snippet from EII domain

[xerx]

...

[Christy B]

How true is the above for all EIIs? esp. bolded parts.

I think I do that.

[dbmmama]

i know i do that, and all of the EII domain i relate to... the bolded parts are why some people see me as a chameleon and also why i have a hard time determining my type. because with each person that "helps" me, i'm defining myself from their reaction to me. in the end, it sucks because then i don't really know who i am, other than the metaphysical me.

the part about inner lives being secret used to be more true for me. i've come out of my shell considerably with a lot of self-help work, that has helped me feel safer to do so.

still don't know that that makes me EII but i do relate to it very much.

[dbmmama]

i know i do that, and all of the EII domain i relate to... the bolded parts are why some people see me as a chameleon and also why i have a hard time determining my type. because with each person that "helps" me, i'm defining myself from their reaction to me. in the end, it sucks because then i don't really know who i am, other than the metaphysical me.

the part about inner lives being secret used to be more true for me. i've come out of my shell considerably with a lot of self-help work, that has helped me feel safer to do so.

still don't know that that makes me EII but i do relate to it very much.

it just dawned on me why *I* feel i am constantly changing and others see me (irl) as static. it's because INSIDE, that secret inner life, IS always changing and evolving. it's just that noone ever sees it, except me.

"Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water." Zen proverb

[munenori2]

How true is the above for all EIIs? esp. bolded parts.

I have some serious reservations about the EII domain as it stands. I do find the bolded parts more true than the rest (and of course what little I've added to the domain on my own) but whoever added what else is there, if I recall correctly, my response was roughly WTF.

it just dawned on me why *I* feel i am constantly changing and others see me (irl) as static. it's because INSIDE, that secret inner life, IS always changing and evolving. it's just that noone ever sees it, except me.

"Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water." Zen proverb

I agree a lot here, dbmmama.

[Ms. Kensington]

it just dawned on me why *I* feel i am constantly changing and others see me (irl) as static. it's because INSIDE, that secret inner life, IS always changing and evolving. it's just that noone ever sees it, except me.

"Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water." Zen proverb

why did you quote this proverb when talking about whats the same inside you? are you saying that the outside behavior appears the same while the inside changed due to enlightenment? Is that what this proverb means?

[dbmmama]

why did you quote this proverb when talking about whats the same inside you? are you saying that the outside behavior appears the same while the inside changed due to enlightenment? Is that what this proverb means?

i wasn't talking about what was the same inside me, but what is evolving and changing inside me. that's my enlightenment.

i "may" look the same to others, the outside world, but the inner me *knows* differently in every new moment, enlightenment, ascension, etc....

no idea really if this is what is true for EIIs but it is for me. and then i seek to find new ways to express and be that enlightenment from my own inner knowing, even if it the same "action" as in the proverb, as before. sometimes, it's new and sometimes it's not. it all depends on what my inner knowing tells me to do.

[DirectorAbbie]

My brother told me what three letters an ESTj is, but I forgot them. Since most threads use 3-letter combinations, please tell me what mine is.

[Sabo]

How true is the above for all EIIs? esp. bolded parts.

I'm not sure whether I'm EII, but I think I'm delta NF.. anyway, I definitely relate to that. I never thought of it being related to Fi, but actually it seems related to strong Fi combined with weak Se. The first bolded part shows how it's Fi, and the second part you bolded shows how it also has to do with weak Se I think.

[UDP]

So, how do you let someone know you are honest, EIIs?

This has all the wonderful, uplifting potential that the technical descriptions talk about, but there's a downside, too. We consequently define ourselves by the way others react to us. So Fi-dominant types are likely to have the lowest self-esteem in the socion. We will respond to you according to the rules of your reality: that makes you happy, keeps the environment peaceful & good, and keeps me safest. But we keep our inner lives secret.

There is, of course, a certain element of contrivance there. How do you really show someone that you're actually feeling something, legitimately? I'm somewhat reminded of Minde's posts about how there has to be certainty that such an expression will result in a positive reaction, before it such a revelation can take place.


Also, the quote reminds me of...

This girl (or man) is happy to live according to the aesthetic tastes and desires of someome else, not so much because she doesn’t have her own, but because she desires the complete harmony of interrelations, complete confluence of will [ - - ] The girl wants what pleases him and to adapt to it. But unfortunate is the man who is not a logical extrovert and to whom she can’t adapt, that is, he cannot satisfy her basic requirement: to always and everywhere have his opinion. Unfortunate is the man, who, although very clever, is inclined to present his opinions as reflections, not as short mandatory wordings. The ethical-intuitive introvert is constantly dissatisfied and unahappy next to those.

from ausura's duality description

Basically, a "" leading person is best in this way because they are sort of the opposite of Fi, in that they don't filter anything, and are always giving them just consistent, raw, uninterpreted data - that the EII itself can analyze.

I wonder - is having such raw data, facts, etc - is that appealing and "safe" feeling? And is it so because, if you are not wondering how much the data is manipulated or otherwise altered and modified, then you can feel like you are accurately responding or "Fi-interpreting" the situation as you desire?

That is to say, are you looking for straight information and straight input that is sans modification, so that you can interpret it truly or correctly? It makes me think of the Fi-laser beam analogy - you want unclouded and clear information to aim the laser beam or assessment of the situation, so that it will be correct or "right"?

[Christy B]

So, how do you let someone know you are honest, EIIs?


There is, of course, a certain element of contrivance there. How do you really show someone that you're actually feeling something, legitimately?

We don't feel we need to show anyone we are honest because we just "are". I think Fe would "show" honesty, as well as "show" someone what they were feeling. Fi doesn't have to do with showing emotions.

[UDP]

We don't feel we need to show anyone we are honest because we just "are".

What does that mean, particularly the "are" in quotations?


That's not exactly what I was getting at. Honesty is not an emotion, at least in how I'm talking about it, so I'm not sure why you are equating it with "Fi doesn't have to do with showing emotions". ETA: although I suppose, to go off of what you are saying - I see how Fe is more about openly expressing what you feel all the time - so in that case, when does an EXI, if ever, really express their inner emotions? What is necessary for that true feeling to come out? (I would almost say EII rather than EXI - I'm not sure ESIs are so reserved in this particular way)

(I'm asking another "uneasy question", so if it's unanswerable, that's fine) And, I may be unable to address it properly. The connotations of what I am saying ("contrivance") are posing it like I am trying to point out how EIIs are deceptive or "liars" or something like that. But I'm not trying to do that, I just don't know what other words to use to try to point out what I'm really getting at.


Going back to this quote

This has all the wonderful, uplifting potential that the technical descriptions talk about, but there's a downside, too. We consequently define ourselves by the way others react to us. So Fi-dominant types are likely to have the lowest self-esteem in the socion. We will respond to you according to the rules of your reality: that makes you happy, keeps the environment peaceful & good, and keeps me safest. But we keep our inner lives secret.

When do you go past "responding to you according to the rules of your reality" and stating how you feel, in terms of your inner feelings?

The quote seems to show some separation, some sort of difference. I may not be addressing the difference with the right words here, but I'm seeking to understanding what the difference, or what affects the separation - between reacting and playing to others' understanding of reality, and really experiencing the core, the inner feelings.

Again, I'm not sure my questions can be answered. It may just be that "such is the case".



PS: Or, you could just list some personal experiences as to what you felt you needed or wanted to allow you to express those inner feelings, etc. Patching together what Minde has said in the LSE-Si thread, and what some other EIIs have said, it has to do with the expected reception of the revelation of those inner thoughts. It seems like it has something to do with the perceived effect such expression or revelation would have on relational harmony.

[Christy B]

So, how do you let someone know you are honest, EIIs?


There is, of course, a certain element of contrivance there. How do you really show someone that you're actually feeling something, legitimately?

We don't feel we need to show anyone we are honest because we just "are". I think Fe would "show" honesty, as well as "show" someone what they were feeling. Fi doesn't have to do with showing emotions.

That's not exactly what I was getting at. Honesty is not an emotion, at least in how I'm talking about it, so I'm not sure why you are equating it with "Fi doesn't have to do with showing emotions".

.

[Minde]

So, how do you let someone know you are honest, EIIs?


There is, of course, a certain element of contrivance there. How do you really show someone that you're actually feeling something, legitimately?

Why must the "surface" emotion be any less true or sincere than the "hidden" emotions? Generally, when I am reacting to someone, or mirroring what they're feeling/seeing, I really am feeling that way. Even if underneath I'm feeling something else, too. It's not always either/or, but both/and.

I don't like having to contrive or fake emotions or reactions. So I avoid that when I can (sometimes avoiding situations where I'd need to feel fakely). In normal situations, when I'm "molding" myself to the person/people I'm with, my reactions and emotions are truly felt - as in, I really am feeling them. That doesn't nullify any of my hidden emotions, it only means that the inner ones are pushed out of the way.

I can feel many things at once and have a multitude of reactions, all of them real. Some are more appropriate for display than others. Some are strong and noticeable and others are subtle and hard to pinpoint.

As for how you can tell if my feelings are "honest" - since I don't like being fake, I'll probably have discomfort emanating from me somehow. That may require knowing me, though I've also been told I'm an open book and that my face is very expressive. (If, however, I've managed to convince myself to really be feeling that way despite initially not wanting it, then my expressions will reflect those feelings, if that makes any sense.) So, *shrug*, not sure how to help you with that one.

Basically, a "" leading person is best in this way because they are sort of the opposite of Fi, in that they don't filter anything, and are always giving them just consistent, raw, uninterpreted data - that the EII itself can analyze.

I wonder - is having such raw data, facts, etc - is that appealing and "safe" feeling? And is it so because, if you are not wondering how much the data is manipulated or otherwise altered and modified, then you can feel like you are accurately responding or "Fi-interpreting" the situation as you desire?

That is to say, are you looking for straight information and straight input that is sans modification, so that you can interpret it truly or correctly? It makes me think of the Fi-laser beam analogy - you want unclouded and clear information to aim the laser beam or assessment of the situation, so that it will be correct or "right"?

Yes, to go kind of on a tangent - it could even be said that the "real" emotions are the surface and not the hidden ones, as the surface ones interact with reality while the inner ones are more... withdrawn and perhaps separated from reality. Which, to go even further on this line of thinking, might show why the inner feelings have a need for straightforward factual input, a secure external reality and judgment that they can base themselves on. But I guess that's close to what you were saying.

ETA: although I suppose, to go off of what you are saying - I see how Fe is more about openly expressing what you feel all the time - so in that case, when does an EXI, if ever, really express their inner emotions? What is necessary for that true feeling to come out? (I would almost say EII rather than EXI - I'm not sure ESIs are so reserved in this particular way)

I express myself all the time. Especially to those I'm close to and know best and trust. I have a relatively large amount of those kind of people in my life, so it's possible that I'm more used to openness than some other EIIs. So, sometimes just out of habit I think I end up sharing myself to people with whom I might not have otherwise shared, that perhaps if I was more cautious I wouldn't (sometimes). My sister was just commenting the other day, in fact, about how I'm very open with how I'm feeling about something or someone. She finds it easy to tell how I'm feeling about things.

Anyway, sometimes I'm not even completely cognizant of what's going on inside of me. All that stuff inside can be hard to sort through and organize.

Going back to this quote
When do you go past "responding to you according to the rules of your reality" and stating how you feel, in terms of your inner feelings?

The quote seems to show some separation, some sort of difference. I may not be addressing the difference with the right words here, but I'm seeking to understanding what the difference, or what affects the separation - between reacting and playing to others' understanding of reality, and really experiencing the core, the inner feelings.

Generally I respond using my own "rules of reality" when I think the other person is open enough (or needy enough of it) to be receptive. So, "will you listen?" and "do you need it?" determine whether I'll share.

And, again, just because I'm taking part in another person's reality doesn't make it less real or legitimate, or that it isn't (or doesn't become) a part of me.

[UDP]

Thank you. That seems like a very complex thing there, I wasn't sure how much could be said about it, but that at least makes sense.

I express myself all the time. Especially to those I'm close to and know best and trust. I have a relatively large amount of those kind of people in my life, so it's possible that I'm more used to openness than some other EIIs

IME/IMO, that is generally relevant. I know one EII who is extremely un-open, and I think it may be due to her lack of people she feels like she can trust (in general).

[Melix]

How true is the above for all EIIs? esp. bolded parts.

I'm so glad you posted this.

For as long as I can remember I've always done that. When I first came to the realization that I act different around certain people I tried to stop it, because I thought it made me seem like a fake person, but its a really hard habit to kick. I never knew why I did that.

After reading that I had an epiphany. Thats exactly why!