Life's a bitch and she's got me pussy whipped.
Strong intuitive vibes; I can see the patterns of behavior in real-time. Who says stereotypes aren't reliable?
I notice a lot of the times that someone seems strong in both and for instance, but barely even use and , so usually I can figure it out by noting how similar they are to me and to others, like if they usually objectify their ethics and emotions or not and how other people take that. is just so obvious to me, because I get instant negative extinguishment reactions when it invades my emotional space, and when I talk to types our communication is on such an even level it's much easier. After a few years of typing people, there's already an overall feel for quadras and how they're naturally different from myself, I can kind of see what someone wants or would want from me or would act given the circumstances. for ie. has such a personal and obstinate way of expressing their thoughts and logic about things, it's like they often hide what they're really thinking when you're asking them to make sense, they don't care. As long as they can be right in their own world. It's the same for , when you're asking them what they think was wrong, why they did such, or how they feel about something etc, give ethical reasons, they will want to hold onto their feelings and thoughts about it in order to keep their emotional world safe in their heart, and won't take any risks in jeopardizing their feelings. Types will have different ways of using their IMs though, like you might see being more rational and tactful in explaining what they think and leading people to make their own conclusions, but they still won't be direct or have enough weight in the objective world, so nevertheless people having different methods of using IMs, its still fairly straightforward as to what the essential source is.
There are two things you can sometimes see: what IEs someone values, and what IEs someone is strong in. It can be easy to confuse those, because people can value IEs they aren't strong in and vice versa, but if you look for patterns and specifically at situations where the value of an extroverted function over an introverted one is apparent, then it can become clear.
Anyway, the key is to look for patterns and trends and not individual behaviors or statements. If someone has a pattern of not wanting to limit themselves and keeping possibilities open, that is a possible sign of strong and valued Ne. If there is a trend of someone being concerned about the atmosphere of a group, particularly if it seems like the focus seems to be there instead of on the individual relationsips within the group, that's a sign of Fe. Being emotionally expressive can be a sign of strong Fe, but not always, and also those of us with strong and unvalued Fe (like IEE and SEE) often display outward signs of Fe like that. I try to look more for where people show values, like if someone talks about not wanting to work on a particular relationship issue that is important to me because it's going to negatively affect the mood of a group we're involved in, that would lead me to believe that person values Fe over Fi, and might also be strong in it. My desire to work on the relationship issue despite how it might negatively affect the group atmostphere could indicate that I value Fi over Fe. Although that isn't 100% either. It's certainly possible a relationship issue might be big enough that someone who values Fe wouldn't hold off dealing with it either, but I think in a lot of cases someone who values Fe would consider it selfish for me to risk the whole group's dynamic for my own particular concerns about one relationship issue. And the more of a trend it becomes, the more sure I am that the IE is valued.
Actually that example is specific. There's a group I volunteer with, and a lot of the volunteers are ESE. There was one ILI woman who was there as well, and she felt like she had been wronged by something someone said, and kept wanting to discuss it. She couldn't move on with the group until she felt that the relationship had been mended. But the ESEs were upset with her for not getting past this issue and potentially damaging the group's energy and dynamic. The ILI ended up ending her involvement in the group over this.
OK I didn't show how I know the woman is ILI and not actually strong in Fi. She values it but isn't strong at it. First, I'm the only person in the group other than her who is not Beta or Alpha, and she kept looking to me to fix this relationship issue. She naturally kept bringing me into it wanting me to explain how she felt and what the relationshp issue was. That screams weak but valued Fi to me, when she needs the Fi issue handled but understands she can't do it on her own, and having a kind of innate sense of who is strong at her weak and unvalued functions. Also, she has an Ip temperament, and is very subdued and reserved as people with weak and unvalued Fe often are.
^ That sounds familiar. Personally, I hate being cutoff when someone activates my feelings. I start to get passionate about the philosophical nature of the situation and suddenly people don't care anymore. That pisses me off. Don't start me up if you can't ride it out.
I more often see what people are weak at. I used to confuse it with what they "prefer" (MBTIesque), but now I think it works rather well. You still need to adjust it for other factors such as intelligence, but in people I know in real life and consider intelligent, it's rather clear.
Prerequisite: understanding accurately what the information elements are.
Then you can see how they manifest by different placement in function slots. And/or how "Strong Te" MEANS also "Weak Fe", more so, Strong Te means Strong Ti means Weak Fe means Weak Fi. And then understanding how strong and valued Te is different from strong and unvalued Te.. . .. . . . . .
'tis a building process.
Being able to 'tell someone is strong in IM' is the end result of comprehending other things, ultimately.
The short cut is picking off stereotypical things like "wow , she's always dramatic in her expressions" - so she must be Fe dominant or Fe ego. but that's not really learning socionics or understanding the theory. That's a very superficial approach, one that tends to put more emphasis on "visible behavior" than what socionics is about.
Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.
I believe the reasons conflictors don't get along is due to both a difference in values and inability to easily and fluidly understand their conflictors approach. Something that leads to a mass amount of cognitive dissonance, anger and complaining. When I hear complaints about conflictors the complaints usually show a hideous lack of understanding of what their conflictor does along with a distaste of the results of what their conflictor has created/done. Semi-identicals and contrays typically don't have the same highly confused/angry reaction, they just feel that the approach of the other party is not what they feel they should do and that it's merely a different approach.
I also don't believe duals are particularly on the ball with each others elements. My experience with duality has been closer to something like this:
me: Te my dual has not had experience or knowledge of.
dual: Oh, well, I guess that makes sense when you put it that way.
me: Te my dual has not had experience or knowledge of.
dual: I wouldn't have thought of it that way.
Anyway, basically I think conflictors whining about each other is evidence for them not particularly understanding each other well and that this lack of understanding is related to strong/weak elements.
Strengths is another way of referring to the N/S T/F dichotomies. Some things I look for:
strong S: physically confident (touching others, etc.), assertive, taking care of or organizing physical environment, likes hands-on stuff, seems comfortable in most situations
strong N: strong imagination, much better foresight, more confident about future plans, sees beneath the surface of a situation, likes abstract stuff, eye for the unexpected
strong F: more expressive, or expresses emotions in a sophisticated way, diplomatic and sensitive, artistic, much more attuned to / influenced by own emotions, good with people
strong T: more willing to argue/debate with or correct others, practical, good with procedures, money, technology, and impersonal things, better recall and use of facts, better with fine linguistic distinctions
See someone actively advising someone else on how to more effectively organize and utilize space in his bedroom => conclude leading is likely
See someone actively asking lots of questions about a new field of knowledge they just learned about => conclude leading is likely
Usually I would guess which block the function is in rather than just strong/weak. People use their leading functions the most.
Another example, not just about the leading function:
I know an SLI who is really into online poker. His interest seems to stem from valued and : he's convinced that there's a possibility of making a huge amount of money. But he believes this despite going broke over and over again! Perfect example of (very) weak . There is also some weak there, since he's not really able to judge his own skill at the game. He's not willing to play lower stakes and very slowly rack up money, because there's no / in that. He wants to see immediate results. Get-rich-quick schemes seem to be a symptom of valued .