redbaron: EIE or IEI?

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

Maritsa, you said "IEI does not have Se...that is their dual seeking function. They want nothing to do with this function being stimulated in any way, they want their dual to take care of Se, while they spend their time socializing."

What do you mean by socializing?Actually,isn't "socializing" quite a strong word to describe an IEI in this broad sense you did and doesn't it require an adequate amount of Se?
Or maybe you had in mind the Fe subtype (the diplomat)?

[Beautiful sky]

Maritsa, you said "IEI does not have Se...that is their dual seeking function. They want nothing to do with this function being stimulated in any way, they want their dual to take care of Se, while they spend their time socializing."

What do you mean by socializing?Actually,isn't "socializing" quite a strong word to describe an IEI in this broad sense you did and doesn't it require an adequate amount of Se?
Or maybe you had in mind the Fe subtype (the diplomat)?

I shouldn't have said doesn't have Se. I should have said has it but ignors it because he/she finds inadaquacy in dealing with it, but will take someone's lead on it. I guess I am trying to find, with words, a way to make a clear seperation with Se dual seeking and Se activating because they look and act so much alike that people have a very difficult time choosing between whether they are one or the other.

But it wasn't here or there, it was your basis for your entire argument. The dual-seeking function is one you tend to ignore, yes, but it isn't a "missing piece". It's one you very much realize you need help in or need more of in your life, especially if you've read any socionics theory.

I would very much appreciate it if you could help me find a good way to describe the two that would seperate them and make them clearly noticeable. The fact is I used Rasputin's words because the sound more clearly seperat, but I find now that that isn't good enough. I feel that the wikisoicon description makes it more possible for an EIE to type themselves as IEI based on how they describe Se dual seeking that you stated below, which I find to be very confusing and not at all true.

If you are Se dual seeking, then in activity, you don't notice that you are lacking Se, until it is unbearable, but that's an extreme? In my case, with Te, it was to the extreme and I didn't even know it was there until my dual pointed it out to me....
But with Acivating Se, you notice it's there but need encouragement to start it up.

[marooned]

I'm one of the retards who thinks she's an SEI, how stupid of me, I shouldn't really exist

lol

I think she's IEI. I didn't vote though because I was unable to do so without having to pick a subtype. Having to make that sort of decision was simply too difficult and so I was forced to post to explain myself.

[thePirate]

redbaron, why are you entertaining this?
you are clearly IEI, Fi is not your ignoring function :/

[redbaron]

redbaron, why are you entertaining this nitwit(maritsa)


you are clearly IEI, Fi is not your ignoring function :/

She claims I VI EIE, and I didn't start this thread, it was Ezra *points finger*

[Beautiful sky]

She claims I VI EIE, and I didn't start this thread, it was Ezra *points finger*

That's a lot of Fe!
If it was Ni leading what would they say in this case?

I was thinking, because you know Se is there and needs to be activated, doesn't that automatically mean that that is your activating function?

[Slacker]

IEIs use a lot of Fe. She has said nothing inconsistent with IEI.

[Beautiful sky]

IEIs use a lot of Fe. She has said nothing inconsistent with IEI.

I know, but has also said nothing inconsistent to EIE as well; so I am trying to figure out which is her dual seeking Se or Ti and which is her PoLR

IEI. Not sure on subtype except of the chill variety which I come across time to time. Maybe that's why some people thought SEI, though I def. don't see SEI and certainly not EIE.

Why not EIE; those two types look very similar on paper, but behaviorally, I have pointed out why she is not IEI; for especially in her manner of dressing.

[Slacker]

Do you think it's weird that you hate it when people try to type you because you think you already have your type figured out, yet you feel like you need to type other people who already think they have their types figured out and that they shouldn't have a problem with it. And you seem to think that you're in some position of authority as well. It's just odd.

[Beautiful sky]

Do you think it's weird that you hate it when people try to type you because you think you already have your type figured out, yet you feel like you need to type other people who already think they have their types figured out and that they shouldn't have a problem with it. And you seem to think that you're in some position of authority as well. It's just odd.

I know I can't exactly explain to you what connections I see; I am hoping in time you can see them. I hope that you can have a little trust in me and a little hope. I hope.

[Slacker]

I know I can't exactly explain to you what connections I see; I am hoping in time you can see them. I hope that you can have a little trust in my and a little hope. I hope.

I have absolutely no faith in your typing because it's about 80% stupid and ridiculous. Truly. I hope as you're here more, you'll mature a bit, and learn more about Socionics.

[Beautiful sky]

I have absolutely no faith in your typing because it's about 80% stupid and ridiculous. Truly. I hope as you're here more, you'll mature a bit, and learn more about Socionics.

I hope that you can eventually see what I see as well, not matter how rediculous something new is, when you change your view or your view changes you start seeing the new thing.

I am just the scientist that is saying the world is round in an era where everyone sees it flat.

[tcaudilllg]

IEI.

[717495]

No it's not. I wish people would stop thinking she's an EII, that typing is ridiculous. I wanted to respond with something constructive about my opinion of redbaron's type, but this place is spammed with Maritsa's comments, I'm just going to feel insignificant anyway. I might as well leave this forum for a while. She used to post crap after crap 50 times a day.

[Beautiful sky]

No it's not. I wish people would stop thinking she's an EII, that typing is ridiculous. I wanted to respond with something constructive about my opinion of redbaron's type, but this place is spammed with Maritsa's comments, I'm just going to feel insignificant anyway. I might as well leave this forum for a while. She used to post crap after crap 50 times a day.

You are not insignificant. You didn't get the part that I read every post did you and that I don't ignore people, it's just that this form of communication is very exhausting for me.

Interestingly, the Delta NF's I know like to announce their good qualities, like, "I am exceptionally honest," (<--see above), or, "I am a giver," (<--my mom's best ENFp friend) or countless other examples I can't remember in perfect detail. Is this a Delta thing or a Delta NF thing or just a little coincidence?

Maybe I feel like it's harder for people to get to know one another in person, that is why I say it so often. Like I need to say myself in writing (an actor said, don't say yourself, show yourself, I should take that advice).

[Minde]

Interestingly, the Delta NF's I know like to announce their good qualities, like, "I am exceptionally honest," (<--see above), or, "I am a giver," (<--my mom's best ENFp friend) or countless other examples I can't remember in perfect detail. Is this a Delta thing or a Delta NF thing or just a little coincidence?

No, it is not a Delta NF thing - not that I'm aware of, anyway. I've seen it in many a type. I personally find self-acclamation rather disgusting, and in my experience it usually reflects either disassociation with reality and/or low self-esteem -confidence. People who do that usually feel others are not paying enough attention to them or not seeing the qualities that they want observed in themselves, so they feel they have to bring it to other's attention for themselves. IMO, if you have good qualities and characteristics they will be more than self-evident to anyone whose opinion matters. Anyway, I could rant on about this, but I'll leave it at that.

Do you see this behavior with the other Delta NFs on this board? Or is it mainly those you know IRL?



BTW, IEI makes sense for Redbaron. For one thing, she doesn't have that sort of intensity or drive that many ENFjs seem to have.

[Ezra]

redbaron: that quote in your sig; classic.

BTW, IEI makes sense for Redbaron. For one thing, she doesn't have that sort of intensity or drive that many ENFjs seem to have.

Good point.

[Creepy-male]

IEI, sure. I still voted SEI because I thought that poll option was funny.

[Beautiful sky]

Redbaron, except for a few people here, no one gave you and argument that you are EIE, that makes me see that people just want to please you. I'm sorry, I don't act in such a manner. So far I have said that you are NOT IEI because

1. You don't dress or socialize like they do.
2. That your display of need of Se is more of an activation function then a dual seeking function.
3. That what really pains you is Ti, systems, which is hard for you to notice because it is very well masked against all the other functions.
4. I feel that your PoLR is not Te; I strongly feel that you were capable of following methods and if someone gives you or tells you to do a job that you can do it just fine. Where Te PoLR IEI won't.

[Ezra]

Redbaron, except for a few people here, no one gave you and argument that you are EIE, that makes me see that people just want to please you. I'm sorry, I don't act in such a manner. So far I have said that you are NOT IEI because

1. You don't dress or socialize like they do.

I wasn't aware you knew redbaron on a personal level. Can you please go into more detail about how she acts around you and how she acts within the group at large, preferably going into depth about her movements and behaviour?

2. That your display of need of Se is more of an activation function then a dual seeking function.

You are more likely Ti dual-seeking than Te dual-seeking.

Statements on their own, with no justification whatsoever, are completely useless.

3. That what really pains you is Ti, systems, which is hard for you to notice because it is very well masked against all the other functions.

I really don't understand how you know what "pains" redbaron. Are you redbaron?

4. I feel that your PoLR is not Te; I strongly feel that you were capable of following methods and if someone gives you or tells you to do a job that you can do it just fine. Where Te PoLR IEI won't.

Oh, you feel? Well I feel you should leave the forum. Does that mean you should? It's up to you, not me.

I also think that this is highly insulting to IEIs, so congratulations for that. You've so far insulted SLEs by claiming that they have no morality, IEIs for claiming that they're incapable, docile vegetables who are unable to follow instructions, and me, just generally because your existence sickens me.

What exactly are your typing methods?

[Aiss]

What exactly are your typing methods?

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post638426

[Beautiful sky]

I wasn't aware you knew redbaron on a personal level. Can you please go into more detail about how she acts around you and how she acts within the group at large, preferably going into depth about her movements and behaviour?



You are more likely Ti dual-seeking than Te dual-seeking.

Statements on their own, with no justification whatsoever, are completely useless.



I really don't understand how you know what "pains" redbaron. Are you redbaron?



Oh, you feel? Well I feel you should leave the forum. Does that mean you should? It's up to you, not me.

I also think that this is highly insulting to IEIs, so congratulations for that. You've so far insulted SLEs by claiming that they have no morality, IEIs for claiming that they're incapable, docile vegetables who are unable to follow instructions, and me, just generally because your existence sickens me.

What exactly are your typing methods?

With regards to the dressing, she mentioned the IEI individual that I VI-d as IEI and she commented that this person always dressed elegantly, to which I offered a quote from a soiconics site indicating that specific behavior of the IEI personality type individual.

I matched the VI-d IEI person's external behavior to what was observed about the type from a russian socionics translation.

[redbaron]

With regards to the dressing, she mentioned the IEI individual that I VI-d as IEI and she commented that this person always dressed elegantly, to which I offered a quote from a soiconics site indicating that specific behavior of the IEI personality type individual.

I matched the VI-d IEI person's external behavior to what was observed about the type from a russian socionics translation.

but that doesn't mean that *I* don't dress elegantly. I just don't wear dresses every day. The way someone dresses is probably not a MAIN indicator of type although it may be a small clue.

[Beautiful sky]

but that doesn't mean that *I* don't dress elegantly. I just don't wear dresses every day. The way someone dresses is probably not a MAIN indicator of type although it may be a small clue.

Remember that with IEI, I mentioned it was every day not on occasion and you said that you never saw her without makeup.

[redbaron]

Remember that with IEI, I mentioned it was every day not on occasion and you said that you never saw her without makeup.

yes, including manicures and lipstick! but conversely, I don't think that saying that because another person doesn't wear a dress and lipstick every day means they're not IEI. Do you see what I'm saying? Not every IEI wears dresses and lipstick every day.

[Slacker]

You're typing people based on how often they wear makeup?

[Beautiful sky]

You're typing people based on how often they wear makeup?

No, on their behavior, external behavior. You see IEI look and are so much more social then their EIE counterpart and are particularly concerned about their manner of dress....I don't know why or how, I am just trying to show what I have read about that type. I quoted the socionics translation that showed that example.

[Slacker]

That's too small a thing to be particularly useful for typing, and is too potentially influenced by non-Socionic issues (whether she grew up with a mom who wore makeup and therefore grew up feeling it was normal, her specifc looks, where she lives as makeup use is much more common some places than others, her age, etc.)

[redbaron]

That's too small a thing to be particularly useful for typing, and is too potentially influenced by non-Socionic issues (whether she grew up with a mom who wore makeup and therefore grew up feeling it was normal, her specifc looks, where she lives as makeup use is much more common some places than others, her age, etc.)

that's what I think too.

[Beautiful sky]

that's what I think too.

What do you think about this?

Socionics.org

J- react to emotions by emotions, to the act by act. They react very reasonably, deliberately, on the basis of entire existing experience. Therefore seem stricter more decisive, “rational”, their motions more rapid and more angular, emotion sharper and colder.

FJ type-types their health improves after correct act or emotions of others. Our health deteriorates after the incorrect or poor contact of others towards us. React to emotion by emotions of others. They have reasonably thought out emotions.

P- behaviors are impulsive, they react emotionally when they are leaving a situation, flip out and curse then leave, emotions get restored and return to the situation like nothing happened (if I am translating it correctly here- working on it still....)


http://66.196.80.202/babelfish/trans...d%3dtest3.html

I am trying to translate this stuff hold on please...

[silverchris9]

I mostly am posting because I wanted to respond to this 'cause I had an interesting thought about it.

An Se provider is not going to tell someone to "get off your butt" they are going to fill in the Se themselves and relieve the other person of Se duties, instead of expecting the other person to do Se things. Dual seeking is something we are missing completely, instead of somthing we don't have and wish that we could have stimulated...which is really the activating function, that sits there and is not distrubed and it's like the person doesn't even possess it, until someone with the right combination, or Se, comes along and activates it. If done the right way, then your Se should surpass the activities of other Se holders.

For IEI, they are missing Se, that means they are not Se seeking but would rather hand the responsibilities of Se to their dual, and want nothing at all to do with it...

By Se seeking, I believe that you want to someone to stimulate your Se, which is then a whole nother thing, that is wanting Se to be activated, which is in the 6th spot. I say this because you are not ignoring Se, you just can do the activation yourself and it furstrates you.

I agree with the analysis as a whole, but I disagree slightly on the understanding of Se. Se, properly speaking, is not doing any given action, but the volitional energy applied to the self or to others, to make something happen. IEIs are lethargic and meh without SLEs because we are, in a strict sense, weak-willed; we find it difficult to do something not out of desire but out of our own will acting upon ourselves. We need SLEs to apply volitional force to us--we mooch off of their surplus will-to-act. So it's not so much that they do everything for us; there are plenty of things we are perfectly capable of doing. It's that they give us the energy we need to do the things we have to do. That's what IEIs have to "manufacture" in the absence of Se-egos. Without Se-egos around, IEIs have to try extremely hard to force ourselves to do anything except what we naturally want to do. The trouble is, when you don't ever take any action, your whole being gets lethargic and gradually atrophied, so that all you "want to do" is sit around watching television.

That's too small a thing to be particularly useful for typing, and is too potentially influenced by non-Socionic issues (whether she grew up with a mom who wore makeup and therefore grew up feeling it was normal, her specifc looks, where she lives as makeup use is much more common some places than others, her age, etc.)

Ditto to RB. Good point. I think we should actually take "likelihood-of-being-influenced-by-non-socionics-factors" into account when typing based on given traits, information, etc. Even introversion and extroversion (in the non-socionics sense) can be heavily affected by non-socionics factors.

[Beautiful sky]

I mostly am posting because I wanted to respond to this 'cause I had an interesting thought about it.



I agree with the analysis as a whole, but I disagree slightly on the understanding of Se. Se, properly speaking, is not doing any given action, but the volitional energy applied to the self or to others, to make something happen. IEIs are lethargic and meh without SLEs because we are, in a strict sense, weak-willed; we find it difficult to do something not out of desire but out of our own will acting upon ourselves. We need SLEs to apply volitional force to us--we mooch off of their surplus will-to-act. So it's not so much that they do everything for us; there are plenty of things we are perfectly capable of doing. It's that they give us the energy we need to do the things we have to do. That's what IEIs have to "manufacture" in the absence of Se-egos. Without Se-egos around, IEIs have to try extremely hard to force ourselves to do anything except what we naturally want to do. The trouble is, when you don't ever take any action, your whole being gets lethargic and gradually atrophied, so that all you "want to do" is sit around watching television.

Just in the fact that people can recognize a function they would like stimulated or more of I think it should be the activation automatically. It's hard if not impossible for a person to recognize their dual seeking function.

[redbaron]

Just in the fact that people can recognize a function they would like stimulated or more of I think it should be the activation automatically. It's hard if not impossible for a person to recognize their dual seeking function.

yeah maybe under normal circumstances but when you've been thinking about socionics for YEARS, these things come to consciousness! I would say I've lived my entire life up until a few years ago, without realizing WHAT it was that I needed! And then being around a couple of SLEs and being able to name what it was exactly I was getting from them that I loved, due to conversations on this forum (and remembering my relationship with an ESI years ago)... I figured it out. But there's little chance I would have recognized that on my own. I mean, surely you're not saying that YOU can't recognize your own dual-seeking function right now, or that nobody else can recognize it after they know about socionics, are you?

[Slacker]

I think that's hogwash. I recognize both.

[Beautiful sky]

yeah maybe under normal circumstances but when you've been thinking about socionics for YEARS, these things come to consciousness! I would say I've lived my entire life up until a few years ago, without realizing WHAT it was that I needed! And then being around a couple of SLEs and being able to name what it was exactly I was getting from them that I loved, due to conversations on this forum (and remembering my relationship with an ESI years ago)... I figured it out. But there's little chance I would have recognized that on my own. I mean, surely you're not saying that YOU can't recognize your own dual-seeking function right now, or that nobody else can recognize it after they know about socionics, are you?

I would say, mood wise, when my Si is activated, I really feel it intensely. When my Te is encouraged I follow the lead. Where with Si, I want to submerse myself in the bath of it all, with Te I go "ah, you can do it, I will follow you."

So the question is which one do you want to be submersed in and which one do you want to follow?


I get the impression from you and I am not trying to influence your answer is that you love to be submersed in Se; but don't understand the workings or quality or how Ti effect you and your life. Am I somewhat near?

[discojoe]

I think this woman is the same type as redbaron.

[Ezra]

Fuck man, redbaron, don't even consider EIE. It's stupid. Especially not for all the reasons Maritsa is telling you to. You're obviously an IEI! Everyone with any intelligence knows that!

[redbaron]

Fuck man, redbaron, don't even consider EIE. It's stupid. Especially not for all the reasons Maritsa is telling you to. You're obviously an IEI! Everyone with any intelligence knows that!

:wink:

[discojoe]

[Beautiful sky]

EIE...



IEI