EIIs-INFjs with strong Si?

[pianosinger]

Wow. So, I actually have a pretty strong Si, even though I'm pretty sure that I'm an EII. I often have tested as ISFJ in MBTI. There are a lot of things about ISFJ's (haven't looked closely enough at ESI yet) that I relate to, but also some blaring differences. I'm not nearly as devoted to tradition, for one.

I've noticed, however, that descriptions of Sensing in socionics seems to be rather different than Sensing in MBTI.

Supposedly, EII's aren't supposed to be as strong in Si as I seem to be. I am very aware of my state of health, of my close environment..."creature comforts" are important to me. I don't tolerate physical discomfort well at all.

Is it possible to be an iNuitive in MBTI, but a Sensor in socionics? Or is it more likely that I'm an EII who just happens to have strong Si?

[Skeptic]

For some reason EIIs always strike me as having an emphasis on Si, more so than other Si valuing types. For that reason I often mistake them for SEIs.

It is possible you are more aware of the element than most EIIs, but that wouldn't be cause enough to declare you are not EII if you're sure of your being EII. However, it is true that MBTI and socionics are not directly related, so if you are going by MBTI types you should consider a re typing.

At the same time, I have a hard time believing that the two systems are so radically different that they would mix up S and N. At any rate, if you continue to have doubts you should get a second opinion on your type.

[Ave]

Its possible you have "strong" Si as by what you're saying your Si may actually be weak but somewhat developped, at least for now. Dont forget there are times in my life I seemed to have strong Se but lose that strength when something goes wrong with the conditions thats allow my Se to flourish. I can develop good Se, but when someone screws with it, everything is perturbed, and like a bed of flowers hit by a gush of wind, everything is swept away.

[Beautiful sky]

Yes and no to strong Si; we can take the lead on that function sometimes, but when activated, it does surpass the activities of Si types, but then it has the "down" effect by loss of appetite and interest in food, relaxing and other Si activities. Si and Se are different, so you should look into that. We definitely favor being around Si over Se.

[pianosinger]

Yes and no to strong Si; we can take the lead on that function sometimes, but when activated, it does surpass the activities of Si types, but then it has the "down" effect by loss of appetite and interest in food, relaxing and other Si activities. Si and Se are different, so you should look into that. We definitely favor being around Si over Se.

Interesting. I hadn't thought about it before, but I can see this. I go through cycles, for instance, where I'm all about cooking and making appetizing, good-looking, original dishes; and then on the flip side there are days-- even weeks sometimes-- where it takes a push and a shove to get me to open a can of chilli and whip up a box of cornbread mix...

[Beautiful sky]

Interesting. I hadn't thought about it before, but I can see this. I go through cycles, for instance, where I'm all about cooking and making appetizing, good-looking, original dishes; and then on the flip side there are days-- even weeks sometimes-- where it takes a push and a shove to get me to open a can of chilli and whip up a box of cornbread mix...

Yes. I feel you.

[Crispy]

Sensors have Strong Si
Intuiters have Weak Si
etc etc.

[Beautiful sky]

Sensors have Strong Si
Intuiters have Weak Si
etc etc.

SLE and SEE have Si ignoring...etc. etc. etc....look into that.

[Marie84]

The Mobilizing function is something you try to produce but, like any weak function, have difficulties evaluating and sub-consciously want someone who is strong in, and values it, to help you tweak it, so to speak.
I think with Si in EII/LII there's a need to create and maintain a sense of personal comfort and aesthetic harmony that can border on obsessive compulsiveness. I don't even know if providing examples of this would be helpful because that sense of what needs to be done to create aestheticism and physical comfort is probably too subjective to reach any type consensus

The difference between LII/EII's and IEE/ILE's is that the former doesn't seek to have Si imposed but offered, like a helper in the background watching over you rather than someone who is enveloping you with it.

In the case of LSI/ESI, who are strong in Si but devalue it, they're aware of their comfort, and that of others, and they can easily tweak it without hitting the PoLR of their duals. In other words, they don't seek to "educate" or exemplify Si. LSI/ESI are more concerned about self-discipline and they can get easily annoyed by people who're overtly concerned about momentary comfort and detailing. The Ni/Se way of life, in general, is about the big-picture, the goal, the means to and end; this is the opposite of Si/Ne which is situated in the current state of things, ignoring the long range results

[Crispy]

SLE and SEE have Si ignoring...etc. etc. etc....look into that.

Si Ignoring = Strong Si
Get Good.

[stanprollyright]

Supposedly, EII's aren't supposed to be as strong in Si as I seem to be. I am very aware of my state of health, of my close environment..."creature comforts" are important to me. I don't tolerate physical discomfort well at all.

Doesn't necessarily mean strong Si. Probably just valued.

Is it possible to be an iNuitive in MBTI, but a Sensor in socionics?

Probably.

Or is it more likely that I'm an EII who just happens to have strong Si?

Impossible.

I think people often feel somewhat confident in their mobilizing/HA function because they put emphasis on it and it isn't as weak as the suggestive or PoLR, until somewhat who is actually strong in it comes along.

[Nowisthetime]

I think people often feel somewhat confident in their mobilizing/HA function because they put emphasis on it and it isn't as weak as the suggestive or PoLR, until somewhat who is actually strong in it comes along.

Yes.

[Aleksei]

At the same time, I have a hard time believing that the two systems are so radically different that they would mix up S and N.

I would say they're mostly not, but it is possible for an MBTI N type to be a Socionics S type and vice-versa. The most common MBTI type for SLE is ENTJ.

[Beautiful sky]

Si Ignoring = Strong Si
Get Good.

Are you out of your mind? Why can't you see the contradiction in what you just write? Strong and ignoring mean two different things; you can't be strong if your brain automatically doesn't pay attention to that info; this is why Benefit relations are NOT the best. This is also the reason why LSE and SEE relations are not COMFORTABLE. Because what one produces (LSE) the other has no need and use for and ignores it (SEE) Get some of that.

[Crispy]

Ok Maritsa, I'm going to list your strong and weak functions according to yourself:
Strong: Fi, Ne, Ni
Weak: Si, Se, Te, Ti, Fe
You happy?

[Beautiful sky]

Ok Maritsa, I'm going to list your strong and weak functions according to yourself:
Strong: Fi, Ne, Ni
Weak: Si, Se, Te, Ti, Fe
You happy?

YOU are listing my function? HAHAHA big smile to you! Thumbs up!

I know my functions, and I've listed them before...let me DO it again...

EXHAUSTING SPEAKING WITH YOU.

Strong
Fi, Ne, Ti, Ni, Si

Weak
Fe, Se, Te,

LOOK AT THE ABOVE AND LEARN

[Crispy]

Strong
Ti, Si

You just made my day.

Now try to list my strong and weak functions the same way you did yours and see if they come out the same. That would be silly wouldn't it?

[Beautiful sky]

You just made my day.

can you see the contradictions between strong and weak? if not then the compare/contrast between these things is called Ti; I happen to have Ti role, which is exchangeable with Fi, that's why in classical/russian socionics, they say that "sometimes people are mistaken for their role function" because they can use that function and look like they are strong in that function; but, they can't use both functions at the same time...it's also true for all the other types, LSE can use Fe, but while having Te shut off and because they have other functions in other places, they are NOT ESE.

[Crispy]

Go ahead, tell me what my weak/strong functions are.
Are they the same as yours? I would hope not.

[Beautiful sky]

I don't know what type you are, you have not VI'd

[Crispy]

Yes, you told me I looked SLI like 90% of other people you VI.

Now what do you think are the strong and weak functions of INTj and how do they differ from INFj?

[Jenna]

wait crispy you forgot she also says SEE for girls.

[Beautiful sky]

Yes, you told me I looked SLI like 90% of other people you VI.

Now what do you think are the strong and weak functions of INTj and how do they differ from INFj?

That would explain why you don't use Ti when analyzing the differences between what is said and the behavioral traits exhibited by that type...textbook for not using Ti; Ti takes two things outside themselves and compares and contrasts for consistency and similarities and differences. this is one thing I did not see you doing when taking what he wrote and comparing it to what the functional definitions are. So, yeah, you're still SLI unless you can use Ti really really well, like an LII

[Crispy]

Clean up after yourself please.

[Marie84]

YOU are listing my function? HAHAHA big smile to you! Thumbs up!

I know my functions, and I've listed them before...let me DO it again...

EXHAUSTING SPEAKING WITH YOU.

Strong
Fi, Ne, Ti, Ni, Si

Weak
Fe, Se, Te,

LOOK AT THE ABOVE AND LEARN

You can't be strong in your Super-ego or Super-ID functions.
An ethical type is strong in Fe and Fi by default, a sensory type in Si/Se, etc, regardless of the valued information elements
You cannot be strong at Fi and Ti, Se and Ne, etc, stating so is contradictory to the most basic fundamentals of Model A


ex, for ILI

Strong- Ni, Te, Ti, Ne= strong intuition and logic
Weak- Fe, Si, Se, Fi= weak ethics and sensing

[krieger]

I've noticed that INFjs are often good at things that are identified as Si related such as chosing clothing and doing detail related work. My INFj mother is a great example of it.

A lot of the ideas of what Si does and does not involve are influenced by the fact that socionics was initially designed by alpha NTs. So what you get when you read the typical Si description is actually Si + Merry rather than Si in general.

[stevENTj]

Interesting. I hadn't thought about it before, but I can see this. I go through cycles, for instance, where I'm all about cooking and making appetizing, good-looking, original dishes; and then on the flip side there are days-- even weeks sometimes-- where it takes a push and a shove to get me to open a can of chilli and whip up a box of cornbread mix...

Then I doubt you have truly strong . A true type will do stuff like this all the time completely naturally and they'll never tire of it. With the subconscious and weaker functions they can be active for awhile and it will seem like you're really strong here even though you're not. You might even want to think that you're strong there, subconsciously. But this shows all the signs of a temporarily activated weaker function, that then dies out. So it's not really strong, although subconsciously you'd like to think it is.

is my role function, and I can get tricked by it in similar ways to the point of wondering if I'm really an SLI. But I know that isn't the case and that I'm not truly strong there, but sometimes it seems like it.

[Beautiful sky]

You can't be strong in your Super-ego or Super-ID functions.
An ethical type is strong in Fe and Fi by default, a sensory type in Si/Se, etc, regardless of the valued information elements
You cannot be strong at Fi and Ti, Se and Ne, etc, stating so is contradictory to the most basic fundamentals of Model A


ex, for ILI

Strong- Ni, Te, Ti, Ne= strong intuition and logic
Weak- Fe, Si, Se, Fi= weak ethics and sensing

You can be strong with your role function because you use it interchangeably with your base. In Fact, ILI are very strong with Fi because when their dual activates their Fi, their activities with this function surpass the creative function of the SEE, this is one of the reasons why activity relations are not as good as dual relations, because in activity relations, the person using the creative function hopes and expect that the other will take that function and use that function for a brief while to exceed limits with that function. An ILI would want SEE to take Te and get or offer information, by accessing it or speaking about it, but not all the time, to establish a balance, but in an activity relations, that Te is not used by ISFj because they need their dual to carry all activities with regard to Te, not be activated by it. This is why they call it activity relations. The ISFj will get annoyed at the ILI for not only prompting Te but inefficiently carrying all activities with that function, instead the activity relation supplies back with Fi and not Se which is what ILI needs for balance.

[Marie84]

You can be strong with your role function because you use it interchangeably with your base.

Not quite; in Model A, your base doesn't interchange, or any functions for that matter. The Role Function is a weak spot you're aware of, like the Vulnerable Function, but unlike the VF, you attempt to "get better at it" because you feel it's 'expected' of you; though no matter how much you work at being good at it you never will, and subconsciously people know this.

Functions - Wikisocion

When a person is actively using his base function, the role function is essentially turned off. The two cannot both be "on" at the same time, because they represent two opposing approaches to similar things. For instance:

Se vs. Ne: active acquisition, control, and organization of visible territory and objects vs. active search for and development of invisible potential and emerging situations

Fi vs. Ti: evaluation according to personal sentiments vs. evaluation according to impersonal laws (mercy vs. justice)

[Words]

You can't be strong in your Super-ego or Super-ID functions.
An ethical type is strong in Fe and Fi by default, a sensory type in Si/Se, etc, regardless of the valued information elements
You cannot be strong at Fi and Ti, Se and Ne, etc, stating so is contradictory to the most basic fundamentals of Model A


ex, for ILI

Strong- Ni, Te, Ti, Ne= strong intuition and logic
Weak- Fe, Si, Se, Fi= weak ethics and sensing

I agree with what you're saying but I find your application of the rules to be too restrictive for practical application.

In real life, your circumstances have an effect on your functional development, consequently you have SLIs who have weak Se, other SLIs who have had to use their Se extensively, or logical IEEs.

Perhaps a better way is to refer to function position in terms of their differentiation, but strength is something else. Strength comes from using a function you see, much like a muscle is developed - or indeed underdeveloped.

[Beautiful sky]

Not quite; in Model A, your base doesn't interchange, or any functions for that matter. The Role Function is a weak spot you're aware of, like the Vulnerable Function, but unlike the VF, you attempt to "get better at it" because you feel it's 'expected' of you; though no matter how much you work at being good at it you never will, and subconsciously people know this.

Wikisocion says the same thing that I am saying, that the role function is a "strong" function and when in use, the base function is not being used. So, when I use my Ti or when LSE use their Fe, I am not able to feel because I use Ti to analyze, and LSE is not able to structure work because they are joking.

You are using Ti PoLR because you are sticking hard and fast to a RULE (a system), a preheld system and are unable to see that there is no contradiction between what I am saying and what wiki is saying about the role function and it's use. So, wiki and I are saying the same thing...you may not see this because you have a poor ability to compare and contrast what I say and what wiki says.

[Marie84]

I agree with what you're saying but I find your application of the rules to be too restrictive for practical application.

In real life, your circumstances have an effect on your functional development, consequently you have SLIs who have weak Se, other SLIs who have had to use their Se extensively, or logical IEEs.

Perhaps a better way is to refer to function position in terms of their differentiation, but strength is something else. Strength comes from using a function you see, much like a muscle is developed - or indeed underdeveloped.

That's an interesting theory though I don't agree that it's more reflective of real life, at least it's not something I've experienced or observed.
While they're circumstances where a person may project a strength in a particular IE that doesn't necessarily imply that they're "stronger" at it, they may have just learned how to mimic superficial qualities of it or found other personal strategies to "get by".
I'd be more inclined to presume, say, that a probable IEE who is using Ti confidently and vividly on a normal basis is either mistyped or I'm misinterpreting what they're doing as Ti, as in they're actually using their Mobilizing to compensate for their PoLR

[Marie84]

Wikisocion says the same thing that I am saying,that the role function is a "strong" function and when in use, the base function is not being used. So, when I use my Ti or when LSE use their Fe, I am not able to feel because I use Ti to analyze, and LSE is not able to structure work because they are joking.

Are you referring to this?-> http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...#Role_function
I don't see anything there indicating the Role is a "strong" function, unless you're referring to something else entirely

The Role is part of the Super-Ego, meaning it's a weak and unvalued function.

You are using Ti PoLR because you are sticking hard and fast to a RULE (a system), a preheld system and are unable to see that there is no contradiction between what I am saying and what wiki is saying about the role function and it's use. So, wiki and I are saying the same thing...you may not see this because you have a poor ability to compare and contrast what I say and what wiki says.

[Crispy]

Maritsa you have weak Ti. I say this not from a theoretical stand point this time. I can actually see it manifest in posts you make in the real world.

[April]

Wikisocion says the same thing that I am saying, that the role function is a "strong" function and when in use, the base function is not being used. So, when I use my Ti or when LSE use their Fe, I am not able to feel because I use Ti to analyze, and LSE is not able to structure work because they are joking.

Just because your base may be "turned off" when you're using your role function doesn't automatically imply that your role is strong.

[Beautiful sky]

Just because your base may be "turned off" when you're using your role function doesn't automatically imply that your role is strong.

Your role is a strong function, it's not prefered over ones base function and what makes type either LII or EII is Fe ignoring or Fe valuing, otherwise, they come off just like one another and are somewhat attractive to each other's illusionary relations. This explains why I have so so many ESE around me.

Anyway, we don't like doing things by systems but by routines and structure (Te over Ti); this is one area where we could show devalued Ti, but devalued does not mean WEAK producing. We produce Ti just fine, but we don't like to follow other people's Ti. I know that about me because I can't stand my LSI boss's Ti in the office; I much prefer how Te works, but Te without Se producing, because I don't want to get stuck into details...I don't like getting stuck, I like moving forward.

[necrosebud]

I honestly can't distinguish how "strong" my Si is. I have a feeling it is better than 1D Si types, but if neatness, cleanliness, conscientiousness is something EIIs are generally good at, then that's not me. Eh, I mean...that sounds off put that way lol. I think I invariably end up being "neat" sometimes or conscientious because once in a while I do like taking care of that just because it starts to bother me a little. But then 99% of the time I push it out of my mind. I think I am clued into aesthetic or color/texture whatever harmony just a tiny bit, more than actually being great at it. In the end things just end up being "colorful" instead of color harmonious lol. I think I have some of my own aesthetic though, again, unintentional and not consciously acted upon. "It just happens" idk how else to put it.

Both Te and Si are nonverbal for me so even if I understand them, I cannot verbalize it in exactly those terms aside from repeating what a Te or Si type said as also a reflection of my own thinking. Despite that, I feel like I don't have that deep of a sense of Si. That I don't have a lot to say about it, and probably don't understand it as deeply as I would like to, yet.

[Beautiful sky]

I don’t know how to rest and my LSE has to keep reminding me that I wear myself to the ground and I need to rest. My Si is broken. And at the same time I can initiate rest by getting my SO to lay in the grass at the park or giving him a massage. Really weird ups and downs in this department. Sometimes I don’t have any glimmer of sexual urges until he touches me or talks to me in that sense so it goes without actively. Very weird