Particularly those who may look like LIEs. They are quite clearly Se/Ni, but not so clearly Te/Fi or Fe/Ti valuing.

Two examples come to mind. One of my best friends, Greg. He appears to be both Fe and Te leading (that is, he seems to have little concern for Ti, and equally little concern for Fi, and he exhibits strong Fe and Te tendencies). His behaviour is fundamentally that of an EIE - he likes to be responsible for the emotional atmosphere of a social situation of which he naturally delegates himself head. Loud joking and laughing at the expense of others is natural. However, there are a few traits one might deem as Te-ish. Firstly, his energy levels. Although one might ascribe them to his being EJ (which he undoubtedly is), Te is the function responsible for tireless work levels and concern with efficiency and productivity in one's actions, something which seems foreign or alien to a Fe creative. Secondly, the way he divulges practical and useful information (for example, scientific information - he was a chemist who had a general knowledge of biology) to certain individuals, often individuals who are not Te valuing themselves (e.g. myself, my ex-housemate who was in fact Te PoLR).

Now, the second example is Ashton. Clearly the above way of divulging information is not limited to Gammas, let alone Te dominants. Nor is the apparent concern with "productivity" or "efficiency". Nonetheless, I think that this Gammaesque behaviour - because it is very Gamma-like; it's certainly not stereotypically Beta - is what drives Ashton to believe that he is an LIE. I've witnessed his divulging information in this way, and it strikes me instinctively as something he may be doing naturally, but which he believes lends him support for his being an LIE. I think it's one of the key reasons that he believes he is an LIE rather than a Beta of some kind.

Although these two examples are strictly related to Ni creatives, I've got some more ammo for this idea. Me. I'm an SLE who has not only seriously considered SEE, but who has been seriously considered as an SEE, by Gammas (namely niffweed, Expat and Isha (although Isha is self-typed SLI now, at the time she was typed as an ILI)). Moreover, I've created a typing thread for Greg in the past, and some of the potential types that have been generated have been Gamma extrovert. Greg and I get along like wildfire, and it's obvious we're in the same quadra. Now, I don't think we're Gammas - I think we're Betas. Often we've been sat in a pub or bar and heard people shouting and joking loudly as a group, and we've joked about shooting them all because they're upsetting our quiet one-to-one discussion (another stereotypically Gamma activity). Obviously we have our default behaviour as a large group which I've described above. But I'd hasten to add that some of the characters I encountered during my time in the Officers Training Corps were fundamentally very Beta all the time. One-to-one meant nothing to them; nor did "small groups". No doubt some of those to whom Greg and I have to listen when we'd like our own discussion were also of this mentality. Expat and I, as well as - on other occasions - Expat, Isha and I had to put up with loud people watching the football in the pub when we were trying to have a discussion.

Concerning SEE and me, one of the main reasons for this typing was that I seemed to exhibit traits which could be characterised as being Ti PoLR, as well as seemingly contradictory Ti creative-like traits at other times. Many Gammas felt more affinity with me than did a lot of Betas, and people like Isha actually thought I was her dual. Even reyn_til_runa, universally accepted to be ILI by those who know her, interestedly observed my behaviour in one situation suggesting that whatever I did was actually highly perceptive for a supposed Fi PoLR, lending support to the possibility that I was in fact an SEE. One of my own personal reasons for SEE > SLE was that I felt like I detested Alphas more than I did Deltas. More significantly, though, it appeared that I enjoyed a Gamma atmosphere more than a Beta one I've since recognised that, generally, I prefer a Beta environment, although clearly my partiality to a Gamma environment suggests something, when taken in conjunction with the fact that there are those Betas who wouldn't be seen dead in such a low-key, emotionally-subdued atmosphere. My apparent Ti-PoLR related behaviours are more of a mystery to me (if anyone has any explanation for this I'd be interested to hear it). However, I do think that I am basically Ti > Fi creative.

So I do think that there is a difference here, between stereotypical Betas and Gamma-like Betas, such as myself, Greg and - whatever any one on this forum might think due to their personal sentiments regarding him - Ashton. Humour me.

I know excatly what you mean, dude. I am SLE that is constantly mistyped as an SEE, but mostly because the people who typed me here (an EIE and SEE/SLE) typed me before I knew anything about this. The SEE/SLE was def able to see where I was coming from and possibly accept my new typing because I have good reasons to believe that I have a strong Ti, but the EIE . . .well should I even say more? I feel like nothing will ever change his mind about anything. I think the main points of myself being Ti Creative are the following:

-I strongly believe that there is a correct method in doing everything, though it can be winged if needed. everything I do can be broken down systematically. There is an order or reason for thing things I do, but I wouldn't call them a routine.
-I like to learn things the hard way I don't take advice from other people because everyone exp things differently, so I like to go the hard way to draw my own conclusions.
-there is one quote that I have always thought was extreamly accurate. " It can be very difficult to argue with an SLE; rarely will they submit to another's logic, since they believe that their own logic is so well developed. SLEs will often refuse to take others' advice - even to their own detriment - as they can have difficulty seeing viewpoints that differ from their own (though this may also be a matter of pride). "

soooo. yeah. Maybe that helps? you can relate?

in ashton's case, who i feel far more qualified to comment on than in the case of your friend greg, a more longitudinal case study is warranted. for the longest time, when i was sort of involved in ashton's social circle, the amount of attempts that i made to have him explain his points of view in some kind of comprehensible way was significant -- yet, not once did he actually do so. rather, i had to be satisfied by others' explanations of his ideas and the claim that "he's usually more open to discussing his ideas," alongside the acknowledgement that his disinterest in discussing the foundation of model X and propensity to stonewall me about it was not uncharacteristic or surprising behavior.


in this light, ashton's "intellectual side" (inasmuch as it relates to his views of socionics rather than politics and economics) and particularly his sort of open-door discussion forum where he will try to defend his perspectives towards anyone is actually a more recent development. i wonder, also, if it isn't something that he has begun to do because of his self-perception as Ni-ENTj (in addition to situational factors) rather than vice versa.

even if not, there is enough of his history to make me question the idea that this disseminative style is "natural" as you stated -- whether or not you find him SLE or EIE. as something that should not come as a surprise, i think his prior behavior as more "crude" (interestingly, more recent participants in ashton's world object to describing him with the word crude) primarily social, and very freely ripping on others' character is more supportive of SLE, but i see exactly how that degree of crudeness would be argued as circumstancially EIE.



for what it's worth, this is no longer correct; isha's current self-typing appears to be LII.




again, not speaking on your friend greg who i don't know, what do we conclude from this?

ashton, despite your recognition (which i agree with) that he has become more oriented towards didactic content, is clearly not gamma based on the context of his forum interactions over the course of the last four and a half years. you, likewise, were thought of as gamma primarily because isha and expat thought this briefly (and i tagged along, sort of, for a little while), but in reality from the kinds of interactions you describe enjoying with people like leon and your friend greg (and many other reasons), it is in retrospect obvious that this is not the case.

so, what i get from this mess is perhaps what we should have known all along -- quadra values rule all.

also, regardless of whether he is gamma-like (i don't obviously see why), i see vuze as nothing resembling an SEE, as he knows.

lol

I don't know Ashton, but I think the association between "divulging information" (wow, sounds like a spy flick) and Te is problematic because people can share little bits of information for lots of different reasons depending on the context. Is it to establish a Ti-based understanding of a system? Or is it to help him establish his position of authority and intellectual power (could be Se-related)? Or is it to support some point related to his Ni?

As far as "productivity" and "efficiency" goes, Se can come across as concerned with productivity. But Se "productivity" is more the 'let's get this shit done' kind of productivity. Se "productivity" is productivity at the service of a specific goal or longterm vision (possibly Ni-related), whereas I'd associate Te more with productivity for the sake of productivity. Se is goal-oriented and derives actions from goals, which can appear to be a concern with productivity, whereas Te by itself might preach productivity as a general life strategy without needing specific goals first.

I think that one might be able to account for this w/ Socionics subtypes.

Personally, I tend to like the atmospheres you classify as Gamma... For example, I have a lot of Gamma acquaintances--I find that I get along with them well, in general, (although the understanding isn't as clear as w/ betas, as one would expect.)

I have only one alpha acquaintance--an INTj... I've found that I don't tend to have as clear an understanding, naturally, with most Alphas as with most Betas or Gammas. I've noticed that it's an effort for me to get along with most Alphas.

Aestrivex, I've seen, reference specific Sociotype "archetypes," e.g. the "Audrey Hepburn-like beta NF"... I've noticed comparable Sociotype archetypes, and attributed them to subtypes, (classifying them in the base/creative categories used by Meged, Gulenko, and others... Honestly, I'm not sure that I've been classifying the subtypes correctly--I've flip-flopped between whether I'm base or creative subtype... I'm still not sure which I am.)

Regardless, I've noticed that I prefer certain archetypes (subtypes)--and I've noticed that others prefer certain archetypes as well... Basically echoing what you wrote above, Ezra.

For example, as to LSIs--I've found that I don't like the Huitzlipotchli archetype nearly as much as the Michael Jordan archetype... The Michael Jordan archetype, I recognize as my dual... The Huitzilpotchli archetype--i know several of them, and do not feel as much affinity.

Similarly, Ezra, I've found that irl I get along better with the Ezra archetype of SLEs, than say the Mike Tyson archetype.



I believe that subtypes can account for these preferences... I don't trust whether I, personally, have classified the subtypes correctly... When someone does this, eventually--it will make Socionics all the more potent... And more fully explain why you (and honestly I) prefer these "Gamma-like" betas, as opposed to my younger brother, (who I classify as Ni-IEI,) who prefers the Mike Tyson SLE, etc.

so, if i'm reading your post correctly, you immediately attributed these "archetypes" to accepting/producing subtypes, then vacillated and frequently changed your opinion of the subtypes of yourself and others as they relate to a broader theoretical perspective (presumably, in an unsuccessful effort to make your personal observations make sense), and now believe that subtypes are the answer to interpreting relations between these archetypes, yet don't know how.


that makes epistemological sense.

I still think you guys are making a mistake in not considering the dual-type theory in accounting for intratype differences. There are Alpha-like Betas, Gamma-like Betas, Delta-like Betas and the pure Betas. And once you've observed enough identicals, duals, or whatever type you're most familiar with, the more you'll see the differences between these types.

Double duality in both the IM and EM level is what I would call perfect duality. We have more connection with identicals and duals in the same EM quadra than from the opposing quadras. Hutzilopochti's type is one I have pinpointed as LSI-LII due to the similarities he has with another offline LSI-LII friend of mine whose "nonsense" abstract theories I find difficult to digest, impracticable, and senseless which I feel he dabbles in for the sake of amusement rather than a concern for real-world application. Hutzilopochti's dabblings in the reinin dichotomies are very similar to my LSI-LII friend's fondness and overuse of management theoretical principles in his conversations to the point of irrelevancy.

I may not be able to describe the overly theoretical underpinnings of the dual-type theory, and explain to you what EM type is all about. What I have confidence in are my observations of intratype differences and their impact on relations and their differing approaches to tackling problems which I have grasped over the past year of learning to see a person as consisting of two different types. To describe these differences as a factor of producing and accepting subtypes is in my opinion, insufficient and to continue believing that base subtypes are more compatible with a dual with a base subtype, and a creative subtype more compatible with duals of creative subtypes is incomplete.

The "archetypes" you speak of are merely manifestations of the dual-type and applies to all quadras, not merely Betas. The reason why they are more clearly prevalent and obvious compared to the other quadras is probably due to the Beta ideological spirit and expression of opinions clashing out in the open.

Just saying.

*sigh*

LMAO!! Well, when you put it like that...

Essentially and honestly, yes. (Unfortunately, yes.)

Do you think it's misguided to try to attribute these different archetypes to accepting/producing??

Also, I'm interested: how have you accounted for the different archetypes in terms of classification?

from an information entropy perspective, the predictive power (operationalized as its self-information or information content) of accepting/producing subtypes in a black box is theoretically as much as the information content of the underlying veridical phenomenon, so no.



i have no way of classifying them other than identifying them.