Relating to People and Type
Following from this:
I think it would be nice to here other people gauge and explain the sense of fulfillment they get from different types.
Originally Posted by Eye of the Potato
(Forgive my using of the functions, but I use them very broadly. And this is what I've experienced about these types without having a type in mind, although I am inclined to ILI, LII, or EII, I'll decide eventually)
For instance, I know an SEI and although we do get along pretty well, there is a huge disconnect in terms of how we socially fulfill one another. She very easily thinks that I'm being mean to her at times when I'm trying to solve a problem or get more information about a problem. For instance, when her cat had a bad allergic reaction she worried over whether the cat would be alright since the vet didn't know what was wrong. So I was concerned about finding out what was wrong with the cat and what could be done about it and I asked her about what the vet had done and was gauging whether the vet sounded competent. In pursuing her for more information, I was pointing out what didn't make sense about what the vet was doing and making her look stupid (in her eyes) for choosing the vet. So she got mad, thinking I was trying to make her look stupid. Once I explained I was trying to help her from having to worry, she was okay and then told me the key information I was seeking that showed the vet was competent. From her perspective, I realized that she didn't want to reason facts unless there was an ethical motivation to do so. And I didn't want to talk about ethical motivations unless the reasoning of the facts showed me it was important, heh.
With an SLI, I noticed that we seem to enjoy reasoning the facts of a problem. We each have a thought out idea of a problem and might have a solution, but are more than willing to hear each other out and consider new conclusions, as long the new conclusions don't contradict anything; otherwise we tend to discuss without making conclusive assertions on anything. That's pretty much it. We don't ever argue, although we may disagree endearingly when in competition. One thing that always seemed different about him though is that he is much more inclined to have strong ethical convictions, which I like, but feel I can't agree with because they may not be practical to the way the world is; if I voice that it will make him depressed, so I just voice that I agree with the idea (as a virtue). For instance, if we talk about politics, he will find immediate contradictions that other people make and I'll point out why I think those contradictions happen, while explaining how I think those contradictions could be solved if I've thought a lot about the problem before.
With an SLE, I noticed I have to be a bit more careful when we discuss things. With him, if I point out the fact of an argument someone has made or makes in an effort to have him consider all positions of a problem, he will immediately decide to refute or agree with what facts I'm expressing by giving some rationale of why or why not, and he will assume the facts I'm sharing are immediately a position I'm arguing for. It kind of sucks because I have to be extra careful about what I say, but on the other hand, if we don't over pressure one another, we tend to end up with the same conclusions and solutions, usually of an Ni nature. I've learned Ni is the best way to leverage Te on him without him deciding to refute or agree with me. For instance, we talked about the US military, and I argued that the best decision the US could make is to pull out of more countries and not engage in conflict as much. He wasn't sure if he agreed or disagreed, so he asked me why (I assume this is relating to Ni since I started the argument intentionally that way). I told him it was because we shouldn't be fighting someone else's battles/wars; because then we aren't motivated to fight them and that we should help other countries (of our choosing, hopefully to create more good) fight their own wars. Then we can just use our military force as a deterrent and let the people of the world make their own internal decisions (this makes the US look better too). He thought it was interesting without passing judgement on it. In another example, we were watching Bill O'reilly and he agreed with Bill on an issue and I was trying to explain the other person's situation in an effort to deduce what might be a more appropriate solution. He assumed that I was then disagreeing with Bill and I had to be clear that I didn't disagree or agree with either person until sufficient reason suggested one to be more appropriate; he then explained enough to convince me that Bill was right and I agreed, satisfied. But I have to be careful and that puts a little bit of strain on social fulfillment.
I'm done for now. I'd rather read what other people say anyway. This was to hopefully get the idea across.