So, am I ENTj? Little help

[Aleksei]

Hi, I recently took an interest in Socionics, but I don't really know much of it. A friend of mine who's into Socionics told me I was a LIE (ENTj), and upon reading the descriptions it does seem to fit me better than ENTp, or any Ethical type. Normally I'd tell you guys a little about myself, but I'm a bit tired, and I don't know what information would be relevant to my typing (since I know next to nothing of this). So I figured you guys could ask me anything you thought is relevant to my type (or to confirm it, or whatever).

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Beautiful sky]

Do you have a good understanding of what Si function means?

[Timeless]

What is the most important thing in life to you?

What is the least important thing in life to you?

[Aleksei]

Do you believe in self-development? Did you use how-to's for that, or something?

I do, on both counts; although 1) I'm more likely to want to try and figure out my own plan rather than get help from books or whatever, or else read a self-help book and analyze the instructions to see if I can improve on them (usually by connecting to something else related I'd learned previously), and 2) more often than I'd like I lack the self-discipline to follow through on self-improvement plans.

Do you have a good understanding of what Si function means?

I have a very good understanding of what it means in MBTI (reliance on memory, past events, collected data, learned skills and principles, etc), but I don't know if it's the same in Socionics.

What is the most important thing in life to you?

What is the least important thing in life to you?

Ooh, that's a tough one. The most important thing in life for me, is probably success and living the good life. I wanna be rich, I want the finer things in life, and especially I want plenty of leisure time to enjoy it all. Secondary to that I want to be respected and admired, and I want to have good relations with people. I want good friends, love, and though it's not a major goal I would certainly not mind being famous. In particular though, I crave being surrounded by intelligent people I can have interesting conversations with. I can get along with pretty much anybody, but I prefer talking to fellow nerdlingers.

EDIT- Scratch that, wrong order. Correct order: 1) Intellectually stimulating social interaction, 2) good relations with people, 3) the good life (in the material sense), 4) leisure.

Least important thing? Hmm, probably the world's major problems, save where those problems put me or mine in jeopardy. The spotted tortoise (or w/e) can go fuck itself. :wink: I do have a strong theoretical interest in political theory, but in practice, lately I just don't give much of a shit.

[MatthewZ]

I like this guy. Can I claim him for my quadra?

[Beautiful sky]

Which one of the below do you value for you more then the other?

Fe -traditional values and morals, that which your parents or your family traditions have passed down to you
Fi -your personal values and morals, the things you have determined to be true for you, these may be drastically different from that of the tradition you come from.

[Aleksei]

Fi, most definitely.

[Beautiful sky]

Fi, most definitely.

ok so that is really high on your list; let's try the next one

Se -when in a room of "attractive" women do your eyes scan for the pretties
Si -when in a room of "attractive" women do your eyes scan for the one who you derive or can feel special sensation for and she may not be the prettiest.


Se -do you go for the prettiest person in the room
Si -do you value the special feelings you get from someone and how they make you feel

[Aleksei]

Se

[MatthewZ]

Which one of the below do you value for you more then the other?

Fe -traditional values and morals, that which your parents or your family traditions have passed down to you
Fi -your personal values and morals, the things you have determined to be true for you, these may be drastically different from that of the tradition you come from.

Without any exaggeration, I must say that the above description is the worst contrast of Fe and Fi I've ever seen.

[Aleksei]

Do you have a better one?

[Beautiful sky]

Without any exaggeration, I must say that the above description is the worst contrast of Fe and Fi I've ever seen.

My sister, ESE, and I, EII, were raised in the same household, with the same values, traditions and morals. My parents are type ISTp and INTp and both are Fi valuing more then Fe; my sister, ESE, stuck to tradition, that Armenian women must marry Armenian men to have Armenian families and Armenian kids, and tradition....Fe valuing. I, however, developed my own personal values and judge new information to my own personal values and not Fe, which is the traditional values established in a culture or community. My personal values about Marriage that are different from that of my ESE sister's is that I marry the person I love, who provides me with Si and hopefully lots of it..lol (sorry!) and that the person can be from anywhere in the world as long as he's LSE type, my best fit...see how the two of us are so different?

Same with ******..he valued Fe, which is to say, a strict Arian race rather then his personal

[Beautiful sky]

Aleksei, I feel that you may not be Alpha or Beta quad that you may instead be Gamma or Delta for sure.

[Aleksei]

In either case, I'm sure my answer will not change. I'm very Fi. Can we move on, please?

EDIT: Thanks, Maritsa.

[Aiss]

... oh, and don't let Maritsa type you. That should be the first post in any newbie's thread, actually.

MBTI functions are different. Si, in particular, is the one which differs most. Check out information elements and functions on wikisocion.

[Beautiful sky]

In either case, I'm sure my answer will not change. I'm very Fi. Can we move on, please?

EDIT: Thanks, Maritsa.

ENTj's in socionics quite often overlook or at best oblivious to Si...

Se -Observes the static/look of objects, highly impulsive/very spontaneous in their actions or in acquiring goods or purchases, they may also prefer risky behavior that Si types are rather sensitive to. Se strive to obtain the highest experience derived from an object. These types will go for the prettiest looking object rather then the one that may or may not be as pretty as beautiful, but one that they can derive a feeling of pleasure from, which is called Si.

Se types are highly realistic and very visual oriented. Si types may be more about their feelings of rest and relaxation. Which one would you say you relate to better?

[Beautiful sky]

... oh, and don't let Maritsa type you. That should be the first post in any newbie's thread, actually.

MBTI functions are different. Si, in particular, is the one which differs most. Check out information elements and functions on wikisocion.

Aiss, why don't you try reading my example with my sister and I thanks.

Fe types evaluate incoming, or new information based on traditional values and morals not their own personal ones as Fi valuers would.

[MatthewZ]

Do you have a better one?

Take a coin and flip it. If the result is heads, pick Fe. If the result is tails, pick Fi.

The descriptions Maritsa has supplied you with could remotely work in an MBTI context, but they don't apply here. Put simply, Fi is the IM (function) of "relationships," in the sense of recognizing psychological distance and focusing on the status of a relationship with someone. (in a simplified manner, recognizing friend v. foe) By contrast, Fe is the function of "emotion" in the sense of recognizing the moods of others and stimulating the emotions of others.

Of course, that is a description of using either as a strong function. And Ethical ("F") type is strong in both Fi and Fe, while a Logical (T) type is weak in both, so the above description should help little.

The issue here is function value. A "T" type, someone with weak Ethics (note the capital letter; "Ethics" here merely refers to the function) values behavior in others that establishes their valued form of ethics in the environment.

I encourage you to read the wikisocion descriptions for the various functions. Function value comes in pairs. (IE: Te/Fi are always valued together, as are Ne/Si, Se/Ni, and Fe/Ti) For a contrast of behavior between Te/Fi and Fe/Ti valuing behavior, I recommend you read this page on wikisocion:
Judicious (Fe/Ti) and Decisive (Te/Fi)

Maritsa's egregious misrepresentations of Fe and Fi are simply too "off the mark" to point out every instance where they stray from the actual functions. It's simpler to point out a more correct understanding.

As Aiss pointed out, any "newbie" should be wary of Maritsa. She practices her own convoluted idealized version of Socionics, widely rejected by virtually everyone on this forum. One may read what she writes, but this must be held in the context that what she says carries virtually no weight regarding Socionics and should not be mixed with an actual understanding of the theory.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[sarinana]

Mhm in my opinion
Fi: the person when having a conversation with somebody is mainly fucused on what is wrong or right to say.
Fe: the person when having a conversation with somebody is mainly focused on what is pleasant or unpleasant to say.

Fi and Fe egos often say or do same things but often with different intentions. Fi may often be nice or rude to somebody because he feels some sort of obligation to be nice/rude to that person. Fe however will be nice/rude to somebody when he wants to make that person feel in certain way.

[Beautiful sky]

Take a coin and flip it. If the result is heads, pick Fe. If the result is tails, pick Fi.

The descriptions Maritsa has supplied you with could remotely work in an MBTI context, but they don't apply here. Put simply, Fi is the IM (function) of "relationships," in the sense of recognizing psychological distance and focusing on the status of a relationship with someone. (in a simplified manner, recognizing friend v. foe) By contrast, Fe is the function of "emotion" in the sense of recognizing the moods of others and stimulating the emotions of others.

Of course, that is a description of using either as a strong function. And Ethical ("F") type is strong in both Fi and Fe, while a Logical (T) type is weak in both, so the above description should help little.

The issue here is function value. A "T" type, someone with weak Ethics (note the capital letter; "Ethics" here merely refers to the function) values behavior in others that establishes their valued form of ethics in the environment.

I encourage you to read the wikisocion descriptions for the various functions. Function value comes in pairs. (IE: Te/Fi are always valued together, as are Ne/Si, Se/Ni, and Fe/Ti) For a contrast of behavior between Te/Fi and Fe/Ti valuing behavior, I recommend you read this page on wikisocion:
Judicious (Fe/Ti) and Decisive (Te/Fi)

Maritsa's egregious misrepresentations of Fe and Fi are simply too "off the mark" to point out every instance where they stray from the actual functions. It's simpler to point out a more correct understanding.

As Aiss pointed out, any "newbie" should be wary of Maritsa. She practices her own convoluted idealized version of Socionics, widely rejected by virtually everyone on this forum. One may read what she writes, but this must be held in the context that what she says carries virtually no weight regarding Socionics and should not be mixed with an actual understanding of the theory.

Did you read my example of the differences between Fe and Fi?
Do you understand that Fe valuers hold traditions above their own personal values and morals and that with Fi new information is compared to their own values and morals, if new information goes against the person's values and moral, that the information may be easily rejected while with Fe, new information is compared not with the person's own values and morals but that of the one their own tradition/cultural background has instilled in or on the individual.

Fe uses new information to correct and establish new values and morals, Personal emotional preferences of which values and morals are not more important then the values and beliefs of the society that the person comes from while with Fi types, their own personal emotional preferences are more important then that of the ones that society has established...very much individual rather then collective nature of Fi function.

[Beautiful sky]

Frankly, I think I can relate to both. Maybe slightly more to Se.

Which parts of Se do you relate to and which parts not?

[MatthewZ]

Did you read my example of the differences between Fe and Fi?
Do you understand that Fe valuers hold traditions above their own personal values and morals and that with Fi new information is compared to their own values and morals, if new information goes against the person's values and moral, that the information may be easily rejected while with Fe, new information is compared not with the person's own values and morals but that of the one their own tradition/cultural background has instilled in or on the individual.

Fe uses new information to correct and establish new values and morals, Personal emotional preferences of which values and morals are not more important then the values and beliefs of the society that the person comes from while with Fi types, their own personal emotional preferences are more important then that of the ones that society has established...very much individual rather then collective nature of Fi function.

No, I do not "understand" this interpretation because it is simply wrong. What evidence do you have for this interpretation other than a single anecdote?

[Beautiful sky]

No, I do not "understand" this interpretation because it is simply wrong. What evidence do you have for this interpretation other than a single anecdote?

Every single ESE that I've ever observed following their family's or culture's traditions will have the same response as to why they picked a life course or route that way. My ESE boss got married, because "that's what culture dictated then"; I would get married because "that's how I feel is the right way to raise kids and family", not because I follow the norms of any culture that i am from, they are my personal feelings, ethics and morals. Both Fe and Fi are Ethics/ both have concern for feelings and everyone is social loves or wants to be in a happy and healthy relationship so to say that Fi is ethics of relations is WRONG

[MatthewZ]

Every single ESE that I've ever observed following their family's or culture's traditions will have the same response as to why they picked a life course or route that way. My ESE boss got married, because "that's what culture dictated then"; I would get married because "that's how I feel is the right way to raise kids and family", not because I follow the norms of any culture that i am from, they are my personal feelings, ethics and morals. Both Fe and Fi are Ethics/ both have concern for feelings and everyone is social and loves or wants to be in a happy and healthy relationship so to say that Fi is ethics of relations is WRONG

I posit a few blatant problems with that conclusion:
1. The above scenario is presented from the perspective of Maritsa. While this is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, it becomes one when "Fe" is described on the limited amount of information Maritsa receives from alleged ESEs and is compared to the more complete information she has with herself, the sole EII examined in the scenario
2. None of these typings can be objectively verified. As far as we know, they have been flavored by Maritsa's personal bias.
3. Only ESEs and EIIs are contrasted, while all 16 types use Fi and Fe in some manner, half of them use one in their ego block, and 4 use one as their leading function. The example is wholly limited to a particular comparison and cannot be expanded to explain Fi or Fe in other types
4. The popular name for Fi IS, in fact, relational ethics. (take, for example, Rick's descriptions: Socionics :: Information Elements)

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Beautiful sky]

I posit a few blatant problems with that conclusion:
1. The above scenario is presented from the perspective of Maritsa. While this is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, it becomes one when "Fe" is described on the limited amount of information Maritsa receives from alleged ESEs and is compared to the more complete information she has with herself, the sole EII examined in the scenario
2. None of these typings can be objectively verified. As far as we know, they have been flavored by Maritsa's personal bias.
3. Only ESEs and EIIs are contrasted, while all 16 types use Fi and Fe in some manner, half of them use one in their ego block, and 4 use one as their leading function. The example is wholly limited to a particular comparison and cannot be expanded to explain Fi or Fe in other types
4. The popular name for Fi IS, in fact, relational ethics. (take, for example, Rick's descriptions: Socionics :: Information Elements)

Whatever. Starting with how the psyche perceives and judges the outside information personally is a good start, IMO.

My conclusion makes sense for why ****** would adapt to "ethnic cleansing" of the German/arian culture and why Fe is centered on not personal values but that of societal.

[Aiss]

Aiss, why don't you try reading my example with my sister and I thanks.

Fe types evaluate incoming, or new information based on traditional values and morals not their own personal ones as Fi valuers would.

I did. It's worthless, as is your newest interpretation of Fe and Fi. Last time we clashed over this, you claimed it was Fi to spend hours on the phone with your friends. Something else like that will probably come next, although I wish it didn't.

Every single ESE that I've ever observed following their family's or culture's traditions will have the same response as to why they picked a life course or route that way. My ESE boss got married, because "that's what culture dictated then"; I would get married because "that's how I feel is the right way to raise kids and family", not because I follow the norms of any culture that i am from, they are my personal feelings, ethics and morals. Both Fe and Fi are Ethics/ both have concern for feelings and everyone is social and loves or wants to be in a happy and healthy relationship so to say that Fi is ethics of relations is WRONG

That's not Fe and Fi.

[HugoLeasing]

Hi, I recently took an interest in Socionics, but I don't really know much of it. A friend of mine who's into Socionics told me I was a LIE (ENTj), and upon reading the descriptions it does seem to fit me better than ENTp, or any Ethical type. Normally I'd tell you guys a little about myself, but I'm a bit tired, and I don't know what information would be relevant to my typing (since I know next to nothing of this). So I figured you guys could ask me anything you thought is relevant to my type (or to confirm it, or whatever).

Good day. In time the answer will come to you. For the time being, be selective about who you choose to listen to. If you have self awareness, then you will find your socionic type. That is of course only if you wish.

[Aleksei]

The issue here is function value. A "T" type, someone with weak Ethics (note the capital letter; "Ethics" here merely refers to the function) values behavior in others that establishes their valued form of ethics in the environment.

I encourage you to read the wikisocion descriptions for the various functions. Function value comes in pairs. (IE: Te/Fi are always valued together, as are Ne/Si, Se/Ni, and Fe/Ti) For a contrast of behavior between Te/Fi and Fe/Ti valuing behavior, I recommend you read this page on wikisocion:
Judicious (Fe/Ti) and Decisive (Te/Fi)

Very informative. From the link you provided I actually think I'm more judicious rather than decisive. I did see there were other dichotomies on that vein, so I followed the links. These were my results, if it helps: Carefree, democratic, positivist, result-oriented, yielding, tactical, dynamic, emotivist, merry, asking.

Maritsa's egregious misrepresentations of Fe and Fi are simply too "off the mark" to point out every instance where they stray from the actual functions. It's simpler to point out a more correct understanding.

As Aiss pointed out, any "newbie" should be wary of Maritsa. She practices her own convoluted idealized version of Socionics, widely rejected by virtually everyone on this forum. One may read what she writes, but this must be held in the context that what she says carries virtually no weight regarding Socionics and should not be mixed with an actual understanding of the theory.

thanks for the warning.

[Beautiful sky]

I did. It's worthless, as is your newest interpretation of Fe and Fi.



That's not Fe and Fi.

yes it is.

[Aleksei]

I haven't given much thought to the other types, but I can see LIE/ENTj. I'm pretty much certain of Se/Ni valuing - you use a central framework of defining "success", the "good life", "improvement", "finer things", "intelligent people", etc.

The types I know, in my experience, to use this comparative approach to such large extent are LSI/ISTj (usually in private), SLE/ESTp and LIE/ENTj. I'm going for the latter two.

I'm leaning much towards LIE/ENTj, because these Beta types use to also discriminate things to categories: besides better/worse and best/worst, they use "suited for" and "not suited for".

Ahh, I see. Thanks.

[Aiss]

Very informative. From the link you provided I actually think I'm more judicious rather than decisive. I did see there were other dichotomies on that vein, so I followed the links. These were my results, if it helps: Carefree, democratic, positivist, result-oriented, yielding, tactical, dynamic, emotivist, merry, asking.

Don't worry too much about Reinin dichotomies, some of them even go as far as to contradict type descriptions. The three of them (except for Jungian ones) that are more or less useful are:
* judicious/decisive - or rather, Ne/Si vs Se/Ni valuing, effectively Alpha+Delta/Beta+Gamma;
* merry/serious - that is, Ti/Fe or Fi/Te valuing, Alpha+Beta/Gamma+Delta;
* to a less extent in typing, aristocratic/democratic - Beta+Delta/Alpha+Gamma;

But really, IEs are the way to go. There's a lot of interpretations of merry/serious and judicious/decisive, and none of them is really applicable.

[Beautiful sky]

Don't worry too much about Reinin dichotomies, some of them even go as far as to contradict type descriptions. The three of them (except for Jungian ones) that are more or less useful are:
* judicious/decisive - or rather, Ne/Si vs Se/Ni valuing, effectively Alpha+Delta/Beta+Gamma;
* merry/serious - that is, Ti/Fe or Fi/Te valuing, Alpha+Beta/Gamma+Delta;
* to a less extent in typing, aristocratic/democratic - Beta+Delta/Alpha+Gamma;

But really, IEs are the way to go. There's a lot of interpretations of merry/serious and judicious/decisive, and none of them is really applicable.

Someone just directed him to Renin's Lenin's dichotomies and now you're telling him not to worry about it much? really? that's how you expect to advance or improve socionics, by telling people to ignore some people and listen to others?

You haven't been able to do shit except to make a whole hell of a lot of assumptions about people's types and now what? you think that you can lead people to places with more crap about "clubs" and "quadras"? There are plenty of people here who have mistyped themselves because of this information, because of Lenin/Renin and because of "quadra" values and such crap...understand the functions and how they process and perceive information...that's all a person needs to know.

And maybe even how they view their duals.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[MatthewZ]

Very informative. From the link you provided I actually think I'm more judicious rather than decisive. I did see there were other dichotomies on that vein, so I followed the links. These were my results, if it helps: Carefree, democratic, positivist, result-oriented, yielding, tactical, dynamic, emotivist, merry, asking.

As a general word to the wise, those are known as the Reinin Dichotomies. They're one of the theoretical abstractions of Socionics. Take them with as much caution as one might for dichotomy descriptions in MBTI. They're valid for the system and mostly accepted, (although some, especially positivist/negativist, are questioned) but the descriptions can be slightly misleading and are occasionally biased in favor of their author's preference on the dichotomy. They work, but the widely regarded "absolute" for typing people are the information elements. (IMs, also known as functions) They're found on Wikisocion here:
Information Elements

They theory accepts that all types "use" every IM, but in different positions, as you'll read in descriptions of the IMs.

Overall, I'd say LIE(ENTj) seems like your most likely typing from your limited self-description and I recommend you read up on LIE descriptions for the sake of confirming, if you haven't already. I'd also look into LSI(ISTj), LSE(ESTj), and perhaps ILI(INTp) to get a sense of how fitting LIE for you compared to some other similar types that might give the impression of an LIE.

Good luck on your journey into Socionics, and welcome to the forum.

[The Exception]

Without any exaggeration, I must say that the above description is the worst contrast of Fe and Fi I've ever seen.

Yeah, going by that, I'm going have to move to delta.

[Aiss]

I think some consider Dynamic/Static and Internal/External Reinin as well, although they're also information aspects. So maybe this clarification is useful to add?

Static/Dynamic is yet another shared one, yes. It's a good one, too. I don't see how internal/external could be translated into Reinin? That would mean NP+FJ, which isn't in accordance with the system.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request