How to find/identify/recognize ESIs-ISFjs: style, characteristics, observations

[Danielle]

Hello Gammarians. Of all the types, ESI is the hardest for me to really understand and pin down. Upon my first introduction to Socionics, I thought the type sounded a little scary (all the talk about enemies and whatnot). I am well acquainted with SEEs (love them), so how is the mirror type similar, and how different? How could I go about spotting them? What are they really like? Any good type descriptions of them?

I note the ESIs on the forum like Diana, but it's hard for me to transfer forum behavior to real life, especially when dealing with introverts. Thank you.

[Khamelion]

I actually find ESI and LSI to be very similar when compared gender to gender (male ESI vs. male LSI etc.).

Only ESI's have souls.


And I agree with Warlord about how they are loving. Imagine how loving a SEE is when they are paying attention to you, except extract the part where they're attention gets diverted by something shiny.

I imagine ESI's get distracted by....rule-breakers? lol...

[Azeroffs]

I actually find ESI and LSI to be very similar when compared gender to gender (male ESI vs. male LSI etc.).

I am actually having a problem with this difference on typing a friend of mine. I'm thinking LSI since she is somewhat cold, however if she were a male and acted exactly as she does I might think ESI. So I'm not sure. She's probably LSI.

[Jarno]

How could I go about spotting them? What are they really like? Any good type descriptions of them?

They are polite.

They have a secret wish for control.

Often they seem to have a frightened or surprised look in their face, it can be noticed in both subtypes.

Some of them are very judgemental. (really annoying!)

They are submissive and like to complain how other people abuse that trait.

[Joy]

They are submissive and like to complain how other people abuse that trait.

No.

[Azeroffs]

No.

I think he means that they complain about people taking advantage of their goodwill. Submissive isn't the right word.

[Jarno]

I think he means that they complain about people taking advantage of their goodwill. Submissive isn't the right word.

yep, goodwill is indeed what I meant. thanx.

[ProcrastinateTomorrow]

This is me complaining about people taking advantage of my goodwill.



I had a guy I know I never really trusted him from the word go.

He was planning on selling his guitar I offered to give it a setup and clean it up to give it a better chance of selling
but more importantly because I enjoy fixing guitars.

Anyway he wasn't working at the time but he had a pension coming though.
He invited me to go and see a movie and have something to eat.

So I show up with my tools and guitar cleaning kit and get to work.
The guitar was a mess it was covered in grime and dust a few of the strings were broken and
the rest of them were worn out the needed to be replaced.

It turned out he didn't have any money from strings so I offered to loan him the money.
I then proceeded to clean the guitar and set it up to play a bit better, he was very impressed.

Me and the other guy who was decide to get take away we end up getting a few Chinese dishes to share
I was pretty hungry at that point to I ended up getting $20 Aud of food for myself trust me it wasn't that much food for the money.

When we get back he is having tuna on toast I feel sorry for him so I offer him some of my Chinese food.
Then he puts food in the fridge and say I can eat this later. so my food food which I bought for myself ends up getting split three ways.

After eating he take a Dvd which he rented and puts in on and we watch that.
At the end of the night I am out of pocket $40 Aud and I had a pretty ordinary time.

When I get home and think about what happen I begin the fume I realize that
I had be used and the whole thing was a massive CON!.

The next time I see him which is 2 weeks later I ask for my money he tries to make an excuse.
"Oh I don't want to break a $50 so I take out my wallet and give him $25 and I take his $50.
I figure "ok I lose money but at least he realizes that I won't be taken advantage of".

After that I cut him off completely I am still very polite when I see him but I don't want anything to do with him.

[Danielle]

You sound like you actually do something when you feel taken advantage of. That's interesting (foreign to me).

The image I carry in my head when I try to picture ESIs is Puerto Rican women, having been surrounded by them all my life. Loyal but passionate. Can put up with a lot from those in their inner circle while still trying to get them to do right, and defend to the death, but put up with no nonsense from those outside their inner circle.

[Joy]

Types with strong Se (especially Se ego) are comfortable knowing how much force should be applied in any given situation. They may be kind and they may bite their tongue sometimes, but they aren't the type that's likely to be a pushover. (Not the healthy ones at least.) If they were, who would help their weak Se, Fe role dual know when they should tell people to fuck off?

[FDG]

Types with strong Se (especially Se ego) are comfortable knowing how much force should be applied in any given situation. They may be kind and they may bite their tongue sometimes, but they aren't the type that's likely to be a pushover. (Not the healthy ones at least.) If they were, who would help their weak Se, Fe role dual know when they should tell people to fuck off?

Bullshit. ESI are primarly Fi dominants. If you're a super super Ni subtype, then your dual is some super Se-heavy ESI, but that's not how you the average ESI should be pictured.

[Joy]

okay fine

Se ego types are submissive.

[Jarno]

okay fine

Se ego types are submissive.

it's all about the main function... not the ego block.

Though it's probably an explanation for the common frustration of the ESI.

They know what they want (Se) and aren't afraid to get it (Se), yet because of their submissiveness/goodwill (Fi) and not wanting to hurt the relationship (Fi) they don't succeed.

[Joy]

it's all about the main function... not the ego block.

Though it's probably an explanation for the common frustration of the ESI.

They know what they want (Se) and aren't afraid to get it (Se), yet because of their submissiveness/goodwill (Fi) and not wanting to hurt the relationship (Fi) they don't succeed.

You're suggesting that Fi ego types are submissive?

Look, ESI's are not submissive. Period. And SEE's are probably one of the least submissive types in the Socion.

Also, whatever goodwill/loyalty ESI's have is reserved for their inner circle, people who are already their friends/loved ones (or people who they've decided for whatever reason are worth it). In their eyes, everyone else is shit outa luck (they need to handle their own problems). And if the ESI has decided that they're a bad person, they'll actually cheer when bad things happen to the individual. They can be pretty harsh about stuff like that.

This is one of the areas (if not THE area) in which IEE's supervise ESI's.

If you think the people you know irl who will do anything for anyone to keep relations amicable are ESI, you've more likely than not mistyped those people.

[Slacker]

I don't think they try to keep relations amicable, but I do think they sometimes stay in relationships longer than they should. Not out of submission, but out of a sense of responsibility. IMO a misplaced sense of responsibility. It's like, "Get the heck out of this!" Also, they can't always tell that things would have to be better anywhere else, so they figure they might as well just stay where they're being taken advantage of and deal with it. "I'm strong enough to deal with it, and I made a commitment and have to stick with it."

[Joy]

I don't think they try to keep relations amicable, but I do think they sometimes stay in relationships longer than they should. Not out of submission, but out of a sense of responsibility. IMO a misplaced sense of responsibility. It's like, "Get the heck out of this!" Also, they can't always tell that things would have to be better anywhere else, so they figure they might as well just stay where they're being taken advantage of and deal with it. "I'm strong enough to deal with it, and I made a commitment and have to stick with it."

Yes. SEE's do the exact same thing. It's because once someone is in their inner circle, they're EXTREMELY loyal to that person.

[FDG]

I don't think they try to keep relations amicable, but I do think they sometimes stay in relationships longer than they should. Not out of submission, but out of a sense of responsibility. IMO a misplaced sense of responsibility. It's like, "Get the heck out of this!" Also, they can't always tell that things would have to be better anywhere else, so they figure they might as well just stay where they're being taken advantage of and deal with it. "I'm strong enough to deal with it, and I made a commitment and have to stick with it."

Yes, and that looks submissive from the outside, whatever you want to call it "psychologically". ESI, especially females, are among the most submissive types of the socion (just like all the IxFx). If you don't think so, Joy, probably you have mistyped many ISTjs for ISFjs.

[Jarno]

Also, whatever goodwill/loyalty ESI's have is reserved for their inner circle

Yes.

[electric sheep]

4 points: saddam hussein subtype

I think I met one of those last night. This LIE friend of mine kept hitting on her and she shut him down repeatedly and without mercy. I really felt bad for the guy.

[discojoe]

Yes, and that looks submissive from the outside, whatever you want to call it "psychologically". ESI, especially females, are among the most submissive types of the socion (just like all the IxFx). If you don't think so, Joy, probably you have mistyped many ISTjs for ISFjs.

You're being incoherent. You say that ESI behavior "looks" submissive, as if you're implying that it only appears as such when observed from the outside. Then you assert that ESIs are the most submissive types of the socion (total laughable nonsense).

Make up your mind.

[xkj220]

They're loyal, but not submissive. Unfortunately (especially the females), they can get themselves into unhealthy interpersonal dynamics because of the aforementioned loyalty. Especially if they have been unlucky in life overall and they do not know better.

[discojoe]

ESIs get themselves into unhealthy and strategically unsound relationships because of their weak intuition. It has nothing to do with "submissiveness".

[Slacker]

I don't think "submissive" is an accurate word. If it looks like that to someone, that's probably more about the person seeing it than the ESI.

[discojoe]

I don't think "submissive" is an accurate word. If it looks like that to someone, that's probably more about the person seeing it than the ESI.

I think so too. I think Beta types may interpret static Fi bonds as submissive, since the person with the static Fi tends to "stick" with the person they've formed the bond with. To Betas, this might appear as a lack of individualism.

I know an ESI woman whose relatives were repeatedly borrowing money from her. Out of a sense of obligation and loyalty, she happily lent the money. But when one of them crossed the line by implying that they were somehow entitled to her generosity, she snapped at them very harshly and would not lend them any more money.

The bond is not about the other person's will, but a static ideal of what is ethical in a relationship. When the other person breaches this ideal, the ESI can react very aggressively. If the ideal is followed, the ESI can seem passive, or "submissive".

[silverchris9]

Can put up with a lot from those in their inner circle while still trying to get them to do right, and defend to the death, but put up with no nonsense from those outside their inner circle.

Also, whatever goodwill/loyalty ESI's have is reserved for their inner circle, people who are already their friends/loved ones (or people who they've decided for whatever reason are worth it). In their eyes, everyone else is shit outa luck (they need to handle their own problems). And if the ESI has decided that they're a bad person, they'll actually cheer when bad things happen to the individual. They can be pretty harsh about stuff like that.

These fit the ESIs I know SO PERFECTLY it's obscene. In fact, it's a father and son (my uncle and cousin) and now I'm pretty sure that they're identicals. Those two posts are like, their whole lives. Except they sometimes seem to have very odd Fi rules that differ from my assumptions about Fi. But that's whatever. I would actually love to see this passive or submissive behavior from either one of them, but I think both of them have grown up in such a way (especially my uncle) that they learned to subdue their Fi and not express it openly and outwardly, while their Se was/is of the utmost importance. Hence the "really nice only when drunk" phenomenon, and the "surprising random acts of extreme kindness surrounded by long periods of surliness" phenomenon. Does any of this sound like an ESI to anybody else (given that it is heavily influenced by a very... interesting childhood and adolescence, at least for my uncle).

Also, I've noticed that my uncle really draws close to the few people he has in his inner circle. He complains loudly if my aunt spends most of the weekend away from home, but it's obvious that this is only a barely-disguised request for attention/quality time with loved ones, even if it's just sitting in the same room and watching TV. Does this sound like ESI behavior as well?

[FDG]

You're being incoherent. You say that ESI behavior "looks" submissive, as if you're implying that it only appears as such when observed from the outside. Then you assert that ESIs are the most submissive types of the socion (total laughable nonsense).

Make up your mind.

Obviously I'm not saying they are the most, but they are one of the most along with all the IxFx types. When I refer to "looks" it's because I want to take into account what everybody here tries to attach to motivations, which would imply they're not submissive even if looks like that from the outside.

I am absolutely certain that ISFjs are on average more submissive than: ENTj, ESTj, ENTp, ESTp, ENFp, ENFj, ESFp, ESFj, ISTj, ISTp, INTp. This is enough to make them one of the most submissive types of the socion, period.

Male ESI are obviously a lot less submissive than females ESI due to social conditioning or whatever type of male-female inborn differences, but they will still be on average more submissive than all the types listed above.

All my best friends have been ISFjs, I have an ISFj mother and I've had 3 ISFj girlfriends. That's quite enough to have a good understanding of this type, I wouldn't be so sure if we were speaking about something else.

Final words: submissivness is a trait I don't consider negative in a person, it actually has a lot of social and personal/relational advantages that being "assertive" does not entail, so whatever idiotic attempt at proving that this only means I'm "Beta type" is quite laughable, this kind of strategy has to come to an end.

[discojoe]

Obviously I'm not saying they are the most, but they are one of the most along with all the IxFx types. When I refer to "looks" it's because I want to take into account what everybody here tries to attach to motivations, which would imply they're not submissive even if looks like that from the outside.

I am absolutely certain that ISFjs are on average more submissive than: ENTj, ESTj, ENTp, ESTp, ENFp, ENFj, ESFp, ESFj, ISTj, ISTp, INTp. This is enough to make them one of the most submissive types of the socion, period.

Male ESI are obviously a lot less submissive than females ESI due to social conditioning or whatever type of male-female inborn differences, but they will still be on average more submissive than all the types listed above.

All my best friends have been ISFjs, I have an ISFj mother and I've had 3 ISFj girlfriends. That's quite enough to have a good understanding of this type, I wouldn't be so sure if we were speaking about something else.

Final words: submissivness is a trait I don't consider negative in a person, it actually has a lot of social and personal/relational advantages that being "assertive" does not entail, so whatever idiotic attempt at proving that this only means I'm "Beta type" is quite laughable, this kind of strategy has to come to an end.

I'm skeptical of your ability to accurately type people, so I take any supposed examples of ESIs you know, as well as your "absolute certainty" that ESIs are submissive, with a dead baby full of salt.

EDIT: And your argument that ESIs are submissive is still utter rubbish.

[Gilly]

lmfao @ ESIs being submissive. Fabio's just being an LSE. Go be a normal Delta and vent your angst on your subordinates at work, Fabie boy.

[Joy]

Maybe the issue here is that we're defining "submissive" in different ways.

When I hear the word "submissive", I think of a person who does things that they do not want to do or do not feel they should do out of obedience to another person or to rules. If a person is "submissive" to another person, it is usually because that person is in some sort of hierarchical position over the other. Whether their authority is due to a rule system or due to a personal bond, the "submissive" person sees the person in authority as being "in charge" of them in some way shape or form.

Both Se + Fi ego types are very self-possessed and strong-willed. They are very keenly aware of their likes, dislikes, desires, and moral values, and they are confident about how much force they should apply in order to get what they want (or do what they feel is right) and comfortable doing so. Gamma NT's like this because they are often unsure about their own likes, dislikes, and desires. They don't have a clear concept of what is right or wrong in a given situation or how much force they should apply. They're attracted to Se + Fi. They want to be with someone who's self-possessed and strong-willed. They would not respect a partner who just meekly does as they're told.

Their IJ temperament and Ti role may also give them the appearance of being "dutiful", but it's just them being responsible and good at follow through. For someone who's not IJ, this probably looks like it requires a lot more effort than it actually does for the ESI. (There may also be an aspect their weak Ni and Ne causing them to do or continue to do something that may not make sense, but that's what they have their duals for.)

Will ESI's do things for people they care about? Absolutely! They can be perfectly content loyally doing things that other people see as "above the call of duty". However, it is not out of obedience. It is because they want to do what they're doing (not necessarily because they enjoy it, but because they have decided for themselves that it's something they should do). If they didn't, they wouldn't. They are not ones to just subserviently bow to the will of another. They definitely would not be tolerant of someone who tries to order them around.

[Jarno]

Now I start wondering.

Which types are more submissive than an ESI?

[Slacker]

Now I start wondering.

Which types are more submissive than an ESI?

I would say "most". Like all those that don't have Se in the ego block. The ESIs I know have a pretty commanding presence. Think of Paul Newman. They certainly are not "more submissive" than I am. I sometimes am at a loss as to what people are seeing. Here and the Catherine Zeta-Jones thread. What are people looking at?

[FDG]

I would say "most". Like all those that don't have Se in the ego block. The ESIs I know have a pretty commanding presence. Think of Paul Newman. They certainly are not "more submissive" than I am. I sometimes am at a loss as to what people are seeing. Here and the Catherine Zeta-Jones thread. What are people looking at?

LSI are not submissive. Between ESI and LSI there's a whole base function that changes, which is quite a lot.

Lovely arguments from Gilly and Discojoe, as usual.

[Slacker]

LSI are not submissive. Between ESI and LSI there's a whole base function that changes, which is quite a lot.

Lovely arguments from Gilly and Discojoe, as usual.

I would say that Beta STs appear the most dominant, but I'd put Gama SFs as next.

[discojoe]

LSI are not submissive. Between ESI and LSI there's a whole base function that changes, which is quite a lot.

Lovely arguments from Gilly and Discojoe, as usual.

It's hard to argue with you about Socionics because your premises aren't compatible with ours, so it's like we're not speaking the same language.

I would say that Beta STs appear the most dominant, but I'd put Gama SFs as next.

I agree. One of my childhood friends was SLE, and even though I always felt like I had some kind of advantage over him, I was never "dominant" over him in an Se sense.

[Slacker]

I think, in order from appearing dominant to appearing submissive (generally speaking):

Beta STs
Gamma SFs
Delta STs
Alpha SFs
Gamma NTs
Beta NFs
Alpha NTs
Delta NFs

[Joy]

It's hard to argue with you about Socionics because your premises aren't compatible with ours, so it's like we're not speaking the same language.

Yup.

I would say "most". Like all those that don't have Se in the ego block.

Exactly.

[Jarno]

I think, in order from appearing dominant to appearing submissive (generally speaking):

Beta STs
Gamma SFs
Delta STs
Alpha SFs
Gamma NTs
Beta NFs
Alpha NTs
Delta NFs

Yes I'm vaguely starting to see where the disagreement is coming from. Cause I can how this list is good. you put (maybe coincidentally) the infantile at the bottom and the agressors at the top. So looking at everyone's irrational function, this list is good.

I actually spoke to one ESI yesterday, she was complaining that a boyfriend had broke up because she was to sweet/nice. Like in 'not assertive'. She also has trouble at work because she's not assertive enough. These types of complaints are very typical of ESI's.

[Slacker]

I actually spoke to one ESI yesterday, she was complaining that a boyfriend had broke up because she was to sweet/nice. Like in 'not assertive'. She also has trouble at work because she's not assertive enough. These types of complaints are very typical of ESI's.

Well first of all, you could have her mistyped. ESI and EII are sometimes mistaken for each other.

But assuming the person is correctly typed, sometimes someone will look one way to person A and another way to person B due to them persons A and B being different types. We all expect other people, particularly in romantic relationships, to behave like our duals. Someone whose dual is weak in Fi might be annoyed by someone who wasn't more assertive with people in their circle. My mom and my ESI brother are very close and he generally chooses not to assert himself with her. Now, if he had a romantic partner who was, say, SEI, and who didn't understand how loyalty works for ESIs, she would no doubt complain that he wasn't assertive and would call him a mama's boy. The SEI would expect a romantic partner to behave like an ILE, and look at issues that came up logically instead of doing what his mom said because she's his mom. But that says more about the SEI than the ESI. Which is why I said earlier that if someone sees them as submissive, that probably says more about the person saying that than the ESI.

[Blaze]

well i've seen ESI females pretend to be passive victims....which is really quite a powerful position in practical application.

ESI males are usually quite aggressive, in a controlled way.

so, i don't guess they are submissive in any way shape or form.

[xkj220]

ESIs are much more likely to bear their misfortunes by themselves, stoically, rather than bitching to someone about them.