# SEE and EIE differences



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

could someone describe some of the differences between these two types? I'm having difficulty telling them apart.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

SEEs express harsh judgment (characterological) and EIEs express ideological judgment. The emotionality of SEEs is individualized; EIEs possess free expression.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Some of the things it came down to for me was recognizing how I interact with Betas and compare myself to them and therefore am not one. Though the EIE and SEE are both political, emotionally volatile, and manipulative or charismatic, the EIE is driven by ideological visions that I tend to eventually start criticizing as pedantic, pretentious, precious...all kinds of p words apparently...but I can even think of specific Beta types who do this who drive me up the wall; it's like I start out admiring their ethical fortitude and end up thinking they are either far too idealistic (read: unrealistic) or rigidly ideological. I actually do sense their preference for Aristocratic social judgments, and in the end, despite surface similarities, these things end up putting me off.

As a Gamma I do take an ethical hard stance myself which can appear like the Beta ideological rigidity, but my ethical hard stance is based in ethics, it's adaptable to reality, it's not about adhering to ideology or completing a vision.

I read that EIE's are the one's who actually build the new organizational structure, and can exhaust themselves doing so.

It's funny because in university I tried to mold myself into an EIE political/social role, only to realize it wasn't me at all, and basically ended up running for my life, away from any organizational structure, realizing that this is not a responsibility I want, nor am I suited to it.

Gamma politics are about taking action, but not to the extremes of the Beta. I always say I don't understand why anyone would die for a cause. That's very Gamma and not Beta of me to think that way. Gamma's tend to be more self-preservational, and protective of their own. 

An idea is not a reason to die, but ethics should be stringent; but it's this similarity in tenacity to Beta ideals and Gamma ethics that makes them appear similar I think, I mean the ENFj and ESFp.

ESFp is also the least openly critical of the Gammas, and has volatile moods which can be impetuous and changeable and easily forgotten, which gives them a bit of the sense of emotional drama of the ENFj, especially since they also seem to "go toward" as much as move away from others. The important difference being is that the ENFj does it purposefully for effect.

The ENFj wants to seduce you into their cause. The ESFp genuinely thinks you're a bastard and tells you to take a long walk off a short pier. The latter, yes, that is I. Never rising to the appropriate occasion, but rather having inconvenient feelings at those big happy parties that Alphas and Betas try to throw.

I think ENFj also believes in high romantic ideas/courtship and ESFps are more physical, pragmatic, and finds power-plays or arguing exciting, I think.

I am absolutely most assuredly a Gamma SEE-Fi.

I don't know about you, but I've finally learned what the differences are, and now that I see it, I even see how I judge Betas as a Gamma, or how I even have mistaken ENFjs in the past as kindreds, only later realizing that I found them manipulative, two-faced or caring too much about social standards or saving face.

I also relate to being a Gamma seeing Deltas as too forgiving of the undeserving. That is a huge red flag for me as well.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

EIE is rational & aristocratic, less flexible and more absolutist in ethical judgements: "either you're with us or against us". Leading rational feeling function is given to making all-or-nothing judgements. Leading Fe or Fi also have a sort of expansiveness, collectivity, universality about them -- dominant feeling functions want to see all people united together by some common sentiment or idea.

SEE has creative feelings & is democratic type. SEE's ethics are more flexible -- they can pat you on the back in some situations and reprimand you in others. SEEs don't make absolutist judgements about someone's character. It's all situation dependent: "you're useful today so I like you -- now you aren't useful so I reject you". Since they are introverted feelers & democrats, they pay attention to how something harmonizes with their own subjective framework of values -- their feelings don't have the same global & somewhat impersonal, diffuse outreach as for EIE.

EIE is dynamic type, thus their expression style is more sequential -- it flows like a river, one event or action is followed by another and another and another. They are irreverent of any sort of rigidity in thinking. May make an impression of a person who doesn't have a "spine" or firm principles, although EIE will respect such people from afar since their duals LSI are usually very stubborn and hard-headed people. This lack of an "internal spine" shows up as lack of restraint for EIE -- often spills out into flare-ups of overbearing, imposing, contentious behavior on their part.

SEEs have much more consistency in their values -- they will insist on the same kinds of values across different situations, and will press on with what >they< want. In comparison to EIEs, SEEs make an impression of being willful and stubborn in getting what they want. While both types can be contentious, SEEs can be consistently so, while EIEs will only occasionally "flare-up". EIE makes an impression of someone who is given into extremes, sudden changes of mood and behavior. SEEs seem more consistent.

EIEs are negativists -- SEEs are positivists. SEEs often strive to maximize positive, affirming, complimenting sentiments, that make others and themselves feel good, and they encourage the same in others (LSIs, as a result, tend to form an opinion about SEEs that they are "weak-minded" because they are so guided by their personal sentiments). SEE is basically like EII with strong sensing -- they both bring lots of positive sentiment into any company. EIEs are more critical and disparaging. They will instead focus on problems, mistakes, omissions, failures, and personal shortcomings. Even if at a distance they make an impression of someone who is pleasant and content, once you get to know them better they start voicing all these "wrongs" that they see in other people and the world at large. Seeing all these wrongs makes the EIE want to change the world.

EIEs concern themselves with future consequences of their actions much more often than SEEs. SEEs are more like "do first, think later" -- they don't easily see the future development of events, especially negative development. Thus SEEs need the counsel of their duals, ILIs, to fill them in on whether they are doing something is useless or will lead to something unpleasant. While EIEs don't need this kind of advice -- they see those kinds of things very well for themselves.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@cyamitide
I'm probably more on the EIE side of this description, but I just don't relate the collectivist tendencies of EIE. it seems like EIEs are likely to put people in groups, then judge them. I judge people and then put them into groups based upon my judgments. I also judge groups more harshly than individuals (a group to me is little more than the manifestation of a trend, and I tend to take a "hate the sin not the sinner" approach, even though I can be a condemning bitch if pushed)


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_cyamitide_
> I'm probably more on the EIE side of this description, but I just don't relate the collectivist tendencies of EIE. it seems like EIEs are likely to put people in groups, then judge them. I judge people and then put them into groups based upon my judgments. I also judge groups more harshly than individuals (a group to me is little more than the manifestation of a trend, and I tend to take a "hate the sin not the sinner" approach, even though I can be a condemning bitch if pushed)


By my reading, what you have described is a collectivistic tendency -- to "judge people and then put them into groups based upon my judgments" is to consider group affiliations a salient part of the subject. By contrast I suggest that the non-collectivistic gamma and delta types do not consider group affiliations as things as salient or spontaneous to mind, at all; rather, they might make comparisons between individuals but remain unwavering in not making assumptions about groups, even when the assumption is obvious.

As the unnecessary disclaimer, like everything else in socionics this is a tendency and not an absolute.

(By the way I have not forgotten your questionnaire, I will get to it).


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

aestrivex said:


> By my reading, what you have described is a collectivistic tendency -- to "judge people and then put them into groups based upon my judgments" is to consider group affiliations a salient part of the subject. By contrast I suggest that the non-collectivistic gamma and delta types do not consider group affiliations as things as salient or spontaneous to mind, at all; rather, they might make comparisons between individuals but remain unwavering in not making assumptions about groups, even when the assumption is obvious.
> As the unnecessary disclaimer, like everything else in socionics this is a tendency and not an absolute.
> (By the way I have not forgotten your questionnaire, I will get to it).


so, as far as Socionics is concerned, the tendency to categorize people is collectivistic? if that's the case, I'm probably Beta.


----------

