Here I go again

[Slacker]

SLIs can certainly have anxiety disorders. My husband had anxiety attacks at one point in his life he had to be medicated for. I don't know if any type is more or less prone to them but anxiety doesn't rule out SLI anyway. Hmmm LSIs have Ne PoLR, and SLIs who have no one near them with strong Ne could have difficulties due to their lack of Ne as well. So maybe LSIs would be more prone to them generally, but SLIs could be prone to that problem depending on the circumstances.

[Jarno]

This is a horrible way to go about typing someone.

That shows poor judgement.

These description are based on existing people, and the differences get pretty clear.

Where are your descriptions by the way? '-)

[Gilly]

That shows poor judgement.

These description are based on existing people, and the differences get pretty clear.

Where are your descriptions by the way? '-)

No, YOU show poor judgment because (a) you believe that people can be easily described and categorized based on simplistic behavioral groupings, which they cant, and (b) you think your personal experience encapsulates enough observation to accurately form these groupings, which it doesn't, and therefore you can't. Unlike you, I don't presume to have a broad enough scope of human nature to put people into simplistic behavioral categories, despite probably having vastly more varied experience with people and numerous more acquaintances and friends. Why? Because I am absolutely 100% positive that it isn't that simple.

The reason typology is hard is precisely because it's not this easy. If it was, would we sit around having insanely abstract theoretical discussions about information metabolism? No. Occam's Razor dictates that, if your method worked, then it would have been developed long ago by people who first chose to observe and categorize people by over-generalized external behavioral traits, as per the humors, and behavior studies never would have bothered to give rise to a theory as nuanced and confusing as Socionics. However, this kind of over-simplification is trite and fruitless, which is why theories like Socionics have been developed to facilitate discourse on deeper motivations and information processing.

Have a nice day.

[jessica129]

this is actually the part that reminds me most of my ISTP friend. she always claims to be shy and nervous in social situations but it's not obvious at all. in fact, the forceful thing is sort of something she tends to do to cover up her shyness. I've seen the way she acts around groups of people and in more intimate settings, so I can tell that she's putting on a "role" in the former. In groups of emotionally expressive and crazy people she gets really nervous that she can't provide the "reaction" that people want from her, so she either goes into Tom Cruise Clown Mode and is like "hey!!! muffin!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or she says things super bluntly and taciturnly.
From my perspective, the "in your face" thing is just Fe-devaluing. Aren't there some INTPs on the forum who are just as forceful in that manner?
If it helps, the way I would describe the difference between INTPs and ISTPs is that the INTP seems more "arrogant" (i.e. "listen to me knock down theories and make vague generalizations from my own perspective"-- Ni leading, Se DS) whereas the ISTP seems more "stubborn" ("no, that is not what people do/how things work/etc. no, no, oh..... maybe? Si leading, Ne DS).
Also, I think you show the same kind of Fi valuing that my friend shows, which is hard to describe, but....umm... it's sort of like you say things that you know can be construed as immoral and mean (e.g. when you stole the fat girl's hot dogs), but you don't really intend it that way. Though people may think you are, you're not really criticising the fat girl; you're playfully mocking the situation because you can (i.e. there are no "bad" consequences). The reason for this is that you feel awkward directly asserting yourself as an ethical person, so you do things in which you illustrate that underneath the front you project, you're actually a good intentioned person. An ENFP would perceive this "good person potential" aspect of you instantly in that story, which (subconsciously) is I think what motivates you to tell it.
That, and because ISTPs do like to be the center of attention....at times.

I really like this post. Especially the Tom Cruise comment, lol.

About the 'anxiety'...I used to have super, super bad anxiety but it's almost non-existant now. Proud to say I've ditched the meds too. I suck at social situations, that's nothing new, but I'm finding the anxiety is easing up for the simple fact i just don't care anymore. Maybe it's old age. Oh well. Okay guys, I'm still ISTP.

[Creepy-]

No, YOU show poor judgment because (a) you believe that people can be easily described and categorized based on simplistic behavioral groupings, which they cant, and (b) you think your personal experience encapsulates enough observation to accurately form these groupings, which it doesn't, and therefore you can't. Unlike you, I don't presume to have a broad enough scope of human nature to put people into simplistic behavioral categories, despite probably having vastly more varied experience with people and numerous more acquaintances and friends. Why? Because I am absolutely 100% positive that it isn't that simple.

My goodness. This makes me think of something: "Do not be so humble; you are not that great" [Golda Meir].

The reason typology is hard is precisely because it's not this easy.

Or, in other words, "The reason typology is hard is precisely because it is hard." That's a non-argument, followed by a lot of rambling that implies you said something in the first place.


I thought Jarno's descriptions were very accurate; they match both my real-world observations of people and much of socionics theory. You dismiss her observations as simplistic and stereotype-based, but socionics [as well as many other things in life] are dependent on observation of such patterns in order to work at all. It's true that we shouldn't let them get out of hand, as there are always exceptions, but to dismiss these patterns as invalid would be silly and counterproductive.

[Jarno]

No, YOU show poor judgment because (a) you believe that people can be easily described and categorized based on simplistic behavioral groupings, which they cant, and (b) you think your personal experience encapsulates enough observation to accurately form these groupings, which it doesn't, and therefore you can't. Unlike you, I don't presume to have a broad enough scope of human nature to put people into simplistic behavioral categories, despite probably having vastly more varied experience with people and numerous more acquaintances and friends. Why? Because I am absolutely 100% positive that it isn't that simple.

The reason typology is hard is precisely because it's not this easy. If it was, would we sit around having insanely abstract theoretical discussions about information metabolism? No. Occam's Razor dictates that, if your method worked, then it would have been developed long ago by people who first chose to observe and categorize people by over-generalized external behavioral traits, as per the humors, and behavior studies never would have bothered to give rise to a theory as nuanced and confusing as Socionics. However, this kind of over-simplification is trite and fruitless, which is why theories like Socionics have been developed to facilitate discourse on deeper motivations and information processing.

Have a nice day.

Jessica deliberately asked for simple descriptions.

BTW It's not that typing is that hard, rather those insanely abstract theoretical discussions make typing harder then necessary. I also agree with songofsappho's explanation.

[strrrng]

i don't understand this at all. why do you socionix people believe that i have ultrarigid-phaedrus-autistic views?

does that really look like what i do to you at all? i really don't get it.

Just a general structuralist attitude and rigidness towards accepting others' opinions. No one is calling you phaedrus, lol.

[strrrng]

if jessica is ISTp, she's the coolest one ever. Most of them annoy the shit out of me, in one way or another.

[jessica129]

if jessica is ISTp, she's the coolest one ever. Most of them annoy the shit out of me, in one way or another.

I've always thoroughly enjoyed INFP's and secretly think they're my dualz.

[strrrng]

I've always thoroughly enjoyed INFP's and secretly think they're my dualz.

sweet

[aestrivex]

Just a general structuralist attitude and rigidness towards accepting others' opinions. No one is calling you phaedrus, lol.

those terms have become meaningless. you apply them to anyone at random who you disagree with. what do you actually mean?

[strrrng]

those terms have become meaningless. you apply them to anyone at random who you disagree with. what do you actually mean?

No, I don't apply them to anyone I disagree with, and even if I did, it's still true in regards to you. Debating with you is like talking to a machine that only emits and lets in certain signals. You always manage to shift the context of the discussion back into your own framework where you're comfortable. You react like hitta (except more counter phobically) to any perceived threat (Se polr hit), which is why it's laughable that you actually think you value that function. And if the person continues to present points which you deem invalid or don't want to implement into your already rigid system (again, Ti is so clear it's absurd), you say something like "this conversation is going nowhere" - similar to what you did with ritella - when in reality, the only immobile thing is you. I have observed and conversed with both INTp subtypes fairly extensively (sarah Ni, cpig Te) and it is blatantly clear you do not process things the same way they do. For one, you lack the comfort with abstraction and ambiguity so common to the Ni subtype (Ni-->Fi isn't exactly clear cut), and your attempts at what you *think* are Te are so blatantly contrived that I wonder if half of the people who think you actually use it have brains. It's similar to what UDP, your identical, does, in terms of getting some preconceived notion of what a function should be like (Ti "rulebook" lol) and then attempt to utilize it. But it's clear you're not dynamic in the least fucking bit, and more concerned with Ti+Si reifications of ideas (hence how you couldn't even infer what I meant in my previous post without me laying it out objectively) than any form of Ni abstraction. As for your definitions of Fe and Fi, well I don't even need to go there. It's clear that you rationalize those two functions to make up for other issues. Your apparent "Fe polr" is nothing more than misguided anger and social frustration. You seem to possess virtually no understanding of how those two functions actually operate, relying instead on behavioral descriptions, again to buttress your own typing. It's absolute bullshit and people are retards for buying into it.

[aestrivex]

No, I don't apply them to anyone I disagree with, and even if I did, it's still true in regards to you. Debating with you is like talking to a machine that only emits and lets in certain signals. You always manage to shift the context of the discussion back into your own framework where you're comfortable. You react like hitta (except more counter phobically) to any perceived threat (Se polr hit), which is why it's laughable that you actually think you value that function. And if the person continues to present points which you deem invalid or don't want to implement into your already rigid system (again, Ti is so clear it's absurd), you say something like "this conversation is going nowhere" - similar to what you did with ritella - when in reality, the only immobile thing is you. I have observed and conversed with both INTp subtypes fairly extensively (sarah Ni, cpig Te) and it is blatantly clear you do not process things the same way they do. For one, you lack the comfort with abstraction and ambiguity so common to the Ni subtype (Ni-->Fi isn't exactly clear cut), and your attempts at what you *think* are Te are so blatantly contrived that I wonder if half of the people who think you actually use it have brains. It's similar to what UDP, your identical, does, in terms of getting some preconceived notion of what a function should be like (Ti "rulebook" lol) and then attempt to utilize it. But it's clear you're not dynamic in the least fucking bit, and more concerned with Ti+Si reifications of ideas (hence how you couldn't even infer what I meant in my previous post without me laying it out objectively) than any form of Ni abstraction. As for your definitions of Fe and Fi, well I don't even need to go there. It's clear that you rationalize those two functions to make up for other issues. Your apparent "Fe polr" is nothing more than misguided anger and social frustration. You seem to possess virtually no understanding of how those two functions actually operate, relying instead on behavioral descriptions, again to buttress your own typing. It's absolute bullshit and people are retards for buying into it.

ok.

[strrrng]

So, it's settled then. Jung was IEI.

[Gilly]

Or, in other words, "The reason typology is hard is precisely because it is hard." That's a non-argument, followed by a lot of rambling that implies you said something in the first place.

Actually if you would read my post you would see that you are misrepresenting, or at least marginalizing, my argument horribly.

I thought Jarno's descriptions were very accurate; they match both my real-world observations of people and much of socionics theory. You dismiss her observations as simplistic and stereotype-based, but socionics [as well as many other things in life] are dependent on observation of such patterns in order to work at all. It's true that we shouldn't let them get out of hand, as there are always exceptions, but to dismiss these patterns as invalid would be silly and counterproductive.

I don't think they are necessarily inaccurate; indeed I think Jarno has described certain subsets of the types fairly well. However I think it is horribly exclusive of alternate manifestations. It's like assuming the first standard deviation describes everyone. There are so many other factors that affect a person's personality outside of type that assuming such behavioral characteristics apply to even the majority of members of a type is absurd. There are no direct links between information metabolism and outward characteristics, and that's all there is to it.

Jessica deliberately asked for simple descriptions.

Unfortunately things are not as [b]simple[/b[ as you make them out to be, which you would realize if you stopped typing people according to your stereotypes. Assuming that such simplistic descriptions account for large enough portions of the members of each type that someone could gain any insight into their own type from them is foolish.

BTW It's not that typing is that hard, rather those insanely abstract theoretical discussions make typing harder then necessary. I also agree with songofsappho's explanation.

No, they don't; theoretical discussions shouldn't hurt your understanding of the ways types manifest, and in my experience, they don't, unless the person is simply out of their league intellectually. Specification only clarifies further what is actually being talked about, as long as people take everything in context and don't go out trying to apply the finer bits of the theory in isolation and expect it to be easy.

[olduser]

i think you are a beta type or a gamma type. you remind me of a cross section of people i am acquainted with wouldn't call friends and they seem to be a mishmash or beta and gamma. your hysterics(which you present in mild-mannered format) make me think Se. good luck in the military. when i was young and naive i told a person who had just joined the military that he had taken a job dodging bullets. i hope he is still alive.

[Jarno]

There are no direct links between information metabolism and outward characteristics, and that's all there is to it.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here by disagreeing with you all the time, but that statement of yours, is the exact opposite of truth. I surely hope no one else uses it as a guideline. I can't understand why you contradict this basic fact of socionics.

[strrrng]

There are no direct links between information metabolism and outward characteristics, and that's all there is to it.

This coming from the guy who linked Fe to seeking fame a few days ago.

[Kristiina]

Jessica, no offence, but if you don't know which types have Fi PoLR, then you should do some reading about it. I would say you're SLE, but so many SLIs identify with you that perhaps you are one. Read about the positions of funtions in different types.

You can also try some newbie typing method. e.g. you can answer what kind of people you usually don't like at all. And what kind of people make you very aggressive. If I asked what kind of people you like, you'd feel obliged to describe at least someone here in this forum.

You can also try this - remember the last major non-romantic fight you had that made you cringe even a while later. Some fight where both people were right in their own way, but you just could not agree with the other person. This kind of situations usually show function incompatibility.

[Gilly]

I think if we look at the people that she actually goes out of her way to respond to in an attempt to engage them, Beta ST is probably the 'highlighted' type.

Do any other SLIs want to "hook up" with this person:

oh yeah, I'm extremely moody, temperamental, and generally psychologically unstable, lol. But I utilize this alongside intensity, impulsiveness and generally extreme behaviors, so I don't care if someone doesn't want to deal with me because of the formerly-mentioned; it is just an appurtenance to the latter anyway, which definitely compensates times ten.

So, I basically want someone who is generally more emotionally stable than me, so that they won't be easily affected by my transient moods, and can help balance me out, but they need to have the same propensity for intense behavior, or else I'll just end up writing them off as a vapid pussy and move on. So, I guess that goes well with seeking an EP, as a static temperament is more stable than dynamic, in the sense of existing in an unchanging reality.

So, I basically just want a crazy person who is cold, so that they can balance out my over-emotionality or whatever lol.


oh yeah, this is in references to bitches ftr (jk, no disrespect intended <3 it's the coffee)

[strrrng]

lol

[jessica129]

Jessica, no offence, but if you don't know which types have Fi PoLR, then you should do some reading about it. I would say you're SLE, but so many SLIs identify with you that perhaps you are one. Read about the positions of funtions in different types.

You can also try some newbie typing method. e.g. you can answer what kind of people you usually don't like at all. And what kind of people make you very aggressive. If I asked what kind of people you like, you'd feel obliged to describe at least someone here in this forum.

You can also try this - remember the last major non-romantic fight you had that made you cringe even a while later. Some fight where both people were right in their own way, but you just could not agree with the other person. This kind of situations usually show function incompatibility.

I've been trying to learn socionics for uh, 3 years now and i just can't commit to reading and comphrending it. It's just really boring and I can't find a good source that explains it in clear terms.

Non romantic fight? I don't know if I could answer that one. I don't get in fights very often with people who i'm not romantically involved with. Only thing that comes to mind are my previous bosses and various cops but those are just verbal back and forths, I've never been in an actual phsyical fight. I'm learning to relax more and not take things so personally...I was kinda crazy there for awhile, lol. I've never gotten in fights with "friends". If I don't like you, I simply don't talk to you. Not going to waste my time arguing.

As far as the types of people who make me aggressive...hmm. Generally anyone who shows disregard for my feelings or someone elses feelings. Cockiness. Poor manners DRIVE ME INSANE. No seriously. Ex slamming doors in my face, not saying please and thank you, those sorts of things. Judgemental people who point out all your flaws without caring how you feel. Bitches. lol, i'm so simple.

Gilly, I just like challenges and excitement, that's all that's about

[Gilly]

Gilly, I just like challenges and excitement, that's all that's about

Right, and while that in and of itself says, to me at least, Beta>Delta, I also think that the specific kind of excitement you seem to depict yourself as being gravitated towards (ie high risk activities like gambling, emotional volatility, etc) definitely reek of Beta.

[jessica129]

ILI is totally out of the picture, huh? So if i were to be in Beta, VI is completely wrong.

[Slacker]

Right, and while that in and of itself says, to me at least, Beta>Delta, I also think that the specific kind of excitement you seem to depict yourself as being gravitated towards (ie high risk activities like gambling, emotional volatility, etc) definitely reek of Beta.

Does this sound Beta > Delta to you?

As far as the types of people who make me aggressive...hmm. Generally anyone who shows disregard for my feelings or someone elses feelings. Cockiness. Poor manners DRIVE ME INSANE. No seriously. Ex slamming doors in my face, not saying please and thank you, those sorts of things. Judgemental people who point out all your flaws without caring how you feel. Bitches. lol, i'm so simple.

It sounded to me like she wants someone with strong Fi and weak Se. Though things like "cockiness" and "poor manners" could mean different things specifically to different people.

Also, if she is ISTp, she would consider Ne to be exciting. Challenging could mean different things to different people, though I could see that pointing to wanting an Ej temperment.

[strrrng]

Yeah Gilly, stop simplifying the betas into these daredevils who push the limits lol. I'm sure jessica has sx in her instinct stacking, which would definitely contribute to a propensity for said things. And like SM said, those words can manifest in a variety of ways. Although betas may be out for more of a raw sensory thrill, I'm sure alphas and deltas find ways to generate rushes (aside from eating brownies and fixing cars).

[Gilly]

Does this sound Beta > Delta to you?

It sounds Fe valuing. The specific behaviors are highly subjective; however the fact that she places significant emphasis on disliking specific kinds of external behavior and expressions indicates valuing Fe to me.

[snegledmaca]

It sounded to me like she wants someone with strong Fi and weak Se.

How?

In the thing I referred to she provided a strong record of bailing out on others, simply leaving them. I can't see a caregiver acting as laxly regarding others as she does.

To elaborate, somebody who wants somebody with strong Fi and weak Se is seeking an infantile type. Meaning, somebody to latch onto to express Si and nullify Ni. They provide an environment and do not expect things to change, ever. If circumstances change they are primarily bent on keeping up the status quo. They have set things up cozy for them, they do not wish for it to change.

A Ni valuing type, on the other hand, goes from one goal to another, seeing opportunities as they emerge, changing direction as the wind blows. They are in constant search for Ni, taking up different profession, careers, essentially drifting, until they find their purpose, goal, vision. Which they then develop with intensity and rigor. Ok, that would be more of a Se dominant thing. Se creative would make more of an effort to try to nullify Ne with being much more set in their ways. Resisting change much like the Si ego, but unlike them with passion and rigor, that is, with strong Se determination and certainty. They do not act because they are frightened and scared that they will lose their comfortable position they have set up for themselves, genuinely uncertain of what tomorrow will bring and desperately trying to cling to the familiar, to what they have experience in dealing with.

But I'm getting sidetracked, what I wanted to say is that jessica is not bent on keeping the status quo, she is adrift, desperately needing Ni dominant guidance. At least from what she has revealed about herself in this forum. That coupled with devalued Fi I presented earlier, would make her a beta ST IMO.

Also, an example of a type of personality I think jessica is.

[jessica129]

A Ni valuing type, on the other hand, goes from one goal to another, seeing opportunities as they emerge, changing direction as the wind blows. They are in constant search for Ni, taking up different profession, careers, essentially drifting, until they find their purpose, goal, vision. Which they then develop with intensity and rigor. Ok, that would be more of a Se dominant thing. Se creative would make more of an effort to try to nullify Ne with being much more set in their ways. Resisting change much like the Si ego, but unlike them with passion and rigor, that is, with strong Se determination and certainty. They do not act because they are frightened and scared that they will lose their comfortable position they have set up for themselves, genuinely uncertain of what tomorrow will bring and desperately trying to cling to the familiar, to what they have experience in dealing with.

But I'm getting sidetracked, what I wanted to say is that jessica is not bent on keeping the status quo, she is adrift, desperately needing Ni dominant guidance. At least from what she has revealed about herself in this forum. That coupled with devalued Fi I presented earlier, would make her a beta ST IMO.

Also, an example of a type of personality I think jessica is.

I think what you say here is very accurate and i completely identify with the bolded part and the example you provided. SLI is seeming more and more unlikely lately More on this later, must get going.

[Park]

[snegledmaca]

Here is an insight into the mentality of Si ego.

Like I said, they set things up for themselves and don't expect change. Circumstances are almost solely viewed through this prism of "how this affects me in my comfortable sofa". Although this is not really to be taken literally, for example, Si creatives often see their families as the "comfortable sofa" and will work long and hard to maintain it. That is, what I say primarily refers to taking things for granted, not expecting things and circumstances to change. But when they do Si ego types try with all their might to keep the stability they have built up for themselves.

First line of defense is past experience. As creatures of habit turned mostly towards maintaining the existence of a current situation, they rely on past experiences to predict things and how to fix problems. That is, their method of dealing with new things is to know in advance how to solve, fix, address them.

Second line of defense is innovation. When something new comes around and it cannot be rejected, like say a new piece of technology or work method, or a problem cannot be fixed by old methods, or generally when novelty cannot be dealt with and cannot be avoided then they rely heavily on improvisation. The main focus is again to keep whatever they have in a status quo, to have a safe haven, a little piece of security that never changes and on which they can depend on. This means developing new methods, new way of tackling the issue, problem.

On it's own terms this is actually a source of great pleasure, acquiring experience. For example taking a project home and practicing on it. Alphas do this with people, learn how to deal with new people, they might take up a community role such as caring for the elderly, or bring a kitten home. Deltas with machinery, learn new trick of the trade, take up junk to fix home. But both can then later fall back on this acquired experience if trouble were to arise. In essence, Si ego gravitates towards expertise through experience.


But all of this is largely based on myself with little reference to other people so take it with a grain of salt.

[JuJu]

First line of defense is past experience. As creatures of habit turned mostly towards maintaining the existence of a current situation, they rely on past experiences to predict things and how to fix problems. That is, their method of dealing with new things is to know in advance how to solve, fix, address them.

This past experience paragraph sounds a lot more like Ni than Si, IMO...

[Slacker]

How?

In the thing I referred to she provided a strong record of bailing out on others, simply leaving them. I can't see a caregiver acting as laxly regarding others as she does.

To elaborate, somebody who wants somebody with strong Fi and weak Se is seeking an infantile type. Meaning, somebody to latch onto to express Si and nullify Ni. They provide an environment and do not expect things to change, ever. If circumstances change they are primarily bent on keeping up the status quo. They have set things up cozy for them, they do not wish for it to change.

A Ni valuing type, on the other hand, goes from one goal to another, seeing opportunities as they emerge, changing direction as the wind blows. They are in constant search for Ni, taking up different profession, careers, essentially drifting, until they find their purpose, goal, vision. Which they then develop with intensity and rigor. Ok, that would be more of a Se dominant thing. Se creative would make more of an effort to try to nullify Ne with being much more set in their ways. Resisting change much like the Si ego, but unlike them with passion and rigor, that is, with strong Se determination and certainty. They do not act because they are frightened and scared that they will lose their comfortable position they have set up for themselves, genuinely uncertain of what tomorrow will bring and desperately trying to cling to the familiar, to what they have experience in dealing with.

But I'm getting sidetracked, what I wanted to say is that jessica is not bent on keeping the status quo, she is adrift, desperately needing Ni dominant guidance. At least from what she has revealed about herself in this forum. That coupled with devalued Fi I presented earlier, would make her a beta ST IMO.

Also, an example of a type of personality I think jessica is.

Have you ever read anything about Ne? Ne-valuing people don't want things to change? Ne-valuing people don't go from one goal to another?

[JuJu]

stop simplifying the betas into these daredevils who push the limits lol.

This has become a very stupid stereotype on this forum...

[Slacker]

Here's an extended IEE description from Rick's blog that explains Ne in IEEs. We are all about change and moving from goal to goal and all that stuff you said proves she wants someone with Ni and not Ne.

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/0...scription.html

Unless I'm misunderstanding you. Because I am a bit baffled.

[Jarno]

I think were drifting of the right path here.

Jessica wanted simple concrete explanations of the types. (which is a very good idea)

Now were talking about IM elements, her non-ego functions. blablabla. Confusion sets in.

[Slacker]

I think were drifting of the right path here.

Jessica wanted simple concrete explanations of the types. (which is a very good idea)

Now were talking about IM elements, her non-ego functions. blablabla. Confusion sets in.

Well he said people with Si in their ego block would have a dual who doesn't like change, and that's just not the case. And she read that and said she identifies with that so maybe she doesn't have Si in her ego block. I think she's SLI, though I can't claim to be sure, but he said ENFps don't like change. That certainly is going ot confuse her. I can't just leave that there.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

How?

In the thing I referred to she provided a strong record of bailing out on others, simply leaving them. I can't see a caregiver acting as laxly regarding others as she does.

To elaborate, somebody who wants somebody with strong Fi and weak Se is seeking an infantile type. Meaning, somebody to latch onto to express Si and nullify Ni. They provide an environment and do not expect things to change, ever. If circumstances change they are primarily bent on keeping up the status quo. They have set things up cozy for them, they do not wish for it to change.

A Ni valuing type, on the other hand, goes from one goal to another, seeing opportunities as they emerge, changing direction as the wind blows. They are in constant search for Ni, taking up different profession, careers, essentially drifting, until they find their purpose, goal, vision. Which they then develop with intensity and rigor. Ok, that would be more of a Se dominant thing. Se creative would make more of an effort to try to nullify Ne with being much more set in their ways. Resisting change much like the Si ego, but unlike them with passion and rigor, that is, with strong Se determination and certainty. They do not act because they are frightened and scared that they will lose their comfortable position they have set up for themselves, genuinely uncertain of what tomorrow will bring and desperately trying to cling to the familiar, to what they have experience in dealing with.

But I'm getting sidetracked, what I wanted to say is that jessica is not bent on keeping the status quo, she is adrift, desperately needing Ni dominant guidance. At least from what she has revealed about herself in this forum. That coupled with devalued Fi I presented earlier, would make her a beta ST IMO.

Also, an example of a type of personality I think jessica is.

Most, almost all of this is wrong.

[snegledmaca]

Have you ever read anything about Ne? Ne-valuing people don't want things to change? Ne-valuing people don't go from one goal to another?

Roughly, yes. On their own Si people don't want things to change and don't go from one goal to another. That is what their duals do.

Hmm, I think that perhaps I didn't express myself properly. That is, I didn't really express properly what I mean to by resistance to change.

When I said Si ego people do not want things to change, I meant that as on their part, they do not want things to change in terms of Si. Well, not really not change, but change drastically. That is, they do not want to lose control over a Si environment. When, for example, they have a family, a secure job and so on, they do not want that to change. Generally if they have their situation set up they do not want to lose control over it. And they focus on setting up a situation.

Regarding valuing Ne, this is not really an issue. Because Si complements Ne. When Ne is full of ideas the Si is there to provide a safe, reliable environment for those ideas to flourish. But the Si doesn't really change, it just complements Ne. Where Ne goes, Si follows, you come home to a secure, reliable environment. And if Si people were to be left to their own devices, they would stick to one field and become experts there, that is, staying in one place with their secure environment.

Here's an extended IEE description from Rick's blog that explains Ne in IEEs. We are all about change and moving from goal to goal and all that stuff you said proves she wants someone with Ni and not Ne.

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/0...scription.html

Unless I'm misunderstanding you. Because I am a bit baffled.

Regarding jessica, the main point I am trying to make is that Se ego people are decisive, but often don't know what to be decisive about, this is Ni seeking, and jessica has this.

Also regarding what I said she needs, I didn't say she needs somebody who is all about change and moving from goal to goal and all that stuff, I said she *is* somebody who is all about change and moving from goal to goal and all that stuff. I said she needs somebody to stabilize this behavior of hers. If anything, what you say would point to Ne dominance for her as a possibility.

Well he said people with Si in their ego block would have a dual who doesn't like change, and that's just not the case. And she read that and said she identifies with that so maybe she doesn't have Si in her ego block. I think she's SLI, though I can't claim to be sure, but he said ENFps don't like change. That certainly is going ot confuse her. I can't just leave that there.

No I didn't say that. At least I didn't indent to. I said they would not like change and then proceeded to explain how. I didn't really attempt to describe Ne dominants.

You are right in saying Ne dominants are all about change, but that is looking at thing on their own terms. On it's own terms Ne is "wild and uncontrolled". But on it's own terms Si is not about change and is about maintaining, controlling the status quo.

That was largely my point, how Si is on it's own terms. And to be honest I focused more on describing how Ni complements Se, as I saw that this was the case with jessica, and didn't really attempt to describe how Ne complements Si. I just gave Si on it's own terms, which I thought should enough, be recognizable to a supposed Si dominant. Hmm, perhaps I should try to show the difference in attitude between those two pairs and how I think jessica is not Si-Ne.

Like I said, Se dominants have decisiveness, they see opportunities as they arise around them, they seize the day. But the issue is of not knowing what to do from then on. They might get their hands on some cash, but where from here? What to do now? This sets them adrift. They tend to focus on the short term, seeking relief in small time seizing of opportunities in a more or less random manner. They do not have a plan or vision of how to develop what they do have. This is where Ni steps in. It directs the Se. It tells it what is needed to be done, where to go from now. Se stops being random and Se and Ni together accomplish an applicable accumulation of power.

This is what I see is the case with jessica. She can refute me if I am wrong.

Regarding Si, Si dominants don't have decisiveness but rather an awareness of their environment. They know when things have deteriorated, they know when action needs to be taken, on what and how. But they don't see the opportunities as they arise around them, they don't seize the day. They focus on maintaining their environment. They get stuck in their comfortable position and sit there thinking, "gosh I'm comfortable... but I'm bored". If left to their own devices they develop their situation to an optimum and halt there, tying to keep and ensure the optimum. They miss out on things around them. Ne comes in as a way to help Si there. It provides the Si with opportunities and options, so the Si now has lot's and lot's of options of things where they can do the same thing of trying to get the environment functioning at an optimum. Together Ne and Si build working environments.

What do you think about this? Also perhaps my description, if one is to find them valid, are skewed more towards gamma and delta.

Most, almost all of this is wrong.

Elaborate. Then what is correct?

[jessica129]

Right or wrong, whatever type you're describing, snegledmaca, I am.