Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: EII working with ILE

  1. #1

    Default EII working with ILE

    My EII friend is currently heading up a project where she works closely with two other people, one of whom, an ILE man, she considered a close friend before beginning the project. However, she is now having problems working with him, and everything she describes to me about their relationship and what is transpiring sounds like socionics supervision. I taught her about socionics, and she agrees... so now the question is, what can she do to help the situation?

    It seems to me she's done all she can and that he's being an incorrigible ass and she should just forget about making it work on anything resembling an intimate level (which I see as an exercise in futility), but she is determined to try. Again, that is.

    So what advice do you have for dealing with your supervisee? I think it's best to maintain distance myself, but that line has long been crossed here (including romantic feelings each once harbored for the other, albeit to no end bc of external circumstances), so what can she do, especially now that he is treating her badly?

    To be fair, she is obviously hitting is PoLR left and right, just by being herself. She read me a draft of a message she was planning to send, and it dripped w Fi... together we toned that down and amped up the Fe, but is that what it takes -- constant self-monitoring? And is that even possible in close, sustained, face-to-face communication? Seems unlikely to me, but again, she's determined.

    So. What say you?

  2. #2
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Keep it professional, end it otherwise.

    If the ILE is offering something of value, the EII needs to just let him do his job. If the EII expect too much more other then what the ILE is willing to offer, it's probably not going to happen and this goes for almost all individuals.

    I don't know the specifics but those are pretty important in this sort of disputes.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    New York, NY
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As an ILE with a long-term EII female friend, I can tell you off the bat that our (LIE's) ignorance and lack of prioritization of Te is one thing that causes a lot of tension. The ILE needs to realize how important it is to the EII (things like timeliness, responsibility, reliability, are HUGE for an EII). Hitting back with pure Ti logic won't always work, and the ILE has to know when to throw down the towel if a point is not getting across. Any Fi scorn that's thrown across the table may feel vitriolic to the ILE but the EII says these things with the best intentions, and often only does so because he/she cares.

    Making a relationship work that's not highly compatible involves effort and understanding from both sides. If he's not willing to put in that effort it won't matter what she does; continuing the relationship will be an exercise in frustration and cause her to pull herself deeper into a place of discomfort (Fe instead of her natural Fi).

    In those situations, I prescribe a healthy dose of distance. Works wonders.

  4. #4

    Default

    Thanks for the responses, everyone :-)

    I sent her a link to the thread and she said it was helpful... I think it's been especially helpful for her to see/understand the situation through socionics -- seems good for helping w objectivity and helping her distance herself from the situation.

    Perhaps she'll join the forum, though I've warned her the whole thing is a mind virus

  5. #5
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I usually don't take ILEs that seriously, as in they seem pretty manageable and willing to go along with their supervisors (based on not knowing what else to do expect.) When you say the ILE is being an ass it makes it sound like a different issue than type--like maybe the ILE feels vulnerable in general and they need to find common ground with the EII that will generate comfort. Maybe the EII needs to open up more to the ILE's interests/needs? It might be worth it to let the ILE know what's troubling her, to be honest, and let the ILE think and make the decisions about it. Where as if the ILE simply doesn't want anything to do with her, then it's best not to constrain the relationship. Would be good to step away, clear her troubles and try to make a positive impression from afar. Basically if you say that any two people aren't getting along, then there is no magical way to fix this, just try to be as nice to one another as possible and show some distanced respect for what you don't quite grasp like you would with a conflictor.
    Last edited by 717495; 09-02-2012 at 10:18 AM.

  6. #6
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Please read below how I'm starting from a concrete application of Socionics, neatly entering its theoretical support from the Model A.
    ---

    So, I think she should try to pay attention to what he says, stop double-guessing him and misrepresenting. Stop bringing in external cultural references and limit herself to what he says. I am not sure whether this is the problem there - and if they are typed correctly - but the ILE needs some rigor to be respected and being spared of BS and fanciness uncalled for. To give a concrete example, I think it is important, when you deal with an ILE, to avoid taking what he/she says and put it in an different arbitrary context, cultural, personal or of purpose [1], something which has no inherent connection with what was said, as he will take this as an offense - it's in the end systematically putting words in their mouth. The idea is that to the EII is much easier to respect some rules and keep common-sense (having Ti Role) than for the ILE (Fi PoLR) to give an inch when his approach is disturbed this way. It's the Supervisor that always plays cat-and-mouse, not the supervisee, so it's her fault. IMO, if she maintains this rakish attitude specific to a Supervisor, she won't be able to get along with him.

    ILEs are constant revisionists and improvers, but when they talk - even assertively - they do it only on principle. That necessitates avoiding mixing the practical with the theoretical; for example, if they show discontentment towards something very complex, avoid demands such as "why don't you do it yourself", or even worse "why don't you do your own", because IMO they would have done it if they could. Fact is that ILEs have ideas for improvement in virtually all areas they encounter, and they just try to raise the awareness of others and make a point, but turning the subject to the actual practical implementation of these ideas is besides their point - whether something is feasible or not is irrelevant, only the intellectual pro or contra argumentation is appropriate here. This is Fi-PoLR again (on principle), but specific to ILE (many areas), it might not be an issue for an EII to avoid it, they can easily make appropriate analogies.

    I said the latter ("do your own") is worse because it sounds like a tentative to exclude their right to criticism, basically their right to think, even if to you, whether your common object is good or bad, is rather a personal preference and a matter of choice. This means war. Who has something unclear about this application of the contradiction between Ti and Fi, please ask, I will come with an example. The idea is that counteracting the arguments from Ti, which are purely principial, with ones pertaining to purpose or free choice [2], is a an affront towards the initiator of the former, namely the Ti types, and a direct one when they are Ti-Creative. It's like telling your math teacher he is telling bullshit because you will become a dancer.

    Another thing to consider, that randomly comes to my mind, is that ILEs, as the other Ti types, are very independent thinkers when it comes to argumentation. You should not try to convince them based on de facto rules or the law of the majority, instead, if you are convinced that they are wrong, call for someone to help in this, discussing with him individually. Another approach is, intead of overwhelming this single-out person (or group, if the case) with opposite opinions, to present the situation as affecting the mood of others. In other words, avoid explicit ethical criticism - Ti types won't give an inch if they are right - as much as possible, and present genuine (this is hard to do for a Fi type, I guess) emotional discomfort. Yes, this might require you step on your pride - and ego - but IMO it does the magic. Sadness, disappointment, awkwardness, stagnation - I doubt any Ti would be insensitive to these displays, in the end this is what drives everyone further. And again, I think it's much easier to do for the one whose Base is involved in the pickle, otherwise I wouldn't have made this call.
    ---

    For the record, I tried this and it works: I work with LSIs (two confirmed) in my close and extended team. Yes, of course, it is Socionics that helped me doing this, just I think understanding, respect and thoughtfulness towards the Supervisee is necessary. I try to leave aside the usual vagueness and jumping-ideas when I deal with my Supervisees at work, I'm very careful not to embarass them - which is very easy to do even unintentionally - and I often ask them questions, between four eyes, in order to poke into our status. I try to avoid the condescendence specific to the Base function, as seen from the opposite Creative, therefore in front of them I avoid creating that enthusiastic mojo spculative atmosphere - which is similar to Fi-Base in a certain sense - around them. Yeah I have colleagues I talk with all sorts of what ifs and what if nots, especially a SLI guy I'm getting best along with, but I avoid excluding the ones that would not feel at ease with these show-offs, so I often employ some discretion. It's easy to go insensitive and slip into an extreme due to your Base function; narrowing down the incompatibility aspect - in our case, using Socionics, not a big deal - and using some caution is required.

    When I deal with LSIs, I pretend to relate to the "obviousness" of their observations, not questioning them, not turning them on all sides as I usually do - at least not verbally. Yes, when I find an error which I can formulate clearly and succintly, I do that and they generally have no problem admitting fault, just I must present the problem *and* the solution. I try to avoid missing details from my message, I should not assume that they "can figure out" what I'm talking about when I'm failing to place the subject in a proposition. I must be prepared with them and be ready to take quick decisions - when for instance I am asked whether I can give them the X item I currently use, even when I'm not honestly capable to tell whether I'll need it or not anymore, I should either say "yes" or "no", avoiding the "I'm not sure, you know, maybe..." to which I find myself entitled. Yes, I have to pretend I am certain of something, though if I avoid getting involved in many things with them - instead, just report to them when I'm certain of something - keeps us safe from misunderstanding. It is no problem to say no to their requests when the decision depends entirely on me, just not force them to explore all the forseeable possibilities with me. And so on.

    Anyway, you get the idea, to deal with a PoLR, you need to mould on it as much as possible, if you are interested to get along with that person. In my experience it works.
    ---

    [1] - for instance to point out a cacophony when he is trying to make a point or explain something, expecially when he helps you benevolently. That is often totally unwelcome and besides the point for an ILE, IMO, which makes it outrageous.
    [2] - generally externally validated by Te - "it works for me". That is, strict awareness of what "is", not what what "should/ought be", which may be different. For instance the concept of "missing link" in evolution, mandatory to valitate it is a purely rational (Ti or Si, I'm not yet sure in this case) necessity (Fields + External); it "should" exist, that's why it's "missing". The conclusion must follow logically from the premises. Unapplicable when it comes to empirical validation, Se and Te - "it is what it is".
    Last edited by The Ineffable; 09-03-2012 at 11:22 PM.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  7. #7
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Because I said that Ne-Base VS Se-Creative is similar in a certain sense to Fi-Base VS Ti-Creative, I think I should explain it.

    First of all as we know, theoretically, Fi is a function very much like Ne, what distinguishes them is that Ne is Bodies, while Fi is Fields.

    Now, I can observe that the way Se forbids Ne information, which brings in external connections but unnecessary in its scope (of Se), is pretty much the same that Fi does regarding the applicability of different ideas. One thing Ne-Base do is almost freely interchanging different notions in a relationship of similarity, as they internally use the essence of the objects they are talking about in their thought (reference), while the Se-Creative requires one to respect the precise designation of each term (sense) [1]. However, Ti-Creative demands the same clarity in isolation (denotation), when it comes to the rational application of concepts, which Fi-Base often (and by nature) infriges, by introducing a secondary level of meaning based on practical experience. But while the same idea can apply differently in different contexts, the Fi Base is what makes it the common denominator of all (the sum of connotations), which, as in the case of Ne-Base, makes one use them interchangeably [2], from what I could call a cultural, or more properly historical standpoint. Because all these relations are fundamentally historical and can be tracked down to existing facts. Nevertheless, that support is performed through Te, Fi is only the cognitive function that keeps them connected together. The actual facts on which the associations are made, personal or social, may be entirely forgotten, as it is often the case.
    ---

    [1] - please get yourself accustomed with the distinction between sense and reference to understand them in my statement. Example: the Morning Star and the Evening Star are distinct in sense, but the same in reference (planet Venus). There is none better or worse, they have different purposes: for example if you're making a searcheable documentation creating a list of more forms of the type "list" in a programming language. While in essence they both refer to "a list" - which is the same in any application - a convention is required and different specifiers for the different lists must be established (lists in different senses) - the scope of Se is only appropriate.
    [2] - for example to intermix the ideas of evil (or good), dangerous, saving (or taking) a life, or usefulness in the concept of gun. Technically, it is what it is, its structure, physical properties, potential, etc, though in the big picture that Fi points at, it is more than that, the otherwise objective meaning (through Ti) becomes nothing more than one of its connotative senses - the weight of a gun would be no more and no less meaningful than its dangerousness.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  8. #8
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by felafel View Post
    effie, lol at some of the points you assume below haha
    I'm not assuming anything, I'm talking about the Supervision relationship between EII and ILE. It is outside my scope whether it applies to the case presented by the OP. I am not to judge whether that is the case and, like I said in my post, whether these persons were typed correctly.

    Maybe you should first try to grasp what I'm saying before making assumptions about my reasoning by pulling short quotes out of their context.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  9. #9
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was thinking you try to pull my leg, is it because of that "Fi PoLR talks in principle"? Hmm ok, lesson learned, don't give Fi types ideas about your PoLR... :|
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •