Dec 22, 2006

ILE - Intuitive Logical Extratim Type Description

The trademark quality of this type is the quest for new information and experience that stimulates the mind and opens up new possibilities for thought and for new endeavors. ILEs are typically drawn to things that are poorly understood or simply unknown, and to fundamental issues (needs work). They like to systematize their insights and experience and discuss them with others. Their friends know them as people who can’t help but share their insights and interesting discoveries and who always have some interesting topic on their mind.

In their service of all that is intriguing and intellectually stimulating in the outside world, ILEs typically neglect their physical needs and activities that bring pleasure and relaxation and emotional release. However, they are highly receptive to others’ attempts to help them in these areas. They gravitate most to people who are interested in hearing about their hobby topics and discussing their most frivolous insights, but who are also skilled at creating a relaxing and lighthearted atmosphere.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Don't you think much of the first paragraph would also apply to some other types as well? Conversely, is every ILE really so intellectual and creatively brilliant?

Rick said...

I didn't say they were "creatively brilliant" or inherently more "intellectual" than other types. I don't believe the first paragraph would consistently apply to people of other types, but it applies to all well-developed ILEs - even those who aren't considered intellectuals. The quest for new information and experience can take place in any context, not just academic activities.

By "intellectually stimulating" I mean information and experience that produces a new mental image of things and generates new routes for thinking and inquiry. There are plenty of ILEs out there that never produce any intellectual or academic products, but just keep skimming the cream and looking for any new interesting bit of information. That doesn't make them more intellectual than people of other types who are more methodical and exhaustive in their thinking.

Anonymous said...

"Skimming the cream and looking for any new interesting bit of information" certainly does sound Ne. :)

What I was reacting to was "ILEs are typically drawn to things that are poorly understood or simply unknown, and to fundamental issues." I thought it was also very characteristic of LIIs and ILIs to be drawn to fundamental issues...that is, to get to the essense of things, to see their core, so to speak. Why would this be more of an ILE trait than LII or ILI?

Rick said...

OK, agreed. That needs to be clarified a bit. I'll mark that sentence and think about it.

Anonymous said...

Of all sites that have discussed ENTPs, this one fits me the best.

Blair said...

The way ILEs differ from ILIs in our quest for truth is that we (ILEs) are more utilitarian about it. We are interested in truths with applications, and the applications of fundamental truths - for example, a physics discovery immediately sparks all kinds of ideas of how this new principle can be applied to technology and may revolutionize society. Whereas the ILI is more interested in the truth itself and doesn't really care what it means.

The LII, on the other hand, is content to stop seeking for a while and work with already-known fundamental truths. He doesn't need to be on the cutting edge to be happy coming up with ways to use these universal principles, although they definitely interest him. In short... he can complete a project before jumping back into research ;P

And, to complete the club, the LIE actually prefers using the truths over learning them, so much that he may be the least scientific of these 4. But he is also the most active, and therefore the most likely to end up successful, whatever he chooses to do.

Maybe this is wrong; I am learning about at least 4 different typologies now (keirsey, myers-briggs, socionics, and another person by the pseudonym of Jack Flak.) But even if it is wrong, it should help with clarification!

Rodney said...

Blair,

That was an excellent rundown, it clarified the differences to me in a new way. Thanks!

"Ennea-type structures" is a good book if you want to fill add a 5th typology (The Enneagram)

For extra bonus points - "Dragon rises, Red bird flies - Psychology in Chinese Medicine"

Anonymous said...

ILE here.

I began trying to type up my thoughts/feelings on the red line, its ambiguities (it's important to distinguish between "unknown-- as in unknown to the world, undiscovered, etc" and "unknown--to the ILE in question"..... I have passing interest in the first, but passionate interest in the second.)

At some point I gave up.

I feel like the phrase "searching for the unknown" (from the original table) feels a bit off, though.

I'm only speaking as one ILE, so how representative I am I don't know.


But the feeling of the thing I'm pursuing is more...

Expansion.

I thrive off the feeling of having my knowledge expand. When I hear about people who know encyclopedic amounts of information I salivate with the longing to have all that knowledge and more in my head.




So again. I think part of the problem is your use of the word "unknown" makes me think of discovering new, never-before-uncovered information, which, frankly, considering how much time that takes (time spent fixated on one topic only, aka ILE hell) is not for me, thanks.
The personally unknown that I can find out if I just start reading and never stop, though...


As for "fundamental"--- again, the association I have with that can go two ways.

The initial association is... hmmm, can't put my finger on it.

But I think a more clear way to put it is "Central to ILE's thinking structure"

aka, we love knowledge, thanks to Ne, but we have a preference in terms of the knowledge we love based on the structure of our internal Ti system. I'll find most new information interesting-- but what I find most fascinating and rewarding is any information that has connections and analogies to many other areas as well. If I can take this mathematical economical principle and slightly modify it to extend it as a somewhat metaphorical explanation of literary theory, it will be more interesting to me than a piece of information that is just itself.

The more a piece of information can be extended via Ne to multiple branches of my internal Ti thinking network, the more I will like it, and the more chance it stands of holding my incredibly short attention span (I mean a few days of extreme interest, followed by total disinterest and inability to re-engage in the topic again-- NOT a difficulty in concentrating).