Interesting, because I have had a lot of people think I'm an N or one person even said he thought I should go ESI because I'm too Ni to be SEE.
I can see an argument for that, but most of all, what you seem to express externally is a lot of Se and Te. An ESI-Fi type would express themselves more through Fi and Ni.
So you think that my thinking and analysis are more due to Te than Ni?
Definitely. You seem more inclined to cite facts and data or to simply make categorical distinctions than changing perspectives of things.
EDIT: I'm reading ESI and it just reminds me so much of JTG, though he'd actually probably be the more withdrawn, pig-headed, internally exacting and mistrusting ESI-Fi.
No idea who it is, although I wouldn't try to compare yourself too much to other people. That's how I ended up mistyping as an Fi dominant type for a couple of months because I started to become more aware of Fi within myself and this awareness made me over-identify with it as a function, so I thought I must be an Fi dominant type.
If he's an ESI-Fi I would definitely be the ESI-Se. I don't think we had relations of Identity, though, we had Mirror relations. That's why the concept of ENFP and ISTJ made sense, too, like turning two people inside out and having them relate to each other, yet not quite understanding why the other person choosing to come from the ass end first.
I am not sure the intertype system works that easily when we factor subtypes into the equation.
SEE-Fi and ESI-Fi make more sense then.
Still think ESI-Se makes the most sense.
But please, explain to me why you think I fit that description, I'm open to hearing the possibility that I'm ESI-Se.
Not so much the description but simply the way you choose to come across and interact with the world. Have you read the Meged and Ovcharov articles of how the inert and contact subtypes work in terms of metabolism flow? The tl;dr version is that for an ESI, ESI-Fi is inert, the energy flows towards introversion. You will thus as a whole see much more Fi and Ni from this person when engaging this person in communication, and the person will also appear much more reserved and less engaged with the external world.
Then when compared the contact subtype which is ESI-Se, they will be more engaging because more energy flows towards Se and Te. Not only will they be more engaging with the external world than the inert subtype, but when engaging they will clearly do so through an Se Te lens. This is apparent with myself too, being a contact subtype, and I predominantly express myself through Te and Se respectively.
Now, one way to discern mirror type from each other has to do with what function comes first in the ego block. This might seem obvious, SEE has base Se and creative Fi and ESI base Fi and creative Se, but when we toss in the subtypes this might not seem as obvious anymore. Not only is an SEE-Fi going to be much more introverted compared to the SEE-Se type, but an ESI-Se type is going to appear more extroverted at first glance than an ESI-Fi type.
Therefore, we cannot judge these types only based on whether they seem introverted or extroverted or how energetic they are. There is a significant overlap caused by the subtypes. The way we discern these two types apart then is to look at the
creative function. Why the creative and not the base? The answer is simple - in socionics, we engage with the world through the creative function. This means that for an SEE regardless if Se or Fi subtype, they will first engage with people utilizing Fi. They might for instance start a conversation with another person saying something like, "Hey, I saw this movie yesterday. This is what I thought about it. What about you? Have you seen it?" whereas an ESI would say, "I had such great food today, it tasted so great". Do you see the difference between seeking Fi evaluation and focusing on sensory stimuli?
Of course, this doesn't hold true in every situation, but as a whole, yes, this holds true and this is what separates mirror types apart. I don't see you focusing on ethics as a way to engage with the world. I see you very much doing it through an Se-Te way. It's about the facts, how the world operates in an as-is manner and so on, what things are, that you seem to predominantly focus on when writing posts, rather than how you relate to the subject(s).
What do you mean by negativist vs. positivist?
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index....wiki)#Positivist.E2.80.93Negativist_Dichotomy
Ok, I'm not familiar with Model A. I have never even heard of it until you mentioned it.
Model A
is socionics, heh:
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Model_A
Yeah, I don't think I'm really familiar with the fundamentals. Most socionics sites I've seen don't explain that very well.
Agreed. Well, some of them teach you the basics but it's jumbled.
It's Ti for sure, and I agree with you thinking I am Fe-Ti. I don't know what the blocks mean though lol...socionics is confusing to me compared to MBTI.
It's not that different, actually, just that it structures it better. So in the MBTI, you got the function order of:
Fe
Ni
Se
Ti
---
Fi
Ne
Si
Te
In that order for an ENFJ. The dash marks line indicates when we move into the shadow portion of the ENFJ psyche, often not mentioned outside those that follow Beebe's model. Now, what socionics does is that it takes this structure and jumbles it into a Freudian model of ego, superego and id and separates id into two different aspects: super-id an id. Also, the way socionics approaches this is pretty much the way Freud imagined the organization of the psyche:
Ego
Superego
Super-id
Id
Furthermore, in socionics, every block constaints two functions. These functions are what constitute the block and they are numbered and labelled which you will see when you read the article I linked about Model A. The reason why they are called functions is because they denote the function they represent in the psyche. In such a sense the model isn't that different to say, Beebe's model of archetypes and how the hero archetype represents the base function in socionics as in, it's the place where we feel the most comfortable to be and it's the most natural to us, and achievements that are a result of the base function brings great pleasure to us.
Then each function can in turn be inhabited by what is called
information element, IE. These are what we normally understand as functions outside of socionics. For example, in socionics Fe is an information element but in the MBTI it's a function.
So the way socionics understands the equivalent of the ENFJ which is EIE or ENFj, would be like this:
Ego block
Fe
Ni
Superego
Te
Si
Super-id
Se
Ti
Id
Ne
Fi
The ego block is exactly that - it is the ego. In Jungian typology, it represents the dominant function and the auxiliary. This is not different to the MBTI.
In superego block we see the two opposite functions but of the same attitude. In most MBTI models these functions would either be entirely omitted or they represent one's shadow. Lenore Thomson calls these two functions the crow's nest because they can appear under times of great stress and when done so, they appear in an often very negative and repressed manner. Here we can also see a similarity to how Beebe understands these two functions which is represented in the first MBTI chart I lined out.
In the super-id block we find Se and Ti. These are two functions are not as good and adept at using in most daily affairs but we appreciate when others help us with them. In Beebe's model, I think the super-id block is best represented as the anima/animus archetype. We tend to find people who are good at these functions attractive.
In the super-id block we find Fi and Ne. They tend to be functions we are great at utilizing but do not choose to do so, and when we do so, it tends to be in an unconscious manner. This is why it's represented in the id, since Freud thought everything outside of consciousness is in the unconsciousness and thus represented through the id.
As a whole, a type tends to value the IMs found in ego and super-id block but devalue those found in superego and id block. So if you remove superego and id blocks from Model A, you essentially get your typical MBTI type. It would thus look like this:
Fe
Ni
(Te
Si)
Se
Ti
(Fi
Ne)
Does that make any sense at all?