# EII / ESI tell me how you feel



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

I've been reading about signs of IM's recently and I wonder how plausible the theory is / how it really manifest.

According to the theory, ESI's have "Fi-" and EII's have "Fi+". Genereally speaking it should manifest as follows: + sign mean that you concentrate only on positive aspects of given element. - doesn not mean, however, that you experience only negative aspects. - is broad experience of function, full experience you might say, both in positive and negative aspects. So + function user would shy away from negative experiences at all costs, but - function user would experience both positive and negative aspects. 


> 1. The competence area of a "minus" function covers all information space on the information element.
> 2. The competence area of a "plus" function covers a limited information area of the information element's space.


Further reading here.

Another take is that:


> -Fi = minimization of negative relationships. This element is critical of evil. They desire to get away from bad people and poor relationships, and to protect themselves from enemies and adversaries. They want to minimize negative experiences.





> +Fi = positive, warm relationships. Psychological factors play a vital role for them. Without recognition of ethical values such as individuality and the uniqueness of others, religion and spirituality, non-interference in others lives, concrete humanism, etc., the stability they strongly desire is hardly possible.


Source.


+ and - signs also mean broad / narrow, and bunch of other qualities. This theory covers all types and all IM's, hence each function in each type have assigned sign. This theory works very well for me, e.g. in terms of how I experience Beta types and their Ni/Se axis; for personal reasons I am particularly interested in how it manifest in Fi doms, though. 

Essentially is seems that ESI would experience full range of relational attitudes, but EII would concentrate only on positive, being unable to "produce" negative attitude towards another person. That's how it's presented:


EII said:


> «Only once I faced an explicitly negative attitude. I tried to be benevolent, to establish a contact. But anyway the person under review revealed his lack of leaning by some communication nuances. Finally, I just gave up my attempts to establish a contact, but I did not cross the limits of benevolence. *On my part, it was next to impossible to experience a negative attitude in return. It kills me the mood that is why I wish to preserve peacefulness even in response to a negative attitude. *It is strange, but true. From the look of things, I forgive the offence caused. *I’ve just tried to remember at least one offence caused to me, but I could not. *It means that I’ve already forgiven it.»


vs.



ESI said:


> «I avoid conflicts just like that, for no particular reason. Although sometimes I may enter into a conflict in order to cheer me up and to have fun. But only in case the conflict would not get serious and would not hurt the opponent. I never think: I should not argue with anyone because of any benefits. It’s just why argue if I can do without it?»


*Question is*: do you agree with these descriptions? 
EII's if you, for example, judge someone as a bad person (based on your moral code or whatever), or when someone behaves in a bad manner towards you, do you really can't experience any negative attitude in return? Don't you grudge inside wishing all the worst to happen to your oppressor? And if you do, how long does this mood lasts?
ESI's how do you feel about it? Do you tend to reproach a lot? And when you place yourself in a conflict position with someone, openly expressing your anger, do you often experience guilt afterwards? Do you ever doubt your judgement afterwards, ie. do you wonder whether your opponent really deserved bad treatment, or that you just overreacted?


The question is primary for EII's and ESI's, but Fi creative users are also welcomed to post their experiences.

If I mixed something with the theory or in any way misunderstood how signs of functions work, let me know.

If you are further interested in the theory, here is full diagram of function signs for each type, taken from facebook Socionics group:








I suggest only to look at strong elements of each type, though, as I believe that signs of lower functions are hard to discern and only confusing.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

I do feel guilt but not because I hurt anyone or whatever. About that I don't care. I, however, feel guilt because I lost control over my emotions and the "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHH" came out. That feeling is very shitty. That's about that.

I never doubt my reactions because I am kinda zealous. If something riled me enough in order to react, I have no guilt or whatever about a quarrel(as long as it wasn't my bout of anger that started it). Besides, some people literally ask to be put down or yelled at. Idk why and tbh, I don't care either.

Overall, I do agree with both -Fi and EVEN MORE with defensive nature of +Se. This sounds alright to me.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Reading just the post and not the resources, and understanding the nature of dichotomies, I think it is important to point out that the strength of the person's second function will reflect the +/- aspects of the first. Actually, now that I write that, I forget my thought process I had ten minutes ago that lead me to that conclusion.

I think this may be an expanding/contracting sort of thing. +s have a smaller circle (not referring to S, but an actual circle), and seek to expand it through addition of positive influences. -s have a large circle and seek to contract it by removing negative influences. The EII's I know seem to slowly expand the number of relationships they have, while the ESIs seem to reduce the number of relationships they have. My home turns into the world slowly, whereas the ESIs world turns into their home. Eventually all ESIs I know end up being very homebody with their families, and I suppose EIIs start out as homebodies?

The only real examples I have are ones that were very severe to the point of being violated, which is why I remember them, but I will explain them in less dramatic terms.
1) Told girl years ago I would help with a bill, she said she wanted to go on a date (after I offered to help), and I agreed. Day of the bill/date, she requested to stop by a friends house to pick up some stuff. I wait in car 30 minutes, then call her, and hear her phone ringing in the crack between the seats. I reach down, pull it out, and notice the Name that shows up for me is Freakazoid. I go knock on the door, tell her she left her phone in the car, ask her if she is going to be a while, she says yes, so I tell her not to worry about it and she can stay at her friends. I hand her the bill money, and note that says I tried to call, saw my "name", and that I felt betrayed, but that I wish her well in her life.
2) Another time with a girl. Similar, but way more money. Says she is head over heals for me, is with someone but breaks up with them and wants them to move out. Day the ex was moving out was also day she suddenly needed the money. Go get the money with her, go to drop her off, and she says she is making the ex move out when she gets inside. I get one of those pre-cog moments, hand her the money, and tell her "don't make a mistake." Well, the ex never leaves, and she proceeds to be abused for years by the person. I knew what was coming, but bid her, as you put it, benevolence before I left.

For me, I am more focused on good people in general than on bad. I could run around punishing bad people with my time, but I prefer to help the good. Bad people tend to hurt themselves enough as it is, all on their own.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Reading just the post and not the resources, and understanding the nature of dichotomies, I think it is important to point out that the strength of the person's second function will reflect the +/- aspects of the first. Actually, now that I write that, I forget my thought process I had ten minutes ago that lead me to that conclusion.
> 
> I think this may be an expanding/contracting sort of thing. +s have a smaller circle (not referring to S, but an actual circle), and seek to expand it through addition of positive influences. -s have a large circle and seek to contract it by removing negative influences. The EII's I know seem to slowly expand the number of relationships they have, while the ESIs seem to reduce the number of relationships they have. My home turns into the world slowly, whereas the ESIs world turns into their home. Eventually all ESIs I know end up being very homebody with their families, and I suppose EIIs start out as homebodies?
> 
> ...


...and bad people end up hurting plenty o good people while on their self destructive rampage. Here:

" But, Geralt, where is your silver sword? I heard it is used against monsters."
" Both are for monsters. But, yes I don't remember where it is"

Excerpt from The Witcher.

It's better to stop bad people before they actually hurt anyone. They want to be hurt anyhow, so what do I care if I hurt such a person?


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

I'm sorry, I'm not EII nor ESI, but this theory seems plausible.

I've seen for IEI, and Fe is +. And it's true that I'm not avoiding negative emotions, but I'm prefering small dose of positive emotions. Same thing for Ni-, I use it mainly to prevent myself from future danger, and less for planing developpement.

But I wonder if it would be the same thing if I hadn't watched the ressource? I mean, you should test without telling to anyone that Fi- is ESI, and Fi- EII. I'm somewhat affraid of the Forer Effect to have accurate results.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

@Ixim but how do you experience this internally? Cause what you descibed is your outward reaction. Do you often tend to keep bad feelings towards people for a long time? How about distance, do you more often quarrel with stangers, or with close people (relatives, partners), or both?
After you "explode" you do feel relief and no longer feel anger, or you still tend to keep resentment after the quarrel?

@Jeremy8419 thanks, that was really informative. Let me clear one thing, though, what do you mean by "these are only real examples I have"? These were the only examples in which you feelt resentment towards another person? Or these were only ones when you behaved in a "Fi +" way?
Also, in terms of distance it is interesting that you mentioned only experiences with close people. How about when stranger misbehave? Let's imagine hypothetical situation: you were in a doctor's office, and he descibed you medicince. But later you started to wonder, whether your doctor was bribed by some pharmaceutical company, since the medicine was worthless (let's say it only had placebo effect) and you only loose your money. Apart from the legal issues in this particular situation, will you find this enough to start hating the doctor? 
@westlose I posted this along with sources and explanations, as I wanted to made this thread informative for others too. I'm wondering abut posting this without explanations in the MBTI forum, but I doubt that would be very reliable, as many of these INFP's are IEI's and many ISFP's are SEI's...
And yes, those signs are pretty spot on for Beta. Personally I find this vid. to be a good example of Beta Fe + Se/Ni nature:

* *











Example of pure Se - is Die Antwoord.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

wolf12345 said:


> @_Ixim_ but how do you experience this internally? Cause what you descibed is your outward reaction. Do you often tend to keep bad feelings towards people for a long time? How about distance, do you more often quarrel with stangers, or with close people (relatives, partners), or both?
> After you "explode" you do feel relief and no longer feel anger, or you still tend to keep resentment after the quarrel?
> 
> 
> ...


I keep to that "I gave you three chances...you blew it! Fk you" maxim. Do I hold grudges? Because that is what you are asking me. Not consciously and I try my best to be open minded and welcoming, but...there is always a but. I feel that I do. If someone brought nothing but strife into my life, it's hard to forgive. Thing is, I fully understand thatsome people bring more than harmony into other people's lives. Teachings, gifts, etc. But some are baseline vile and beyond salvation. I had few of those. And then there are politicians-some of those from my country I disliked, I dislike and I'll dislike for as long as I live because they bring nothing but ruin. They deserve Ottoman mercy-namely Shamshir and the neck and yeah.

I don't quarrel with strangers. That's...odd to say at the very least. How would a stranger understand me-and more importantly why should he? I really don't even object to strangers about parking and the like. No reason to. Meanwhile, I cam have long tirades about how something is wrong or how something should be with people who are close to me. Not quarrels, but rather long winded philsophical "as it should be/everything is wrong" muses.

I don't know about anger. I guess that I didn't really explode for a long time(except that one time a month ago when a scumbag boss tried to trick the whole firm!). It's better that way. I really don't know what to say. I even dislike the word "hate". It's such a strong word that should be used when it should. As an opposing term to love. I can't love a politician for example, hence I can't hate him either(because I don't know him beyond his PR). I really don't like anger. Yes, it is strength. Yes, it gives power. Yes, it can sustain me rather well. But it is ruin as well. And I choose progress and happiness. After being angry, I just feel sorry because I let it happen. Because I let others see my true me. It's the same as how Se's often don't like going to a doctor just because they don't want to be seen as weak. It's a dualisation thing really.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

wolf12345 said:


> *Question is*: do you agree with these descriptions?
> EII's if you, for example, judge someone as a bad person (based on your moral code or whatever), or when someone behaves in a bad manner towards you, do you really can't experience any negative attitude in return? Don't you grudge inside wishing all the worst to happen to your oppressor? And if you do, how long does this mood lasts?


I really hate holding grudges, if I judge a person to be bad then yes there can be a period where I would wish the worst to happen to that person, but that's usually in the heat of anger. It will typically last for about 20 minutes (sometimes longer in extreme cases) and then I'll try to reconcile things internally, because it takes a lot of energy to hold on to this negative opinion for so long. I'll try to look at what's good in a person and where some common ground can be established, and maybe use that as a basis for engaging positively in the future.

I'm not completely convinced by this +/- thing to be honest though; is this not just Ne helping me to see another perspective on someone? And trying to guard against using vulnerable Se which means I have trouble confronting someone I don't like.

I make all judgements working on the assumption that people are at their core good and altruistic, and when they're bad and selfish in actions it's because they're misguided and deluded. I'll openly admit I've got no basis for that assumption but you have to start from one perspective or another and that's the starting point I choose. And that enables me to be forgiving, because you can see how people can do something bad but still have good intentions; I'll assume they've justified their actions in some way that they believe they're doing right even when it's not. I'll then be in a better position to help someone if I'm not in a confrontation with them.

To try to minimise the Forer effect I'll answer the ESI question as well and try to consider it as if it was meant for EII.


> ESI's how do you feel about it? Do you tend to reproach a lot? And when you place yourself in a conflict position with someone, openly expressing your anger, do you often experience guilt afterwards? Do you ever doubt your judgement afterwards, ie. do you wonder whether your opponent really deserved bad treatment, or that you just overreacted?


If I openly express my anger it usually goes badly, because vulnerable Se tends to be all or nothing with no refinement, so if I try to confront someone directly while I'm still angry I usually make myself appear stupid and narrow-minded and can't get my point across, it'll just come across as some kind of angry rant and totally undermine my point. I'll never doubt my initial judgement and wouldn't apologise for that, but I would regret how I handled it, and wish I had taken a step back and tried to consider the other person's point of view and how better to engage with them. I prefer helping someone to understand themselves and how they might consider things differently as an approach rather than telling them how to be.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@wolf12345
Only ones of large significance that I remember with detailed, specific clarity. I close doors regularly for Fi reasons, but it almost always involves me "taking the high road" as I leave, even if I am the only one who knows it.
I wouldn't be likely to place my own perceptions over the doctor's training, but if I did, I would Wikipedia it, and if determined he wasn't correct, for any reason, I would simply stop going to him. If I had some kinda inclination based upon something I saw that made me think he was bribed into giving me medicine, I wouldn't hate him, but I would likely report him, so he doesn't end up killing someone. I generally attest that bad/evil/not-so-good people are pathetic in general. My internal visual of a "bad" person is similar to that of one of the starving and worm -infested (literally, not insultingly) children in Africa. My internal visual of an "evil" person is similar to a mangy and hungry hyena following around people, hoping to get lucky and eat them. Thebmore bad a person does, the more they are dehumanized in my mind. I wouldn't attack a "bad" one, but I would put down an "evil" one out of necessity. A beast is a beast.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

@ALongTime thanks for replying. I was sceptical too, believe me. But afterall it seems like it works. About that Ne, nah, I don't think that would be Ne to begin with (shifting perspectives I would see as Ni, it is Ni according to L. Thomson and I agree with her based on own studies/experiences). But even if:
a) that would be Ne 
b) you'll use demostrative Ni to shift perspectives 
why you necessarily have to focus on positive? The fact that you see different perspectives don't explain dislike for holding grudges, imo.




Jeremy8419 said:


> My internal visual of a "bad" person is similar to that of one of the starving and worm -infested (literally, not insultingly) children in Africa. My internal visual of an "evil" person is similar to a mangy and hungry hyena following around people, hoping to get lucky and eat them.


Ouh, wow. Are you sure about being Fi - Ne type, if you don't mind me asking? Cause that's pretty clear Ni metaphor, if you ask me. Overall I see good reasons for you to be Ni - Fe type. :th_o:
Not trying to undermine your self-awareness or anything lol, just genuinely curious.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

wolf12345 said:


> @_ALongTime_ thanks for replying. I was sceptical too, believe me. But afterall it seems like it works. About that Ne, nah, I don't think that would be Ne to begin with (shifting perspectives I would see as Ni, it is Ni according to L. Thomson and I agree with her based on own studies/experiences). But even if:
> a) that would be Ne
> b) you'll use demostrative Ni to shift perspectives
> why you necessarily have to focus on positive? The fact that you see different perspectives don't explain dislike for holding grudges, imo.
> ...


Nothing about me?


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Ixim said:


> Nothing about me?


Ahaha :th_Jttesur: Se.
Didn't know what to ask you / disagree with mate, lol
I know: was kinda surprised that u don't argue with strangers. I do it frequently, today almost made a tirade at doctor office because she gave me advertising leaflet for some shitty dietary supplement (I found it unprofessional). Maybe it's a Te ego thing.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

wolf12345 said:


> Ahaha :th_Jttesur: Se.
> Didn't know what to ask you / disagree with mate, lol
> I know: was kinda surprised that u don't argue with strangers. I do it frequently, today almost made a tirade at doctor office because she gave me advertising leaflet for some shitty dietary supplement (I found it unprofessional). Maybe it's a Te ego thing.


Arguing with strangers is like pissing/spitting against the wind. The only one who WON'T be any wiser is...heheh. But I will hold my ground if jumped on by a stranger. But I won't start it. No way. Most likely won't react to anything sub strong provocation either. Se+ what can I say...

And I actually have quite a lot of those moments you quoted and was blind to my Se lol. It took entropic to be visible lol!


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

Negative emotions from other people are very draining for me, especially when they're personal. I carry it around with me until it is resolved. One time I couldn't sleep for a night because of receiving negativity, but in the end it was based on miscommunication and misunderstanding, which I made clear to this person the following day, by weighing every word. I seem very easy going for example, but still have very high standards that I don't show. And for other people that don't know me well enough, that might be difficult.

I also differ with a friend on politics and yesterday I had a sort of falling out with him. At least it seemed to me, for him it might seem like a minor conflict. I was super tired afterwards and felt down, especially because he is a very good friend. When people step on my core values and principles I just lash out. I simply don't understand people that don't have high ethical standards. But I still get along with him very well. (in MBTI terms he's probably INTP)

I can totally relate to the EII quote you put up in your post. Judging people as being bad is just shallow, shortsighted and superficial to me, showing a lack of understanding. I have the belief that people are intrinsically benevolent, as Mencius' also proposed. People can become less healthy due to circumstances and lack of understanding from others or/and a lack of understanding themselves, which can make them misfire.


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

I don't want to dramatize this too much, but I was reminded by this quote from one of my fav movie characters.

"I still see a spark in you"

I think that is just beautiful.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

wolf12345 said:


> Ouh, wow. Are you sure about being Fi - Ne type, if you don't mind me asking? Cause that's pretty clear Ni metaphor, if you ask me. Overall I see good reasons for you to be Ni - Fe type. :th_o:
> Not trying to undermine your self-awareness or anything lol, just genuinely curious.


Hoping I don't get some kinda confrontation with this...

I am sure I am EII. It is very very apparent IRL. Honestly... I'm what would be considered profoundly gifted intellect. People on forums see me strong at one thing and assume I am weak in another. I was always the brightest throughout school and work. People who don't know me well, assume (well, if they knew what MBTI was) I am an INTJ, because I am the "smart guy" as far as all things science go. I tell them that sciences are actually my weakest subjects and that humanities and liberal arts are my strong ones. When they get to know me (if I let them) they are usually very very surprised. I have wanted to start a thread regarding intelligence and it's effects on functions, but I know people wouldn't like that very much. TL;DR, I'm very bright, and my weaker parts often display themselves as being stronger than the average person's strong parts.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

wolf12345 said:


> @ALongTime thanks for replying. I was sceptical too, believe me. But afterall it seems like it works. About that Ne, nah, I don't think that would be Ne to begin with (shifting perspectives I would see as Ni, it is Ni according to L. Thomson and I agree with her based on own studies/experiences). But even if:
> a) that would be Ne
> b) you'll use demostrative Ni to shift perspectives
> why you necessarily have to focus on positive? The fact that you see different perspectives don't explain dislike for holding grudges, imo.


It wouldn't be to shift my perspective so much, more to look for new ideas in addition to my perspective. I would say that's more Ne. I'm more interested in gaining an appreciation and understanding for ideas that conflict with my own judgements, so even if I don't agree I can see where they're coming from. I would say if I couldn't do that I'd have a lot more negative view of the world. Given that Fi+ always pairs with Ne in concious functions, could we just be talking about two ways of looking at the same thing?

But it is interesting, and I do relate to descriptions of Fi+. True, I guess my idea about Ne still doesn't explain the underlying motivation; it might explain how I don't hold grudges but not why I strongly dislike grudges. For example the simple act of forgiving someone, regardless of whether they deserve it, always feels like the relief of a huge burden; whereas if I hold a grudge I may be standing my ground but I would feel like they've 'won' in the scheme of things because they've got to me. It really is quite strong.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

babblingbrook said:


> I have the belief that people are intrinsically benevolent, as Mencius' also proposed. People can become less healthy due to circumstances and lack of understanding from others or/and a lack of understanding themselves, which can make them misfire.


That seems to be a theme here and I strongly share that view.

Whenever you have a debate about ethics, and ethical systems in particular, if you analyse it enough and condense it down _usually_ the core disagreements come from whether you've made the assumption that humans are inherently benevolent, or whether they're inherently self-interested. Most people feel good when they help others, but is that because that's their natural intrinsic way of being or do they only do it because it makes them feel good? That's an unanswerable question. I find that to construct a system of ethical beliefs you have to start from one of those assumptions as a basis and build it from there. Now, I assume that people are inherently benevolent, because for me to even consider the latter unravels everything I believe in and makes me feel completely helpless.

So can this be generalised, I wonder, as an Fi+/- thing? Can it be said that Fi+ starts with the assumption that people are benevolent, and Fi- starts with the assumption that people are self-interested in this way? Remember there's no right or wrong way in this. I would welcome any views.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

ALongTime said:


> That seems to be a theme here and I strongly share that view.
> 
> Whenever you have a debate about ethics, and ethical systems in particular, if you analyse it enough and condense it down _usually_ the core disagreements come from whether you've made the assumption that humans are inherently benevolent, or whether they're inherently self-interested. Most people feel good when they help others, but is that because that's their natural intrinsic way of being or do they only do it because it makes them feel good? That's an unanswerable question. I find that to construct a system of ethical beliefs you have to start from one of those assumptions as a basis and build it from there. Now, I assume that people are inherently benevolent, because for me to even consider the latter unravels everything I believe in and makes me feel completely helpless.
> 
> So can this be generalised, I wonder, as an Fi+/- thing? Can it be said that Fi+ starts with the assumption that people are benevolent, and Fi- starts with the assumption that people are self-interested in this way? Remember there's no right or wrong way in this. I would welcome any views.


I think that people are ultimately guided by their interest in a given situation. To believe that they do things out of good of their heart? what kind of behaviour is that? More than passable for a charity worker or a guy in the church, but for an ordinary person?

YEAH RIGHT!

When you understand their motivation and their way of going about it, you can adjust yoursel to that person rather nicely. Or adjust the person to you, whatever. From that point onwards, we can commence with a positive atmosphere(move onto Fe+) and have fun/coexist peacefully. See how nicely that flows?

Can the vile persons be turned? Say Dark Side -> Light Side? I believe that they can, yes, if you understand their motivation. In some 20% cases it'll work. Otherwise...meh who cares. Ultimately, people are out there for themselves and can learn to act for the greater good. It is not inborn I think.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

Ixim said:


> I think that people are ultimately guided by their interest in a given situation. To believe that they do things out of good of their heart? what kind of behaviour is that? More than passable for a charity worker or a guy in the church, but for an ordinary person?
> 
> YEAH RIGHT!
> 
> ...


Thank you for your reply, I was really hoping for an ESI's input. I'm not going to debate your perspective obviously, but it agrees with my theory so far. Fascinating.


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

ALongTime said:


> That seems to be a theme here and I strongly share that view.
> 
> Whenever you have a debate about ethics, and ethical systems in particular, if you analyse it enough and condense it down _usually_ the core disagreements come from whether you've made the assumption that humans are inherently benevolent, or whether they're inherently self-interested. Most people feel good when they help others, but is that because that's their natural intrinsic way of being or do they only do it because it makes them feel good? That's an unanswerable question. I find that to construct a system of ethical beliefs you have to start from one of those assumptions as a basis and build it from there. Now, I assume that people are inherently benevolent, because for me to even consider the latter unravels everything I believe in and makes me feel completely helpless.
> 
> So can this be generalised, I wonder, as an Fi+/- thing? Can it be said that Fi+ starts with the assumption that people are benevolent, and Fi- starts with the assumption that people are self-interested in this way? Remember there's no right or wrong way in this. I would welcome any views.


I'm not sure if it's unanswerable. It's just difficult to focus on intent rather than the consequences. I consider myself to be a virtue ethicist, focusing on developing a virtuous character instead of rules of right and wrong. What being virtuous entails then, I mostly base on whether the intent of the action is for the betterment or growth (Aristotle called it eudaimonia, commonly translated as "human flourishing") of the person who undertakes the action and of the community/environment in which the action is undertaken. @Ixim Being intrinsically benevolent is thus not opposed to people being guided by their interest. It seems to be an empty way of using semantics.

What virtue entails comes from defining a sense of human nature, because that's the basis of it all. I don't want to go into this too deep, but like plants we need water to grow and we need the right water to flourish. There is a telos to every living thing.

To show innate goodness, Mencius used the example of a child falling down a well. Witnesses of this event immediately feel


> alarm and distress, not to gain friendship with the child's parents, nor to seek the praise of their neighbors and friends, nor because they dislike the reputation [of lack of humanity if they did not rescue the child]... The feeling of commiseration is the beginning of humanity; the feeling of shame and dislike is the beginning of righteousness; the feeling of deference and compliance is the beginning of propriety; and the feeling of right or wrong is the beginning of wisdom.
> 
> Men have these Four Beginnings just as they have their four limbs. Having these Four Beginnings, but saying that they cannot develop them is to destroy themselves.





ALongTime said:


> Thank you for your reply, I was really hoping for an ESI's input. I'm not going to debate your perspective obviously, but it agrees with my theory so far. Fascinating.


I'm sincerely curious as to know what your theory is so far.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

babblingbrook said:


> I'm not sure if it's unanswerable. It's just difficult to focus on intent rather than the consequences. I consider myself to be a virtue ethicist, focusing on developing a virtuous character instead of rules of right and wrong. What being virtuous entails then, I mostly base on whether the intent of the action is for the betterment or growth (Aristotle called it eudaimonia, commonly translated as "human flourishing") of the person who undertakes the action and of the community/environment in which the action is undertaken. @_Ixim_ Being intrinsically benevolent is thus not opposed to people being guided by their interest. It seems to be an empty way of using semantics.
> 
> What virtue entails comes from defining a sense of human nature, because that's the basis of it all. I don't want to go into this too deep, but like plants we need water to grow and we need the right water to flourish. There is a telos to every living thing.
> 
> ...


What is this about? In few short words if you will?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Guilt for reproaching someone?
What for?
If they drove me to reproach them, they surely had it coming.
Being a 9 and all I don't reproach people much, you need to cross that line pretty firmly.
In my eyes you are a criminal caught red handed and I'm the executioner come to take your head.
You are the one to feel guilt not me.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

babblingbrook said:


> I'm not sure if it's unanswerable. It's just difficult to focus on intent rather than the consequences. I consider myself to be a virtue ethicist, focusing on developing a virtuous character instead of rules of right and wrong. What being virtuous entails then, I mostly base on whether the intent of the action is for the betterment or growth (Aristotle called it eudaimonia, commonly translated as "human flourishing") of the person who undertakes the action and of the community/environment in which the action is undertaken. @Ixim Being intrinsically benevolent is thus not opposed to people being guided by their interest. It seems to be an empty way of using semantics.
> 
> What virtue entails comes from defining a sense of human nature, because that's the basis of it all. I don't want to go into this too deep, but like plants we need water to grow and we need the right water to flourish. There is a telos to every living thing.


I definitely base judgements on the intent of the action, and share a lot of what you say, no real disagreements there. As for the question that's unanswerable, I can't really think of how to explain it at the moment. I guess an ethical system, or at least a well refined Fi system, is a complex system that judges things based on a few core principles, ideas of what's good or bad; but this system can be vast as well when it's developed through introspective analysis, with multiple layers and capable of judging things based on fitting things in to an internally consistent system. Just like Ti which aims for logical consistency, Fi aims for ethical consistency. That's the way I see and understand it anyway. Where those core principles themselves come from is difficult to determine, and I guess they are beliefs. They can't be analysed by the system because they're the basis of the system itself. For example why does it feel good to be kind and bad to be selfish? Or more simply, why is good good and bad bad? So you have to ask the question of what the motivation is, ultimately do people do good things because they _are_ good, or do they do good things in order to feel good (which would be entirely selfish)? It's unmeasurable, because it's too deep and inherent in people. It's subtle, but which ever way you assume it could have huge consequences as to how that ethical system develops.

Now I believe with absolute conviction that people are intrinsically good, but at the same time I've got no basis to argue with anyone (and there are many people) who would say it's all ego-driven and that we only do good things because we like the feeling of being good, because the end result would look the same. I'm talking about what's in the core, you can still be selfish and yet have motivations for a greater good, it's all about how people justify their actions, that's why I say selfish people are deluded.

Sorry if I was rambling on there, not an easy thing to put in to words, I hope I managed it.



> I'm sincerely curious as to know what your theory is so far.


Oh, no more than what you quoted. The idea that I literally thought of today that Fi+ starts with the assumption that people are benevolent, and Fi- starts with the assumption that people are self-interested. Given that I've been considering this for so long it would be almost too good if that could be explained using functions!

Considering your quote


> I have the belief that people are intrinsically benevolent, as Mencius' also proposed. People can become less healthy due to circumstances and lack of understanding from others or/and a lack of understanding themselves, which can make them misfire.


And that of @Ixim


> Ultimately, people are out there for themselves and can learn to act for the greater good. It is not inborn I think.


I think you can see that you're looking at the same thing from a very different starting point, and that could be what makes the difference, who knows, it's just speculation.


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

Ixim said:


> What is this about? In few short words if you will?


It's difficult to put it in a few short words something which isn't easily defined and without getting too philosophical. But I'll try.

I was just trying to say that being benevolent isn't contradictory to being self interested per se. In a lot of cases it's quite necessary to be self interested. I used the following definitions to cultivate a virtuous character:

The intent of the action is
+ for the betterment or growth (Aristotle called it eudaimonia, commonly translated as "human flourishing")
- for the ill-being
+- sustains the well-being
of 
1. the person who undertakes the action (self interest) ;
2. of the community/environment in which the action is undertaken (benevolent towards other forms of life) ;

Different combinations can be made. (+1, 2) (+1, -2) (+2, -1) (+-1, +2) etc. Here I want to make the case that self interest isn't all that black and white. (+1, +2) means being self interested and being benevolent at the same time.

Pure self interest, is then always +1 and always -2/+-2 and pure benevolence is then always -1/+-1 and always +2. We could ask ourselves whether pure benevolence is close to being a slave to others, in the case of -1 and +2. We could also ask ourselves whether pure self interest in the case of +1, -2 which is about harming the other, is actually in our self interest.

You have to wonder if there really is a duality between 1 and 2, since it is not possible to be a purely autonomous being, separate from other being or forms of life. This is were you start to ask what the "self" and the "other" consists of. Are you really separate from the "other"? This I'd like to leave up to you to think about.

To conclude, let me propose a small thought experiment, similare to the "veil of ignorance" thought experiment. Suppose there is a new planet being disovered, and the discovery wouldn't affect your own life in any way, not in the here and now nor in the future. Do you choose it to be a planet of beautiful forms of life or an ugly dead planet? Or suppose you have to choose between a horse living his whole life in confinement or in a natural environment. In which kind of state can a horse be a horse? What does being a horse entail, what is the telos of being a horse? It is to live and grow as a horse, and we are able to recognize this.
I think that in such a neutral state we choose life over death and have a need to sustain life (hence the example of the child falling down the well), thus have benevolence and well meaning towards other forms of life.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

@babblingbrook Very good point, I'm guessing what I'm saying amounts to the idea that at the core fundamental level, uninfluenced by the environment, human nature is +-1/-1 and +2. And I guess what @Ixim is saying is that it's +1 and +-2/-2. Maybe the idea that there are alternative combinations isn't so obvious to Fi which is essentially very "good vs bad" focussed, or maybe you disagree. I'll have to think some more about this.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Hoping I don't get some kinda confrontation with this...
> 
> I am sure I am EII. It is very very apparent IRL. Honestly... I'm what would be considered profoundly gifted intellect. People on forums see me strong at one thing and assume I am weak in another. I was always the brightest throughout school and work. People who don't know me well, assume (well, if they knew what MBTI was) I am an INTJ, because I am the "smart guy" as far as all things science go. I tell them that sciences are actually my weakest subjects and that humanities and liberal arts are my strong ones. When they get to know me (if I let them) they are usually very very surprised. I have wanted to start a thread regarding intelligence and it's effects on functions, but I know people wouldn't like that very much. TL;DR, I'm very bright, and my weaker parts often display themselves as being stronger than the average person's strong parts.


OK m8, I was just curious because:
a) you seem to use more Ni than Ne, at least while communicating here
b) your situations which you described in your initial post I could see as beta-style victim attitude (gamma would be more like "let me tell you how awful person I am, and see if you could still love me")
c) you have INFJ label in your personal chart, and while I can fully understand how you could be INFJ by MBTI dichotomies and EII in Socionics, I don't believe INFJ EII is possible if you are typed solely by cognitive functions in both systems (hence you couldn't be Fi dom in one system and Ni in another)
d) your reaction to my q. about doctor was kinda unexpected, suggesting Te rather as polr than dual seeking function (you expatiated about doctors competency, where would you look for sources etc., while that was not the point) 

But if you are sure then fine, I see no point arguing about that and I don't have enough data to confidently type you either.



ALongTime said:


> It wouldn't be to shift my perspective so much, more to look for new ideas in addition to my perspective. I would say that's more Ne. I'm more interested in gaining an appreciation and understanding for ideas that conflict with my own judgements, so even if I don't agree I can see where they're coming from. I would say if I couldn't do that I'd have a lot more negative view of the world. Given that Fi+ always pairs with Ne in concious functions, could we just be talking about two ways of looking at the same thing?


I would say that seeing ideas root still would be Ni, but I can see how Ne would be of use in terms of seeing new potential / ability to generate new ideas to support someones view. Dunno if Fi +/- have anything to do with Ne, but that's not really relevant from my point of view either. Anyway, I see your point.




hornet said:


> Guilt for reproaching someone?
> What for?


More like "guilt for reproaching someone undeservedly", hence not being sure whether that person really deserved reproaching, or that was your overreaction based on inadequate informations ("mb he wasn't really that bad, now he seems..." etc.).
Question boils down to "do you ever doubt your judgement afterwards".




babblingbrook
said:


> The intent of the action is
> + for the betterment or growth (Aristotle called it eudaimonia, commonly translated as "human flourishing")
> - for the ill-being
> +- sustains the well-being
> ...


Huh I tried to decode this, but all I get was "being benolvent does not equal being a good person and being self interested does not equal being an asshole". :th_wink:




Ixim said:


> I think that people are ultimately guided by their interest in a given situation. To believe that they do things out of good of their heart? what kind of behaviour is that? More than passable for a charity worker or a guy in the church, but for an ordinary person?


Personally I would agree with this, more or less.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

wolf12345 said:


> More like "guilt for reproaching someone undeservedly", hence not being sure whether that person really deserved reproaching, or that was your overreaction based on inadequate informations ("mb he wasn't really that bad, now he seems..." etc.).
> Question boils down to "do you ever doubt your judgement afterwards".


Right.
Well I can't say that I won't feel guilt at all.
In most instances I would absolve myself with an apology.
If I deemed the person to be scum anyway I would really not feel much guilt.
I would tell myself that the scolding although addressed at the wrong issue
was a fitting punishment for all the other transgressions taken earlier.
No need to lighten the burden.
If confronted about it I would admit my mistake, and state that it was inconvenient that the mistake happened.
I would not give an inclination of being sorry for the scolding of scum.

As it stands me scolding people are pretty much something that max happens once a year.
So I can't say that I have massive data on how it will work out, and hence my sentiments are a bit primitive.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

I think that the situation pertaining to this discussion is certainly +1 and most likely +/-2. I wouldn't say -2 per se because that makes me think of a Sith for some reason. Don't know why. Absolutely no idea.
(And that's bad for all parties involved)

And what was that about a horse? A horse isn't a horse if it isn't free on a meadow? What about the horses in the zoo or on the hypodromes then(at the?)? Come on! A horse is a horse is a horse dam it! Or am I doing something wrong?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@wolf12345
It has to deal with the questions asked, and the perceived way in which they are wanted to answer. Most people use all of their functions, and do so similarly when interacting with others. Seemed like you were looking for the Fe-Ni description of +Fi.
The translation of MBTI to Socionics via Dom/Aux is not possible, imo, due to variances in dichotomies between systems and socionics having 8 functions placed while MBTI only describes 4.
The Doctor was Te dual. Thirst for information, and respond if necessary. Te PoLR would involve being at such a loss due to his position, that no action would be taken in any sense, just a blind acceptance. Thinking he is stealing from me without any external evidence pointing to it, wouldn't be indicative of any personality type, but rather a personality disorder, paranoid schizophrenia.


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

Ixim said:


> I think that the situation pertaining to this discussion is certainly +1 and most likely +/-2. I wouldn't say -2 per se because that makes me think of a Sith for some reason. Don't know why. Absolutely no idea.
> (And that's bad for all parties involved)
> 
> And what was that about a horse? A horse isn't a horse if it isn't free on a meadow? What about the horses in the zoo or on the hypodromes then(at the?)? Come on! A horse is a horse is a horse dam it! Or am I doing something wrong?


Just going to quote something from the internet here:



www.iep.utm.edu said:


> The word _telos _means something like purpose, or goal, or final end. According to Aristotle, everything has a purpose or final end. If we want to understand what something is, it must be understood in terms of that end, which we can discover through careful study. It is perhaps easiest to understand what a _telos _is by looking first at objects created by human beings. Consider a knife. If you wanted to describe a knife, you would talk about its size, and its shape, and what it is made out of, among other things. But Aristotle believes that you would also, as part of your description, have to say that it is made to cut things. And when you did, you would be describing its _telos. _The knife's purpose, or reason for existing, is to cut things. And Aristotle would say that unless you included that _telos _in your description, you wouldn't really have described - or understood – the knife. This is true not only of things made by humans, but of plants and animals as well. If you were to fully describe an acorn, you would include in your description that it will become an oak tree in the natural course of things – so acorns too have a _telos. _Suppose you were to describe an animal, like a thoroughbred foal. You would talk about its size, say it has four legs and hair, and a tail. Eventually you would say that it is meant to run fast. This is the horse's telos, or purpose. If nothing thwarts that purpose, the young horse will indeed become a fast runner.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> @wolf12345
> It has to deal with the questions asked, and the perceived way in which they are wanted to answer. Most people use all of their functions, and do so similarly when interacting with others. Seemed like you were looking for the Fe-Ni description of +Fi.


Que? What for would I need Fe Ni perspective of Fi+, lol.
I have no idea what you mean by "perceived way in which they are wanted to answer". I don't look for any particular way of answering when forming the question, neither do I answer any questions in any previously expected way. That whole concept is completely foreing to me. Why would I adjust into that kind of expectations, what is that supposed to accomplish? It seems like you imply that I were looking for Fe Ni perspective because you seemed Ni Fe over Fi Ne ? Bollocks.
Yes people do use all of their functions but not to the same extend, otherwise cognitive f. theory would be meaningless. 



> The translation of MBTI to Socionics via Dom/Aux is not possible, imo, due to variances in dichotomies between systems and socionics having 8 functions placed while MBTI only describes 4.


OK that's one way of looking into the systems and I respect it, though I disagree with it. MBTI use many different models. Some theorists disagree with whole cog. f. theory, some use 4 functions model, and some of them use 8 functions model (John Beebe).



> The Doctor was Te dual. Thirst for information, and respond if necessary. Te PoLR would involve being at such a loss due to his position, that no action would be taken in any sense, just a blind acceptance.


OK I see your point but I might aruge that blind acceptance because of doctors social position has more to do with aristocracy / democracy than with Te PoLR. Te PoLR mean you are at loss with prioritizing importance of informational sources. 




> Thinking he is stealing from me without any external evidence pointing to it, wouldn't be indicative of any personality type, but rather a personality disorder, paranoid schizophrenia.


Yeah but that was not the point at all. It was a completely theoretical scenario, and only used for discerning how would you feel in that kind of situation in general. Te valuer would understand it imo. But OK, reading my example again, wording was poor and you might misudersood my intentions.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

You repeatedly used the versions of the word "feel" rather than "think," as well as the questions themselves pertaining to prediction and hypotheticals. That's Ni-Fe.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> You repeatedly used the versions of the word "feel" rather than "think"


Because I wanted to know how feelers feel about certain situations :laughing:
I need this to validate/invalidate the +/- theory and I focused on ESI's / EII's because I'm trying to discern the auxiliary function of my girlfriend. I may ensure you that I am completely not interested about Fe Ni feelz :th_wink:


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Well, Fi isn't really "I feel this way." Emotions are Fe in socionics. Fi in socionics is distance between people, ethical issues, and morality issues lol. You would have to look at Fe for how she emotionally reacts to things.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, Fi isn't really "I feel this way." Emotions are Fe in socionics. Fi in socionics is distance between people, ethical issues, and morality issues lol. You would have to look at Fe for how she emotionally reacts to things.


Dude I clearly stated what I need in the OP, examples of EII and ESI behaviours there were not even made by myself. Introverted feeling is about how I feel. However, jungian (or socionical) feeling not = emotions.
I dunno why you nitpick and twist and turn everything I say. I genuinely wanted to give you another perspective in case you'll need it, you said you don't and I'm fine with it. I only provided additional arguments in the second post since you seemed to misunderstood my first one (saying about how you seem to be many different types since you have good use of all functions, which was not related to my line of thought at all).
I propose to end this convo now as it is not leading anywhere.


----------



## Jimmers (Jan 13, 2013)

As a withdrawn type, I do not have a very strong Se that is focused on physically controlling my environment. I prefer Se for art, aesthetics, tactile sensory activities, etc. So while I think that I would ethically make a good police officer, I would not like to be in situations where I would have to physically restrain people. That would involve too much interaction. 

I don't think anyone thinks that I'm judgmental, although when I was an adolescent I was quite strict about what was the right thing to do. For instance, I thought drinking and drugs were wrong and wouldn't associate myself with anyone that did these things, up until my second year of college when I got drunk for the first time. 

Most judgments about others I keep to myself and don't like to talk about it because it isn't a nice thing to do. I still will avoid hanging with people who could affect the ideal life I have for myself. I will be hesitant to invite such people into my life. When I meet people I tend to be skeptical at first, while trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. 

I actually love the downtrodden members of society, and I'm not as concerned about ethics when my empathy is stirred. If someone is poor and disadvantaged, I expect the ethics to not be on par with the middle class, and I feel these people are more real than anyone else.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Jimmers said:


> As a withdrawn type, I do not have a very strong Se that is focused on physically controlling my environment. I prefer Se for art, aesthetics, tactile sensory activities, etc. So while I think that I would ethically make a good police officer, I would not like to be in situations where I would have to physically restrain people. That would involve too much interaction.
> 
> I don't think anyone thinks that I'm judgmental, although when I was an adolescent I was quite strict about what was the right thing to do. For instance, I thought drinking and drugs were wrong and wouldn't associate myself with anyone that did these things, up until my second year of college when I got drunk for the first time.
> 
> ...


See, that's the difference that enneagram makes. Even tho I love peace, I am like your polar opposite, yet we share the same way of comprehending the world. I'd say that I am either _2_6*8* or _2_7*8* tritype. I am more of a Crusader or a Witch Hunter than you could ever imagine. But I still use FiSe quite clearly. Not only, leave the behaviour alone. My *COGNITION* is like that!

What a difference, eh?

In the other news: there are fascinatingly huge amounts of ESI around here...


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Ixim said:


> See, that's the difference that enneagram makes. Even tho I love peace, I am like your polar opposite, yet we share the same way of comprehending the world. I'd say that I am either _2_6*8* or _2_7*8* tritype. I am more of a Crusader or a Witch Hunter than you could ever imagine. But I still use FiSe quite clearly. Not only, leave the behaviour alone. My *COGNITION* is like that!
> 
> What a difference, eh?
> 
> In the other news: there are fascinatingly huge amounts of ESI around here...


It turns out it is actually _4_*6*8. Heh. Still, it influences a great deal.


----------



## RK LK (Sep 19, 2013)

Great thread. Explains a lot about the differences between ESI and EII. Pretty much agree with all the ESI posts. People have to earn my trust, once that's broken I don't forgive easily. I give people a bunch of chances but after that I'm done, no matter how much they try to convince me that they've changed, if I don't see it I don't believe it. It's like what Rodger from _American Dad!_ said 'People don't change Steve, you're thinking of changelings!' I don't usually feel too much guilt if I go off on someone because I don't express my anger until I've thought it through and made sure the fault isn't my own in some way. 


I also don't believe in the intrinsically good/bad duality. I'm too much of a Zen Daoist for that kind of stuff. I have no problem with being a little evil myself. Kinda like what Ixim said it's better to have people be honest with whatever 'negative' intentions they have so we can work around it and we aren't surprised when someone does something 'selfish'. (I think he said something like that lol too lazy to double check) People are just people. I might think someone is bad from my own personal standpoint but I never think that a person is bad in universal sense or fundamentally bad. There aren't different levels of badness or goodness in my opinion.

The Fi+ can lead to disastrous results as I've seen in this EII guy I know. So much drama revolves around him but he's just unwilling to accept that he has anything to do with it. He believes his intentions are too good and pure for him to be contributing to any of the problems going on. It makes it worse that he is a 2w1 also.


----------

