Delta Lounge

[gabrielle]

Good afternoon, Narc. It's 2 A.M. in the westernmost parts of Canada, 6 A.M. at the other end. Gabrielle's tired. I agree with what you said in post #4848 of this thread.

Yeah, it was pretty late. I'm paying the price for it today.

[aisa]

*ESI who is neither ISFP nor INFP raises an eyebrow at this*

well, I didn't write that this is my only reason for typing him LSI, I wrote what I thought (in two posts) and that those were my reasons for not having objections for translating him this way from MBTI. So you're raising your eyebrow at a sentence taken out of context, one that you actually cut out of the context to quote.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

well, I didn't write that this is my only reason for typing him LSI, I wrote what I thought (in two posts) and that those were my reasons for not having objections for translating him this way from MBTI. So you're raising your eyebrow at a sentence taken out of context, one that you actually cut out of the context to quote.

I didn't say it was your only reason; rather, it is the one reason you gave that I take issue with.

[aisa]

I didn't say it was your only reason; rather, it is the one reason you gave that I take issue with.

ok, fair enough, let's agree to disagree on this one then

[Cuddly McFluffles]

ok, fair enough, let's agree to disagree on this one then

Well, I have offered evidence refuting your claim. Regardless, I am fine with moving on to other things.

[aisa]

Well, I have offered evidence refuting your claim. Regardless, I am fine with moving on to other things.

this seems like a misunderstanding of sorts
to my mind what you offered was a statement of your typing which doesn't transfer from MBTI to socionics in the way that I mentioned as sth I am not opposing in a case of a particular person in a video
my "claim" was merely an opinion on a particular person in a video - it wasn't a generalisation nor a statement phrased in a manner that was supposed to be understood as referring to general population
if it was understood as such - it wasn't in line with my intention

having said that, yes, from my observations irl (very limited as I know a limited number of people, not being much of a social butterfly) - this transition of types from MBTI to socionics seemed to work when it comes to people close to me and their types, however I haven't just assumed their types merely basing it on this, rather I couldn't refute them being those types, thus not being able (in their case) to transalte them between those typing methods in a different way.

I can't extrapolate this to a larger population thus I am open to accepting that there are people who I don't know irl (and at the same time hadn't bothered taking tests/reading descriptions) who see themselves as different types within those two "systems". I am perfectly ok with that, in the end no one knows themselves better than a person him/herself.

what I meant by agree to disagree was just about this particular situation - you not liking my statement regarding a particular person in a video. If we misunderstand on this so easily it seems that what we might be likely facing, should we continue, is a vicious circle of miscommunication of sorts, which I am not interested in, and given your concise way of communication, you don't seem to be interested in wasting time on misunderstandings either... let's move on then, which seems to be something we both agreed on in the last few posts

[Cuddly McFluffles]

this seems like a misunderstanding of sorts
to my mind what you offered was a statement of your typing which doesn't transfer from MBTI to socionics in the way that I mentioned as sth I am not opposing in a case of a particular person in a video
my "claim" was merely an opinion on a particular person in a video - it wasn't a generalisation nor a statement phrased in a manner that was supposed to be understood as referring to general population
if it was understood as such - it wasn't in line with my intention

having said that, yes, from my observations irl (very limited as I know a limited number of people, not being much of a social butterfly) - this transition of types from MBTI to socionics seemed to work when it comes to people close to me and their types, however I haven't just assumed their types merely basing it on this, rather I couldn't refute them being those types, thus not being able (in their case) to transalte them between those typing methods in a different way
I can't extrapolate this to a larger population thus I am open to accepting that there are people who I don't know irl (and at the same time hadn't bothered taking tests/reading descriptions) who see themselves as different types within those two "systems". I am perfectly ok with that, in the end no one knows themselves better than a person him/herself.

what I meant by agree to disagree was just about this particular situation - you not liking my statement regarding a particular person in a video. If we misunderstand on this so easily it seems that what we might be likely facing, should we continue, is a vicious circle of miscommunication of sorts, which I am not interested in, and given your concise way of communication, you don't seem to be interested in wasting time on misunderstandings either... let's move on then, which seems to be something we both agreed on in the last few posts

Yeah, I did misunderstand you. It did sound like you were saying that MBTI --> Socionics conversion was a hard and fast rule. I do acknowledge that it works for some people, just not all, which is where the disagreement came in. I have no opinion on the guy's type in either system.

To me, "agree to disagree" comes off as a relativistic "we have our differing opinions, and that's OK"; if I view someone as being wrong/incorrect, then it's not OK, and thus it becomes a choice of whether I am willing to invest further energy into convincing the other person of this fact. So that's just a personal thing, and one that I admit could lead to further misunderstanding, especially with how I phrased it. Anyway, thanks for clarifying your position and clearing this up. (And yes, I hate misunderstandings in communication, particularly when they show no signs of clearing up.)

[Narc]

@Narc,

My post was meant as an addition to and personal fine-tuning of the topic, rather than to voice disagreement. I guess it was implied and not made explicit. So, YES. We do pretty much see things the same way. I quoted you, and that section partly for that reason. But, mostly I quoted you to highlight specifically what I was addressing in this thread. I hope that clears things up.

Ah, I see. No worries.

[Becca]

Being negligent in their work isn't related to being Se dominant or anything about socionics, really. How they appear to be lazy might come through the prism of their type, but by default no type is not "negligent" - you can find people who are not good workers or interested in giving effort towards something of any type.
If you want to go into the theory, LSE might be sensitive to Fe-role, which could be about politeness. But I've been checked my times by delta NFs for being impolite.

I wouldn't take these instances as universal laws, and I'm hesitant to caution you that just because a type is a type doesnt' mean everyone acts the same way on a superficial level. Socionics is about why, not what is visible. The term 'function' is very important, because just like in math or calculus, you can change the input to get a different outcome. But the function is the process by which that outcome is reached. So don't pay too much attention to the outcome itself - be more concerned with how that outcome was reached.

I agree with this; that any type can be negligent and it has nothing to do with socionics. However, I just thought that since an ESTp has an excessive amount of Se, he can be more sparing with it. As well as with INFj, maybe since they have use Fi, they are not as careful with it when speaking sometimes. Such as, the fact that when I am comfortable with people, I may insult them just to get an edge out and not care so much about it. Though I'll feel very bad if they're hurt, because I never meant to HURT people I was just in the mood of teasing them. It's hard to explain it.

[Becca]

I agree. I often get into such depressing moods because I get landlocked into a thought about something when in reality (when I'm not in reality but in my mind and emotions) I should be moving on or thinking about something else. The realist LSE will often say things like "what are you thinking about that for. He's not worth it. He used you." That was a recent example. I like how you bring in examples like I do whenever you mention something. That's how one comes to associate with things you think about and as woof (a forum member) pointed out this is Rational approach to the world, ie 'organization of "what is'"



I don't think that's ignoring your Fi, in snapping at people or ignoring them. Emotions are aside from functions. The rational Fi function, though it's related to the field of human interaction, it also has a lot to do with how emotions and ethics are processed and organized within the person. You're allowed to be human

Thank you! I think that maybe since INFj have soo much emotions, it's often hard for them to stop them from spilling over into how they act. That is why they might yell at someone sometimes.

[Becca]

Well that's good. You must be around some LSEs who are healthy and fairly well adjusted.

I don't think "they" all do these things as per being LSE, but they do them as per being good people.

I know that not all of them are like this, I have two ESTj's in my family who I can barely talk to about my feelings and things. But I think it's because it was never developed. I get along great with both of them, but with occasional spats with one. It's really sad, because I know that we could get along so much better but there's just this little barrier...Don't know why

[Becca]

Anyone can be conned, swindled, emotionally manipulated, hoodwinked, mentally controlled, etc. etc. One way is to establish a sense of camraderie and trust and get to know the person's weak spot; what they desperately want and need to be and prove to themselves and others. If a person doesn't know his or her own weak spot (ego defenses) then he/she is ripe for being manipulated. And I think we can all fall victim to that since most of us aren't going around all that bright eyed busy-tailed aware most of the time.

I've been conned big time and I'm an Fe. It's indescribably painful to go through being deceived on a really intimate level and something if it happens to you, changes you forever and you'll never forget. That's why it's so completely human and can happen to us all. I think where it varies is in how we each vary in our own personal way.

Looking at this as a dichotomy line between F/T information is grossly simplifying and not even the relevant factor, as far as I can tell. A person can potentially be undermined either or both ethically (emotionally) and logically (headf---ed).

I feel like Introverted feeling is less likely to get deceived emotionally- because they understand other people's emotions? correct me if I'm wrong. And Extroverted feeling rely more on the other person knowing how they are feeling rather than knowing it themselves. This is just what I have seen.

[Eliza Thomason]

Her eyes are almost "dead" looking. When she speaks of her enthusiasm, it is a huge contrast with her eyes, which never change throughout the interview. I really think her temperament is IJ. She speaks of using her enthusiasm to sustain her when she is really tired, which seems more Si mobilizing than Si suggestive.

Maybe you have something with the eyes thing. When I am enthusiastic, it shows in my eyes. And no one would say my eyes are dead-looking. All that is same for a couple other IEEs I can think of. But my EII sis-in-law has a stunning smile, with her whole face, but she reserves it for those she is close to, so it is more rarely seen; whereas her public face is more serious, and can remain quite unchanging, in, i.e., an interview. Also the other IJs I know are my ESI mother, and my LSI priest, and they both have almost severe expressions at times, that lead those only seeing this expression to see them as very severe persons. But when comfortable, both have wonderful warm smiles revealing a real warmth within. (This is not an observation I ever put together before, until you said it, Iris.)

are much more likely to expend themselves than IEEs.

More likely to expend themselves -what do you mean?

As to energy output, it often seems with my EII sis-in-law that I expend more, particularly with being responsive to needs that arise. EII is more reserved, but, I see she bides her time and expends it as she has planned, and gets things done by protecting her energy and time from from things that come up. She says no easily, whereas I say yes, and can get side-tracked.

But I am not sure that's what you mean by expend...

[Beautiful sky]

I feel like Introverted feeling is less likely to get deceived emotionally- because they understand other people's emotions? correct me if I'm wrong. And Extroverted feeling rely more on the other person knowing how they are feeling rather than knowing it themselves. This is just what I have seen.

Yes, you are correct.

[Esaman]

I feel like Introverted feeling is less likely to get deceived emotionally- because they understand other people's emotions?

Delta NF are unlikely to be emotionally and ethically mislead but I think not for the reason you have stated.
The focus of Fi is relationships. Those relationships are always emotionally evaluated. Emotional evaluation is automatic, passive reflection on relationships which are on the operating table of consciousness.
In Fe emotions are at center of attention, linked with something other than relationships - progression/steps sense. For Fi person to use Fe means that emotions cannot serve their role in Fi.

Interpersonal relationships - the focus of Fi, are not really done by emotions (emotions are busy evaluating relationships), but by actions, trans-actions.

Gamma SFs don't really read people, their emotions and put trust in those readings. They rather evaluate action to collect trust. Different levels of cynicism depending on history and skills.
The point being that Fi does not actually directly detect emotional deception, but observes and controls the relationship, to manage risks and cut losses.

The Delta NFs do read people and trust their readings, but that is thanks to combination with Ne.

Fe egos are more likely to directly detect insincerity, untrustworthiness or maliciousness of emotions and consciously and selectively reject them. This of course depends on willingness to see ,unwillingness to project and so on .

And Extroverted feeling rely more on the other person knowing how they are feeling rather than knowing it themselves.

Well, they do rely on the other not being Te ego, but that hardly excludes the need to evaluate emotional messages.

No disclaimers. Have at me.

[Beautiful sky]

Delta NF are unlikely to be emotionally and ethically mislead but I think not for the reason you have stated.
The focus of Fi is relationships. Those relationships are always emotionally evaluated. Emotional evaluation is automatic, passive reflection on relationships which are on the operating table of consciousness.
In Fe emotions are at center of attention, linked with something other than relationships - progression/steps sense. For Fi person to use Fe means that emotions cannot serve their role in Fi.

Interpersonal relationships - the focus of Fi, are not really done by emotions (emotions are busy evaluating relationships), but by actions, trans-actions.

Gamma SFs don't really read people, their emotions and put trust in those readings. They rather evaluate action to collect trust. Different levels of cynicism depending on history and skills.
The point being that Fi does not actually directly detect emotional deception, but observes and controls the relationship, to manage risks and cut losses.

The Delta NFs do read people and trust their readings, but that is thanks to combination with Ne.

Fe egos are more likely to directly detect insincerity, untrustworthiness or maliciousness of emotions and consciously and selectively reject them. This of course depends on willingness to see ,unwillingness to project and so on .


Well, they do rely on the other not being Te ego, but that hardly excludes the need to evaluate emotional messages.

No disclaimers. Have at me.

But if someone says something to an Fe ego, they believe it without suspicion. I think anyone with Fi or demonstrates it puts some suspicion behind it before going with the face value without questioning it. Here's an example. If an acquaintance says "I can't nap at my night job because the dogs are always barking." My ESE friend, upon hearing this, will say "I trust what she says." While I'm thinking "I don't know what your personality is and what you are experiencing in your surroundings and unless I (myself in the picture) see it for myself, that very environment that you're in and can see that the dogs truly keep you awake then I will trust what you say to be true." Again because I lack objective reality. I don't know what the true feelings of the person saying that the dogs at her work place keeps her awake. I'm also personal. Even though I want to keep her as a friend, she's working herself up to being closer every time I learn more about her, so there's that hierarchical structure that's implemented. There's also that sense of If I find out that you're lying that your work place is a giant lounge when you said you can't rest at all I'm inclined to not want to get closer to that person.

I'm still a positivist even tough I'm suspicious because of lack of Te (objective reality) and ignoring Fe. I am still willing to see things for the best.

This is where Becca is right. I'm less likely to be deceived because I'm a lot more cautious and forethoughtful and also highly suspicious. Unless I want to be deceived because I want to give myself over for the other person's learning experience and growth, which I've learned lately isn't a good idea.

[Park]

Well, they do rely on the other not being Te ego, but that hardly excludes the need to evaluate emotional messages.

And how would you say that usually results? In wrong evaluations?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Why do so many non-Deltas enjoy Delta Lounge so much (myself included)? Is it the Kool-Aid?

I'm a creature of habit, and I like the place.

[Esaman]

If an acquaintance says "I can't nap at my night job because the dogs are always barking." My ESE friend, upon hearing this, will say "I trust what she says..

First of all that is hardly possible emotional manipulation/deception which was the topic. With this much context this sound as either simple fact or straight lying.
If there was emotional component to delivery AND dishonesty in it then it might have been caught.

Second, it is seams petty of you to suspect lying without any reason.

If you have no reason to suspect a foul, there isn't particularly much at stake, the other is not in the position of total unaccountability, then it is petty and detrimental to doubt the person.
If you actually are interested in and care about the person you don't even care if you have reason to suspect that he is lying about something that is this much his business and probably none of yours, because the next assumption in such a case is that he has good reason or great need to lie.
If there is reason to think that she has offended against you or others you start investigating and not trusting him.
If the worse turned up you either find acceptable for you resolution not involving much trust or she/he looses a friendly. Not before that.
Presumption of innocence. Not wasting a possibly good relationship to offensive speculation and paranoia.

This says nothing about what kind of clues you gain. The claim is that Fe ego would gain more from emotional expressions than Fi egos.

Anyway, the above principles are my understanding of alpha values and so projection on your sister. Not wanting to push Delta my values in this thread particularly.

Also do you think EIE would not make up an elaborate or succinct intrigue behind everything? Which would break your statement of Fe egos believing everything.

[Esaman]

And how would you say that usually results? In wrong evaluations?

Assuming you are talking about Fe egos reaction to Fe PoLR emotional messages.
I do not have the statistics for the "usually", but what I imagine for Fe base it would be:
If the message was some kind of awkward attempt of manipulation, it would be ignored as too pathetic or Fe PoLR would get a new one (proverbial asshole) in a way he didn't quite understand.
If the message was endearing (positive or negative, likely unconscious) the response/ treatment would put you both in pat in good case or bewilderment in the worse.
No, I don't think that the message would be misinterpreted but the response would be unlikely to be digestible at least in real time for the conflictor or supervisee.

[aisa]

@ general emotional manipulation discussion - my 2 cents
I think every type (and to be exact - every person) can be emotionally manipulated. It not only depends on type, but also on a particular person, their upbringing, their level of naivety or paranoia and their life experiences and age (whether they've been deceived before, noticed it and tried to learn how to avoid it in the future).
I'm yet to see a person who is completely immune to emotional manipulation - from people's self-reports (and sometimes just observations of interactions between people) it seems that I've never met such a person yet.
It is much easier for someone with ill will to manipulate a young, sheltered and naive person than someone who's had it "rough" and/or has been manipulated before. The sad part is that sometimes when someone gets painfully manipulated a person loses a lot of trust in people in general, becomes overly suspicious and thus undermines any new possibly favourable relations with doubt. Good part is that there's such a thing as learning from experience and it sometimes happens and then a person who is not naive anymore - can easier discern between people who are trying to have their "way" through manipulation and those who are being sincere...

I'm certain I had a point when I started writing... well, it was probably sth along the lines - everyone can be maniupulated - it just takes a certain kind of a more "skilled" manipulator to manipulate a person who is monitoring their environment trying to avoid being deceived. In the end what we're left with (or should I say - me, because I can't write for everyone) is figuring out a healthy balance between enough caution to avoid being abused and enough trust and faith to not shut other people off and not lose a chance for friendship.

That's merely an opinion, you can either take it or leave it, dissect it if you will, criticise if you disagree.
(All in all I've stated what I think, so should (after reading this) a question at this regard be directed at me - pretty much any reply to it is already written out above )

[Park]

In the end what we're left with (or should I say - me, because I can't write for everyone) is figuring out a healthy balance between enough caution to avoid being abused and enough trust and faith to not shut other people off and not lose a chance for friendship.

Right on. I can't say I've been very successful in finding that balance myself, but perhaps I'll get there eventually. Or not. Time will tell, I guess.

[Becca]

But if someone says something to an Fe ego, they believe it without suspicion. I think anyone with Fi or demonstrates it puts some suspicion behind it before going with the face value without questioning it. Here's an example. If an acquaintance says "I can't nap at my night job because the dogs are always barking." My ESE friend, upon hearing this, will say "I trust what she says." While I'm thinking "I don't know what your personality is and what you are experiencing in your surroundings and unless I (myself in the picture) see it for myself, that very environment that you're in and can see that the dogs truly keep you awake then I will trust what you say to be true." Again because I lack objective reality. I don't know what the true feelings of the person saying that the dogs at her work place keeps her awake. I'm also personal. Even though I want to keep her as a friend, she's working herself up to being closer every time I learn more about her, so there's that hierarchical structure that's implemented. There's also that sense of If I find out that you're lying that your work place is a giant lounge when you said you can't rest at all I'm inclined to not want to get closer to that person.

I'm still a positivist even tough I'm suspicious because of lack of Te (objective reality) and ignoring Fe. I am still willing to see things for the best.

This is where Becca is right. I'm less likely to be deceived because I'm a lot more cautious and forethoughtful and also highly suspicious. Unless I want to be deceived because I want to give myself over for the other person's learning experience and growth, which I've learned lately isn't a good idea.

Omg this is soo true! When people make general statements, I take them personally and I hate myself for it because I can never just objectively hear what people are saying.
I think this is why I love ESTj's, because they always say it how it is and it's never for "alternative motives." I know that when they say they want to see me, they do. And if they're blunt and say "I'm busy now" I know that they really are.
They're so cute

[Becca]

Well, they do rely on the other not being Te ego, but that hardly excludes the need to evaluate emotional messages.

No disclaimers. Have at me.

HUh I don't get this

[Becca]

Hold on- ur not a Delta? I thought you were LSE at one point. And I was wondering the same thing

[Becca]

@ general emotional manipulation discussion - my 2 cents
I think every type (and to be exact - every person) can be emotionally manipulated. It not only depends on type, but also on a particular person, their upbringing, their level of naivety or paranoia and their life experiences and age (whether they've been deceived before, noticed it and tried to learn how to avoid it in the future).
I'm yet to see a person who is completely immune to emotional manipulation - from people's self-reports (and sometimes just observations of interactions between people) it seems that I've never met such a person yet.
It is much easier for someone with ill will to manipulate a young, sheltered and naive person than someone who's had it "rough" and/or has been manipulated before. The sad part is that sometimes when someone gets painfully manipulated a person loses a lot of trust in people in general, becomes overly suspicious and thus undermines any new possibly favourable relations with doubt. Good part is that there's such a thing as learning from experience and it sometimes happens and then a person who is not naive anymore - can easier discern between people who are trying to have their "way" through manipulation and those who are being sincere...

I'm certain I had a point when I started writing... well, it was probably sth along the lines - everyone can be maniupulated - it just takes a certain kind of a more "skilled" manipulator to manipulate a person who is monitoring their environment trying to avoid being deceived. In the end what we're left with (or should I say - me, because I can't write for everyone) is figuring out a healthy balance between enough caution to avoid being abused and enough trust and faith to not shut other people off and not lose a chance for friendship.

That's merely an opinion, you can either take it or leave it, dissect it if you will, criticise if you disagree.
(All in all I've stated what I think, so should (after reading this) a question at this regard be directed at me - pretty much any reply to it is already written out above )

I don't know. I agree that every type can be manipulated, especially by a person who is deliberately trying to go out of their way to hurt them.
Yet there are still some types that are more cautious than others in being suspicious of other's motives.
I think that once a person gains my trust and friendship, which is pretty easy, because I do believe that most people are good, I do trust them. It just has to be some agreements with my opinion, or showing of consistent care. But if they do hurt me, I will cut them off right away, and ignore them for a while. Until they gain my trust again haha.

[Iris]

I can be quite suspicious.

Introverted feeling as an ignoring (7th) function (ESE and EIE):


This is manifested as a skepticism about, or reluctance to decide on, the status of a deeper personal bond in a relationship between two individuals in the absence of signs in external emotional expression that should reflect that status. The individual understands discussions or explorations of one's own inner feelings regarding other individuals but finds them less interesting and relevant than those focusing on one's emotional state in the same situation. - Wikisocion

But if someone says something to an Fe ego, they believe it without suspicion. I think anyone with Fi or demonstrates it puts some suspicion behind it before going with the face value without questioning it.

I am also capable of evaluating non-Fi statements such as, "I can't nap at night because the dogs are always barking." In evaluating that statement, I could first ask myself if that person had a history of being dishonest with me, or others. Or if they just enjoyed exaggerating, or if they had an agenda against dogs, etc..

[Iris]

More likely to expend themselves -what do you mean?

As to energy output, it often seems with my EII sis-in-law that I expend more, particularly with being responsive to needs that arise. EII is more reserved, but, I see she bides her time and expends it as she has planned, and gets things done by protecting her energy and time from from things that come up. She says no easily, whereas I say yes, and can get side-tracked.

But I am not sure that's what you mean by expend...

I will probably have a hard time explaining the nuances of this. In the case of 2 of my EII friends, they will go stay in the hospital all night long with sick relatives, and then go to work all day tired, and then go clean the sick person's house, then go back and eat a marginal meal in the hospital cafeteria and then spend another night in the hospital, etc. To the point where they are running on fumes. And yet they value Si and are deeply aware of their own comfort. And you can see how drained they are, although neither will complain, as they view it as their duty. Their Si mobilizing and Fi Base is behind this behavior. It seems deeply sacrificial to me. I won't go to that extreme of sleeping in a hospital with someone. I can't sleep in a hospital room and don't want to have that intimate experience with a sick person (Si polr?) What I find in my IEE friends is that they are also deeply caring individuals, but Si is their suggestive function, they are also very aware of their comfort, but unlike EIIs with their Si mobilizing, IEEs are seeking more assistance in stabilizing their comfort. They become a little more worn and anxious when they are having to provide for someone else's comfort, especially if they do not perceive that anyone is helping them with their own Si needs. They will speak out a little more about their own discomfort.

[Iris]

@Eliza Thomason I will also throw in an observation about my SEI sister-in-law who was in that same situation. She is physically more strong, being a sensor, and has a better awareness of how to improve her comfort in a situation like I described. Her IP temperament makes her a little less exacting about non-essentials so she never wastes the energy that an EII might. (like my EII friend searching the house for recent pictures to frame and take to the hospital.) The hospital situation took more of an emotional toll on her.

[aisa]

I don't know. I agree that every type can be manipulated, especially by a person who is deliberately trying to go out of their way to hurt them.
Yet there are still some types that are more cautious than others in being suspicious of other's motives.
I think that once a person gains my trust and friendship, which is pretty easy, because I do believe that most people are good, I do trust them. It just has to be some agreements with my opinion, or showing of consistent care. But if they do hurt me, I will cut them off right away, and ignore them for a while. Until they gain my trust again haha.

I'd say that imho the bolded part is the key to the rest. We generally agree, but I'll take a guess and say that our life experiences vary (hopefully in a good way for you, cause unfortunately I am no longer able to end the last sentence in as much of a lighthearted manner as you).
The second bolded line is exactly a description of this EII quality that a skilled manipulator from the first bolded line might abuse with "finesse".

Yes, there are people more and less prone to being manipulated, but from my pov, as long as a person doesn't completely shut people off, there's always a way for smn unhealthy to hurt them. This shouldn't stop us trusting people, cause we'd live a lonely life, but what it is - is just an observation of mine.

Let's say that people who focus on feelings and interpersonal relations more than an "average" (for a lack of a better word) person would do - are skilled "chess players". Will this make it less likely that someone beats them at chess? Yes. Will it make it impossible for someone to beat them at chess? No. To me it's as simple as that - although obviously when translated into interpersonal relations, there's nothing simple nor pleasant in this knowledge. But from my pov it's realistic.

[Esaman]

HUh I don't get this

You said that Fe egos tend to expect from people to have a clue about what they are feeling. Te egos are the ones most likely to fail that expectation. Makes sense in informational metabolism /intertype orientation.
People knowing and/or apparently clearly expressing what they are feeling does not mean that there is no deception and manipulation and therefore need to analyse the expressions and Fe egos certainly do. My argument being that even though true your statement is not really relevant to susceptibility to emotional deception/manipulation.

Hold on- ur not a Delta? I thought you were LSE at one point. And I was wondering the same thing

Nope. At no point was I LSE or marked as such. I am reading the rest as you saying that you thought I was and taking that as compliment. Thx. Correct me if I am wrong.

[aisa]

hmm... I have a question:
what would be long term effects of duality in Delta and just in general?

in SLI-IEE
Would the ISTp become more ENFpish, but still acted introverted so like some kind of an ENFpish mix in behaviour of INFj & ISTp?
And an ENFp would become more ISTpish, so keeping extroversion in play become more ISTpish in behaviour mix of ESTj & ENFp?

in LSE-EII
would the INFj become more ESTjish, so with introversion an ESTjish in behaviour mix of ISTp & INFj?
and the ESTj more INFjish, so with extroversion an INFjish in behaviour mix of ENFp & ESTj?

assuming the thought processes wouldn't be as much affected, but the outward behaviour of people would be more than their "core"...?
if this should happen - over what kind of period of time and prolonged interaction would the effects be "visible" to the outside world and the dual couple itself?
wouldn't this cause some trouble in the dual couplings since they'd become more alike, or would this just make them more relaxed around each other but still different enough to be interesting?

or is this speculation complete an utter nonsense?

[Beautiful sky]

@Eliza Thomason I will also throw in an observation about my SEI sister-in-law who was in that same situation. She is physically more strong, being a sensor, and has a better awareness of how to improve her comfort in a situation like I described. Her IP temperament makes her a little less exacting about non-essentials so she never wastes the energy that an EII might. (like my EII friend searching the house for recent pictures to frame and take to the hospital.) The hospital situation took more of an emotional toll on her.

I'm not physically strong. In fact, I'm very weak. I'm not efficient at all especially when it comes to deciding what to do on a daily basis. I can set long term goals like getting a masters and accomplishing it. But, I waste a lot of energy on my hobbies and interests as well as days like this when there's a lot going on, I can be stuck in the middle of the living room with my head spinning trying to decide what to do and which one to do. I need Te at observes actions an says "you should go have an enjoyable lunch with your girlfriends." I like direction and people who set examples with regards to actions.

[aisa]

@Suedehead I've thought about some things regarding myself since the video you posted, and while I still have trouble seeing the guy as SLI>LSI, the girl does seem EII to me.
I was in a super-ego relationship with an unhealthy person and it was heaven and hell, can't really say how it would've looked if the person was healthy. What I can say is that they seem to have a nice interaction in the video posted and this would make activity (SLI and EII) make more sense than super-ego (LSI and EII) and their annoyance with each other might be due the "overactivation" in activity at times... but that's all I got at the moment, obviously I'm still learning so pls take it with a grain of salt.

[Becca]

I'd say that imho the bolded part is the key to the rest. We generally agree, but I'll take a guess and say that our life experiences vary (hopefully in a good way for you, cause unfortunately I am no longer able to end the last sentence in as much of a lighthearted manner as you).
The second bolded line is exactly a description of this EII quality that a skilled manipulator from the first bolded line might abuse with "finesse".

When I said the line about cutting people off from my life who hurt me, I made it sound as if it was easy. This is not true at all; I was only talking about people I had just become acquainted with and didn't yet consider "part of my life." Yet with those extremely close to me it is extremely difficult or impossible to cut out of my life, no matter what the atrocity they committed against me.

Yes, there are people more and less prone to being manipulated, but from my pov, as long as a person doesn't completely shut people off, there's always a way for smn unhealthy to hurt them. This shouldn't stop us trusting people, cause we'd live a lonely life, but what it is - is just an observation of mine.

Let's say that people who focus on feelings and interpersonal relations more than an "average" (for a lack of a better word) person would do - are skilled "chess players". Will this make it less likely that someone beats them at chess? Yes. Will it make it impossible for someone to beat them at chess? No. To me it's as simple as that - although obviously when translated into interpersonal relations, there's nothing simple nor pleasant in this knowledge. But from my pov it's realistic.

I like your analogy about the chess players. I think that if we chose the right people to be close with and to allow into our "inner circle," we can prevent ourselves from getting hurt by people who are insensitive to our needs. As the saying goes, No one can hurt you without your permission.
Yes, even we can chose the wrong people to be part of our lives, and I have had this experience one too many times. The problem is, I keep having hope for people and believing in their ability to be good. I don't know if this is a definite quality of an INFj or if it's just me in general...

[Becca]

Delta NF are unlikely to be emotionally and ethically mislead but I think not for the reason you have stated.
The focus of Fi is relationships. Those relationships are always emotionally evaluated. Emotional evaluation is automatic, passive reflection on relationships which are on the operating table of consciousness.
In Fe emotions are at center of attention, linked with something other than relationships - progression/steps sense. For Fi person to use Fe means that emotions cannot serve their role in Fi.

Interpersonal relationships - the focus of Fi, are not really done by emotions (emotions are busy evaluating relationships), but by actions, trans-actions.

Gamma SFs don't really read people, their emotions and put trust in those readings. They rather evaluate action to collect trust. Different levels of cynicism depending on history and skills.
The point being that Fi does not actually directly detect emotional deception, but observes and controls the relationship, to manage risks and cut losses.

The Delta NFs do read people and trust their readings, but that is thanks to combination with Ne.

Fe egos are more likely to directly detect insincerity, untrustworthiness or maliciousness of emotions and consciously and selectively reject them. This of course depends on willingness to see ,unwillingness to project and so on .

I hear how Delta NFs read people through Ne combined with Fi. I still don't really understand how Fe egos are better than Fi at reading other's emotions, but I can agree.

You said that Fe egos tend to expect from people to have a clue about what they are feeling. Te egos are the ones most likely to fail that expectation. Makes sense in informational metabolism /intertype orientation.
People knowing and/or apparently clearly expressing what they are feeling does not mean that there is no deception and manipulation and therefore need to analyse the expressions and Fe egos certainly do. My argument being that even though true your statement is not really relevant to susceptibility to emotional deception/manipulation.

Ok I hear. I do not know soo much about Fe egos, So I was uncertain about my own understanding of it in the first place.

Nope. At no point was I LSE or marked as such. I am reading the rest as you saying that you thought I was and taking that as compliment. Thx. Correct me if I am wrong.

Sorry! I was talking to William, but I forgot to quote him. I am sure you are an INTj

[Becca]

hmm... I have a question:
what would be long term effects of duality in Delta and just in general?

in SLI-IEE
Would the ISTp become more ENFpish, but still acted introverted so like some kind of an ENFpish mix in behaviour of INFj & ISTp?
And an ENFp would become more ISTpish, so keeping extroversion in play become more ISTpish in behaviour mix of ESTj & ENFp?

in LSE-EII
would the INFj become more ESTjish, so with introversion an ESTjish in behaviour mix of ISTp & INFj?
and the ESTj more INFjish, so with extroversion an INFjish in behaviour mix of ENFp & ESTj?

assuming the thought processes wouldn't be as much affected, but the outward behaviour of people would be more than their "core"...?
if this should happen - over what kind of period of time and prolonged interaction would the effects be "visible" to the outside world and the dual couple itself?
wouldn't this cause some trouble in the dual couplings since they'd become more alike, or would this just make them more relaxed around each other but still different enough to be interesting?

or is this speculation complete an utter nonsense?

I have no idea, but I notice that sometimes I can display behaviors of ESTj- such as getting all hyper over little things and jumping all around lol. It is usually when I am at my best and feel comfortable "being myself."
I do think ESTjs can behave like INFjs in being quiet and introspective. I wonder how deep they can get though. I know they can, but they prefer not to be like that I believe

[Beautiful sky]

I have no idea, but I notice that sometimes I can display behaviors of ESTj- such as getting all hyper over little things and jumping all around lol. It is usually when I am at my best and feel comfortable "being myself."
I do think ESTjs can behave like INFjs in being quiet and introspective. I wonder how deep they can get though. I know they can, but they prefer not to be like that I believe

Not very deep

[Becca]

Lol that's true :/ makes me wonder how we can be duals

[Becca]

I have a lot of trouble with an ESTj and I am wondering if it is really as bad as it seems.

LSE tells an EII that they are not interested in them and that they are a bad person, yet the EII knows that they do not mean this and are just speaking out of mistrust. The LSE comes up with "proofs" that the EII is heartless and mean, and the EII knows that they are not true and tells the LSE they are wrong. The LSE eventually agrees with the EII that they are not a bad person and slowly begins to talk to them again. I am just trying to figure out if this situation is healthy for the EII, being that they are known to be good at handling the LSE's anger and bluntness.

Did any other EIIs or LSEs experience such situations, and is this typical of LSE and EII behavior?