Bill and Hillary Clinton

[Logos]

The "tragedy" of ESIs is that their dual is the LIE. The LIE-ESI duality seems "robotic" to outsiders, in the sense that they communicate through - and little or . The ESI's inclined to assume that if a person wants to be with the ESI, especially to marry the ESI, and the person says that they love the ESI, that is truthful. The affection and devotion the ESI craves is in what the LIE does and feels, not in outward, "obvious" displays of it.

Do you think that the author may be perceiving a relationship with either an ESI or LIE member?

Edit: I think it would be interesting to read similar short descriptions dealing with your take on other dual-relationships with their particular perceptions (i.e. "robotic to outsiders").

[tereg]

The type of the author would also be interesting.

I find that this part is very interesting when seen through the lens of the author:

I think the big frustration of their marriage is that she's married to the most elusive, withholding, anal-retentive man you can imagine.

Is the author interpreting what they see themselves? Or is the author interpreting what they see through what the woman sees?

[marooned]

The "tragedy" of ESIs is that their dual is the LIE. The LIE-ESI duality seems "robotic" to outsiders, in the sense that they communicate through - and little or . The ESI's inclined to assume that if a person wants to be with the ESI, especially to marry the ESI, and the person says that they love the ESI, that is truthful. The affection and devotion the ESI craves is in what the LIE does and feels, not in outward, "obvious" displays of it.

Yeah...

"I believe it's a relationship in which she is -- addicted to him. And she adores him. She's the best thing that ever happened to him. But he's very elusive and very remote. And when he requires rescue she gets more attention, more affection, more love, more of the caring that I believe she craves from him, and also more power than she otherwise would get."

When I read this I interpret it as needing outward displays of affection of some sort... not a seriously and sincerely stated "I love you" but some expression of love, in some outward way... attention... some form of visible caring... but I think the description is limited as in what way precisely.

In some ways, I would think that would be necessary as a means of assessing the author's particular perceptions of this couple. As Expat said, what is being provided is not necessarily the truth, but an interpretation of the relationship based on the author's perception of it.

Agree.

[munenori2]

I like ESI for her and some Gamma NT for him. ENTj > INTp I'd say. Some passages about her seemed to describe her as emotionally astute but possessing some of the characteristics I think an Ne PoLR might possess, which he appears to help with in a more Ni than Ne way (that is, his help sounds like she appreciates it rather than it aggravating the crap out of her). I kind of doubt the typings I ended up with, altough ESI seems pretty possible to me.

The biggest issues of the relationship I perceived revolved around Se/Ni overall and Fi from the wife (interestingly this sounded like it could be a source of some of their problems at times).

[Expat]

The type of the author would also be interesting.

My personal opinion, but that is of course another discussion, is that LSI is a plausible type for the author.

Do you think that the author may be perceiving a relationship with either an ESI or LIE member?

Edit: I think it would be interesting to read similar short descriptions dealing with your take on other dual-relationships with their particular perceptions (i.e. "robotic to outsiders").

I think ESI is a plausible type for her. As for other descriptions, ok.

Is the author interpreting what they see themselves? Or is the author interpreting what they see through what the woman sees?

That's a difficult question. The author knows the couple well; it's difficult, however, to know precisely what is his own interpretation of what he observes of their relationship and individual behavior, and what may have been told to him by the man or the woman themselves.

I like ESI for her and some Gamma NT for him. ENTj > INTp I'd say. Some passages about her seemed to describe her as emotionally astute but possessing some of the characteristics I think an Ne PoLR might possess, which he appears to help with in a more Ni than Ne way (that is, his help sounds like she appreciates it rather than it aggravating the crap out of her). I kind of doubt the typings I ended up with, altough ESI seems pretty possible to me.

The biggest issues of the relationship I perceived revolved around Se/Ni overall and Fi from the wife (interestingly this sounded like it could be a source of some of their problems at times).

But again, do you see a Gamma NT being so -focused?

[Expat]

Some passages about her seemed to describe her as emotionally astute but possessing some of the characteristics I think an Ne PoLR might possess, which he appears to help with in a more Ni than Ne way (that is, his help sounds like she appreciates it rather than it aggravating the crap out of her).

Yes, that makes sense.

The biggest issues of the relationship I perceived revolved around Se/Ni overall and Fi from the wife (interestingly this sounded like it could be a source of some of their problems at times).

But then it looks like their relationship works at the level of Se/Ni but not at the level of Fi.

[Expat]

Yeah...

"I believe it's a relationship in which she is -- addicted to him. And she adores him. She's the best thing that ever happened to him. But he's very elusive and very remote. And when he requires rescue she gets more attention, more affection, more love, more of the caring that I believe she craves from him, and also more power than she otherwise would get."

When I read this I interpret it as needing outward displays of affection of some sort... not a seriously and sincerely stated "I love you" but some expression of love, in some outward way... attention... some form of visible caring... but I think the description is limited as in what way precisely.

Yes, but this is where the author's type may play a part -- in the bolded bit above, he does say "the caring I that I believe she craves from him". If he's indeed LSI or similar, he'd be essentially projecting his own -seeking needs onto her.

However, now we're getting into lots of variables.

[Blaze]

I don't buy ILI for him, Fe>Fi seeking (or at least valuing) seems almost undoubtedly to me.

agreed.

[munenori2]

But then it looks like their relationship works at the level of Se/Ni but not at the level of Fi.

That was kind of what I getting at. I admit on reflection I didn't notice anything to suggest much about him other than Ni-ego. The Fi conflict could easily point towards beta NF as well.

[Blaze]

i think a case can be created for any number of types and relations with this description.

him: obviously introverted, logical, seeking Fe

her: extraverted, emotional, giving Fe, but somehow not political. this is contradictory, since ethical types are almost always good at politics. i can't think of one that isn't.

[Expat]

Something else the same guy said about the same couple --

She has a quality of ruthlessness, a quality of aggressiveness and strength about her that he doesn't have. A killer instinct. [ -- ] There's no subtlety, there's none of the nuance that he has".

[Expat]

her: extraverted, emotional, giving Fe, but somehow not political. this is contradictory, since ethical types are almost always good at politics. i can't think of one that isn't.

Perhaps she just appears to be politically unskilled in the eyes of the author. An ESI could appear so in the eyes of a LSI.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

What makes the author think he's not capable of love, affection, caring, compassion, and so on? Did he say so, or is the author just not seeing evidence of it? "It's your feeling coming back to you" "When he's alone, he's incapable really of feeling much of anything" Unless the person in question actually told the author these things, what a crappy thing to say about a person! All this says is that the person in question gives the appearance of not having emotion of their own and only reflecting others' emotions. INFp comes to mind, as I could imagine them giving this kind of impression.

Well, sure, but that's already significant.

The author misspelled "peace" as "piece" I assume?

No, I did. I only have the book as a hard copy, so I transcribed the thing manually.

"He works in a different way than [she] -- because his is a more creative intelligence. He can take in the world, and put it together in new ways. She takes in the world, and can at times make good decisions, and can see the fault lines and where the fights are. But she can't necessarily create something new out of it, or create a solution where one doesn't necessarily exist, or have the patience to let the decision present itself. She's much more apt to, when she hits a wall, bang her head into it. He'll figure out a way to go around it or jump over it".

Man I don't like the author. That's one thing I can say for sure. The author is Ne valuing, and Fe valuing I believe - alpha. The characters however, hmm. Anyway, I think what he/she is noticing is Ne, present in him, not so much in her. Doesn't mean he's Ne, as he could also be Ni.

I think you're right there, so it makes LSI unlikely for the author, then. I agree that it reads like something from the PoV of ie -biased.

What an arrogant and ignorant bastard. You're going to question someone's intelligence and call them non-substantive because they don't worry about every problem facing the world? I think the author is saying much more about what he/she values than really telling us much about the couple. The author sounds alpha, and neither of the couple is alpha imo. The author values his brand of intelligence which is of the bookish, ruminative variety, an "intellectual" . I think he's INxp - Ni. Not sure about her.

Well sure it says something about the author, but, indirectly, also something about her.

How well does the author know them? He/she seems somewhat enamored with the guy's intelligence, and put off by his supposed lack of emotion. I think the author is INTj, expecting the warmth of an ESFj from others, but impressed by the guy's intelligence. He seems to readily discount her.

Well, remember that, overall, he seems to see her as having more character than he. He said that she's the one who's "a real person".

"She's not supple, flexible, or terribly skillful politically. She's brittle, rigid, with the fragility of iron that cracks when you drop it as opposed to steel, which doesn't."

Fi quadra from the POV of Fe quadra person. The way he sees her suggests IxFj as seen from alpha eyes.

You saw that from that paragraph, or together with the rest so far?

"She definitely has a streak of ruthlessness and paranoia [ - - ]. She has enemies. She has an enemies list. She has people she talks to, and people she does not talk to. When she's mad at you she doesn't talk to you for months and months and months. She has a very long shit list. And, she believes in always taking the fight to the other side [ -- ]"

How much is true, and how much of this is imagined? I have been described in precisely this way by alphas before.

Well that's also significant.

Okay, is he actually doing this on purpose, or is that how it appears? Is he just withdrawing in the INxp way when upset, or is he actually denying affection? If he can't show compassion, love etc supposedly anyway then how much can he really be denying? But showering praise and affection on strangers sure doesn't sound INTp, but could be how a person saw an INFp. Though it's not quite reality, they could be viewed in such a way.

Yes, but perhaps not only INFps.

"I believe it's a relationship in which she is -- addicted to him. And she adores him. She's the best thing that ever happened to him. But he's very elusive and very remote. And when he requires rescue she gets more attention, more affection, more love, more of the caring that I believe she craves from him, and also more power than she otherwise would get."

[--] "I believe that it's a relationship based on mutual enabling. Because she likes what happens when she rescues him -- I think to extent that he's capable of loving anybody, he loves her. But it's a very limited capability in the first place. I think that he sometimes resents her and shakes under her domination. Sometime he welcomes her and needs her, because he requires her rescuing. And, other times he doesn't think a whole lot about her at all -- "

"I think if she left him it would be a big blow to him, not in the sense that he'd miss her, but in the sense that he would find unacceptable the image of himself that he'd see in the mirror: the man that [she] left. But he'd get over it, and he would go on".

My guess is that it's an INFp-ISFj relationship as viewed by an INTj.

So I guess that you had no problem in identifying with her (of course, taking his biases in consideration)?

[Expat]

lmao. i was wondering if anyone thought this guy sounded awfully presumptious/snobbish. glad that diana posted. anyhow i think the author sounds rather Ti, perhaps she's IXFj as diana has suggested. i'm not sure where INTp for the husband is coming from.

Yeah now I'm thinking that ILE or LII is more likely for the author than LSI.

[Expat]

Another bit I just found, by the same guy --

I don't think that he's in any way addicted to her. I think that he uses her to help enable him. To do good things and bad things, but to enable him. He sees the world in very functional terms. In regard to affection and relationships and conversation, and rewards, punishments and coldness and warmth and praise and thanks and blame and yelling and all those things, these are tools he uses to get people to do what he wants them to do. And his goal is to get everybody to do what he wants them to do. I don't think he draws a lot of distinction among people -- Some people he just feels are more important to him than others. It's a largely functional relationship: I've always said it's a shorthand that she loves [him] and [he] loves [himself], so they have something in common".

Not playing games I really just found, and transcribed, this extra bit.

[Expat]

By the way, of course the author is not impartial, for socionics and personal dislike reasons. But I think that even through his "filter" we can say something about the types of the couple. I mean, he wouldn't want to paint a picture that's unrecognizable. So it may be a caricature, and if it's hostile, their "true" characters can be glimpsed by assuming that he's exaggerating - but not inventing - their negative traits, and that the traits that he sees as positive, are almost certainly visible to everyone.

[Park]

Another bit I just found, by the same guy -- ...

Sounds like a manipulative fuck.

[Blaze]

Another bit I just found, by the same guy --

Not playing games I really just found, and transcribed, this extra bit.

couldn't that be said of an EIE? an SLE? an ILE? an LII? in short, practically anybody?

this is starting to feel like a parlour game of tarot cards or something....

[Expat]

What about this:

The woman: ESI.
The man: EIE

The author: perhaps ILE makes the most sense. What he sees as greatest "weaknesses" in her are related to and preferring over it; he doesn't seem to really dislike her as be bewildered by her. The man being his beneficiary might make sense, and it would explain how he got close to them, but later broke bitterly with them both. It would also be consistent with Diana's immediate dislike to what he wrote.

I think EIE-ESI for them, and ILE for him, based on the information we have so far, would make sense because:

- they do seem to have the Se-Ni thing going on, Aggressor-Victim
- the problems they do have seem to be on the Fi-Fe connection
- the author values Fe but at the same time seems to think that the guy's Fe is "overblown" - it's a common reaction to those who have our HA as base function
- the man's image of trying to control everyone suggests more EJ than IP.

What do you think?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

couldn't that be said of an EIE? an SLE? an ILE? an LII? in short, practically anybody?

Well, would that be typically said about EIIs or SLIs? Or ILIs? I disagree that even LIIs would come across like that, unless the author is painting a totally unrecognizable picture.

[Expat]

Also, I think Illusion would fit the overall picture of their relationship well, although of course it's not the only relationship that would fit it.

[Park]

I wouldn't say EIE-ESI is implausible but I would disagree with these:

- the author values Fe but at the same time seems to think that the guy's Fe is "overblown" - it's a common reaction to those who have our HA as base function
- the man's image of trying to control everyone suggests more EJ than IP.

#1. I don't think an ILE author will attack the ENFj's unvalued Fi (his own PoLR) and call him an emotional albino or whatever...

#2. Not necessarily. He isn't described as a control freak. It would require more emphasis on this matter and some other things for me to consider EJ over IP/EP.

But you know better, so....

[Expat]

#1. I don't think an ILE author will attack the ENFj's unvalued Fi (his own PoLR) and call him an emotional albino or whatever....

Well, it all depends on what he means. He's not necessarily attacking the unvalued Fi but the overblown Fe. Just like someone with a Se hidden agenda would attack a Se dominant for being too pushy and aggressive.

[Park]

Just like someone with a Se hidden agenda would attack a Se dominant for being too pushy and aggressive.

...on the expense of not paying enough attention to personal comfort and sensations? (so an ENj would attack ESp's Se on behalf of their lack (or ignorance) of Si???)

[Expat]

A few comments.

I don't have a firm opinion on the author's type. I did have the opinion of EIE for the man way before reading those descriptions - based on other information, I do NOT think that EIEs are typically the way the author is describing the guy. It's obviously a biased description. Which is not to say that it's useless for socionics purposes.

I hadn't really thought much of ESI for the woman before, and it's interesting that her type "emerged" more easily than his.

Also, I think that even if the details are biased, the overall picture of the state of their marriage rings true: connecting in some levels, working in the Se-Ni area, dysfunctional in other levels, and with her apparently more connected to him than he to her.

I will later post their picture for VI purposes - - maybe it will help.

[Blaze]

What about this:

The woman: ESI.
The man: EIE

The author: perhaps ILE makes the most sense. What he sees as greatest "weaknesses" in her are related to and preferring over it; he doesn't seem to really dislike her as be bewildered by her. The man being his beneficiary might make sense, and it would explain how he got close to them, but later broke bitterly with them both. It would also be consistent with Diana's immediate dislike to what he wrote.

I think EIE-ESI for them, and ILE for him, based on the information we have so far, would make sense because:

- they do seem to have the Se-Ni thing going on, Aggressor-Victim
- the problems they do have seem to be on the Fi-Fe connection
- the author values Fe but at the same time seems to think that the guy's Fe is "overblown" - it's a common reaction to those who have our HA as base function
- the man's image of trying to control everyone suggests more EJ than IP.

What do you think?

author ILE: nope. he's too sympathetic toward the woman. and he wouldn't mistake Fi for Fe.

man EIE: nope. there's no Fe. the guy's logical.

woman ESI: nope. too much Fe for that.

[Park]

Fwiw, my first thought about the author's type was that he is probably Fi valuing and maybe ESTj. But that's just a speculation.

[Expat]

...on the expense of not paying enough attention to personal comfort and sensations? (so an ENj would attack ESp's Se on behalf of their lack (or ignorance) of Si???)

No, out of envy.

[Expat]

man EIE: nope. there's no Fe. the guy's logical.

I think the description suggests a lot of Fe.

woman ESI: nope. too much Fe for that.

Where are you seeing so much Fe in her?

[Park]

No, out of envy.

Ok, I can see that. But there's no Fi underestimation in the text whatsoever to suggest ILE imo.

[Expat]

Ok, I can see that. But there's no Fi underestimation in the text whatsoever to suggest ILE imo.

But he does seem to value a lot, and to value, and understand, . So Alpha makes sense.

[Park]

But he does seem to value a lot, and to value, and understand, . So Alpha makes sense.

Why not Delta?

[Expat]

Why not Delta?

If Delta, maybe IEE.

[Park]

author ILE: nope. he's too sympathetic toward the woman. and he wouldn't mistake Fi for Fe.

man EIE: nope. there's no Fe. the guy's logical.

woman ESI: nope. too much Fe for that.

Maybe you'll like my theory (or more precisely, one of my theories) better:

author: LSE; man: ILE; woman: SEE.

[Park]

Bring them pics Expat, they 'll solve everything! Scan some author pics too! Yeah, V.I. FTW!!!

[Joy]

I haven't read any of this topic yet. I'll offer my impressions of this passage as I go along.

"Unlike him she's a normal human being, with emotions. She is capable of love and affection and caring and compassion and warmth and empathy in a way that he is simply not. When he's with other people, he absorbs their emotion and their energy, and gives it back to them with a tremendous radiance that passes for emotion. It's nothing phony, it's heartfelt at the moment, but it's your feeling coming back to you. When he's alone, he's incapable really of feeling much of anything. He's an emotional albino."

This could be a description of a Fe valuing type written by a Fi/Te valuing type.

"Her spiritual mysticism -- is an essential characteristic. She doesn't feel all the bumps on the road because she does have a faith -- it's not "Let Go, Let God" because she tries to manipulate the outcome. But I think that she has a piece with herself over the outcome -- that in times of threats that loom in her life, or have loomed and still loom, they are such that if she took all of them very seriously she'd be a wreck. I think that there's a kind of detachment that probably has a spiritual sense".

If she truly had the type of peace it sounds like he's describing she wouldn't continue to find herself in situations that are as bad as the author is making them sound.

"He works in a different way than [she] -- because his is a more creative intelligence. He can take in the world, and put it together in new ways.

Ne?

She takes in the world, and can at times make good decisions, and can see the fault lines and where the fights are. But she can't necessarily create something new out of it, or create a solution where one doesn't necessarily exist, or have the patience to let the decision present itself. She's much more apt to, when she hits a wall, bang her head into it. He'll figure out a way to go around it or jump over it".

This could be a negative manifestation of the EJ temperament. Also, this description of her makes it clear that she's not as spiritually in tune as perhaps she portrays. This is the reason she does not realize creative solutions.

"She's not a creative thinker -- she's not a heavily substantive person. She's not a heavy-duty intellectual. He's much brighter than she is. She's bright, but she's not very bright. She doesn't spend her time like he does worrying about every problem facing the world, and trying to come up with a solution. [ -- ] She has a certain genre of intelligence, which is that of a very effective advocate".

For her, this could suggest Te dominance. For him... Ti valuing perhaps. But this makes the author sound more Ti/Fe valuing than (s)he did in the first paragraph.

"He's always talking about books that he either just read or something he read in college. And he'll talk about Thomas Aquinas in the conversation. He'll talk about Erasmus. And he'll talk about Paul Kennedy. [ -- ] It will be a melange, a mosaic --

This could be a number of things. Ne dominance comes to mind though for some reason.

With her, there are never footprints of anything she's read beyond immediate preparation for her work".

Te > Ti

"She's not supple, flexible, or terribly skillful politically. She's brittle, rigid, with the fragility of iron that cracks when you drop it as opposed to steel, which doesn't."

"She definitely has a streak of ruthlessness and paranoia [ - - ]. She has enemies. She has an enemies list. She has people she talks to, and people she does not talk to. When she's mad at you she doesn't talk to you for months and months and months. She has a very long shit list. And, she believes in always taking the fight to the other side [ -- ]"

This just sounds like an unhappy person.

"In a real sense she is his human face [- - ] She's a real person. I think the big frustration of their marriage is that she's married to the most elusive, withholding, anal-retentive man you can imagine. He uses denial of affection as his method of getting people to do what he wants them to do - the ones he's close to - rather than to praise or give affection. It's the strangers he showers everything on -- If he feels that his relationship with you is set, there's nothing to lose -- As he does with her."

I've witnessed this in EIE's.

"I believe it's a relationship in which she is -- addicted to him. And she adores him. She's the best thing that ever happened to him. But he's very elusive and very remote. And when he requires rescue she gets more attention, more affection, more love, more of the caring that I believe she craves from him, and also more power than she otherwise would get."

[--] "I believe that it's a relationship based on mutual enabling. Because she likes what happens when she rescues him -- I think to extent that he's capable of loving anybody, he loves her. But it's a very limited capability in the first place. I think that he sometimes resents her and shakes under her domination. Sometime he welcomes her and needs her, because he requires her rescuing. And, other times he doesn't think a whole lot about her at all -- "

"I think if she left him it would be a big blow to him, not in the sense that he'd miss her, but in the sense that he would find unacceptable the image of himself that he'd see in the mirror: the man that [she] left. But he'd get over it, and he would go on".

[Logos]

Yeah now I'm thinking that ILE or LII is more likely for the author than LSI.

I actually thought that the author was something of an asshole. But my guess for the author was either IEE or EII, with strong awareness of , but with it being somewhat undervalued plus valued . This also rightly puts the author at odds with the man in terms of their valued means of information processing, and makes the author more sympathetic to the female, while being critical of the female's use of and lack of .

[Joy]

In summary, he sounds EIE or ILE. She sounds like an unhappy person, probably Te dominant. (fwiw, in the not all that distant past I was very much like the author's description of her.)