# EIE, IEI and EII - good idea to rather go by quadras to narrow it down?



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

I'm currently trying to understand Socionics a bit better, obviously using myself as the guinea pig (maybe not a good idea ).

I don't want to bring my (practitioner-confirmed) MBTI result into the mix, nor my Enneagram tritype and instinctual variants, but if anyone finds them helpful, they are in my profile. 

So, to cut a long story short (or rather make it longer I guess):
I have a decent grasp of cognitive functions/Jungian theory (I study counselling psychology at the moment). I am pretty certain I am some kind of ethical (either leading or creative) type, but that's where it leaves me. Well, not entirely. I lean towards either IEI, EIE or EII. 
EII is a bit of the odd one out, and something tells me I am more Fe than Fi (could be MBTI bias though). Not that I'd think the Socionics tests are any better than online MBTI tests, but I do consider EII a _slight_ possibility. If I just went after tests, I would consider it a strong possibility because it crops up every time, but something feels slightly off.

I tried to approach the whole thing from different angles: Just looking at the functions, looking at the quadras, looking at static vs. dynamic etc etc. 

The currently strongest indicators for me (and a rather backwards approach): I know I value Se over Si (although I'm pretty shit at it, but I feel drawn to Se users as well - many of my friends and partners are/were pretty strong Se users). 
I am also fairly certain I value Ti over Te, both in myself and other people (strong Te users tend to grate on me after a while). This makes me think that Beta is somewhat more likely than Delta, which would actually make EIE/IEI more likely than EII.
This is a hunch however, and I might be totally wrong to approach it from this angle.

Any angles I might have overlooked, things the more knowledgeable amongst you can spot straightaway to help me narrow things down further?

Here are a few of my tests results and my questionnaire, just to give you an idea:

* *





Link to this result:Socionics Tests

Your Sociotype: EII-1Ne (INFj)

Other Possible Types
EIE (ENFj): 99% as likely as EII.
IEI (INFp): 97% as likely as EII.
LII (INTj): 78% as likely as EII.

Function Strengths and Values
FunctionInformation elementRelative StrengthRelative ValueLeadingFi33%33%CreativeNe42%42%RoleTi17%17%VulnerableSe8%8%SuggestiveTe17%33%MobilizingSi8%42%DemonstrativeFe33%17%IgnoringNi42%8%


From another test:
EII Your result
IEI, ESI, EIE These types might also be considered
SEI, LII, IEE, ESE These types are not very likely
ILI, LSI, SEE, LIE These types are quite unlikely
SLI, ILE, LSE, SLE these types are extremely unlikely

Questionnaire:
http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...hat-do-you-think-my-filled-questionnaire.html


----------



## silphium (Oct 30, 2013)

What I found most helpful in confirming my type was reading about how duals interact with each other. 

Here is an article on the16types called Making Duality Work.


You may also want to check out Augusta’s Dual Nature of Man. Unfortunately, the translation is not too good, but you may find some useful tidbits.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

silphium said:


> What I found most helpful in confirming my type was reading about how duals interact with each other.
> 
> Here is an article on the16types called Making Duality Work.
> 
> You may also want to check out Augusta’s Dual Nature of Man. Unfortunately, the translation is not too good, but you may find some useful tidbits.


I found the second link you provided to be extremely helpful.


----------



## silphium (Oct 30, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> I found the second link you provided to be extremely helpful.


 I’m glad I could help! I think it’s especially useful when you’re trying to narrow down two types and have some self-awareness of how your current relationships are really playing out.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

silphium said:


> I’m glad I could help! I think it’s especially useful when you’re trying to narrow down two types and have some self-awareness of how your current relationships are really playing out.


I'm currently engrossed as well, thanks again 

Did anyone try the eye-covering? 
I can definitely notice the difference described, but I'm a bit at odds with these types of lateralisation generalisations (the handedness preferences that have been thrown into the mix made me feel a bit skeptical straightaway if I'm honest). Maybe that's not what they're trying to say though, and it's just the translation that confuses me


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

FallingSlowly said:


> I'm currently engrossed as well, thanks again
> 
> Did anyone try the eye-covering?
> I can definitely notice the difference described, but I'm a bit at odds with these types of lateralisation generalisations (the handedness preferences that have been thrown into the mix made me feel a bit skeptical straightaway if I'm honest). Maybe that's not what they're trying to say though, and it's just the translation that confuses me


EVERYTHING about Socionics confuses me. LOL


----------



## silphium (Oct 30, 2013)

FallingSlowly said:


> I'm currently engrossed as well, thanks again
> 
> Did anyone try the eye-covering?
> I can definitely notice the difference described, but I'm a bit at odds with these types of lateralisation generalisations (the handedness preferences that have been thrown into the mix made me feel a bit skeptical straightaway if I'm honest). Maybe that's not what they're trying to say though, and it's just the translation that confuses me


 I know what you mean, some of it is a little out there and I believe the crazy stuff Augusta went on about has been debunked. The broken English doesn’t help either, but I guess I’m a little biased about the descriptions because I’m married to my dual and so much of it rings true.

I remembered that there is a better translation of the first half of Augusta’s “Dual Nature of Man” on Rick Delong’s socionics.us site; unfortunately it doesn’t have the dual descriptions.




> I don't want to bring my (practitioner-confirmed) MBTI result into the mix.


 Years ago when I first read “Gifts Differing” it mentioned a little about the cognitive functions, but it used the four dichotomies to decide your type. I was wondering whether the practitioner-confirmed MBTI test used the dichotomies or functions to determine your type. I don’t doubt your results, just curious on how the test is now administered?


----------



## silphium (Oct 30, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> EVERYTHING about Socionics confuses me. LOL


 It is confusing, but it does get easier as you go on. Also, if it was too easy you would have gotten bored and moved onto something else.:tongue:


You may want take a look at this article on socionics.us. Rick does an excellent job of explaining Augusta’s concepts.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Have your friends read the profiles and then explain which ones are fitting descriptions of yourself.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

silphium said:


> Years ago when I first read “Gifts Differing” it mentioned a little about the cognitive functions, but it used the four dichotomies to decide your type. I was wondering whether the practitioner-confirmed MBTI test used the dichotomies or functions to determine your type. I don’t doubt your results, just curious on how the test is now administered?


We had a certified practitioner typing everyone at my workplace (which I personally considered a gross waste of money, but that's a different subject ), and I would reckon they use the MBTI manual, and the whole thing will be more dichotomies- than function-based for that very reason. 
He typed me a "very clear INFJ". If we're just looking at dichotomies, I think that's also true. I have a very clear preference for F over T, and my preference for N over S is even more prominent. I vs. E. is not quite as strong (I'd consider myself a slight social introvert, but not necessarily a cognitive one), and P vs. J is much in keeping with that (and that's the one I personally think Myers/Briggs got most horribly wrong). That's just dichotomies however, and I think that's a rather simplified approach.

The thing that's the biggest stumbling block for me is actually Fe vs. Fi, and the slightly different flavour it has developed if you look at Jung, MBTI and Socionics (and Keirsey to an extent, although I'm even less convinced of that one). I could _*not for the life of me*_ identify with being a dominant extraverted feeling type in Jungian terms. That's not quite so simple in Socionics from everything I've learned so far.

My partner is very clearly Fi in Jungian terms, and Fi/Se in MBTI terms. I know we mainly connect via Se, and that he's much more adept at using it than I am. This is a common denominator in most of my (sexual and non-sexual) relationships tbh - I think I subconsciously look for stronger Se users.

The relationship to my partner is also what makes me feel more inclined to believe that I use Fe, not Fi, because that's the area of most friction (not unsurmountable though, we are both pretty mature and usually communicate well). Or let's say: If I looked at MBTI, that's what I'd be pretty sure of. The definitions of Fe and Fi are not quite the same in Socionics though.

_If_ I used the idea of duality, I'd most likely rule out EII. I was married to a Te/Si type, and we had communication problems that were truly unsurmountable. That would of course be assuming he well and truly was LSE in Socionics. If I was EII, he should have been a much better match (and that's assuming the concept of duality really holds water ).

The distinction between EIE and IEI would be more tricky. 
My best male friend, whom I had a very short relationship with when we were really young (like 20 years ago), is Ti/Se. We really understand each other on a very deep level, but there is also very little sexual attraction (the fact that we had a relationship was purely down to being extremely young and not really knowing what type of attraction we actually felt). So yes, that would be fitting (again assuming he'd really be LSI in Socionics).

I'm trying to think how I'd get along with SLEs (I know a few Se doms, but none I feel incredibly close to, they're rather "pleasant acquaintances"). Considering my "Se-seeking", I'd probably feel initially attracted, but I'm not sure if I'd not have the feeling it's too much in the long run. I wouldn't want to exclude IEI as a possibility just on that basis though.

That was a lot of thinking aloud


----------



## silphium (Oct 30, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> Have your friends read the profiles and then explain which ones are fitting descriptions of yourself.


 No. Interesting point! I found the dual descriptions helpful because I had a hard time deciding between ESI and EII. To add to the confusion I’m also an Enneagram 6 and have no hesitation using force, if provoked. In hindsight I realize now that this is not a valued function, something I’m good or calculated at. Reading about how ESI motivates his partner into action is not something I’m not capable of, and it created a real life example and a break away from all the theory.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

silphium said:


> In hindsight I realize now that this is not a valued function, something I’m good or calculated at.


This is a good point. EII aggression does seem more "researched" and "calculated".

EII is more like "research and think first to avoid negative consequences, then put your foot down when everything is certain and clear."
ESI is like "put your foot down whenever you can, get burned, and only then research and contemplate about consequences".

I think most EII profiles completely overlook this. They describe EIIs as practically incapable of aggression, while in reality EII aggression is more calculated as you say (EII is a strategic intuitive type, after all).

Only Filatova's profile made a mention of this:

"Once she (EII) has absorbed the existing atmosphere, only then she considers becoming a full-fledged member of the community and establishing her influence in regards to its psychological atmosphere."

Socionics - the16types.info - INFj description by Filatova



> Reading about how ESI motivates his partner into action is not something I’m not capable of, and it created a real life example and a break away from all the theory.


Which example was that?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

@FallingSlowly if you're looking for more type opinions you can also post on 16t what's my type forum. Sometimes they have productive typing discussions. It's mostly hit-and-miss, but interesting questionnaires get some replies.


----------



## silphium (Oct 30, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> This is a good point. EII aggression does seem more "researched" and "calculated".
> 
> EII is more like "research and think first to avoid negative consequences, then put your foot down when everything is certain and clear."
> ESI is like "put your foot down whenever you can, get burned, and only then research and contemplate about consequences".
> ...


 Sorry, but I meant to say “something I’m *not* good or calculated at”. I was going to edit my post, but thought it might add more confusion and I think calculated was a poor word choice. 


To state it better, I have poor concept of how much power to use when interacting with people. I’m nearly always, a timid, likeable person who is eager to please and can’t exert my will on anyone. But, if someone violates one of my values, a switch can get flipped and I can become an unyielding and aggressive person. It’s not long lasting, but there seems to be no middle ground, I’m either a mouse or a lion. I view this irrational and aggressive behavior as weakness and not something I’m proud of. 

I imagine an EII enneagram 9 would view their PoLR as not being able to exert their will, even when they need to? 


EII’s calculated:kitteh: 





> Which example was that?


 Quotes from Making Duality Work



> ESI holds his erratic and unpredictable dual "in his hands", guards him from wasteful diversions, from imprudent and untactful behavior, from risky undertakings, too frequent travel and unnecessary endurance tests.





> LIE would have been bored with an always friendly and uncritical of him partner. He would in such a situation distance himself from home, follow the lead of his hobbies and extraneous interests. Elements of "play-fighting" fire up his passion, while a partner who must be constantly won over remains interesting for ESI. He finds appeal in those people whose management and control requires an interplay of diplomacy and willpower.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> @_FallingSlowly_ if you're looking for more type opinions you can also post on 16t what's my type forum. Sometimes they have productive typing discussions. It's mostly hit-and-miss, but interesting questionnaires get some replies.


Thank you, I might look into it.

After further reading, I just thought about something, and I might be totally wrong about this, but I'd be interested in everyone's opinion...

I think I mentioned earlier that "too much Te can grate on me". I don't want this to be understood as "I have a general problem with Te users", because I don't, and I find it valuable in the right context. I certain situations however, it makes me feel suffocated, insecure, and I usually get a very strong "fight or flight"-response. The former can get ugly on occasion, that's why I usually prefer not to engage.

If I consider the blocking of the three types I take into consideration, I cannot help but wonder if I'd be onto something if I look at the fact that Te is an IEI's PoLR? If I look at Si (EIE) or Se (EII) as the PoLR, I find them somewhat less "threatening" (for lack of better word).

Another thing I thought about was Se as a dual-seeking/suggestive function, because I already proclaimed my preference for Se, despite knowing I'm not terribly good at it.

Last but not least: Does anyone consider it possible that Fi as an IEI's demonstrative function can pop up in ways that would, for instance, explain certain online test results, or "Fi vibes"?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Define Fi vibe. I think many people can somewhat vibe feeling, but an ability to discern further than that is usually not always easy because it requires a very refined sense of feeling vibing. Fe and Fi vibe differently though, but I can see why someone could think that the creative Fe in an IEI might seem like Fi at first glance. Remember that one of the most common mistypings occur between quasi-identicals. People for example notice that the ILI is logical and since the thinking appears mostly subjectively derived they assume it must be Ti, forgetting about studying where the logic is oriented - externally or internally. 

For what it's worth, based on the few posts I've seen from you, I don't see how you are Fi base. Fi types are very critical of others in line with attraction-repulsion, and you don't seem to place that personal emphasis on what *you* like or dislike. I find that Fe types in general have difficulties formulating such strong opinions easily. Everything is so relative and unstable so declaring I hate this doesn't seem to make sense for them because the situation might change so now they will think differently. I probably captured the dynamic aspect of Fe shoddily, but I think you'll understand what I mean. If Fe types are going to express dislike for example, it seems to be done in a very general way that it's not so much they personally disliking as much as people are disliking in general.

As for tests, I find that many capture the dimensions poorly and give inaccurate results.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

FallingSlowly said:


> Thank you, I might look into it.
> 
> After further reading, I just thought about something, and I might be totally wrong about this, but I'd be interested in everyone's opinion...
> 
> ...


Since the types that you are considering for yourself are of a different temperament each then it could be something to consider: Socionics - the16types.info - Temperaments 

I am IEI and when I catch myself thinking "What if I'm really an EIE? I can be so outgoing and give others so much emotional energy" then I think back on IP vs EJ temperament. Yep, I'm most definitely IEI. xD


Also just a side note. I think that Te is something that most people who fall short on that in any way will feel inadequate because of it's serious nature compare to things like Si.


----------



## silphium (Oct 30, 2013)

Sorry the thread got focused on me for a while; I’m not good at multitasking. I feel kind of bad, so I read your questionnaire and gave it a lot thought. You have to remember that I’m a stranger on the internet and would prefer to interact with someone in person over a period of time before I was confident of _my opinion_ of their sociotype. 


I agree with ephemereality and feel you have strong Fi, but I think it’s in your ego block. Also, from your questionnaire, I don’t get a Beta vibe at all. I know it’s not one of the types that you’re considering, but what do you think of ESI?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Hm, I don't see Fi base and I definitely don't see ESI. I might consider IEE as an option here, because I don't see how you are rational base simply. I can comment on your questionnaire too if you want.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

FallingSlowly said:


> Thank you, I might look into it.
> 
> After further reading, I just thought about something, and I might be totally wrong about this, but I'd be interested in everyone's opinion...
> 
> ...


Can't tell much from statements like "too much Te/Se/Fi grates on me" because it's not evident to everyone else what's your concept of these elements. I've seen statements like these before, then when the person is asked to describe it they start describing something that has little to do with that element or even socionics and more to do with other personality areas.

So how to you know that what grates on you is Te?


----------

