Vices of the types
Every type has a vice that is in excess of the others
LIE - most greedy
LII - most hesitant
ILI - most amoral
SLI - most rationalizing
LSI - most brutal
SLE - most dismissive
LSE - most insecure
EII - most vindictive
EIE - most inauthentic
SEE - most careless
SEI - most irresponsible
ESI - most ignorant
IEI - most sadistic
IEE - most discriminating
ILE - most ruthless
ESE - most self-sheltered/escapist
uh no
I could see saying a certain type is the most "ruthless" but some of these things like insecure, inauthentic and ignorant just don't strike me as possible properties of a generalized type.
ILE is most ruthless? Interesting...
Care to explain that one?
...all of them?
lol I'm sadistic. In what alternate universe?
You're trolling us aren't you tcaud. If you are serious, let's get you committed so you stop driving yourself insane!
You know dante's inferno is kind of interesting. It's part of a larger work called "The Divine Comedy" and it starts in hell and progresses to heaven, making a stop in purgatory. Each of these realms set the major tone or theme for the work.
Maybe if you inspired your list around this idea of architecture and thematics it may be more appealing at least at a purely aesthetic level, but possibly a self-developmental level as well.
The vice of ILEs is being ourselves, so that ESIs realize how boring they are
The vice of SEIs is eating until their ass explodes
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
.......Um. No.
I think vices are far more related to enneatype than Sociotype. 2 is pride, 4 is envy, 9 is sloth etc.
I could see vices emerging from a combination of super-ego and super-id functions, but any vices would be mere possibilities rather than absolute pitfalls.
Socionics -
the16types.info
Think twice about that. And, read Jung while at it; you might discover, through his observation of the types, that may not be entirely inaccurate.Originally Posted by Agarina
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Who is Jung?
most of these are spot on.
but could you explain why ILI most amoral. I would say most rationalizing for ILI. Most thrillseeking for SLI?
Well, having known ethically challenged people of all types, I can say from experience that the ILIs in the group are the people who, as a matter of course, lose the least sleep over what they do. The ILIs won't even try to justify their actions, a characteristic I attribute to their Fe PoLR. They are self-serving, and anyone who can't or won't help them get what they want, they can and will do without. ILIs are the most likely to ask "what can this person do for me" when considering requests for friendship.
SLIs are ethical compromisers. Generally they are not lacking for ethics in and of itself (at least in their own mind), but they will always make excuses for not impressing their ethics on others. Obama is an exemplar of this rationalizing mentality. It permeats his entire administration in a way that neither Clinton nor Carter, not even LBJ would have allowed. It's a distinctly SLI approach, and although it may be authentically the best way out for Democrats at this time and given the attitude of the public, it may just speak to the suitability of SLIs to the demands of today's political environs.
As regards self-justification of ethical breaches, I think that award goes to the LIEs, who apparently love more than any other type to insist that life isn't fair. That's their argument for everything, of course.
All these assertions are backed up by model A. The exaggeration of the vices is due to the devaluation of the PoLR as an angle in the situation.
@tcaudilllg: Take for instance, "LII-most hesitant" and "EII-most vindictive". What is the common theme related to Se polr here? What do hesitancy and vindictiveness have in common?
Pass the pipe, yo.
Obama is afraid of making people mad. The media picked up on this a long time ago. Check reports... there was one about the danger of coming off as an "angry black man". This was when the BP oil spill happened.
Clinton won through personal appeal. The strategy of the "ol' Chicago pros", as Rupert Murdoch recently called them, is to avoid energizing the Republican base by avoiding controversy. They see the Republican wave election of 2010 as vindication of their theory. In everything Obama has done since that election, he has pursued a Democratic agenda within the boundaries set by the center. The XL pipeline project was not killed, but was put "on hold". Guantanamo Bay remains open. Obama doesn't try to lead, only to pursue his own agenda in so far as he can get away with it. This strategy appears to be working: the GOP is on the ropes, and swing voters are finding it harder than ever to object to either him or his policies. They are coming around to his position, but in their own way.
As for the vices, it's simple: the creative function doesn't like to let anything get in its way. When something does, the person who gets in its way is like to cite the PoLR as their justification (esp. the supervisor). Second, it's important to remember that alpha =/= delta and gamma =/= beta.
An example: EII had their sights on a man, but ESE won his heart over hers. "He was MINE!", protested EII. "No, he isn't!", ESE countered. EII failed to see the validity of ESE's argument... the pain of not having her beloved was too much to bear. She had no right... she STOLE him! She'd get him back... somehow. In the meantime, EII would content herself with ideas on how to get even... and maybe win her beloved's heart in the process.
Why does the thread interest you?
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 07-13-2012 at 05:05 AM.
If the Rummy campaign reads that, t-dog, they could turn it into an attack ad! "Obama does not try to lead..." what a great summary!
Socionics -
the16types.info
IDK about that...my mom's pretty moral, or I should ask, by whose definition of moral do we consider things to be moral or not?
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
@Jarno
What do you consider amoral? I know some INTps say they are amoral because they argue that all morals can be shown to be false. But I wonder about that because just as someone can craft a tool to achieve a specific purpose in addressing a problem, so can ways of thinking involve morality as sets of tools to be used at the one's own discretion and not necessarily absolutely - a dynamic kind of morality. Do you really consider yourself amoral then, or is it that you just don't believe in moral absolutes?
hard to say. I have a strong sense, and are often thinking about morals, but I guess in the end I can easely set everything aside and do my own thing. I don't see myself as particulari amoral, hence my question.
Well when we talk about type, we're talking about statistical comparisons between types. The significance of the hypothesis is, there are more amoral ILIs than among the other types. The reason for that is Te, which focuses them on a laser on obtaining means to their goals. (the producing subtypes are particularly bad for this, the accepting subtypes less so because they are more independent). If you are not personally instrumental to an ILI's goals, they won't want to interact. They certainly won't put up with you out of affection, unless you're family or offer something else personally substantial. There again I make the point: the ILIs who don't have good character won't try to justify their indifference the way the other types will, and, a wider spectrum of traits dispose ILIs to bad character than do other types.
What I'm trying to point out is, ILIs are more likely than other types to be gold diggers, because their producing Te is front and center, and it always serves their forward ambitions, rather than the problems of the now. If they were thinking of now, they would be thinking how to persuade others to give them Te to confront the issues of the moment, as SLIs do. A key element of these negotiations is, of course, staying on the other party's "good side", which requires refrain from criticism.
I made this same thread a while back here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Good-and-Evil
Except I also listed the good attributes about types and not just the bad.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Right but you didn't explain how you came by them. You offered no mechanic by which to justify your assertions.
I have a hard time seeing an Fi demonstrative as sadistic.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Hah! Blame my
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I'd feel that Sloth is pretty constant among IEI, whereas Sadism is just kind of a stretch IMO.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
IEIs like to lash out a lot. If a partner treats them badly, they will feel excused to act fickle and insensitive towards later partners. Raver made the point that they can be indirect, and that's part of it. They enjoy leading people on, because the more people are lusting after them, the more reliable support they feel they have. They will inflate themselves and prop themselves up on others' complements and affections. It's not that they MEAN to be manipulative, or capricious... it's just what they feel like doing and IEIs always act on what they feel.
Agreed.
IEI-Fe 4w3
...What the fuck. You should have told me this a long time ago.
Got any examples/story to back these up? It would be interesting to see what push each type into or out of their vice.
Yes, in that case, I do agree by your definitions.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
well it's not conscious necessarily. It just kind of happens. And it's not all self-serving either. Sometimes I lead people on when I don't want to disappoint them. It's a form of procrastination really.
IEI-Fe 4w3
Lol too late. The damage has been done... If I had known this earlier, I would have avoided getting hurt and wouldn't give a fuck about INFps, which I don't now.
Last edited by Leader; 07-14-2012 at 11:36 PM.
I'm everything but greedy... probably power hungy, but not at all greedy
If this is meant in the psychological sense, I could imagine that. However, these short catchwords are likely confusing because they may lead to very different associations.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Procrastination is the perfect word for it, yeah. Can become full-blown avoidance of the person if pain is inevitable. Meh...
❤ Probably ILI, or IE I/EIE/EII. PM me if you have ideas about my type! Ennagram 2w3 7w8 1w9. ❤
How do you deal with this?
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I'm actually not going to necessarily say you're wrong, tcaud, but I'm not going to agree with you on all types either. I don't know many types well enough that I can conclude what each type's vice is, especially because I have LIE friends who can be considered dismissive and know SEEs who are discriminative. If we're trying to confirm this hypothesis through actual examples/research/evidence then I can't help you out, and I'm not sure how much I agree with you. Alternatively, do you have any justification from a functions point of view? If you try to argue from a functions point of view I might be less reluctant to accept the theory.
It's probably pretty difficult to conclude on this, because I don't know who you know nor their types, so I can't back up your evidence. Moreover, people probably have friends who are of a certain type but who are definitely not the "most ____" person they know, and it's hard to ascertain if they're an outlier or if that suggests an alternative definition. Since these people are friends, there is also going to be a bit of bias from people not wanting to argue that their friends have a certain vice. Finally, to some extent I don't really know what each of the vices mean to an extent which I can understand it, but I'm not going to force you to write out more elaborate definitions of them because that may just confuse everything.
That being said, I do know some rather hesitant LIIs, some rather "inauthentic" EIEs and some rather careless SEEs, but I also know types which are not that and other types which have the same descriptors, but on average I may be tempted to agree with some of these.
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
