# Stratiyevskaya realtionship descriptions on the16types.info



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

anyone else read them?

I don't have much experience with my activators or duals so it's hard for me to evaluate their worth and if they are accurate. good read non-the-less but I am curious if other people find them valid or not or what you think about them. I read one about ESI and ILI and it seemed pretty accurate in relation to my friend and her love interest.
very accurate actually. but I am curious what you all think of them.
most the articles are on activating relations but their are some dual ones and some conflict ones.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Link?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

GreenCoyote said:


> good read non-the-less but I am curious if other people find them valid or not or what you think about them. I read one about ESI and ILI and it seemed pretty accurate in relation to my friend and her love interest.


I don't have much experience with activity relations, and none of my friends are in these, but the EII-LIE semi-duality article made some good observations concerning this relationship. I know of a couple like that, and while it's difficult to look into another relationship, I have noticed some of what Stratievskaya has written about even before I've seen that article. Their relationship isn't as antagonistic as she describes it to be, but they for sure try to push the sensing aspects onto each other and expect the other to take on the main load, and neither of them wants to so it looks like a game a tag, who can outwit whom to take on the role of a sensing type dual. I can tell they both have inert sensing. The EII has these moments when she acts clueless about what to do, or helpless somehow, and instead of rushing to help her the LIE criticizes her for it. I guess he's expecting a self-sufficient go-getter personality, like an ESI, instead of someone who openly complains about how she doesn't feel well or that she's incapable of doing something. This really irritates him.

The general sense I get from her articles is that they are excessively antagonistic and negative than how I see these things transpire (but then considering her type, wikisocion mentioned that she's ESI, I guess it makes sense that she sees things in such a belligerent light).



ephemereality said:


> Link?


Socionics - the16types.info - Intertype Relations


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I am reading the SEE-ILI dual article and the way she describes SEE is badass XD Makes me wish I could meet someone like that IRL. Someone who is really willing to chase, because I don't think I've ever met one. Not the degree the article describes it anyway. Regardless of whether the attention is appreciated or not, you have to admire that unfettered determination. 

I actually think her dual article anyway was good, though I have little experience. I enjoyed reading it. She has a very dramatic language that makes it enjoyable.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

I really like all Stratiyevskaya descriptions and explanations.


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

Her gamma articles are pretty accurate though I wouldn't be able to remove confirmation bias on my part due to having 1 close friendship with a SEE-Se and 1 ESI-Se that I dated long enough to see patterns emerge. So, my ability to relate (more than any other descriptions) to her articles could just be a fluke accident. Given that I do find ESIs either standoffish or men having unmerited confidence it borders stupid arrogance at first meeting, my chance to check my experience with another won't be for awhile. Lol but the one I dated was cool when he relaxed and spoke about stuff. Since he mentioned something I was interested in, I approached him. 

Anyway, I've perused through16types forum, some people criticize that her technical accuracy is questionable but her description have qualitative merit. She was able to describe distinct actions between type but attributed it to the wrong function(s). In other words, she described the physical/chemical characteristics of an orange correctly but then ended up labeling it an apple. But she didn't fuck this up enough that it changed the type. I haven't read enough of socionics to check this criticism myself.

I've also read that her gamma descriptions should be more accurate than any of the other quadras because she herself is an ESI. With that said I wouldn't throw her articles out but use it as a narrative of some sort to find patterns in your relations.

While I was reading, I did think she seemed to speak in favor of the LIE. Lol I thought it was funny when she was describing something that a LIE needs and then added "that only an ESI can provide." 

I also saw this interjection when reading the activity partner relation SEE-LIE where she compares and notes that an ESI would not do some questionable act for gain in career because LIEs are subconsciously wired to accept the ESI's own flavor of moral standards. This made me think that she is possessive of the type and made me question her objectivity when it came to other relations outside duality.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Monkey King said:


> Her gamma articles are pretty accurate though I wouldn't be able to remove confirmation bias on my part due to having 1 close friendship with a SEE-Se and 1 ESI-Se that I dated long enough to see patterns emerge. So, my ability to relate (more than any other descriptions) to her articles could just be a fluke accident. Given that I do find ESIs either standoffish or men having unmerited confidence it borders stupid arrogance at first meeting, my chance to check my experience with another won't be for awhile. Lol but the one I dated was cool when he relaxed and spoke about stuff. Since he mentioned something I was interested in, I approached him.
> 
> Anyway, I've perused through16types forum, some people criticize that her technical accuracy is questionable but her description have qualitative merit. She was able to describe distinct actions between type but attributed it to the wrong function(s). In other words, she described the physical/chemical characteristics of an orange correctly but then ended up labeling it an apple. But she didn't fuck this up enough that it changed the type. I haven't read enough of socionics to check this criticism myself.
> 
> ...


I agree, her gamma descriptions were rather uncanny. I related a lot and found it very accurate at least in terms of dynamics based on the little I know of gamma which is essentially a friendship I have online with an SEE. So of course a lot of the things she mentions in a more concrete way doesn't apply, but it definitely exemplified the dynamic and I couldn't help but to lol over at some of the examples she used of Se and I was thinking how this strangely applied to my friend. Especially the part about the stuff when she claims things as hers, something we actually discussed rather recently. I found the mentality somewhat foreign as it happens extremely rarely for me to develop such strong mentalities. 

I also wonder if she purposefully interpreted the ESI-ILI relationship as frustrating with how ILI is always so stand-offish to the ESI in that the ESI just doesn't naturally possess the power to chase that way. That was the impression she gave off, at least. I can see why this might be so for an ESI. I don't think I would be consciously enough aware of what is going on to actually notice it in such a sense, heh. I rarely do unless people really chase hard.

What I am really curious about is whether Ne-Si types experience her descriptions as accurate/good/interesting, however.


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> What I am really curious about is whether Ne-Si types experience her descriptions as accurate/good/interesting, however.



yeah can we get some input from the alphas who have read descriptions. I have alpha parents but they only have activity descriptions for alphas on there.

maybe some zealous betas too who can describe some interaction... ehh?


----------



## zinnia (Jul 22, 2013)

GreenCoyote said:


> yeah can we get some input from the alphas who have read descriptions. I have alpha parents but they only have activity descriptions for alphas on there.


I am not in the habit of typing everyone I meet but I was in a close relationship with someone I think was ILE, very good friends with a couple of ESE's and possibly EIE/IEI, have had more distant relationships with some other types... If you are really that interested, I guess I could go on about those when I have time (maybe not for a while - I have exams). Specifically about the the INTj/ISFp article, I don't have much to say about it as it is centered around family/household rather than just being friends.

More generally: after glancing through some descriptions of the Si ego types (I hope I am using the right terms: I mean ESE, SEI, LSE, SLI) on that site, it seems they are overly characterized as lazy. Personally, I think the dichotomy of lazy almost pushover-like Si/Ne versus super ambitious blahblah of Se/Ni is a little overdone sometimes.


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

Stratiyevskaya is not a significant authority. It's better to look several sources and find what is common there.
Anyway, all descriptions of IR and types should to be about average case, - to have not only what is for everybody, but also what should to be for most cases (70%, for example). Texts are not perfect, so some details there may be wrong or relate only to a minority. Texts of Stratiyevskaya have no much respect from this point of view.


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

zinnia said:


> I am not in the habit of typing everyone I meet but I was in a close relationship with someone I think was ILE, very good friends with a couple of ESE's and possibly EIE/IEI, have had more distant relationships with some other types... If you are really that interested, I guess I could go on about those when I have time (maybe not for a while - I have exams). Specifically about the the INTj/ISFp article, I don't have much to say about it as it is centered around family/household rather than just being friends.
> 
> More generally: after glancing through some descriptions of the Si ego types (I hope I am using the right terms: I mean ESE, SEI, LSE, SLI) on that site, it seems they are overly characterized as lazy. Personally, I think the dichotomy of lazy almost pushover-like Si/Ne versus super ambitious blahblah of Se/Ni is a little overdone sometimes.


Yeah. I have also heard that Si types are less lazy than Ni because of their willingness to be in the moment. an SEI like yourself that I know is a wonderful host at gatherings always making the food and checking up on everyones needs and such. I feel like a Ni type such as myself wouldn't do that. I rarely do chores or tasks that "need to be done" because I am seeing the pointlessness of it all in time. in a sense Ni has some efficiency in it but I guess all the Si types can be as lazyless as they want and run circles all day. 
actaully I am highly envious of Si and its ability to get things done and take care of present needs. Si isn't lazy at all.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

GreenCoyote said:


> yeah can we get some input from the alphas who have read descriptions. I have alpha parents but they only have activity descriptions for alphas on there.
> 
> maybe some zealous betas too who can describe some interaction... ehh?


from what I heard Statievskaya's descriptions are most accurate for gammas, she views betas as an empire of evil, and her profiles for alphas seem a bit technical rather than free flow story telling



GreenCoyote said:


> Yeah. I have also heard that Si types are less lazy than Ni because of their willingness to be in the moment.


recalling SEIs that I've met I think this is true -- they are much more engaged with what's directly around them, making them appear active, while Ni-doms try their best to detach and escape


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

The ILI-SEE dual description was hilarious. It actually made me think of 5 or 6 times it has happened very similarly to the way it was described, with the SEE pressuring and the ILI sort of evading and maneuvering to wait. Each of the times it happened I waited too long, either with their attention going elsewhere or due to some external change of setting (moving away, etc). That's the issue in a nutshell. I like having them run around, but at that point I have no clue what is supposed to be done to seal the relationship. I guess it's subconsciously, indefinitely waiting for their initiative. Part of me always believes that there aren't really any rules that would prevent things from picking up right where they left off, given that the barriers were removed. 

These actually helped me really understand what leading Ni as a function of "time" means. Many of the descriptions make it sound as thought Ni leads think about the subject of time a lot, which I haven't found to be the case. It's more of a coiling up, or willingness to wait.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I am reading the SEE-ILI dual article and the way she describes SEE is badass XD Makes me wish I could meet someone like that IRL. Someone who is really willing to chase, because I don't think I've ever met one. Not the degree the article describes it anyway. Regardless of whether the attention is appreciated or not, you have to admire that unfettered determination.
> 
> I actually think her dual article anyway was good, though I have little experience. I enjoyed reading it. She has a very dramatic language that makes it enjoyable.


Yep I found that article great too.  Good language too, yeah


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> What I am really curious about is whether Ne-Si types experience her descriptions as accurate/good/interesting, however.



Well, I would think it would be less engaging since she probably won't have the same insights that she has for gamma. She mentioned that LIEs hate people who make them wait, though they themselves are often late (LOLOLOL). The author mentions LIE's dynamic schedule, and my schedule is often like that. My day-to-day schedule is never set in stone I like to be able to move stuff up or further down at will or when opportunity presents itself to complete the task. I have deliberately scheduled a meeting back to back because I wanted everything done that day and since I knew I was going to be late for the second agenda I might as well make a quick stop (since it's along the way) to pick up something for later use before going in for the 2nd meeting. 
I could be the most impatient little prick for the smallest of things but have golden patience for bigger stuff. lol Little quirks like that would probably be missed for the other types and it's in these details that make her article more enjoyable to read IMO. Her experience as gamma is first hand while for the other 3, she's just someone looking in.


TBH I've only read her Beta/Gamma articles. My sis is an IEI so I wanted to see what she thought, she thought it was one of the better write-ups I've sent her. 
----
Well the esi I dated didn't give chase until he knew without a doubt he'd win. No I take that back, he had a covert way of chasing where he infiltrates your mind, finds out who you are, they basically..study you. While at the same time holding this solid poker face. It's how he managed to close the distance with me. 

But I'm tricky as well, I like understated wooing. I hate overt displays of interest...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Monkey King said:


> Well, I would think it would be less engaging since she probably won't have the same insights that she has for gamma. She mentioned that LIEs hate people who make them wait, though they themselves are often late (LOLOLOL). The author mentions LIE's dynamic schedule, and my schedule is often like that. My day-to-day schedule is never set in stone I like to be able to move stuff up or further down at will or when opportunity presents itself to complete the task. I have deliberately scheduled a meeting back to back because I wanted everything done that day and since I knew I was going to be late for the second agenda I might as well make a quick stop (since it's along the way) to pick up something for later use before going in for the 2nd meeting.
> I could be the most impatient little prick for the smallest of things but have golden patience for bigger stuff. lol Little quirks like that would probably be missed for the other types and it's in these details that make her article more enjoyable to read IMO. Her experience as gamma is first hand while for the other 3, she's just someone looking in.
> 
> 
> ...


You're right about that. Small things that are funnily accurate like how the SEE claims that the ILI as an object she owns, or the part about the bed that she mentioned. That was also eerily accurate in that I would definitely invite a friend over but if that person shows romantic interest I might still push them away because it's not right at the moment? Something like that. And yet expect them to act against that though it has to be done cleverly. If they just push their own agenda forcefully, I might not be able reciprocate it well because it's too obvious or how to put it, what it is they want as opposed to first gauging what it is I want, thinking it's too demanding but if it's done just right at the right moment, I might actually not protest, strangely enough, even if it's done superficially against my will. The weird little things about ILI-SEE is that the ILI often says or does things to push away but deep down desires the other.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I am reading the SEE-ILI dual article and the way she describes SEE is badass XD Makes me wish I could meet someone like that IRL. Someone who is really willing to chase, because I don't think I've ever met one.


Maybe you're not worth being chased :tongue: 

I'm joking but the message is true. An ILI will only be chased by a SEE as much as the ILI is worth it. Since this is more on a primal level than anything else, you can figure that the ILI will have to trigger primal needs in the SEE to be considered 'worth it'. From my understanding, your 'worth' is based on:

- Your eating habits: The healthier and more primal foods you eat, the healhier your off-spring will be, women notice if you're healthy.
- Your lifestyle: If you exercise you will look_ and smell_ better, you will also be stronger than the 'you' that didn't exercise.
- Your social situation: ILI's are prone to be loners but that doesn't mean their social situation is bad. Having positive ties with your family and a couple of good friends helps you a lot.
- Your financial situation: Being able to take care of yourself, your family and anybody else you have under your wing.
- Not being a 'fieldworker': Sitting behind a computer all day long destroys your value, it is unhealthy behaviour, the human body simply isn't made for it. 

If any of these are not above average (as in: better than all the people around you, aka better than average) why would a SEE ever want to chase and prove herself? Answer: A SEE wouldn't. A SEE doesn't chase based on the fact that somebody is an ILI, a SEE chases based on what the other person is worth relative to all that is 'out there'.

There is a lot more to it than that, but I think you get the general idea. You want to get chased? You will have to be a man worthy of being chased.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dedication said:


> Maybe you're not worth being chased :tongue:
> 
> I'm joking but the message is true. An ILI will only be chased by a SEE as much as the ILI is worth it. Since this is more on a primal level than anything else, you can figure that the ILI will have to trigger primal needs in the SEE to be considered 'worth it'. From my understanding, your 'worth' is based on:
> 
> ...


Err... Wouldn't it make more sense for an SEE to decide who they find to be valuable rather than creating some very stereotype assumptions about a person's that might not at all be indicative of it in the long run? Nevermind the slightly biased biologism you are assuming here...


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

Dedication said:


> Maybe you're not worth being chased :tongue:
> 
> I'm joking but the message is true. An ILI will only be chased by a SEE as much as the ILI is worth it. Since this is more on a primal level than anything else, you can figure that the ILI will have to trigger primal needs in the SEE to be considered 'worth it'. From my understanding, your 'worth' is based on:
> 
> ...


intertype becomes stupid when people start listing requirement like these. This applies to EVERY-BODY it's an ideal list that people want their potential mate to meet.

your list summarized:
-health
-social status
-financial status
-interests/hobbies

Serious question, what makes it see-ILI specifically? Or are you just basing this on basic primal/social needs/wants of the majority of the population.

I know I skimmed over an article out there about The rules of Duality, a sort of rules of engagement kinda thing a year ago. But none of what you've listed is familiar.


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> You're right about that. Small things that are funnily accurate like how the SEE claims that the ILI as an object she owns, or the part about the bed that she mentioned. That was also eerily accurate in that I would definitely invite a friend over but if that person shows romantic interest I might still push them away because it's not right at the moment? Something like that. And yet expect them to act against that though it has to be done cleverly. If they just push their own agenda forcefully, I might not be able reciprocate it well because it's too obvious or how to put it, what it is they want as opposed to first gauging what it is I want, thinking it's too demanding but if it's done just right at the right moment, I might actually not protest, strangely enough, even if it's done superficially against my will. The weird little things about ILI-SEE is that the ILI often says or does things to push away but deep down desires the other.


Well the one I know was never forceful the way people imagine "forceful" to be. He was more upbeat, as though you should be doing what he's doing because you can't be doing anything better. You want to go along with him because it sounds promising and he's extremely convincing that it is.


Add:
He has this type of conceit that I respond to positively because I see it as charisma. Lol but we had 2 other housemates and I've always believed them to be MBTI ISTJ and INFP. The ISTJ saw what I saw as complete arrogance and found him annoying. Personally I thought that there was probably a bit of envy because he always asked me to compare their traits. The INFP saw him as selfish and felt used (They got along very well in the beginning). I thought he misinterpreted SEE's actions and INFP thought I was taking sides and gradually became distrustful of me. Which is pretty sad because I was really close to him even before we met SEE. Overall though he was well liked with our peers.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Monkey King said:


> Well the one I know was never forceful the way people imagine "forceful" to be. He was more upbeat, as though you should be doing what he's doing because you can't be doing anything better. You want to go along with him because it sounds promising and he's extremely convincing that it is.
> 
> 
> Add:
> He has this type of conceit that I respond to positively because I see it as charisma. Lol but we had 2 other housemates and I've always believed them to be MBTI ISTJ and INFP. The ISTJ saw what I saw as complete arrogance and found him annoying. Personally I thought that there was probably a bit of envy because he always asked me to compare their traits. The INFP saw him as selfish and felt used (They got along very well in the beginning). I thought he misinterpreted SEE's actions and INFP thought I was taking sides and gradually became distrustful of me. Which is pretty sad because I was really close to him even before we met SEE. Overall though he was well liked with our peers.


Do you know their sociotypes as well? Would be interesting to compare cross-quadra. And yes, honestly, the ones I find to be forceful in the wrong ways are Je base types. I've had two Fe base types chase me now (wtf? How do I do that?) and it just ends up the same way. They don't react when I say no and stuff, and just want me to get along with them playfully at which point I'm out.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Err... Wouldn't it make more sense for an SEE to decide who they find to be valuable rather than creating some very stereotype assumptions about a person's that might not at all be indicative of it in the long run? Nevermind the slightly biased biologism you are assuming here...


Lets mind the biased biologism I'm assuming here, because that is exactly the point I'm making.

You are right that the SEE is the one who decides valuable, there are traits and behaviours that humans find universally attractive, last time I checked a SEE is still a human. Let's take this to the extreme. Let's say that you're a below average person and an incredibly fat disgusting pig of a human being who happens to be a SEE is attracted to you. You wouldn't set out obstacles for her to overcome, you would avoid her like the plague not even giving her the oppertunity to 'prove herself' simply because she isn't worth it from the get go. At the same time, if she would be a perfect 10, a stunner in age, personality and beauty. You would be no challenge for her, at all. She knows she can get much better, why go for you? The below average man? Besides you would be so nervous and intimidated by her presence that she finds no value in you.

Socionics and it's dynamics are one thing, but trusting that the dynamics will work while turning a blind eye to primal behaviour is wishful thinking.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Monkey King said:


> intertype becomes stupid when people start listing requirement like these. This applies to EVERY-BODY it's an ideal list that people want their potential mate to meet.


This is not a requirement list, you miss the point. Intertype relationship* behaviour prediction* comes in to play *after everything is set in place*, not before. Your worth is important and your value can be meassured in *because it applies to everybody*. Not because it is an ideal list, we aren't INFP's here. (Yeah I stereotype :kitteh: deal with it).

*ephemereality* Mentioned that he didn't experience this type of SEE behaviour himself, so one of the reasons could be simply because he himself hasn't met all the requirements.


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

Dedication said:


> This is not a requirement list, you miss the point. Intertype relationship* behaviour prediction* comes in to play *after everything is set in place*, not before. Your worth is important and your value can be meassured in *because it applies to everybody*. Not because it is an ideal list, we aren't INFP's here. (Yeah I stereotype :kitteh: deal with it).
> 
> *ephemereality* Mentioned that he didn't experience this type of SEE behaviour himself, so one of the reasons could be simply because he himself hasn't met all the requirements.


"I'm joking but the message is true. An ILI will only be chased by a SEE as much as the ILI is worth it. Since this is more on a primal level than anything else, you can figure that the ILI will have to trigger primal needs in the SEE to be considered 'worth it'. From my understanding, your 'worth' is based on:"

Yeh when you set your post up with that^, you associate that list with it. I didn't miss the point you were just unclear of yours. It doesn't matter, looks like you agree with me anyway give or take a few words here and there. It is an idealistic list. Not everyone will be able to check off those points and if they can, no one will be able to maintain it indefinitely


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dedication said:


> Lets mind the biased biologism I'm assuming here, because that is exactly the point I'm making.


And last time I checked relationships don't work that way. What people find attractive is too relative to narrow it down to a very general and stereotype list. If your requirements were true, very few people would ever be capable of having meaningful relationships. 



> You are right that the SEE is the one who decides valuable, there are traits and behaviours that humans find universally attractive, last time I checked a SEE is still a human. Let's take this to the extreme. Let's say that you're a below average person and an incredibly fat disgusting pig of a human being who happens to be a SEE is attracted to you. You wouldn't set out obstacles for her to overcome, you would avoid her like the plague not even giving her the oppertunity to 'prove herself' simply because she isn't worth it from the get go. At the same time, if she would be a perfect 10, a stunner in age, personality and beauty. You would be no challenge for her, at all. She knows she can get much better, why go for you? The below average man? Besides you would be so nervous and intimidated by her presence that she finds no value in you.


LOL. This is such a ridiculous scenario it's just plain laughable to begin with. There is more to attraction than the physical. 



> Socionics and it's dynamics are one thing, but trusting that the dynamics will work while turning a blind eye to primal behaviour is wishful thinking.


I sense some issues with projection here. 



> ephemereality Mentioned that he didn't experience this type of SEE behaviour himself, so one of the reasons could be simply because he himself hasn't met all the requirements.


Way to take things out of context, yeah? I mentioned somewhere that I haven't had much experience with my dual which is caused by numerous reasons, being an introvert is most likely the one, but it doesn't mean I have zero experience or have not met any dual or have not met any people who are willing to chase. 

Which is why I think this is more a projection on your end than whether it's congruent with reality. You're making a lot of assumptions about a person you've never met here.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> LOL. This is such a ridiculous scenario it's just plain laughable to begin with. There is more to attraction than the physical.


What else is there? Attraction's very fundation is based on biology. I consider socionics to be the study of the brain, thus a part of biology.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dedication said:


> What else is there? Attraction's very fundation is based on biology. I consider socionics to be the study of the brain, thus a part of biology.


Yet you linked several traits that are not intrinsic to biological functions or operations. Social status for example, of wealth, or relationship ties to friends and family. 

And socionics is the study of psychological type as laid out by Carl Jung. While one can indeed see psychological type as a product of the human brain, I think it is foolish and narrow to simply see it as a biological product when it is obvious that psychological type is so much more than that.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Yet you linked several traits that are not intrinsic to biological functions or operations. Social status for example, of wealth, or relationship ties to friends and family.
> 
> And socionics is the study of psychological type as laid out by Carl Jung. While one can indeed see psychological type as a product of the human brain, I think it is foolish and narrow to simply see it as a biological product when it is obvious that psychological type is so much more than that.


How so? The brain isn't more than a biological product. A spade is a spade. Cognitive functions are functions inside the brain, it's biological. In what way is the study 'much more'?

What more is psychology than biological observation? I don't see it, yet you clearly do but you're incapable of telling us. You laugh and you're being childish about it, yet you fail in spelling out the obvious, twice in a row.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Dedication said:


> How so? The brain isn't more than a biological product. A spade is a spade. Cognitive functions are functions inside the brain, it's biological. In what way is the study 'much more'?
> 
> What more is psychology than biological observation? I don't see it, yet you clearly do but you're incapable of telling us. You laugh and you're being childish about it, yet you fail in spelling out the obvious, twice in a row.












The brain is biological, but saying that cognitive functions are also that is a claim that has no real data for backing it up, so for the moment those are mere abstract constructs that could also be related to other factors that aren't genetical (culture anyone?), so your argument fails there. Plus neuroscience is still in development, so claiming such statements is risky, and even can be considered as foolish because you don't have any statistical or experimental data for supporting it.

The thing that are you passing as psychology is merely a behavioral study, as you fail to see that your reductionist method leaves many variables out of the ecuation. So before you write such bold statements, please read a bit more about those matters before telling some simplistic BS.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Dedication said:


> From my understanding, your 'worth' is based on:
> 
> - Your eating habits: The healthier and more primal foods you eat, the healhier your off-spring will be, women notice if you're healthy.
> - Your lifestyle: If you exercise you will look_ and smell_ better, you will also be stronger than the 'you' that didn't exercise.
> ...


1. You really think a person's worth is based on *only *these things? Pretty goddamn narrow view.

Also... I've yet to see anyone who gives two fucks about what someone eats. There isn't a very strong correlation between diet and health either, it depends on many other things incl genes.

2. What happens to average people, will they never have relationships then? Most people are average.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dedication said:


> How so? The brain isn't more than a biological product. A spade is a spade. Cognitive functions are functions inside the brain, it's biological. In what way is the study 'much more'?


Rofl, you mean functions exist like a real physical thing? Then you severely misunderstand what Jung meant by cognitive function. They are psychological constructs and considering the sketchy understanding we have today of the human psyche, I think it is very bold to claim that all psychology is merely biological. The source of it perhaps, but it is clear cognition operates beyond basic biological imperatives. 



> What more is psychology than biological observation? I don't see it, yet you clearly do but you're incapable of telling us. You laugh and you're being childish about it, yet you fail in spelling out the obvious, twice in a row.


The study of the psyche? The psyche is not a biological construct. 

As for attraction, it's just really sad you think those are the standards of a relationship or how the basis of all relationships. And honestly, it's so obvious I have a hard time seeing how you do not see how it's obvious. The world exists outside the physical realms that we can observe. Human relationships are found on more than the list you gave in the above, and human psychology is more complex than reducing it to a number of brain synapses. It is clear that the human psyche exists both on a biological and social level, and the social does not exist physically. People fall in love for the strangest reasons and that may be entirely unrelated to biology and much more related to their social upbringing, past experiences etc. 

At @itsme45 I assume someone like a vegan might care about what others eat, but then it's clearly for different reasons than for fitness. And perhaps some fitness crazy person might be super-concerned about what they eat, but if it extends to such a degree that they start dictating what others should on the same logic that they apply on themselves, one might question how healthy their behavior is overall. I'm happy enough if I find someone who somewhat appreciates the foods I appreciate, lol. Doesn't need to be more complicated than that, clearly.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I assume someone like a vegan might care about what others eat, but then it's clearly for different reasons than for fitness. And perhaps some fitness crazy person might be super-concerned about what they eat, but if it extends to such a degree that they start dictating what others should on the same logic that they apply on themselves, one might question how healthy their behavior is overall. I'm happy enough if I find someone who somewhat appreciates the foods I appreciate, lol. Doesn't need to be more complicated than that, clearly.


Yeah, I meant the foods thing in the context of selecting a romantic partner.

You're right btw, it's cool if someone likes the same foods I do but it clearly isn't on a requirement list for me and I've yet to see anyone for who it was  (I'm not saying there can't be anyone who cares more... just doesn't seem common is my point)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Yeah, I meant the foods thing in the context of selecting a romantic partner.
> 
> You're right btw, it's cool if someone likes the same foods I do but it clearly isn't on a requirement list for me and I've yet to see anyone for who it was  (I'm not saying there can't be anyone who cares more... just doesn't seem common is my point)


Yeah, I get what you mean. Well, I can see how say a vegan might think that they have to be with another vegan or there are too many lifestyle clashes though no, I have yet to see someone making claims about another person's eating habits and refusing to be with that person on that basis alone because of health reasons. 

In general though, considering that list I'm surprised humanity lives on since it would be impossible for anyone to satisfy that list for any longer amount of time, and that means every list item.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Rofl, you mean functions exist like a real physical thing? Then you severely misunderstand what Jung meant by cognitive function. They are psychological constructs and considering the sketchy understanding we have today of the human psyche, I think it is very bold to claim that all psychology is merely biological. The source of it perhaps, but it is clear cognition operates beyond basic biological imperatives.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do I understand it correctly if I say that you believe in a dual world? A physical and non physical? That humans could have a soul perhaps? Please elaborate.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Dedication said:


> Do I understand it correctly if I say that you believe in a dual world? A physical and non physical? That humans could have a soul perhaps? Please elaborate.


You don't need to believe in the idea of duality and absolutely don't need to believe in the idea of a soul to realise that cultural concepts are not biological. Of course, in a very direct reductionist sense, they are biological and then they are chemical and then they are physical. But, nobody ever _truly _applies such reductionism in practice, it's much easier for us to view things in a layered way, going from low level to high level, that's why we call chemistry chemistry and not physics and that's why biology is biology and not physics. In this same way, cultural concepts are not biological. 

You can still keep it in mind that everything is physical if you are not inclined to believe in anything beyond matter (soul etc) but I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time even existing if you were trying to apply such strict reductionism to everything in your life. You'd at least definitely have trouble explaining many things in any meaningful way as the issue is not only that pure reductionism is impossible to apply but also that you will be missing higher level properties and thus not be able to explain things. Sum up, it's not only easier but more logical too to have levels in our thinking. 

Example, just think of food as a set of subatomic particles instead of food and you will be missing a lot of higher level properties of said food, going from chemical higher level properties of it to biological properties and so on. 

Hope I managed to explain it clear enough... do let me know if you have a problem with it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dedication said:


> Do I understand it correctly if I say that you believe in a dual world? A physical and non physical? That humans could have a soul perhaps? Please elaborate.


What itsme45 wrote. It's about levels of abstraction. Philosophically speaking, I'm a monist. I don't believe in duality because it just leads to a bunch of philosophical and metaphysical problems we cannot solve. Monism does not imply reductionism. It just means that I accept that all that we can observe exists in this world, not another intangible world we cannot observe, and that all explanations to supernatural phenomena have some form of natural cause. 

It does not however mean that I view this world purely as physical or biological. In fact I reject such a view entirely and I strongly detest the idea of empiricism and common sense. There is clearly more to this world than that which we can tangibly experience. The world also exists as ideas, concepts, social structures, relationships and so on, none of these that are purely physical though they are clearly not imaginary either. What they are are abstractions of reality and this reality is so much more interesting to understand than what I can smell, taste, hear and touch. So boring.

This is how I know I'm a Jungian intuitive type as well.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> What itsme45 wrote. It's about levels of abstraction. Philosophically speaking, I'm a monist. I don't believe in duality because it just leads to a bunch of philosophical and metaphysical problems we cannot solve. Monism does not imply reductionism. It just means that I accept that all that we can observe exists in this world, not another intangible world we cannot observe, and that all explanations to supernatural phenomena have some form of natural cause.
> 
> It does not however mean that I view this world purely as physical or biological. In fact I reject such a view entirely and I strongly detest the idea of empiricism and common sense. There is clearly more to this world than that which we can tangibly experience. The world also exists as ideas, concepts, social structures, relationships and so on, none of these that are purely physical though they are clearly not imaginary either. What they are are abstractions of reality and this reality is so much more interesting to understand than what I can smell, taste, hear and touch. So boring.
> 
> This is how I know I'm a Jungian intuitive type as well.


Doesn't all that activity just reside inside the brain? Thus making it physical since the brain itself is physical? Just like a computer and a monitor, you don't physically see the code and software but you can see different activity's going on in the harddrive. A monitor could show you the wildest images, but at the end of the day those are just a pixels showing different colors, in the most literal sense it's really nothing more than that. In that regard, isn't everything physical? 

We are getting pretty offtopic here and I'm not even a single bit closer to understanding this thing which should be so obvious, maybe we should just let it rest.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Dedication said:


> Doesn't all that activity just reside inside the brain? Thus making it physical since the brain itself is physical? Just like a computer and a monitor, you don't physically see the code and software but you can see different activity's going on in the harddrive. A monitor could show you the wildest images, but at the end of the day those are just a pixels showing different colors, in the most literal sense it's really nothing more than that. In that regard, isn't everything physical?
> 
> We are getting pretty offtopic here and I'm not even a single bit closer to understanding this thing which should be so obvious, maybe we should just let it rest.


Your analogy fails because code is something intangible, and without those intangible programs a computer would be completely useless. Seriously how do you think that a system without an OS would actually work? your lack of understanding about abstract matters is disturbing.

Plus, as I've stated before, neuroscience is still unable to explain everything that happens inside the brain, and the part of the consciousness is still something hazy that has no proper physical explanation at the moment, so implying that your reductionist method is the best is a proof about your lack of grasp about intangible concepts.

I also found your list so narrow minded that I wonder if you had analyzed someone that relies only on impulse and only bothers about primal needs, ignoring that people can be attracted by the ideas and way of thinking of someone. If you really think that people is so primitive, then you need to get a reality check.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

fives.
which is the correct reality?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Dedication said:


> Doesn't all that activity just reside inside the brain? Thus making it physical since the brain itself is physical? Just like a computer and a monitor, you don't physically see the code and software but you can see different activity's going on in the harddrive. A monitor could show you the wildest images, but at the end of the day those are just a pixels showing different colors, in the most literal sense it's really nothing more than that. In that regard, isn't everything physical?
> 
> We are getting pretty offtopic here and I'm not even a single bit closer to understanding this thing which should be so obvious, maybe we should just let it rest.


Yes sure in that sense it's all physical. But how is that category useful in practice? Taking your computer analogy, if you just watch the harddrive activity, do you not notice that you *will* lose certain information?

How do you define computer code as a directly physical thing? Define it clearly and in a very specific way, not just in a vague sense such as "activity in the harddrive". And define it without losing any information. 

So if you accept computer software as existing, not only accepting the existence of the physical hardware in the computer then you will have to agree that psychology is also about more than just the biological brain's direct physical properties. 

A specific example of how we can go beyond the biological; I'm not necessarily a big believer in meme theory but it's a good example of the evolution of something intangible, that is, not directly biological. This is still physical in the sense that the entire world is assumed to be physical, but this statement about physicality here is just trivia and not telling us anything useful.

Note I myself am a reductionist in science and see the world as physical including the brain and I do require proper reification of concepts but I realise the distinction between software and hardware not only with regard to computers but the human brain as well. 

The way I really see things in this whole world though is, everything is processed by our mind and so the meaning of "abstraction" and all the abstraction that we see in the world is also something that's the product of our mind. So my view is very psychological wrapped inside a physical world . And so that's why I do take issue with your oversimplified view of attempting to only use biology to explain the mind.

PS: Also what you wrote about colours on monitors, well, colours are just subjective qualities in our brains...


----------



## HKitty (Oct 11, 2013)

Interesting discussion guys (I'm mean that sincerely), but I'm going to answer the original post. From reading strariyevskaya's activity description, I'd say, IME, it's pretty true. The tale of the EII wife and SLI husband, tho, made me want to cry... what a tortured lady, and really that's no marriage, but I guess divorce wasn't acceptable or feasible. I've been in a relationship with an ISTp, but that was only for a couple of months, so I don't know how an intimate relationship would play out in the long-term. I have an ISTp friend, and she's always getting me interested in doing all sorts of things. But that's not her intention. It's just that in conversation, she'll mention something she's been working on, and then later it'll inspire me to start on something similar. I often feel like telling her, "you're such a positive influence in my life", b/c seriously, there's a lot I wouldn't know about or be involved in without her. On the other hand, they'll be times when we don't see much of each other... which does makes me wonder... like we get along so well, why has it been weeks since...? and it's not just that we don't SEE each other, we also don't talk/text/message, etc, for weeks at a time. ISTp creating distance, eh??  She's a great friend, and I could go on about the similarities between our friendship, and the activity relationship, but that could be a whole thread on it's own.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

HKitty said:


> Interesting discussion guys (I'm mean that sincerely), but I'm going to answer the original post. From reading strariyevskaya's activity description, I'd say, IME, it's pretty true. The tale of the EII wife and SLI husband, tho, made me want to cry... what a tortured lady, and really that's no marriage, but I guess divorce wasn't acceptable or feasible. I've been in a relationship with an ISTp, but that was only for a couple of months, so I don't know how an intimate relationship would play out in the long-term. I have an ISTp friend, and she's always getting me interested in doing all sorts of things. But that's not her intention. It's just that in conversation, she'll mention something she's been working on, and then later it'll inspire me to start on something similar. I often feel like telling her, "you're such a positive influence in my life", b/c seriously, there's a lot I wouldn't know about or be involved in without her. On the other hand, they'll be times when we don't see much of each other... which does makes me wonder... like we get along so well, why has it been weeks since...? and it's not just that we don't SEE each other, we also don't talk/text/message, etc, for weeks at a time. ISTp creating distance, eh??  She's a great friend, and I could go on about the similarities between our friendship, and the activity relationship, but that could be a whole thread on it's own.


ISTps usually need some down time to figure out what's important to them, where they are headed, what they need to do next. During this time they disengage from everyone else and disappear. This kind of submerging into self is more common among Si subtype.

One of the problems of the EII-SLI activity match of which I've heard from an EII friend who was dating an SLI is that each of them had their own plans. They would suggest that the other participate in their plans but later each of them would do their own thing. They both felt that there was this disconnect in combining their plans, which sounds like a clash of two Stragetic types. Both EII and SLI are strategists, so they both set a goal for themselves, but it's not the same goal. What do you think about this?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

> Anyway, I've perused through16types forum, some people criticize that her technical accuracy is questionable but her description have qualitative merit. She was able to describe distinct actions between type but attributed it to the wrong function(s). In other words, she described the physical/chemical characteristics of an orange correctly but then ended up labeling it an apple. But she didn't fuck this up enough that it changed the type. I haven't read enough of socionics to check this criticism myself.


This has started to emerge more and more as I've made my way through her intertype articles. The functional attributions are questionable while I think she accurately captures many of common situations that happen between the given types.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

GreenCoyote said:


> Yeah. I have also heard that Si types are less lazy than Ni because of their willingness to be in the moment. an SEI like yourself that I know is a wonderful host at gatherings always making the food and checking up on everyones needs and such. I feel like a Ni type such as myself wouldn't do that. I rarely do chores or tasks that "need to be done" because I am seeing the pointlessness of it all in time. in a sense Ni has some efficiency in it but I guess all the Si types can be as lazyless as they want and run circles all day.
> actaully I am highly envious of Si and its ability to get things done and take care of present needs. Si isn't lazy at all.


Agreed. I think the main difference, really, between Si/Se users is that Se users mobilize more easily and willingly. That isn't to say that they're more ambitious or productive. The Se-egos I know spend most of their time chasing after meaningless things that they want just because they want them, and though many Ni-egos are no better, they're more self-conscious about this and try to deny it. Most Ni-doms I know are pretty messy people, for instance. Also, Ni-egos will find just about any way to justify what they've done and paint their failures in the best way possible in a way that can just make them seem clueless about life.

I think Si-egos can get caught up in doing work that essentially accomplishes nothing, though. They're all about keeping an even pace and "not being useless," so they'll fill up their free time doing things no Ni-ego or Se-ego would ever waste time on, and then show off their work like they expect a gold medal. And god knows they obsess over what everyone else has done and how that affects their worth!


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Cantarella said:


> I think Si-egos can get caught up in doing work that essentially accomplishes nothing, though. They're all about keeping an even pace and "not being useless," so they'll fill up their free time doing things no Ni-ego or Se-ego would ever waste time on, and then show off their work like they expect a gold medal. *And god knows they obsess over what everyone else has done and how that affects their worth!*


Hehehe, true. I've been around a couple of SJ types and while they are 'being productive' they accomplish nothing. I could sit on my ass all day long and the only difference between me and them would be a bucket of sweat.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

Dedication said:


> Hehehe, true. I've been around a couple of SJ types and while they are 'being productive' they accomplish nothing. I could sit on my ass all day long and the only difference between me and them would be a bucket of sweat.


Word. I've worked for countless ESTJs who made me want to take a gun to my head with this shit. Every day felt like a competition to see who could waste more time breaking their back for nothing than the other person.

On the other hand, if someone only accomplishes 10% of what they set out to do while you did nothing, they still accomplished 100% more than you, lol. This is something I remind myself of at work a lot so I won't get as frustrated with people who work this way.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

Wanted to add, since EII-LIE semi-duality was being discussed earlier in this thread:

The main issue I see with EII-LIE is each type's given neuroses about their PoLR, and the other type's inability to do much to help with those feelings. I see it mentioned often that the problem is that each expects the other to take over the sensing role, but in my experience with LIEs the problem was always actually that we would "do our own thing" in sensing terms and be unable to placate the other, either when it came to our PoLR or HA. To the other person, it always seems like the grass is greener for them. They must be stressed out about different things because they've already solved the problems you're struggling with, or so you think. I believe that with two mature, healthy individuals who function well on their own already, this can be an excellent combination, but when I tried it the LIE and I were both depressed, angry people. The dynamic has some of the qualities of contrary relations, where the partners just want to keep having fun until they get a brutal reality check, so it's really essential for both to have their own goals and lives figured out beforehand. That said, out of all the possible partners for an EII, LIE is still one of the best. My only complaint is that they can get a bit needy, but after learning to put my foot down I found that I actually sort of like that about them, as long as they don't take it too personally when I need a break.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Cantarella said:


> Ni-egos will find just about any way to justify what they've done and paint their failures in the best way possible in a way that can just make them seem clueless about life.


I'm interested, do you have an example to go with it?

I'm pretty open about what I want, at least I want to be, but I've found out that other people really can't stand it. I've been in multiple groups that promote self development and growth, but when I'm there with my capitalistic mindset: "All I want is to make money" they would flip out, they try to search for meaning or something deeper, or question my logic and try to convince me that money shouldn't be my motivation for many, many reasons. 

As a side note: I noticed that most of the people from these self development groups tend to be from the Delta quadra.

It strikes me as strange when people from the Delta quadra promote being open but at the same time can't stand it when I share stuff that comes from Ni or when I talk about my Se desires.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

Dedication said:


> I'm interested, do you have an example to go with it?
> 
> I'm pretty open about what I want, at least I want to be, but I've found out that other people really can't stand it. I've been in multiple groups that promote self development and growth, but when I'm there with my capitalistic mindset: "All I want is to make money" they would flip out, they try to search for meaning or something deeper, or question my logic and try to convince me that money shouldn't be my motivation for many, many reasons.
> 
> ...


I don't think there's anything wrong with your mindset. If anything, I'm similar. My sister's an EII as well (there's speculation about me being another type, IEI or EIE, but I won't get into that here) and criticizes me for being "in it for the money" in pretty much every instance where profit is the goal. For example, she thinks flipping is unethical, but it's something I really enjoy. Another example is that I write and self-publish trashy erotica marketed to the masses so I can make more money every month, and ever Delta I've told has found that "tacky" and gross. I've had this argument about profitability with IEEs so many times it makes me never want to try talking about money with them again, lol. And I don't think Delta NFs have trouble with Ni at all--I think that it's the way Ni-doms sometimes express it that is eyeroll-worthy. I'll give an example: my best friend is an ILI who loves to forecast the future (XIIs do this as well, just in a different way--less "listen to me" and more "you might want to keep this in mind..."), but his forecasts are often not very wild or very obviously wishful thinking. When they DO happen to work out he's very smug about it. However, when they don't work out, which is probably 75% of the time (because a lot of his forecasts are motivated by the dislike he has for people and wanting bad things to happen to them) he blames someone else or "the universe," not his own poor forecasts.

As for the clueless about life bit that I mentioned, this observation comes from the countless time I've seen Ni-egos refuse to admit their failings and spin them some other way (often while blowing other peoples' failings out of proportion). They're always on diets or always taking some sort of class to better themselves, but stop going after less than a handful of sessions and stop dieting in two weeks or less. And while they're "envisioning" their success all they can do is talk about how brilliant it's going to be, and talk shit on people who shamelessly live with the habits they themselves are trying to get rid of. Once they get bored of the hard work that's required to MAKE change, though, they retire to their couches and act like victims. "The gym was always too loud/crowded"/"People keep coming over and not letting me go"/"Someone turned my alarm off so I didn't get up early enough to get a session in" are ALL excuses I've heard from them so many times that I stopped listening. And they're always quick to add something like, "When it starts staying light out later I'll start going again." Yeah, we all know that's never going to happen. My ILI friend is going to be fat forever. My EIE coworker is going to be single forever. My IEI friend is never going to start grad school like he was supposed to do six years ago. My LIE friend is never going to be a model. And when I'm around them I get to hear about these problems EXTENSIVELY and the blame gets heaped everywhere and anywhere but on them.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Cantarella said:


> Another example is that I write and self-publish trashy erotica marketed to the masses so I can make more money every month, and ever Delta I've told has found that "tacky" and gross.


LOL, I don't think that sounds too gross, even though I don't think I'd do that myself. (I likely am a Delta too =P)


----------



## zinnia (Jul 22, 2013)

Cantarella said:


> As for the clueless about life bit that I mentioned, this observation comes from the countless time I've seen Ni-egos refuse to admit their failings and spin them some other way (often while blowing other peoples' failings out of proportion).


Hmm. Everything you described here sounds so much like me... I am a lazy dreamer and I make excuses like that to protect my own self-image as a hardworking, awesome person. I never thought of that as being an Ni thing.

And I also don't really find a problem with doing things for money (unless it involves killing people or kidnapping people and selling them to slavery, then maybe *just* a little bit) or have problems with your writing. I really dislike people who are overly proper or who pull holier-than-thou shit. so annoying ugh


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Cantarella said:


> I don't think there's anything wrong with your mindset. If anything, I'm similar. My sister's an EII as well (there's speculation about me being another type, IEI or EIE, but I won't get into that here) and criticizes me for being "in it for the money" in pretty much every instance where profit is the goal. For example, she thinks flipping is unethical, but it's something I really enjoy. Another example is that I write and self-publish trashy erotica marketed to the masses so I can make more money every month, and ever Delta I've told has found that "tacky" and gross. I've had this argument about profitability with IEEs so many times it makes me never want to try talking about money with them again, lol. And I don't think Delta NFs have trouble with Ni at all--I think that it's the way Ni-doms sometimes express it that is eyeroll-worthy. I'll give an example: my best friend is an ILI who loves to forecast the future (XIIs do this as well, just in a different way--less "listen to me" and more "you might want to keep this in mind..."), but his forecasts are often not very wild or very obviously wishful thinking. When they DO happen to work out he's very smug about it. However, when they don't work out, which is probably 75% of the time (because a lot of his forecasts are motivated by the dislike he has for people and wanting bad things to happen to them) he blames someone else or "the universe," not his own poor forecasts.
> 
> As for the clueless about life bit that I mentioned, this observation comes from the countless time I've seen Ni-egos refuse to admit their failings and spin them some other way (often while blowing other peoples' failings out of proportion). They're always on diets or always taking some sort of class to better themselves, but stop going after less than a handful of sessions and stop dieting in two weeks or less. And while they're "envisioning" their success all they can do is talk about how brilliant it's going to be, and talk shit on people who shamelessly live with the habits they themselves are trying to get rid of. Once they get bored of the hard work that's required to MAKE change, though, they retire to their couches and act like victims. "The gym was always too loud/crowded"/"People keep coming over and not letting me go"/"Someone turned my alarm off so I didn't get up early enough to get a session in" are ALL excuses I've heard from them so many times that I stopped listening. And they're always quick to add something like, "When it starts staying light out later I'll start going again." Yeah, we all know that's never going to happen. My ILI friend is going to be fat forever. My EIE coworker is going to be single forever. My IEI friend is never going to start grad school like he was supposed to do six years ago. My LIE friend is never going to be a model. And when I'm around them I get to hear about these problems EXTENSIVELY and the blame gets heaped everywhere and anywhere but on them.


Hahah oh wow, I feel sorry for the stuff you have to put up with from these people. Thanks for explaining, when I decided to go to the gym, it took me a year before I finally started going, but in the mean time I wasn't telling anybody else about it, it's about a year later now? I'm still going. I also decided to work on my diet by cutting white sugar almost completely, it took me a couple of months to achieve this, I was addicted to sugar.

About the age of 17 I learned to take the blame (for my own actions / words) upon myself through a couple of 'self-help' books. Whenever I hear about Ni types it surprises me that they can't see or take responsibility for their own words because I've been doing it for a while now.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

zinnia said:


> Hmm. Everything you described here sounds so much like me... I am a lazy dreamer and I make excuses like that to protect my own self-image as a hardworking, awesome person. I never thought of that as being an Ni thing.
> 
> And I also don't really find a problem with doing things for money (unless it involves killing people or kidnapping people and selling them to slavery, then maybe *just* a little bit) or have problems with your writing. I really dislike people who are overly proper or who pull holier-than-thou shit. so annoying ugh


What you're describing sounds like Te-PoLR in general.  And god, I agree--I HATE overly proper people! They weird me out so much! Unless they're just really sweet, lol. It peeves me when I have to get in touch with someone via email and what they write back is SO stiff and formal! I think the reason I get a lot of judgment from Deltas about what I do, though, is because they have this annoying elitism thing going on. The ones I talk to have this very specific idea of what it means to be "cultured" and things that don't fall under that umbrella are "beneath" them. I try not to get offended and just remind myself that it's who they are and what they're like and they're probably not actively trying to be douchebags.



Dedication said:


> Hahah oh wow, I feel sorry for the stuff you have to put up with from these people. Thanks for explaining, when I decided to go to the gym, it took me a year before I finally started going, but in the mean time I wasn't telling anybody else about it, it's about a year later now? I'm still going. I also decided to work on my diet by cutting white sugar almost completely, it took me a couple of months to achieve this, I was addicted to sugar.
> 
> About the age of 17 I learned to take the blame (for my own actions / words) upon myself through a couple of 'self-help' books. Whenever I hear about Ni types it surprises me that they can't see or take responsibility for their own words because I've been doing it for a while now.


You sound like a wonderful ILI.  And I'm exactly the same when it comes to my own goals: I don't tell anyone, I just do them. I don't need distractions and I don't need people weighing in about what I should be doing with my life. I find it gives them an undeserved sense of control over my actions and my behavior, and I don't want them having illusions that they can or should try to control me.

Eta: Also, congratulations! What you're doing is amazing! Sorry I didn't write more last night--I saw your quote and wanted to reply, but by the time I got to it I was late, lol. I don't know if I could ever cut out sugar. It's in basically everything, and it's not that I love sugar, it's just that I don't know if I could put all that effort into eliminating foods that have it.

I think there is something to be said for self-awareness. A lot of people, regardless of type, avoid it because it can be painful and demeaning once you've built up this amazing but false internal picture of yourself. The fact that you care enough to be honest and try to actively improve the parts you don't like is admirable.

And regarding the Deltas being hypocritical about openness, if you want to see more of that just go on tumblr, lol. I really hate that attitude and I know pretty much exactly what you mean. If something doesn't fit under their Umbrella of Righteousness, it gets dismissed or hated on. I avoid those people and that attitude like the plague.


----------

