Mariella

Well you have delusions of grandeur and see yourself as all-knowing and as some kind of Jesus Christ do-no-wrong figure. So yeah, I'm sure you feel that way. Also, you know very little about Socionics and have yourself mistyped, so whatever you say about Socionics doesn't interest me.

Maritsa33

No I don't. You think I do because it justifies your argument.

__________________

Enneagram 2w1

Sasha

.

Lobo

Yes, you are right. "Amoral" is more of what I was referring to. However, I'd like to think of it as developing a different ethical standard, like consentingadult mentioned.

Yeah, it's an ethical system that changes with time, based on observations and analysis. I can then arrive at certain conclusions about a situation, which to others might seem like there is no thought behind it unless I explain why I think it's that way.


I don't believe that your thoughts about people have remained the same since you were 7. At least it seems really unlikely... For one, I doubt that a kid will experience backstabbing and genuine evil, which has a way of shaking your belief system quite a bit.


I wasn't really getting at what you are describing. It's more like having the feeling that you could potentially be "kicked out of delta" if it were some sort of club . Regardless, I don't see those things you mention as "sinful," more like being clueless.


The threatening part makes sense, but then it would mean that I don't have feelings for the other person... I can see it as knowing someone and making them believe I'm their friend, and then threatening the "friendship" as a way to manipulate, when I didn't have any feelings invested whatsoever. Yeah, that would be evil.

The passive aggressive part is the EII stereotype, and I see it as the result of being in a bad state of mind. Sort of like Cesar Milan, and how he shows that dogs in a bad state of mind will do the behaviors that the owners don't like. I personally don't value Se, don't see it as the preferred way of handling things. However, that doesn't mean that I will necessarily be passive aggressive in situations, especially when I realize that it's not the best way to deal with the particular situation. In fact, I don't remember the last time I was passive aggressive, but it's something that I know I have the inclination of doing if I don't fight the urge, hehe. It's the easy way of dealing with situations, but doesn't mean it's the best.

consentingadult

Overall, I get the impression that you read my post as a critical attitude towards Fi egos in general, and EIIs in particular, which is not the case. Let me go over your points one by one:

That's not what I meant. Obviously, people differ in their ethical standards, and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm thinking more about things that most people would consider extreme, such as having sex with one year old babies as a way to prevent AIDS. We can be relativistic about that, but I think we probably agree that such 'ethics' are insane. That's the kind of extreme things I'm talking about.

I never said EIIs have tunnel vision or a narrow minded, and I don't even think that. However, any mentally unhealthy person can have tunnel vision or can be narrow minded, but that was not the point I was making. What I mean by Fi making value judgements, can be taken two ways: the healthy way, which is trying to establish a value judgment in the sense of "how does this other person relate to me, is he going to cross my boundaries and if I can't defend myself against that, I'd better stay away from him", or an unhealthy way in the sense of "that person holds different political ideas than I do, and thus he must be a bad person and not worthy of my respect". Making value judgments is in itself not a bad thing, all of us do this all day long. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of how.

I refer to what I said earlier about totally insane morals. As to hypercriticalness, I mean this in the pathological sense. It's also known as (part of) obsessive-compulsive personality, anal personality or whatever you want to call it:

UNRELENTING STANDARDS / HYPERCRITICALNESS (US)

The underlying belief that one must strive to meet very high internalized standards of behavior and performance, usually to avoid criticism. Typically results in feelings of pressure or difficulty slowing down; and in hypercriticalness toward oneself and others. Must involve significant impairment in: pleasure, relaxation, health, self-esteem, sense of accomplishment, or satisfying relationships.
Unrelenting standards typically present as: (a) perfectionism, inordinate attention to detail, or an underestimate of how good one's own performance is relative to the norm; (b) rigid rules and “shoulds” in many areas of life, including unrealistically high moral, ethical, cultural, or religious precepts; or (c) preoccupation with time and efficiency, so that more can be accomplished.

Source: Listing of Schemas & Domains

I fully agree: groups sometimes holds very destructive ethics, and in that case it's better to hold on to your own concepts of what is ethical or not. But this will come at a price: being shut out of the group. But when you find yourself in a group where the morals greatly differ from your own, it is always a good idea to ask yourself: are the people in society-at-large really wrong and am I right, or might I be deluding myself?

Like the quote from the Schema therapy page says, it is indeed possible to tyrannize yourself. And I never said that hypercriticalness is exclusively related to Fi egos, I said Fi egos can turn hypercritical if unhealthy, your reversing my statement. Any type can be hypercrital, e.g. an unhealthy ILEs and SLEs who lean too much on their Fi-PoLR, can become very hypercritical in the ethical area as well, having rigid ideas about decency. But where an Fi-ego will optimize and regulate the psychological distance between themselves and the interactor, an Fi-Super-Ego is more likely to 'force' their morals onto someone else.

BTW, the worst combination of self-tyranny is not just Fi, but the combination of Fi-ego + Te Super-Id. Especially EIIs and ESIs can have a tendency to be perfectionistic. IEEs and SEEs too, but not as strong as their rational counterparts.

As to unhealthy/insane: you made that connection, not I!

Finally I would like to say that most people I recognize to be EII have no problem interpreting my statements. On the other hand, ESIs typically do, and their style of misinterpretation is very similar to yours. Perhaps you might want to consider that you are ESI instead of EII, but I leave that up to you.

__________________
Wikision's Maintenance Guy

jxrtes

I don't think that makes you more immoral, just more amoral.

__________________

consentingadult

Good to read that. Overall I have the feeling that you're on the right track towards the future, existentially speaking. Keep going like that, you will get there!

__________________
Wikision's Maintenance Guy

Ryu

I don't know who is supporting that idea or where it comes from, but, you're not the first EII to express things like that. . . It's not particularly that way, obviously.

As far as the 'sin' remark I made, I didn't intend for something to be sinful or bad in the moral sense, I was listing common ways for EII 'treachery' to develop.

Sasha

.

consentingadult

Yes, I can indeed be quick with estimating other people's type, especially when they present their souls to me on a silver platter. It's true that I don't know you, but then again: you have exposed yourself to me quite a bit. Of course it is possible that you are EII, but all of us have to estimate other people's attitudes all the time, it's a natural part of survival, and so far I have way more reasons to believe you're ESI than EII, so I'm going with that for the moment.

You are describing interactions with a friend, who said things as "are you stupid?" Imho, you really have do drive an ESI crazy before they start saying such things. Perhaps with the exception of SEIs, ESIs are amongst the most friendly and composed people. When they don't have a lot of self-esteem, they can be bitter or harsh in their judgments, but I have difficulty recalling an ESI who ever said such blantant things. Could it be that your friend was LSI instead of ESI?

As to Se in ESIs: there is a common misunderstanding that Se is always about 'force'. It often is in Beta Se-egos, but Gamma Se-egos are way more diplomatic about applying Se. In ESIs, Se manifest itself not as physical force or violence, but as willpower, as stamina, as the capability to determine how much 'pressure' must be applied in order to get what you want. E.g. my mother is ESI and by many people considered the most sweetest and kindest of people, she will give the shirt of her back if that can help you out, even when you're not that close to her. But if she goes to buy a new laundry washer and dryer and a dishwasher as a package deal, she's is perfectly capable of estimating how far she can go with negotiating a good price, and she will keep negotiating till she gets the price she wants, even if it takes an hour (where I would have given up after 30 seconds). All the while she remains friendly, not emotionally manipulative at all, but steady anyway. That's how Se works in ESIs. You can also see it in their work ethics, they can work extremely hard.

And yes, it is possible for Se egos to be hurt, especially in ESIs, who have strong expectations on how they themselves and other people should behave properly. But even SLEs can be hurt, but they are more likely to express that hurt by creating a lot of angry drama to cover up that they feel hurt (like most EP's by the way).

One more reason why I think you might be ESI: it almost sounds like you're trying to get some recognition from me. Assuming I'm acting as an IEE here, our interaction makes more sense as a supervision than a mirror relationship. In time, you will learn that my style of Te is not LxE style Te and realize the folly of interacting with me: you're never going to get your suggestive-Te needs fulfilled from me

Hope this helps.

ETA:

This is another thing I often hear from ESIs when they don't agree with me: that I don't have sufficient empirical data to justify the conclusions I've drawn

__________________
Wikision's Maintenance Guy

Loki

I thought it was a typical reaction that people have to others turning a response they made in a post into a discussion about their type while claiming things about their motives, etc. I've noticed it lots of times.

consentingadult

No worries, I don't quite understand you either

__________________
Wikision's Maintenance Guy

Loki

No, I was referring to her objection to you re-typing her based on how you don't know her... that I don't think this is an example of "an ESI saying you don't have enough empirical evidence" but rather a way that a lot of people respond in these types of situations.

consentingadult

Ah, I understand you now. I have not noticed such a thing, but since I haven't been looking for it, you might be right, and I'm willing to take your word for it.

But I also mean this in regards to normal conversations with ESIs, that do not involve typings or Socionics discussions. If I draw conclusions that come forth of what I call a process of "pattern recognition", some sensors, mainly those who value Ni, will object to my conclusion by referring to a lack of empirical sources on my behalf, completely bypassing the fact that I have applied a a process of pattern recognition, which does not require knowing all facts in order to come to a generalized conclusion. Does that make sense?

Like I said in my first response to Sasha, I'd leave it up to her to decide if she wanted to do anything with my remarks about her type, since it was not a big deal to me. But apparently I did strike a sensitive snare with her.

__________________
Wikision's Maintenance Guy

consentingadult

That's odd... Sasha removed her contributions to this thread, as apparently she did before. I wonder why...

__________________
Wikision's Maintenance Guy

Trevor

What personality disorder she has, in your opinion?

__________________

ESTj-Te
1w2 sp/sx 1-6-2

Creepy-Cyclops

ahahahahahaha.

Although I am actually interested in CA has one/some possible suggestions.

silverchris9

What type are you consenting? I ask because "pattern recognition" is exactly how I think, and I consider it to be related to Ni. It is possible, however, that drawing conclusions without evidence is just an intuition related thing, and it annoys you if it comes in the form you don't value, while you think it's awesome if it comes in the form you do value.

EDIT: also, lack of empirical sources sounds like a Te complaint to me. Lack of logical coherence is a more Ti complaint, I think.

__________________
Not a rule, just a trend.

IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

consentingadult

I don't know what type I am, however, IEE seems to make the most sense based on dynamics of interpersonal relationships.

"Pattern recognition" is indeed related to "intuition", though not per sé in the Socionics sense. My free-floating thoughts on pattern recognition:

• Ne: pattern recognition based on genus/differentia attributes of two or more phenomena
• Ni: pattern recognition based on cause/effect relationships between two or more phenomena

So yeah, Ni imo is one of the attitudes that perceives reality in terms of pattern recognition, more in particular cause/effect patterns. And as such, does not require knowledge of all facts in order to come to conclusions.

I got this idea from a program on Discovery or Nat Geo channel, or something like that. It investigated certain metal attitudes, and investigated what it was that made grandmaster chess players so good at chess. A lot of people think grand masters are very good thinkers, being able to come up with a strategy. But research has shown that this is not the case, and that many grand masters decide upon their strategies because they perceive almost instantly that a pattern unfolds in front of them. So the thing that makes grand masters good at chess, is not logical thinking, but intuition.

ETA: in the past I have been pondering the question if not every information Element in Socionics is a form of pattern recognition, but I have not been able to answer that question satisfactory.

__________________
Wikision's Maintenance Guy

consentingadult

No, in this particular case I have not. The pattern I perceived told me nothing more than that her type is probably not Ne-ego. Some aspects led me into the direction of Ne-PoLRs, but the way she entered discussion made it less likely that she was LSI, because LSIs (such as tututututu... whatever) are typically more hostile towards me.

She does seem to be quite sensitive though....

__________________
Wikision's Maintenance Guy