to the cringe-worthy areas of interest so commonly misattributed to ILI's. ugh -nicki 16:38, 1 November 2008 (GMT)

so much misinformation... it's insane--Hoodrat 22:09, 1 November 2008 (GMT)

I'd say half the socionic resources online (both English and Russian) are managed by ILIs — self-typed ILIs. --Admin 00:28, 2 November 2008 (GMT)

That seems to be the problem. nicki 02:54, 2 November 2008 (GMT)

I don't know about the russians, but I'd be willing to bet that many more people than you think in english socionics based their ILI self-typings off of a central few misunderstood/misinformed ILI descriptions e.g. "the computer geek." I'd say that's it's possible even you yourself, rick, fall into this category. It's VERY HARD to understand/artificially model what real Ni is like without being in an Ni valuing quadra. --Hoodrat 04:59, 2 November 2008 (GMT)

Agreed. Not only are the ruskies average at best in the content of their descriptions (many a time I get the image of some coffee-strung out crazies smiling in a basement...dunno why), but with translations and whatnot, the essential patterns of functions, etc. are not always conveyed. Not only this, but the functions are vastly misrepresented in "classical" socionics throughout the internet. It becomes a convoluted, 2nd-rate myers briggs type of thing, and the cognitive processes that underpin functions are ignored. Oh, and 90% of the people who think they understand Ni don't. I don't care if an INTj has Ni in their Id, and thus it is "strong"; I have yet to hear any of them - or any alpha/delta - sufficiently describe the mental experience of what using Ni is like. People are describing functions as theoretical constructs instead of psychic processes, which in my opinion, is what they are. This same pattern holds true for all non-valued function descriptions I've witnessed in quadras. Ask me to describe what it's like to use Si and I'll go blank. Unless you accept a description such as "When I get comfortable in my home with the candles burning and drink coffee while petting my dog - it feels good." gah, whatever. nicki 08:51, 2 November 2008 (GMT)

What are your specific objections to     as described here? If     is about looking inward, understanding hidden processes, and a certain measure of passivity or receptiveness, what kinds of things are ILIs generally into? The argument that you have to be in an     valuing quadra to understand     would apply equally to all functions. If social ineptitude is a stereotype of ILIs (I personally disagree), then it would apply equally to SLIs. Socionics theory doesn't imply that people inevitably have to suck and fail at their 4th function. Maybe that's a common misreading of socionics at the forums.

The "computer geek" ILI is, in my opinion, extremely prevalent. I've personally dealt with many of them, including one's who were working for SEE bosses. Logically this should make sense, as     makes them generally keen on technologies and "how to get things done" with machinery, things, and inanimate objects in general,     makes them capable at working with abstract, non-visual information and interested in imagination and virtual realities, and introversion makes them generally more prone to running projects in the most efficient way possible and take less initiative in leading completely new ventures. --Admin 00:51, 3 November 2008 (GMT)

My objections to Ni descriptions from people mostly just stem from having them recite theoretical descriptions to convey how they "use" it, rather than explaining any real experience with it. I agree about it being associated with hidden processes and whatnot, but I was comparing it to how TiNe can manifest in a fairly abstract outlook, and some INTjs upon reading a more general ILI profile, might mistype themselves because of the superficial behavioral descriptions. nicki 05:16, 3 November 2008 (GMT)