# Esi - i am the law!!!



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Is it just me or do all ESIs have a problem with amorality?

I'm unable to tolerate it, I get angry, combative, judgmental, firm & rigid. Injustice must be punished, it can not be tolerated EVER & retribution must ALWAYS follow as swiftly as possible....:dry: 

:angry: I can't even tolerate the apathy other people display most of the time when facing amoral behavior around them....it just pisses me off.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

The other day you said you were unambiguously done with this theory, now go enforce the law against yourself.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

It's a composite of being Fi dominant and type 6 in enneagram, which is a very common e-type for ESIs. Fi establishes its own interpersonal rules, builds an "ethical system", while the issue of fairness and trustworthiness are key for type 6.

But yes, ESIs and LSIs are kind of similar in this respect, only that LSI's Ti-system has more to do with issues of power, rank, authority rather than ethics as is the case of ESIs.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> The other day you said you were unambiguously done with this theory, now go enforce the law against yourself.


Yupp can't trust a word written on this theory on any website haha, but this one oddly fits me about ESI. I am incapable of not reacting harshly to amorality. Everyone else around me seems to have a much lighter reaction & they can rationalize it and so on. I get serious, angry and super judgmental with a "justice will be done one way or another!" atitude lol.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

I noticed this ESI girl I used to know flipping out over stuff like that and I actually found it really amusing. Often it was what I secretly wished I could do but didn't have the balls, or I didn't see why it was such a big deal but I hated the person she was flipping out on so I was in her corner. <3 ESIs!


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> Yupp can't trust a word written on this theory on any website haha, but this one oddly fits me about ESI.


Well I am sure your skeptical selectivity will serve you well.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> Well I am sure your skeptical selectivity will serve you well.


Functions are functions, doesn't matter if MBTI or Socionics. As long as I'm ISFP in MBTI its gonna be ESI in socionics. I can't relate to either description fully anyway.

Btw what is the deal with you private types popping up full of knowledge and shit, no MBTI type, no socionics type, no enneagram type, no nothing. <.< if you hide who you are how do you expect someone to trust you?

I have no idea who you are, you aren't quoting any reliable sources either o.o...what you say is your opinion without any solid evidence or reliable facts. Its not something that I could consider basing anything on.

Its not like I completely reject socionics theory, its just that the information scattered on the internet is unreliable. <==common sense.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> Functions are functions, doesn't matter if MBTI or Socionics.


i disagree.



> Btw what is the deal with you private types popping up full of knowledge and shit, no MBTI type, no socionics type, no enneagram type, no nothing. <.< if you hide who you are how do you expect someone to trust you?


I am not hiding who I am. Rather, I believe these constructs exist in the eye of the observer and I feel that declaring them publicly is both pointless and a conceptual error in how types should be thought of. If you wanted to know what I think, you would be perfectly free to strike up a conversation and ask, or else use your incredible powers of observation to google the information in which case you might come across my extensive writings on the topic of socionics at other locales over the course of the last seven or eight years through which you would easily be able to discern my opinions of my type and many other things.



> I have no idea who you are, you aren't quoting any reliable sources


And what is a reliable source?



> o.o...what you say is your opinion without any solid evidence or reliable facts.


Absolutely! I am glad to agree on something so fundamental. What I say is my opinion, and nothing more.



> Its not like I completely reject socionics theory, its just that the information scattered on the internet is unreliable. <==common sense.


Ah. Well, that isn't what you said the other day. But in any case, good for you; we are back where we started and I do wish you and your selectively discerning skepticism well.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> i disagree.


 same here.




> I am not hiding who I am. Rather, I believe these constructs exist in the eye of the observer and I feel that declaring them publicly is both pointless and a conceptual error in how types should be thought of. If you wanted to know what I think, you would be perfectly free to strike up a conversation and ask, or else use your incredible powers of observation to google the information in which case you might come across my extensive writings on the topic of socionics at other locales over the course of the last seven or eight years through which you would easily be able to discern my opinions of my type and many other things.


How was I supposed to know that? I change my forum name when I feel like it, wasn't aware ppl keep theirs for long. Googling you never occurred to me.




> And what is a reliable source?


Books by experts, researched and tested theory backed up by facts & evidence. Think Dario Nardi, neuroscience. When it comes to opinions mine is the only one I can trust. This is similar to why I got frustrated in collage by psychology. Lots of wild theories I had to know with little to no real world potential. What is the use of knowing all this crap? I just want to get to the bottom line & what is useful, why and how do I apply it etc.. Its basically what I want out of this, plus I get bored so I need a topic to talk about with random people sometimes (example now)



> Ah. Well, that isn't what you said the other day. But in any case, good for you; we are back where we started and I do wish you and your selectively discerning skepticism well.


I'd call it common sense. <.< also can't see you but I'm guessing you are annoyed and the passive aggressive behavior is showing.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> Books by experts, researched and tested theory backed up by facts & evidence. Think Dario Nardi, neuroscience.


wait a minute.

okay, i'm done.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Law and law...
Gee sure put me in a position of power and I will enforce it to the T.
If I believe in it that is, or else I will just subvert it silently with no qualms.

I'm really unsure of why I have to be mister lawful all of a sudden...
I can totally see being criminal as a way of life.
Socionics seem to take their stereotypes way to far sometimes. :-/


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Speaking as Fi-base, anyway... Saying I stand against "amorality" is way too lofty of a declaration, but I can get very pissy when people go against my ethical principles or current opinions/beliefs. I'm more likely to silently judge IRL than confront, though; the latter happens more often online. I've gotten more surly about it as I've gotten older, which is really too bad; there are better things to spend my time and energy on than someone who is wrong/an asshole on the internet (or IRL, but I encounter fewer people offline due to not being social), and it tends to conflict with wanting to be as widely liked and accepted as possible (which is a whole other issue I won't get into here).


----------

