# IEI, Atypical EII/LII , or can the SUBTYPES clarify the disparities in type?



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> and since IEI-Ni also values Ne as well as Ti.


IEI valuing Ne? That's a strong statement even if we talk subtypes.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> IEI valuing Ne? That's a strong statement even if we talk subtypes.


No, IEI-_Ni_, values Ne and Te; IEI-_Fe_, values Si and Fi.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/149-Vertical-Subtypes-Meged-Ovcharov


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

TreasureTower said:


> Well, I don't know about Si but people have already commented on my devaluing of Fi and they'd be right. I love Ni, Ne and Ti. When I mistyped as an EII, it was a no-brainer to figure out that EII-Ne fit me better and since IEI-Ni also values Ne as well as Ti. I do however, feel disconnected to my body and the external world; the expression, "disembodied mind" describes me accurately. This quote from Wikisocion, "spend their time trying to "listen to what their body is telling them"; I don't even understand how that would work. I guess, I have my answer then?


"disembodied mind" is a good way of putting it -- welcome to the Ni-IEI club :tongue:



TreasureTower said:


> No, IEI-_Ni_, values Ne and Te; IEI-_Fe_, values Si and Fi.
> 
> http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/149-Vertical-Subtypes-Meged-Ovcharov





itsme45 said:


> IEI valuing Ne? That's a strong statement even if we talk subtypes.


I wouldn't say Ni-IEI "values" Ne -- I prefer to say Ni-IEI is more "buffered" against Ne.

IEIs still cannot play off Ne fluidly the way Ne valuers do it. They respond to it passively -- it seems fun and entertaining, but they cannot contribute much in terms of Ne themselves. It's called ignoring or observing function for IEIs so they just absorb it. Prolonged exposure to Ne makes IEIs feel antsy, because they sense that they are spending all this time and energy but still not getting something that they need (that thing being Se).


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> No, IEI-_Ni_, values Ne and Te; IEI-_Fe_, values Si and Fi.
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - The concept of vertical sub-types


Although they may or may not agree with these typings, 

Compare FlightsOfFancy (IEI-Ni positive Ne Te) and Dying Acedia (IEI-Fe positive Si Fi)

(there is risk of inaccuracy in the latter, but it's worth a look)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

liminalthought said:


> Although they may or may not agree with these typings,
> 
> Compare FlightsOfFancy (IEI-Ni positive Ne Te) and Dying Acedia (IEI-Fe positive Si Fi)
> 
> (there is risk that this may be inaccurate, but it's worth a look)


I don't think you should use DA as an example of IEI-Fe since I think he's correctly typed as an ILI, having spoken to him at length in person. He's clearly not Fe-valuing. I also think he's likely subtype-less, making him an even worse example to refer to.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I don't think you should use DA as an example of IEI-Fe since I think he's correctly typed as an ILI, having spoken to him at length in person. He's clearly not Fe-valuing. I also think he's likely subtype-less, making him an even worse example to refer to.


I may be right. 
You may be wrong.



liminalthought said:


> (there is risk of inaccuracy in the latter, but it's worth a look)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

liminalthought said:


> I may be right.
> You may be wrong.


I read the latter, but that's even less the reason you should use him as an example of type if you aren't even fully sure of how accurate your typing is of that person and the person doesn't necessarily agree with that typing either. Anyway, I don't think DA would agree on IEI-Fe either, since if he's an IEI, then he'd clearly be Ni subtype, and I have discussed DA's type together with Flatlander way, way back and those were the options we were discussing then. We quickly ruled out that IEI isn't very likely though, simply because DA doesn't seem to be very appreciative of Fe and Fe style interaction. 

So really, why do you use people as an example of type when it goes against their current typing and you aren't very sure of their type? It's not a very solid way to offer suggestions either.

@cyamitide, the above reasoning fits your idea of right/process better?


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I read the latter, but that's even less the reason you should use him as an example of type if you aren't even fully sure of how accurate your typing is of that person and the person doesn't necessarily agree with that typing either. Anyway, I don't think DA would agree on IEI-Fe either, since if he's an IEI, then he'd clearly be Ni subtype, and I have discussed DA's type together with Flatlander way, way back and those were the options we were discussing then. We quickly ruled out that IEI isn't very likely though, simply because DA doesn't seem to be very appreciative of Fe and Fe style interaction.
> 
> So really, why do you use people as an example of type when it goes against their current typing and you aren't very sure of their type? It's not a very solid way to offer suggestions either.
> 
> @_cyamitide_, the above reasoning fits your idea of right/process better?


If what you really want is security over your own type through comments and justifications, make sure it's done in the right place. Don't derail yet another thread.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> I have been all over the INXX map. I initially typed as an ILI, then an LII. Then an IEI and now an EII-Ne. I just paid a visit to the INFP forum and have the same reaction that I have always had to it: Way too much God damned emoting and unrestrained Fi, for my liking. In terms of MBTI - based on that forum alone, I would much rather endure neverending root canal; than ever have to listen to another person vent ever again. OTOH, I love the INTP and INFJ forums and identify with the INFJs the most. My MBTI type is INFJ. I am very strong on both Ni/Ti/Ne/Fi/Fe but that is my confusion. I just happen to be an unusually strong logical F user. I know that I use N, F, and Ti. My discomfort in using Te; helped me to rule out ILI, as a possible option.
> 
> I want to make it very clear, that I don't have any problem with discussion of either happy, non-self-referencing feelings or values - especially ethics - one of my fave philosophy courses. I love warm and fuzzy feelings and I enjoy discussing relationship dynamics; it's just that overly melodramatic expressions of Fi make me want to vomit; so, I was probably right when I typed myself as an IEI. I should have trusted my instincts and my truth and not allowed other people to take me off course. I am not blaming anyone for this; as I did solicit other people's opinions of my type in this thread. I just can't see how I can be a Fi type when I both hate talking about an hearing about other people's feelings.
> 
> ...


Hi, I'm a 5w4 IEI, too. Until people really get to see all sides of me, some people thought I was an LII or ILI. That seems to be how I am when I talk serious, but it wasn't as pervasive as a true Ti dom. It was more, umm, "conjured." Not to say it was this mystical thing that would come and ride itself into my cognition, but it was a divergence and felt like I was in "serious mode". 

I always thought IEI had this piss poor relation to Ti. That's actually very incorrect for IEI-Ni, which has a lot of similar traits as ILI but has a relational difference to the way they treat the world (it isn't always sun and rainbows on either side). 

No less, reason is not very type specific, but IEI-Ni are probably going to be told they are a logical type if they are seriously explaining something.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

liminalthought said:


> If what you really want are comments and justifications over your type, make sure it's done in the right place.


No, that's not what I am looking for and if you think that is what I am looking for you are reading me poorly. I don't like how you mistype my friends and further attempt to use their type as examples of said type. It's just poor methodology. If you want to discuss my type my thread is over there.


----------



## Dyidia (May 28, 2010)

liminalthought said:


> Although they may or may not agree with these typings,
> 
> Compare FlightsOfFancy (IEI-Ni positive Ne Te) and Dying Acedia (IEI-Fe positive Si Fi)
> 
> (there is risk of inaccuracy in the latter, but it's worth a look)


FWIW I identify with ILI. However, I do not strongly object to IEI; it is a good second guess in my case.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

TreasureTower said:


> No, IEI-_Ni_, values Ne and Te; IEI-_Fe_, values Si and Fi.
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - The concept of vertical sub-types


Did you mean EII-Ne and EII-Fi? IEI values none of the above IM elements.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_Kanerou_ I think she means something like the contact (creative?) as opposed to inert subtype involves an extra leaning towards the creative (and demonstrative) and a few other functions

That said, I over time have grown to share what might be your implied skepticism...which is to say, I'm not sure why a type that values Fe-Ti would suddenly gain a boost in Fi for being the Fe subtype in particular.

What is clearly where I'm lacking proper information, however, is what I mean by "boost" (some word should be there...I have seen various words like "increase in energy potential", none of which was terribly clarifying).


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Socionics - the16types.info - The concept of vertical sub-types

shrugs.



> Now, lets take a look at some model of EIM, for example that of type IEE, as all these laws and conclusions become evident in the formation of two major vertical subtypes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







> *Ethical subtype, Fi-IEE:
> (-)
> 
> 
> ...


*
*


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Maybe if interpreted to mean their Fi _potential_​ rather than preference, is increased...


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

bearotter said:


> Maybe if interpreted to mean their Fi _potential_​ rather than preference, is increased...


That would be a far better way to put it, yes.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

Or,

Positive Negative

Other things work too. The article does indeed mention it as "energy potential".


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

How would this energy actually affect the psyche however? Meaningfully speaking, why would one Fi if one prefers Fe and there's nothing stopping one to utilize Fe?


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

I'm wondering if it just means, one will always prefer the thing one prefers, and generally gravitate to live in such a way as to get around use of the other IE which one doesn't prefer, but possesses adequate energy to put into the other when it seems to suggest itself naturally in certain situations. 

I.e., _non-cognitive _interests may prompt the LII, if they have sufficient "energy potential" (I can only guess the meaning there) in the direction of Te, to ignore Te less in certain instances, even if their temptation is to just Ti, or ditto for IEI and say, Fi. 
I'm going to say it sounds like a kind of inherent "psychological readiness" governed by energy rather than preference. As an example, if an IEI already has trouble directing energy towards use of the creative IE, being an inert type and thus stuck in dominant mode, perhaps this theory would guess directing energy towards the opposite orientation would be especially out of the question.

Honestly do not know, would be interesting to hear thoughts on this topic.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bearotter said:


> I'm wondering if it just means, one will always prefer the thing one prefers, and generally gravitate to live in such a way as to get around use of the other IE which one doesn't prefer, but possesses adequate energy to put into the other when it seems to suggest itself naturally in certain situations.
> 
> I.e., _non-cognitive _interests may prompt the LII, if they have sufficient "energy potential" (I can only guess the meaning there) in the direction of Te, to ignore Te less in certain instances, even if their temptation is to just Ti, or ditto for IEI and say, Fi.
> I'm going to say it sounds like a kind of inherent "psychological readiness" governed by energy rather than preference. As an example, if an IEI already has trouble directing energy towards use of the creative IE, being an inert type and thus stuck in dominant mode, perhaps this theory would guess directing energy towards the opposite orientation would be especially out of the question.
> ...


Regarding the LII example, I could only see an argument for that if the LII is also Ne subtype meaning more psychic energy is spent towards extroversion, but if that's true and Logic then takes the form of extroversion over introversion, is the person then even introverted to begin with? Would the person then not just simply be an ambivert especially in a Jungian sense? Especially more so since we are discussing the base and the very thing that also defines someone's psyche. 

I did read some idea somewhere where the id block affects the ego block unconsciously in some manner, kind of informing or operating together with the ego, but I can't remember where it was or what was said exactly now regarding this. It was something in the lines of if one is Te creative for example, then Ti always supports Te conclusions in some sense.

That does make more sense to me at least regarding the id block. Superego eh, I can see how people can try to adopt around superego externally for a while to fit an image as is strongly suggested by most socionics literature e.g. the mentioning of that conflict relation may start out friendly and interesting because conflict pairs mimic their superego and thus appear like the other conflict partner's dual until the relationship intensifies beyond some superficial acquaintance or similar stage.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

I say, let the interpretations keep coming. 

How I understood it was that each of the psychic functions in model A specific to each subtype (Inert: 1,4,6,7 and Contact: 2,3,5,8) are more augmented in strength to serve the purpose that they should (ex: role, demonstrative, creative) given a person's type.

It makes sense that the emphasized contact functions (creative, role, suggestive, demonstrative) are of a subtype that is more applied and is "spending" of themselves. 

Contact: spending/consuming
Inert: Investing/Accumulating



IEI-NiInert/ Abstract NiTeTiNe BaseVulnerableMobilizingIgnoring->investing/accumulatingNT
Agenda,
(similar to Alpha)1467Suppress
Gamma SF

Conjecture: 

If you take these patterns into to account, you start to notice how some relations with people of certain subtypes are more (or less) favorable.

Ex: 
Delta SLI-Si -> Gamma SF agenda -> can support ILI-Ni (Delta NF agenda), but only a one way flow with ILI-Te (Beta ST agenda)

Beta SLE-Ti (Gamma NT agenda) can cooperate with ILI-Te (Beta ST agenda), more than with ILI-Ni whose subtype agenda (Delta NF) is of the opposite quadra to Beta SLE-Ti

There is no cross quadra connection when only the subtype agendas _compliment_ (if they're identical agendas, there is a connection) each other quadra-wise 
LIE-Ni Delta NF agenda
ILE-Ti Delta ST agenda


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_ephemereality_ -- yes, _exactly_, this is my precise problem with the theory as is which is to say that I don't expect an introvert like LII to suddenly have significant psychic energy to expend in the extraverted direction of their "dominant" if they're inert, i.e. stuck in thinking.
But, it's certainly a valid possibility at least if they're somewhat ambiverted.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

The crucial point here is that the LII who is Ne subtype is _not _the one the theory as is states would gain more "energy potential" in the direction of Te. 

But that's because they're not organizing this by introversion/extroversion, they're doing so by the functions, i.e. the T subtype of LII gains potential in the direction of both T IE's, as well as both S IE's if I'm not mistaken, whereas the N subtype does so for Ne and Ni, etc.

But yes, pretty much exactly what you said is why I'm a bit hesitant to accept this as is, without a caveat or two about ambiversion. I think it can be adapted to introverts and extroverts with some refinements probably.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> No, IEI-_Ni_, values Ne and Te; IEI-_Fe_, values Si and Fi.
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - The concept of vertical sub-types


Re-read, I did say _"even if we talk subtypes"_. So, no, I'm still sticking to my statement.

Is your Ne like cyamitide described it in the post after yours?

It would be quite a stretch to call it Ne _valuing _going by that description too. IEI-Ni still can't contribute to Ne, will just get antsy after too much ambient Ne.

Of course if you explicitly say you relate more to Ne than that and still prefer Ni too, then you're just some example who doesn't match the theory


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bearotter said:


> @_ephemereality_ -- yes, _exactly_, this is my precise problem with the theory as is which is to say that I don't expect an introvert like LII to suddenly have significant psychic energy to expend in the extraverted direction of their "dominant" if they're inert, i.e. stuck in thinking.
> But, it's certainly a valid possibility at least if they're somewhat ambiverted.





bearotter said:


> The crucial point here is that the LII who is Ne subtype is _not _the one the theory as is states would gain more "energy potential" in the direction of Te.
> 
> But that's because they're not organizing this by introversion/extroversion, they're doing so by the functions, i.e. the T subtype of LII gains potential in the direction of both T IE's, as well as both S IE's if I'm not mistaken, whereas the N subtype does so for Ne and Ni, etc.
> 
> But yes, pretty much exactly what you said is why I'm a bit hesitant to accept this as is, without a caveat or two about ambiversion. I think it can be adapted to introverts and extroverts with some refinements probably.


I understand the idea of psychic energy being more focused on the base and introversion, but if the observations are true, then I would say inert subtype would be closer to the Jungian definition of introversion e.g. Ni Ti Fi Se, or at least that is how I see it making more sense in my mind and the contact to be closer to ambiverted or fit the Model A/MBTI idea of type better. 

It is also likely that psychic energy can perhaps appear as a specific IE depending on where the psyche is focused as well. I've been thinking that perhaps the reason people keep thinking I'm Ti in both systems is that my psyche is overall so introverted that Te gains a bit more of an introverted form even though the reasoning is still extroverted, in that categorization is made to support introversion, meaning more emphasis is overall placed on introversion making thinking/logic too look introverted. 

I think overall however, most energy is spent on the valued IEs regardless of subtype. Could also explain why I mistook myself for a delta NF due to greater Fi valuing.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

I think basically if one focuses on the effect Ni subtype has on just the valued 4 IE, it might be sort of similar-- once we focus on all of the 8, well, I am guessing plenty of ILI would be confused what it means that they have increased potential in the direction of Fe for being Ni subtype. What socionics is getting at there seems clearish, which is in spirit that Te and Fe are supposed to be in opposition, so not being Te subtype has its possible effect, but must it really translate to anything meaningful in the realm of Fe for an ILI? I think if one really just prefers Te-Fi then probably that is that.

Part of the difficulty with relating this to Jung is his system simply was simpler in a way, for instance not sorting who prefers dynamic or static information as far as the little I read. I guess in a way, he probably just saw only 8 types anyway, so he kept the 
rules at a minimum.
Probably the sense in which the inert subtype fits his vision is simply that he emphasized the dominant as paramount in a huge way to the type.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bearotter said:


> I think basically if one focuses on the effect Ni subtype has on just the valued 4 IE, it might be sort of similar-- once we focus on all of the 8, well, I am guessing plenty of ILI would be confused what it means that they have increased potential in the direction of Fe for being Ni subtype. What socionics is getting at there seems clearish, which is in spirit that Te and Fe are supposed to be in opposition, so not being Te subtype has its possible effect, but must it really translate to anything meaningful in the realm of Fe for an ILI? I think if one really just prefers Te-Fi then probably that is that.
> 
> Part of the difficulty with relating this to Jung is his system simply was simpler in a way, for instance not sorting who prefers dynamic or static information as far as the little I read. I guess in a way, he probably just saw only 8 types anyway, so he kept the
> rules at a minimum.
> Probably the sense in which the inert subtype fits his vision is simply that he emphasized the dominant as paramount in a huge way to the type.


Yes, also, I have changed my subtype to Ni now because I reasoned like in the above that Te would repel Fe more and I am very repellant of Fe, but what really seems to be occurring is that I am just more valuing of Fi, and one could equally argue that Fi repels Fe as much as Te does.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Yup. I think in any case, since they are not at least claiming ILI's increased valuing of Fe, only increased energy potential of some kind, it is not egregious or anything. Potential need not be tapped into, after all -- a priori even the Ni subtype does not seem to necessarily value Fi more than Te, simply have some kind of increased potential towards F overall, which one can exercise in the Fi direction exclusively (again, guessing likely meaning here since "energy potential" is not fully clear to me from the article).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bearotter said:


> Yup. I think in any case, since they are not at least claiming ILI's increased valuing of Fe, only increased energy potential of some kind, it is not egregious or anything. Potential need not be tapped into, after all -- a priori even the Ni subtype does not seem to necessarily value Fi more than Te, simply have some kind of increased potential towards F overall, which one can exercise in the Fi direction exclusively (again, guessing likely meaning here since "energy potential" is not fully clear to me from the article).


I suppose energy is akin to metabolism which goes back to Jung's idea of libido, but I am merely hypothesizing.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Yeah that's what I was guessing too


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> Re-read, I did say _"even if we talk subtypes"_. So, no, I'm still sticking to my statement.
> 
> Is your Ne like cyamitide described it in the post after yours?
> 
> ...


Well, Ni comes very naturally to me like breathing but Ne takes a lot more work but I am in awe of it and value it in other people. I sometimes find it to be overstimulating but that can be true of Fe, as well. IOW, I shine in looking at a specific idea and examining it holistically from disparate contexts and seek to synthesize them. I can _do_ brainstorming but it is difficult and doesn't come as naturally to me. This could be said for Te as well.

With Fi, for example, I really really hate it but I have learned through past experience that I ignore, it at my peril. When I am really upset about something and Ni, Ti and Se haven't helped me put it into perspective - which usually doesn't work, if my feelings are really intense; the only thing that usually helps, is getting helpful supportive feedback from others. Even then, it feels extremely awkward to me to describe and identify exactly what I'm feeling. In my mind, I often consider my expressions of Fi, stupid and I think I sound like an idiot, whenever I do it.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

I think Ni-dominants (and to some extent Ni-activating types xSI) do a lot of their brainstorming "in their heads", considering options quietly and to themselves, then selecting the most likely ones and laying them out on the table. The impression is that they have already decided on things (may be that's where "Decisive" term originates from) and they are only interested in voicing and exchanging these decisions with little further discussion and brainstorming.

Ne users to the contrary like to discuss options openly. Their Ne needs to play off something that's external and outside of their own perspective (it's extraverted function after all). This applies especially to EIIs and ILEs who enjoy "getting cozy" and then looking for someone who would have deep, prolonged conversations with them. They prefer to leave things open-ended, and feel uneasy when it comes to settling on concrete decisions.

What follows is that Ne users tend to view Ni users as too narrow-minded, too concerned with only one outcome or a small set of decisions, and also too blunt and "forceful" since they have already decided on things and are bringing their conclusions to the "brainstorming" table (on the other hand, Ni-seeking types enjoy this type of predictive certainly of Ni). Ni users tend to view Ne types as too airy-fairy, talking about things that are improbable, unrealistic and unlikely to happen and stalling before the most important and crucial point when one needs to settle on something concrete and push things through.

I've been accused by some Ne ego types of being too set on certain interpretation or belief, but I don't think they realize that I've had to overcome a lot of internal doubt and filter many options before arriving at it. With Ni dominants this "brainstorming" process is hidden from others. If I'm given more Se information, then it's very easy for me to reconsider and change my mind, despite the seeming external certainty. But throwing more unrealistic hypothetical scenarios at me (which is what Ne often does) won't make me reconsider, which is why Ne users often get an impression of Ni as narrow-minded and stubborn -- they don't have the ability to influence it and change the opinions of Ni user. Then they think that Ni sucks at brainstorming


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

@cyamitide, I was referring to a creative writing course I took where we were encouraged to come up with an idea and then keep coming up with different associations for the initial concept. I don't do well at this. I work best by coming up with a big picture idea in my head and then breaking it down into different but related categories. I don't find Ne helpful in coming up with ideas; it just confuses me. I do much better when a complete concept is form in my mind; then I can find all of the individual associations encapsulated within it (Ni).


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

bearotter said:


> I think basically if one focuses on the effect Ni subtype has on just the valued 4 IE, it might be sort of similar-- once we focus on all of the 8, well, I am guessing plenty of ILI would be confused what it means that they have increased potential in the direction of Fe for being Ni subtype. What socionics is getting at there seems clearish, which is in spirit that Te and Fe are supposed to be in opposition, so not being Te subtype has its possible effect, but must it really translate to anything meaningful in the realm of Fe for an ILI? I think if one really just prefers Te-Fi then probably that is that.
> 
> Part of the difficulty with relating this to Jung is his system simply was simpler in a way, for instance not sorting who prefers dynamic or static information as far as the little I read. I guess in a way, he probably just saw only 8 types anyway, so he kept the
> rules at a minimum.
> Probably the sense in which the inert subtype fits his vision is simply that he emphasized the dominant as paramount in a huge way to the type.


Yeah well I don't fit that idea of Jung's. But he did say that some people are either undifferentiated (? why doesn't socionics deal with that idea?) or they have some well developed auxiliary. Seeing this, it's also clear he didn't just think in terms of just 8 types.




ephemereality said:


> I suppose energy is akin to metabolism which goes back to Jung's idea of libido, but I am merely hypothesizing.


I thought libido already includes concept of orienting. See quotes like "It is the energy that manifests itself in the life process and is perceived subjectively as striving and desire".




TreasureTower said:


> Well, Ni comes very naturally to me like breathing but Ne takes a lot more work but I am in awe of it and value it in other people. I sometimes find it to be overstimulating but that can be true of Fe, as well. IOW, I shine in looking at a specific idea and examining it holistically from disparate contexts and seek to synthesize them. I can _do_ brainstorming but it is difficult and doesn't come as naturally to me. This could be said for Te as well.
> 
> With Fi, for example, I really really hate it but I have learned through past experience that I ignore, it at my peril. When I am really upset about something and Ni, Ti and Se haven't helped me put it into perspective - which usually doesn't work, if my feelings are really intense; the only thing that usually helps, is getting helpful supportive feedback from others. Even then, it feels extremely awkward to me to describe and identify exactly what I'm feeling. In my mind, I often consider my expressions of Fi, stupid and I think I sound like an idiot, whenever I do it.


Just curious but why do you hate Fi? I mean talk some more specifics here?

And heh, in awe of Ne? Meh... 




cyamitide said:


> I think Ni-dominants (and to some extent Ni-activating types xSI) do a lot of their brainstorming "in their heads", considering options quietly and to themselves, then selecting the most likely ones and laying them out on the table. The impression is that they have already decided on things (may be that's where "Decisive" term originates from) and they are only interested in voicing and exchanging these decisions with little further discussion and brainstorming.
> 
> Ne users to the contrary like to discuss options openly. Their Ne needs to play off something that's external and outside of their own perspective (it's extraverted function after all). This applies especially to EIIs and ILEs who enjoy "getting cozy" and then looking for someone who would have deep, prolonged conversations with them. They prefer to leave things open-ended, and feel uneasy when it comes to settling on concrete decisions.
> 
> ...


I really like how you put all that.  Btw are you trying to say that even if Ni egos have a lot of doubts on whatever they chose they're still appearing externally as very sure of their choice?


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> Just curious but why do you hate Fi? I mean talk some more specifics here?
> 
> And heh, in awe of Ne? Meh...


Well, I don't know how to answer this question better than I already have. I intensely dislike dealing with negative feelings - in myself as well as in others. It differs somewhat that I have learned to be comfortable with my own anger to some agree but I want to flee from that in others. With sadness, it's the other way around; I can be a good listener or shoulder to cry on for others but I personally hate to experience - let alone talk about sadness. In fact, I can much easier handle someone crying, because I can then comfort them - as opposed to them - horror or horrors  - actually talking about their pain. When other people talk about their pain, as opposed to just expressing it non-verbally; I being the ultimate empath that I am; will automatically soak it up like a sponge and I actually feel their pain. Sometimes, other people have mistakenly accused me of being uncaring, when in fact, if anything; I care far too much.

Perhaps, a much better example of why I dislike Fi, would be when other people use it to manipulate me in some way. I basically want to throttle anyone who claims, to read negative intentions from me or claims to read my mind, based solely on the fact that they got some sort of "vibe" from me or something equally asinine. When I inform them that they are in fact, mistaken; then they switch to: that I was clearly _conveying_ this so-called evil intention, even if it was _not_ my intention. At that point, I need to remain patient in order to straighten them out by stating very clearly that: no, I didn't "come across in ____ particular way; that was just how YOU chose to _interpret _it!" 
Sorry, just run into too many *unhealthy*, paranoid people with Fi in their cognitive stack. LOL.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

TreasureTower said:


> Perhaps, a much better example of why I dislike Fi, would be when other people use it to manipulate me in some way. I basically want to throttle anyone who claims, to read negative intentions from me or claims to read my mind, based solely on the fact that they got some sort of "vibe" from me or something equally asinine. When I inform them that they are in fact, mistaken; then they switch to: that I was clearly _conveying_ this so-called evil intention, even if it was _not_ my intention. At that point, I need to remain patient in order to straighten them out by stating very clearly that: no, I didn't "come across in ____ particular way; that was just how YOU chose to _interpret _it!"
> Sorry, just run into too many *unhealthy*, paranoid people with Fi in their cognitive stack. LOL.


I don't see anything here to pin on Socionics Fi.

What is Fi to you? Can you describe it? What about it (as described) irritates you?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> Well, I don't know how to answer this question better than I already have. I intensely dislike dealing with negative feelings - in myself as well as in others. It differs somewhat that I have learned to be comfortable with my own anger to some agree but I want to flee from that in others. With sadness, it's the other way around; I can be a good listener or shoulder to cry on for others but I personally hate to experience - let alone talk about sadness. In fact, I can much easier handle someone crying, because I can then comfort them - as opposed to them - horror or horrors  - actually talking about their pain. When other people talk about their pain, as opposed to just expressing it non-verbally; I being the ultimate empath that I am; will automatically soak it up like a sponge and I actually feel their pain. Sometimes, other people have mistakenly accused me of being uncaring, when in fact, if anything; I care far too much.
> 
> Perhaps, a much better example of why I dislike Fi, would be when other people use it to manipulate me in some way. I basically want to throttle anyone who claims, to read negative intentions from me or claims to read my mind, based solely on the fact that they got some sort of "vibe" from me or something equally asinine. When I inform them that they are in fact, mistaken; then they switch to: that I was clearly _conveying_ this so-called evil intention, even if it was _not_ my intention. At that point, I need to remain patient in order to straighten them out by stating very clearly that: no, I didn't "come across in ____ particular way; that was just how YOU chose to _interpret _it!"
> Sorry, just run into too many *unhealthy*, paranoid people with Fi in their cognitive stack. LOL.


I'll have to go with Kanerou on this one, I don't see this as inherently Fi stuff.

The between the lines reading thing is supposedly a Beta thing as well :/

I don't do it much myself on a conscious level because of it often involving ambiguity so if I do "see" some intention between the lines then I prefer to clarify things directly. Yep I hate it when someone isn't open to direct communication about what intention they've read into my stuff.

I've also seen many ILEs doing this "mind reading stuff" in a cognitive sense. I call bullshit on it lol. (Same reasons as above) Well, again that's not Fi...

I can't comment on the preference of non-verbal expression of emotions. But avoidance of negative emotions isn't supposed to be a Beta thing either... but I think that's maybe a crappy stereotyped value?


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> I'll have to go with Kanerou on this one, I don't see this as inherently Fi stuff.
> 
> The between the lines reading thing is supposedly a Beta thing as well :/
> 
> ...


Well, I am an E5 and I do have this T/F split.

Well, I think that a Fe type would be more likely to try to understand the situation at hand rather than automatically believe - without logically confirming either with others and/or the facts (as would a T type). Perhaps, I didn't explain it very well but the situations I am referring to did not involve either thinkers or Fe types. Both were either Fi doms or auxs and they both relied on some Fi emotional vibe and not what made any rational sense. If either Kanerou or you, are not happy with this answer, than unless you or her, give me some feedback on how I can better explain this; I give up.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Yeah well I don't fit that idea of Jung's. But he did say that some people are either undifferentiated (? why doesn't socionics deal with that idea?) or they have some well developed auxiliary. Seeing this, it's also clear he didn't just think in terms of just 8 types.




Which don't you fit? To be clear, I was saying that the inert subtype could be sort of _similar_, but at the end of the day, 8 types by Jung just was referring to 8 dom-inf axes (Ni-Se, Ne-Si, etc). Jung isn't socionics -- if anything my point was socionics adds structure and categorization times a bunch to what he started with.

Basically, this just means his stuff was quite flexible, because outside of your dom-inf axis, what happens is pretty fluid. The dom-inf axis just defines a dom and an inf, and tells you your auxiliaries can't be irrational if the dom-inf also are. 

However, one has to give it that socionics also has much more specificity as to what kind of model it's really building in a sense, so while it looks rigid, it also affords plenty more in the way of actually suggesting what a certain aspect of the model looks like (lots and lots of dichotomies, lots of means of matching yourself to a type --- so if one views these as various tools to achieve a best-fit rather than as dogma, it could help one see one type really does fit better than another....with things vague, the advantage is flexibility but also fewer in the way of categorizing tools to really match yourself to a type).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> I'll have to go with Kanerou on this one, I don't see this as inherently Fi stuff.
> 
> The between the lines reading thing is supposedly a Beta thing as well :/
> 
> ...


I think, based on how I am understanding beta quadra, is that beta quadra just overemphasizes all emotions, including good and bad and dramatize them. Take Hamlet for example. Granted, Hamlet is a "sad" story so it dramatizes the negative, but that's kind of what I am getting at - to be or not to be? OMG LIFE IS SO DIFFICULT AND DRAMATIC is pretty much what it conveys here. Similarly, if it's a happy occasion I see beta doing the OMG LETS PARTY AND HAVE FUN kind of thing.

Also, I think beta NFs are more prone to convey this kind of expression more so than STs. STs are out of touch with their super-id so how can they dramatize something they experience themselves sucking at to begin with? Though yes, Ni does read between the lines and I think intuition does in general. That's why it's intuition and not sensorics. 

I wouldn't say the beta description is entirely off, but in an ironic manner concerning beta, it's dramatized and exaggerated to convey the point. Regarding the above, I also want to stress that extroverts are probably more prone to this than the introverts specifically EIE over IEI.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

@itsme45 I'd say a good 60-70% of what is discussed here as type dependent is not, including that.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> As for the specificity of socionics, I get your thoughts though I don't see the point of just having a best-fit. No, I'm not trying to match myself according to some dogma, but what's the point of having so many tools if it not only complicates things but introduces error? To me it doesn't help me see better what type I am. I guess we're thinking differently about this.




I'm not sure I see how more tools introduces error, so I don't think we could be talking of the same thing -- if there is more vagueness, one can more easily claim a type based on somewhat lacking premises. Now if the tools are misguided, this is different -- one must discuss that separately. If the tools highlight clear features of the system's claim to offering depth into yourself, I'd not see the problem.
Part of the thing to be careful is to understand what the system is getting at though.

And "just" having a best fit, I don't see the point of either.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

bearotter said:


> I'm not sure I see how more tools introduces error, so I don't think we could be talking of the same thing -- if there is more vagueness, one can more easily claim a type based on somewhat lacking premises. Now if the tools are misguided, this is different -- one must discuss that separately. If the tools highlight clear features of the system's claim to offering depth into yourself, I'd not see the problem.
> Part of the thing to be careful is to understand what the system is getting at though.
> 
> And "just" having a best fit, I don't see the point of either.


Oh I of course meant it with the premise that the tools are misguided. Simplicity in terms of having fewer tools doesn't have to mean a more vague theory, just e.g. one that's not trying to explain too many things in one simple framework. (Not that simplicity excludes that it can be applied for many things)


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@itsme45 -- yes, that makes sense. I'll note that I was neither endorsing nor diminishing socionics as it is, merely describing the direction it seems to have taken, and the potential advantages of that. The specific theory itself can easily have a lot of flaws -- the reason I cannot comment on this is I don't find myself particularly confident in my understanding of socionics yet. I'm trying to pin it down better in time.

I agree the theory itself needn't be vaguer in an absolute sense due to lack of rules, in the sense that it needn't be getting at a less specific phenomenon. It would be vaguer only in terms of how much it says on how to actually apply it, and this can definitely be a disadvantage for some users, and an advantage for some. 

In fact, I think a system aiming to be very specific in its application can wind up a bit vague on what it describes. This is somewhat the direction I see the MBTI dichotomy-theorists going with their theory.


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

TreasureTower said:


> Yes, exactly! I completely relate to this. I usually don't have a difficult time _understanding_ any theory but actually explaining it by _putting into words_, is not my strongest suit. Some people have great difficulty believing this since I tend to be perceived as having strong verbal skills and being eloquent in my speech but that is _only_ when I understand something _well enough_, to attempt to verbally explain it; so often times; I get _misunderstood_ as being difficult, dramatic or even dishonest when _none_ of those things are applicable. Story of my life. :dry:


I'd say you are probably an EIE or an IEI.
Gotta love that Ti in someone else.

My mom can't explain things for crap but my LII father gets it right away.
Ti has to be related to some form of psychic ability

yeah you are def a feeler... or at least a beta... the drama thing. same here.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

GreenCoyote said:


> I'd say you are probably an EIE or an IEI.
> Gotta love that Ti in someone else.
> 
> My mom can't explain things for crap but my LII father gets it right away.
> ...


Yeah, I think so to. What is really beginning to amuse the hell out of me; is anyone who still thinks I could be a Si dom/aux after I apparently suck at coming up with examples of the various functions.

:laughing:


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

TreasureTower said:


> Yeah, I think so to. What is really beginning to amuse the hell out of me; is anyone who still thinks I could be a Si dom/aux after I apparently suck at coming up with examples of the various functions.
> 
> :laughing:


dude I've been thinking I am a Si dom lately. lol
don't know where that thought is coming from. I have a confirmed ILE friend and get too tired around him for it to be duality. I gotta have that impulsive Se energy/activity.

so other people think you are a Si dom???
I eat a lot and love sensual pleasures... so maybe I am a Si dom!!! lol


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

TreasureTower said:


> Yeah, I think so to. What is really beginning to amuse the hell out of me; is anyone who still thinks I could be a Si dom/aux after I apparently suck at coming up with examples of the various functions.
> 
> :laughing:


hey so Si doms are better at knowing function examples?

I figured they would be too busy focusing on chores to think about functions.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> Yeah, I think so to. What is really beginning to amuse the hell out of me; is anyone who still thinks I could be a Si dom/aux after I apparently suck at coming up with examples of the various functions.
> 
> :laughing:


I do think you're N > S but let me say I also suck at giving examples of such abstract stuff... so this isn't a S thing if someone's good at doing so


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

GreenCoyote said:


> dude I've been thinking I am a Si dom lately. lol
> don't know where that thought is coming from. I have a confirmed ILE friend and get too tired around him for it to be duality. I gotta have that impulsive Se energy/activity.
> 
> so other people think you are a Si dom???
> I eat a lot and love sensual pleasures... so maybe I am a Si dom!!! lol


I love lobster and ice cream, does that make me a Si dom?

:kitteh:

According to Socionics theory, if you have trouble deciding between T/F, then you must be a p type; so I am trying to choose between IEI and ILE and I have no freaking clue how to describe the different functions to anyone's approval.

:frustrating:


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

GreenCoyote said:


> hey so Si doms are better at knowing function examples?
> 
> I figured they would be too busy focusing on chores to think about functions.


:laughing:

Yeah, I completely suck at any of that stuff.




itsme45 said:


> I do think you're N > S but let me say I also suck at giving examples of such abstract stuff... so this isn't a S thing if someone's good at doing so


I wasn't saying it was an S thing; I was suggesting that it might be a S*i* thing. I know that I'm N>S but you mean leading N? Okay, but _which_ N? I think that I am an IEI but I can't ignore that test and the CT vids, that could point me to ENTP as well.


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

TreasureTower said:


> I love lobster and ice cream, does that make me a Si dom?
> 
> :kitteh:
> 
> ...


I have thought I was an ILE too before. I feel like psychologically you can be both, but theoretically you can only be one or the other, thats why the choice MUST be made. and people just don't get it.

reason why I am not a Ne dom... I don't forget to eat like they do. I also get tired around my ILE friend, around my two alpha parents ESE and LII.

the only Se type I know though is an ESI so Se is second but she kind of becomes the Se subtype around me.

do you have any Se friends???
Si friends???


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

GreenCoyote said:


> I have thought I was an ILE too before. I feel like psychologically you can be both, but theoretically you can only be one or the other, thats why the choice MUST be made. and people just don't get it.
> 
> reason why I am not a Ne dom... *I don't forget to eat like they do*. I also get tired around my ILE friend, around my two alpha parents ESE and LII.
> 
> ...


I do forget to eat, sleep whatever until the urge just kind of hits me.

Well, I thought I did but I then realised that I had mistyped them.


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

TreasureTower said:


> I do forget to eat, sleep whatever until the urge just kind of hits me.
> 
> Well, I thought I did but I then realised that I had mistyped them.


it takes some time but through accurate typings of one type and then accurate relationships you can figure out the type of people. its hard and takes time and I always have doubts which then turn into new ideas about a persons type and thus a new theory is born, but something usually brings me back to the strongest impression and I judge that impression as the accurate one.

how long have you been typing people?
intertype relations really helps me in typing people, I find out who likes who and stuff. its hard with some types cause they think they are on good terms with everyone... yeah.. but other types are sure about their opinions on others and you can figure it out from there. the best way is to type married couples because usually through self discovery and duality you can get an accurate test result for those types. I started with my parents, and then it was a matter of how they related to friends and how those friends related to each other, and asking people who know nothing of typing helps too. they will give you unbiased info, unless they are intuitive or a people pleaser, in which case some observation might come in handy!

g2g.
see yeah later treasure.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

GreenCoyote said:


> how long have you been typing people?


Socionics? Not long at all! MBTI, a little while now; Enneagram, longer than that. I've gotten pretty good at visual typing. I can see a video and tell if someone is an N or an S and whether or not they have Ti-Fe/Fe-Ti or Te-Fi/Te in there functional stack. That's how I know that I can't be an EII; for example, my speaking style is nothing like a Fi-Te but very much like either a Fe-Ti or a Ti-Fe. That's how I know that I am either an IEI, ILE or LII.

I am also basing that, on type desriptions, tests and whatnot.



GreenCoyote said:


> g2g.
> see yeah later treasure.


Awe, that's sweet.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> I wasn't saying it was an S thing; I was suggesting that it might be a S*i* thing. I know that I'm N>S but you mean leading N? Okay, but _which_ N? I think that I am an IEI but I can't ignore that test and the CT vids, that could point me to ENTP as well.


Why a Si thing and why not Se?

I didn't specifically mean leading N, just N over S.

The CT videos are load of bullshit really, I can have Fi smile and Fe smile too. And praytell how you can even connect lip movement to F function's attitude -.-

So if the CT videos were the only thing pointing towards ENTP... meh. Yeah I get it some test also had you as Ne, hmm.

When asking you to describe Ne and Ni as how you experience them about _yourself_, what I like most is not really concrete examples and not quotes from wikisocion but a description of your mental processing. It can be as abstract as you like. Sure using some concrete examples never hurts but that's not enough on its own here if discussing mental processes.




TreasureTower said:


> I do forget to eat, sleep whatever until the urge just kind of hits me.


I can be like that myself but if urge hits I will recognize it easily. Also if I need to be on a schedule for eating (e.g. for faster recovery after workout), I don't have a problem following the schedule.

Do you recognize those urges easily? Do you easily and quickly act on them?




TreasureTower said:


> I've gotten pretty good at visual typing. I can see a video and tell if someone is an N or an S and whether or not they have Ti-Fe/Fe-Ti or Te-Fi/Te in there functional stack. That's how I know that I can't be an EII; for example, my speaking style is nothing like a Fi-Te but very much like either a Fe-Ti or a Ti-Fe. That's how I know that I am either an IEI, ILE or LII.


Hey if I send you a video I'll kill you if you type me as Fi type lol




GreenCoyote said:


> I have thought I was an ILE too before. I feel like psychologically you can be both, but theoretically you can only be one or the other, thats why the choice MUST be made. and people just don't get it.


What do you mean by psychologically being both? I'm curious.




> reason why I am not a Ne dom... I don't forget to eat like they do.


What a superficial reasoning. Sorry lol. But really is superficial 

Do you not see yourself in Ne mental process at all?




GreenCoyote said:


> it takes some time but through accurate typings of one type and then accurate relationships you can figure out the type of people. its hard and takes time and I always have doubts which then turn into new ideas about a persons type and thus a new theory is born, but something usually brings me back to the strongest impression and I judge that impression as the accurate one.


Really I sometimes think it's best to leave it at a mix of types for quite some people. Maybe more telling than restricting to one type ;p

Then you would be an IEI-ILE. (And I'm not talking DCNH!)




> intertype relations really helps me in typing people


Meh... some of those relation types are too complex and it also depends on more than just socionics :/

...better to know WHY someone likes/dislikes who.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> Socionics? Not long at all! MBTI, a little while now; Enneagram, longer than that. I've gotten pretty good at visual typing. I can see a video and tell if someone is an N or an S and whether or not they have Ti-Fe/Fe-Ti or Te-Fi/Te in there functional stack. That's how I know that I can't be an EII; for example, my speaking style is nothing like a Fi-Te but very much like either a Fe-Ti or a Ti-Fe. That's how I know that I am either an IEI, ILE or LII.
> 
> I am also basing that, on type desriptions, tests and whatnot.


Aside from me wanting to reinforce the point that @itsme45 put forward by saying that CT isn't that great and that it is not socionics. There is Visual Indication in socionics so I'd suggest that you'd rather use that when thinking about your socionics type. Although I'd advice against that too as I don't see the purpose nor usefulness in typing someone by how they look. What I can accept is that you can generalize _mannerisms_ of types. For example an SLE will gesticulate with their arms in a way that makes them "talk" with arm movements that are based in the shoulders a lot while the elbows remain more locked in position while their dual IEI often will have the opposite mannerism; "stiff" shoulder joints but instead gesticulate very much from the elbows instead. Sometimes I can also pick up on things that other people of a certain type do or says and can use that as a _starting point_ in typing people, trying to see what speaks for or against the type that I suspect that a person may have. The conclusions from this may be something along the lines of "Oh, this person is obviously Fe valuing and seems like a Fe ego introvert but does not display Ni or Se. SEI is a good assumption this far. Does SEI make sense over all though?" That's my reasoning when I type people.

In general I think that this attitude of yours displays a few things, namely Ne creative and invalued Ti. Invalued Ti because as a person that does value Ti but not Ne and instead value Ni (Ti-Se super-id block) I do find that socionics and MBTI is explaining different sides of the same thing ("two sides to a coin") but what differs in our perception of this is unlike what you and @cyamitide (LII 1 (my typing of him), I am assuming that is why he can relate to you as you both share Ne creative, Ni demonstrative, Se polr and Si HA) but the difference in how we approach this is quite telling of how the different functions gain perspective. You and I have a pretty much opposite view of how they are representing the same thing, you believe that the theory is fluid (indicative of Te) and that you can cherry pick parts of theory here and there to create your own understanding of all theories at once. You display Ne or "objective intuition" seeing connections between the theories while simultaneously completely disregarding the abstract symmetry of each typing system on it's own. Me as Ni base with Ti HA will seek the structure, [logical] rules and of the integrity of the theories. In addition to that I do seek general concepts that I can apply to situations in different ways depending on the circumstances while maintaining that the general rule or concept that I apply always will be correct. @cyamitide does also seek the integrity of each theory, but he does it in a different way than you or me, he really is between our positions on this. He seems to believe that each theory ought to keep it's integrity and symmetry like I believe, and like you he does believe that there is a direct translation between MBTI and socionics while I hold the position that the manifestation of the two theories are so different that we cannot directly translate between the two as they were built for different purposes and in different ways, even if both are based in Jung's 8 types.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Inguz, did you not see the damn Fe fluff just a couple of posts above you that honestly made me want to commit suicide? How the hell is TT a Te type? She's so Fe I am very serious about thinking she could well be Fe base or the very least Fe creative on this forum because I feel like killing myself whenever I see that Fe fluff and she does it _a lot_.

Another hint that she's Fe is that she thinks I'm always critical against her and seems to interpret that somewhat negatively. Fi types don't really take offense to such criticism and when they do they bite back in a way that feel ten times more satisfying. She's not an Fi-Te type. That's one of the worst typings I've ever seen you suggest, especially and particularly because the Fe is at least to me, so obvious. 

Also, is it ever possible for you to not type someone else as a delta? You seem to think the entire internet is delta-land.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> @_Inguz_, did you not see the damn Fe fluff just a couple of posts above you that honestly made me want to commit suicide? How the hell is TT a Te type? She's so Fe I am very serious about thinking she could well be Fe base or the very least Fe creative on this forum because I feel like killing myself whenever I see that Fe fluff and she does it _a lot_.


I saw nothing of the sort. Please quote the exact supposed "Fe fluff".



ephemereality said:


> Another hint that she's Fe is that she thinks I'm always critical against her and seems to interpret that somewhat negatively. Fi types don't really take offense to such criticism and when they do they bite back in a way that feel ten times more satisfying. She's not an Fi-Te type. That's one of the worst typings I've ever seen you suggest, especially and particularly because the Fe is at least to me, so obvious.


That's some bullshit you just made up. What do you base this claim that only Fe interprets things negatively upon? That's right, nothing. You are not one to speak, your typings are less accurate than a random number generator, meaning that your Ni is weak.



ephemereality said:


> Also, is it ever possible for you to not type someone else as a delta? You seem to think the entire internet is delta-land.


LII is Alpha, maybe you aren't aware of that.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

There's absolutely no* useful* correlation between MBTI and Socionics. Socionics was developed in the USSR (Jung was allowed seemingly, collective unconscious fits with socialist ideal rolleyes) and Socionics and MBTI weren't even aware of each other, I think at least until perestroika.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Blue Flare said:


> This evolved into some weird mix of flame war, trolling, pissing off match and other things that distract me of my organic chemistry study. I wonder if this topic will be back to it's core, or it will be derailed ad infinitum (?) like those good old discussions in an anime forum that I know lol
> 
> Now you can continue with the scheduled theme -troll-



Gurlll WORK THAT SN2

Omg look at tha chiral centa on this:


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> C) an IEI.


Why would it make you an IEI? IEIs are oriented towards relationships too and doesn't have too shabby Fi.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Gurlll WORK THAT SN2
> 
> Omg look at tha chiral centa on this:


Aw yiss, chiral centa everywhere  and funny thing, I have to do homework about a pericyclic reaction, so there are loads of chiral centa for everyone  Diels-Alder and friends FTW.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I know very well what you mean and the pattern seek isn't necessarily what you describe here, since *it doesn't work with what is tangible*.


What does it work with then? Please clarify? (The bolded)




> That was clearly not very evident based on what you write.


Actually I understood what he meant there, I just wouldn't necessarily attribute that to Ni


----------

