Derail Delta Dating and Relationships - IEE discussion

[Eliza Thomason]

@Park, re that pic, ugh. I am so glad my SLI has good taste.

IEEs, I wonder if any of you feel like this: I hate in-your-face tasteless or raunchy pictures - the later offends me because I think the human body is beautiful and should not be made to be ugly or out to be something looked at in an ugly way. When I see that I feel like I have been hit with it.

I also hate useless senseless gore, I mean gore for its own sake. I know other types aren't annoyed by this; it does not strike them like it strikes me, so they can have a lighter reaction to it, or join in with the silly or other aspect of it, but I can't/won't. My gut reaction is too negative. Also to tasteless raunchy jokes, I hate it. Maybe because it objectifies people, women usually, and I want people to have dignity.

My SLI doesn't' take the same offense to these things that as I do, but he also doesn't make use of that stuff at all so I am glad. Unlike other types, for example, SEEs. One SEE I know, some of her favorite movies are bloody gore ones I would never watch, and she can quite comfortably join in raunch because she is not offended by it, and is comfortable with it - or at least not uncomfortable with it. Not that she is raunchy! Just that she clearly has different reactions than I do. She is just like the other SEEs I know in this respect. In contrast, the two IEEs I know best IRL I can speak for on this; and they are like me in this way. Either outright bothered or offended, or, they completely ignore it.

So I wonder how other IEEs react?

[I normally always do the same thing in the face of this: I ignore it. Because I do not want to make a judgement about the person using that stuff. So I look away and think of something else.]

P.S. The differences in reaction to raunch between SEE and IEE I see as being directly related to Erotic Attitudes. IEE is "Child-like" or "Student/Pseudo-Caregiver". We do like the gentle touch. Unlike the Erotic "Aggressor". which is the SEE type. Also SLE. Both SEEs and SLEs I know are comfortable with both raunch and gore. (And its an area my SLE son and I are definately different on!)

[Eliza Thomason]

Your gut feeling is accurate

Really? Whats your opinion about just how rare we IEE's are? And also about what types are rarest? And which types are common?

If I had to guess at this, I would think that ESFJ/ESE types are most common. Perhaps IEI/INFP is one of the most uncommon? INTJs also an uncommon type??

My opinion is that we IEEs are a little uncommon. But other types are more uncommon. Just based on reflecting on their percentage among my friends and acquaintances. So then, @StridingStrider had a bit of a point there.

And I have this question I like to entertain in my own mind sometimes, about facts or trends I discover about life. I ask myself, "Why would God do that?" So - not that I am assuming everyone is just supposed to have a dual, I don't think that - I wonder, why would He make somewhat fewer IEEs - how unfair to the SLI. But since a lot of SLIs have a thing for being alone, that works. Also IEI is (I think) one of the more uncommon. Seems unfair to SLE, who seems one of the more common. But SLE is so forthright in finding mates, it seems he/she won't have a problem with low amount of Duals for him/her.

[Those are just some random thoughts to answer a question probably no one else asks!]

[InvisibleJim]

An analysis of maritsa shows that EII is least common because she is the only one. LSEs are very common because all men with dicks are LSE. SEE is very common because most other women are boyfriend stealing harlots.

[Absurd]

I have met a ton of IEE's and EII's in my life...
Perhaps I need to sprinkle you with my delta NF attracting fairy dust.

Oh hush. No IEEs nor EIIs. Listen to a not shaved and looking like a mess guy, named Strider. Maritsa's envoy. I bet she's shaving him and trimming his nails like daddy BnD raging against bullies and posting things he has no clue about. Seriously, it's like listening to chriscorey or whatever his/her name is.

[Eliza Thomason]

Because this forum has so many ESEs and so few IEIs & LIIs? .

Nope. This forum is suited to an IEI particularly, and maybe to a LII. Both can do theory. But all of the ESE's I know are not open to thinking people through in terms of theory - they just want to be out there interacting with them. Its like, why would they take the time to think about social life when they could be so easily doing social life - which they do so well. This forum is a not draw for them in general, IMO. Anyway, Dual-seeking LIIs only need to go to any party to find plenty. Then they can come back here and talk about it.

I took those guesses about the common-ness of types based on what I see in real life, that's all.

And why are you asking Maritsa? You'll just hear how common SEE is

Aw, you are just drinking the Kool-Aid here.

and how rare and special EII is.

Well, its @Maritsa's type, so she thinks about it. I think about my type.

Not sure which of those 2 questions I'm wondering more.

LOL

An analysis of Maritsa shows that EII is least common because she is the only one.

I have noticed one or two mistyped EIIs here (I forgot who). And I would notice, since they are my Mirror and I know some EIIs very well, and when someone says they are EII and are NOTHING like them, it stands out.

I wonder if they are more SEEs -- SEEs who are here because they are such social animals, and, they must not type themselves well - being perhaps too SF to analyze theory well. Maybe. Yeah, and their Ni-seeking is tickled with the theory.

Editing to take this one step further. Why are Social-loving ESFJ's disinterested in Socionics and social-loving ESFPs not? The J-P preference. ESFj's tsake one glance and say, no thanks. ESFP is more open, and they are open to look, and their Ni-valuing keep them looking.

Well, one of the SEEs I know is a devout Mormon and just finished a college major in comparitve religion, because that was her interest, but, ohmigosh, she does not understand theology! She gathers tons of facts and puts them together mish-mash, missing the main primary underlying themes. That is how I would describe it. Even though she sure can talk about it, and likes to study it. I don't get it.

All the SEEs I know are real nice to socialize with though. Nice folks to have around. SEE can live next door to me anytime.

LSEs are very common because all men with dicks are LSE.

I honestly think that one's not true...

SEE ... are boyfriend stealing harlots.

Really? Not what I see IRL. One SEE has been accused of that, but she was not doing that, she was only socializing. In fact all the SEEs I know live decent moral lives. Not husband-stealers or other unsavory stuff.

[InvisibleJim]

I honestly think that one's not true...

Then you should revise your thinking appropriately.

[Absurd]

Then you should revise your thinking appropriately.

In many great ways.

[Pa3s]

I ask myself, "Why would God do that?" So - not that I am assuming everyone is just supposed to have a dual, I don't think that - I wonder, why would He make somewhat fewer IEEs - how unfair to the SLI.

Does god even know about socionics?

[anndelise]

.

I wonder if they are more SEEs -- SEEs who are here because they are such social animals, and, they must not type themselves well - being perhaps too SF to analyze theory well. Maybe. Yeah, and their Ti-seeking is tickled with the theory.

Editing to take this one step further. Why are Social-loving ESFJ's disinterested in Socionics and social-loving ESFPs not? The J-P preference. ESFj's tsake one glance and say, no thanks. ESFP is more open, and they are open to look, and their Ti-valuing keep them

Yet another example that you don't grasp socionics nor the types.
SeFi are not Ti-seeking, nor Ti-valuing.
Try again.

All the SEEs I know are real nice to socialize with though. Nice folks to have around. SEE can live next door to me anytime.

...[]...

Really? Not what I see IRL. One SEE has been accused of that, but she was not doing that, she was only socializing. In fact all the SEEs I know live decent moral lives. Not husband-stealers or other unsavory stuff.

You love SEE so much that you started a thread about how you think SEE are...what were those word again? I'll have to look it up.
Also how you have said something about how you've never met an SEE that didn't have psychological problems? Perhaps I can find your exact phrase for this one, or maybe you remember it.

Edited to add:
The former description is how SEE are incompetent and irresponsible.
The latter is "dysfunctional", but I will concede that you said it was "The two SEEs you know well".

[Kim]

I wonder if they are more SEEs -- SEEs who are here because they are such social animals, and, they must not type themselves well - being perhaps too SF to analyze theory well. Maybe. Yeah, and their Ti-seeking is tickled with the theory.

Editing to take this one step further. Why are Social-loving ESFJ's disinterested in Socionics and social-loving ESFPs not? The J-P preference. ESFj's tsake one glance and say, no thanks. ESFP is more open, and they are open to look, and their Ti-valuing keep them looking.

Well, one of the SEEs I know is a devout Mormon and just finished a college major in comparitve religion, because that was her interest, but, ohmigosh, she does not understand theology! She gathers tons of facts and puts them together mish-mash, missing the main primary underlying themes. That is how I would describe it. Even though she sure can talk about it, and likes to study it. I don't get it.

All the SEEs I know are real nice to socialize with though. Nice folks to have around. SEE can live next door to me anytime.

.

Your arrogance is truly astounding. It doesn't happen often, but I am actually speechless.

[anndelise]

Does god even know about socionics?

I bet god used socionics as a blueprint when creating his human creatures. He even attached physical characteristics to the information processing aspects of the mind, so that noone would have doubt which human was what socionics type. Kind of like the mark of Cain he made later. This is why VI is undisputable. Genes and genetic traits are just one of the lies of Satan. Socionics is THE true plan.

[InvisibleJim]

Your arrogance is truly astounding. It doesn't happen often, but I am actually speechless.

Something tells me that you don't like Eliza

[Eliza Thomason]

Yet another example that you don't grasp socionics nor the types.
SeFi are not Ti-seeking, nor Ti-valuing.
Try again.

You are so right, I made that error, I stand corrected. I was getting SEE confused with ESE. But you see its like I told you, if I explain Socionics its like those written portraits, I get this wholistic picture of a type, and I do trip up on the function details. Yes, I tripped on this one.

But please do save me some look-up time or brain-taxing (bring is tired today!)* What do SEEs value and seek?? Ni??

You love SEE so much that you started a thread about how you think SEE are...what were those word again? I'll have to look it up.

Right, it was incompetent. Yes, I was very stressed out about letting SEE go and venting at the height of my stress over it. Yes, she does some incompetent things. In the end, I decided to just cut back with her, and not cut her off. I have had someone else in more often than her now (which is not often in the summer anyway) and a little distance has made me see her unique gifts and abilities more. She was always on time, and its a good thing to be able to count on that, for one. Also, I did like her personality. Other things.

Also how you have said something about how you've never met an SEE that didn't have psychological problems? Perhaps I can find your exact phrase for this one, or maybe you remember it.

Yes, I did say that and yes, I did say, as you corrected, "The two Sees I know". At the time, those were the only I knew, and they were both afflicted with their own dysfunction. And both were not in a good place in their lives and were in my life not in a good way. In spite of that, I did like them both as persons. Since I have realized other SEEs I know. Mostly female, but two male ones, one my age and one my son's friends, and I like them both a lot. Then I realized my SLI brothers current girlfriend, and former, one, and former wife - all SEEs and I liked them all and never had any reason to dislike them.

Hope that explains it. Sometimes I feel I see Socionics from a "forest" POV while others see it a "Trees" POV. I do stumble on the trees at times, with my eye on the forest so much. But my intuitive wholistic way works for me. And I am no expert. ...

**In past three days, I planned, cut, and completed 10 custom drapery panels, and also did the planning cutting and brain-work (took way more than I'd have thought) for 5 custom roman shades, planning and cutting of 10 throw pillows and 4 standard pillow shams... Really its been something. I am trying to finish it all... This is not my profession but I became a slave to these ideas I came up with for staging my SLI's house... its going to look awesome when we finally get it together...

[Eliza Thomason]

Your arrogance is truly astounding. It doesn't happen often, but I am actually speechless.

Just musing, Kim! Don't take it so seriously!

[anndelise]

You are so right, I made that error, I stand corrected. I was getting SEE confused with ESE. But you see its like I told you, if I explain Socionics its like those written portraits, I get this wholistic picture of a type, and I do trip up on the function details. Yes, I tripped on this one.

Just so we're clear, this is NOT the first time you have "tripped".
If your understandings of socionics and its functions are flawed, then your "wholistic picture of a type" will also be flawed. No wonder you've been so confused when people talk about socionics elements and functions.

Part of critical thinking involves questioning even one's own understandings & perceptions, especially for us intuitive ethical types. Since you now know that you have a tendency to err regarding functions within types, perhaps you might want to review your understanding of basic socionics and its types?

To help you with that review, I will let you do some research on your own as to what does SeFi seek and value.

[Eliza Thomason]

Just so we're clear, this is NOT the first time you have "tripped".

You are absolutely right about that, dear Anndelise. And its not the first time you have been the one to catch and correct it!

If your understandings of Socionics and its functions are flawed, then your "holistic picture of a type" will also be flawed..

Naw, my holistic picture is doing quite well, in so far as it is complete. You could liken it a painting, which began with an accurate under-sketch and is emerging into a well-colored and lovely painting, which, in spite of many unfinished areas and areas that need reworking, is now a discernibly accurate picture, with a beauty of its own at this stage....

Kind of like the human person!

Well looky me, I am a philosopher. Must have been the inspiration of @hitta earlier this evening.

No wonder you've been so confused when people talk about Socionics elements and functions. .

Sometimes I have been. Generally I am not confused when learning from an article, providing the translation is clear. Which is not always the case! I also don't always read every article through for full understanding, if I am not inspired to gain that understanding at that moment, but I gather what I might, and get back to it later. Because one has to work the entire picture at once...

Part of critical thinking involves questioning even one's own understandings & perceptions, .

So true!

especially for us intuitive ethical types..

And Sensing Ethical types, too!

Since you now know that you have a tendency to err regarding functions within types, perhaps you might want to review your understanding of basic Socionics and its types? .

You mean my under-sketch? But it was quite good. But yes, I will keep stepping back for a critical look, or a look in new light of day, to see what needs adjustment and reworking.

To help you with that review, I will let you do some research on your own as to what does SeFi seek and value.

Aw, you can't give a girl a hand? Well, you can be sure I will get back to that part of the picture before long, as I do see it needs attention!

[Kim]

@Park, re that pic, ugh. I am so glad my SLI has good taste.

IEEs, I wonder if any of you feel like this: I hate in-your-face tasteless or raunchy pictures - the later offends me because I think the human body is beautiful and should not be made to be ugly or out to be something looked at in an ugly way. When I see that I feel like I have been hit with it.

I also hate useless senseless gore, I mean gore for its own sake. I know other types aren't annoyed by this; it does not strike them like it strikes me, so they can have a lighter reaction to it, or join in with the silly or other aspect of it, but I can't/won't. My gut reaction is too negative. Also to tasteless raunchy jokes, I hate it. Maybe because it objectifies people, women usually, and I want people to have dignity.

My SLI doesn't' take the same offense to these things that as I do, but he also doesn't make use of that stuff at all so I am glad. Unlike other types, for example, SEEs. One SEE I know, some of her favorite movies are bloody gore ones I would never watch, and she can quite comfortably join in raunch because she is not offended by it, and is comfortable with it - or at least not uncomfortable with it. Not that she is raunchy! Just that she clearly has different reactions than I do. She is just like the other SEEs I know in this respect. In contrast, the two IEEs I know best IRL I can speak for on this; and they are like me in this way. Either outright bothered or offended, or, they completely ignore it.

So I wonder how other IEEs react?

This is not type-related (however, such impeccable timing with regards to your retyping efforts ). People develop tastes and preferences based on their surroundings, upbringings, geographical location, job, cultural exposure. I grew up in a country where nudity is quite normal, so I don't mind it, for example. Your faith, for example, has far more influence on your attitude towards certain things than your type does.

I feel like exposing myself to many different facets of the human experience, even if they bother me, makes me better at teaching and researching. And since I work (at least partially) in film studies, I will also look at "gory films" differently than you do because I want to see how violence, as just one thing among many, is represented and how cinematic aesthetics convey certain meanings. Have you seen the Passion of the Christ? That's probably the most gory film I have ever seen, but for many people it has meaning that others might not see.

And when I mentioned your arrogance, I was referring to the strange way you paint SEEs in unfavorable colors while retyping one forum member after the other as SEE, all the while emphasizing that YOU must be IEE because "we IEEs do abc." I don't want to retype you (you could very well be IEE for all I know), but IEEs are more likely to speak in uncertain terms than in absolutes. NeFi coupled with Ti PoLR naturally has a hard time being certain of anything, which is why they are such creative thinkers. You speak with a lot of certainty (until you get challenged), but that is also probably rather faith- than type-related.

I am just pointing this out to illustrate that the combination of functions do not rule the entirety of our lives and preferences.

[anndelise]

You are absolutely right about that, dear Anndelise. And its not the first time you have been the one to catch and correct it!

Naw, my holistic picture is doing quite well, in so far as it is complete. You could liken it a painting, which began with an accurate under-sketch and is emerging into a well-colored and lovely painting, which, in spite of many unfinished areas and areas that need reworking, is now a discernibly accurate picture, with a beauty of its own at this stage....

Kind of like the human person!

Well looky me, I am a philosopher. Must have been the inspiration of @hitta earlier this evening.

Sometimes I have been. Generally I am not confused when learning from an article, providing the translation is clear. Which is not always the case! I also don't always read every article through for full understanding, if I am not inspired to gain that understanding at that moment, but I gather what I might, and get back to it later. Because one has to work the entire picture at once...

So true!

And Sensing Ethical types, too!

You mean my under-sketch? But it was quite good. But yes, I will keep stepping back for a critical look, or a look in new light of day, to see what needs adjustment and reworking.

Aw, you can't give a girl a hand? Well, you can be sure I will get back to that part of the picture before long, as I do see it needs attention!

Your absolute fakeness in this post is disgusting. I feel like you worked yourself up into a sweat and then walked up to me naked to rub your nasty self all over me. Seriously, I need a shower to wash off your crap.

If only your stupidity was as fake as your niceness, then there might have been hope for you.

[Beautiful sky]

Just musing, Kim! Don't take it so seriously!

Eliza, do you have to continue speaking with unreasonable people?

Your absolute fakeness in this post is disgusting. I feel like you worked yourself up into a sweat and then walked up to me naked to rub your nasty self all over me. Seriously, I need a shower to wash off your crap.

If only your stupidity was as fake as your niceness, then there might have been hope for you.

Speaking to you is pointless.

[anndelise]

Speaking to you is pointless.

Only for idiots and their bestest buddies.

[Beautiful sky]

Really? Whats your opinion about just how rare we IEE's are? And also about what types are rarest? And which types are common?

If I had to guess at this, I would think that ESFJ/ESE types are most common. Perhaps IEI/INFP is one of the most uncommon? INTJs also an uncommon type??

My opinion is that we IEEs are a little uncommon. But other types are more uncommon. Just based on reflecting on their percentage among my friends and acquaintances. So then, @StridingStrider had a bit of a point there.

And I have this question I like to entertain in my own mind sometimes, about facts or trends I discover about life. I ask myself, "Why would God do that?" So - not that I am assuming everyone is just supposed to have a dual, I don't think that - I wonder, why would He make somewhat fewer IEEs - how unfair to the SLI. But since a lot of SLIs have a thing for being alone, that works. Also IEI is (I think) one of the more uncommon. Seems unfair to SLE, who seems one of the more common. But SLE is so forthright in finding mates, it seems he/she won't have a problem with low amount of Duals for him/her.

[Those are just some random thoughts to answer a question probably no one else asks!]

Pretty darn rare if all I get in my profession is LSE and SLI complaining about what terribly incompatible dates they go on. In fact so much so that I believe that for every 13, it may be more like 14 or 15 LSE male, there's only one EII and maybe 2 or 3 IEE, as an activity relation. You have a lot of unhappy SLI and LSE out there, but funny enough the ones who CAN find a compatible mate don't listen and don't go out there looking for one proactively.

[Eliza Thomason]

Thank you, Kim, for taking time to explain all this.

This is not type-related (however, such impeccable timing with regards to your retyping efforts ).

People develop tastes and preferences based on their surroundings, upbringings, geographical location, job, cultural exposure.

Now you have said this before, and I did not agree with your then either (my SLI/IEE touch thread), though, I respected you having your own view of things. However, both you and mikemex had this same view of it, that it came from surroundings, cultural. It sounds like a Fe-based answer to me, and in both cases, I do not feel its "nurture", but nature. Not other people and conforming, but type-related. For me. In both cases.

I grew up in a country where nudity is quite normal, so I don't mind it, for example.

Well nudity is normal. At home. Perhaps in your country, a few other places as well, but likely not everywhere. You don't live in a remote South Pacific island or deep African jungle, right?

But @DJArendee explained in one of his youtube videos his understanding that Sensing, with there better awareness of, for example, how clothes feel on their skin, prefer no-clothes much more than Intuitives types, who are often unaware and in their heads and are not even noticing how their clothes feel. He might have been talking about SF's in particular, if I recall. I thought that was an interesting idea that rang true to me.

Your faith, for example, has far more influence on your attitude towards certain things than your type does.

Yes, for certain things. I know Pope John Paul II helped me appreciate the nude human body in a newer, freer, more reverent way when he ordered the loincloths be removed from the figures on the Sistine Ceiling, restoring Michelangelo's original vision of Man.

I feel like exposing myself to many different facets of the human experience, even if they bother me, makes me better at teaching and researching.

Yes, that makes sense. While there are very wrong reasons for viewing certain negative things in life, there are also right, or justifiable ones, such as yours here.

And since I work (at least partially) in film studies, I will also look at "gory films" differently than you do because I want to see how violence, as just one thing among many, is represented and how cinematic aesthetics convey certain meanings.

That is a very good reason in my opinion. Thanks for explaining. I can only assume that most others also have good reason of this or another kind.

Have you seen the Passion of the Christ? That's probably the most gory film I have ever seen, but for many people it has meaning that others might not see.

Oh, yes, and often I break it out for Lent. I had this in mind when I said I do not like "senseless" gore. Obviously this woudl be the least senseless, but there are other cases where the gore is for a reason. Those CSI shows, IMO, are borderline. Yes, the gore is a natural part of the plot-line. But displaying it in shocking ways - that's senseless, IMO. At least I can say its certainly not for me.

And when I mentioned your arrogance, I was referring to the strange way you paint SEEs in unfavorable colors while retyping one forum member after the other as SEE,

First please let me explain that yes, I portrayed them in unfavorable colors, but really that was because of two different SEEs in my life that were hitting me in hard ways, and as I said, yes, both were dysfunctional. But they are not only dysfunctional but also really good persons. The one in particular, who worked for me, the problems were partly my fault. I was exhausted and could have trained and communicated better and perhaps prevented some things. But I later thought more of my life and realized the gifts and talents and great likeability of some of the other SEEs in my life (most of whom I had not identified before as SEEs, and did now in reflection. For example, the happy-go-lucky, always helpful, enthusiastic, joy-to-be-around buddy of my son since he was a toddler and is now 17. Who would notice how I feel sometimes, when my son more rarely did. Also the three close relationships of my SLI brother over his life - all SEEs and all three of them it was the same - I liked them, found their company perfectly pleasant and never had a problem with them. I occasionally, with all, realized they "saw" life differently than I did, and just accepted it. That's all. But no conflicts or complaints.

all the while emphasizing that YOU must be IEE because "we IEEs do abc."

Well because I feel quite certain of it. I don't say it like its any kind of prize though.

I don't want to retype you (you could very well be IEE for all I know), but IEEs are more likely to speak in uncertain terms than in absolutes.

Well, yes, I suppose I do, but I also very often say, and hear other IEEs say, "I definitely..."

NeFi coupled with Ti PoLR naturally has a hard time being certain of anything, which is why they are such creative thinkers. You speak with a lot of certainty (until you get challenged), but that is also probably rather faith- than type-related.

You know, I think this is true what you say about certainty, but i also think we can be real certain of a lot of things because we put so much NeFi into thinking about what and why we believe. For me, the thinking on faith matters has been constantly evolving all my life. Many things once accepted never changed (i.e., Jesus is Lord) but other articles of faith I once held sacred and true were challenged and I came to believe in a new way and changed.

I am just pointing this out to illustrate that the combination of functions do not rule the entirety of our lives and preferences.

Oh, no. But i do think Socionics and Model A is pretty amazing. The more I come to understand it the more impressed I am. And since there are so many types I don;t know that much about, I know there is a ton more to learn and discover. I want to learn more about ISFPs next, as a friend who I have known long and who helped me this week is one, and I think she is amazing, and so admirable.

Thanks Kim for taking the time to explain. I do tend to think you are SEE. Not confirmed yet! But I remain thinking "not IEE" for you.

[Eliza Thomason]

Your absolute fakeness in this post is disgusting. I feel like you worked yourself up into a sweat and then walked up to me naked to rub your nasty self all over me. Seriously, I need a shower to wash off your crap.

If only your stupidity was as fake as your niceness, then there might have been hope for you.

Oh, wow, really, anndelise. Why so hostile, why so furious? You must be misunderstanding me. Its the only explanation.

[anndelise]

Oh, wow, really, anndelise. Why so hostile, why so furious? You must be misunderstanding me. Its the only explanation.

Yeah, keep pretending. It just shows your true colors more and more.

[Kim]

To be very honest, I found this to be a passive aggressive and underhanded way of trying to confirm that I am the type you believe me to be. It annoyed me.

Now you have said this before, and I did not agree with your then either (my SLI/IEE touch thread), though, I respected you having your own view of things. However, both you and mikemex had this same view of it, that it came from surroundings, cultural. It sounds like a Fe-based answer to me, and in both cases, I do not feel its "nurture", but nature. Not other people and conforming, but type-related. For me. In both cases.

It's not a Fe-based answer (why would it be). I probably stems from a certain awareness and experience with living in different cultures and seeing how differences play out. I like touching my partner, but my desire to touch has to do with the level of my love for him, not his type. Perhaps this is the first person that you are with whom you truly love and who truly loves you back - of course touch is magical then.

Well nudity is normal. At home. Perhaps in your country, a few other places as well, but likely not everywhere. You don't live in a remote South Pacific island or deep African jungle, right?

Nudity is normal at the beach, on tv, etc. Sex on tv does not scandalize me because I grew up seeing it in a household that didn't think anything of it.

But @DJArendee explained in one of his youtube videos his understanding that Sensing, with there better awareness of, for example, how clothes feel on their skin, prefer no-clothes much more than Intuitives types, who are often unaware and in their heads and are not even noticing how their clothes feel. He might have been talking about SF's in particular, if I recall. I thought that was an interesting idea that rang true to me

.

I am not sure what you are getting at here, but I do not have this awareness. I am in awe at what my SLE boyfriend notices and how aware he is of his sensory surroundings. I will put a shirt on backwards (did the other day) and walked the dogs. I didn't notice until I was two blocks from my house.

Oh, yes, and often I break it out for Lent. I had this in mind when I said I do not like "senseless" gore. Obviously this woudl be the least senseless, but there are other cases where the gore is for a reason. Those CSI shows, IMO, are borderline. Yes, the gore is a natural part of the plot-line. But displaying it in shocking ways - that's senseless, IMO. At least I can say its certainly not for me.

I found it to be senseless in Passion of the Christ because it reduced him to a beast of burden. I didn't like this film because it didn't do him justice. There is a different perspective.

Well because I feel quite certain of it. I don't say it like its any kind of prize though.

There is a certain smugness in yours and Maritsa's attempt to exclude those who disagree with you from delta. It's not pleasant and it's a bit disrespectful.

Well, yes, I suppose I do, but I also very often say, and hear other IEEs say, "I definitely..."

Yes, but that is different.

Oh, no. But i do think Socionics and Model A is pretty amazing. The more I come to understand it the more impressed I am. And since there are so many types I don;t know that much about, I know there is a ton more to learn and discover. I want to learn more about ISFPs next, as a friend who I have known long and who helped me this week is one, and I think she is amazing, and so admirable.

It works in many ways. You will probably not believe this, but my relationship with an SLI had all the advantages of a dual relationship. Etc.

Thanks Kim for taking the time to explain. I do tend to think you are SEE. Not confirmed yet! But I remain thinking "not IEE" for you.

Because I don't remind you of yourself and/or people you know. But differences in circumstances make for very different IEEs.

[Eliza Thomason]

Eliza, do you have to continue speaking with unreasonable people?

Well, I guess I draw this distinction between acting unreasonable (like Anndelise's last post to me just now) and actually being unreasonable. If someone is spouting off in some passionate anger, like I think she just did to me, some pretty unreasonable sentiments can come out. But when the dust, settles the real person comes out. I just keep the real, actual person in mind.

Speaking to you is pointless.

Probably. Because if my idea (and yours, right?) is correct, then she is SEE and your Supervisor, and its natural for her to have just about no respect for you, and scorn comes easily. Which is how she and a few others that I suspect are SEEs here post to you: exactly as if they are your Supervisors. Best to ignore Supervisors when they start auditing you, its just too oppressing otherwise.

Whats neat about Socionics is its a great leveler. We ALL have about the same amount of people who think we're are great, think we are nice to be around, or think we are annoying, or think we are wroth very little int he world! No one gets to be great to every kind of person. Except, well, Jesus. Or His Blessed Mother. Who could not love her?

Yes, so even if you are really nice and polite (like many F types can be) you will still have many types who are annoyed y you or disrespectful of you. And even if you are a rude and insensitive person, you will still have some people who think you hung the moon just by being you.

So I can't get too proud when I think of my own relationship with my Supervisee. Am I respectful? Do I uphold and value her natural inborn God-given traits? Well no, not really...

Pretty darn rare if all I get in my profession is LSE and SLI complaining about what terribly incompatible dates they go on. In fact so much so that I believe that for every 13, it may be more like 14 or 15 LSE male, there's only one EII and maybe 2 or 3 IEE, as an activity relation. You have a lot of unhappy SLI and LSE out there, but funny enough the ones who CAN find a compatible mate don't listen and don't go out there looking for one proactively.

LOL, what is a LSE/SLI profession? And what are you doing in it?

Okay, as to the unhappy SLI, maybe the EII needs to step up and use her E to approach him, and her NF to get to know him an appreciate him. If she doesn't, he is not the only one who misses out.

As to LSE, maybe EII needs to use her quiet charm to bring him to her, and when he gets there maybe she needs to give him a few hurdles to jump over and lay down the not-jerk expectaions she has for a man in her presence so that he has something to work for, earn, and value.

Wow, it seems to me if you work in LSE-land, you should have your pick! Seriously, maybe taking them as-is doesn't work so well with LSE. They just need to be civilized. That might be your job! Maybe they need some parameters. Just wondering. I only have my LSE brother, but I would say his wife (she left him) should have laid down some serious expectations over the years. By the time she left, she knew what she was mad about from the past but wasn't willing to get counseling now. But I felt strongly that she should have been insisting on certain expectations all along. He would have kept them! And the divorce would never have happened. (my LSE brother was ready to change completely now to save the marriage, but it was too late).

I actually have to do this better myself with him. I was mad at him recently but I realize I need to make the effort to communicate my expectations better. (context of this is: as the only brother in town, we have to work out Moms care together, and I do the hard hands-on stuff...).

So draw him in with your charm, and give him time to realize he wants to jump the hurdles.

I think its a winning formula.

[anndelise]

Probably. Because if my idea (and yours, right?) is correct, then she is SEE and your Supervisor, and its natural for her to have just about no respect for you, and scorn comes easily. Which is how she and a few others that I suspect are SEEs here post to you: exactly as if they are your Supervisors. Best to ignore Supervisors when they start auditing you, its just too oppressing otherwise.

Cool, so since I've lost all respect for you, eliza, and scorn you more than I do Maritsa, does that mean I am Your supervisor too??

[Eliza Thomason]

To be very honest, I found this to be a passive aggressive and underhanded way of trying to confirm that I am the type you believe me to be. It annoyed me.

I am sorry. I can be pretty stuck on sharing what I feel sure is truth sometimes.

It's not a Fe-based answer (why would it be). I probably stems from a certain awareness and experience with living in different cultures and seeing how differences play out. I like touching my partner, but my desire to touch has to do with the level of my love for him, not his type. Perhaps this is the first person that you are with whom you truly love and who truly loves you back - of course touch is magical then.

Too tired to explain it! (re:Fe) But its not a hill I want to die on and I appreciate your honest responses.

Nudity is normal at the beach, on tv, etc. Sex on tv does not scandalize me because I grew up seeing it in a household that didn't think anything of it.

I would agree for some cultures at the beach. For me, I do get squeamish sometimes aobut other peoples sex scenes because it feels like I am intruding on privacy.

I am not sure what you are getting at here, but I do not have this awareness. I am in awe at what my SLE boyfriend notices and how aware he is of his sensory surroundings. I will put a shirt on backwards (did the other day) and walked the dogs. I didn't notice until I was two blocks from my house.

Now the shirt on backwards, that sounds like IEE. Hmm...

I found it to be senseless in Passion of the Christ because it reduced him to a beast of burden. I didn't like this film because it didn't do him justice. There is a different perspective.

okay.

I find it not senseless in that, for me, watching it is an opportunity to contemplate the suffering of Christ, which brings me to why, which brings me to Love - the ultimate.

There is a certain smugness in yours and Maritsa's attempt to exclude those who disagree with you from delta. It's not pleasant and it's a bit disrespectful.

THere is no smugness there. But if there was, it certainly would be a good reason to get annoyed and it would completely justify and anndelise's great annoyance right now.

Did you know what is on the short list of "Things God hates"? One of them is "A proud look". So yes, that is bad. I am so glad you explained that here because it helps me see the reason behind the anger that made no sense to me.

I really don't think that Delta is any great superior place. Really, don't a lot of people think its the most boring place of the four? Its different gifts and none is better than another. Some more valued in society. i.e., ESE's are very valued. So I don't see Delta as an exclusive club. I see it as one of 4 equal "clubs".

And I am not talking about kicking anyone out. This is not an exclusive Delta-only forum. I feel I can go to any other forum here and not get kicked off for having my Delta IEE say.

Yes, but that is different.

Okay...

It works in many ways. You will probably not believe this, but my relationship with an SLI had all the advantages of a dual relationship. Etc.

Okay.

Because I don't remind you of yourself and/or people you know. But differences in circumstances make for very different IEEs.

Yes, but there we go with the nurture/nature. You think its the former, I the latter. But there is room for both.

I am sorry I have been annoying to you and Anndelise. I guess I should just shut up sometimes.

[Eliza Thomason]

Cool, so since I've lost all respect for you, eliza, and scorn you more than I do Maritsa, does that mean I am Your supervisor too??

anndelise, I am really sorry to hear you say this of me but I believe its because you think I have scorning or superior or smug attitudes towards you that I absolutely do not have.

[Scapegrace]

There should be a fifth socionics catagory just for cunts.

I suggest we call it mouní.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

There should be a fifth socionics catagory just for cunts.

I suggest we call it mouní.

I'm in support of this idea.

[squark]

Oh, wow, really, anndelise. Why so hostile, why so furious? You must be misunderstanding me. Its the only explanation.

Oh golly gee, I'm so innocent. How could you ever think such things of me. Those little barbed hooks, they're only my way of putting lovely decorations on you because I admire you so much. Let me dunk your head in holy water now. What? What? You can't breathe? Oh, just a little longer now, it's because I'm so nice nice nice that I'm doing this great service for you. Now, now, don't struggle, it's all just a misunderstanding.

[Beautiful sky]

I think you people are misunderstanding Eliza. Some people have become so desensitized about religion and faith that they can't respect when another person refers to it adamantly and sincerely.

Oh golly gee, I'm so innocent. How could you ever think such things of me. Those little barbed hooks, they're only my way of putting lovely decorations on you because I admire you so much. Let me dunk your head in holy water now. What? What? You can't breathe? Oh, just a little longer now, it's because I'm so nice nice nice that I'm doing this great service for you. Now, now, don't struggle, it's all just a misunderstanding.

LOL I see how this can develop into a conflict.

[anndelise]

Oh my fuckng god, eliza, do you even think about what you write?
Your supposed "intuition" and "holistic picture" led you to say that it was SeFi's Ti-seeking that was tickled with socionics theory, and that it was SeFi's Ti-valuing that kept them looking at socionics theory.

Editing what you wrote to say "Ni" instead of your original "Ti" shows that your reasons for SeFi being interested in socioncs have absolutely zero meaning. Ti is not Ni. If you can just flip two different elements in a sentence/thought as if they were interchangeable, then it means you could flip them with "kalamazoo" or "hippopotomus" for all the meaning you gave it. It tells the reader that you do not understand the difference between Ti and Ni...and neither does your "holistic picture". It tells the reader that you are more interested in rationalizing your pathetic understanding of socionics than you are in correcting your understanding of it.

Just another example of your fakeness and manipulations.

[Beautiful sky]

.

So, talking about Delta relationships...I set my IEE friend up with an LSE; I know activity but it's a better relationship than she's been having lately, which have been really really bad; I figured this way, she'll date something closer to home, a Delta and activity relations are easy going, which is what she needs now before she figures out something more solid for herself and is ready for duality; at least now she trusts my judgement of men for her. She was very reluctant to be set up at first, thinking that she was the best judge of her relations, but much to her surprise, my choice was far more compatible than the ST's in Beta she'd been dating before. Like with all IEE she's so particular about so many things aligning, before she considers the serious nature of the relationship.

Eliza, SEE will never give in, they are extremely aggressive; leave them alone.

I know you have an arsenal of tactics but they are just stubborn and unwilling to concede to the bigger picture and view things that you connect because it doesn't align with their agenda.
Their agenda is to be IEE.

You are absolutely right about that, dear Anndelise. And its not the first time you have been the one to catch and correct it!

don't you wonder why?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

It's not a Fe-based answer (why would it be).

In MBTI, Fe draws its values from those of an esteemed group rather than those values having origin within the self (Fi). (I say "esteemed group" because there's a stereotype of Fe types being sheep who just do whatever others around them are doing, and that's not quite true.) That may be bleeding over into her understanding of .

@Eliza Thomason You've been here for about 1.5 years, so it shouldn't be a problem for you to use the proper nomenclature for Socionics types. At least use a lowercase j or p if you're going to use the 4-letter nomenclature. Otherwise it looks like you're assuming MBTI and Socionics types are interchangeable and presenting them as such, which is really a newbie mistake.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I think you people are misunderstanding Eliza. Some people have become so desensitized about religion and faith that they can't respect when another person refers to it adamantly and sincerely.

Her faith is not the only thing people have against her, which is abundantly clear if you're reading the exchanges.

[Hays]

This thread makes me sad on a number of levels and actually hurts me inside when I read it.
Firstly its not good to use ones personal relationship with God and all that that means to flaunt/wave in the face of others.
Its not nice to continuously talk in hurtful ways to others as though one might be superior.
It's sad that nice people can be treated disrespectfully.
I hope this harm can be undone.

[anndelise]

This thread makes me sad on a number of levels and actually hurts me inside when I read it.
Firstly its not good to use ones personal relationship with God and all that that means to flaunt/wave in the face of others.
Its not nice to continuously talk in hurtful ways to others as though one might be superior.
It's sad that nice people can be treated disrespectfully.
I hope this harm can be undone.

I apologize for my share of your pain, Shayley.

If it helps any, I am making use of the ignore function for now. So there will, hopefully, be some peace for a while, and less pain/annoyance for yourself and others.

[Radio]

it's also a matter of taking note of people who are similar to you more than those (supposedly) that aren't.