Intuition description

Intuition

Intuition as a dimension of information deals with information that is abstract, subjective, and not physically present. Fundamentally, the building blocks of intuition are concepts and conceptual associations. What is meant by conceptual associations is something along the lines of properties that can be abstracted from a physical stimulus or a tangible situation. For example, consider a normal chair. There are many different types of chairs, which all look substantially different and have different physical properties, as well as tangible properties, such as cost, function, sentimental value. However, all of them have essentially the same feature that they are a chair; these range of highly distinct objects share the feature that one can sit on them. If someone tells you that they sat on a chair, you may develop a generic mental image of a simple object with legs, a flat surface, and a back surface. Your mental image probably is rather generic and does not contain excess unspecified features (for example, you are unlikely to immediately picture a swivel chair with wheels). What you are likely to have pictured probably meets your abstract knowledge of the properties of a chair and little else; namely, you can sit on it. This property, thus, is what constitutes the fundamental concept of what a chair is. It is concepts of this type, abstractions of physical properties or of other concepts, that constitute the intuitive mindset. Concepts are fundamental to both introverted and extroverted flavors of intuition, as they are to all human beings. Where and begin to differ in their emphases is in the domain of conceptual associations, or concepts about concepts. It is an oversimplification to say that is concerned with concepts and with conceptual associations. Rather, it is the kind of emphasis that and bring to concepts that differentiates them. seeks to maximize its degree of conceptual branching, whereas is less inclined to create new conceptual branches.

Extroverted Intuition

The attitude of    is characterized by generating more concepts; more generally by expansive possibility. An expansive possibility is something new or interesting that could be done, perhaps with the intent of improving it. The attitude of paying attention to expansive possibilities is fundamentally open, and fundamentally worldly. There is an openness towards experiencing the variety of the world in order to expose oneself to the broadest range of possibilities, and the attention is directed towards how the world might be improved.

is commonly associated with possibilities, novelty, brainstorming, and situations of high potential interest level. dominant types can be effectively summed up as individuals, often highly distractible, that produce a voluminous amount of new and often crazy ideas, actively creating and developing new conceptual associations rather than revisiting old ones. dominants may or may not physically create or enact the projects that they ideate, often looking up instructions on the fly or not at all (preferring to experiment as much as possible). Often, their ideas end up unrealized. In addition, types often have a need for unrestricted freedom of activity, preferring not to be tied down to obligations or situational demands.

In creatives, the orientation of openness and generation of expansive possibilities is more subdued in favor of the aims of the base function. While openness and expansive possibility is still an important element of the lifestyle, focus, and values of these types, they can situationally become more closed off and passive depending on the situation, and they do not generally display the hyperactivity in lifestyle of dominants.

Introverted Intuition

The fundamental attitude of is characterized in contrast, by generating few concepts; by limiting possibility. If expansive possibility is something new or interesting that could be done to improve the surrounding world, limiting possibility is something that might be *not* done to improve the world -- for instance, since I feel poorly this morning, I might not go to work. As such, types are often careful thinkers. The attitude of limiting possibility is fundamentally closed and fundamentally nonworldly (i.e. disembodied). Whereas types are open to the new experiences in the world around them, in there is an overt resistance to the experiences that the world has to offer. Expanding on this resistance, types come to reject worldliness; instead, they disembody themselves from their worldly experience (which is seen as limited, mundane, unimportant) and mentalize about the supra-worldly, creating an imaginary separate world in their head and seeking out the universal meaning in their experience that is broader than the basic sensations they feel. For instance, meaning must come from understanding the nature of the universe, rather than from the magical experience of e.g. this delicious cheesecake.

is associated with memory, uncertainty, state of mind, understanding trends or ongoing processes, incommunicability of subjective mental images, and a state of inertia. Most of all, it is associated with meaning, and forward vision. If types are likely to branch out and explore all possible concepts to find something interesting, types are likely to replay the conceptual associations that they have already made in their head. They may mentally replay things that have happened from their past or especially focus on the importance of concepts in memory, especially those relating to their personal history. dominants, perhaps more than any other types, are those that are inclined to appear out of touch with the real world and commonly lost in thought. They are also very often lazy and externally unmotivated, and may not interact or accomplish very much without outside influence. dominants in analytical ways often have a tendency to convey doubt, communicate about the unknowability of the topic or to constantly generalize their ideas.

The relationship between and time is by far more confusing than it's worth, and its worth is furthermore very limited. Everything that does have to do with time can be explained by a focus on events in one's memory and history and in an attunement to trends or ongoing processes, as in the sense of dominance automatic tendency towards "instant replay."

In creatives, as with all creatives, the orientation is relatively more situational and subdued. In this case, it is limiting possibilities that are situationally subdued, leading to individuals that have the capacity to be very careful thinkers and visionaries in some situations, but also particularly driven and lacking in patience or singularity of focus at other times.

Sensation description

Sensation, sometimes called sensing or sensorics (the latter a more technically correct Russian translation), is an irrational informational dimension in socionics encompassing the information elements of introverted sensation and extroverted sensation, symbolically depicted as and , respectively.

Roughly speaking, sensation is concerned with bodily/kinesthetic perceptions, experiences, and concrete, worldly needs. As with all elements, and differ with respect to their particular emphases in these perceptions and needs. In general, focuses most intently on meeting and attending to external demands while focuses primarily on internal demands.

One anecdotal contrast between and is that of two runners in a race, and the differing conscious emphases that they bring with them. The runner may be most concerned on the preservation of their internal state while running the race -- the way that the race affects him physically, whether he feels sick or overly tired. The runner furthermore is most likely to modulate his activity based on his internal experiences; for example, if he feels too tired, by stopping the race. In contrast, the runner is more focused on the external demands and elements of his environment rather than his internal experience of them. While the runner is likely to notice his surroundings and bodily experiences, they are less inclined to focus on how these sensations affect them internally; they may notice but place little importance on the beauty of their physical surroundings during the race, for instance. Instead, they are likely to be more attuned towards the energy and competitive aspect of the race itself, and also more inclined to physically push themselves towards the goal of victory, seeing their physical experience as less important than the goal or surrounding circumstances.

Naturally, this is a stupid and simplistic example; it is not intended to suggest that types always get tired and stop running in races, nor that types ignore their bodies and run interminably like Forrest Gump (who was definitely not an archetype). Rather, it is intended to illustrate the differences in the way that the two might interpret the same situation and often express, to some extent, differential life emphases and values.

Here is a more conceptually deep comparison: Individuals who focus on external demands are primarily attuned to their needs with the expectation of acquiring these needs from the outside world; the attention is focused on the contingencies of the outside world and the needs of the individual are seen as being met by effectuating a direct impact on the outside world. In contrast, individuals who focus on their internal demands are primarily attuned to the immediate lived circumstances of their being; attention is not focused on what they need from the world, but on the individual's goodness of fit with respect to their world. Assessments are made evaluating their needs not on the efficacy of their direct impact on meeting their own needs, but based on the circumstances of their living, and their ability to indirectly impact their needs by favorably managing these circumstances.

Extroverted Sensation

is often associated with such themes as willpower, energy, power, drive, initiative, volition, instinct, desire, and impulsivity. It also generally encompasses normative elements of fashion, dress style, and sex appeal. In general, is also an experientially motivated function; it is associated (though especially so in the case of dominant types, SLE and SEE) with intensity, range, and uninhibited nature of sensory experiences (for example, the thrill and danger of skydiving, or the impulsive sensation of "ooh, shiny; i want that!"). Additionally, types are sometimes extensively materialistic, and attached to their material possessions. may also be sometimes associated with partying, general debauchery, and the "happening," predominantly active lifestyle. In creative types (LSI and ESI), however, the element is expressed more distinctly in the guise of self-control and rigid, inflexible determination. In contrast to dominants, who may be very flexible and capricious in their sense of adopted principles (instead, taking a stand and "fighting" for the very experience of fighting), creatives tend to subordinate their volitionally uncompromising nature to the principles of their existing lifestyle ( or ).

Introverted Sensation

is most often associated with themes like naturalism, adaptability, comfort, richness, and enjoyment of sensory experiences, satiety, attentiveness to one's physical surroundings, and awareness of bodily/kinesthetic signals. Like , is also an experientially based element, emphasizing active experience of and adaptation to one's environment as opposed to a style too detached or controlled -- though in the case of creatives, adaptability is less emphasized and the goals of and sensory experience can be subdued to goals of the dominant (rational) element, and expressed as a preference for familiarity and sameness.

Interview aarcha

Recently I encountered a practice of community typing sessions where various self-styled experts collaborate to interview a subject. This occurs nowadays in a variety of socionics communities. I had initially low hopes for this practice, but after trying out a couple of interviews collaboratively with this method, I was pleasantly surprised by the effectiveness of the technique. There is nothing terribly good about swapping in between different interviewers with different priorities and who all want time to be convinced individually of their own reasons -- this tends to cause interviews to balloon in length and doesn't necessarily add clarity for the observer -- but there is something good about having a diversity of opinions among a panel of experts. Of course, the "experts" always have different skillsets, but anyway. We will consider on this blog a subset of particularly interesting and informative interviews I encounter produced by this method. In the first interview, we will discuss aarcha, which is an interview anyway where I did the majority of the interviewing.

The most immediately obvious feature of Aarcha's interview is his tendency to ramble on, in a train of thoughts that meanders in different directions, sometimes seemingly neverendingly. Aarcha elaborates his ideas slowly and is prone to using very complex vocabulary (a sample, "context", ), spends time searching for the correct (complex) words to precisely and artfully convey his meaning (15:25 an example of "searching for the right word"), and frequently preemptively revises his thoughts before he is done speaking, to add clarifications and details. Ironically, the net effect of aarcha's care to articulate his ideas precisely is that he is very hard to understand, it is generally requires a lot of sustained attention to unpack the complex choice of words and follow his ideas in their lengthy elaborations. It also doesn't seem that aarcha simplifies his thoughts for the benefit of his interlocutors, or tries to make a connection with the people he's talking to in such a way that he checks whether they are understanding -- he seems to give very little thought to his interlocutors' thoughts.

Another broad theme that emerges from Aarcha's narratives about his world, especially his limited social world, is that he has great difficulty conjuring specific examples to support his ideas, when I asked him repeatedly. Sometimes, his examples contradicted or were not very much like the general principles he described -- like when he spoke about his slightly abrasive "protectiveness" over his sister's ideas, I asked for an example, and he talked about how she doesn't like eggs and he considers that it's important to consider that "it's standardly cool [in pop culture] to like eggs" (39:30 -- for what it's worth, I found this idea in particular very confusing), or how they discussed what were their favorite colors (41:40). Perhaps these were ideas that came to mind for him that weren't much like the theme he expressed of being protective over someone else's ideas -- but anyway he had difficulty articulating much specific detail. Another example of a directly inconsistent narrative (at 56:10), he said that over some time he changed his behavior to become less abrasively demonstrative about expressing his annoyance with other people and correcting their ideas, and less involved in debating things (these ideas first emerge a few minutes earlier, from the timestamp given might not be fully clear, for the whole segment listen from 51:30), then asked what changed (56:35), he says that nothing changed, that all of the things he does now and the kind of person that he is now, is the kind of person he always has been.

My typing of Aarcha is the IEI. The other interviewers all came to different other conclusions, so I will attempt here to explain some of the specific reasons why I reached my own.

Aarcha makes reference to his "lexical problems" and he speaks in more specificity about how his learning disabilities have affected his life and career, beginning around 59:45. The exact nature of the learning disabilities are not entirely clear, and probably not that important; we can certainly see some difficulties Aarcha has in regular communication between human beings, as alluded to with his complex speaking style above. As with all mental disabilities generally, the etiologies are not clear; maybe Aarcha's difficulties with attention and speaking are an extension of the personality variables of thinking slowly and carefully and wanting to present the self in a precise way, or perhaps, theoretically, the difficulties with speaking are some other condition that is extraneous to personality, and if we could remove it, the true personality could shine through more quickly. If anyone knows how to remove mental disorders to see the underlying personality, please comment below how to do it. Certainly it is true from hearing him talk briefly about his history with these difficulties that Aarcha's learning disabilities are in at least some respect responsible for the highly diminished nature of his social world and especially his career prospects. Whether or not these challenges are a natural feature, but unusually pervasive feature of a more usual personality, or a separate disorder, or some mix of both, is not very clear, and I don't think anyone else can know the answer to that either. My point in bringing it up is this: regardless of the etiology of lesrning disabilities, I think it is particularly useful to notice that Aarcha might not match our expectations of certain types especially in their styles of communication. At one point during the interview, I thought that Aarcha might not be the ILI, since the ILIs with Fi mobilizing would often have a more clear decisive characterization about the people around them, even if they are still unsure about how to evaluate their ideas of people normatively. But, in the context of Aarcha's overall difficulty with expressing himself clearly, maybe that's not the right expectation. At the same time, I would say that Aarcha's comments throughout the interview, when he can express them, were very candid and intentionally open, even in a potentially vulnerable setting.

Aarcha seems to be a clear introvert, he describes himself somewhere near the beginning of the interview as a "social extrovert", he elaborated that by this he means someone who gets energy from interacting with people, likely energy that he does not normally have himself. He describes himself subsisting almost entirely in a virtual social world, with pretty few other activities, at least few enough activities that he considers notable enough to tell us. This may become more common in the future, but the Ni dominant types are those most at home living in a mostly virtual world behind their computer screens, relatively disembodied, interacting with people mentally and with little need to go different places.

There is an unusually clear description of source fluidity at 14:00. Source fluidity is the idea that individuals valuing Ti/Fe do not prefer to discriminate between information from different sources (generally, people), instead, they will take information available from any source with a willingness to assess that source's motivation and biases, and deciding whether that information is correct or consistent, based on "the logic of it", and whether it is consistent with other information they know. It is fair to say that in his description Aarcha emphasizes the Ti part of whether information is consistent with his knowledge and could make sense in the way he understands things, than the Fe part about deducing unknown motivations of other sources. Source integrity is in contrast to source fluidity, preferred by Te and Fi valuing types, who prefer to be able to find sources (generally, people) that they trust, with which they can have unambiguous communication, or unidirectional flow of information, without having to filter it.

Aarcha's social anxiety that he describes, seems to betray a rather extensive conscious awareness and concern for how other people perceive him (This topic is under discussion loosely for the entire last 30 minutes of the interview, beginning at the question around 1:15:20). This is very unlike the ILI with Fe vulnerable or other types with weak Fe. Aarcha also speaks about his tendency towards being accommodating and his intentions to be sensitive to other people in certain circumstances (around 1:33:00). Likewise, he responded in the affirmative to my question about the authenticity of his self-presentation (at 1:26:45) It's possible that Fe suggestive types like the LII and LSI can be aware of, and quite nervous about, how other people are perceiving them -- usually this skill comes with growth and is not so accessible early in life. Aarcha is relatively young and, at a glance, seems like not a terrible nor excellent self-observer, it seems more likely that this focus would be coming from a type with strong Fe as opposed to suggestive Fe. I would also say that among the more clear topics that Aarcha talked about in an energized and clear-minded way, related to his lengthy discussion about his relationship to his sister, which I intentionally kept asking him questions about for this reason, roughly around 25:00 to 45:00. (In the spirit of disclosure, I have some outside knowledge not pertinent to this interview prior to starting, that suggested that this was among the more clear-minded topics for Aarcha to discuss). I think it would be fair to say that, while Aarcha has difficulty articulating the character of his sister and other friends and family members, he has difficulty articulating a wide variety of things during the entirety of the interview, and that he does have some things to say about the character of his sister and himself, and the interplay between the two of them based on the sorts of people that they are, although it took a little bit of time to get him to focus on them, he was much more interested in talking about his own thoughts and responses than the character of other people. This is broadly consistent with a preference for Fe, but also room for Fi, characteristic of demonstrative Fi in the IEI. Arguably, it can also match a Ti dominant type.

Aarcha describes himself as having a self-absorbed style of expression (52:20, the comment is out of context but the context is as a less serious aside anyway), but more pervasively as having a "silly" or "goofy" lighthearted style. Both IEIs and ILIs have a propensity for guardedness and "goofiness" originating from an tendency to see the world around them as unimportant, and to make fun of it in certain ways. When asked for examples of weightier, more important subjects, he didn't really describe any. But he came to this description over and over, that some things about him, especially the way that he was inclined to correct other people's ideas (or, as he pointed out, to protect, and "affirmingly make them believe their views that they already believe, better" 53:00) was simply, naturally his disposition, the way he often is. It seems to me that Aarcha has a pretty big naturally argumentative side, and that he lives in a world of intellect and ideas, critical of other people's contributions and with his own strong opinions about how to think about things. Alpha types like the LII do live largely in a world of ideas, but are not so naturally argumentative, and are more open-minded, receptive, and accommodating, and not always as definitively producing their own ways to think -- or to the extent that they are, they are more accommodating about other people's ideas and not so inclined to have clear judgments about them. In my opinon, Aarcha's assessment of other people has at least as much of a component of evaluating and judging other people based on their ideas as their character -- he speaks only very loosely about other people's character, it's certainly possible that in certain ways he judges other people by their character. By contrast, he somewhat more directly describes that he judges other people by his ideas "I mean, we're all people and we all [...] don't like something, we all have sentiments of disliking people when they believe something differently that we find annoying/asinine as hell and it's probably good to acknowledge that aspect of ourselves" (1:42:40). That judgment based on ideas, seems a little more clear than his judgments by character, although it is certainly possible that he judges by character as well. We see this archetype very often in the socionics community of IEIs who are more intellectual (and as Peter Bartl pointed out many years ago, more often in men) -- who nonetheless have a high focus on the way they appear to others (being intellectual and "nerdy" is an "acceptable" social role for men more often than women, although of course female IEIs can also sometimes be quite intellectual). There are many examples of this throughout the socionics community throughout the years, just to mention a few examples in my opinion for those familiar with the long history of the community, ArchonAlarion, Simon Jacobsen, and Paul Abrusley (aka hitta).

Another point, Aarcha spoke relatively later on in the interview about the idea of "social games" -- it is interesting and perhaps more likely for someone attuned to the emotional environment to describe social games, but probably a variety of other types might also discuss things in this way, and Aarcha's explanation of the reasons and dynamics for those social games, when prompted, was not very elaborate -- mostly again he spoke about his own possible foibles that people might view negatively. In my opinion, the evidence that Aarcha is focused on and aware of the way he comes across to others, his family and peers, is stronger than the idea that he is very aware of other people with hidden ulterior motives -- it is also not clear that he isn't keenly aware of that, and maybe there is evidence unrelated to the interview that he is inclined to attribute such motives in some cirucmstances.

Regarding alternatives and the other conclusions from the other interviewers -- the other types that were mainly discussed were ILI, LSI, and LII. I considered ILI somewhat more carefully during the interview -- I think it is preferable to see Aarcha as a beta introvert with Ti and Fe values. LII I didn't consider nearly as carefully in this current interview, I think Aarcha has some signals of being quite distant and reserved from the real world and also seems, as I said before, argumentative, in a way that makes all of the Ne valuing types quite unlikely. LSI, being the closest type to IEI, is more interesting, and maybe merits some more consideration. It is very easy for me to see Aarcha as emphasizing Ti and Ni and Fe, instead of Ti and Ni and Se, as the LSI might do. As noted above, the Ti dominant type, especially those that have leveled up their awareness in life, can be aware of the way they come across to others, indeed, they can be quite obsessively concerned about how they come across to others. So perhaps that is not impossible. But overall, I see suggestions that Aarcha has Ti and Ni and Fe, instead of Se, and I don't think it is preferable to think of him as a Ti dominant type compared to an Ni dominant type.

One rebuttal made by some other interviewers with different conclusions is that they liked many aspects of seeing Aarcha as IEI, but that they prefer Fi over Fe values. I already addressed that at some length. Another argument was that they did not think of Te vulnerable as very appropriate. If so, LSI or LII wouldn't help much since Te ignoring in my view, wouldn't be much different at all; Ti is still prioritized and winning, and Te is still absent. I don't have a difficulty seeing Aarcha as Te vulnerable, and seeing Ti as highly prioritized without Te. Possibly, this objection comes from Aarcha's critical nature and his tendency to focus rather decisively on the world of ideas, and opinions, and debates, and the way in which other people are inclined to think correctly and accurately about things. Certainly, those are features of how gamma NTs with Te and Ni think as well, but I think it is reasonable to see Aarcha as navigating the world of ideas and ideologies, and in a highly critical way, while prioritizing consistency, and concordance with prior expressed knowledge, rather than measurability and applicability; those topics weren't brought up in the course of interview (although things like, expressing other people's positions faithfully and with integrity so as not to misinterpret them, did come up, the meaning of which is more difficult to interpret). A difficulty thinking of concrete examples, and a concomitant propensity for unconstrained, magical thinking is something that IEIs tend to often have difficulty with -- with Aarcha there is no magical thinking that we can see from this interview, but there is an obvious dramatic difficulty with concreteness in his examples. Maybe it is less significant, if there are other speech problems -- but still, it seems more like an IEI's expression of Te to me than any of the other alternatives.

Interview Lukas

I interviewed Lukas

I had a slightly difficult time with this interview, and I went down some wrong paths.

Major observations:

• Lukas has a slightly scattered discursive style. This is a rather general impression that I get from the range of topics discussed. Lukas does stop and think a lot and allows the conversation to get very directed by me, but still, I don't necessarily have any very powerful specific evidence to back up this claim. (Also, Lukas describes himself as "scattered" at 4:30).
• Lukas focuses most naturally on *what he does,* but does so inconsistently. For instance, at the very beginning of the video, Lukas seems a bit taken aback and unsure how to respond to the high degree of open-endedness in the "Tell me about yourself" question (which is normal). He then proceeds to start talking about some of the objective information about his life and *what he does* in his life, but only actually gives a small amount of disconnected information, and then relatively quickly, becomes unsure what to talk about, and stops rambling and asks for additional specificity. One could imagine watching other people, uncertain of what they should talk about in such a situation, talk at much greater length about what they do. Another example of Lukas failing to speak with uninterrupted attention to what he does, at 26:30 Lukas speaks for about 45 seconds about a job, and speaks ONLY about the features of the job, how long his breaks are, how much contact he has with colleagues and how this makes him feel, until after about 45 seconds I stop him and ask him what the job is (I rather doubt that an extroverted logical type would ever describe their job in that manner, without saying what the job is). Another similar example occurs at 46:30, where Lukas starts explaining a graphic design job but doesn't give detail about what the job is about.

We find Lukas at a point in his life, having graduated from his university studies only a very short time ago, when he is at a major decision point, in which most people try to decide on a career path. So, I spent considerable time, perhaps with didactic as well as diagnostic intent, discussing this decision, more time perhaps than was valuable; however, as an interviewer my goal was to talk with Lukas openly about this important decision occurring at this time in his life, and seeing what he thought about it. A few points emerged:

1. Lukas was not really sure about what to do with himself; one theme which recurred was a desire to keep his options open (normal, at this stage of life, but still interesting).
2. In a certain way, Lukas has not given a lot of thought to his career; he has some thoughts about it, but he seems to prefer to figure some things out later rather than making plans prematurely that he might feel restricted by.
3. Lukas spends a lot of time talking about what he is "interested in" (frequently occurring words: "interested" and "interesting"; we also explicitly discuss this topic at 17:30 and Lukas agrees with my observation, but doesn't comment further.) and, while relatively flexible, really does, I think, have a drive to primarily do things that are interesting.

My typing of Lukas is ILE. There are some additional observations that go into this typing.

• Lukas doesn't talk much about physical activities. While he had a few things to say in response to my question at 1:04:40 "What are your three favorite activities to do outdoors" -- he had trouble thinking of the third activity, and had not mentioned any of the three activities earlier (for example, in the "What kind of person are you?" question). He has very limited other things to say about his physical surroundings, in general. I concluded that Lukas was not an Si dominant type such as the SLI, even though in SLIs sometimes these types of comments are a bit muted and hard to find.
• Lukas spends very little time talking about individual character. Actually, there is almost no time in the entire video discussing the qualities of any other person, besides Luke himself, including when this discussion was more prompted. There was probably more discussion of (negative, angering) qualities of someone in the question at 1:10:00 asking about conflict, than there were in the questions that followed at around 1:18:00 about relationships and the direct question 1:27:30, "What about the friends that you had in college made them your friends" -- instead of answering this latter question by speaking about their character, he explained who knew who, who lived nearby, and what activities he liked to do with particular friends. It's not clear from his answer how closely he knew any different people. The greatest that was said about the qualities about his friends was "shared interests, shared values, things like that" and "We all liked to drink a lot" I conclude that a focus on Fi is less likely.
• Lukas is kind of ambiverted, expressing a range of activities to do with other people and in the outside world but also expressing a lot of nerdy, mental activities and time spent away from other people.

That said, besides ILE, the other type that would make the most sense, I think, is the IEE. In my opinion, there is a fair amount that Lukas has noncommitment and indecision characteristic of Ne types -- as we see for example in the restraint from strong judgment of the individual that took the car in the story about the conflict with the car. This story was not really conclusive about telling between the ILE and IEE. The delta theme of good-faith judgment, where judgment is slow and alternate explanations to "this person is evil" are preferred to quick conclusions, is on display in that story. However, ILE also is a type that prefers not to be judgmental; to tell the difference between ILE and IEE it is most helpful to examine other situations to see if there are any other times when it seems that the character of others is a principal focus of attention. That was the purpose of the subsequent few questions, and my interpretation from the subsequent questions, is that there is no evidence to suggest that character of other people is ever a strong focus.

Following the interview, Lukas and I had a discussion about this point, without reaching a strong conclusion. One thing that Lukas mentioned, correctly, is that the discussion about the guy who took the car can be seen as an evaluation of character and that Lukas expressed some negative feelings about that guy. It's true that despite the lack of strong judgment, that there was evaluation of character -- however, I contend that this is an easier situation to evaluate character of since the outcome of the situation is highly negative. If Lukas were the IEE (which may still be the case, as both delta NF types are often "shy" about displaying their inherently noncommittal judgment of others -- the IEE is still less shy). I'd like to see more evidence of good-faith judgment of other people to change my mind. I think there were a lot of opportunities to talk about people during the interview, but perhaps it would be more informative to ask Lukas about some specific people (it also felt to me, especially talking about the wide range of people at college in different cliques, that Lukas didn't keep very many if any people real close to the vest, but perhaps I'm wrong; I didn't ask him about it anyway).

I'm okay with seeing Lukas as having Te mobilizing and Fe demonstrative. However, it works just as well to see Lukas as having Ti creative and Te mobilizing -- where the focus on what people do is in relatively even competition with focusing on certain general structures and principles for understanding and interacting with the world. Some passive, inconclusive evidence for Ti: I think that there is some suggestion that Lukas has an ideological bent (for example of the discussion around 34:00 about political activism and the uncertainty around Lukas felt of how involved to be, as well as a past interest in Libertarian philosophy, briefly discussed around 1:19:30). There are some other small instances in the video which are not as easy to point out specifically where Lukas seems to be answering something based on a general principle understanding, and has an inclination to discuss the general principle, and doesn't think to address any specific supporting example -- I won't go through the video and find every such instance because that would be really hard, but one example, is at 36:30 through around 40:00 where I ask Lukas a complex question about how he wants to work, and he talks in general about how he liked working in certain ways, without reference to specific examples or details about those work environments.

I also feel that Fe mobilizing fits relatively well; at times in answering these last few questions about socialization, Lukas mentioned things like how he wants to be part of a community and he is bothered by being alone and not being part of a group (43:15) -- Perhaps this is rather general and not necessarily entirely conclusive. On the whole though, there are bits of nonconclusive, circumstancial evidence that lead me to solidly prefer ILE to other suggestions like IEE.

What are some other possibilities? LII comes to mind. It might be possible, but I don't think it is preferable; I would expect an LII to be less active and more consistent.