ESE?

[Creepy-theticalanti]

.

[anndelise]

Not that my opinion matters much, but I do think you've matured since you first came on the forum.
I don't think ESEs are lemon types. I have greatly admired two of the ESE's I've known, even if we (they and i) did have communication problems and different focuses. I am sure i annoyed them, too. I do wish we had self-typed ESE regulars, because I think that many of the descriptions for Fe base are off. They could help provide this forum a clearer idea of how Fe base w creative Si could look...without the offputting Fe descriptions.

If I recall correctly, you self-type as an e3, right?
I wondered how much of the e3 was in effect in your earlier days, and how much of it might have influenced you to the LSE typing you had recently.

[anndelise]

Conundrum time: if I click likes/constructive on your post, would that be like giving a beer to an alcoholic? O.o


Regardless of my conundrum, I vote for fun perspective, relaxed views, and only taking self as serious as a situation calls for.

[Iris]

Hi members of the16types.info.

Yes, I'm starting another type-me thread. I'm reluctant to because of how many threads I started when I was new, and I feel it's somewhat attention-seeking. But I haven't done a type-me thread in almost 2 years now I think. We also have a bunch of new people since my last thread, so I'm curious to hear their opinions as well.

Anyway, by the title I'm considering ESE. Specifically Si subtype. I've said before that I feel I didn't relate as much to either LSE-Te or ESE-Fe, so it was just a matter of choosing between LSE-Si and ESE-Si. It seems it can be a bit confusing when your subtype is the same function that Lookalike relations share. It also doesn't help that the forum generally lacks other ESEs & LSEs for comparison. That's probably why in my 3 & half years here, in the yearly superlative threads, I've been voted 'Most likely to be mistyped' like twice? Lol.

Socionics aside, I feel happier and healthier right now in life than I ever have before, and definitely better than when I first joined the forum. I feel like I've grown in a way that allows me to view myself more objectively, and just be honest and real about some of my weaknesses. I've developed a self-image of my strengths and weaknesses outside of socionics, so I don't feel emotionally attached to any one type, nor do I get offended if someone types me something different than my self-typing.

Some reasons for the consideration include:

1. I seem to notice/focus more on people when I look around a room. I see LSEs who typically glaze over people more in their scans as they seem to be focusing more on process. When I enter a new room, I notice people first.
2. I notice I am naturally more animated and expressive than LSEs. Even when I'm serious, or 'stone-faced', my first-reaction to things, the first impulsive reaction is generally one out of emotion.
3. I'm not as productive as I wish to be. I can see Te as a weak function. Don't we all wish we were more productive? But if I'm honest with this, I'll say that I generally waste time getting carried away with considering the emotions of those around me. Yes - I'm able to be extremely productive at times - but this comes at a greater expense of energy, of ignoring many of the things I usually notice or get distracted by.
4. I think I VI as ESE. Just being honest and viewing myself objectively finally, but I think my eyes radiate more Fe and expression than LSEs. I have moments of serious expression just like anyone else, and can seem like LSE & SLI with shared Si, but overall I think I look more like an Alpha SF.
5. Don't we all want to be viewed as honest? And most people, independent of type, generally are honest. But I believe I have a tendency to say things, if someone is upset, that are aimed more at cheering someone up rather than focusing on whether they're completely accurate. This seems to be a definite 'no-no' with Te types who greatly value factual accuracy, and can make me come across as unauthentic and even fake to Fi types. I don't think a Te-leading type would deliberately say something inaccurate to cheer someone up, much less even notice the other person's emotional state in the first place.

I understand many of the Fi/Te members were extremely annoyed not so much at the simple type-changing I did my first 2 years on the forum, but even moreso that I would ACT differently with each type-change. I want to reassure you - this will not happen again. I'm still Greg. I'm still me. What was happening before was when I was at a very unhealthy level without a good self-image. I was experiencing an 'existential crisis' if you will call it that. And although I treated it as a game, I was really the one hurting. I also apologize for wasting everyone's time before.

That said, even if I do adopt the ESE self-typing, many of the negative things I said before about ESEs still stand. I almost want to apologize on behalf of the sociotype lol. ESEs have a lot of great things to offer, and I believe they can really help a lot of people. With that in mind, I easily understand how others can view them as a "lemon" of a type, especially unhealthy ESEs who act immaturely, and are generally annoying to be around.

On the other hand, I know there are some people who have typed me as LSE and might think that still stands. I would like to hear from you as well. Maybe I'm being overly critical of my lack of productivity, and what I perceive to be trying to connect to people emotionally as Fe could be interpreted to be Fi-seeking instead. I'll let you guys debate that.

I would like to be incredibly efficient. I would like to be honest. I would like to be taken seriously and respected. But I feel some of these things are simply human emotions, shared by all and independent of type. Many socionics labels like "merry" and "serious" are overly simplifying. I feel many of my strengths - my analytical side, my intelligence, my strong aptitude for math - are simply not type-related. Socionics seems to simply be more about the intertype relations between people - and in that sense, I can see myself identifying more with ESE. But it would certainly be possible to be an analytical and logical ESE.

That said, what do you think? Despite this entire post, I know some members in the past 2 months have typed me completely different types, from LSI to IEE. I'm curious to hear everyone's opinion, so even if you still think something different than LSE or ESE, still feel free to share.

Thanks everyone for reading.

Whatever type you choose for yourself, I appreciate your contribution to the forum. For you, I see ESE over LSE. I just spent 5 days with an ESE friend who is such an amazing and influential person. Her Fe makes her hard to ignore, and she has such heart for her cause, and at the same time she has her feet on the ground and gets so much accomplished.

[Narc]

I noticed once that I provided a bit of Te information that you needed clarification on that most any Te ego would pick up on, which was when I considered that you'd be ESE.

I also noticed that you got along very well with Woof and even visited him and that went very well. I don't think that intertype relation is asymmetrical.

That said, being a Si subtype would explain a few things. It would heighten both your sensing and logical characteristics and perhaps make you a bit more rounded out than a Fe subtype, and explain why you've considered LSE your type for quite some time, but would describe why you're a bit more social and friendly. I find that LSEs are more stoic than ESEs and even LIEs.

Your type confusion does make sense. Having Te role and Ti seeking would explain why you put yourself in a logical realm (manifesting on this forum in those giant multiquote arguments). Logical types still do it, but might be less reluctant to participate unless they'be been stirred up via an ethical function. I know I'm less inclined to argue in most cases, whereas you seem to press for proper logic and substantiated views. Woof seems to do that too. Ethical types are probably more inclined to demand that kind of presentation of information as they're (somewhat, and not in all cases) less able to produce it themselves. That said, Stephen Fry and Chris Hitchens come to mind as people that can put together a fierce logical argument yet be ethical types, so there's always that potential.

Just my two cents.

[Saberstorm]

I have found that ESEs are often "left brained" types in the sense of modern American pop psychology, often good at business/finance/accounting and most seem to be good at computer programing. Dario Nardi's book (although MBTI) does EEG brain scans of people and all the left-brained logical analytical parts are very well developed with the MBTI creature called the ESFJ.

In my experience the ESEs I type are all Business/Finance types and also IT types. Some are also pretty sport orientated or jock like.

Let me look them up in Dario Nardi's book. (I cannot find it right now.)

[Park]

Whatever your quadra, I don't want to be in it. Too unstable and untrustworthy for my likings. And I generally sense clashing ethical values, or perhaps a difference in priorities. That's my honest feedback.

[Park]

@Narc, why is Hitchens not a logical type? And it's Christopher, not Chris.

No problem, I appreciate your honesty.

I'm glad. Very few people do.

[Narc]

@Narc, why is Hitchens not a logical type? And it's Christopher, not Chris.

It's Chris for short in certain instances, like in that post I just made.

I have him as sensing creative, rational and Te valuing. It's either ESI or LSE. He VIs as Se creative in his younger years (and ESI >>> LSI) and looks a bit more Si in older age, in a similar way to Bill Bailey. Hard to say, but I lean ESI.

[Park]

It's Chris for short in certain instances, like in that post I just made.

He disliked being called that and always corrected other when they did it. You would have known this if you had the slightest clue about him.

I have him as sensing creative, rational and Te valuing. It's either ESI or LSE. He VIs as Se creative in his younger years (and ESI >>> LSI) and looks a bit more Si in older age, in a similar way to Bill Bailey. Hard to say, but I lean ESI.

Thanks for answering a question no one asked you.

[woofwoofl]

Thanks for answering a question no one asked you.

No one asked you to write that shit either. I've got more use for Narc's post than I've got for any of your stupid tedious bitchiness. Grab the nearest box of tissues and shut the fuck up.

[Park]

No one asked you to write that shit either. I've got more use for Narc's post than I've got for any of your stupid tedious bitchiness. Grab the nearest box of tissues and shut the fuck up.

Collect yourself, dickhead.

[Narc]

Thanks for answering a question no one asked you.

Except you did ask and I answered. Stop being a grouch now.

[Park]

Except you did ask and I answered. Stop being a grouch now.

Read the question.

[Park]

???

Is that the question he answered? Are you sure?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

It's possible...that would mean I supervise you though.

I think when you try to help other people out emotionally you mean well but there's a side of you that just 'doesn't get it' or something, to be very fair you have really stopped doing this a lot lately and just seem to be kinda more human.

[DirectorAbbie]

Ethics is about feelings, not people or behaviors.
Fe is about expanding and broadening upon one's personal values and one's understanding of them, to find fresh new feelings about things. This is the opposite of Fi, which is the conservative clinging approach towards feelings and personal values. Fi holds onto the feelings it already has and knows best, reflecting and relying upon them.
Some Fe types are expressive people because they're essentially trying on new shades of feeling; some Fi types are expressive people because their feelings manifest as such.

Essentially, Fi is about the old and Fe is about the new.

As to your type, your understanding and intake of the world is a mainly subjective/feeling-based one (you show great valuation towards things on the forum, and logical types don't do that), so you're an ethical type. If your understanding were purely objective/cold-truth-based, you would be a logical type.

[Saberstorm]

I will someday type William in person. I do not think that we can do much here.

I found Nardi's book. It indicated the sharpest difference between ESFJ and ESTJ is the ESFJ engages in extensive "mimicking" behavior such as echoing other people's feelings and expressions, attitudes, but also workplace behaviors (like a kid taking on a role) while ESTJs largely cannot do this. They seem fake doing it, or angry. ESTJs instead focus on grounded belief - strong opinions - strong "likes and dislikes." This "grounded belief" is a trait shared with Fi dominates.

I will look up the other trait differences, but that one leaped out at me.

[Park]

Yes. He might not have thoroughly explained why he "wasn't" a logical type, but he did acknowledge that Christopher might be LSE and that it was "hard to say".

No, he did not explain that at all. He gave absolutely no reasons as to why he thinks Christopher Hitchens is not a logical type.

You might not have liked his reasoning, but it was definitely an answer to your question about Christopher's type.

No, it wasn't. I didn't ask him which types he's considered, nor how he thinks Hitchens "VIs over the years." I asked him why he thinks he wasn't a logical type. And I neither like nor dislike his reasoning, it was just not an answer to my question.

[blackburry]

I'm so tickled @William that you're finally taking a stand to be who you are. dooooooo it. It's a lot more likable than anything (unless you're the type of person in which who you are just sucks). But I don't think it is. You, Fe animal, you.

[DirectorAbbie]

This is good, actually reminds me of something I've been thinking about lately too, how Fe sees newness in emotion and how emotions can change in new systems/structures in a Ti-way, whereas Fi sees old emotions/personal feelings seeking validation/equality/retribution in a Te-way. Was thinking of possibly starting a thread about that too.

Ti is about the old and Te is about the new; it's an Xe/Xi thing. Ti builds upon the systems and understanding it already has, whereas Te has a more open and adapting mindset to knowledge like Fe has to feelings. So new systems/structures isn't a Ti thing.
Tes are more open to discussing their knowledge; they can take in a lot of knowledge and have no set ways about it, building understanding a bit at a time without having a firm base. (Of course I have a firm base, but it's an Fi base, not a Te one.)
As Te shares knowledge, so Fe freely shares its sentiments. Extroverted functions are sort of experimental functions, introverted ones bases.