Discussion of INFp/IEI stereotypes: can you relate?

[redbaron]

Hmmm... well I'm certainly not goofy-looking! LOL I guess you might chalk some of that up to subtype/enneagram/instinct stacking. You definitely do seem more aggressive than some other IEIs I know (most of whom are Ni-sub) I do consider myself emotionally tough. I feel like I can stand up to my own feelings as well as handle the feelings of others without wilting or freaking out or whatever. I totally love both the physical groundedness of SLEs as well as their goal-oriented mindset and occasional in-your-face manner. I feel like being around them makes me stronger. It's like their Se rubs off on me or something. Gives me my own motivation and purpose somehow. It's true, I'm NOT a good leader. I really suck at leading actually. And I don't prefer to be the one to take initiative but I will do it sometimes. I've gotten better with that as I've gotten older. The marrying for money thing is b.s. But I do think that IEIs can be very adaptable (at least the enneatype 4s are. 6s have a harder time because they tend to worry about having enough). If they don't have money, they can make-do and be happy with very little. I feel like my adaptability is one of my strongest assets. Not to say I don't appreciate the finer things in life, just that I don't need those things to be content. (maybe it's not type-related)

[07490]

You think you can be EIE? I related to alot of what you post, I don't like asking for help also etc...

[redbaron]

You think you can be EIE? I related to alot of what you post, I don't like asking for help also etc...

that thought did cross my mind also.

[07490]

(I don't see any of the IEIs I know begging for help neither - they'd probably rather go to hell than ask for help, as I know them).[/B]

I should proberly pull this up also , so it won't be confused that I think IEI ask for help too becuase they do not as how mimosa said, there are types that are more prone to asking for help but not the IEI as well.

[redbaron]

FWIW, Wittmont knows me personally, and he's 100% certian I'm IEI. Wouldn't he known if I was his mirror instead of his identical?? How would our relations differ if we were IEI-EIE friends instead of IEI-IEI friends? Does anyone know the difference?

this actually convinces me the most that you're IEI. It's so much easier to tell in real life. And I feel like I always can spot my identicals. EIEs are more hard-edged and purpose-driven or something. Maybe it would be easier to spot the rationality vs. irrationality or the EJ temperament. But you know, given your dating history with SLEs, I think IEI is pretty much a solid typing choice for you.

[JuJu]

I relate the most to strrrng, Juju and Glamourama of the Beta NFs (not necessarily in opinions, but in "style"), and I do think they are all IEIs.

Well, you know, you're wrong about one.

My type's been obvious to me since right about Christmas '08... Everything about Socionics clicked suddenly--whereas before it was all somewhat nebulous.

I write this, you know, just so you take it into account...

If the choice is between Fe-IEI and Ni-EIE... In another thread, someone posted a video of the actor named Robt Pattinson... A clear Fe-IEI... Compare with, for example, Dennis Hopper or John Lennon... clear Ni-EIEs.

It can be tough to tell these two types apart, you know?

(I don't know shit about the enneagram. Frankly, I think it's bullshit, a lot of it... But you know, maybe there's something to the 3-4 stuff... 3w4 is pretty clear for me, as far as that system is concerned... You are 4w3?)

EIEs are more hard-edged and purpose-driven or something. Maybe it would be easier to spot the rationality vs. irrationality or the EJ temperament.

The EJ-IP difference can be small re: EIE-IEI... (See Lennon-Tupac comparison in another thread.) This makes it all the harder to tell the difference in some cases.

I agree with you that dating history can tell a lot...That's partly what helped me to get my type right. E.g. It finally hit me that there's no way that the SLE is my dual, as much as I enjoy their company. (SLE is my Mom's type--an activity relation if ever there was one...) Whereas my relationships with LSIs were life-altering.

[JuJu]

The problem with stereotypes is that they ruin so much in typing processes, and I would say that the biggest problem of Socionics, is that it's extremely difficult to type people. I'd love to broaden the mind of people a bit in this...

AMEN!! ...YES!

I agree with you about the "always slave" sentence... It's ridiculous... My cousin--who, by the way Starfall, looks so similar to you it's mind-blowing--is certainly no slave. She may have a few slaves, (willing slaves,) but I'm certain she'd find the sentence degrading and crazy.

As we all get to know more about Socionics, I think it would be good for us to start writing some reference material (if there's time)--because, you know, those Russian translations can be, like you mentioned, out of line. Slave = ridiculous

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

That shit pisses me off too.

However I disagree that stereotypes are inherently false. They're based on constructs and conceptions in the mind, as well as a good 'hunch.' Stereotypes are never true, but they're based on truth.

Gross generalizations are needed to survive, no matter how offensive they are. Although I do not agree at all that IEIs are naturally soft/weak, I think...due to the placement of the functions we find ourselves in 'background roles' even if we may be socially skilled. We can lead, and be the 'active heroes' of society, although I think we find ourselves better suited to be in a position just under the big boss. Certainly not in the background/completely passive, just one under the main leader. That's usually where I find myself in social situations. I'll try to put more thought on why this happens later.

Besides being pissed off at the IEI stereotypes, why are you *not* IEI? You could very well be something else. But for what it's worth, I never found you to be my Identical anyhow. Same with redbaron. ENFj makes sense for you, ENFp for redbaron (slacker mom's identical).

I think both INFp/INFj people get typed too much, as it's easy to self-type yourself as those two types when you could be something else. But also, the very nature of psychology and psychological theory/online message board communication is going to attract a lot of IEIs.

[Sirena]

Although some of these things irritate me, I tend to not take them very literally. I tend to focus on a more general message behind it, the underlying feel. Which is why reading something like "IEIs are the slaves, never the masters" doesn't really bother me. I see it as a given that there are always exceptions because just in general, I always see things as "more complicated than that". That's probably why I would have a hard time deciding whether I'm more submissive or more controlling, for instance. Honestly, I'm both. It's just such a complicated dynamic the way I see it in my head. That's why I like the victim description that mentions how victims can be aggressive and come off looking like aggressors at times, but that deep down they are testing people to find the person worthy to submit to. That's how I see myself. I certainly don't walk around turning over on my back submitting to everyone. I can be quite rebellious, actually...usually out of a feeling of "who the fuck are you to try to control me". My instinct is usually to rebel until maybe the right person comes along and puts me in my place or something.

So what I'm saying is that most of those statements are poorly worded, yes. But personally that doesn't bother me so much because I seem to automatically translate what I read into "abstract wordless idea" in my mind. I get that the essence of the statement within its context is that IEIs ultimately want someone who is worthy of their respect and admiration. Worthy enough to listen to and let take charge of those things we suck at. Someone who will protect us from the outside world, while we protect them from their internal worlds (). I don't automatically take it as being a doormat and spending every minute of the day worshipping someone. But I can relate to the power dynamic illustrated. It makes us feel grounded and allows us to relax. It's reminiscent of what some IEIs on here have said about loving how SLEs will take charge and just do something for them, without even asking if it's okay or if there's a preference.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Good post Sirena. That's how I see it too.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I continue to slip away from people forever and ever and ever.

That's a very IEI trait. Well another stereotype, but it's true more than not. =D

I get what you're saying but it's like , remember- this is all malleable. It all can be argued with. Until somebody proves without a matter of a doubt that socionics is THE typology, using very advanced scientific formulae comes along, then perceptions and stereotypes is pretty much all we got.

Believe me you can drive yourself crazy with this shit. =/

You have to admit it's a lot more advanced, complex and intricate than MBTI though.

[Sirena]

Good post Sirena. That's how I see it too.

cool, thanks!

That is the way I used to think also, and B&Ds statement about stereotypes (projections) being necessary is true as well. However, the stereotypes also make it near impossible to accurately type people... I am not here so much to understand myself (I don't feel Socionics help much with that, to be honest), I'm here more to understand the intertype relations, but then I need to be able to type people. I am IEI, yet people question my type because I don't fit the stereotypical box. That's just ONE example of how Socionics is hard to use in reality - BECAUSE of the stereotypes. That's why I'd love to break some of them.

I get what you mean and stupidly simplistic statements like "all IEIs have weird haircuts" are well, stupid. I'd say my haircut is pretty much within the normal range, lol. So, I think things like that are dangerous in as far as people take it literally, which some obviously do. I just take it to mean that we tend to want to stand out in some unique, yet subtle way. I'm uncomfortable with a lot of attention and I am self-conscious so I would probably never be bold enough to make some sort of fashion statement. The way I express this is rather by wearing clothes with subtle but unique details or adding a detail to my outfit with jewelry or something.

It's also difficult for me to know where to draw the line between stereotype and accuracy when trying to type someone. I question myself all the time for the same reason. I wish there was a simple and concrete answer to "what makes someone a certain type", therefore being able to more accurately know what to chuck up to individual differences. Seriously, that's a huge problem for me when typing people. Plus I never feel I'm being objective. Eh, people are complex though, which is what makes this fun in the first place. I see my sucking at this more as my own inability to make those logical connections, since my mind just continues to speculate endlessly.

Yes, I like the Victim description too, but I would never "submit" to anyone. I continue to slip away from people forever and ever and ever. I refuse to be "controlled" - there's always an inner attitude that it is my choice for the moment to be with someone - and the partner will have to prove himself worthy again and again and again. I'm not controllable. I'm not submissive. Unless I chose to be. My ex SLE said I behaved like air - slipping through his fingers every time he thought he "had" me.

I have to say this doesn't resonate much with me, but it's hard to say whether that's type-related or not. I mean, I agree with some of this. It's not like it's the opposite of who I am, but the overall feel of it doesn't resonate. For one, I see myself as more irrational (in the common sense of the word) than that. I don't think I have nor would I want to have the kind of control you speak of. I'll think about this and try to explain myself better later.

[betterthan]

[QUOTE=Mimosa Pudica;506979]That is the way I used to think also, and B&Ds statement about stereotypes (projections) being necessary is true as well. However, the stereotypes also make it near impossible to accurately type people... I am not here so much to understand myself (I don't feel Socionics help much with that, to be honest), I'm here more to understand the intertype relations, but then I need to be able to type people. I am IEI, yet people question my type because I don't fit the stereotypical box. That's just ONE example of how Socionics is hard to use in reality - BECAUSE of the stereotypes. That's why I'd love to break some of them.



Yes, I like the Victim description too, but I would never "submit" to anyone. I continue to slip away from people forever and ever and ever. I refuse to be "controlled" - there's always an inner attitude that it is my choice for the moment to be with someone - and the partner will have to prove himself worthy again and again and again. I'm not controllable. I'm not submissive. Unless I chose to be. My ex SLE said I behaved like air - slipping through his fingers every time he thought he "had" me.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I agree. They have to constantly work for it, they need to prove themselves over and over again. They can win me into submission, but not for long - they always have to keep fighting for it.

[Satan]

You think you can be EIE? I related to alot of what you post, I don't like asking for help also etc...

You're always asking for help \

Come on you posted a thread saying that you were a virgin. That to me was asking for help.

[sigma]

Ok... some thoughts about these stereotypes:

I have read on these pages that IEIs

• are acting "Oh, God, I'm so helpless, so help me, please"

The key word here is "acting"... and yes... I do tend to "act" like this from time to time but the I view it more like knowing that you are part of something even if the visible doing is done by someone else. I think IEIs are OK with causing change from the shadow.

I have read on these pages that IEIs

• like to be controlled by their partners,

Again, outward impression. I think IEIs prefer to let their partner have the illusion of control by letting them decide. Is more like the IEI don't really care about decision making and prefer that someone else decides. I think IEIs "see" multiples futures, multiple alternatives and this makes them highly undecided. They prefer to let someone they trust decide the future after they presented the future (evolution of that specific branch of future)

I have read on these pages that IEIs

• are "emo"

Here I think it is more a matter of "looking emo" rather than "being emo"

I have read on these pages that IEIs

• are weak (and have to lean on a "strong" SLE)

IEIs are not weak, on the contrary, they are rather strong. The think is that the strength of an IEI is inner strength and such it is mostly invisible. They might look weak on the outside for most but their fidelity to their ideals might make them look very strong to some.

I have read on these pages that IEIs

• are never the leaders, always slaves

They don't prefer the outwards manifestation of a leader, the control and the explicit power but they are superb spiritual leaders. I like to think of IEIs being like the Master from de Mello's stories: On his death bed he said: "All I did was sit on the riverbank handing out river water. After I'm gone, I trust you will notice the river."
The power and the gained respect was there, the "I'm the king of the world, do my biding" was not.

I have read on these pages that IEIs

• are so soft and can't handle reality

Again... optical illusion! In a world that's ever changing, one of the most important characteristics might be the power to adapt. IEIs are superb adapters.

I have read on these pages that IEIs

• are "goofy" looking

well... someone has to be goofy... especially if everyone is being so serious as to miss all the fun.

I have read on these pages that IEIs

• often marry for money

There is a tendency towards laziness and this is perceived by some as "marrying for money" I think this is also related to the power of adaptation. And if an IEI can adapt to everyone... why not adapt to someone with money?

I have read on these pages that IEIs

• never take initiative, etc.

Never is a strong word... too strong here. Also, the initiative here is ACTION as it is described by most. However, IEIs do take initiative but in my view the initiative is more like the encouragement of ACTION. When Gandhi said that he will fast until the violence in Bombay stops was he taking action? Was he doing something concrete about the problem? Was he taking initiative? Yet... he manage to stop the violence, even if only for a short period of time.

[betterthan]

IEIS WOULD NEVER MARRY FOR MONEY.



Who even wrote that lol?! We are materialistic little bitches, yes. But then we have all that romantic idealistic shit mixed in there too.

[sigma]

IEIS WOULD NEVER MARRY FOR MONEY.

Nonsense!
I would marry for money in a heartbeat! Provided, of course, that the woman is a highly attractive intelligent SLE who enjoys being around me.

[betterthan]

Nonsense!
I would marry for money in a heartbeat! Provided, of course, that the woman is a highly attractive intelligent SLE who enjoys being around me.

I like your picture btw, it's very you :tongue:

[Tom]

INFps, like any other type, have several characterizing qualities that lead to stereotypes, poor or otherwise.

My main point is that, while stereotypes may have some bearing, there are always exceptions; there are not only 32 types of people in the world.

Look at Nietzsche: Ni IEI all the way, and he's pretty much as badass as philosiphers get.

[Sirena]

To explain - what I described is about my instinctual behavior, not something I do "on purpose". It's certainly not something I do to control anyone.

Not sure if this is type related neither, it's probably rather related to erotic attitudes? Our differences could be experience based, age related or even, in Socionics terms - victim subtype based (arrogant/aggressive vs. submissive victim)? I guess B&D is the aggressive victim, dinki might also be one, and I most certainly am. Perhaps your behavior is consistent with the submissive victim?? I don't really understand the submissive victim, so others should answer this.

Anyways, here's from Gulenko's victim description, talking about the differences between the submissive and the aggressive victim:

I know you don't do it on purpose! What I didn't relate to was the consistency of behavior you described. I feel like I'm less consistent than that, or more emotionally unbalanced maybe, lol. My mood fluctuates so much that sometimes I'm perfectly happy "being there" even if they "have me", while other times I react to every little thing. So, I can't say that when I feel they have me, I get an instinctual urge to fly off because that's not always the case. Maybe that's what you mean though? We keep them guessing! I'm probably reading too much into it and we're both trying to illustrate the same thing lol.

I don't understand the submissive victim as described here, but maybe it's being explained too simplistically. Anyway, I definitely relate more to the aggressive victim description, which is what I alluded to in my first post. Most of the time I feel so damn reactive, especially during the beginning stages of trying to get to know someone. It's like I'm unconsciously testing their reaction to my emotional peaks and valleys, maybe in order to see if they're going to be capable/willing to protect me and stand up for me later. And let me tell you, 99% of people can't/aren't willing to handle it, unfortunately. Like someone said earlier (dinki?), I love the princess and dragon slaying stuff! So romantic!!

[redbaron]

I wonder if some of this is how we're perceived by others rather than how we are perceiving the situation ourselves. For me, I'm more of a submissive all the time person on the inside because I know how I feel and how I think about said SLE (ok and I'm not talking about romance here but I do think it applies). But I think from his perspective, he can't pin me down. He doesn't know what's going on in my head so he feels like he has to keep DOING stuff to see where I stand. Prodding me, poking, etc. That might feel to him like I'm ethereal, slipping through his fingers when from my perspective I know that he's pretty much got me. (metaphorically speaking in this instance, heheh)

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

People who have an issue with us IEIs are more than welcome to say it to my face.... with my big hunky burly SLE standing right next to me, of course. =D

[sigma]

People who have an issue with us IEIs are more than welcome to say it to my face.... with my big hunky burly SLE standing right next to me, of course. =D

People who have issues with me are more than welcome to say it to my face. With or without a SLE by my side. I can take it!

[07490]

From socioniko.net
Quote:
But do not overestimate duality! This is a model of relations for dealing with everyday problems. As you get used to your dual, you will begin to want something more, namely social significance of your personality, certain challenges and deviations from everyday activities. This cannot be achieved within dual relationships. And finally, do not forget that no one dual pair is omnipotent – on the contrary, it is strong only within certain fields of activity, where the dual's strong traits complement each other.

On the other hand, it is very difficult to achieve social recognition without the support of your dual. In general, dualization is vitally necessary in two cases: first, in unfavorable social situations when your survival is at stake, and second, when you move upwards along the social hierarchy in which the competition is acute, i.e. for your career.

I think this is true, I have never lived with my duals before, and I can see my dominant functions getting really out of hand, or I might try to "self dualized" in a sense i engaged in activity that is Ti related. I can see that many people who have a closed one that they live with whose their dual are more confident in their own ego function, more develop and not really afraid to show their strong side without a fear of rejection. I have also noticed that people who lived with supervision partner is THE WORSE out of all relationship, even if a person is healthy in his very own way, a big degree of how you interact daily with people you are close with and keep in contact regularly will influence how you looks at social situation.

[JuJu]

From socioniko.net

I've lived with my dual... The only problem with that relationship was that it was claustrophobic. We only really wanted to spend time around each other--we didn't go out much.

That said, I don't know if that's peculiar to that relationship, EIE-LSI, or if it's something that applies to SLE-IEI as well.

[Simon Ssmall]

I've lived with my dual... The only problem with that relationship was that it was claustrophobic. We only really wanted to spend time around each other--we didn't go out much.

That said, I don't know if that's peculiar to EIE-LSI, or if it's something that applies to SLE-IEI as well.

Maybe because your dual is LSI? When I dated an LSI it was similar to that, we wouldn't see other people much, just the two of us.
Although I heard similar dual stories, that there is little need for the outside world if you are with your dual.

[redbaron]

I know two SLE-IEI couples pretty well. One of them IEI-Ni male and SLE-Se female keep VERY much to themselves. They truly don't need outside people in their lives. Friends are "nice" but not needed. Even family doesn't mean as much to them since they met each other. Married 12 years. The second couple is IEI-Ni female and SLE-Ti male and they've been married 17 years and they DO seem to have a need for outside friends and activities, especially the male. Also as a side note, the second couple has kids and the first couple does not.

eta: oh, and that first couple, the IEI-Ni male is that little boy in my avatar. <3

[Sirena]

eta: oh, and that first couple, the IEI-Ni male is that little boy in my avatar. <3

aww he's your brother

[Ezra]

Indeed, most of these stereotypes of which you speak are baseless. I'm sure there are IEIs that fit a combination of those points, but you're right; there will be IEIs like yourself that essentially fit none of them. So what does it tell us about the stereotypes? Are they even related to being an IEI if you, and others, as IEIs, don't fit any of them?

I think the best explanation is that IEIs have a tendency towards these stereotypes (in comparison with, say, an SLE) based on their psychological make up, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will be any of them.

ETA: take a look at Robert Mugabe:



He fits none of the stereotypes.

[Wynch]

lolz, glad this thread exists because I had to post this somewhere.

My Fe-IEI roomie was playing a videogame and talking about how much he loves winning. He claimed that winning was one of his top three favourite things. This is definitely true, he's perhaps the worst winner and the worst loser I've ever played with. I could write an essay about board game dynamics with an Si-ESE, ILE, Fe-IEI and LII. After discussing IEI's favourites further, this is what he listed as his top 3 favourite things:

1) Winning
2) Love
3) Control

oh lolz, gotta love them Fe-IEIs.

[redbaron]

1) Winning
2) Love
3) Control

oh lolz, gotta love them Fe-IEIs.

I don't consider myself Fe-sub but I love those things too.

[Satan]

lolz, glad this thread exists because I had to post this somewhere.

My Fe-IEI roomie was playing a videogame and talking about how much he loves winning. He claimed that winning was one of his top three favourite things. This is definitely true, he's perhaps the worst winner and the worst loser I've ever played with. I could write an essay about board game dynamics with an Si-ESE, ILE, Fe-IEI and LII. After discussing IEI's favourites further, this is what he listed as his top 3 favourite things:

1) Winning
2) Love
3) Control

oh lolz, gotta love them Fe-IEIs.

essays on board game dynamics really turn me on.

[Sirena]

Mercutio.

[Wynch]

omg, Fe-IEI roomie is very serious about winning. Winning is literally his favourite thing. Also, he's a whiny and vindictive bitch when he's losing and a bastard and a hypocrite when he's winning and he knows how to supervise Si-ESE into submission.

adslvgmknzx.,bmv zdfbj z\dbolbn

Piss me off.

[Creepy-male]

omg, Fe-IEI roomie is very serious about winning. Winning is literally his favourite thing. Also, he's a whiny and vindictive bitch when he's losing and a bastard and a hypocrite when he's winning and he knows how to supervise Si-ESE into submission.

Now you know how I feel about your Ti strongarming.

</Ninerage>

[Wynch]

Now you know how I feel about your Ti strongarming.

</Ninerage>

Hey, stay on topic n00b!

Also, there is no Ti strongarming there. It's purely Ni manipulation tactics spoken in the common language of Fe.

In other words: "ESE, if you do that, I will spend the rest of the game trying to destroy you. I won't even play to win anymore. Killing you will be my victory."

Meanwhile, ESE can't see past his own nose to plan out how he can avoid such a thing from happening, so he plays peacemaker and screws me instead.

[Creepy-male]

...

</3

EDIT

My point is, to me, you're just blasting out reels and reels of Ti and being a massive jerk about it too.

[yeves]

I've encountered some funny passages in IEI descriptions, like this one for example: "Esenin as a fox makes a huge amount of secret "stashes" around the house."

Do IEIs really stash things around their home?

[bolong]

I've encountered some funny passages in IEI descriptions, like this one for example: "Esenin as a fox makes a huge amount of secret "stashes" around the house."

Do IEIs really stash things around their home?

hahaha! I don't think I do that, though I do save pasta jars to reuse them.

[yeves]

are IEI girls usually very feminine as the profiles describe them?