Being INFJ and EII?

[_eric_]

The EIE-Ni subtype is going to be very introverted. Also, I don't look at behavior as much as I'd look at your cognition. In terms of dichotomies, I do think your cognition is negativist rather than positivist, and seeing your other posts I do think you got Ni in the ego block. So that leaves us with ILI and EIE.

What do you mean by negativist vs. positivist?

That's why you should study Model A, not read descriptions. Most descriptions of the types are terrible anyway.

Ok, I'm not familiar with Model A. I have never even heard of it until you mentioned it.

I would look into the basic metabolism of how the functions and their elements operate first before I would plunge too much into subtype. You need to understand the fundamentals of how socionics works before you can understand how subtype works.

Yeah, I don't think I'm really familiar with the fundamentals. Most socionics sites I've seen don't explain that very well.

Then what is your thinking preference? If you don't feel it's located in super-id block, what about ego block? I do think you are Fe-Ti over Ti-Fe.

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.

 

[Entropic]

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EDIT: I'm reading ESI and it just reminds me so much of JTG, though he'd actually probably be the more withdrawn, pig-headed, internally exacting and mistrusting ESI-Fi.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?

 

[Thalassa]

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.

Definitely. You seem more inclined to cite facts and data or to simply make categorical distinctions than changing perspectives of things.

You must not have notice how fiercely I defend myself and judge people over my most precious ethics. My Fi is the lens through which everything else turns.

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.

Well, Socionics is a system of relations. This is a person had a very close, on-going, daily relation with who is also Gamma quadra, and he happens to fit the ESI description PERFECTLY. He is that guy.

I fit SEE a lot more closely, and I think that's why some people mistake me for ENFj occasionally. But SEE-Fi, because Fi is my way of determining just about everything, I just use Se and Te to get respect in supporting it.

I also think we had Mirror relations rather than relations of Identity.


Mirror relations:

These are relations of mutual correction. Mirror partners have similar interests and ideas,but a slightly different understanding of the same problems. Each partner can see only half of one problem. Therefore the partners always find what the other partner is thinking interesting. Usually partners quickly realise that they are very like-minded.

The area of confidence of one partner is always the area of creativity for the other partner. What one partner considers solid and final appears incomplete and changeable for the other partner. This difference may often puzzle the partners especially when they fulfil their mutual plans. It seems for them as if the other partner simply misunderstood the main concept. Therefore partners attempt to correct each other's understanding but usually fail, because each partner acts from their confident side. For the same reason, Mirror partners can be involved in really hot disputes and can even come to blows in the name of their opinion.

However, Mirror partners are often very good friends. When they work together on the same project, their mutual correction and adjustment becomes a constructive criticism that is usually accepted as useful. The main discomfort in these relations is caused by the difference in Judgement and Perception between the partners. Mirror partners generally agree about setting near future goals, but disagree about global aims.

The only thing that isn't true about us, is that we didn't lack warmth. I think there was plenty of warmth, but that may be due to being strong feeling types, IDK.

I am not sure the intertype system works that easily when we factor subtypes into the equation.

Still think ESI-Se makes the most sense.

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.

Yeah I am more extroverted at first glance.

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?

Yes.

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).

 

[Entropic]

You must not have notice how fiercely I defend myself and judge people over my most precious ethics. My Fi is the lens through which everything else turns.

Yes, but do you do it because you are base Se or base Fi? The portion in bold suggests base Fi.

Well, Socionics is a system of relations. This is a person had a very close, on-going, daily relation with who is also Gamma quadra, and he happens to fit the ESI description PERFECTLY. He is that guy.

Not necessarily. Intertype is not all there is to socionics and just because someone fits a description it doesn't mean they are that type either, necessarily. Descriptions are most of the part, pretty bad.

I fit SEE a lot more closely, and I think that's why some people mistake me for ENFj occasionally. But SEE-Fi, because Fi is my way of determining just about everything, I just use Se and Te to get respect in supporting it.

Functionally or in terms of descrptions?

I also think we had Mirror relations rather than relations of Identity.

Or maybe he was another type entirely...?

 

[Thalassa]

Yes, but do you do it because you are base Se or base Fi? The portion in bold suggests base Fi.

Not necessarily. Intertype is not all there is to socionics and just because someone fits a description it doesn't mean they are that type either, necessarily. Descriptions are most of the part, pretty bad.

Functionally or in terms of descrptions?


Or maybe he was another type entirely...?

Um, no he's an ISFj and he and I both agreed on it. Are you just trying to "win" or are you really trying to type me here? I'm absolutely certain of him being ISFj-Fi, and pretty sure I'm SEE-Fi.

I agree that I'm Fi base, which is why I'm ISFP in Jung.

If we were relations of identity, I think we would have been constantly congratulating each other on how wonderful the other was, because we approached things all the same way.

Instead we had all of this stuff to talk about and almost never run out of things to talk about, had a very companionable vibe, but our approaches to things kind of confused or annoyed each other.

I remember there was also this sense of both of us thinking that the other one thought he or she was better than the other one. "You think you're smarter than me," he would say. Or he'd get mad at me and say I was meaner to him than anyone. One of our last big fights before we didn't speak for six months, I felt like he was making fun of me (he was) so I started making fun of him and he was like "OH NO THIS IS WHAT YOU REALLY THINK YOU CAN'T TAKE IT BACK."

Meanwhile, I always felt like he thought he was better than me, like he was more sophisticated, or more "together" (he's very much the tidy, under-wraps ISFj) or had better taste in music or something, and he'd always just kind of casually troll me and mock me.

It was very much the epitome of my area of confidence being his creativity and vice versa, leading to mutual admiration and even helping each other, but also to a sense of approaching things differently and disagreeing, or even feeling inferior to the other in some area.

Give me more resources, links and reasons why you think I'm ESI-Se rather than SEE-Fi. I'm still wondering what you see that I don't.

 

[_eric_]

Does that make any sense at all?

Yeah, it's making more sense now. And I am definitely negativist. However, you ordered the Super-id functions opposite of what is on Wikisocion (Ti then Se). Is it supposed to be the way you ordered it?

How would being the Ni subtype fit into or change any of this, being that all of what you wrote is the EII base? Would I have to be that subtype because of being MBTI INFJ? I am definitely MBTI INFJ, and I have always tested as that (ever since I first found out about MBTI about 5 years ago), and everyone I've talked to at length who has at least some knowledge of MBTI has said I'm INFJ.

 

[Entropic]

Um, no he's an ISFj and he and I both agreed on it. Are you just trying to "win" or are you really trying to type me here? I'm absolutely certain of him being ISFj-Fi, and pretty sure I'm SEE-Fi.

I'm not trying to win an argument or type you. I do however think rationally, logically, based on how I understand the system and based on how I've observed you interact on this forum, ESI-Se seems to be a much better fit in socionics than SEE-Fi. If you got any compelling evidence or arguments to show that you think I'm wrong, that's OK. I won't argue the point. I just wanted to present you the idea that ESI-Se could equally be a likely contender for your type.

I agree that I'm Fi base, which is why I'm ISFP in Jung.

Fi base or Fi dominant? IF you claim Fi base, that suggests ExI in socionics.

If we were relations of identity, I think we would have been constantly congratulating each other on how wonderful the other was, because we approached things all the same way.
Instead we had all of this stuff to talk about and almost never run out of things to talk about, had a very companionable vibe, but our approaches to things kind of confused or annoyed each other.

I remember there was also this sense of both of us thinking that the other one thought he or she was better than the other one. "You think you're smarter than me," he would say. Or he'd get mad at me and say I was meaner to him than anyone. One of our last big fights before we didn't speak for six months, I felt like he was making fun of me (he was) so I started making fun of him and he was like "OH NO THIS IS WHAT YOU REALLY THINK YOU CAN'T TAKE IT BACK."

Meanwhile, I always felt like he thought he was better than me, like he was more sophisticated, or more "together" (he's very much the tidy, under-wraps ISFj) or had better taste in music or something, and he'd always just kind of casually troll me and mock me.

It was very much the epitome of my area of confidence being his creativity and vice versa, leading to mutual admiration and even helping each other, but also to a sense of approaching things differently and disagreeing, or even feeling inferior to the other in some area.

There are many reasons why people can come across the way they do, or why relationships form the way they form. It doesn't mean it has to be mirror pair in intertype. Enneagram can play a large role, instincts can play a large role, already mentioned subtypes can play a large role and so on.

I would find it difficult to attribute of you being socionics mirrors being the sole cause why you operate the way you do in this particular relationship.

Give me more resources, links and reasons why you think I'm ESI-Se rather than SEE-Fi. I'm still wondering what you see that I don't.

I did explain my reasoning process where I wrote that you seem to first and foremost express yourself through Se, not Fi, which suggests Se creative instead of Fi creative. This is what is written about the creative function:

Creative function
This function describes the primary mode of application of the base function. If the base function forms the core of the individual's personal quests and interests ("What's in it for me?", "What do I want to be?"), the creative function describes his main instrument for interacting with the rest of society ("How do I make contact with other people?"). For extroverts this means creating a context for people to interact within, and for introverts — creating a product worthy of being included in interaction.

People use their creative function less than their base function and attach less personal significance to it, although due to the nature of blocked functions it is usually used in tandem with the base function. In their value system, their creative function activities seem less personally significant than their base function activities. When other people try to make this function the main criterion for everything, light irritation can arise, and the person may try to "correct" the other person's emphasis by presenting a perspective from his base function and suggesting that this is more important. Also, when other people express problems having to do with this information aspect, the person quickly takes interest and tries to present solutions — but always through his own base function. For instance, an SEE will try to help other people solve their Fi related problems (relationships and understanding between people) through an Se perspective (making sure you know what you want and are trying to achieve it; understanding the territorial aspect of interaction; recognizing the obvious "dumb things" that people are doing that are ruining the relationship). When people get to use their creative function to help others' problems, they feel needed and fulfilled and begin to live more fully. Likewise, criticism in this area is more sensitive and unpleasant than in the base function.

Use of the creative function — while frequent and effortless — seems to turn on and off. One moment the person may seem highly interested in this aspect, and the next — totally indifferent. This may jar people for whom this aspect of reality is of more supreme importance and who expect more consistent attention and effort in this area. A good example of this is one's interaction with their mirror partner; each person's leading function is subject to the other's creativity function, so even though both partners do share similar worldviews, they are apt to 'correct' or add on to the other's rigid and finalized points.

Important aspects marked in bold.

Yeah, it's making more sense now. And I am definitely negativist. However, you ordered the Super-id functions opposite of what is on Wikisocion (Ti then Se). Is it supposed to be the way you ordered it?

Good catch. I missed that one. You are correct, it is erraneous.

How would being the Ni subtype fit into or change any of this, being that all of what you wrote is the EII base?

You mean IEI (NiFe)? EII cannot be an Ni subtype since Ni is a devalued function for the EII (they are FiNe). The way the Ni subtype would change this for an IEI is how the energy flows. You will overall appear more introverted for instance, more withdrawn and more in your head. This is because you engage the introverted elements in your type more actively, in this case, Ni and Ti.

Same would apply to an EIE (FeNi). Even if they are an extroverted type (leading with base Fe), focusing so much energy inwards will make the EIE spend more time engaging with Ni and Ti, and if Ni and Ti are strong as elements, the EIE-Ni could be mistaken for an IEI-Fe for example.

Would I have to be that subtype because of being MBTI INFJ? I am definitely MBTI INFJ, and I have always tested as that (ever since I first found out about MBTI about 5 years ago), and everyone I've talked to at length who has at least some knowledge of MBTI has said I'm INFJ.

Not necessarily although yes, subtypes can help explain why some people score as introverts on the MBTI test and are most likely introverts in the MBTI system, but become extroverts and vice versa in socionics. Socionics as a system concerns itself about energy flow and how this fits in the Model A. Focusing on how the IMs fit the functions is an important aspect of figuring out one's type, but it doesn't say you will necessarily be introverted or extroverted, since another and important aspect of socionics is information metabolism or energy flow.

We can generalize and say that as a whole, introverts have their energy flowing inwards and extroverts have their energy flowing outwards. This is because introverts first and foremost seek to engage with data within themselves whereas extroverts seek to engage with data outside themselves. Obviously though, people will not fit this 100% of the time. Even if we consider the nature of the creative function, the important aspect of it highlighted in bold in the above quote directed at Marmotini, we can still take several people of the same type and we will find that some are more energetic than others. Subtype theory helps to refine this somewhat, and it's also possible to grade subtype so one can for example be an ILI-Te subtype and the Te and Se elements are strong, so it would be marked as ILI-Te +3, which is stronger than an ILI-Te +1.

I could for instance use myself as an example here (I think I present myself at the start, if not, I'm the Asian):

A few things to note about this video is that I'm doing most of the talking, and I'm doing it through Te. Pay attention to that what most of I what say relates to facts, figures, statistics, external logical systems such as theory and so on. Also pay attention to how I at the same time seem to withdraw while I'm doing this, as I'm constantly referring to my Ni model in order to get all this right.

So even though I am primarily expressing myself through an extroverted element (or function outside socionics terminology), you can "see" how the energy still seems to flow inwards, towards myself. I am very sedentary, I barely move, I barely blink and I tend to mostly just Ni deadpan stare at something but this something isn't tangibly visible in the concrete world. The more focused I become on what is inside myself, the more you see how I interact less with the world too, and I become increasingly less aware of the world around me. This because that in order for me to engage fully and properly with Ni, I need to direct all energy away from Se.

Now, compare to LXPilot/Figure, who I'd type as LIE in socionics (he might disagree with me, but it becomes apparent where the energy flows that he's an extrovert):

You can see how Te flows more naturally from him, and he seems to overall be much more engaging when he's reciting all this facts and data.

 

[the state i am in]

i don't understand the logic of the subtypes. it just seems like a categorical hedge. i think enneagram + instinctual subtypes makes more sense as a differentiator or collator than socionics subtypes that to me go against the basic principles of the cognitive differentiation process (as a self-organizational reality that is relatively discrete, staged by hormonal cycles inducing critical growth periods to drive personal evolution).

i guess i don't see how the IM, as you say, make sense linearly apart from a historical development of individuation. preference, then, would be a form of habituation based on the rise of consciousness, on the rise of the frontal cortex of the brain, the central integration system for adult autonomy and responsibility, the throne of the mind.

what would be the central principle driving differentiation for socionics subtypes? what would be the conditions that would spark subtype differentiation? and why would these not just be a different type or a relative fluctuation of fixation that could happen for a brief, environmentally contingent period?

 

[_eric_]

You mean IEI (NiFe)? EII cannot be an Ni subtype since Ni is a devalued function for the EII (they are FiNe). The way the Ni subtype would change this for an IEI is how the energy flows. You will overall appear more introverted for instance, more withdrawn and more in your head. This is because you engage the introverted elements in your type more actively, in this case, Ni and Ti.

Same would apply to an EIE (FeNi). Even if they are an extroverted type (leading with base Fe), focusing so much energy inwards will make the EIE spend more time engaging with Ni and Ti, and if Ni and Ti are strong as elements, the EIE-Ni could be mistaken for an IEI-Fe for example.

Oops, I meant to say EIE there, sorry. Yeah, I would definitely have to be an Ni subtype then...especially given how terrible I am with Se.

So even though I am primarily expressing myself through an extroverted element (or function outside socionics terminology), you can "see" how the energy still seems to flow inwards, towards myself. I am very sedentary, I barely move, I barely blink and I tend to mostly just Ni deadpan stare at something but this something isn't tangibly visible in the concrete world. The more focused I become on what is inside myself, the more you see how I interact less with the world too, and I become increasingly less aware of the world around me. This because that in order for me to engage fully and properly with Ni, I need to direct all energy away from Se.

That sounds a lot like what I do. But when I'm talking to someone, my focus shifts between two points: directly at the person on their eyes and face in general, when they are speaking, then [almost always] up and away focusing on nothing as I come up with what to say (moving away like that is mostly unconscious), then back directly at the person when I speak. If it's someone I'm comfortable with (which is rare), then I'm more able to keep my focus on them while talking. As for how expressive I am while doing so, I'm somewhere between the two of you, closer to your end though.

 

[Entropic]

Oops, I meant to say EIE there, sorry. Yeah, I would definitely have to be an Ni subtype then...especially given how terrible I am with Se.

What is Se like to you anyway?

That sounds a lot like what I do. But when I'm talking to someone, my focus shifts between two points: directly at the person on their eyes and face in general, when they are speaking, then [almost always] up and away focusing on nothing as I come up with what to say (moving away like that is mostly unconscious), then back directly at the person when I speak. If it's someone I'm comfortable with (which is rare), then I'm more able to keep my focus on them while talking. As for how expressive I am while doing so, I'm somewhere between the two of you, closer to your end though.

Interesting. So overall, you'd say your energy flows more towards yourself? Ideally a video would be the best way for me to gauge to see what you mean, but I understand some people prefer their privacy so I won't ask.

I think I already mentioned Gulenko's cognitive styles, but I'll do so again:
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Gulenko_Cognitive_Styles

Do you identify more with vortical-synergetic (IEI) or dialectical-algorithmic (EIE)? I also made a pretty picture to represent how DA is like for an ILI. I think it should somewhat apply for an EIE too (at least something you should find familiar):



Another way to try to determine type aside looking at the creative function as I suggested for Marmotini is to look at the PoLR (place of least resistance) or vulnerable function: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Polr#Vulnerable_function

Now, the way the PoLR works is that most people tend to experience frustration, pain and annoyance when expected to use this function. In others, the IM represented by this function tends to be seen with great disdain. This means that I'm extremely sensitive to Fe (the PoLR for an ILI is Fe), especially mushy Fe, because that's what I've been exposed to the most as a child. I view Fe, especially mushy Fe, with great contempt and when I'm expected to Fe I tend to right-out refuse, because I feel so extremely inadequate in this area. I am willing to openly admit I suck at Fe and that's all there is to it. Don't expect me to Fe because I suck.

Telling me that I suck with Fe also reinforces my view that I suck, and telling me I should become better with Fe tends to cause great annoyance because how can I be good at something I'm so clearly and obviously suck at? I don't appreciate Fe (devalued as all superego functions are) and I don't appreciate when people tell me to appreciate something I don't appreciate and so on.

There are times Fe is ok but it must really be subdued. EIE-Ni works better for me than EIE-Fe or IEI-Fe for example. As a whole, if I have to choose, I think I prefer EIE-Ni in general over IEI because of shared cognition style, and EIEs tend to choose to interact with people with Ni rather than Fe. Fits me better. As you can see, I am not overly fond of Fe and never have been. This is not to say I hate or dislike every person who Fe's. It just tends to get under my skin sooner or later but usually sooner if they are an Fe subtype and prefer mushy Fe. I can't help but to react that way.

So essentially, to identify the PoLR, you could simply ask yourself, what behavior (function) tends to annoy/frustrate me the most with other people? For an EIE it would be Si, for an IEI it would be Te respectively.

 

[Typh0n]

Im INFJ in MBTI and an Ni-EIE in socionics. I find that MBTI INFJs are often socionics EIEs, EIIs, or IEIs, but not IEEs.

I hesitate alot when it comes to deciding whether Im EIE or IEI though, but Im pretty sure EIE fits better. IEIs I know are girly, mawkish and overly meldodramtic, and seem to hate any expression of anything opposite of that in themselves since they have Te polr. Te doesnt bother me, but Si does, I cant stand talking about health, the body, nutrition etc, whereas IEIs dont seem to mind. So I say I have Si and not Te polr. Also take a look at the sixth (Hidden agenda) function. EIEs have Se, and IEIs have Ti. The Hidden Agenda(HA) manifests itself as desperate and pathetic in the eyes of others. I do not come pathetic in my need to have approval of my intellectual capacities(Ti), Id say I have more to prove to others in terms of my power, authority, success, status, appearance etc.

 

[_eric_]

What is Se like to you anyway?

Well I am really not good at physically involving myself in what's going on around me. It's something I normally do not find very enjoyable at all, and when I do have to do it, I am awkward and unsure of myself, as well as often being stiff and uncoordinated (I have had large motor skills difficulties my whole life; I have asperger's disorder, and the two are very closely related, having a high rate of co-morbidity.). I am not good at being physically assertive and it takes a great deal of effort to push through that even momentarily. Being around a lot of people and ongoing events is very draining for me. I get little to no positive mental feedback from doing very physically active things like working out. I also do not get any sort of adrenaline rush from things like riding a roller coaster; I end up feeling nothing at all, it's completely dull. It's very rare that I ever follow any sort of impulse; I'm very non-spontaneous.

The only part of any Se description I have read that I am good at is in the passive sense, being able to quickly take in large amounts of data from the environment, noticing very small details and changes (finding something out of place without even actively trying to, for instance), aesthetics and noticing if something is even slightly out of alignment or uneven, noticing obscure details in music such as ghost notes in drumming. It is to the point where if there is a lot going on around me, it is very overwhelming because for the most part, this intake is not something I consciously do, and then that makes even more difficult for me to take any sort of physical action myself as it ties up too much of my mental resources. For instance, if I'm in a group where there are several conversations going on that are discernable enough to follow (like not so many that it becomes white noise), then my brain automatically hones in on every one of them at once, and effectively hogs my brain's bandwidth, pushing out my own thoughts and thus making it difficult for me to contribute to any conversation, so I end up keeping to myself more.

I have almost every HSP trait to varying degrees, minus the caffeine sensitivity (it does nothing to me).

So, I guess you could say that I am both terrible and excellent at it, though in cognitive function tests (and typology tests in general), they mostly ask questions about the active sense of Se, hence why I score very low there.

(Feel free to correct me if I'm confused on any of this.)

Do you identify more with vortical-synergetic (IEI) or dialectical-algorithmic (EIE)?

Dialectical-algorithmic.

So essentially, to identify the PoLR, you could simply ask yourself, what behavior (function) tends to annoy/frustrate me the most with other people? For an EIE it would be Si, for an IEI it would be Te respectively.

That would definitely be Si for me. I get along very well with Te-dom/aux users, but nowhere near as much with Si-dom/aux users. I have the most problems with them by far compared with all other types.

Im INFJ in MBTI and an Ni-EIE in socionics. I find that MBTI INFJs are often socionics EIEs, EIIs, or IEIs, but not IEEs.

I hesitate alot when it comes to deciding whether Im EIE or IEI though, but Im pretty sure EIE fits better. IEIs I know are girly, mawkish and overly meldodramtic, and seem to hate any expression of anything opposite of that in themselves since they have Te polr. Te doesnt bother me, but Si does, I cant stand talking about health, the body, nutrition etc, whereas IEIs dont seem to mind. So I say I have Si and not Te polr. Also take a look at the sixth (Hidden agenda) function. EIEs have Se, and IEIs have Ti. The Hidden Agenda(HA) manifests itself as desperate and pathetic in the eyes of others. I do not come pathetic in my need to have approval of my intellectual capacities(Ti), Id say I have more to prove to others in terms of my power, authority, success, status, appearance etc.

I am the same way about both of those, especially with not needing approval of my Ti. From an outside perspective, I do indeed have much more to prove with my success, appearance, etc. in comparison, but that is something I don't personally concern myself with. It's a non-issue to me.

 

[Entropic]

Well I am really not good at physically involving myself in what's going on around me. It's something I normally do not find very enjoyable at all, and when I do have to do it, I am awkward and unsure of myself, as well as often being stiff and uncoordinated (I have had large motor skills difficulties my whole life; I have asperger's disorder, and the two are very closely related, having a high rate of co-morbidity.). I am not good at being physically assertive and it takes a great deal of effort to push through that even momentarily. Being around a lot of people and ongoing events is very draining for me. I get little to no positive mental feedback from doing very physically active things like working out. I also do not get any sort of adrenaline rush from things like riding a roller coaster; I end up feeling nothing at all, it's completely dull. It's very rare that I ever follow any sort of impulse; I'm very non-spontaneous.

The only part of any Se description I have read that I am good at is in the passive sense, being able to quickly take in large amounts of data from the environment, noticing very small details and changes (finding something out of place without even actively trying to, for instance), aesthetics and noticing if something is even slightly out of alignment or uneven, noticing obscure details in music such as ghost notes in drumming. It is to the point where if there is a lot going on around me, it is very overwhelming because for the most part, this intake is not something I consciously do, and then that makes even more difficult for me to take any sort of physical action myself as it ties up too much of my mental resources. For instance, if I'm in a group where there are several conversations going on that are discernable enough to follow (like not so many that it becomes white noise), then my brain automatically hones in on every one of them at once, and effectively hogs my brain's bandwidth, pushing out my own thoughts and thus making it difficult for me to contribute to any conversation, so I end up keeping to myself more.

I have almost every HSP trait to varying degrees, minus the caffeine sensitivity (it does nothing to me).

So, I guess you could say that I am both terrible and excellent at it, though in cognitive function tests (and typology tests in general), they mostly ask questions about the active sense of Se, hence why I score very low there.

(Feel free to correct me if I'm confused on any of this.)

Yeah, that's interesting. I identify as inferior Se now and I'm also HSP and I definitely see a connection between the two. When I get over-stimulated I am really over-stimulated and if I keep getting stimulated and can't shut things out which I can't when I'm over-stimulated (kind of like being over-tired in a sense of wanting to sleep but you can't sleep because you're too tired to sleep), I can throw a tantrum have a breakdown of sorts.

I also score extremely low on Se on any cognitive test which is why I completely dismissed the fact I could be an Se type at first when I typed myself based on cognitive test scores. Nardi's test insists that I'm an NP type because I identify with his definitions of Ne over Ni.

But when it comes to my own personal experiences with Se, I do appreciate Se once you actually drag my sorry ass there and get me to do it. I might be extremely resistant at first and I can throw Fi tantrums if I absolutely do not want to and you push me, but once I'm in the actual mindset it really isn't that bad and I can enjoy and seek it out myself at many occasions. I for example love playing action-paced video games for this reason, especially violent ones. It also happens I can do something more action-oriented like playing paint ball with my friends or riding on my dad's scooter. When I do find myself doing these things, I can really enjoy that. I just need to be in the right mood. Contrary to you I get a lot of adrenaline rushes and I seek out those rushes. It could part be an enneagram difference though. I see that you type as sp/so and I'm sx/sp. I'm also 8-fixed and my inner child is 8. I need a bit of a thrill in my life to make it interesting.

As for my motor skills, I'd say they are pretty non-existent. I'm extremely clumsy and things just tend to fall into pieces when I'm around. Since I began working at my new job in early Feburary, I've killed one keyboard after successfully spilling coffee over it, and I've crashed 3 glasses and spilled out 2 water glasses and one coffee mug.

I also identify that a big problem with my life is definitely my overall inertia. I don't get anything done, really, if I'm left to my own devices. It takes a lot of effort for me to do something but once I'm actually doing it it's fine. It's just moving from the "I should do it" to "I'm doing it" that's so extremely difficult. That's why I'm very clearly an introvert in socionics. What I need is energy to live life at all. On the contrary, it does seem like you actually seek more introverted stimuli so EIE-Ni definitely makes sense. Ti is an introverted element.

The hidden agenda can be tricky that way because we can manage it better than the suggestive function, but we don't need too much stimulation in this area since we don't experience the deficit as severe as with the suggestive function. It is very possible to become inert and "forget" about the hidden agenda. I think subtype affects this as well but I am not sure to what degree. I'm for example extremely easily attracted to Fi types, in a way almost visibly more so than Se. Se was never something I could see myself being attracted to although in retrospect yes, I think Se and Fi as a type combination is attractive in other individuals and I envy their ability to control the environment in accordance to their inner ethics. It is a skill I wished I possessed but clearly do not. So perhaps being a contact subtype my dual-seeking also moves away from Se and more towards Fi, which makes sense to me considering how the metabolism flow works. If your metabolism is less focused on introversion, then you would perhaps naturally also be less inclined to seek more extroversion to couple your introversion. For example, if I had to choose between an SEE-Se and SEE-Fi dual, then SEE-Fi easily. I'd need that additional Fi kick but still provided with the energy from Se base.

Dialectical-algorithmic.

Agreed. You don't seem like a VS type to me.

That would definitely be Si for me. I get along very well with Te-dom/aux users, but nowhere near as much with Si-dom/aux users. I have the most problems with them by far compared with all other types.

Yeah, I feel that too. I'm not sure if it's because I'm a contact subtype, but EIE-Ni doesn't annoy me nearly as much as IEI-Ni or IEI-Fe do, especially Fe. I think it's because Fe being creative makes the IEI more inclined to utilize Fe in order to establish contact with you, and that disturbs me pretty much right away as Fe PoLR. I can't speak how this works IRL though since I tend to predominantly hang out with Fi-Te types IRL.

 

[_eric_]

[MENTION=16405]LeaT[/MENTION]

Thanks for all that, EIE-Ni it is, then!

Once again, I relate very much to almost all of what you just said, minus the stuff pertaining to you being a contact subtype (What is the opposite called, btw?). I always find myself quite attracted to Fi users as well, and not Se users; they are too much for me. Actually, both relationships I've been in so far were with INFP's, and every girl I've ever liked before them is one as well, haha. The first one I believe is a 4w3 sp/sx, and that relationship lasted 3 years. We never talked about socionics, only MBTI and Enneagram, but if I had to guess, I would say she's EII-Fi. My second/current girlfriend is 4w5 sp/sx, and we also figured together that she is IEE-Fi in Socionics. I think she is a far better match for me than my ex, and that is saying a lot because my ex and I were an amazing match too. The biggest difference I've noticed, and am quite thankful for, is that she's much less sensitive and also not averse to Te, and logic in general. She is not naturally good with using Te herself, but she has gotten much better at it over time, and she is certainly comfortable being around it, since all but one of her immediate family members are Te users; the one who isn't is an INTP.

 

[Azure Flame]

Here I am posting a video made by myself.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I'm going to make my usual comment here, and perhaps someone will give me something useful...

I find socionics INFj (FiNe) to sound like an e9 and socionics INFp (NiFe) to sound like an e4. I relate much more to the demeanor & general personality described for the INFp, but the functions don't fit, OR I am too attached to Jung's descriptions. Fi in socionics just doesn't ring true for me & the INFj demeanor is wrong for me (too....IDK, "mumsy" is the word I use), but Ni+Fe still does not fit like Jungian Fi+Ne.

 

[Entropic]

[MENTION=16405]LeaT[/MENTION]

Thanks for all that, EIE-Ni it is, then!

Once again, I relate very much to almost all of what you just said, minus the stuff pertaining to you being a contact subtype (What is the opposite called, btw?). I always find myself quite attracted to Fi users as well, and not Se users; they are too much for me. Actually, both relationships I've been in so far were with INFP's, and every girl I've ever liked before them is one as well, haha. The first one I believe is a 4w3 sp/sx, and that relationship lasted 3 years. We never talked about socionics, only MBTI and Enneagram, but if I had to guess, I would say she's EII-Fi. My second/current girlfriend is 4w5 sp/sx, and we also figured together that she is IEE-Fi in Socionics. I think she is a far better match for me than my ex, and that is saying a lot because my ex and I were an amazing match too. The biggest difference I've noticed, and am quite thankful for, is that she's much less sensitive and also not averse to Te, and logic in general. She is not naturally good with using Te herself, but she has gotten much better at it over time, and she is certainly comfortable being around it, since all but one of her immediate family members are Te users; the one who isn't is an INTP.

No problem! The opposite of contact is inert. You'd be contact though if you're an EIE-Ni since Ni is the creative element for EIE, so that's contact. Inert would be EIE-Fe. The tl;dr version of contact/inert is that contact = creative subtype and inert = base subtype. So Inert is always base type + base function element e.g. ESE + Fe because it is the base function and contact always ESE + Si because Si is the creative function and so on. Really simple math.

Another possibility for you is that you're in fact an ILI of sorts, maybe ILI-Ni, especially if you actually find Fi to be that attractive to you. ILI and EII (INTJ and INFP) are of benefit relationship where the EII is the beneficiary because their inferior element (Te) is what the ILI provides as creative function. IEE and ILI is also a common combination because the intertype is mirage. You can read about ILI-EII as benefit here: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Beneficiary and mirage here: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Mirage

Here I am posting a video made by myself.

Uhm... I was watching a little bit, jumped around. Your explanation is just... confusing. Yes, for example, an LSI is primarily going to engage the world through Ti, then Se, but it is not so much out of a need per se as much as it is how the LSI checks and validates their systems, takes in new information and data or, simply put, how they engage the world externally.

 

[Azure Flame]

Im INFJ in MBTI and an Ni-EIE in socionics. I find that MBTI INFJs are often socionics EIEs, EIIs, or IEIs, but not IEEs.

I hesitate alot when it comes to deciding whether Im EIE or IEI though, but Im pretty sure EIE fits better. IEIs I know are girly, mawkish and overly meldodramtic, and seem to hate any expression of anything opposite of that in themselves since they have Te polr. Te doesnt bother me, but Si does, I cant stand talking about health, the body, nutrition etc, whereas IEIs dont seem to mind. So I say I have Si and not Te polr. Also take a look at the sixth (Hidden agenda) function. EIEs have Se, and IEIs have Ti. The Hidden Agenda(HA) manifests itself as desperate and pathetic in the eyes of others. I do not come pathetic in my need to have approval of my intellectual capacities(Ti), Id say I have more to prove to others in terms of my power, authority, success, status, appearance etc.

Do you have any celebrities who you think are very similar to yourself? I'd like to know more about EIE-Ni's, what they look like, how they come off, etc, so I can differentiate them from IEI-Fe's.

Back in my mbti days when I thought I was ISTP, I used to think ENFJ was my best match. I suspect there are some IEI's who look very much like ENFJ's, and I'd like to learn more about them. There's a very specific type of girl that I can identify almost immediately whenever I see her, and she usually types as mbti ENFJ, but I'm unsure what socionics she types as.

 

[Typh0n]

Do you have any celebrities who you think are very similar to yourself? I'd like to know more about EIE-Ni's, what they look like, how they come off, etc, so I can differentiate them from IEI-Fe's.

Back in my mbti days when I thought I was ISTP, I used to think ENFJ was my best match. I suspect there are some IEI's who look very much like ENFJ's, and I'd like to learn more about them. There's a very specific type of girl that I can identify almost immediately whenever I see her, and she usually types as mbti ENFJ, but I'm unsure what socionics she types as.

Im think there are some mbti ENFJs whos are Fe-IEI like MLK for example. I used to work on typing celebs and I just went through my old list and wow...almost none of those people I had as EIE do I see as EIEs anymore! Some celebs who I think are similar to myself personality wise: Arthur Schopenhauer(INFJ, Ni beta NF) Tim Burton(INFP, ?) Voltaire(?, Fe-EIE) Marilyn Manson (INFJ, Ni-EIE) Nietzsche(INTJ Ni-IEI) Hitler (INFJ or ENFJ, Ni-EIE). I identify with Adolph personality wise, not with respect to his ideals or anything. I know thats a bit sketchy, but I picked people who I could relate to not necessarily of my type...

 

[Azure Flame]

Im think there are some mbti ENFJs whos are Fe-IEI like MLK for example. I used to work on typing celebs and I just went through my old list and wow...almost none of those people I had as EIE do I see as EIEs anymore! Some celebs who I think are similar to myself personality wise: Arthur Schopenhauer(INFJ, Ni beta NF) Tim Burton(INFP, ?) Voltaire(?, Fe-EIE) Marilyn Manson (INFJ, Ni-EIE) Nietzsche(INTJ Ni-IEI) Hitler (INFJ or ENFJ, Ni-EIE). I identify with Adolph personality wise, not with respect to his ideals or anything. I know thats a bit sketchy, but I picked people who I could relate to not necessarily of my type...

I have 4 actresses in mind so far for this mystery ENFJ personality.

Jennifer Love hewitt (I've heard ENFP but I disagree, she's too colorful to be Ne/Si)
Summer Glau
Jenny Agutter
Zoey Deschanel

I'm very certain they're the same personality. They're flirty and have a very characteristic energetic and loud laugh that involves their whole body recoiling with laughter.