Strong moral convictions in INTjs

[Lobo]

Is this common? Like there being a subject of ethics and morality that they feel strongly about, and what is it usually (if any)?

I'll tell you the reason behind this question and possibly future ones, and it's that I feel like I'm in some kind of EII/LII continuum that I'm trying to make sense of. I've identified with the EII descriptions for the longest time, yet for the past few years I've been developing my personality more and I've felt less of an interested toward topics on morality and ethics, like I'm confident about my ethical views at this point. I feel particularly strong towards topics where people's arguments are based on there being monetary profit and there's a person's dignity involved (what I perceive as their dignity being in question), such as my pet peeve towards Hooters. On a side note, I've also had successful relationships with ESEs rather than LSEs. So, I'm trying to distinguish what makes EIIs different than LIIs from a functional perspective, even though I still feel very much EII.

[Dionysus]

Are your strong moral convictions focused on logical consistency? For example, I enjoy thinking about issues of morality, but I always take an abstract philosophical approach - an approach than can literally be calculated based on a few moral axioms.

LIIs are capable of understanding their internal feelings and affections, but they tend to place only a subdued importance on the ethical code of their experience. They may take a rather Ti-centric approach to conventional morality. They may see it as their duty to observe general propriety and etiquette, and to be just and preserve their integrity. Their attempts at being proper, good, and ethical may seem stiff, if not forced. At the same time, LIIs do not generally apply moral judgments to others and often do not like to be judged themselves. Nonetheless, LIIs do try to be just, fair, and follow the system of rules that they impose for themselves morally.
LIIs tend to not readily understand deep personal connections and may be minimally confident in having to assess the nuances or strength of their personal relationships. Such emotions may seem to them to be too subjective and too hard to analyze or understand with any degree of logical precision. They tend to keep all acquaintances at a large psychological distance whether they are strangers or family members or friends, and may not have a deep understanding of interpersonal boundaries or what psychological distance is appopriate to a given social context. LIIs typically struggle in shifting psychological distance and usually end up coming off as dry, stagnant, and formal. They may often have difficulty expressing their sympathies or compassionate side towards others, and can be characteristically blunt and unrespecting of relational boundaries. They also can experience difficulty understanding their disposition or the disposition of others towards them, especially when no obvious emotional signs are given.

The rest is from Wikisocion:

Function 1:

EIIs are very attuned to the psychological atmosphere of interaction and to their own feelings towards people and things. They treasure deep feelings of attachment and strive to deepen emotional bonds between people and harmonize relationships. When those people that the EII is close to suffer emotionally, the EII will do everything in her power to raise the emotional condition in the individual, often at the EII's expense.
EIIs are very capable of "sizing people up". They rely heavily on their instincts to understand the inner feelings of an individual. They are very empathetic people and find it very easy to feel with others. This makes them very sensitive to the moods of people, and they treat them the way they want to be treated, that is, with respect.


The LII naturally assesses statements, opinions, and actions in terms of conformance to certain principles. These principles may in practice be rules of thumb based on experience, but LIIs will usually appeal to more general, self-evident reasons, if the need arises. The LII is most engaged in communication when they are critically analyzing people's decisions and actions as well as how they generally are or are not consistent with certain pre-established goals. their dual, the ESE, likes hearing the LII's judgment, and simultaneously softens its edge by shifting their focus to how they are communicating their ideas, letting them see the intellectual thought process from the outside. The ESE appreciates and praises their ability to take the information seriously, but the ESE will find funny ways of reminding the LII of how they are coming across when they seem more serious than they realize.
"Just because" is not in an LII's vocabulary. If there is a reason for something, the LII will probably want to find it. The LII strives to reduce things to their most essential aspects, and mentally recreate the whole from the bottom up. The LII's theoretical tendencies can often leave him out of touch with reality, and if unchecked may lead to abstract theories that make logical sense but have little bearing on the real world.
The LII may explore many avenues of thought, but in the end only tell others his refined conclusions, because he sees the intermediate steps as irrelevant. He is often too concise for his own good, making it difficult for others to understand his ideas.

Function 2:

EIIs are not easily able to abstract themselves from the human dimension and apply "cold" logic. When they try to do this, they easily become unsure if their reasoning is correct.
EIIs feel that not everything can be classified under the system since everything has its unique individual attributes.


The LII is acutely aware of social conventions, such as saying "please" and "thank you", and expends much effort to conform to these rules to maintain the status of a "polite" person. But he tends to overdo the conventions themselves, as opposed to the relationships they are supposed to establish, and so ends up stepping on other people's toes (violating some less easily definable convention which he would never really want to conform to anyways). He prefers an easy-going environment where such conventions don't exist in the first place. [The one convention of is to "be nice," after that an Lii will wish that conventions were really ignored]. When in a heated argument, an LII can alienate others by his natural tendency to hold and defend strong opinions ().
If asked to express a unique, personal sentiment, such as a favorite color or football team, the LII may find difficulty choosing if there is no "obvious" answer. He often feels like he has no real personal, subjective feelings at all, and usually has to make a conscious decision where other types could easily supply an instinctive reaction.
The LII also is very sensitive about how other people see him, feeling depressed if he has affections that are not returned. For this reason, he tends to avoid expressing signals that show interest in certain people (as opposed to signals about his general mood and demeanor, which he feels to be much more natural), but of course it just aggravates his loneliness, instead of relieving it.

Function 5:

EIIs have a great admiration for people who are able to get things done neatly and efficiently in the outside world. [I have admiration and respect for people who achieve a lot also, but the difference is] They themselves consistently forget to consider whether their activities are actually achieving their intended goal, whether their time spent is bringing worthy proceeds, and whether their activities are organized in the most rational way. [I don't have this problem. I know if what I am doing is consistent with my goal, it's just that because it's my ignoring function is a little boring]. They subconsciously expect and appreciate it when others take interest in the effectiveness of their activities and helps to take an objective look at what they are doing.
EIIs are usually very curious and thirsty for information. [This can apply to any type, really]. When they have an interest in a particular topic or subject, they will try their best to read anything and everything about it in order to gain a thorough understanding. [So do a lot of types, myself included]
They are willing to listen to anyone who is knowledgeable or has a brilliant idea to share regardless of whether that individual is an expert or authority in his/her field since they strongly believe that there are many perspectives in an issue. [This also matches with any LII, in short; ignore these last three sentences in your comparisons and in your decision making process].

Being a naturally private person, the LII finds it difficult to believe that others would be interested in what he is thinking or feeling at any given moment. He feels like something is not quite right if his interaction with the people around him is too aloof. However he only rarely makes an effort to venture into more open spheres, because he usually avoids making small talk, preferring to talk about his real interests and say only what he truly believes.
To this end, the LII, above all things, appreciates others' attempts to get him to "open up" emotionally and express his true thoughts and views of the world - not just as an abstract ideal living in his head, but as something that other people actually care about enough to participate in and bring to fulfillment. His focus on important abstract matters also leads him to detach from the world, if it is not complemented with a healthy dose of silliness. The LII is usually oblivious to his emotional-psychological state and feels little responsibility for improving it, not to mention the state of others. This means that "bad emotions" can build up in him until some environmental factor comes along to alleviate them. Visible demonstrations of emotional warmth play a major part in this: something as simple as a big smile and a hug is enough to brighten an LII's day. The LII can be attracted to insincere displays of affection, even if he consciously realizes that they are only in jest.
The LII is often at a loss for what to do in social situations, and appreciates others who make him feel included in a new group and in the emotional side of a situation. The LII tends to take life very seriously, and appreciates others who can show him the lighter side of things.

Function 7:

EIIs can become expressive and very lively in groups for brief periods of time, but they always gravitate to deep, focused communication between two people or a small, close-knit group. They tend to shun wildness and prefer serious, more sensitive communication. [An PolR will shun wildness of that type, so this could be interpreted as being applicable to an LII and an EII.]
EIIs are usually very straightforward about their feelings in front of others; what you see from them is what you get. Even at a party where everyone is supposed to be happy, they still find it hard to conceal their true feelings when they are in a bad mood. This can create distaste among the rest who feel that the EII is not cooperating by contributing to the positive and boisterous mood. This tends to lead others who don't know the EII well to have a misconception that he/she is a grouchy person by nature.


The LII is an efficient worker, and seeks out new tools, resources, or methods as long as they are directly relevant to his work or interests. He is not likely to keep especially careful track of his finances, avoiding this by keeping his needs simple and constant. (I very much relate to this, however it is possible that an EII would do this too).
The LII can easily understand whether something is impractical or not, but prefers to explain why using structural principles. He dislikes rote memorization of dates and the like, but paradoxically will often have a mental store of many arcane pieces of information (such as the first 100 digits of pi) he finds interesting or equally absurd technical skills (like mastering a video game). Such skills and information will either be a part of his leisure activities, or relate directly to his main interests, which he chooses not based on their immediate practical consequence, but on how interesting they are.
The LII only exchanges such information in conversation for entertainment, and criticizes overly bland or rambling analyses, especially if he feels they have no point.

I'll tell you the reason behind this question and possibly future ones, and it's that I feel like I'm in some kind of EII/LII continuum that I'm trying to make sense of. I've identified with the EII descriptions for the longest time, yet for the past few years I've been developing my personality more and I've felt less of an interested toward topics on morality and ethics, like I'm confident about my ethical views at this point.

Being confident of your views and developing other interests doesn't mean that you aren't an Fi dom. In fact, the EII I know is easily the most confident person I have seen when he is discussing issues of morality.

I feel particularly strong towards topics where people's arguments are based on there being monetary profit and there's a person's dignity involved (what I perceive as their dignity being in question), such as my pet peeve towards Hooters.

I don't really understand this. Can you give an example of how you would feel strongly when somebody is talking about a monetary profit, and then explain what makes you think this is related to being an LII. I can see it two ways: either you are suggesting that because you are interested in "colder" things like profit it means you are more of a thinker and less of a feeler (thus suggesting LII), or that because you are interested in profit you are focused more on Te (thus suggesting EII). I would say that the latter view is the more correct one; LIIs are more focused on analyzing ideas than on discussing issues of monetary profit. That isn't to say that they don't enjoy those conversations, it's just that when they do have these discussions they focus on it as an idea and like to break it apart - rather than discuss the specific facts concerning the issue. I don't see how somebody's dignity is related to somebody talking about a monetary profit.

On a side note, I've also had successful relationships with ESEs rather than LSEs. So, I'm trying to distinguish what makes EIIs different than LIIs from a functional perspective, even though I still feel very much EII.

Not exactly surprising, dual relationships can be strange to start, and ESEs are very adept at starting and maintaining relationships because they are an F dom.

[Beautiful sky]

I have very strong morals:

Examples:

The way I treat people, I think they are all equal; I will never treat someone poorly because they are poor or because they are physically different from others. Those things are just plain wrong.

I will not be a happy person if I see someone being treated badly because of things, morals, that I've defined as good/bad. I do things I shouldn't do because I see things that are wrong; like, if someone doesn't give up their seat to an elderly person, I'll walk up to them and say "that sign says 'Priority to Seniors'"

I won't tell them to move, because I'm scared of objects (people) and what they are capable of doing (throwing fights, getting aggressive), but I will try to make them feel guilty (that doesn't always work with inconsiderate people).

My morals are defined by me, based on the things I value, not society; the things I value are usually about human beings and their rights.

I think everyone has morals; an LSE morals are socially oriented because they are extraverts, they care what people think of them:

About politics, an LSE worries about the effect it has on the world; they don't see it in terms of people, as individuals. I worry about the way it effects people. Look at Sean Penn, an obvious LSE and how he handles political concerns. While I think, "hey, your stupid policies are going to end up hurting these human beings; get your s*** together."

[Lobo]

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=sans-serif]Are your strong moral convictions focused on logical consistency? For example, I enjoy thinking about issues of morality, but I always take an abstract philosophical approach - an approach than can literally be calculated based on a few moral axioms.

I couldn't say that I favor logical consistency in my moral convictions over something else... I do favor objectivity over logical consistency though. I rarely have arguments with people on issues of morality, and I usually find them to be pointless in general for me to have emotional attachment to them, since the underlying basis for moral convictions is often subjective, imo, and people end up getting angry at each other for no good reason. I don't apply cold logic when it comes to issues of morality also.

As for the wiki descriptions, I identify to things from both. I did get turned off though when I saw the part when ESEs are mentioned as a way to establish some kind of pieces-fit-together-with-dual logic, which happens to be something that annoys me greatly, lol .

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=sans-serif]
Being confident of your views and developing other interests doesn't mean that you aren't an Fi dom. In fact, the EII I know is easily the most confident person I have seen when he is discussing issues of morality. I don't really understand this. Can you give an example of how you would feel strongly when somebody is talking about a monetary profit, and then explain what makes you think this is related to being an LII. I can see it two ways: either you are suggesting that because you are interested in "colder" things like profit it means you are more of a thinker and less of a feeler (thus suggesting LII), or that because you are interested in profit you are focused more on Te (thus suggesting EII). I would say that the latter view is the more correct one; LIIs are more focused on analyzing ideas than on discussing issues of monetary profit. That isn't to say that they don't enjoy those conversations, it's just that when they do have these discussions they focus on it as an idea and like to break it apart - rather than discuss the specific facts concerning the issue. I don't see how somebody's dignity is related to somebody talking about a monetary profit.

What I meant was that I hate when people justify something as being "ok" just because what the person/company/etc is doing is making profit and helping the economy, rather than considering other issues as more important, such as the image and values you are collaterally promoting by just focusing on that. I mentioned Hooters as an example, and I don't want to get into a discussion about it now since it's just an example (and I know that there's people who will probably disagree with me), because I find that it affects the image of women as being intellectual contributors to society. In cases like that, if someone tries to justify those kinds of things as being OK morally with "well, it's ok because they are making money and they need it, etc" I get annoyed. That's more or less what I was getting at. One of my axioms is that money shouldn't factor in ethical discussions.

Not exactly surprising, dual relationships can be strange to start, and ESEs are very adept at starting and maintaining relationships because they are an F dom.

Yet, if there's no chemistry, there's no successful relationship (my definition of it at least) regardless of being F or T dom... I'm talking about being in a comfortable relationship where we compliment each other, that it just feels right to be in. Something that could definitely factor into the equation is that being gay, perhaps there's an effect towards what I'm looking for in a partner. Having dated and befriended LSEs, I just don't see how I can be happy in a romantic relationship with one. I do get along great usually in a work setting with them, but not when it comes to a more intimate relationship. I want my partner to be emotionally expressive, sensitive, borderline emotionally clingy, and who is rarely cold. ESEs happen to satisfy those requirements well, lol, among other things of course.

[Lobo]

I have very strong morals:

Examples:

The way I treat people, I think they are all equal; I will never treat someone poorly because they are poor or because they are physically different from others. Those things are just plain wrong.

I will not be a happy person if I see someone being treated badly because of things, morals, that I've defined as good/bad. I do things I shouldn't do because I see things that are wrong; like, if someone doesn't give up their seat to an elderly person, I'll walk up to them and say "that sign says 'Priority to Seniors'"

I won't tell them to move, because I'm scared of objects (people) and what they are capable of doing (throwing fights, getting aggressive), but I will try to make them feel guilty (that doesn't always work with inconsiderate people).

My morals are defined by me, based on the things I value, not society; the things I value are usually about human beings and their rights.

I think everyone has morals; an LSE morals are socially oriented because they are extraverts, they care what people think of them:

About politics, an LSE worries about the effect it has on the world; they don't see it in terms of people, as individuals. I worry about the way it effects people. Look at Sean Penn, an obvious LSE and how he handles political concerns. While I think, "hey, your stupid policies are going to end up hurting these human beings; get your s*** together."

I don't like making someone feel guilty... I usually give people the benefit of the doubt, because they might realize what they did and feel really bad about it. So if I point something out, it's jokingly or in a way that I'm not making a big deal about it, let's just move on. However if they don't care after that, then yeah, I'd get pissed lol.

[Beautiful sky]

People who wish to be close to me have to reexamine their unethical behaviors. I will point it out, either directly or indirectly but I demand mutual concession. I'm not a victim type, like I said. If people wish to continue being mindlessly heartless, they can wish to be cut off from me and that is exactly what will happen. I have no problem in breaking unions. This is probably because I aspire towards humanism and I expect the same from others. These are my morals.

I can seem like a heartless, cold B, but people get fair chances and warnings to stop doing what they do that is wrong. Come on, I'm not that bad, LSE are tactless, undiplomatic, unrealistic, knuckle heads, who are very moody and tough to deal with; they get a dual like me.

[krieger]

paradoxically will often have a mental store of many arcane pieces of information (such as the first 100 digits of pi)

this line makes me puke for some reason. so wrong. such a gag inducing bullshit "stereotype". so far removed from anything i could even think of doing.

[Ryan]

I don't take morals seriously, just like I don't take "formal" logic seriously. To me, they are the same thing. I have shitted on logical fallacies as long as I remember.

I did a quick research on google and I think I may have found another LII (or maybe ILE?), lol.

http://www.angryjerk.net/why_i_write.php

(actually I think I have heard about this guy before, but this may be my first time reading his website)

[Aquagraph]

People who wish to be close to me have to reexamine their unethical behaviors. I will point it out, either directly or indirectly but I demand mutual concession. I'm not a victim type, like I said. If people wish to continue being mindlessly heartless, they can wish to be cut off from me and that is exactly what will happen. I have no problem in breaking unions. This is probably because I aspire towards humanism and I expect the same from others. These are my morals.

I can seem like a heartless, cold B, but people get fair chances and warnings to stop doing what they do that is wrong. Come on, I'm not that bad, LSE are tactless, undiplomatic, unrealistic, knuckle heads, who are very moody and tough to deal with; they get a dual like me.

First of all, this thread is about LIIs.
Secondly, nobody cares about your humanist EII thing to do as the ethical pillar of society
Thirdly, once again you are putting people in to boxes where they do not obviously fit in.

[Beautiful sky]

First of all, this thread is about LIIs.
Secondly, nobody cares about your humanist EII thing to do as the ethical pillar of society
Thirdly, once again you are putting people in to boxes where they do not obviously fit in.

That explains a lot about you.

Now to prove my point about LII and morality; take what I FEEL about things and turn it into THOUGHT and you'll have an LII.

[Aquagraph]

Now to prove my point about LII and morality; take what I FEEL about things and turn it into THOUGHT and you'll have an LII.

If you would have added that in the first place, your post might have had something to do with LIIs and morality.

Well, anyways, how does one think morality and how does one feel morality in practice?
Do you mean that Ethical types would be more prone to sentimentality and Logical types would be more prone to applying tools from different philosophies such as the hedonistic calculus?

[ArchonAlarion]

this line makes me puke for some reason. so wrong. such a gag inducing bullshit "stereotype". so far removed from anything i could even think of doing.

I had the same reaction. It feels trite and internet nerd show and tell-y. My INTp friend is so much more likely to do that sort of thing. He loves sporcle and memorizing countries, capitals, etc.

[Beautiful sky]

If you would have added that in the first place, your post might have had something to do with LIIs and morality.

Well, anyways, how does one think morality and how does one feel morality in practice?
Do you mean that Ethical types would be more prone to sentimentality and Logical types would be more prone to applying tools from different philosophies such as the hedonistic calculus?

I didn't need to add that. It's clear in Socionics; if you had known about Socionics and figured out how it worked from you would have put the picture together.

You figure out the how by putting the picture together. And, that's my point about you.

[Aquagraph]

I didn't need to add that. It's clear in Socionics; if you had known about Socionics and figured out how it worked from you would have put the picture together.

You figure out the how by putting the picture together. And, that's my point about you.

Umm, yeah, cool.. Where's the part where you address my question on this topic?

[Park]

I have strong moral convictions.

[Dionysus]

I couldn't say that I favor logical consistency in my moral convictions over something else... I do favor objectivity over logical consistency though.

Objectivity is logically consistent.

As for the wiki descriptions, I identify to things from both. I did get turned off though when I saw the part when ESEs are mentioned as a way to establish some kind of pieces-fit-together-with-dual logic, which happens to be something that annoys me greatly, lol .

Well that is understandable because they are the most similar types (after comparative types.) What annoyed you about the dual-logic?

What I meant was that I hate when people justify something as being "ok" just because what the person/company/etc is doing is making profit and helping the economy, rather than considering other issues as more important, such as the image and values you are collaterally promoting by just focusing on that. I mentioned Hooters as an example, and I don't want to get into a discussion about it now since it's just an example (and I know that there's people who will probably disagree with me), because I find that it affects the image of women as being intellectual contributors to society. In cases like that, if someone tries to justify those kinds of things as being OK morally with "well, it's ok because they are making money and they need it, etc" I get annoyed. That's more or less what I was getting at. One of my axioms is that money shouldn't factor in ethical discussions.

If you "hate" this then you are probably an EII. For me, issues of morality are generally more intellectual discussions. Also, LIIs tend to not have rules like "you shouldn't factor in money." The rules they have are generally more like: "X is what is good, if Y supports X more than it negates it, then act Y is good." i.e. they are less likely to have specific rules and more likely to have a single rule that can be adapted to fit any moral situation. (Something like multiplication can be applied to a wide variety of math problems, for example, whilst a rule like "money shouldn't be a factor" only applies to itself).

Yet, if there's no chemistry, there's no successful relationship (my definition of it at least) regardless of being F or T dom...

That was my point. Fs are more likely to get (emotional) chemistry going in the beginning of a relationship because this is more natural for them.

I'm talking about being in a comfortable relationship where we compliment each other, that it just feels right to be in. Something that could definitely factor into the equation is that being gay, perhaps there's an effect towards what I'm looking for in a partner. Having dated and befriended LSEs, I just don't see how I can be happy in a romantic relationship with one. I do get along great usually in a work setting with them, but not when it comes to a more intimate relationship. I want my partner to be emotionally expressive, sensitive, borderline emotionally clingy, and who is rarely cold. ESEs happen to satisfy those requirements well, lol, among other things of course.

It sounds like your biggest desire right now is to be in a relationship where you know you are loved - maybe because of a general feeling that you haven't had this in your life? (I really hate getting psychological like this because for the most part I don't believe in the subconscious mumbo jumbo stuff)

What are the barriers preventing an intimate relationship with an LSE that you have experienced?

Being sensitive and emotionally clingy is more of an Fi thing than an Fe thing. This is because:

Types that value like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others.

Types with valued strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.

The individual longs for close personal relationships where personal and private experiences can be shared easily in an atmosphere of mutual trust, sustained by shared sentiments and ethical beliefs that make external expression of emotions unnecessary. The individual is inclined to take first steps, but he is not confident of his ability to correctly evaluate the existence or status of such a relationship and therefore is attracted to persons who value clear and unambiguous personal relationships with others and who follow a clear set of ethical principles, which gives them credibility and makes them deserving of trust in the individual's eyes.

Would like to "help your partner express and make sense of their feelings towards things on a very regular basis."
or do this for your partner:

The ESE often feels like he wants to go in many different directions at once, and hence desperately needs someone to cut out all the irrelevancies and select the proper course of action, rather than providing even more "helpful" information that is of ambiguous relevance to the situation. The ESE will greatly admire people who can analyze everyday situations and put them in context, as well as introduce them to exciting new concepts or "research". The ESE wants his actions to make sense, but is almost always too caught up in his emotions to make very methodical, introspective, and impersonal judgments. If he cannot find a source of certainty, he may become insecure and unable to act rationally. The ESE loves to learn about new things, and is especially intrigued when the teacher appears confident and knowledgeable."

Lastly, if you had to pick between these two choices:

If you have to analyze something like a philosophical idea do you generally feel like you have a decent grasp of what is going on, but you are still generally uncertain that your analysis and conclusion is correct? Would you like your ideas to be validated by external facts or do you regard this as mostly irrelevant?

When becoming friends with a stranger do you generally feel like you have a decent grasp on the subconscious distance between the two of you, but you still feel generally uncertain as to what they are really feeling? Would you like to be validated by very vivid displays of emotion or do you mostly regard this as maybe fun, but still irrelevant in the long term?

[Dionysus]

this line makes me puke for some reason. so wrong. such a gag inducing bullshit "stereotype". so far removed from anything i could even think of doing.

I had the same reaction. It feels trite and internet nerd show and tell-y. My INTp friend is so much more likely to do that sort of thing. He loves sporcle and memorizing countries, capitals, etc.

I think you guys are taking it the wrong way. The point was that generally it is seen as a waste of time, but paradoxically an INTj might have random "arcane" bits of data (that he doesn't take too seriously). An INTj would never try to do this.

He dislikes rote memorization of dates and the like, but paradoxically will often have a mental store of many arcane pieces of information (such as the first 100 digits of pi) he finds interesting or equally absurd technical skills (like mastering a video game).

I master tiny technical skills like whistling, but I don't take it too seriously.

[ArchonAlarion]

Okay

[Beautiful sky]

For me, issues of morality are generally more intellectual discussions. Also, LIIs tend to not have rules like "you shouldn't factor in money." The rules they have are generally more like: "X is what is good, if Y supports X more than it negates it, then act Y is good." i.e. they are less likely to have specific rules and more likely to have a single rule that can be adapted to fit any moral situation. (Something like multiplication can be applied to a wide variety of math problems, for example, whilst a rule like "money shouldn't be a factor" only applies to itself).

I make rules like that because I have no need to have an Fe type come to their own internal understanding of what they are feeling, which is why LII makes the kinds of rules they make for the Fe types; I just have to make a clear rule of what actions are good/bad, like saying "you should factor in money." I'm not helping an Fe, I'm helping a Te, who is much more oriented towards productivity.

[Lobo]

Objectivity is logically consistent.

Hmmm, I believe they are different things by definition alone. For example, instead of getting caught up in the logic of someone's argument, I might just back off because we're losing sight of the big picture and/or I feel the argument is pointless. I don't value making sure that what is said is entirely logical over other things. I know that logical types usually get caught up in what is being said, for words to make sense, rather than the underlying motives behind them. I look for motive behind statements before tackling their logical consistency. In this regard, I feel more like a "feeler" type.

Well that is understandable because they are the most similar types (after comparative types.) What annoyed you about the dual-logic?

I feel uncomfortable as it is when an article in wikisocion is being referenced as a legitimate source, for one. Considering how, to my knowledge, there hasn't been any scientific/statistical study on type descriptions and how they apply to the general population, I take socionic articles as just the result of someone's extensive thoughts on the matter, at their best; Descriptions that can inspire meaningful philosophical and theoretical discussion about Socionics, and should not be taken as factual.

What annoys me in particular about that statement is that I believe it comes from an approach that I've seen many people adopt, and makes me doubt the validity of it originating from any real life experience, in that duality is a perfect complimentary relationship: one type does something naturally that the dual loves and needs, or there's a deficiency in how one type does something which the dual naturally does. When I read a type description where the dual is mentioned as a way to make sense of the description, because the logic is that duals are perfect for each other, I immediately suspect the person is making it up from an expectation of what a successful/fantasy relationship should be like. I'm going to be the annoying person who will say that "in the real world", at least for me, things don't work out that way, and I'd even go so far to say that relationships where there is such dependency result in a dynamic that is not enjoyable and emotionally straining (so "compatible," yet so different).

If you "hate" this then you are probably an EII. For me, issues of morality are generally more intellectual discussions. Also, LIIs tend to not have rules like "you shouldn't factor in money." The rules they have are generally more like: "X is what is good, if Y supports X more than it negates it, then act Y is good." i.e. they are less likely to have specific rules and more likely to have a single rule that can be adapted to fit any moral situation. (Something like multiplication can be applied to a wide variety of math problems, for example, whilst a rule like "money shouldn't be a factor" only applies to itself).

My "rule" (though I'd call it more of a rule of thumb for me) is actually based on more than just a feeling. I think there's more to situations like what I mentioned than just money, things that have more weight as a whole.

That was my point. Fs are more likely to get (emotional) chemistry going in the beginning of a relationship because this is more natural for them.
It sounds like your biggest desire right now is to be in a relationship where you know you are loved - maybe because of a general feeling that you haven't had this in your life? (I really hate getting psychological like this because for the most part I don't believe in the subconscious mumbo jumbo stuff)

What are the barriers preventing an intimate relationship with an LSE that you have experienced?

Are you suggesting that the T types are required more-so in the latter parts of the relationships? As to the second part, I definitely desire right now to be in a relationship where I know I'm loved (doesn't everyone though? lol).

The main barrier is not getting enough external emotional feedback to be comfortable in relationships with them. I'm a rather sensitive guy too, and I'd have to be paired up with an LSE with a similar level of that. With STs I've periodically felt alone, or feel like there's a coldness to the relationship that doesn't suit my relationship needs. I'm not a clingy guy though, but I like being with someone who is emotionally expressive and doesn't let pride get in the way of that (I find most, if not all, LSEs to have a certain level of pride that I just don't want to deal with in an intimate relationship setting).

Lastly, if you had to pick between these two choices:

If you have to analyze something like a philosophical idea do you generally feel like you have a decent grasp of what is going on, but you are still generally uncertain that your analysis and conclusion is correct? Would you like your ideas to be validated by external facts or do you regard this as mostly irrelevant?

When becoming friends with a stranger do you generally feel like you have a decent grasp on the subconscious distance between the two of you, but you still feel generally uncertain as to what they are really feeling? Would you like to be validated by very vivid displays of emotion or do you mostly regard this as maybe fun, but still irrelevant in the long term?

1) I'm usually confident in my analysis about philosophical ideas, or at least that I can get to something that makes sense using only my head. I don't usually seek external validation of philosophical stuff because I find it irrelevant, nor does it come to my mind that I should do that. I do pull myself down to earth when I think about something abstractly, like there's a pull in my mind that I shouldn't just stay in my head.

2) All strangers are met with the same level of emotional distance, though I'm very polite. I don't really have a desire to become close to everybody, and if I feel that way it's either because I like that person in particular or I'd like to not ruin the emotional atmosphere by being all quiet and having people assume I don't want to be there, etc. At the same time I can be very sociable depending on my mood, and can "work the crowd" with the right type of people (usually others who are on the shy side too, lol). Very vivid displays of emotion are OK and fun, don't really mind them, but I definitely don't register them as particularly telling of their real feelings towards me/others.

[Beautiful sky]

You might ask, also, why do Te bases ignore Ti; on a tangent here but an important one to socionics understanding; adding to what D. said; while an LII is trying to determine what's good and what's bad; a Te, pragmatic just wants what's the best for the particular situations; they don't want options they want, "this is the thing that you should do."

[World Socionics]

Morality is not sourced from the logical functions. An LII simply seeks to make sure that whatever morals they do have are structured into principles that do not contradict. Because of this, I know some very moral LIIs as well as some quite amoral LIIs compared to the moral fixation sported by EIIs.

[Logos]

I do not consider myself as amoral. My "moral" convictions are rooted in principles of justice and fairness. There are many injustices that I see in the world, but I have neither the time, energy, nor conviction to work myself up over every injustice in the world like others I know. Most of my "moral outrages" come out of offenses of personal injustices and values: dealing with hypocrites, the logically inconsistent, and the "confidently misinformed."

[Dionysus]

Hmmm, I believe they are different things by definition alone. For example, instead of getting caught up in the logic of someone's argument, I might just back off because we're losing sight of the big picture and/or I feel the argument is pointless. I don't value making sure that what is said is entirely logical over other things. I know that logical types usually get caught up in what is being said, for words to make sense, rather than the underlying motives behind them. I look for motive behind statements before tackling their logical consistency. In this regard, I feel more like a "feeler" type.

Losing sight of the big picture has nothing to do with logic - logic is about correctness and it is "correct" to focus on the big picture.When you say you don't value making sure that what is said is entirely logical over other things, could you give me an example (from real life)?

I feel uncomfortable as it is when an article in wikisocion is being referenced as a legitimate source, for one.

The articles on wikisocion are pulled and cited from other sources.

Considering how, to my knowledge, there hasn't been any scientific/statistical study on type descriptions and how they apply to the general population, I take socionic articles as just the result of someone's extensive thoughts on the matter, at their best; Descriptions that can inspire meaningful philosophical and theoretical discussion about Socionics, and should not be taken as factual.

According to this reasoning there is no such thing as any type description to trust - because they are all merely extensions of thought. Unless of course they are statistical studies of behavior, but the purpose of Socionics is to explain the underlying reasons behind behavior instead of the external manifestation of it. External behaviors are often the result of upbringing and habits just as much as they are of type. If you don't trust Socionic articles, why do you even trust Socionics?

What annoys me in particular about that statement is that I believe it comes from an approach that I've seen many people adopt, and makes me doubt the validity of it originating from any real life experience, in that duality is a perfect complimentary relationship: one type does something naturally that the dual loves and needs, or there's a deficiency in how one type does something which the dual naturally does. When I read a type description where the dual is mentioned as a way to make sense of the description, because the logic is that duals are perfect for each other, I immediately suspect the person is making it up from an expectation of what a successful/fantasy relationship should be like. I'm going to be the annoying person who will say that "in the real world", at least for me, things don't work out that way, and I'd even go so far to say that relationships where there is such dependency result in a dynamic that is not enjoyable and emotionally straining (so "compatible," yet so different).

Right - people see what they want to see. If they think that duality is a perfect relationship then they will adapt all of their other understanding to fit in with this idea - which can corrupt other ideas.

My "rule" (though I'd call it more of a rule of thumb for me) is actually based on more than just a feeling. I think there's more to situations like what I mentioned than just money, things that have more weight as a whole.

But could you give me your views on morality in a few sentences, or it would have to consist of a lot of aphorisms?

For example:
LII approach:
It is observable that what we do is a motivation for pleasure. Even when we do things for others' pleasure - with enough introspection we realize that we did it because it made us happy (knowing the other person was happy). What is right is defined as what ought to be, and we believe we try to manifest what ought to be. Because what we try to do is what we want to do, and what we want to do is what makes us happy, what ought to be is what makes us happy. Thus, rightness is defined by happiness.

EII approach:
"Moral axiom."
"Stealing is wrong."
"You should always strive to be your best."
"You should place other's needs above your own."
"A man should never lie to his wife."
...
...

An EII will solve issues of morality by breaking down the motivations, actions, and effects of people, then sifting through their moral axioms until they find a conclusion that feels right. An LII will try to solve the issue by breaking down the motivations, actions, and effects of everybody then determining what parts are moral, immoral, and amoral. They will then weight the relative strength of the morality of the acts compared to they basic moral axiom. Of course though, if an LII (or any type for that matter) heard about somebody who was murdered they probably won't have to analyze it and they will merely say "that's wrong."

Are you suggesting that the T types are required more-so in the latter parts of the relationships?

No. I am merely saying that somebody with F as their dominant function is going to be slightly better at relationships naturally.

As to the second part, I definitely desire right now to be in a relationship where I know I'm loved (doesn't everyone though? lol).

My point was that this sounds like your only priority. Fe is the external display of passions and emotions, if and if somebody's biggest desire was to know and constantly be reassured that they were loved - then what provides more tangible support than that?

The main barrier is not getting enough external emotional feedback to be comfortable in relationships with them. I'm a rather sensitive guy too, and I'd have to be paired up with an LSE with a similar level of that. With STs I've periodically felt alone, or feel like there's a coldness to the relationship that doesn't suit my relationship needs. I'm not a clingy guy though, but I like being with someone who is emotionally expressive and doesn't let pride get in the way of that (I find most, if not all, LSEs to have a certain level of pride that I just don't want to deal with in an intimate relationship setting).

What is the closest you have ever gotten with an LSE, and did you show your true emotional, sensitive self? How confident are you in your typings?

Don't judge the relationship quality of LSEs with comparisons to STs as a whole. This would be comparing a conflictor relationship to your dual relationship, and they are at the opposite end of the spectrum.

How many LSEs have you met, and do you think that their pride was a because of their personality type or something else? Did you ever get close to one in an intimate relationship and make it known what types of emotional expression you need in a relationship?

1) I'm usually confident in my analysis about philosophical ideas, or at least that I can get to something that makes sense using only my head. I don't usually seek external validation of philosophical stuff because I find it irrelevant, nor does it come to my mind that I should do that.

When you "get to something that makes sense" how do you do this and what is the "sense" that you achieve? What type of philosophical ideas are you talking about?

I do pull myself down to earth when I think about something abstractly, like there's a pull in my mind that I shouldn't just stay in my head.

Please give an example.

2) All strangers are met with the same level of emotional distance, though I'm very polite.

Is this being polite attitude something that you only do in the beginning of a relationship, and when you get to know them better do you like to begin to joke around (even lightly insulting the person)?

• Delta types love to share personal experience mixed with their own sentiments regarding their experiences, but all in an insightful and non-dramatic manner.
• Delta types make a point of talking about the rationale behind their actions and emphasizing the productiveness or unproductiveness of different ways of doing things - even in such emotional areas as personal relationships.
• Delta types value peaceful, refreshing activities where they are doing something useful and balancing out their inner world at the same time.
• Delta types have the philosophy that they will have to rely on their own industriousness to achieve their goals rather than on luck, speculation, group effort, or strong leadership.
• Delta types rarely display their deep passions and vision, preferring instead to talk in more neutral terms about what they want to do and why.
• Delta types reject dramatism and emotional affect in favor of wry humor and understatement.
• Delta types don't tend to form or maintain groups based on fun, emotional interaction, but only take groups seriously that perform some common productive or restful activity.
• Delta types generally dislike using poetic wording when describing their inner state, but talk simply about what they feel or their bodily sensations.

Groups made up of primarily Delta types tend to be focused on working on projects, enjoying physical recreation, or finding out interesting things about each other. Laughter is usually subdued and brief; instead, people smile a lot and try to be witty and welcoming. Groups need to be focused on some specific productive activity or topic of discussion, or else they fall apart. In Delta groups, there is a lot of splintering and decentralization. This allows for more focused and productive interaction with only those who share your particular interests or sentiments. People jump from small group to small group easily to keep up their interest level. No one demands that the entire group listen to one person or that everyone do the same thing. Delta Quadra types believe that if everyone just pursues their own interests and makes some accommodations for others, the group will be better off anyway. Delta Quadra types do not focusing on building group identity or unity of purpose, but prefer for the group to remain splintered and decentralized.

Delta romantic relationships usually begin simply as the encounter of two individuals interested in a relationship and each other in a particular moment, with very little in terms of outward demonstrations of "romance" in the "wooing" sense of the term or in strong external demonstrations of emotions. Deltas are more focused on the present moment than Gammas, and therefore even relationships of very strong attachment do not lead to constant concerns as to their longer-term practical feasibility. Deltas see as optimal romantic relationships those where partners spend time together on fun activities and sharing ideas of potential practical application. Romantic atmospheres are low-key, based on comfort but practicality.

• Alpha types are inclined to discuss highly theoretical concepts as a source of intellectual stimulation and fun rather than for their practical merits.
• Alpha types tend to value logically consistent beliefs and ideas, and behavior that is consistent with personal values.
• Alpha types typically follow through on their ideas in the form of group activity.
• Alpha types tend to enjoy participating in groups where there is free exchange of positive emotional expression in an atmosphere pleasing to the senses.
• Alpha types are inclined to discuss stories told in detail and according to the sequence in which events happened, rather than "jump to the point" quickly.
• Alpha types are inclined to show affection for others in the form of small practical services or gifts.
• Alpha types tend to feel energized in the positive atmosphere of special events, such as public holidays, parties and special celebrations
• Alpha types prefer to avoid the discussion of controversial and unpleasant subjects regarding personal relationships while in groups, especially if leading to confrontations.
• Alpha types are inclined to be tolerating of minor past misdeeds by others, giving priority to reconciliation and a convivial atmosphere.
• Alpha types are less likely to make investments that require long-term commitment and upkeep. They prefer short-term investments that offer a reliable outcome with minimal involvement.
• Alpha types avoid taking direct life advice, preferring to experience and learn for themselves. They perceive people who try to give such advice as pedantic.

Inclination for comfortable and pleasant group atmosphere, in the emotional, sensorial, and intellectual aspects. An ideal Alpha group situation is the exchange of light-hearted jokes while discussing imaginative ideas, movies, or sometimes sports, all while enjoying pleasant food and drink. Narrating personal experiences usually takes the form of telling a joke; funny personal experiences are preferred over "serious" ones. The exchange of sober concrete details are avoided. If the group is playing a game together, the fun and jokes that go along with it are at least as important as the game itself. They avoid generating "heavy" moments; any dramatic expressions are limited in time, most often in service of a joke.
Alpha discussions tend to go off on tangents, in whatever direction seems most interesting or funny at the moment. Unusual personal observations are common, resulting from the analysis of the idiosyncrasies or inconsistencies of everyday life. If many in the group share the same observations, they are likely to express their agreement emphatically, so as to create a kind of "mental harmony" which enhances the group dynamic. If a new problem is encountered, it is expanded and developed in as many ways as possible, until some kind of satisfactory conclusion is reached.
Alphas make no distinction between "insiders" and "outsiders", easily drawing people into a conversation once it has begun — though they tend to just as easily withdraw if the person is not receptive. Likewise, they prefer to have the same behavior at work as at play; they find formal speech and dress to be pretentious, unnecessarily limiting, and even ridiculous. Alphas dislike the idea that there is something going on "behind the scenes", preferring to keep things (especially personal motivations) as open and straightforward as possible.

I don't really have a desire to become close to everybody, and if I feel that way it's either because I like that person in particular or I'd like to not ruin the emotional atmosphere by being all quiet and having people assume I don't want to be there, etc. At the same time I can be very sociable depending on my mood, and can "work the crowd" with the right type of people (usually others who are on the shy side too, lol). Very vivid displays of emotion are OK and fun, don't really mind them, but I definitely don't register them as particularly telling of their real feelings towards me/others.

If you don't register vivid displays of emotions as telling of true emotions, then what do you enjoy about your relationship with ESEs? (I'm not implying that is the only thing they have to offer, I am just curious).