Which IEE subtype am I?

[suedehead]

For fun. I'm mainly referring to Fi-subtype vs Ne-subtype, although if you want to bring up DCNH, then go ahead by all means.

-I'm somewhat aloof in demeanor and don't really get too involved in group environments, although when approached, I try to be responsive and polite. Not the soul of the company, just there.

-I'm relatively patient and get through chores and practical tasks without much of a fuss. I don't consider myself to be especially neglectful, impulsive, or removed from reality. Distractible, yes, but I feel that I have a semi-decent grip on myself otherwise - I'm not that driven by my impulses or feelings of boredom. I can focus on some things that I consider important, generally listen and take notes attentively during lectures regardless of how 'boring' or dry it supposedly is, etc. I actually prefer the dry, powerpoint-ish approach compared to some of the confusing and completely directionless ILE professors I've had. I don't feel the need to 'reinvent the wheel' and I'm usually fine with going with the practical, efficient and tried-and-tested method of completing a task. Novelty for novelty's sake isn't my typical approach to most things and I just kind of want to get things over with.

-I'm always aware of the objective gravity of the decisions that I make, and I don't assume that the world should bend over backwards for me.

-I feel that my intuition and sensing are fairly balanced. I don't feel all that helpless in dealing with the physical world. Maybe a bit of physical awkwardness (I'm not a good dancer or athlete), but it's rarely the sort of making-a-mountain-out-of-a-molehill type situation that I've seen some people describe. I don't relate to it.

-Going off of the balanced Sensing vs. Intuition, when I helped out at my Uncle's grocery store, I actually enjoyed helping with a lot of the manual/'physical' tasks like (un)loading boxes, packing fruits, stocking fridges, etc. I was never 'bored' by any of it.

-I have decent awareness of bodily signals like hunger, thirst, discomfort, etc. and I'm rarely able to neglect them or tune them out. Once I've noticed one of those things, I can't really continue with whatever it is I'm doing, at all, even if it's minor. I've never been the type of person who could go without eating breakfast or a meal.

-I've always preferred understatement. I rarely wear flashy, kitschy or 'unique' colors'/pieces. I don't romanticize my personal style or clothing choices either, although I do pay significant attention to it. I'm not 'expressing myself', it's just, whatever. Something I enjoy doing and don't feel the need to draw attention to.

-I'm generally composed and have decent control over and awareness of my body language. I rarely come off as erratic, neurotic, or scattered physically, and give off more of a calm, laid-back impression.

-I have decent awareness of the ethical implication of interactions - my loyalties and responsibilities, reciprocity, 'I owe this person', whether I'm inconveniencing someone, whether a certain action is in line with the sort of person I see myself being, whether I feel something is in a person's best interest, etc. But not so much in an obvious, expressed Fe-ish sort of way, more like taking a note of it internally and showing my concern/consideration through my actions. I'm rarely completely shameless or overstepping boundaries. I don't have much of an obvious presence either, I usually just slip in, and slip out for the most part. In a work environment I'm generally lowkey and cooperative, and don't question or try and shake things up much; a 12-pack of coronas is just that, and all the cigarillos go on that shelf. Pretty straightforward..

-I might come off as a constructivist, superficially.

-I rarely have much to say and prefer to just go off of whatever other people bring up in conversation.

[suedehead]

I've also historically been pretty bad at initiating contact, or keeping in touch with people after a certain period of time, and don't normally think about it or consider it a duty when I really have nothing to say to them. I've considered few people to be worth it and I don't go out of my way to maintain relationships with acquaintances once they're out of my life.

Although I feel I'd be much more willing to keep a dynamic going if some of them bothered to contact me first from time-to-time. But still, it's easy for me to feel a bit...meh about that department when the relationship is unfulfilling or weak. I don't think that I gain a sense of satisfaction through people, primarily.

[Esaman]

- IEE, somewhat aloof in demeanor and don't really get too involved in group environments
oxymoron

[The Martrix]

After a quick skim, Fi-subtype. I'll have another look later after work.

[aisa]

For fun. I'm mainly referring to Fi-subtype vs Ne-subtype, although if you want to bring up DCNH, then go ahead by all means.

-I'm somewhat aloof in demeanor and don't really get too involved in group environments, although when approached, I try to be responsive and polite. Not the soul of the company, just there.

-I'm relatively patient and get through chores and practical tasks without much of a fuss. I don't consider myself to be especially neglectful, impulsive, or removed from reality. Distractible, yes, but I feel that I have a semi-decent grip on myself otherwise - I'm not that driven by my impulses or feelings of boredom. I can focus on some things that I consider important, generally listen and take notes attentively during lectures regardless of how 'boring' or dry it supposedly is, etc. I actually prefer the dry, powerpoint-ish approach compared to some of the confusing and completely directionless ILE professors I've had. I don't feel the need to 'reinvent the wheel' and I'm usually fine with going with the practical, efficient and tried-and-tested method of completing a task. Novelty for novelty's sake isn't my typical approach to most things and I just kind of want to get things over with.

-I'm always aware of the objective gravity of the decisions that I make, and I don't assume that the world should bend over backwards for me.

-I feel that my intuition and sensing are fairly balanced. I don't feel all that helpless in dealing with the physical world. Maybe a bit of physical awkwardness (I'm not a good dancer or athlete), but it's rarely the sort of making-a-mountain-out-of-a-molehill type situation that I've seen some people describe. I don't relate to it.

-Going off of the balanced Sensing vs. Intuition, when I helped out at my Uncle's grocery store, I actually enjoyed helping with a lot of the manual/'physical' tasks like (un)loading boxes, packing fruits, stocking fridges, etc. I was never 'bored' by any of it.

-I have decent awareness of bodily signals like hunger, thirst, discomfort, etc. and I'm rarely able to neglect them or tune them out. Once I've noticed one of those things, I can't really continue with whatever it is I'm doing, at all, even if it's minor. I've never been the type of person who could go without eating breakfast or a meal.

-I've always preferred understatement. I rarely wear flashy, kitschy or 'unique' colors'/pieces. I don't romanticize my personal style or clothing choices either, although I do pay significant attention to it. I'm not 'expressing myself', it's just, whatever. Something I enjoy doing and don't feel the need to draw attention to.

-I'm generally composed and have decent control over and awareness of my body language. I rarely come off as erratic, neurotic, or scattered physically, and give off more of a calm, laid-back impression.

-I have decent awareness of the ethical implication of interactions - my loyalties and responsibilities, reciprocity, 'I owe this person', whether I'm inconveniencing someone, whether a certain action is in line with the sort of person I see myself being, whether I feel something is in a person's best interest, etc. But not so much in an obvious, expressed Fe-ish sort of way, more like taking a note of it internally and showing my concern/consideration through my actions. I'm rarely completely shameless or overstepping boundaries. I don't have much of an obvious presence either, I usually just slip in, and slip out for the most part. In a work environment I'm generally lowkey and cooperative, and don't question or try and shake things up much; a 12-pack of coronas is just that, and all the cigarillos go on that shelf. Pretty straightforward..

-I might come off as a constructivist, superficially.

-I rarely have much to say and prefer to just go off of whatever other people bring up in conversation.

if the choice is between IEE-Ne and IEE-Fi, then the Fi subtype. But tbh the more I read you, the more often comes the thought that you might be ESI-Fi.

 

You seem to get annoyed with Ne. When you mention ILE professors as annoying, sure it could be a case of Ti-PoLR in IEE since ILEs are Ti creative, but the way you write about what annoys you in them - it's not "systems", you're annoyed by their Ne, so I'd say Ne-PoLR more likely than Ti-PoLR. Not to mention ILE actually being ESI's conflictor socionicswise... Also, what you earlier described as your IEE-like behaviour when you were a young teen, might have as well been you wanting to fit into some group of people surrounding you then and just acting more extroverted SEE-like, which would of course be to some extent reminiscent of IEE outward behavior (they're look-alikes after all).

The reason I write this is because I remember a post by @lemontrees a while back where she mentioned then that she has to "strain" herself a bit when she reads my posts in the sense that they don't sound to her like written by her identical, but probably someone sharing with her some, but not all functions. She was right and tbh when I compared how I feel reading posts by SEIs and IEEs - IEEs sounded just easier to understand and more straightforward, more often worded in a manner that I'd use and find the most understandable.
I feel similarly when I read your posts to what Lemontrees described upon reading mine. I think it's quite likely that we share some, but not all functions.

Of course I may very well be wrong here as I don't know you in person. But when I read the above post, I could relate to bits and pieces, whereas in contrast almost this whole post could have been written about my ESI-Se dad (except the parts suggesting being withdrawn, cause he's definitely leading with Se). I'm sorry for not just saying this subtype or that one, but I would feel dishonest if I didn't share my above thoughts with you.

[darya]

Am I missing something or you don't sound like IEE at all? I agree with @aisa, ESI makes sense.

[Reficulris]

Yeah, i've said this before, I've got you as ESI..... So the question is a false dilemma to me

[consentingadult]

Real IEEs do not believe in subtypes as a valid concept. Their Ti-PoLR says so.

[suedehead]

The thing with the ILE professor is, I actually liked him at first and thought he was funny/interesting, but the minute he started going on these really fleshed out tangents about the structure of economics with no clear direction at all I became overwhelmed by it. I've had another, more organized ILE professor since then and didn't have this problem with him, the only thing that I found a bit draining was his really process-style of teaching.

[suedehead]

The only weird, semi-PoLR thing that I can point out is a year ago when I had to a presentation about the incarceration rate in lower-income neighborhoods for an IEE-Ne professor who was teaching Sociology/Politics. At the end of it, she asked me on the spot what solutions I would propose to encourage people in poorer neighborhoods to get more involved in local politics and I was at a loss as to how to answer that and just said something along the lines of "umm, well that's up to them. You can put up flyers and set up centers and things like that, but you're not going to force anyone to do it.", she wanted something grander than that and kind of had to try and pull something out of me for 3 minutes which was embarrassing.

[Reficulris]

The only weird, semi-PoLR thing that I can point out is a year ago when I had to a presentation about the incarceration rate in lower-income neighborhoods for an IEE-Ne professor who was teaching Sociology/Politics. At the end of it, she asked me on the spot what solutions I would propose to encourage people in poorer neighborhoods to get more involved in local politics and I was at a loss as to how to answer that and just said something along the lines of "umm, well that's up to them. If they want to change things, then they just kind of have to put the effort into it. You can't force anyone to do it.", and she kind of had to try and pull something out of me for 3 minutes which was embarrassing.

As Ne dom, i can tell you, this never happens to me. I can give ad-hoc sollutions, explanations, jokes, bluffs etc from nowhere. Again, are you SURE you are IEE? The only time i say "I don't know" is when people ask me what i'm planning for next weekend...(or sometimes as a substitute for "i don't want to talk to you".)

[suedehead]

As Ne dom, i can tell you, this never happens to me. I can give ad-hoc sollutions, explanations, jokes, bluffs etc from nowhere. Again, are you SURE you are IEE? The only time i say "I don't know" is when people ask me what i'm planning for next weekend...(or sometimes as a substitute for "i don't want to talk to you".)

Well, it's just one incident, and I've always seen ILE's/Alpha Ne as being better at coming with random, ad-hoc solutions, since they use positive Ne. I've always had the impression that they were more stereotypically random than IEE's.

I can think of another instance in class where I defended the legalization of prostitution (although in retrospect, my stance was likely naive) by claiming that it's happening any way, and it's better if it's happening in safe, disease/crime-free institutions as opposed to out in the street, and there was an actual ESI in the class who disagreed with me on the basis that it was wrong.

[Reficulris]

Well, it's just one incident, and I've always seen ILE's/Alpha Ne as being better at coming with random, ad-hoc solutions, since they use positive Ne.

I can think of another instance in class where I defended the legalization of prostitution (although in retrospect, my stance was likely naive) by claiming that it's happening any way, and it's better if it's happening in safe, disease/crime-free institutions as opposed to out in the street, and there was an actual ESI in the class who disagreed with me on the basis that it was wrong.

hmhm, i'm not saying it's the final word in your typing. It just strikes me odd that an Ne ego would find that hard.

About your argument: it's the one we use here in holland to defend legalised drugs and prostitution and so far it has worked positively in some aspects and backfired in others. The argument is not naive, just not the entire story.

Yeah, ESI's might oppose it vehemently, some are vehemently opposed to making it illegal though. If you're IEE indeed she was probably opposing your line of argument rather than the content since they like stuff to fit in their rather limited (sorry ESI's) mental frames and ILE/IEE tend to screw that up....

[lemontrees]

Another thing, Suedehead...

I actually am not sure about your type at all, but are you sure you're ethical?

I see you as being E1 on the enneagram, which might feel like ethics b/c it's a very principalled type. Also you seem like someone with deep emotions who relates strongly to art and aesthetics, which can also be confused with socionics ethics.

I ask b/c I find your writing to be very straightforward, and kind of direct and literal in a way I associate with Si. When I read someone like Lungs or Blackburry that is Fi-dom, the Fi seems so much more immediate, not secondary or sought after- it's not so much a thematic overtone but rather a direct, literal presence through which everything else is filtered. Everything you say tends to be more purely descriptive at first glance, in a way that I associate with Si.

But I don't want to seem like I'm pushing this so this is the last time I'll bring it up. I just wanted to offer some observations.

...then again, I confused EII with ILI before, so who knows

[Olduvai]

you're the "not-IEE" subtype

(I don't think you're ESI, either; I'd say you're probably LII)

[suedehead]

Another thing, Suedehead...

I actually am not sure about your type at all, but are you sure you're ethical?

I see you as being E1 on the enneagram, which might feel like ethics b/c it's a very principalled type. Also you seem like someone with deep emotions who relates strongly to art and aesthetics, which can also be confused with socionics ethics.

I ask b/c I find your writing to be very straightforward, and kind of direct and literal in a way I associate with Si. When I read someone like Lungs or Blackburry that is Fi-dom, the Fi seems so much more immediate, not secondary or sought after- it's not so much a thematic overtone but rather a direct, literal presence through which everything else is filtered. Everything you say tends to be more purely descriptive at first glance, in a way that I associate with Si.

But I don't want to seem like I'm pushing this so this is the last time I'll bring it up. I just wanted to offer some observations.

...then again, I confused EII with ILI before, so who knows

Fairly sure. Never really thought otherwise, although you make an interesting point.

[suedehead]

If it means anything at all, it's typical of me to be watching a Vice documentary and feeling put-off by how nonchalant some of the reporters (one of the main guys seems SLI, and you have a few alpha NTs also) are about the shit that they cover. Even the most minor things that they do/say stand out to me as something that I wouldn't do in their situation. It's always obvious to me when they're fucking up, or being awkward in dealing with people. Like they'll just walk into a brothel in the middle of an impoverished country where kids are getting high on heroin and look at as if it's this super interesting, novelty thing and only passively acknowledge the magnitude of whatever it is they're seeing while talking enthusiastically about some new street-drug formula or whatever which I guess is understandable on some level because it's their job, but still. A few just seem arrogant and clueless.


Edit: To make it clear, I'm only making a 'case' for being an ethical type. Nothing more, nothing less.

[blackburry]

Another thing, Suedehead...

I actually am not sure about your type at all, but are you sure you're ethical?

I see you as being E1 on the enneagram, which might feel like ethics b/c it's a very principalled type. Also you seem like someone with deep emotions who relates strongly to art and aesthetics, which can also be confused with socionics ethics.

I ask b/c I find your writing to be very straightforward, and kind of direct and literal in a way I associate with Si. When I read someone like Lungs or Blackburry that is Fi-dom, the Fi seems so much more immediate, not secondary or sought after- it's not so much a thematic overtone but rather a direct, literal presence through which everything else is filtered. Everything you say tends to be more purely descriptive at first glance, in a way that I associate with Si.

But I don't want to seem like I'm pushing this so this is the last time I'll bring it up. I just wanted to offer some observations.

...then again, I confused EII with ILI before, so who knows

aw man I really kind of dislike this part about myself.

[lemontrees]

aw man I really kind of dislike this part about myself.

aw. I really don't see a reason to.

it's just a function like any other. plus Fi-bases can take in the Fi-situation in this really nice unspoken way where they then do or say something really sweet in response to some terrible mistake you just made or something that upset you, without putting too much pressure on your emotion itself. (maybe this is just my biased view as an Fe person.) I don't know how to do that at all; I pretty much draw what the person is feeling right out in the air and make comments toward it. I guess they could also do something awful, but I haven't seen that as much. O__o

BTW I hate Si sometimes too- it's like people will comment "you're so calm" and I want to scream "dude I couldn't gather the motivation to budge a hair right now even if I wanted to. YOU try living like that." but i think we are who we are, and occasionally a dual-seeking function will whip up into shape, etc...

[blackburry]

aw. I really don't see a reason to.

it's just a function like any other. plus Fi-bases can take in the Fi-situation in this really nice unspoken way where they then do or say something really sweet in response to some terrible mistake you just made or something that upset you, without putting too much pressure on your emotion itself. (maybe this is just my biased view as an Fe person.) I don't know how to do that at all; I pretty much draw what the person is feeling right out in the air and make comments toward it. I guess they could also do something awful, but I haven't seen that as much. O__o

BTW I hate Si sometimes too- it's like people will comment "you're so calm" and I want to scream "dude I couldn't gather the motivation to budge a hair right now even if I wanted to. YOU try living like that." but i think we are who we are, and occasionally a dual-seeking function will whip up into shape, etc...

SiFe types just seem like they have way more fun than I do oftentimes. (then when I do join..eventually one of them will say, "Gurl you iz weird."-- usually b/c I'm not super happy-go-lucky...ah well.

[Olduvai]

If it means anything at all, it's typical of me to be watching a Vice documentary and feeling put-off by how nonchalant some of the reporters (one of the main guys seems SLI, and you have a few alpha NTs also) are about the shit that they cover. Even the most minor things that they do/say stand out to me as something that I wouldn't do in their situation. It's always obvious to me when they're fucking up, or being awkward in dealing with people. Like they'll just walk into a brothel in the middle of an impoverished country where kids are getting high on heroin and look at as if it's this super interesting, novelty thing and only passively acknowledge the magnitude of whatever it is they're seeing while talking enthusiastically about some new street-drug formula or whatever which I guess is understandable on some level because it's their job, but still. A few just seem arrogant and clueless.


Edit: To make it clear, I'm only making a 'case' for being an ethical type. Nothing more, nothing less.

A concern for ethics/morality does not an ethical type make. I think Jung's distinction between Logos and Eros is a better conception of T versus F:

In Jung’s earlier writings, he intuitively equated masculine consciousness with the concept of Logos and feminine consciousness with that of Eros. Either one could be dominant in a particular man or woman, due to the contrasexual complexes.

By Logos I meant discrimination, judgment, insight, and by Eros I meant the capacity to relate. I regarded both concepts as intuitive ideas which cannot be defined accurately or exhaustively. From the scientific point of view this is regrettable, but from a practical one it has its value, since the two concepts mark out a field of experience which it is equally difficult to define.

Woman’s psychology is founded on the principle of Eros, the great binder and loosener, whereas from ancient times the ruling principle ascribed to man is Logos. The concept of Eros could be expressed in modern terms as psychic relatedness, and that of Logos as objective interest.

Edit: here's more:

What exactly does feminine mean? What does masculine imply? Jung used the names of two mythical figures to represent the duality of life. Logos he used to describe the masculine attributes such as logic, progress and the ability to discriminate. Eros describes the feminine aspects like imagination, playfulness and our ability to relate to and care for others.Logos can be further described as thought, wisdom, reason, achievement, knowledge, memory, order and growth. It is our will or spirit, and it has been symbolised as the sun, the bull and dry brightness.
Eros, symbolised by the moon, the cow and moist darkness, is our feeling capacity. It is the weaver of dreams and fantasy; Eros is mood as opposed to will, intuition instead of knowledge. It is this feminine element that cries for rest and inertia, for fun instead of the dry demands of Logos. Eros is emotion and chaos, yet the need for comfort makes it representative of tradition - the opposite of the movement of Logos.

Animus speaks to a woman in many voices: when a woman becomes judgemental and indulges in criticism and generalisations (seen as inferior logic), it is a sure sign that the Animus needs integration. Her feminine ego sees Logos values as dangerous, even though integration of the Animus would ultimately lead to a new fulfilment. The neglected Animus has to find some expression, and this can be clearly seen in scornful, judgemental women, and in women who assert themselves by starting arguments.

[suedehead]

I'm comfortable with him being my identical as far as IEE's go. Probably a 6w7 also, N/H-subtype. Close enough.

[Simon Ssmall]

Please see my comments below. Most people (including me) type me Fi subtype. In general a lot of what you wrote sounds different from my usual mindset.

For fun. I'm mainly referring to Fi-subtype vs Ne-subtype, although if you want to bring up DCNH, then go ahead by all means.

-I'm somewhat aloof in demeanor and don't really get too involved in group environments, although when approached, I try to be responsive and polite. Not the soul of the company, just there.
Erm, I'm more of the soul of the company type of person. But I do not like to get involved in the group environments either though.

-I'm relatively patient and get through chores and practical tasks without much of a fuss. I don't consider myself to be especially neglectful, impulsive, or removed from reality. Distractible, yes, but I feel that I have a semi-decent grip on myself otherwise - I'm not that driven by my impulses or feelings of boredom. I can focus on some things that I consider important, generally listen and take notes attentively during lectures regardless of how 'boring' or dry it supposedly is, etc. I actually prefer the dry, powerpoint-ish approach compared to some of the confusing and completely directionless ILE professors I've had. I don't feel the need to 'reinvent the wheel' and I'm usually fine with going with the practical, efficient and tried-and-tested method of completing a task. Novelty for novelty's sake isn't my typical approach to most things and I just kind of want to get things over with.
Not sure, does not sound familiar to me at all.

-I'm always aware of the objective gravity of the decisions that I make, and I don't assume that the world should bend over backwards for me.
Sounds like a reasonable approach .

-I feel that my intuition and sensing are fairly balanced. I don't feel all that helpless in dealing with the physical world. Maybe a bit of physical awkwardness (I'm not a good dancer or athlete), but it's rarely the sort of making-a-mountain-out-of-a-molehill type situation that I've seen some people describe. I don't relate to it.
I don't think it is necessarily physical clumsiness you should be looking for. IEEs are not limping midgets and actually sometimes they try to compensate their weak Se with working out/sport etc. Although if we talk about me I am a clumsy 1.83 midget that sits in awkward positions and hates working out with passion (unless its rowing).

-Going off of the balanced Sensing vs. Intuition, when I helped out at my Uncle's grocery store, I actually enjoyed helping with a lot of the manual/'physical' tasks like (un)loading boxes, packing fruits, stocking fridges, etc. I was never 'bored' by any of it.
Did you actually enjoy the work or the fact you are helping him? In general I do not think this is any indication of any sorts for anything . But again, I would probably dislike that sort of thing.

-I have decent awareness of bodily signals like hunger, thirst, discomfort, etc. and I'm rarely able to neglect them or tune them out. Once I've noticed one of those things, I can't really continue with whatever it is I'm doing, at all, even if it's minor. I've never been the type of person who could go without eating breakfast or a meal.
I'm terrible at this. I do feel the bodily signals, but the thing is I can easily ignore them.


-I've always preferred understatement. I rarely wear flashy, kitschy or 'unique' colors'/pieces. I don't romanticize my personal style or clothing choices either, although I do pay significant attention to it. I'm not 'expressing myself', it's just, whatever. Something I enjoy doing and don't feel the need to draw attention to.
I like to look different, not flashy though either.

-I'm generally composed and have decent control over and awareness of my body language. I rarely come off as erratic, neurotic, or scattered physically, and give off more of a calm, laid-back impression.
Same

-I have decent awareness of the ethical implication of interactions - my loyalties and responsibilities, reciprocity, 'I owe this person', whether I'm inconveniencing someone, whether a certain action is in line with the sort of person I see myself being, whether I feel something is in a person's best interest, etc. But not so much in an obvious, expressed Fe-ish sort of way, more like taking a note of it internally and showing my concern/consideration through my actions. I'm rarely completely shameless or overstepping boundaries. I don't have much of an obvious presence either, I usually just slip in, and slip out for the most part. In a work environment I'm generally lowkey and cooperative, and don't question or try and shake things up much; a 12-pack of coronas is just that, and all the cigarillos go on that shelf. Pretty straightforward..
Same or similar at least.

-I might come off as a constructivist, superficially.
Ehhh, no thanks

-I rarely have much to say and prefer to just go off of whatever other people bring up in conversation.
Not like me either