# Telling apart EII from LII and ESI in typing (INFj INTj ISFj)



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

following the LII/ILI thread I thought it would be good to discuss the differences between the three IJ types EII, LII, and ESI or within Model A these would be the differences between Fi-dom/Te seeking vs Ti-dom/Fe seeking and Se-creative/Ne-PoLR vs Ne-creative/Se-PoLR

there are frequent misunderstandings and confusions regarding these three types

how do you tell EII and LII apart?
how do you tell EIIs apart from ESIs?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> following the LII/ILI thread I thought it would be good to discuss the differences between the three IJ types EII, LII, and ESI or within Model A these would be the differences between Fi-dom/Te seeking vs Ti-dom/Fe seeking and Se-creative/Ne-PoLR vs Ne-creative/Se-PoLR
> 
> there are frequent misunderstandings and confusions regarding these three types
> 
> ...


Why did you live ISTjs?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Otherwise the difference between EII and LII is logical and ethical competency and incompetency. The similarities here are the reasoning styles Rational Abstract Static perception.ESI and LSI have logical competency and incompetency, whilst similarly they happen to be Rational Concrete Static perception types. @cyamitide I made this thread, http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...ic-feeling-judgement-why-absents-clarity.html ,were I tried to discuss the inferior feeling judgement thoroughly and sincerely but people bypassed it. @aestrivex 's profiles aren't great at all at thoroughly analyzing the inferior ethic judgement thinkers tend to have. All he says is that they use logic in the place of feelings thus leading to a tendency to have poor social skills, but still he doesn't describe the incompetent ethics reasoning well enough in order to expose its flaw. His work on Fs types incompetency was better though not perfect or great (the biased lens was still there).


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> Why did you live ISTjs?


If you look through typing threads in What's My Type forum and the discussions here, ISTj are usually not confused for the other three IJ types. Most of confusion exists when someone is trying to pick out between INFj and INTj and INFj and ISFj. 



Boolean11 said:


> Otherwise the difference between EII and LII is logical and ethical competency and incompetency. The similarities here are the reasoning styles Rational Abstract Static perception.ESI and LSI have logical competency and incompetency, whilst similarly they happen to be Rational Concrete Static perception types. @_cyamitide_ I made this thread, http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...ic-feeling-judgement-why-absents-clarity.html ,were I tried to discuss the inferior feeling judgement thoroughly and sincerely but people bypassed it. @_aestrivex_ 's profiles aren't great at all at thoroughly analyzing the inferior ethic judgement thinkers tend to have. All he says is that they use logic in the place of feelings thus leading to a tendency to have poor social skills, but still he doesn't describe the incompetent ethics reasoning well enough in order to expose its flaw. His work on Fs types incompetency was better though not perfect or great (the biased lens was still there).


I found his profiles on activating and inferior F functions to be misleading. He states that some Te-PoLR types do poorly with handling factual information like statistics, yet there are feeling types who are type 1 in enneagram who are very data rational and excel at handling and ordering that sort information. There are also xNFx teachers, researchers and scientists. It looks like his profiles have all been drawn from theory rather than interaction with real people.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> If you look through typing threads in What's My Type forum and the discussions here, ISTj are usually not confused for the other three IJ types. Most of confusion exists when someone is trying to pick out between INFj and INTj and INFj and ISFj.


Makes sense 


cyamitide said:


> I found his profiles on activating and inferior F functions to be misleading. He states that some Te-PoLR types do poorly with handling factual information like statistics, yet there are feeling types who are type 1 in enneagram who are very data rational and excel at handling and ordering that sort information. There are also xNFx teachers, researchers and scientists. It looks like his profiles have all been drawn from theory rather than interaction with real people.


My mom, an IEI, switched off when she read that, she said it was not her since that pointed towards a stupid irresponsible person. However I would say instead the Te PoLR manifests itself in frustration at being thrown at what seems like a deluge of useless facts. Weaker introverted judgement types(Fi/Ti) in general are not oblivious to external judgement data, they are aware of it. From what I've noticed both her INFp and my sister ENFj, due to PoLR and Role "Te", are less likely to entertain facts that violate "Fe" judgement. Which is essentially the only way they make errors in analysis. I'm not sure how I can put that into an analogy but that is the consistent truth I've seen. @aestrivex 's description makes Fe reason seem stupid, a massive distortion compared to what it actually is. And similarly the same critique I've applied to PoLR Te, works for PoLR Fe too. @Abraxas was starting to doubt his gamma typing on that premises that makes them "Fi" types supposedly colder, serious... being simply out of touch with the external emotional world. Could this be too much isolation driving his stereotypes?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> starting to doubt his gamma typing on that premises that makes them "Fi" types supposedly colder, serious... being simply out of touch with the external emotional world.


This is false, and I already told you that this is not what I meant. Nor is it even what I said, unless you care to quote me and prove otherwise.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> This is false, and I already told you that this is not what I meant. Nor is it even what I said, unless you care to quote me and prove otherwise.


I thought you were going through confusion instead, I didn't realize that your NiTi made it difficult for you to accept INFJ which lead you to keep switching between INTP/J. However in a way it makes a lot of sense now since I've always got a rough vibe from you something that is more of an SeFi and SeTi quarrel. I tried to rationalize that seeing you as a type 8 variant of INTJs but I didn't forget that your information processing was a little odd.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> I thought you were going through confusion instead, I didn't realize that your NiTi made it difficult for you to accept INFJ which lead you to keep switching between INTP/J. However in a way it makes a lot of sense now since I've always got a rough vibe from you something that is more of an SeFi and SeTi quarrel. I tried to rationalize that seeing you as a type 8 variant of INTJs but I didn't forget that your information processing was a little odd.


I appreciate that you're being polite, I know in the past I haven't been so polite to you.

I'll tell you where I'm at. I'm still sort've on the fence between INTP and INFJ, but here is why.

I just re-read Jung's description of extraverted feeling, and I had a sudden insight and revelation when he starts talking about how someone acts when they allow the objective data to gain ascendancy over them.

He talks about how, when Fe is really something that energizes you and you are consciously using it, you genuinely do _feel_ the feelings of the object, and you respond to them accordingly. But when you are not consciously using Fe - when you are just "going with the flow" of Fe, you start to use it in a mechanical, manipulative, and impersonal way. You just "say the right thing" or "do the right thing" - you become a slave to convention and there is this obvious sense that your emotions are not authentic, that they are practiced, rehearsed, and aren't really a conscious decision, but more like a tool that you are using as a means to an end - they aren't an end in themselves. It's that last bit which is crucial to determining my own type.

That made it _crystal clear_ to me, what it would be like to have Fe in a dominant position versus any other position. You see how, as it moves down the chain of preference farther into the unconscious, it becomes more of that impersonal, automatic, object-based decision making process where you are not really being _authentic_ about it because you are not consciously using it? So what would it then mean to use it consciously? Of course, it means to really be consciously aware of the feelings of others and responding to them with _conscious intention_ - this does not in any way imply, however, that you will always go out of your way then to make people happy. You may genuinely want to hurt someone's feelings, but in either case - notice how you are not using Fe as a means to some other end, Fe is not serving some ulterior motive here, Fe is the end unto itself.

So I have to ask myself, how often am I consciously using Fe in that way that Jung means? Enough to call it my auxiliary function? Or would it be my inferior, and am I then an INTP?

To resolve this, I have to compare Ne to Fe, and ask myself which of these two functions I rely upon more. If I relied more upon Ne, then my auxiliary function would not be a feeling one, and therefore, I would not be remotely as energized by the feelings of others as I would be by following a chain of abstraction that is derived from the properties of objects. In other words, if I was a Ne aux, then I would be extremely energized by challenging my own Ti-driven thinking and arguing against myself by constantly investigating empirical facts, seeing what other facts those facts imply, etc etc, and building new frameworks for understanding by incorporating fresh abstractions based upon new information derived from objective observation of external facts and conditions.

And furthermore, if I was Ti-Ne, then I would almost certainly gravitate towards conditions that facilitate the use of those functions without interruption - that is, I would at all times desire to be in a situation where I was allowed to pursue new possibilities to continue building my subjective understanding - I would desire this more than anything else in the world.

But, if I was instead using Fe as an aux, I would be more inclined towards putting myself into situations where I am, in a sense, absorbing the emotional energy of others and returning that energy. I would want, at all times and as much as possible, to be in a situation where there is this constant stream of emotion, a flow from the object, to me, and then back to the object. This exchanging of emotional energy would be far more energizing to me than chasing down new insights inspired by objective data. I would even sacrifice opportunities to learn something new, if it meant that I could instead be in a place and time where I am feeling the feelings given off by objects and people, and I am allowed to express those feelings myself.

This gets very interesting when you realize that this isn't even limited to good feelings. I might just as well feed on negativity, and get my "fix" being in an environment where I am surrounded by darker, brooding feelings, and I am allowed myself to express them as well. Fe doesn't discriminate in this sense. It just feeds on expression - both from objects, and towards them - because Fe, being extroverted, is this oriented via the object - an objective feeling is the input, and an objective feeling is the output.

Honestly, I believe I rely more upon Fe.

For example, what if I told you that the reason why I took the time to write all of this and post it was because when I read your quote just above, it felt friendly to me, and I wanted to return that feeling and show you a gesture of kindness? That I consider taking the time to write all of this in a tone of voice that is free of condescension a sign of friendship? That, the real goal I have in mind here, is not building theories and settling this matter for good _for it's own sake, just to get it settled_, but rather, because MBTI, Socionics, Psychology, and all of this stuff, is something that, if I understood it completely, would give me a toolkit for really understanding people better, so that I could get along with them better - and that, if I had to make a choice, really, between being perfectly logical or perfectly happy, I would choose to be perfectly happy without hesitation.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Honestly, I believe I rely more upon Fe.
> 
> For example, what if I told you that the reason why I took the time to write all of this and post it was because when I read your quote just above, it felt friendly to me, and I wanted to return that feeling and show you a gesture of kindness? That I consider taking the time to write all of this in a tone of voice that is free of condescension a sign of friendship? That, the real goal I have in mind here, is not building theories and settling this matter for good _for it's own sake, just to get it settled_, but rather, because MBTI, Socionics, Psychology, and all of this stuff, is something that, if I understood it completely, would give me a toolkit for really understanding people better, so that I could get along with them better - and that, if I had to make a choice, really, between being perfectly logical or perfectly happy, I would choose to be perfectly happy without hesitation.


Lately I began to change my view of Fe, seeing it as a really intelligent judgement function with its own set of complex agendas (the patronizing feel is not intentional since honestly I believed the contrary). I was talking to @_cyamitide_ wondering why @_aestrivex_ (owner of socionics.ws) described Fe types as incompetent, due to the PoLR Te being described as an inability to handle solid facts with its(Fe) capabilities being limited to B.S. narrowed notion of being happy maintaining emotional resonant for groups. The truth is that its in essence a rational function that amplifies the value content of whatever topic it may be researching. It a process capable of recognizing the facts where its leverage over logic is the ability to ascertain the value in facts it abstract. At this point intelligence differences are elements that would explain why some Fe types can recognize value in certain facts factoring them into their models whilst on the contrary others are unable forming yet possibly form the majority of representatives for the function leading to the poor description. Fe is just taken simplistically as emotion instead of a real reasoning function.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

When I look at this world, when I look at nature, I see a place that ultimately suggests order and makes sense.

Everything animals do makes sense. Everything the heavens do makes sense. Everything the forces do makes sense. Everything that numbers do makes sense.

This world makes sense, that is what the world does. That is its purpose. That is the purpose of objectivity.

You need only ask yourself if you understand how that could be a mechanical thing, and a romantic thing, and then you will know the difference between thinking and feeling.

When you come to understand that you will never change the true order of things. That ultimately, your life is meaningless and insignificant, and it is nothing more than a drop in an endless ocean, and that the ripples you create have no purpose within eternity - then you understand the logical fact of your existence.

But, if you also come to understand that your life means something to specific people, in a specific place, at a specific time, in a specific context - and that your actions and your life has a purpose to those people, and that so long as you live and are part of the lives of others, your lives impact each other profoundly in ways we can't even begin imagine - then you understand the ethical fact of your existence.

These two forces go hand in hand, forming a fundamental axis of human experience. They become a closed loop that repeats itself forever, one defining the other.

And that is the simplest form of The Truth Itself - this notion of _repetition_.

This idea that things are repeating themselves, again and again.

And that they always shall, in infinite variations of being.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The main difference that I think is easier to figure out is whether one seeks Fe or Te or values these functions. Other than that, the Fi-Fe difference is big because Fi seeks to maintain social distance and Fe seeks to maintain a positive atmosphere. Fundamentally, I see them as being opposite because Fi seeks distance and Fe seeks closeness. 

Fi-valuing is always about: Am I comfortable in this situation? What do they think about me? What do I think about them? What does this action mean to me? Do I like this way of interacting? when applied to relationships. I don't even understand Fe valuing much so I won't make any attempts to describe it more than it's pretty much the opposite of how I seem to think when it comes to social relationships. 

And the qaudra values, especially merry and serious, are probably quite useful when trying to determine if one is delta or alpha. If one seeks a better understanding of how merry and serious appears as in conversation between people, the video between Lady Lullaby and Kanerou both greatly represent the differences between the two. 

Perhaps I should try to organize the first post a little also when we get more videos up and running between types.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> When I look at this world, when I look at nature, I see a place that ultimately suggests order and makes sense.
> 
> Everything animals do makes sense. Everything the heavens do makes sense. Everything the forces do makes sense. Everything that numbers do makes sense.
> 
> ...


I am not sure of how much that is Fe/Te or something else, but it sure is 5w4 logic in a nutshell


----------

