Distinguishing Mirror Types - how to tell apart

[Azeroffs]

I was bored and just threw this together for fun. Not all traits are exclusively one type or the other. Just traits that tend to point to one type over the other.

LII and ILE

LII have a much more serious exterior. Cold and calculating. Usually working something out in their head. Sometimes stiffly conscientious and well mannered. Crush under unexpected pressure.

ILE are much more personable. Intellectually curious and interested. Unconventional. Clumsy and unnatural under pressure. Often inappropriate or immature.

SEI and ESE

SEI are calm. Smooth and slow moving with occasional bursts of energy. Tuned into nature and art. Hedonistic. Not overly perfectionist. Impenetrably friendly. May be irresponsible and lack focus.

ESE are very engaging. Natural hosts/hostesses. Overly energy expending. Wastes time/energy. Friendly, but not lacking in necessary seriousness. Strong altruistic tendencies.

LSI and SLE

LSI are very correct. Disciplined and controlled. Unshakable. Stiff, but still friendly and confident. Broken by the unfamiliar and unconventional. Unsure of the unusual. Slow to adapt.

SLE are fast-paced and full of energy. Very natural and sometimes instinctual. Quick witted. Friendly. Adaptable. Steps on toes. Fear acting inappropriately. Often lack natural tact.

IEI and EIE

IEI are somewhat detached. Very friendly. Strong insight into people's intentions. Naturally melancholy, but still engaging. Impatient with details. Lack work-ethic.

EIE are very emotional. Natural actors/actresses. Manipulative. Dramatic. Driven and ambitious. Very unrealistic. May strive for overly idealized/impossible goals.

ESI and SEE

ESI are very devoted. They are usually friendly, but can come off cold. Very strong willed and unwavering. Tied to their sense of duty and their inner circle of relationships. Attempt to appear objective and rational. Quick to judge. Slow to adapt.

SEE are very free-willed. They are natural socialites. They like to and are good at grabbing attention. Highly energetic. Strong willed, but unfocused. Hard time slowing down. Anxious and often scattered.

ILI and LIE

ILI are very detached. Often lost in thought. Strong philosophical insight. Cynical. Distant. Factually precise and accurate. Time and energy conservative. Emotionally unengaged.

LIE is much more optimistic. Strong sense of long term direction. Self-assured. Determined. Risk taking. Attempts to appear engaged and friendly. Can't fully enjoy the moment and have trouble entering a relaxed state.

EII and IEE

EII are very understanding and conscientious. They are very aware of how people work and their attitudes toward things and people. Contemplative. Attempt to appear objective and rational. Have problems asserting themselves.

IEE are extremely curious. They are attracted to everything new. They are fascinated by people but can shy from them. They are peace-loving but can be immovably confrontational. Can be very talkative but can also be very distant. They are extremely inconsistent and somewhat unstable.

SLI and LSE

SLI are very relaxed. Stable. Impenetrably earthy. Skeptical and unlikely to deviate from what they've experienced first-hand. Emotionally cool, and very hard to stir.

LSE are very hard working. Work is precise and detailed. Usually friendly and engaging but has weak control over their emotions. May let loose their rage unintentionally. Often needlessly precise and do things without any long term gain.

[redbaron]

hey those are pretty good.

do you really think EIEs are "very unrealistic"? Or do they just have high standards?

[Azeroffs]

As a rule, I'd say they're not unrealistic. Not anymore than anybody else tends to be.

The way I understand it Ni-creatives use their vision as a guide in life and tend base most of what they do on the future consequences of those actions. Both tend to be somewhat idealized, but with EIE not being based in how things work and function in the external world, it would make them pretty unrealistic.

Also, I believe it's point of conflict between them an SLI.

Also the INTp description needs work. "Factually precise and accurate" is the only part that fits. The rest sounds like an INTj.

How would you describe them? especially as being different than LIE. Just curious.

[discojoe]

Fuck you, these are good.

[Azeroffs]

But as far as the difference between EIE and IEI..

EIE have more motivation and greater natural ability to accomplish tasks, but they become stuck in their vision, and are less deeply contemplative. So when you take the infamous IEI imagination and put it through that change, you have someone who strives for some of the most impressive and glorious goals. They may be unrealistic and many set themselves up for failure, but otoh many end up at the top and accomplishing great things.

[Azeroffs]

Yeah but its not like they're wandering around with their heads up their asses. Most of them anyway. Realistically speaking, most EIEs I've met aren't people I'd consider rabidly idealistic airy-fairies too caught up in their own visions to notice pragmatic reality. Maybe not quite as cognizant of it as myself, but certainly not people I'd generally consider to be ungrounded. Even most INFps aren't that bad.

I don't think it'll be as obvious as every ENFj trying to become president and having absolutely no plan to get there. I'm not saying they're stupid. The just tend to be unrealistically grandiose, and at the same time driven. There's nothing wrong with big plans imo.

[MatthewZ]

I feel more and more ILE every time someone writes one of these.

[717495]

Get back in your cage.

[MatthewZ]

Get back in your cage.

There's always a bigger cage. If it's not my mind, then it's the room I'm in. If not the room, then the atmosphere. If not the atmosphere, then my lifespan in lightyears. I'm quite capable of creating my own cage, thank-you.

[silverchris9]

IEI and EIE

IEI are somewhat detached. Very friendly. Strong insight into people's intentions. Naturally melancholy, but still engaging. Impatient with details. Lack work-ethic.

Hey, my grandfather is IEI and he's legit one of the hardest working people I've heard of ever (doing A/V work loading and unloading trucks at the age of 70-something). And I'm not a slouch. Impatient with details is accurate though, as is melancholy-engaging.

[The Exception]

I feel more and more ILE every time someone writes one of these.

I feel kind of like a LII/ILE hybrid right now.

[ashlesha]

yeah these descriptions match up with my perceptions of the types i'm familiar with.

but, lol..

IEE are extremely curious. They are attracted to everything new. They are fascinated by people but can shy from them. They are peace-loving but can be immovably confrontational. Can be very talkative but can also be very distant. They are extremely inconsistent and somewhat unstable.

i'm hoping the connotation here was unintentional?

[Azeroffs]

Hey, my grandfather is IEI and he's legit one of the hardest working people I've heard of ever (doing A/V work loading and unloading trucks at the age of 70-something). And I'm not a slouch. Impatient with details is accurate though, as is melancholy-engaging.

How would you say Te-PoLR manifests in you and your grandfather? As well as very weak Se.
Or, how would you change the description?

[Azeroffs]

i'm hoping the connotation here was unintentional?

All IEEs are crazy, everyone knows that.

[silverchris9]

How would you say Te-PoLR manifests in you and your grandfather?

rofl. I'm sort of kidding. I mean, I actually come off as though I have a good work ethic insofar as I get a lot of shit done, but I have a superior capacity to procrastinate, and frequently coast on talent. There were several papers that I put off until 4 or 5am the morning they were due, which is just fundamentally stupid.

But seriously, Te-polr manifests, in my experience, in more of a refusal to recognize "reality" in a certain form. Sort of like, "I've constructed this beautiful narrative in my head." "But it doesn't fit the facts." "Well, then, damn the facts!" It's weird because we don't mind "reality" in the Se form, and I think that's because Se is directional: always for a purpose, or at least that's what it feels like to Ni-egos. Whereas Te seems silly: why would you want to know all of this "meaningless" (where meaningless essentially means "uninterpreted" or "unhumanized") information?

One example of me being "lazy" is there are some rather important forms I need to fill out that I've managed to procrastinate on for months. Literally months. Which is unbearably stupid. And that's an extreme example. But it's not a generalized laziness--otherwise I wouldn't have done anything during that period besides play video games, masturbate, and scratch, whereas I've gotten a lot done over that time period. It's a selective laziness, a laziness that applies to things we don't want to do, usually because the things are "boring" or "mundane." I mean, most people don't like mundane things. But Te-polrs have a special aversion to and a special lack of skill at most practical, um, things.

Also, IEI laziness can be described as inertia. Inertia more than anything. If I'm in motion on something, I stay in motion. But once I stop, I stop, and generally remain at rest until some external force acts upon me. It's very difficult for me to make myself do much of anything. The only reason I did homework was to get good enough grades to live up to my self-image as "smart."

[redbaron]

silverchris, that was perfect. Exactly the same for me. Selective laziness. And putting off forms... like when there are 50 school forms sitting on the kitchen table that they send us in freaking JUNE and the deadline isn't until AUGUST which means I don't touch them until the day before they're due, if I can still find them on the table where I left them under all the stuff that's accumulated since then. lol...

[silverchris9]

What would be an example of "uninterpreted, unhumanized" information?

I dunno, data. Looking at a long math problem, I just see a jumble of letters and numbers and crap and it takes me a minute to refocus to see any relevant information in all the data. It's like the difference between noise and sound. Sound is intelligible. Noise is... noise. I think that Te-polrs generally prefer to have assistance in interpreting the data, even if we can sorta do it for ourselves, i.e., Ti-HA. Hmmm... what else? Information that isn't organized. "Just the facts, ma'am." "Dry statistics."

I have to have a heruistic for organizing data before it is no longer painful to look at. If I sat down and looked at a bunch of information about, um, I dunno, stocks prices and mortgage rates and stuff, it would be totally meaningless to me.

Sounds like the condition of most people.

Clearly you don't understand the depths of my capacity to procrastinate. I meant to include the example of how I waited until 5am to start a paper I had to finish by 9, which was like 25% of my grade. I coast by on talent.

Also... socionics requires stereotyping. Is it a stereotype that LSEs are good at what I consider mundane work and IEIs are bad at it and have an even worse time of doing the mundane work than the LSE? Sure. Is it valid socionics? Of course. That's what I was describing.

Decisive + IP.

Yes, I was describing Se-DS, really. But since he was discussing laziness I figured I'd mention another "aspect" of IEI laziness.

Also, discojoe says that IEIs often ignore "correspondence to reality" in favor of "internal coherence," which is a manifestation of Te polr. Don't care if it's supported by the data, more interested in how the concept holds together or fails to.

[silverchris9]

Anybody would feel that way if they had no means of interpreting the data. Unless you have some kind of education in understanding mortgage rates and what not, it's going to be unintelligible, overwhelming noise. Nobody likes mindless data, including egos.

Nobody "likes" mindless data like nobody "likes" not knowing what's going to happen, or not knowing what a concept means. That doesn't mean that certain types don't work better with certain data.

That's how I see PoLR. Not so much in terms of laziness, procrastinating, not liking mindless data, or being impractical.

Sure, whatever, that's all well and good for a sort of intellectual manifestation that lines up very closely and clearly with IM descriptions, but this thread seemed to be geared more towards practical/behavioral applications. I wanted to take the behavioral applications a step further than "IEIs are lazy" but not so far as this sort of "this is what IEIs tend to be like intellectually," because that doesn't seem to be the point of the thread.

Also, sure, you're LIE, you're all about the nuances or whatever of Te, I guess. But the general associations are totally valid, I think: superior capacity for handling mundane tasks, orientation towards knowing the most practical or pragmatic approach to a situation (even if you don't necessarily pursue it) and preference for behaving in keeping with such "rationality" or "common sense," as it is termed. And I do think Te-polr can be generally associated with... not laziness, but a weakness for trying to avoid necessary practical steps (especially in IEIs), practical things that bring external structure and organization to your life and maximize how much you can get done, all that. Which looks like laziness, especially to Te-egos (where Fe-polr might look like, I dunno, deliberate social perversity or insensitivity or just plain boring-ness to Fe-egos), who do such things as a matter of course, much like how IEIs analyze motives and hidden meanings as a matter of course, and think that it's just stupid to fail to do so.

So actually, now that I think about it, laziness isn't a terrible description, because it will usually look like laziness to a Te-ego, especially one who knows nothing about socionics. That just won't resonate with IEIs, who generally prefer to reframe it as a charming indifference to practical (albeit necessary) details, rather than pure laziness.

Also, a good example (although she's EIE, not IEI), is Emma Bovary, who is destroyed because she can't stop spending, but even moreso, because she doesn't bother to learn the terms that she's agreeing to. She won't face the facts of how money works, because she---in her mind---shouldn't have to. She should be able to float in the airy realm of love and emotion forever, and the money should just be there, should just take care of itself. So she tries to do quick-fixes with money, and it's that, that carelessness with the practical financial terms of how her money works, how credit works, etc., that leads to her suicide, not her incessant pursuit of emotional and spiritual highs.

[Galen]

Despite me having lived with an ISFp mother all my life, I can't really pin down how Te PoLR manifests in people. I guess the only thing I've really noticed with her is that when she has a goal in mind, she doesn't particularly care if she does each step the 'correct' way. As an ENFp this part about her bugs me because I very mush desire knowing the correct actions that should be taken when undergoing a project. On the other hand, she seems sorta oblivious to the idea of a "right" or "wrong" way of doing something. I'm not sure this is an apt description of Te PoLR though, thoughts?

[Galen]

Oh, that would piss me off and I'd be thinking "what the fuck are you doing you animal? don't you want to do this the right/best way?"

lol kinda

I'm trying to think of more specific examples of this sort of behavior in her. I'll make another post later when I think of something good, or I'll edit this one.

[717495]

Yeah, that's kind of how I feel too about my Fe-INFp sister. She seems very chaotic and cannot actually sense her actions well, and does things improperly by my book.

[Azeroffs]

Te-PoLR is not about being lazy. IEI laziness is more attributable to Se-DS. Te is about acting rationally. Rather, acting in a way that makes the most sense according to impartial factors. Te-PoLR are usually stuck in acting in a way that makes the most sense according to partial factors. The reason why I would consider IEI the type with the worst work-ethic is because not only to they usually fail to consider impartial factors in decision making. They also lack desire to be involved with details that is necessary for quality work and they tend to be very selective in how they expend energy.

ILIs are very efficient in the objective world for the same reason that IEIs are very lazy. They are both very selective about how and when they expend energy. The difference is that ILI is focused on impartial factors when they take action.

[Aiss]

Dunno, but the association with Te PoLR and laziness makes me actually want to move my ass and smack someone, anyone, upside the head. Any type can be a lazy, procrastinating fuck.

Exactly. Every time IEIs write something about their laziness or procrastination or selective laziness or aversion to mundane tasks etc., it completely applies to me as well. Wake up, people, Te isn't work ethics. Many ESFjs have excellent work ethics, for one, despite issues with time management. Or maybe partly because of these issues, since it's important for them to keep up with their schedule.

One thing I notice with Te PoLR, though, is that they can greatly dislike it when people try to 'talk sense' when they are feeling very emotional about a perspective held. They can be very irrational in that way, but then again, no one likes to feel invalidated, even I. But they don't seem to be too interested in looking at things in a way that weighs the pros and cons. It's like the whole notion is totally foreign. They seem to be turned off by an encyclopediac knowledge of things, at least when it is used to revise their understanding of things and seem to not know how to revise their understanding according to information presented. They need to be shown where their understanding is flawed, usually by someone else's analysis, rather than, as said, seeing the 'facts' and realizing that this contradicts how they perceive the situation and making revisions on their own.

This has also been my observation. IEIs tend to hold onto their Ti-understanding dismissing Te-evidence against it. Probably ILIs do something similar with Fe and Fi. Like I'll usually act as if nothing happened after emotional exchanges with people, because I'm not sure how it affects my relations with them.

[silverchris9]

Dunno, but the association with Te PoLR and laziness makes me actually want to move my ass and smack someone, anyone, upside the head. Any type can be a lazy, procrastinating fuck.

One thing I notice with Te PoLR, though, is that they can greatly dislike it when people try to 'talk sense' when they are feeling very emotional about a perspective held. They can be very irrational in that way, but then again, no one likes to feel invalidated, even I. But they don't seem to be too interested in looking at things in a way that weighs the pros and cons. It's like the whole notion is totally foreign. They seem to be turned off by an encyclopediac knowledge of things, at least when it is used to revise their understanding of things and seem to not know how to revise their understanding according to information presented. They need to be shown where their understanding is flawed, usually by someone else's analysis, rather than, as said, seeing the 'facts' and realizing that this contradicts how they perceive the situation and making revisions on their own.

True. I'm still not giving up my claim that Te-polrs have a different experience of certain mundane tasks than other types, even if the other people don't like it any more or less. But this is a more apt description than the one I was giving. I don't want to revise my understanding based on "well, the facts contradict your story here, here, and here." I want someone to sit down and tell me where I made a wrong turn, so I can go back there, make the right turn, and pick up on my argument.

Despite me having lived with an ISFp mother all my life, I can't really pin down how Te PoLR manifests in people. I guess the only thing I've really noticed with her is that when she has a goal in mind, she doesn't particularly care if she does each step the 'correct' way. As an ENFp this part about her bugs me because I very mush desire knowing the correct actions that should be taken when undergoing a project. On the other hand, she seems sorta oblivious to the idea of a "right" or "wrong" way of doing something. I'm not sure this is an apt description of Te PoLR though, thoughts?

I'm so with your mom on this. I don't care in the slightest about the "right" way to do things. Not. At. All. Like, I am beyond indifferent to doing things the right way. You know why? Because I want to do things in the way that requires the least conscious energy from me. If I have to do some boring shit, even if it's an important part of some larger goal that is fun/important/worthwhile, I want to be able to zone out and do it in as rote a way as possible, even if the rote way is slow, because the total energy expenditure, and the amount of energy I have to devote to something that I don't consider worthwhile (in itself, as opposed to in the scheme of a larger goal) is minimized. If I have to do something dull, I'd rather do it in the rote, stupid way rather than in the quick way. Which is maybe where that stuff about Te-polrs being lazy comes from (although as Azeroff's said, IXI laziness is far more attributable to Se-DS than anything else), because it's a positive feedback loop: I don't want to pay attention to the task so I do it slowly therefore I have an even worse association for it in my mind therefore I don't want to pay attention to the task even more, etc. So perhaps it's not so much that Te-polrs have trouble with mindless work as that over time, our tendency to do work in inefficient ways leads us to have repeatedly negative experiences with certain kinds of work (especially those that require efficiency and knowledge of the "right" way to do something), which in turn leads us to try to avoid that work even more and work even less hard on it (I do my best to stay in my head, which is interesting, while doing work that is boring), which in turn leads us to have an even worse experience with the work. Like I said, positive feedback loop. Which is why ILIs might be similarly lazy, or ESEs or IEEs or whatever, but this is the specific process by which IEI laziness will often occur.

Also, you're 100% right about having no concept of the "right" or "wrong" way to do something. I don't even believe in right and wrong ways to do things. There are "ways that work" and "ways that don't" and "ways that require me to expend energy" and "ways that I can do with my brain turned off in order to avoid giving this action any more of my precious brain power than it deserves."

Te-PoLR is not about being lazy. IEI laziness is more attributable to Se-DS. Te is about acting rationally. Rather, acting in a way that makes the most sense according to impartial factors. Te-PoLR are usually stuck in acting in a way that makes the most sense according to partial factors. The reason why I would consider IEI the type with the worst work-ethic is because not only to they usually fail to consider impartial factors in decision making. They also lack desire to be involved with details that is necessary for quality work and they tend to be very selective in how they expend energy.

ILIs are very efficient in the objective world for the same reason that IEIs are very lazy. They are both very selective about how and when they expend energy. The difference is that ILI is focused on impartial factors when they take action.

Truth! Laziness is more about Se-DS, like I said, needing a push to make me start and a pull to make me stop. I like the term inertia because it implies difficulty changing states, rather than difficulty moving at all (and of course, you can extend the metaphor by saying that most activities do produce some degree of friction slowing the IEI down. And TRUTH about "lack desire to be involved with details that are necessary for quality work." That's what I've been trying to get at (at least some part of it), the whole time. Maybe the forms that people don't want to fill out are boring to everyone, but this explains well how IEIs experience stuff like that. We're not good at necessary evils when it involves details. Of course, being IEI I disagree that these practical factors are always necessary for success, but I will note that what an IEI considers a "detail" not worth paying attention to varies wildly, even varies by the day, as you said, due to "partial" factors, like how we're feeling that day and the like. Some days a detail is something genuinely unimportant, like whether the thermostat in the building is set to 71 or 72. Other days, it's something really important, like remembering release forms for a video shoot . Or checking the thermostat in some building where one degree of temperature is the difference between a manageable number of bacteria and an unmanageable number of bacteria or something. Which is why IEIs make shitty lab assistants unless we're really, really interested in science and the lab assistant job is seen as something VERY IMPORTANT to a larger goal. IEIs are willing to swallow our gorge and do whatever is necessary, even mundane detail work, if we see the overall goal as important enough to us personally. How important we consider the goal turns out to be far more important than how mundane and how important the individual task is.

[redbaron]

I'm so with your mom on this. I don't care in the slightest about the "right" way to do things. Not. At. All. Like, I am beyond indifferent to doing things the right way. You know why? Because I want to do things in the way that requires the least conscious energy from me. If I have to do some boring shit, even if it's an important part of some larger goal that is fun/important/worthwhile, I want to be able to zone out and do it in as rote a way as possible, even if the rote way is slow, because the total energy expenditure, and the amount of energy I have to devote to something that I don't consider worthwhile (in itself, as opposed to in the scheme of a larger goal) is minimized. If I have to do something dull, I'd rather do it in the rote, stupid way rather than in the quick way. Which is maybe where that stuff about Te-polrs being lazy comes from (although as Azeroff's said, IXI laziness is far more attributable to Se-DS than anything else), because it's a positive feedback loop: I don't want to pay attention to the task so I do it slowly therefore I have an even worse association for it in my mind therefore I don't want to pay attention to the task even more, etc. So perhaps it's not so much that Te-polrs have trouble with mindless work as that over time, our tendency to do work in inefficient ways leads us to have repeatedly negative experiences with certain kinds of work (especially those that require efficiency and knowledge of the "right" way to do something), which in turn leads us to try to avoid that work even more and work even less hard on it (I do my best to stay in my head, which is interesting, while doing work that is boring), which in turn leads us to have an even worse experience with the work. Like I said, positive feedback loop. Which is why ILIs might be similarly lazy, or ESEs or IEEs or whatever, but this is the specific process by which IEI laziness will often occur.

Also, you're 100% right about having no concept of the "right" or "wrong" way to do something. I don't even believe in right and wrong ways to do things. There are "ways that work" and "ways that don't" and "ways that require me to expend energy" and "ways that I can do with my brain turned off in order to avoid giving this action any more of my precious brain power than it deserves."

yup. this is so true for me.

IEIs are willing to swallow our gorge and do whatever is necessary, even mundane detail work, if we see the overall goal as important enough to us personally. How important we consider the goal turns out to be far more important than how mundane and how important the individual task is.

[Creepy-male]

Lol @ the right way/wrong way thing. Too true

For me, it's more like... I don't care if there's this established way of doing something, I have my *own* way figured out! I guess my problem comes from the fact that I don't really check to see if it's better or worse... and it's usually the latter, lol.

I suppose this matches up with the Fi/Fe discussion between Aiss and aixelsyd above, in terms of having this Ti system worked out but being totally divorced from any Te measure of how it works on the outside.

Both logical elements deal with efficiency. , being Introverted, is concerned with how one action leads on to another: is my framework for achieving this thing optimised and free of redundancy, and does it generally make sense? , being Extraverted, is concerned with how those actions manifest on the outside and: is this thing I'm doing getting the results I want? Are my actions taxing my energy unnecessarily?

(I assume that EJ elements perceive how things interact with one another; a mechanical analogy would be that EJ measures the fluctuations in energy of an object, and by consequence how that energy is transferred between the object and other objects. most certainly does this with emotional energy.)

NB: I'm modelling this purely on my experience with questing/designing talent specs in WoW, which I've been doing for years now, so it's quite possible I'm just reasonably experienced and acclimated to Te matters in that specific realm.

[Galen]

Also, you're 100% right about having no concept of the "right" or "wrong" way to do something. I don't even believe in right and wrong ways to do things. There are "ways that work" and "ways that don't" and "ways that require me to expend energy" and "ways that I can do with my brain turned off in order to avoid giving this action any more of my precious brain power than it deserves."

Yeah, this seems like a very common belief among Fe/Ti valuers, even outside of Te PoLR people. I was arguing with this INFp and ESFj once, and I remarked that "if INFp hadn't done this, then we wouldn't be arguing." The response was that the ESFj said something to the effect of "stop being a judgmental asshole," when all the time I had no idea what I was doing. I suppose to Fe/Ti, to imply that somebody did a certain thing in a bad way is painfully judgmental to the point of inciting argumentation. I explained this situation to shindaiwa (ENTp) and he castigated me for implying that there are right and wrong ways of doing things. It's actually really frustrating, because even if I say that "I understand you don't see right and wrong ways of doing things but I do," that's never enough to satiate the other person. It's kinda like they feel a tremendous need to convince me otherwise.

[silverchris9]

Yeah, this seems like a very common belief among Fe/Ti valuers, even outside of Te PoLR people. I was arguing with this INFp and ESFj once, and I remarked that "if INFp hadn't done this, then we wouldn't be arguing." The response was that the ESFj said something to the effect of "stop being a judgmental asshole," when all the time I had no idea what I was doing. I suppose to Fe/Ti, to imply that somebody did a certain thing in a bad way is painfully judgmental to the point of inciting argumentation. I explained this situation to shindaiwa (ENTp) and he castigated me for implying that there are right and wrong ways of doing things. It's actually really frustrating, because even if I say that "I understand you don't see right and wrong ways of doing things but I do," that's never enough to satiate the other person. It's kinda like they feel a tremendous need to convince me otherwise.

People are very sensitive about their polrs, and their duals are very quick to defend them. When you blame me for doing something wrong, it's like, of course, I know I did them wrong, you idiot. Don't rub it in. I know I fucked up, can we just move on without lingering on my failure? That's basically my reaction. It's like if you try to be to Se-y with an EII, the EII and the LSE are going to act like you committed a major crime. If you point out a Te-failure of an IEI, merry quadra people are likely to come to IEI's defense, even if they will admit to you that it's all IEI's fault when the IEI walks away. Heck, the IEI would probably admit it to you a few months/years later when it no longer mattered and was no longer a sore spot. That's my knee-jerk opinion.

[Galen]

People are very sensitive about their polrs, and their duals are very quick to defend them. When you blame me for doing something wrong, it's like, of course, I know I did them wrong, you idiot. Don't rub it in. I know I fucked up, can we just move on without lingering on my failure? That's basically my reaction. It's like if you try to be to Se-y with an EII, the EII and the LSE are going to act like you committed a major crime. If you point out a Te-failure of an IEI, merry quadra people are likely to come to IEI's defense, even if they will admit to you that it's all IEI's fault when the IEI walks away. Heck, the IEI would probably admit it to you a few months/years later when it no longer mattered and was no longer a sore spot. That's my knee-jerk opinion.

Hmm wow. This is really insightful to me, and I think my mom is very much the same way. She often admits to herself that "she can't do anything right," although it seems more out of self-pity than anything else (at least that's how I interpret it). For valuers is it really a matter of self-pity in that regard, or is it just an idle admission with no emotional attachment to it?

[silverchris9]

Hmm wow. This is really insightful to me, and I think my mom is very much the same way. She often admits to herself that "she can't do anything right," although it seems more out of self-pity than anything else (at least that's how I interpret it). For valuers is it really a matter of self-pity in that regard, or is it just an idle admission with no emotional attachment to it?

Um, both? I dunno. If I said that, I would probably just mean that I messed something up, but the subtext would be, "sure, I messed that up, but I least I'm smart enough to know I messed it up, and isn't it kinda adorable that I suck so much at practical tasks?" So, um, you're right that it is self-pity, but it's more like desire for pity from others than self pity. But the self pity aspect doesn't make it any less of an admission of failure. It's an admission of failure without an admission of guilt for that failure. If you want to interpret it via Fe = shame, Fi = guilt, then it's saying, "I know that I should feel shame for this failure, and I do; however, I don't feel guilty for it, because, well, look at me, I'm too cute to actually be at fault; it's just who I am, and I can't feel guilty for being who I am; I'm just that kind of person, and 'tis no sin to labor in one's vocation, Hal." I think it is fair to say that Fe-valuers are more comfortable feeling ashamed than feeling guilty, although of course neither feeling is pleasant. But shame I think is a productive unpleasantness for Fe-valuers, whereas guilt is less productive and more just unpleasant. At least, that's a neat Ti system, and I don't think it's totally inaccurate when actually applied to reality.

[Galen]

Um, both? I dunno. If I said that, I would probably just mean that I messed something up, but the subtext would be, "sure, I messed that up, but I least I'm smart enough to know I messed it up, and isn't it kinda adorable that I suck so much at practical tasks?" So, um, you're right that it is self-pity, but it's more like desire for pity from others than self pity. But the self pity aspect doesn't make it any less of an admission of failure. It's an admission of failure without an admission of guilt for that failure. If you want to interpret it via Fe = shame, Fi = guilt, then it's saying, "I know that I should feel shame for this failure, and I do; however, I don't feel guilty for it, because, well, look at me, I'm too cute to actually be at fault; it's just who I am, and I can't feel guilty for being who I am; I'm just that kind of person, and 'tis no sin to labor in one's vocation, Hal." I think it is fair to say that Fe-valuers are more comfortable feeling ashamed than feeling guilty, although of course neither feeling is pleasant. But shame I think is a productive unpleasantness for Fe-valuers, whereas guilt is less productive and more just unpleasant. At least, that's a neat Ti system, and I don't think it's totally inaccurate when actually applied to reality.

I'm saving this post for future reference because this is really insightful.

Whenever I do something wrong I can feel shame about it depending on the context, but I guess that wrong action becomes much more of an incentive to do it a better way the next time.

[717495]

Yeah, this seems like a very common belief among Fe/Ti valuers, even outside of Te PoLR people. I was arguing with this INFp and ESFj once, and I remarked that "if INFp hadn't done this, then we wouldn't be arguing." The response was that the ESFj said something to the effect of "stop being a judgmental asshole," when all the time I had no idea what I was doing. I suppose to Fe/Ti, to imply that somebody did a certain thing in a bad way is painfully judgmental to the point of inciting argumentation. I explained this situation to shindaiwa (ENTp) and he castigated me for implying that there are right and wrong ways of doing things. It's actually really frustrating, because even if I say that "I understand you don't see right and wrong ways of doing things but I do," that's never enough to satiate the other person. It's kinda like they feel a tremendous need to convince me otherwise.

I don't really get this vibe. I think some people are perfectionistic in certain areas of life. It can sometimes bother me too when I'm not a perfectionist about something and alpha or beta people will tell me I'm doing it wrong and there's only "the best" way to do it, and I just want to do it the way I feel, and I want to be open and see different perspectives.

I don't see the objectivist subjectivist dichotomy holding up that well in this regard.

[Suz]

Um, both? I dunno. If I said that, I would probably just mean that I messed something up, but the subtext would be, "sure, I messed that up, but I least I'm smart enough to know I messed it up, and isn't it kinda adorable that I suck so much at practical tasks?"

Doesn't that sound more infantile, though?

p.s. Azeroffs those descriptions were GREAT! totally related to the IEE one and the EII one fits the several EII i know.

[Galen]

I don't really get this vibe. I think some people are perfectionistic in certain areas of life. It can sometimes bother me too when I'm not a perfectionist about something and alpha or beta people will tell me I'm doing it wrong and there's only "the best" way to do it, and I just want to do it the way I feel, and I want to be open and see different perspectives.

I don't see the objectivist subjectivist dichotomy holding up that well in this regard.

I didn't think of this situation as a matter of perfectionism. But even in situations where I don't particularly care if I'm perfect about everything or not, I'll still really appreciate help from people saying ways in which I could improve, as well as how such changes would warrant improvement. Besides, I'm not yet sure that this sort of thing isn't a foolproof distinction between Fi/Te and Fe/Ti people.

And to remark on Pirate's part about "shame vs guilt", I guess I would prefer to be guilty over shameful. Guilt is an easy feeling to remedy: an apt apology seems to do the job for me. But when it comes to shame about having done something wrong, I see that as more "lol look at what the retard did", and I guess it feels very suffocating in those moments. Plus there's isn't any real remedy for that except to do better next time, which doesn't really make the embarrassment of the old mistake go away. With guilt, there's some sort of definite immediate action I can take to remedy it, and I'm not sure I get that with "shame". Then again I could just be hyper E6 and am super neurotic about everything by nature

[Aiss]

I didn't think of this situation as a matter of perfectionism. But even in situations where I don't particularly care if I'm perfect about everything or not, I'll still really appreciate help from people saying ways in which I could improve, as well as how such changes would warrant improvement. Besides, I'm not yet sure that this sort of thing isn't a foolproof distinction between Fi/Te and Fe/Ti people.

I always associated this kind of thing with rational/irrational, mostly because it's usually rationals (not the least Alpha) who have issues with me not doing something "right" (as in, their way). But then you say you're irrational too, so maybe it simply isn't this much type related, or maybe it's affected by subtype. And I feel about doing things pretty much like silverchris described, except I can see how, with usually the same criteria he mentions, I tend to consider some way "right" under the circumstances (which determine results and what I'm optimizing - usually it's the effort involved), so maybe there's something to it, especially as Te is said to be responsible for creating methods.

I don't agree with many Reinin dichotomies, but this about positivist/negativist seems to work (especially with LII and ESE):

Positivists
(...)
5. Explains what things are (irrationals) or should be (rationals).

Negativists

(...)
5. Explains what things are not (irrationals) or should not be (rationals).

[Galen]

I always associated this kind of thing with rational/irrational, mostly because it's usually rationals (not the least Alpha) who have issue with me not doing something right (as in, their way). But then you say you're irrational too, so maybe it simply isn't this much type related, or is affected by subtype.

This is probably the case, although I guess as an Fi sub I'm much more consciously inclined to Te stuffs or something. Maybe it's more that the criteria for what is "right" and "wrong" is vastly different between Fi/Te and Fe/Ti? I have no means of extrapolating on that idea though.

I still like the idea of "you should have done this" as being terribly insulting to Fe/Ti people though haha

[717495]

I've noticed it more in MBTI... like its more typical of judging types to have a certain objective way, that so happens to be right, or something. I have noticed it sort of with subtype, like Js are rational subs, but its not always the case. My Ne-ENTp and Si-ISFp friends, for instance, are really objectivists and want things to be done "right," and my Ni-ENFj dad can tend to be the same way. It all really depends on what your focus is.

But I understand where you're coming from Galen. Seems similar for me.

I still like the idea of "you should have done this" as being terribly insulting to Fe/Ti people though haha

Haha.

[silverchris9]

Doesn't that sound more infantile, though?

Um, perhaps, but I think that IEIs can certainly "seem" infantile, at least insofar as we can seem like we need help. I mean, that works more with women than with men, since men have more cultural pressure to seem stronger, but certainly an IEI seeming weak and laughing at ourselves about how bad we are at practical things gives the SLE the opportunity to step up and fix the IEI's problem so the IEI can use Fe to honor the SLE for being the best. It's a pretty freaking awesome transaction for the IEI (and rather sucky for the SLE): service in return for smiles, basically.

I don't really get this vibe. I think some people are perfectionistic in certain areas of life. It can sometimes bother me too when I'm not a perfectionist about something and alpha or beta people will tell me I'm doing it wrong and there's only "the best" way to do it, and I just want to do it the way I feel, and I want to be open and see different perspectives.

I don't see the objectivist subjectivist dichotomy holding up that well in this regard.

That's more likely to be a Ti/Te thing or even an Fi/Fe thing. Fe/Ti people get bothered about people complaining about a "better" Te way, and Te/Fi people get bothered about people complaining about a way that's more internally coherent, i.e., "that way doesn't make sense!"

And to remark on Pirate's part about "shame vs guilt", I guess I would prefer to be guilty over shameful. Guilt is an easy feeling to remedy: an apt apology seems to do the job for me. But when it comes to shame about having done something wrong, I see that as more "lol look at what the retard did", and I guess it feels very suffocating in those moments. Plus there's isn't any real remedy for that except to do better next time, which doesn't really make the embarrassment of the old mistake go away. With guilt, there's some sort of definite immediate action I can take to remedy it, and I'm not sure I get that with "shame". Then again I could just be hyper E6 and am super neurotic about everything by nature

huh, yeah. I feel like I know what to do about shame, it's external. If you just change people's feelings, then you don't have to feel shame any more because shame is generated from the external environment. And then my understanding that I'm guilty will motivate me to avoid that wrong action in the future, even though I don't want to talk about the "guilt" or focus on it. But I don't know what to do about guilt, because guilt is an inner conviction, and I don't know how to fix an interior feeling except to try to pretend I'm not guilty at all, when I know I really am. Like, apology doesn't seem like enough, because the apology doesn't undo the problem, it's still there. And yet somehow people removing the shame aspect, saying it's fine, you screwed up, but hey, don't worry about, makes it more OK.

I always associated this kind of thing with rational/irrational, mostly because it's usually rationals (not the least Alpha) who have issues with me not doing something "right" (as in, their way). But then you say you're irrational too, so maybe it simply isn't this much type related, or maybe it's affected by subtype. And I feel about doing things pretty much like silverchris described, except I can see how, with usually the same criteria he mentions, I tend to consider some way "right" under the circumstances (which determine results and what I'm optimizing - usually it's the effort involved), so maybe there's something to it, especially as Te is said to be responsible for creating methods.

And I can totally see an ESE conflicting with an ILI about the right way to do something, and that's likely to be even sillier, even from my perspective, because often the ESE wants to do something a certain way just 'cause that's the way they know, and they'll get stubborn if you push them on it rather than gently prodding them towards the alternative way.

I think the base of it is accurate, and a healthy ESE is more likely to focus on how much an idea makes sense or not rather than the right and wrong way to do something. And really, the ESE is more likely to say, "oh, you did that wrong, just give it to me, I'll do it. Oh woe is me, I'm so put upon that I have to do everything my self and no one will help me (but I secretly enjoy being the poor put-upon one that saves everyone and they'd be lost without me)" Which is different than an LSE saying, "this is ridiculous, it makes no sense to me that you would do it this stupid way rather than this other intelligent way. Didn't I tell you to do it the smart way?" So the tenor is different. It's not so much about whether or not you have a preferred way of doing things (that's more temperament based), but under what criteria you you prefer your way. ESEs are, I think, more likely to want to do something a certain way just 'cause that's the way they learned, and they're helped by someone sitting down and explaining to them, "hey, actually, that way doesn't make the most sense, because see here, and here, and here, so actually if you change it slightly..." especially if it's someone that will still respect them when they say, "But I do it this way." Period. Whereas they are not helped by someone just telling them, "but this is the more rational way to do it," rather than going in to their existing method and explaining where it does and does not make sense.

So, the concept could use some refining but I think the core of it is accurate insofar as Ti/Fe and Fi/Te have different ways of approaching the question of preferred methods and which way is the right way.

[consentingadult]

Despite me having lived with an ISFp mother all my life, I can't really pin down how Te PoLR manifests in people.

Ask your mom to do the dishes manually for once, then inspect the quality of her work :wink:

[Suz]

Ask your mom to do the dishes manually for once, then inspect the quality of her work :wink:

Wow, that explains a lot about some people's reaction to my leadership style.