Just thinking about EM types--seeking input

[golden]

So crazedrat posited the idea that because I got super pissy in response to flamming, I must be either ENFP IM or ENFP EM. There's no way I can be ENFP IM--I'm clearly introverted, and IEI (unfortunately) describes all my strengths and weaknesses precisely.

In tcaud's thread for helping people determine their EM types, we came up with EIE. I don't know--maybe that fits.

The thing is, I really like the idea of EM types; I think it could be really helpful to follow that construct. Ergo, I'd like to continue to explore my own and others' (when I know for sure what their IM type is) dual types.

Question: when considering the functions and their placement, how do things stack up? How do they operate? For example, one reason it's hard for me to imagine myself as having an ENFP EM is that type's PoLR. I know some ENFPs and have seen this pattern again and again of not respecting authority, not being able to fit into a workplace because of it, hopping from job to job and niche to niche as a result of interpersonal friction. Before I ever knew any smidgen about Socionics I saw this characteristic very clearly in my ENFP mother-in-law and my ENFP college roommate and was dumbfounded by it.

Because I am not at all like that. My workplace philosophy is that I'm glad someone else is the boss, I respect the boss, and I rely on the boss. I pass a lot of problems up to the boss when I know that if I handle the issue myself it can cause her problems down the road, and I don't really care all that much if the boss is right or wrong or even knows her ass from a hole in the ground. I just accept that the boss is not infallible and leave it there, and I know that no organization is perfect, but as long as I enjoy my domain within it, I'm okay.

Anyway ... I guess I'm just struggling to understand how the roles and functions would play out in EM. Maybe it's because I'm still learning Socionics? If there are differences between role and function in EM vs. IM, what would they look like?

[crazedrat]

The EM type is about the information you observe, the IM is about the way you process it. You wouldn't actively rebel against your boss; that would make Ti polr a process. Instead you'd want to be your own boss. You'd think corporate hierarchies are ineffective in helping you reach your goals. This would extend to more than just corporate hierarchies to any structured system.

An ENFp EM pays attention to possibilities in relationships between people. People can interact in a variety of ways, sound or unsound. A relationship is good or bad depending on how functional it is. Ti polr in this regard looks like parameters for action which ignore what's functional and sound. The parameters are constraining. You would avoid that constraint.

This has to be considered alongside the IM to see its full realization. With Ti as HA in IM I think you'd strive for an ideal working system which didn't limit you in any way. You'd want to retain your freedom, but still acknowledge the need for some structure.

[CILi]

If there are differences between role and function in EM vs. IM, what would they look like?

crazedrat put it perfect, but the stuff below may be helpful in conceptualizing and comparing IM/EM and all. It's ripped pretty much verbatim from tcaud's site, though if anyone in the know thinks it's wrong, lemme know and I'll edit/delete.

Accepting IM -- What You Plan to Change the World To
Producing IM -- What The World Is
Accepting EM -- How You Plan to Change the World
Producing EM -- Why The World Is

IM = What / EM = How and Why

IM Dominant: What People Need From Each Other and, thus, You Must Offer
IM Creative: What People Don't Need From Each Other
IM Role: What Can't Be Achieved Socially
IM PoLR: What Shouldn't Be Done By People For Each Other
IM Suggestive: What You Shouldn't Create By Yourself
IM HA: What You Can't Create By Yourself
IM Ignoring: What You Don't Need
IM Demonstrative: What You Must Do For Yourself

EM Dominant: What You Can Do For Others (Fixation)
EM Creative: What You Don't Need to Do For Others (What We Play With and Tweak)
EM Role: What You Can't Do For Others
EM PoLR: What You Shouldn't Do For Others
EM Suggestive: What You Shouldn't Do For Yourself
EM HA: What You Can't Do For Yourself
EM Ignoring: What You Don't Need To Do For Yourself
EM Demonstrative: What You Can Do For Yourself

[tcaudilllg]

Yeah, the EM is a matter of efficacy, while the IM represents a sort of personal code by which one lives.

[golden]

Yay--that's a nice simple rubric, CILi. Please don't delete it even if someone else thinks it's crap.

Crazedrat, I'm still considering what you said, together with CILi's post.

So in fact I've been self-employed for the last six years and am my own boss most of the time. I decided to go that route out of expediency (raising a small child, moving for a while to a rural area). It has its advantages and disadvantages. It does allow me the freedom to do as I please pretty often, because I can make my personal life however important I want to, and I can travel and work at the same time. But because there is no real career ladder in it, I'm also frustrated with self-employment. And I miss having real-life, in-the-flesh colleagues.

So to me, being self-employed is freeing in the short-term and restrictive in the long-term. And I'm going to move back to a city in January or so and look more seriously for an in-house position. I started testing the waters and can see it will take a while in "this economy."

In my field, in-house jobs are normally pretty self-directive, though. There's some pleasant brainstorming and teamwork, and then back to the solitude of managing one's own sphere, one's own projects. I don't like being micromanaged, ever. So the fact that I work in the kind of jobs where micromanagement rarely happens isn't a coincidence. But even now, sometimes I have a client who is all in my business about every little thing. As long as the in-my-business stuff is purely editorial/creative, it's workable for me. But if it's a question of the client trying to control my daily schedule, for example, I don't want to work with them, because that's the whole point for me of being freelance.

(Also, the only way to juggle multiple clients properly is to have no single one of them who takes up huge, pre-ordained chunks of your time daily. So I don't want to take on a new client at the expense of long-established favorites.)

One other thing? We all know because of my self-spewage that I was married to a Delta. And I now see that almost everyone in his family is also Delta. I never fit in with them. There came a fateful Thanksgiving a few years into the marriage when we went to my sister-in-law's house, and on the way there I decided that I would just "act like them." And I did. And after a few hours, I got deeply pissed off, because I could tell that everyone was much, much more comfortable with me, whereas I felt like a nothing ball of shit pretending to be "one of them." That was a beginning-of-the-end situation for me with his family, where I felt like the long-term picture was there was no way I'd ever be really accepted or feel at ease among them. There was never any blow-up, just stalemate, as in the marriage itself.

So if I had a Delta EM type, would that have helped me feel more part of that family? It wasn't that they were unable to welcome in-laws in general--it was just subtly, specifically me they were unable to embrace. Or could I have a Delta EM type and see it having no effect on that front?

[golden]

Yeah, the EM is a matter of efficacy, while the IM represents a sort of personal code by which one lives.

Okay. Digesting ...

[golden]

I'm still struggling here. Basically, I'm trying to use the EM-types hypothesis to understand Socionics better as a whole--I tend to work indirectly on things, so approaching it from this perspective is a good back-door approach for me.

Someone in another thread asked whether EM types can change. Can they?

If they can, I would say that in the past I was more of an EIE EM, but that now I might have become more of an IEE EM. I was able to pretty well rule out the three other possibilities that tcaud named for me in the dual-typing thread (LSI, SEI, SLI--they just don't add up when I go through the functional analysis).

Questions, still. Would "being" IEI-IEE tend to confuse people about what I am "really" like? My perception is that people will expect me to be one way, only to discover that I am different than expected.

Would "being" IEI-IEE help me to get along better with Delta IM types? Or would I only eventually disappoint Deltas as they gradually realize I am not actually one of them, lol?

Would "being" IEI-IEE conversely make my Beta friends confused, as well? I know all of this depends on many factors, but ... grrr.

What strikes me as interesting/odd about the IM/EM construct is that unlike the IM types considered alone, there seems to be an implication that some combinations would be inherently more advantageous than others.

[CILi]

Again, I could be way off on this; but, I've pieced together a couple tcaud posts, and this might be helpful.

Think of your "Life Motto" as "I want to EM by IM-ing."

Using you as an example (IEI-xxx), we get "I want to ____ by being ethical."

Quoting one of tcaud's IEI-SLE examples, it's "I want to win by being ethical."

Thus, the big question may be: "What do you want to do for the world by behaving ethically, by making ethical decisions?"

[golden]

Lol, I'm not even sure I want to be ethical.

Basically, I want to create things and ideas, and to do so in an authentic and personal way.

ETA: Or let's say, to create things and transmit ideas, and to support other people in the creation and transmission of things and ideas, and to do so in an authentic and personal way.

ETA2: And this begs the question of what is being created, and what the support consists of. All the things I create or support the creation of lie in the cultural/artistic sphere. And I best support the creation process by finding and offering structure and guidance that will take creative impulses and unfinished creative products through to completion. Not by taking over someone else's work, but by assisting them in finishing or presenting their own work.

[crazedrat]

What strikes me as interesting/odd about the IM/EM construct is that unlike the IM types considered alone, there seems to be an implication that some combinations would be inherently more advantageous than others.

This is implied by socionics idealized view of duality. But socionicists too much understate & gloss over the negative parts of duality.
Duals exist very apart from eachother. They lack relatability. Dual relationships are the hardest to strike up, and most likely to fizzle out during the first stages. Duals shy away from eachother. They view eachother as unattainable. This is a clear flaw in the relationship.
When IM-EM is dual with itself, nothing lives up to the persons ideals. Everyday life is found flawed and inferior. The persons high standards make their fulfillment seem unreachable. The person will become stagnated both by the weight of their idealism and rejection of the mundane.
There's really no ideal IM-EM, it's all qualitative differences. Same with relationships, when you get down to it. Love is so idealized by most people they don't even experience it. Yes the IM-EM relationship will dictate social class and leadership qualities, but still those are qualitative differences.
As for whether you'll get along with Betas.. You'd still get along fine with Beta-Delta types. But you can get along with any type, it's just the nature of the relationship is different.
Unlikely your EM type has changed. EIE and IEE are quasi, it's more likely there's some superficial confusion about your EM happening. I could be completely wrong, you could be -EIE and everything I described which you related to is a quasi relation. I think it's best to just learn the theory yourself and type yourself.

[CILi]

Basically, I want to create things and ideas, and to do so in an authentic and personal way.

Do either of these resonate? (I'll quote the rest below.)

Ne(T) - Imagination, Ideal, Aspiration, Possibility, Imaginary Experience, Creation of Ideas, Beliefs

Ne(F) - Possibilities, Option, Potential Happening, Talent, Ability, Capability

Ne(F) - Possibilities, Option, Potential Happening, Talent, Ability, Capability

Fi(N) - Motivation, Interest, Fascination, Desire, Attraction-Repulsion

Ne(T) - Imagination, Ideal, Aspiration, Possibility, Imaginary Experience, Creation of Ideas, Beliefs

Ti(N) - Logic, Theory, Hypothesis, System, Technology, Existence, Space, Attribution, Categorization, Thing, Situation, Balance or Imbalance

Ni(F) - Choice, Behavior, Process, Orderly or Disorderly

Fe(N) - Emotion, Love-Hate, Emotional States, Communication, Discourse, Words, Speech, Perspective, Signal, Meaning or Meaninglessness

Ni(T) - Time, Undertaking, Outcome: Past-Future, Hurriedness-Laziness, Plan of action, Scheme, Sequence of events, Universe, Dimensions, Futures, Timeline, Time splits, Evolution, Cycle, Duration, Longevity, Immediate temporal data, Chronology, Readiness or Unreadiness

Te(N) - Trade, Possession, Acquisition, Wealth, Poverty, Trade-Theft, Business, Economy, Exchange, Gain, Reciprocation, Quantitative data, Quantities: Great-Small, Monetary contracts, Sufficiency or Insufficiency

Se(F) - People, Networking, Affiliation, Politics, Distance-Closeness, Friendship, Sensation, Physical contact, Reaching out, Colour, Smell, Taste, Sight, Qualia, Contact/Sensation, Stimulating or Unstimulating

Fi(S) - Attitude, Morality, Ethics, Values, Fairness, Equity, Justice, Equality

Se(T) - Struggle, Effort, Blows, War-Peace, Dissent-Division, Unity-Animosity, Conflict-Unity, Conflict-Coherence, Conflict-Peace, Volition, Strong or Weak

Ti(S) - Movement, Reason, Territory, Trespass, Privacy, Personal Space, Rhythm, Real-estate, Distance or Proximity

Si(F) - Aesthetics, Pleasure-Displeasure, Enjoyment-Pain, Pleasantness, Experience, Discomfort, Contours, Comfort, Style, Stimulation

Fe(S) - Opinion, Belief, Tolerance, Agreement-Disagreement, Acceptance or Resistance, Like/Dislike, Argument

Si(T) - Aid, Assist-Injure, Help-Hinder, Facilitation-Obstruction, Interference, Constructive or Destructive

Te(S) - Coordination, Organized system, Rank, Team, Position, Positioning/Relation of objects, Hierarchy

[golden]

Do either of these resonate? (I'll quote the rest below.)

Ne(T) - Imagination, Ideal, Aspiration, Possibility, Imaginary Experience, Creation of Ideas, Beliefs

Ne(F) - Possibilities, Option, Potential Happening, Talent, Ability, Capability

I don't know which of these better fits. I am not like a promoter who sees someone's talent or possibilities and then presents that to the world per se.

Rather, I am more focused on the product itself (a book, a work of art). I see the potential in the created object, and in some cases the individual's general ability to create more objects. I would say it's a little more Ne(F), because I hate to see people wasting their potential. Not because of their limited beliefs, but because of their lack of access to processes and their understanding of the means of improving their work.

Many people labor away writing books, writing music, creating dance, etc., and fail to recognize that at some point they may need outside support in order to get clear about how to improve, and simply to realize the completion of a project. I'm most comfortable with either being a person who offers that kind of support, OR in seeking it out for myself.

I DO my weird creative IEI and EIE stuff and NEED support to bring it to completion. I see other people DO their weird creative IEI and EIE stuff and OFFER them support to bring it to completion.

And I may see some of this in what I am best at doing:

Si(T) - Aid, Assist-Injure, Help-Hinder, Facilitation-Obstruction, Interference, Constructive or Destructive

Te(S) - Coordination, Organized system, Rank, Team, Position, Positioning/Relation of objects, Hierarchy

In other words, what have you created? What are you creating? How can I help you to refine your creative process, or help you construct a better approach? How can I facilitate getting your creation "into the world"? What do you need to do to align your ideas or product with the organized system that is responsible for disseminating it? You have created something--what is its definition, its genre, and so forth? If you don't know, here is some information to help you understand how to fulfill the requirements of that genre.

Once the "created thing" is in that organized system, how can I help you feel at ease with and knowledgeable about all the steps that will be required? There will be several team members responsible for coordinating the project. Each of them is here to assist you in bringing your project to completion. Etc. I see the "big picture" of the project and all the parts that will be needed. Allow me to show you what that picture is.

However, I cannot do this for myself. If I am the creative, I need someone else to do some of these things for me. But more than that, I need someone to give me a kick in the ass.

[Words]

I don't think I've known any ENFps with problems with interpersonal relations. Can you show me this in a type description?

[golden]

I don't think I've known any ENFps with problems with interpersonal relations. Can you show me this in a type description?

The IEEs I've known are generally good with people and make friends with a really wide variety of them. They almost have tended to be "collectors" of people from all walks of life and open-minded in that regard.

And so they have surprised me by having a hard time in accepting the authority of people in the workplace and in university programs. If they can get that under control, they can do fine. If they cannot get it under control, fractured relations ensue. That's just my experience.

Introverted Logic: Place of Least Resistance

Ti – Represents “working activity” and always supposes a definite organization. By this is meant punctuality, the function of responsibilities, instruction, regulation, the hierarchy of subordination, accountability… And these are all which serve to drive the IEE away – any weighty framework that dictates to her “to fulfill responsibilities.” Her creativity sees nothing as predetermined. Therefore it is especially important that she find work in which her gifts are revealed.

The nontrivial course of thoughts characteristic for many representatives of this psycho-type may lead them to realize themselves in scientific research work, where with ease they propose unexpected views on problems. However, they poorly respond to manual labor and logical analysis. Anything that requires they be thorough and systematic in their investigations will lead them to quickly tire. They prefer to hand these aspects of scientific work to others and instead assume the role of “generator of ideas.” However, when they fail to find creative work, in which something new can always be seen, their previously indefatigable inquisitiveness severely weakens.

After having tried 10 – 15 different specialties she may prove to be without anything, to have attained nothing in life, the entirety of her talent gone unrealized. After completing necessary preparations for a new project, if she sees something she finds more attractive, she may drop everything. She prefers not to plan, but to improvise; it is dangerous to rely on her business qualities for she can get caught up in the moment.

She doesn’t respond well to templates and standards. IEE recognizes no formal subordination, feels no piety towards authorities; this may lead to trouble. The observations of authorities, especially if they, in her opinion, are wrong, are answered to sharply disregarding of who they are. It is therefore understandable that she is not at place in conditions subordinate to strict authority.

It feels itself uncomfortably if necessary for very to give rebuff. Protecting, it fusses, it is irritated, demonstratively it is offended, it behaves very contradictorily and nonrepresentatively. It loves to construct its protection, referring to authorities. It is always offended, if they frankly disregard its councils, and its own authority not in the half copeck coin places. "last word" in Huxley's dispute they try to reserve and greatly they survive, if which does not succeed. ("last word" Huxley sometimes appears frankly unethical - sometimes this that that is called the "forbidden method" or impact "lower than belt". But Huxley this circumstance does not confuse: the main thing for it to conquer in the dispute, but by what price - it is not always important.)

They frequently fill to itself haughty and haughty form, away not to poblefovat', hinting at its influential connections.
The presence of diplomas, certificates, ranks and rewards always produces on them the irresistable impression: "I thought it decent person it nevertheless has higher education..."

They love (but they do not always know how) to take to itself the role of leader. Is prepared itself for the extreme situation, it mentally about itself they sometimes lose, but under the conditions of real difficulties it takes a long time to preserve composure and concentration they not can, frequently they are pulverized to the showy fuss.

They love to demonstrate their resoluteness and physical force. Frequently with the demonstrative readiness they undertake difficult loads, but then sufficiently rapidly finds the method of them to get rid.

They love to oshchushchat' their force - this pleasantly excites and tones up them.

Being those allotted by authority, they are inclined to misuse by it. They love demonstratively to command. it sometimes by them pleases itself to develop the role of cruel and inexorable person.

They are obstinate. With the entire external softness and the benevolence, they become irreconcilable and obstinate, where anything threatens their interests.

It is very lenient and insufficiently demanding to itself. Do not always love to answer for their words and behavior. They do not love to take to itself excess responsibility - by them it is difficult to be executive and required.

I also just notice the "grass is always greener" effect. I.e., this workplace, this relationship, etc., is not acceptable to me. I cannot accept its limitations. Therefore, I will move on to something new, and surely it will be different there. (Only typically, it isn't different.)

[CILi]

We all know because of my self-spewage that I was married to a Delta. And I now see that almost everyone in his family is also Delta. I never fit in with them. There came a fateful Thanksgiving a few years into the marriage when we went to my sister-in-law's house, and on the way there I decided that I would just "act like them." And I did. And after a few hours, I got deeply pissed off, because I could tell that everyone was much, much more comfortable with me, whereas I felt like a nothing ball of shit pretending to be "one of them." That was a beginning-of-the-end situation for me with his family, where I felt like the long-term picture was there was no way I'd ever be really accepted or feel at ease among them. There was never any blow-up, just stalemate, as in the marriage itself.

Your quote above reminds me a lot of the quote below, a description of the DCNH (D)ominant subtype.

Leader (EJ) subtype - Forcefully behaves like his type. He does it everywhere and anyplace. Has adopted a very systematic behavior with his type traits and always shows it. When he is in a group that does not allow type-like behavior, he will probably have problems, because he will not "tuck in" his thoughts and ideas even though it doesn't fit the group. ISTp will always be grumpy in an Fe group and ENFj will expressively joke around even if surrounded by a bunch of deltas who roll their eyes.

If Gulenko's DCNH subtypes somehow jive with tcaud's EMs, I'd recommend looking into LSE EM.

And, from your posts in this thread about work/career, LSE/SLI might be decent fits.

Furthermore, the paraphrased quote below by greenantler might hint at your (temporary) compatibility with LSE men.

Dual-Type Relations (Theory)

IM-IM
POS - Basic Psych Compatibility, Comfort, Can Be Oneself and Feel Accepted
NEG - Basic Psych Incompatibility, Discomfort, Feel Need to Watch Oneself

EM-EM
POS - Compatible in Action, Tangible Support, Skills Respected, Desired Observations
NEG - Incompatible in Action, Obstruct/Disagree in Action/Views, Undesired Observations

EM-IM
If EM Favorable to IM: Positive Initial, Short-Term Impression
IF EM Unfavorable to IM: Negative Initial, Short-Term Impression

[Words]

I can see your point Goldenwings. Thank you for your post.

[golden]

Your quote above reminds me a lot of the quote below, a description of the DCNH (D)ominant subtype.



If Gulenko's DCNH subtypes somehow jive with tcaud's EMs, I'd recommend looking into LSE EM.

And, from your posts in this thread about work/career, LSE/SLI might be decent fits.

Furthermore, the paraphrased quote below by greenantler might hint at your (temporary) compatibility with LSE men.

Thanks, CILi. I'll look at the functional breakdown of LSE in the EM context. I did look at SLI but was not convinced that it could fit me ...

I don't know to what extent any LSE-like qualities in me may simply be rub-off from a 12-year relationship/10-year marriage to one. I do know that we agreed 100 percent on how he did his own job, and why, and that if I had his job I would make a lot of the same decisions on how to handle things. Not all, of course, because I am very comfortable with emotions and smoothing things over with people, and he struggles with that and tends to see it as unimportant.

But in the workplace I do appreciate structure and hierarchy and just getting plain things done, period, bottom line.

[golden]

I can see your point Goldenwings. Thank you for your post.

It was always surprising to see that sort of professional-relations self-undoing in my ENFP friends and family, since, as I said, they are very into people. The unexpected Achilles heel. Didn't make much sense to me until I learned the IEE PoLR.

[golden]

This is implied by socionics idealized view of duality. But socionicists too much understate & gloss over the negative parts of duality.
Duals exist very apart from eachother. They lack relatability. Dual relationships are the hardest to strike up, and most likely to fizzle out during the first stages. Duals shy away from eachother. They view eachother as unattainable. This is a clear flaw in the relationship.
When IM-EM is dual with itself, nothing lives up to the persons ideals. Everyday life is found flawed and inferior. The persons high standards make their fulfillment seem unreachable. The person will become stagnated both by the weight of their idealism and rejection of the mundane.
There's really no ideal IM-EM, it's all qualitative differences. Same with relationships, when you get down to it. Love is so idealized by most people they don't even experience it. Yes the IM-EM relationship will dictate social class and leadership qualities, but still those are qualitative differences.
As for whether you'll get along with Betas.. You'd still get along fine with Beta-Delta types. But you can get along with any type, it's just the nature of the relationship is different.
Unlikely your EM type has changed. EIE and IEE are quasi, it's more likely there's some superficial confusion about your EM happening. I could be completely wrong, you could be -EIE and everything I described which you related to is a quasi relation. I think it's best to just learn the theory yourself and type yourself.

Thanks, crazedrat. Your posts give me a lot to think about, so if I don't respond immediately with a lot of insight, it's because I need time to consider what you've said. I agree that each of us is responsible for typing him- or herself. Ultimately, I won't accept anyone else's typing of me, but I appreciate input from people who understand Socionics better than I do, especially since the information available online is sort of scattered and ragged.

[golden]

Your quote above reminds me a lot of the quote below, a description of the DCNH (D)ominant subtype.

I'm not sure if I always have a hard time acting "not like myself." That used to be a big problem for me, and now it's less of an issue. BUT if people tell me they are my "family," and my life is set up in such a way that I have limited access to my own actual blood family (it was), it feels pretty crappy to know that I am pretending all the time. I also had moved to a small town in my ex's home state, where I felt out of sync with people owing to a preference for cities and coming from a different region with different interpersonal values.

It was the same thing with my ex's job. He had a public image to maintain, and I was part of that. So within the marriage, within my social sphere, and with his family ... in all those environments I was faced with reining in my wackiness and behaving in a somber fashion. It was exhausting.

[golden]

If Gulenko's DCNH subtypes somehow jive with tcaud's EMs, I'd recommend looking into LSE EM.

And, from your posts in this thread about work/career, LSE/SLI might be decent fits.

Furthermore, the paraphrased quote below by greenantler might hint at your (temporary) compatibility with LSE men.

Hehehe. On the face of it, the LSE EM type fits me surprisingly well. I'll keep studying.

In the next two years I will have to commit to furthering my career and seeking graduate programs toward that end. I'm hoping that if I can get a handle on EM, I might have a better idea of what direction to take. I have felt an impulse to take on further leadership roles and responsibilities, but my LSE ex was not terribly supportive of this idea, since he knew my IEI side all too well. However, I felt that I could do a job somewhat like his (i.e., be completely in charge of something), given the opportunity. Interesting.

ETA: Yep, every way I look at it, the longer I look at it, function by function, LSE-EM fits me. I couldn't make the others really fit and kept going back and forth--part of IEE, part of EIE. With LSE, it's check, check, check. That's hilarious! See, rat, pat yourself on the back. You probably did find my Deltaness. My next step after examining all the types that tcaud suggested was going to be to try out the Deltas one by one, side by side.

I'm not 100 percent committed to this LSE-EM idea, but it's locks into place pretty damned well.