Superficial notes by FiNe on two individuals

[Minde]

Recently I had the, um, opportunity to serve on a jury. There's a whole other story surrounding how I got there and what I felt/feel about it, but that's neither here nor there right now.

Those of us on the jury were given notebooks to help our memory recall of the various testimonies. Being a good citizen who also has usually found it not too hard to fulfill standardized expectations, I took copious notes. Being also apparently the type of person who ends up on socionics forums, I could not help but likewise note the behaviors, attitudes, interactions, and personality manifestations of the actors in the theatre presented before me - recording those notes within that same notebook. I particularly observed two characters.

I was a good girl and left my notes about the case in the jury room as instructed; I colored a bit outside the lines by removing the pages with my notes about the personalities (which I carefully kept separate from the case-related notes) and taking them home with me.


In short, if you're so inclined, please read my notes below and give me some feedback if anything strikes you as worth mentioning or analyzing. I might elaborate later if it seems there is enough interest.

Person P:
- Wears one down by piling on info and details, repeating himself almost cyclically (though each cycle brings more info)
- The effect of his attempt to pull in a personal story (of familiar warmth bereft) makes me rebel, recoil from it. Feels like attempted emotional manipulation - and somewhat clumsy from my own perspective.
- Slow, steady, persistent, thorough
- Blunt yet forceful attacks
- Moves around a bit as he talks, not terribly erratically but definite extra movements
- "externalized energy"
- Gets more energetic when challenged, more animated
- Facial expressions not especially guarded; easy to see what he's feeling, though some emotions he pushes a bit on purpose
- Can get sarcastic, particularly toward people he seems to feel are incompetent, biased, or of bad character
- Jumps on the "less thoroughness" of others and finds holes in arguments that way
- Makes notes of relationships, points them out (though said relationships are usually already obvious to me)
- Gets annoyed and emotional when witnesses are not concrete
- Mildly disorganized (or the appearance of it) but that may be because he's trying to pull in a lot of data on short notice in reaction to unexpected new evidence/points
- Aggressive attack of witness credibility
- Not satisfied with the abstract
- Uses math/logic to force an answer he wanted ("x > 0" "Something is greater than nothing!")
- Data, data, data
- Gets impatient with slow helpers
- Seems inclined to yell or raise his voice (or increase the intensity) when frustrated or agitated
- Interested in etymology, almost to a fault
- Keeps going until the uncertainty is cleared
- Clarifies small details, even if they seem irrelevant, almost compulsively
- Not overly concerned with having exactly the right order

Person D:
- "Snake" was the first word that came to me
- Manipulates with words
- Drives (or attempts to drive) the direction things are going in, but in a more subtle and less forceful way
- Uses rules to his advantage
- Appears experienced, confident, unflappable
- Very conscious of time
- Conscious of repetition and avoids it
- Subtle theatrics
- Uses a lot of connotative words and phrases; splendid vocabulary
- "Gather and strike"
- Does not tend toward sarcasm
- Demonstrates obvious attitudes of respect toward those he interacts with (I suspect it's largely a self-serving habit)
- Does not obviously attack anyone's character or credibility
- Calculated flows of info, in both gathering and providing


PS I call these notes "superficial" because they are exactly that - cursory observations with no extended input outside of the subjects' professional arena.

[Raver]

Interesting notes you have there Minde. I'm going to take some wild guesses and go with LSI for Person P and LIE for Person D. Not completely confident on these typings, but they were the first ones to come to mind.

[silke]

I got a distinct impression of SEE from the first description.


Person P:
- Wears one down by piling on info and details, repeating himself almost cyclically (though each cycle brings more info) - not sure
- The effect of his attempt to pull in a personal story (of familiar warmth bereft) makes me rebel, recoil from it. Feels like attempted emotional manipulation - and somewhat clumsy from my own perspective. - creative Ji in action, probably Fi since you easily notice this
- Slow, steady, persistent, thorough - process > result
- Blunt yet forceful attacks - EPs do this sort of thing, creative Ji does seem like "blunt forceful attacks" to me too
- Moves around a bit as he talks, not terribly erratically but definite extra movements - irrational
- "externalized energy" - extravert
- Gets more energetic when challenged, more animated - not sure
- Facial expressions not especially guarded; easy to see what he's feeling, though some emotions he pushes a bit on purpose - I've noticed that process creative Fi will push others to make them feel a certain way, often the impression that I get from SEEs that they are trying to force some feeling onto me
- Can get sarcastic, particularly toward people he seems to feel are incompetent, biased, or of bad character - Fi/Te
- Jumps on the "less thoroughness" of others and finds holes in arguments that way - there was mention here about how SEEs like to find exceptions to rules, in general all EPs do this (which is where they come in conflict with IJs)
- Makes notes of relationships, points them out (though said relationships are usually already obvious to me) - creative Fi
- Gets annoyed and emotional when witnesses are not concrete - can be attributed to causal-determinist thinking style which belongs to four types: LSI, SEE, EII, ILE, desire for maximum clarity and concreteness
- Mildly disorganized (or the appearance of it) but that may be because he's trying to pull in a lot of data on short notice in reaction to unexpected new evidence/points - irrationality
- Aggressive attack of witness credibility - sounds Fi/Te
- Not satisfied with the abstract
- Uses math/logic to force an answer he wanted ("x > 0" "Something is greater than nothing!")
- Data, data, data
- Gets impatient with slow helpers
- Seems inclined to yell or raise his voice (or increase the intensity) when frustrated or agitated
- Interested in etymology, almost to a fault
- Keeps going until the uncertainty is cleared - causal-determinist thinking style once again
- Clarifies small details, even if they seem irrelevant, almost compulsively - causal-determinist thinking style
- Not overly concerned with having exactly the right order


Second person strikes me as irrational type as well, possibly IP. I know of an ILI 5 who acts very similarly to that description.

@Minde I am wondering what did you mean by "Gather and strike" for person D?

[Creepy-male]

I can see similarity in the notes you've made here to interactions I've had with others in debates.

In terms of Jury duty though sound like you must have had a fairly interesting case if it involved things such as "emotional manipulation, sarcasm, and so forth"

[Absurd]

Hmm, let's see some more.

[Minde]

Thanks, siuntal, for the detailed feedback!

In terms of Jury duty though sound like you must have had a fairly interesting case if it involved things such as "emotional manipulation, sarcasm, and so forth"

It was a medical negligence case that lasted for 7 days: 1 day of jury selection + opening statements, 4 days of testimony, and 2 days of jury deliberation. If it weren't for how much income I lost by sitting on that jury (so significant I'm going to have trouble paying some bills), I'd have thoroughly enjoyed serving on this case.

One interesting aspect is that the judge created room for the jury to ask questions (written down and passed by him so we didn't go outside of scope or accidentally break any legal rules for the proceedings), which seemed moderately unusual based on what I've heard from other people as well as based on how the courtroom regulars (like the judge and lawyers) acted as if they never expected juror questions. I guess I'm more literal than they expected, because I believed the judge when he said we could submit questions and asked two of the first witness, which in turn apparently inspired all the other jurors to ask questions of their own, particularly later in the trial. (I felt pretty happy about that.)

Another interesting aspect was the lawyers involved - from all I can tell they are mid-to-upper-level ones, which meant they are good at what they do, and it's fun to watch skilled professionals.

And the subject matter was more or less interesting as well, if rather sad. 82 yr old woman gets admitted to ER, examined and evaluated then sent home for the night, then dies the next morning. I learned a ton about UTIs, MDS, and differential diagnosis. (BTW, women, if you can ever possibly help it, never get a urinary catheter...)

Hmm, let's see some more.

Ok. Generally, or do you want me to go in a particular direction?

slightly funny you thought of socionics in court

Old habits die hard.

more info is needed...but from what we have i'd preliminarily suggest just maybe esxx for first person.

second person i have no grasp on: what do you mean by 'driving direction of things' and using 'connotative' words? in what context? if what i'm thinking sounds like extraverted judging function...could be wrong

"Driving the direction of things" - Yeah, I was trying to think of how to succinctly say that. When I wrote it down he was asking a potential juror questions, and I could tell he was doing so in a leading way, trying to build up to a point or a certain understanding in the individual. Or not really their understanding so much as him getting them to a point in their thinking where he could get the info he was looking for. What struck me was both the calculated purpose behind it as well as the, um, non-forcefulness of it. He tended toward building a foundation upon which he could place his question or argument; the majority of his efforts were on getting that foundation firm. If one way of reaching the goal was not working, it seemed easy to him to back way off and start from a new point.

In contrast, the Person P didn't do that as much. He tended to go right for whatever the end goal was, hitting at it repeatedly until he got what he wanted, with the only real change in strategy being a change in trajectory. Like he'd ask the same question but just in a different way (and then show frustration when it didn't work). Most of his efforts seemed focussed on that that end goal. Or, rather, he really only used one method to go where he wanted, which was to jump directly at the main thing.

"Connotative words" - Person D seemed pretty good at using words with additional leading meanings to his advantage. And, particularly in places where he was allowed to attempt persuasion, he plugged in terms and phrases that while staying within appropriate scope, so he couldn't get censured by the judge, still managed to say extra things.

(An example of connotative words/phrases might be something like this: "She presented him a plate" vs. "She shoved a plate at him." They essentially are describing the same action, but you can infer or guess extra meanings based on the different words used.)

He didn't do it a ton - it seemed a secondary skill, not an automatic go-to thing, but he seemed better at it and more comfortable with it than Person P.


Additional info -

Person P seemed to do a lot more open attempts at (non-verbal, of course) interaction with the jurors. Eye contact, facial expressions, body language/signs, and even mouthing words at one point. Not super obviously or all the time, but more than the other guy. For whatever reason he seemed to look fairly often toward me; I'm not sure if that's because he thought I was some sort of leader of the group (I started the question-asking trend) or because he noticed I was watching them more than other jurors were or something else.

(My habit is to make eye-contact with anybody/everybody who wants to do the same with me, and then smile as a offering of encouragement and goodwill. I did that with both parties, with the judge, the clerk, the other jurors, the staff in the halls, the officers, etc... I find I have to be careful with that sometimes, since people apparently can get the wrong impressions, but it can still be interesting to see what happens.)

There was one point, after the leanings of the various jury members had been made clear (due to a mistake in the written juror instructions), where we all were going back to deliberate more and Person P caught my eye, clenched his fist over his stomach in an inward/downward motion, and distinctly mouthed the words, "Stay strong." (I tried not to roll my eyes at that, because my decisions had nothing to do with any loyalty to any particular party. However, in other circumstances where it wasn't against the law to be biased, something like that might actually have affected me.)

In contrast, Person D only attempted interaction with the jury during the "appropriate" times. Once, as people filed in through security in the morning, I happened to be going in at the same time as him. He did recognize me, I'm sure, because as soon as his eyes glanced over me his face changed into a pleasant smile-mask, with a touch of real humor, but he did not make eye contact at all.


There was something about Person P that amused me. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's a similar feeling I get when I'm around my SLI brother-in-law. I don't think they're the same sociotype, but I couldn't help but make that connection. Maybe it's a similar sense of humor, sarcasm; or maybe they both demonstrate their impatience with incompetence in similar ways; or maybe how both don't have the strongest filter between their internal emotions and the rest of the world. I don't know. I kept wanting to giggle, though, sometimes at quite inappropriate times!

There were a few points, especially as the trial got further in, where he'd get to almost mocking the witnesses, making wry glances at the jury as he did so - which was kinda funny and I think I snorted a couple of times, but as one of the other jurors put it, "They were good questions and it was pretty funny, but he's a bit of a dick."

To be fair, he only really mocked the ones that pretty much deserved it, who were being evasive.


In email, written conversation from Person P devolves from sufficiently formal to hasty cryptic shorthand. Impatient much?

And, yes, I have found myself in correspondence with this person, having to do with debriefing from the trial. Apparently my insights might prove useful. I meet with him tomorrow, which should prove interesting at least. Anything you dear people think I should ask or poke?



Alrighty, maybe more later. This girl is sleepy, plus this wall of text is getting rather long.

Thank you for reading.

[Absurd]

Ok. Generally, or do you want me to go in a particular direction?

I just wanted to see more replies to this.

[Creepy-Snaps]

My first impressions are Person P is SLE, and Person D is EIE.

Thanks Minde for posting this.

[Minde]

I just wanted to see more replies to this.

Oh. Well, me, too.

Thanks Minde for posting this.

You are welcome. Thank you for the feedback.

[Absurd]

Oh. Well, me, too.

Interesting to see how much they're going to differ.

[Minde]

The chat went well. We were able to easily converse and probably could have been friends if (many) circumstances had been different. He seems too friendly, active, engaged, and energetic to be an ILI, imo. He was dressed pretty casually--jeans, etc.--FWIW. It may be perfectly normal in his profession, but I confess I tend to envision lawyers as always in suits, especially when doing anything work-related.

[Minde]

Person P:




Person D:




(no quotes, por favor)

[Absurd]

They both look human to me, unless crazie rat spots a reptilian underneath.

[mu4]

I think SLE for Person P.

LIE for Person D.

Who won?

[Minde]

interesting. reading the description i got the impression you're trying to lead the discussion certain direction/choices - kinda like you wanted to suggest types yourself but hesitated (?).

that's a bit confusing coz i had to second guess the pieces of info you're putting forth, as well as second guess my own 'guess' lol.

seeing as i've been kinda 'all over the place' with this so far, i'd just suggest sth 'safer' this time (): top dude Si, second dude Ti.
what do you think?

(ps: other thing is Ti gives me the impression of running in circles, in a way, and Te as 'laying a foundation', as you put it. which is why i suggested entj for second dude at first....)

Hm, I wasn't trying to be leading. Or confusing. Sorry! It could be I'm more attune to certain elements than others, or looking for them without realizing. But it's pretty much unintentional.

I could go with Si for the top one. I tend to suspect Ni for the second one, though. He didn't really leave as big an impression on me as the first one, which I guess could be type-related - not disclosing a lot about themselves... He also didn't have much a reason to care about the case, as I learned later. So he had little reason to exert a lot of energy.

Something interesting I learned in our chat together was that Person P used to work for Person D's firm. And I get the impression he didn't like them / didn't get along perfectly. He seemed to feel they didn't have as much integrity as he'd prefer. That's rather vague, I know, but it could indicate mismatched sociotypes I suppose.

They both look human to me, unless crazie rat spots a reptilian underneath.

I think SLE for Person P.

LIE for Person D.

Who won?

It ended up being a hung jury. I learned from Person P later in our chat that this was the second trial, the first one also being deadlocked. But I guess in this one we got a little further than the other one, since we did reach consensus on the first part of the three-part question (was there wrongdoing, if so did it cause damages, and if so what are the damages). So, while disappointed at no verdict, he's mildly encouraged that he sort of gained some ground in this one. He's hoping the other party will relent and choose to settle.

[Saberstorm]

Were these the lawyers? Yuk!

[Minde]

Were these the lawyers? Yuk!

Lol, yep. The judge was sort of interesting, too, but I didn't get as much from him, not as much worth describing. But these two people were the main actors in front of me on this stage.

[Creepy-pokeball]

ESFj, ESTj on quick glance.

[blackburry]

Such a good girl my ass. U posted pics of them! And gave out pretty much all the details of the case. Going to give out their social security numbers next?

[Minde]

I wonder in what way you think the second guy didn't disclose a lot about themselves? Any examples?

He talked a lot less, heh. The more people talk the more slips out. "From the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks."

Such a good girl my ass. U posted pics of them! And gave out pretty much all the details of the case. Going to give out their social security numbers next?

Have I offended you?

lol wut? i see no one making 'good girl/bad girl' statements...? maybe it's just all in your head. fruity?

I think she's referring to the part in the first post where I said I was a "good girl" and left my notebook in the jury room like they asked, but then took out my non-case-specific notes.

[Minde]

i was thinking Ni is possible for bottom person. i think gammas come across serious to me, not that they're not funny, just their appearance. still, bottom person here looks austere. could be beta (or not...)

could be Ni too that attempts to guide discussion maybe?

Possibly. It is associated with "time" flows after all.

I'd be content going for some variation of Gamma NT for him, maybe Ni subtype.

top person i'm not sure. i tend to think estj, and esp. istp, are not particularly into making faces at jury (for lack of a better way of putting this). if he is alpha SF, i'm not sure they are particularly forthcoming with info either. or maybe just not Te info - i suppose they could talk a storm of Fe and appear open. just thought i'd mention

I think people with dominant/ego extroverted IEs interact with their world more, thus revealing more of themselves. So that could be Te, yes, or Fe, Ne, Se...

I could see some sort of SF for this one, for sure. I don't think Te is his PoLR, though, so probably not SEI. And, yeah, I couldn't easily see a SLI trying so hard to make a personal connection with me / the jury. I feel when he did his "stay strong" thing he was asking for Fi, which means to me he either is confident in it (consciously or subconsciously) or has a desire for it.

i guess this is in leiu of 'conclusion', even if totally incomplete

I don't think I've provided (or even observed) enough info to reach any real conclusion. So anything, even just random rambling speculation, is just fine by me.

well, i do think it is interesting to see interpersonal dynamics. these 2 dudes sure don't sound like bestest of friends, you're right.

Having fun people-watching is why I made my notes in the first place.

[Absurd]

Okay, who needs death and just to bump it.

[Minde]

Okay, who needs death and just to bump it.

Death? Um... everybody and nobody. However, negligent medical practitioners need to either shape up or switch professions, imo.

Someone told me the other day that I should become a lawyer. I disagreed.

[Absurd]

Someone told me the other day that I should become a lawyer. I disagreed.

And why is that?

[Minde]

Imho, you're right in a way, but not necessarily true. Ne, for instance, is not information per se. Besides, it is a perceiving thing.If you're perhaps thinking one may gather information indirectly when others go on in this fashion, then i agree.

They're all information elements, just subdivided into 8 parts. The extroverted ones, regardless of judging or perceiving, still make more "noise" from what I can tell.

Argh, I'm trying to think of how to explain what I'm thinking. Sorry for the lack of clarity. I guess examples might help? A strongly Se person is going to interact with his/her environment in an extroverted manner, particular to the aspects of Se, of course. Same for Te, Fe, and Ne. In all of these cases, these people end up blatantly revealing a lot more of themselves than someone who is relying on / using one of the introverted elements.

That's not at all to say that people strong in introverted elements don't reveal anything or much about themselves. It's just, in a different way I guess?

Maybe. But i'm not sure how much we can find out from this, as it's just a gesture and could also be Si (Si 'personal touch' or sth).

Very true, it's just one gesture, and could mean a lot of things.

To me Te seems sth very structured, formal.

I would also respectfully disagree on how much we can assume of what one 'wants' or is 'looking for' (aka 'wanting' Fi in this case, or sth). I could be wrong, of course. Imo, at least for me, it works best if i simply look at what *is* rather than what isn't/is lacking. The latter seems an alpha NT way of looking at things (finding out about sth through an 'absence' of sorts...).

I dunno, negative space can be pretty informative. Haven't you read or watched mysteries? What's not there can be just as important as what is there.

In everyday life I don't always think in socionics terms. In fact, it doesn't really enter my thoughts for the majority of the time. And I think I just naturally think in terms of what people want, what they like and don't like, how they're interacting with me and others. It's not something I even concretely think out all the time, I just do it. You're right, though, that it probably isn't always helpful when I'm trying to collaborate with others on typing, heh.

well, could still be estj...

I'm not sure about that. It's possible, and I've sort of been "trying on" that type on him along with others. ESE might work better, maybe. (BTW, that may be what you were sensing earlier, with the leading thing - me trying types on them for size. Again, my apologies. I wasn't trying to be biased and confusing.)

Glad you like the thread.

And why is that?

I'm not sure why she said it; she didn't elaborate a lot. I was just talking a bit about the case when she made the comment. I said I didn't think I'd enjoy it because arguing in a courtroom could get overly stressful for me. She then said from what she understood it would actually mostly just be a lot of paperwork. I said I prefer my current career over always doing paperwork...

[Minde]

@Minde: yes on all counts. but maybe with a small side of 'no', lol. i think we agree - maybe just talking about slightly different things.

reminds me of how person once asked me whether i liked X country, and i said "yes, i like it 70%" haha. so maybe i'm just being picky or just annoying. cheers

No worries, you're not annoying at all. Picky is ok; I like the discussion. You have good thoughts.

[Minde]

Minde, so i read this again. You could be right on this. Bit of show, performance - estj - si - no prob., they can do it. take care

Lol, ok. I honestly don't care one way or another. But I like having your opinion. You take care, too.