Differences between ISFjs and ESFps
How are they alike and how are they different?
SEE is extraverted/irrational/etc, etc and ESI is introverted/rational/etc, BUT how does this play out in the REAL WORLD??
How does it feel to interact with an SEE vs with an ESI?
How do Se and Fi manifest in ESI and SEE differently?
Please tell me all you know, as this is a bit of a mystery to me as of now. Thanks in advance!!
To expand on what Pinocchio posted, here are some descriptors associated with each type. This is a machine translation (and I'm a little lazy to put some order to the information), but, I think as you read through them, it provides rough sketch of the similarities and differences:Originally Posted by tigerfacegirl
SEE
The leader, self-confidence, the will, determination, authoritativeness, the impact on people, leadership, respect, career, popularity, prestige, authority, power, wealth, high position, power, victory at all costs, struggle, dedication, quick temper (but easily appeased) , impulsivity, flexibility, diplomacy, manipulate people and relationships, obstinacy, persistence, perseverance, energy, mobilize the right time, temptation, pleasure, luxury and high-quality things, wealth, sharpness, hardness, generosity, generosity and greed, people's knowledge and relations, cheerful disposition, the company, communicative, loving, quick wit, humor, light up a new idea, heady scent of change, give orders, take care of, give advice, a feast for friends, partying, toastmaster, to dictate terms, the arrogance, optimism, new experiences, entertainment , the soul of the company, adventurism
Sold in a prestigious store, work with valuable customers, a very important person, a chic restaurant, branded clothes, expensive furniture, a prestigious saloon, steep foreign car
It is easy to switch, gain and master space and objects, get their way, the right connections and relationships, democracy, make compliments, fast orientation in complex situations, a good organizer, a hectic pace
ESI
Dignity, self-esteem, pride, commitment, responsibility, keeping his word, whatever the cost, prudence, punctuality, meticulousness, thrift, elegance, aesthetics, accuracy, integrity
Loyalty above all else, does not forgive treachery and betrayal
Stubbornness, intransigence, will, tenacity, high capacity, concentration, alertness, engagement, discipline
Moral purity and moral duty, honor, honesty, integrity, ethics and traditions. Moralist (sometimes violent), the sharpness of ethical evaluations (if a person is trash, then why I should remain silent about this? ")
Beauty (passion for beautiful things, often materialism), health (physical beauty is important)
A blatant order, perfect purity (dislike of dust scattered things)
Rancor, vindictiveness, and remember the good and evil.
Hates poverty
Caution, stealth, alertness, buttoned all the way, suspicion.
It is divided into intimate only with very close friends. Friends of the few, but they are "proven", "reliable"
Sexual freedom does not recognize, remains true not only for the sake of a partner, but because of self-esteem, is ashamed of the naked body
Reluctance to enter into close contact with people
Criticism, even fair, leads to painful experiences
Uncompromisingly defend the material interests and their relatives
Conservatism, dislike of change, chaos, uncertainty
SEE: Most likely to take up prostitution and pornography
ESI: Least likely to take up prostitution and pornography
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Are you spontaneous?
This person is obviously new, please stop posting crap, like the stuff above, or else it'll be taken seriously.
The difference between SeFi and FiSe isn't a focus on extroversion/rationality, etc. What I encourage you to do is to find as many rescources describing the Information Elements (IEs) such as Se () and Fi (
), and then find articles and descriptions on the functions, such as the leading and creative positions, and then see the types through these combinations. So types that have
look.to.the.sky, your way works if one is already very familiar with socionics. If I went by this in the beginning, I'd still be confused whether I'm myself or my reflection. Mirror confusion isn't easy to deal with - one of the more visible differences seems to be temperament, as they're about the opposite. Then there's the vulnerable function and one's conflictor and dual. I find super-ego and conflict are clear if you know some people of both types well.
I had to sort through the crap when I was new. Why should I make it any easier for them?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
The information I've provided in my post comes straight from a socionics site (socionics.org). It's as much crap as the wikisocion. Furthermore, not everyone is cut out to sift through a mountainload of information. The poster is asking for other member's perspectives, for this sort of exchange - whether it's a one liner, a concise summary/explanation, or simply provide a link.This person is obviously new, please stop posting crap, like the stuff above, or else it'll be taken seriously.
The difference between SeFi and FiSe isn't a focus on extroversion/rationality, etc. What I encourage you to do is to find as many rescources describing the Information Elements (IEs) such as Se (
That concerns me a bit... You shouldn't be confused with your mirror if you are learning and typing by IEs and functions. Because if you knew for sure you wereleading, you should be more confused about being NiTe or NiFe, or maybe if you were more sure about the creative, SiTe. If you are unsure if you are your type or the mirror, then you're ohnly observing IEs and not function placements. Temperament and clubs are not essential to find out your type at all. Typing yourself by relations is also flawed in the beginning stages when you don't have a strong typing skill or database, because not only may your typings be wrong, there are so many other factors in relationships. If I typed myself by my relations, I would look to my best friend who is NeTi and the conflict I had with my Gamma parents and typed myself Alpha.
That's a pretty selfish way to look at being a part of a community. I'm sorry if you felt cheated in some way, I had to go through a similar process, but we should be more progressive-minded than that.
I stated in my post that the wiki isn't the best place, but socionics.org is just horrible. At lease we, as the community, can control what goes in the wiki. They did ask for any old thing, and I guess it's great people want to help, but the type of information I saw being shared didn't seem like it was put into context well enough to share with someone unfamiliar with credibility within the Socionics community.
Don't be passive-aggressive[I always enjoy seeing an IEE against an ILI, although I think that one of them is wrong in a specific current matter, I won't interfere]
But, I'd say to voice your opinion elsewhere, since we should be genuinely helping out a new member instead of stirring shit up, don't you think?
You serious types have no sense of humor!
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
aww chill out
crispy, good post.
anyone who says 'this is absolutely not true' obv has no experience with these types; that statement wasnt 100 percent accurate but I doubt it was intended for that - but rather to show a nugget of truth in the form of humor; that it did
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" isand not
I found where I got it from. Sorry for the heavy focus on negativity, but I find it the easiest way to pinpoint your type.
socionics.org pathologies:
ISFj
Fear not as fully absorbs the adult as a child. Recede, giving way to pressure, it is possible overcompensation in the form of self-confident or even insolent behavior, the child - "target". Please: be friendly with me, increased excitability of autonomic nervous system. As they grow older, decreases anxiety, hypochondria, appears motivated by anxiety, emotions about their health, anxiety interferes find their place in life. The neat man, careful not fond of smoking, not drinking too much.
ESFp
Lack of control, desire, instincts, uncontrolled impulses, strong constitution. The desire to defuse the more physical than mental (spiritual) qualities. Impulse response, alien tolerance, yield will be irritated, openly proclaim their demands, enter into a quarrel, rude, have a penchant for manual workers, change jobs. Hot temper, many of them are chronic alcoholics are impulsive in the sexual sphere, promiscuity, often observed variability with respect to selected partners, some take the path of prostitution. In his youth frequent impulsive escape from the house. Differ with affection, care for their children, like animals, are often willing to provide any assistance. Heaviness of thinking.
I don't usually do that. Saying a joke is a joke takes most of the effect out of it.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Er, thanks for your concern. I'm moved. Or something. I haven't been confused in a while, by the way.That concerns me a bit... You shouldn't be confused with your mirror if you are learning and typing by IEs and functions. Because if you knew for sure you were
You stated in your previous post it's easy to confuse creative for leading, because they're more observable - why does it surprise you then that it may happen? It's anything but easy to observe functions within the same blocks, because they are very similar. I couldn't really say in the beginning if I related more to ILI or LIE profile from wikisocion, because both describe a lot of what's shared by those types, and behaviours and such can be common as well, not only to these two types. There are many things to be said for weak and devalued elements, strong and valued, etc., no matter the exact placement.
and
I have more than once said here that typing others and relations at the same time is a bad idea. Nonetheless, if your closest friend is your - self-typed and confirmed by you - conflictor, it probably means you got your type wrong. There's no way I could be LIE in light of that (not to mention I'm about as Ip as they come).
On the "you should be more confused about being" note - several people independently commented I seem to be a Ni subtype, yet I'm much closer to LIE than either IEI or SLI, if not for temperament. This "what other type you could be" advice often given here is pretty much useless, in my opinion. Even with subtype consideration, it's easier to relate to a type which has the same functions strong and weak - except very different temperament makes it impossible, but since you refuse to consider temperaments, it falls to pieces easily.
Hmmm, sky, I think i've noticed you saying before that J/P doesn't exist, unfortunately for you if it's the case, it does.
I agree that some of the comments probably haven't been helpful, but if Aiss is being serious, this:
is a reasonable question to ask a beginner (maybe not even a beginner) to distinguish between J/P (mirrors in this case).
Edit: I had meant to put in whether or not one agrees with the 'inter-type' thing or not is fine, but I fail to see how he's not using Te as a leading function from reading his posts, perhaps I am incorrect and I am open to explanations/other interpretations, should anyone be bothered replying or etc.
Last edited by Cyclops; 05-16-2010 at 12:12 PM.
Your post here is riddled with value judgments. socionics.org is a source of information like wikisocion. Both have good and crappy information that requires a level of socionics knowledge to wade through the weeds. That is why I just didn't provide a link. I focused on answering the specific question with something that I thought would help to highlight the differences between the two. My source of information happens to come from socionics.org this time. Generally, I don't just pick from one site - there is good information here and there, found on many socionics sites.
This 'we as a community"- does not make us experts in the field just because we hang out at 16types to discuss it, agree and make it magically so from this point forward. "We" may agree to put information in the wikisocion and control content - this does not imply what goes in is all good and correct. Furthermore, both sites source mostly information from recognized researchers in the field of socionics (gulenko, aushra, etc), so, the differences between the two sites are not that great.
Well, let's put this in perspective - your first post is the catalyst for stirring shit up. Do you honestly think that after you make your "authoritative and ethical proclamations", we'll all just shut up and quietly bow out of the thread? If you feel this thread is threatened by debate, request to have this part split off into a new thread, and we'll continue to hash it out.Don't be passive-aggressive
I can't really tell sarcasm in posts, sorry. I've just seen serious conversations around your comment, where people do take that into account when typing... I believe there was a topic about the types of porn stars and the claim was they were all SeFi and NeFi, which is ridiculous. I have a sense of humor, but I saw the potential for a complete misunderstanding, and really, it wasn't that funny
What's not true is that the capacity to be in pornography or not is not type related. Can SeFi be in porn and FiSe not be? Sure. I think you're coming to defense just for the sake of it, I don't think my ideas are so absolute to not change.
Well, that explains that. My suggestion is to not take anything on there too seriously, the author of that site specifically wanted to pander Socionics to the MBTI crowd. It has its purpose, it was the reason I found out about Socionics, but once I found this forum and other resources, I quickly found out it wasn't that reliable.
I never said this in any of my posts, because I don't believe that. Plus, I just reread and that wasn't there, so I can at least take responsibility for what I say
I don't think that the issue is that they are similar, but they are blended and depended on each other.
If we seem to have conflicting ideas that clash because of the differing models we look at, sorry, I'm relatively unschooled in Model B, and I hope you don't bring it to our conversations only because I don't know enough to see its influence and where there could be miscommunication because of us looking at different models. I don't think
Can't argue this too much, but then again, we have two best friends on this forum who are SeTi and NeFi... So I don't know, I think typing by relations is just something you shouldn't do at all, just in case. Intertype relations are a diagnostic thing more than anything else.
I also refuse subtypes as well, I'm such a pain
You've stated before that you're comfortable with temperaments, clubs, etc. I already made my argument a million times about this in other threads. IEs and functions are the core and the origin of information, why don't you look at those? You can't detach J/P from MBTI, the form was created just to pander to the MBTI crowd. Typing by temperament and club is exactly what MBTI typers do, other than just decide each dichotomy individually. I don't see how you can say that there is more integrity in the typing of clubs and such over IEs and functions.
So, what you guys are saying is that Tx nd Fx leading types can only be a certain amount of spontaneous before you start to consider another typing for them? P in MBTI contains spontaneity, that's what you're thinking of.
I recognized this, I've said all over the place the wiki needs to be revamped, but its the best we can do. If I'm wrong about there being an overall distaste for socionics.org's information, sorry, but from my experience on the forum, it is generally considered that we can't look to that information with any sort of reliability. I think it shares the flaws as it does with every type description, so it isn't the only place that deserves scrutiny.
Do I think we as a community should become totalitarian by teaching Socionics from just our information? Of course not, but there's also a complete limit if we stay with the sources that are available to us in English. We have a whole bunch of badly translated writings, which automatically edits the information and perception we get from the original source. Because the English community is so detached from the eastern, mostly because of a language barrier, of course we're going to come up with out own interpretation within our own means. We need to update the wiki and have a more current version of things we've learned through the discourse over the years here. We're not here just to discuss others' ideas and not have our own... And I'm sure the understanding of Socionics from the beginning of this forum to now, even when the sources didn't really change, have developed. What matters is what we all have received through our discourse, as that's not in some random article somewhere to be pointed to. We worked through all the nitty gritty so others can take the information we've achieved and work on future problems.
Of course, I was super ethical, I wonder if that has to do with your perception of what type I am? I'm sorry that you took what I said as a "shut up and get out," because I'm really open for talking about my ideas. I just think extra care should be taken with those who are new. But that's just my opinion.
I'm glad if base, creative and other functions are so clear to you now that you don't have any problem confusing IEs in this position. It would probably be worth considering that most newbies don't have this ability and are more likely to be confused typing this way, because to gain it you need to observe people who are already typed. For that, you often need to type them.I never said this in any of my posts, because I don't believe that. Plus, I just reread and that wasn't there, so I can at least take responsibility for what I say
I never said thatI don't think that the issue is that they are similar, but they are blended and depended on each other.
If we seem to have conflicting ideas that clash because of the differing models we look at, sorry, I'm relatively unschooled in Model B, and I hope you don't bring it to our conversations only because I don't know enough to see its influence and where there could be miscommunication because of us looking at different models. I don't think
No need to assume intentions. I only said it works *even* if you consider model B, which further differentiates the IEs by quadra - I was attempting to address the exact point you brought up now.
Eh, I read somewhere this looking at individual functions and trying to separate them vs seeing how they work together is a static/dynamic thing. Don't remember the source but looks like there might be a seed of truth in it.
[quote}Can't argue this too much, but then again, we have two best friends on this forum who are SeTi and NeFi... So I don't know, I think typing by relations is just something you shouldn't do at all, just in case. Intertype relations are a diagnostic thing more than anything else.[/QUOTE]
So they're super-ego, just like in my example, not conflictors. Your point?
I meant the theory about being somewhere on SLI - ILI - IEI axis, and analogically for other types, which is IMO seriously flawed.I also refuse subtypes as well, I'm such a pain
Subtypes were a detail of little relevance to the main point.
No need to drag MBTI into it. I'm one of the people who used it and I know very well the system is a mess, thank you very much. MBTI typing is dependent on many not type-related factors. I have a friend who typed as ENTP and SiFe, and clubs work much better in context of socionics in her case. So do temperaments.
I meant it less as a general rational/irrational trait (which is hardly universal, especially for Ip/Ej) and more like one of the characteristics very typical of SEEs and very atypical of ESIs (i.e. exceptionally big difference on this scale according to all sources).So, what you guys are saying is that Tx nd Fx leading types can only be a certain amount of spontaneous before you start to consider another typing for them? P in MBTI contains spontaneity, that's what you're thinking of.
It's not based on 'my perception' that you are ethical, the tangible evidence is clear in your writing style and content. Your posts are super-saturated in it, so much so, I don't think you realize the full impact. In in an utmost condescending and obviously superior ethical fashion, you've implied that all the members who made attempts to help in this thread were ethical idiots. I didn't find your entry into this thread very open minded. This is all I have to say. Have a nice day.
I don't expect people to have my same understanding, especially because there isn't really a structured way to learn Socionics, we all take different paths. But I think it's something worth stressung. My main point would be if you don't have an understanding of IEs and functions, you really shouldn't be typing, or at least, claiming to know the types of anything until you actually do. I want a person to go out and look for
I would like to talk about seeing the blocks combined some more, it's something I've been wanting to for a bit. I won't agree or disagree with anything since I'd like to have a thread go up about it.I never said that
I wasn't trying to assume anything, I just wanted to make sure we had clear communication. I didn't want there to be conflict over something I wasn't taking into account and therefore continued conflict out of ignorance.
I don't think I'm for an extreme for either perspective; I want to look at IEs in all stages of "attachment" to determine what's the best method, another mention of the question I posted in silverchris' thread. The point of contention here is that you find
Uh, I don't see how super-egos can logically be best friends but conflictors can't, seeing how relationally close they are in IE interaction with your type. My point is if a super-ego relation can be friends, that means there's conflictors who are friends, and quasi-identicals, and extinguishments. Why is it logical to assume super-egos being best friends and not having a qualm about their self-typing, but to be skeptical if they were conflictors? My position is that intertype relations should be used for typing, so I don't really question their types, especially seeing the various Gamma my NeTi best-friend has dated (You're right Mariella, we do need a face-palm smiley).
Isn't that going along with temperament though? I wouldn't logically jump from those types in that manner. My example had to do with which IEs you were confident were in a certain function placement. So if I was confident I wasleading, I only have two choices, and
How do you view the difference between the SF clubs in MBTI vs Socionics and the IJ temperaments? This would ultimately clear the air for me in why people still use clubs and temperaments.
Could you put this into context for me? Like, explain what makesand
It has nothing to do with being ehtical or not. Everthing has to do with the credibility of the sources of what everyone is providing and the credibility of the information being given. The only ethical conflict of sorts would be my exchange with Crispy, and that's about it. You're projecting triats onto me that aren't there. But I see that you have to end things on your own terms, because that's the open-minded way to do things.
No, you're not seeing it. Re-read your initial post objectively. Stop and ask yourself why you are spending so much time here in this thread writing lengthy posts to a handful of members to justify your position. I'm ending my exchange because I can see it's going nowhere. Just because we engage in lengthy discussion, doesn't mean we are engaging in open-minded discussion.
Looking at it objectively would just be taking what I say for what it is, and that obviously can't be done if we take what I said in two different manners. I feel like what I have to say is important, and this is the only way I find garners attention/discussion; when you just put your opinion out there and let it develop. I really think what resources a person is shown and what information they are told to look at is important and my concern is genuine, I'm not looking to lord my opinion over others. I obviously didn't communicate it in a manner that shared my feelings to you, but that's generally impossible to do with every person on the internet.No, you're not seeing it. Re-read your initial post objectively. Stop and ask yourself why you are spending so much time here in this thread writing lengthy posts to a handful of members to justify your position. I'm ending my exchange because I can see it's going nowhere. Just because we engage in lengthy discussion, doesn't mean we are engaging in open-minded discussion.
Ultimately, I agree that differentiating between functions is a better way than temperaments and even than clubs. It's also a harder way, and more prone to mistakes before you grasp all these concepts. Initially it's much easier with clubs, although they have their drawbacks - the biggest of which is that people who want to be something else can easily identify with different club. But if a person isn't honest with themselves, no method is going to work as expected.I don't expect people to have my same understanding, especially because there isn't really a structured way to learn Socionics, we all take different paths. But I think it's something worth stressung. My main point would be if you don't have an understanding of IEs and functions, you really shouldn't be typing, or at least, claiming to know the types of anything until you actually do. I want a person to go out and look for
I find the concept of blocks fascinating, although I'm not yet ready to write down my thoughts on them. Every time I think of it, something shifts in my understanding of the idea, especially depending on context. It's "growing", so to speak. (And yes, it's very true what is said of ILIs, that they don't share half-baked ideas easily.) One thing I can say is that I now think blocks are one of core concepts in socionics.I would like to talk about seeing the blocks combined some more, it's something I've been wanting to for a bit. I won't agree or disagree with anything since I'd like to have a thread go up about it.
There's a problem of perceiving IE in context of its pairing. I've mentioned it in another thread - I think if we want achieve understanding of "pure" IE, we have to unify the views on it from both possible perspectives (for exampleI don't think I'm for an extreme for either perspective; I want to look at IEs in all stages of "attachment" to determine what's the best method, another mention of the question I posted in silverchris' thread. The point of contention here is that you findwith
It's similar to the issue with "redundant" dichotomies in socionics, as well. Theoretically it's enough to use two dichotomies for four possibilities. For example, we can described temperaments as Cartesian product of introversion/extroversion and rationality/irrationality - and that's how they are often named. It's enough to identify, but not enough to completely describe them - if there's something that IP and EJ have, but IJ and EP don't, it can be related to neither I/E nor P/J. So if we derive descriptions from those two dichotomies only, they will miss it. Redundant static/dynamic
solves this problem, allowing for common IP+EJ and IJ+EP qualities. Yet there might be still unique characteristics of each temperament left, those not in common with any of the others. Some of these may be described as a result of "mixing" two different ones, but what if not all can? The whole is more than sum of its parts. In my opinion, of course.
Not can/can't, but are far more likely to, therefore pointing to one typing over another. I've been close to both my super-ego (friendship) and conflictor (family) for years, and it's clear to me the difference (on socionics level) is significant. Both relationships fail in longer term (esp. living together), but with super-ego (who shares your form of thinking, if you're interested in the theory), forming an understanding is quick, and it's possible to maintain. In conflict, it's fragile and takes longer.Uh, I don't see how super-egos can logically be best friends but conflictors can't, seeing how relationally close they are in IE interaction with your type. My point is if a super-ego relation can be friends, that means there's conflictors who are friends, and quasi-identicals, and extinguishments. Why is it logical to assume super-egos being best friends and not having a qualm about their self-typing, but to be skeptical if they were conflictors? My position is that intertype relations should be used for typing, so I don't really question their types, especially seeing the various Gamma my NeTi best-friend has dated (
The super-ego pattern goes about "we meet, we get along together, we have enough of each other, we take a break, we meet, ...". With conflictor, it's "we meet, we don't get along, we have enough of each other, we argue, ...". The point is, "we have enough of each other" happens before "getting along with" in conflict, so there's little to no chance of the latter. Being forced to interact with conflictor, some understanding is reached, but it's not so good and you have enough of each other all the time. Most people (hopefully) don't force themselves to stay in such relationship if they can help it, hence friendship is unlikely. On the other hand, in super-ego it's meet/part without drama involved (and "best friend" by no means implies "spending most time with", at least for me).
My opinion is that while intertype relationships have an impact on friendship's stability, the initial formation of it depends on other factors - not the least circumstances - and it's easier to maintain one in super-ego than conflict. A whole lot easier.
Maybe. We're talking different things here, I think. What I meant was that I am less convinced of being Ni-dominant or Te-creative than of being Ni Te, one way or another. Because Ni blocked with Te is more than, well, Ni and Te, and different from Ni blocked with Fe or Te blocked with Si. But as I said, by now I'm sufficiently convinced of Ni-dominance. My Te serves Ni, not the other way.Isn't that going along with temperament though? I wouldn't logically jump from those types in that manner. My example had to do with which IEs you were confident were in a certain function placement. So if I was confident I was
An example of what I mean is how I've mistyped one of my friends, thinking he was ILE, but later realizing he's LII. I had no doubt about
So, to make the long story short, in my opinion it's better to consider all available factors - though not with equal importance - than rely on one.
I only used Keirsey "temperaments" in context of MBTI, but the division is different there (SJ, SP, NT, NF). While it makes some sense, it relates a lot to traits which aren't (in my opinion) necessarily type-related, such as focus on traditionalism (SJ), hedonism and looking for physical sensations (SP), intellectualism (NT) and idealism (NF). Which isn't exactly accurate, not only because these concepts aren't excluding each other.How do you view the difference between the SF clubs in MBTI vs Socionics and the IJ temperaments? This would ultimately clear the air for me in why people still use clubs and temperaments.
I see clubs in socionics less as this kind of attitude and more as "for what the particular way of information processing works best". Socionics SFs are primarily dealing with explicit perception in implicit way - which in many ways applies in socializing, when people trade explicit clues for implicit results. NTs do something opposite, looking at implicit aspects to find explicit answers. It works far better in science than in socializing. Those are typical areas, not exclusive - they're simply the best examples. This doesn't mean clubs are always good/bad at these things, but that their information metabolism coincides with information aspects related to the pursuit, making it easier (more natural) for them to adapt to it. You can of course work in area in your own way, but it doesn't tend to yield expected results. Easier to adapt to a pursuit doesn't guarantee any particular talent, so saying "I can't be NT because I suck at math" doesn't make sense - because this "scientific", or rather "best suited for science" approach is a more abstract concept, and probably naming it after a particular application - science - is a mistake, but it makes for a working system, because its application lies mostly there.
Similarly as with relationships, what's suited to your information metabolism "feels good", is more natural. So finding oneself enjoying and easily adapting to a particular attitude is a big clue. I treat particular interests listed in clubs' descriptions much as traits' in types descriptions - there are oft-times results of particular combination of IEs, and no more than that.
I'm not sure how to explain it in terms of pure IEs - it's mostly knowledge about these two particular types - but since there seems to be a bigger difference than between SLE/LSI, I'd say it's related to Se and Fi, which combinations "enhance" the difference (one irrational, extraverted, plus and explicit, the other rational, introverted, minus and implicit), making it bigger than between Se and Ti or Ne and Fi or Ne and Ti, which don't have all of these grouped together.Could you put this into context for me? Like, explain what makes
And yes, I realize we're speaking of tendency to a particular behaviour here, which might be more or less pronounced in different people of the same type, as are all type-related traits.
Definitely send me a message or something, I'd like to talk about it. I was going to create a thread about it, but I'd definitely like to wait for you to participate in it
This is a problem I run into often when trying to explain IEs in relation to type; that both the blocks and therefore types are not the sum of their parts. This sort of stances insinuates that we can only have whole descriptions of types rather than a break-down and comparison by their IEs and functions. I don't have much of a problem with that, but it puts on a different connotation that you have to know that bit that isn't represented in the parts in order to truly describe these types, and I'm not sure if that's quantifiable? Or if it being so matters?While it's useful to identify and define it, I believe it's less than enough to describe it. In other words, for example
No, I completely agree, and it's along this line of thinking that I really dislike using dichotomies for typing, but now I have to think how this applies to other methods of typing.
Okay, now this makes a whole lot more sense
Funny, I usually go by the ego and then make jumps from there. It's like I try NeFi, and if certain other elements don't seem to match up, I switch out until all the other blocks seem to make sense. This is what I find strange, that there's a particular feeling to NeFi, but you could also see someone as FiNe. I mean, when I'm typing someone I keep keep all types open as possibilities, but I usually get the sense of someone's creative IE first, or what seems to be creative/mobilizing. I guess it just comes down to what each person is sensitive to?An example of what I mean is how I've mistyped one of my friends, thinking he was ILE, but later realizing he's LII. I had no doubt about
I don't know, I find that there definitely isn't equal importance, like you said, but once you dip down certain amount of importance, it seems like a "why bother?" Again, a lot of stuff like dichotomies are made for simple typing and in diagnostic situations rather than really sound typings. So, for me, it's like why not use them then instead of typing where they aren't really suited?
I don't know, I just feel it's the easier way rather than a more thorough way. It doesn't feel satisfying to me at all. You can find better explanations and analysis through IEs and function placements... I guess it's just a difference in taste then.
I think it's more like these aren't type related traits, and they come out in every type differently. Spontaneity is a personality trait, so that means TiSe and NeFi both have the capacity to have the "spontaneous" trait, but ti comes out in different manners, as well as being less spontaneous. And that's really my point, I think that things like clubs and temperaments lead you to assign certain types with certain personality traits, and I don't think that's true or healthy for typing.
The thread title is misleading--this is supposed to be a discussion about the differences between SEE's and ESI's, so I'll put forth an example. Does this sound SEE, or ESI?
-A very clear social extrovert, which is why she's a bit difficult for me to type. You could always expect her to say what was on her mind regardless of the prevalent atmosphere. Can be incredibly polarizing in these instances, almost as if she's bearing her heart and soul into every word regardless of what anyone else thinks about it. Tunnel vision. Wherever, whenever.
-Incredibly loyal to those she's invested time in. She 'knows' alot of people that she doesn't necessarily consider [close] friends, although they're not there because of their 'use' to her. Just people she's met at parties that she's been invited to that she can occasionally have serious conversations with, or who just happen to contact her/live in the neighborhood.
-Tends to notice the negatives first, although can be pretty lighthearted/silly also.
-Unpretentious, doesn't care about prestige. Pursues status and money for practical reasons.
-Resilient. Made it through the end of the school year after going through a rough patch that would've ruined anyone else.
Last edited by suedehead; 04-27-2014 at 10:51 PM.
How is the title misleading? Are you taking issue with the type notation or the ultimate content of the thread?
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
I read ISFp in the title somehow.
Ah. It happens.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
The title read ISFp, which looking at the following discussion must have been a typo, so I've had it changed ... that and to play with Suedehead's mind hehe.
Could be ENTj.
The SEEs I know are much giddier than the ESIs. ESIs are pretty calm on the outside, but tense on the inside from what I've experienced. SEEs can also be calm and quiet, but you will always have a feel for their assertiveness and really the power just seems to gravitate to them in almost every interaction.
ESIs are quieter and more formal, especially in new situations. They have a habit of staring people in the eyes to gauge their character, which can be unsettling.
SEEs need stimulation much more. They are emotional, active. They don't stare at people at length, at least not to analyze them. They are much more pragmatic, inclusive. Around strangers they put on an optimistic IEE mask and express their insight into things. ESIs don't wear (emotional) masks, and around strangers mostly keep their opinions to themselves. Their emotions are only visible at close range.
With people they know, ESIs are "team" people, SEEs are leaders, and expect some level of subservience. ESIs use their creative Se to keep forces in line, from a moral standpoint, to preserve ethical bonds. For SEEs morals are variable, they'll change them if it means gaining more territory and being more active (Se base).
Both are spiritually ungrounded and are trying to maintain internal peace. They can both lash out when something disturbs the harmony of their beliefs. This can seem less sudden with SEEs though because of their extroversion.
ESIs are more homebodies, pay much more attention to detail. SEEs get out more, can be careless with details. ESIs they remember holidays, are generous with gift giving. SEEs will give a gift more as a bribe, to ensure others' loyalty, though they may not themselves think of it that way , also what the SEE shares with others comes after what they give to themselves. They claim the right to take the lion's share.
ESIs structure their time better, SEEs desire to use time wisely but often waste it. Weaker Ni in SEEs makes them somewhat more susceptible to propaganda.
SEEs wants power and wealth and expansion of territory for its own sake. They are always active, trying to time their actions to gain the best possible material advantage.
ESIs don't want power for its own sake, and abhor this trait in others. They are much more attached to people emotionally, and put priority on preserving these bonds.
ESIs have IEEs as their supervisors, SEEs have LSIs. If you think of your supervisor as being good at what you most need to develop, then SEEs most need to develop structured thoughts (Ti), while ESIs most need to recognize the essence of things (Ne). Thus, SEEs can sometimes seem like they don't think things through, and ESIs like they're close-minded.
Last edited by ConcreteButterfly; 05-03-2014 at 12:19 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
