SEE/EIE telling apart

[yeves]

How do you tell these two types apart? Any stories and personal experiences that would help compare and contrast them?

To follow up with this: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...nd-aristocracy
If a SEE has the social instinct, wouldn't they be similar to an Aristocratic Beta type such as EIE?
If an EIE doesn't have it, wouldn't they be similar to a Democratic Gamma type instead i.e. SEE?

How do I tell them apart?

[yeves]

bumping this

[summerprincess]

From what I've seen, SEEs are less outwardly serious and more fun loving and impulsive. They are also slightly more 'grounded' in their vibes than an EIE would be - even though EIEs can come off quite organized and normal be on the lookout for their Ni-ish moments where they can appear closer to IEIs.

[ConcreteButterfly]

You can tell from their physical presence, SEEs are much more grounded, "here and now" like all sensors. They see everything around them, appreciate aesthetics, have good reflexes. EIEs are comparatively light, weak, almost fragile. They sort of resemble IEIs in this regard. Rarely is their attention solely on the present moment.

[Iris]

My SEE friends are better in the physical worlď -more practical, less wasteful of energy, more efficient. I am slower to act, i want to make the best decision. Sometimes they are too hasty. They come across as more "smooth" than me. They will not expend themselves the way a Beta will. An EIE will sacrifice themselves for a cause they believe in. SEEs are less likely to do that.

[strangeling]

How do I tell them apart?

SEEs are usually not so careful with Se; and they can easily overdo it. But they easily can immerse themselves in engaging reality and are often good at dealing with people by working with their mental states and attitudes about things. They are usually pretty accepting of people and their unique differences and beliefs, unless someone does something particularly heinous.

EIEs are a bit more reserved and engage reality from more of a stand-offish attitude, probably engaging the moment most when they don't feel the need to be this way. Their Fe is more engaging and seems more concerned with manipulating people's mental states, rather than respecting them; but they seem to do this in a way that suggests hidden values. So although they seem to care less about why people feel a certain way, they do still seem to have moral motivations for their manipulation, but are a bit less accepting of people, unless they fall in line with their moral convictions.

[niffer]

an EIE has this whole world of metaphors right at their fingertips


SEE is more present... EIE is not quite as present

EIE could be a lot more lost in their own world and ignore "social duty" towards people on an individual level, especially in the case you describe. SEE could potentially compromise their own identity entirely to be democratic towards others as individuals.

perhaps you could trying imagining a person of one type "benefit"-ing a person of the other type in order to help you differentiate between the two. the SEE would feel compelled to benefit EIE who uses the SEEs suggestive, Ni, creatively, only to feel let down by the lack of factual information (Te, their HA) returned... but this dynamic would not be applicable in a scenario where the types were reversed in roles. SEE appears "sated" by facts, but EIE is not exactly sated by facts more like just logical explanations. also i feel like SEEs sometimes anthropomorphize objects and are very in tune with them, whereas EIE and intuitives in general i feel seem to treat the physical world as if it's this great external *thing* that they are unsure of. like they're doing stuff to it or are in it while not completely being a part of it.

the list of differences are really endless and encompass everything that each type necessitates. SEEs have awesome Se and can come across as "stronger" or "fiercer". EIEs do not have awesome Se and so one wouldn't typically see them as quite as visceral creatures. SEEs are irrational and perceiving; they have EP temperament. their behaviour can be quite erratic and hard to follow, rather just based on whims. their behavioral trend is "no trend", through the filter of their personal interests and quirks which actually may remain stable. EIEs are rational types and so their behaviour is quite repetitive and predictable (however, of course studying typology like this can create an impression of predictability in the user for all interactions and sociotypes). i don't think i need to elaborate further in this direction.

[ConcreteButterfly]

an EIE has this whole world of metaphors right at their fingertips


SEE is more present... EIE is not quite as present

EIE could be a lot more lost in their own world and ignore "social duty" towards people on an individual level, especially in the case you describe. SEE could potentially compromise their own identity entirely to be democratic towards others as individuals.

perhaps you could trying imagining a person of one type "benefit"-ing a person of the other type in order to help you differentiate between the two. the SEE would feel compelled to benefit EIE who uses the SEEs suggestive, Ni, creatively, only to feel let down by the lack of factual information (Te, their HA) returned... but this dynamic would not be applicable in a scenario where the types were reversed in roles. SEE appears "sated" by facts, but EIE is not exactly sated by facts more like just logical explanations. also i feel like SEEs sometimes anthropomorphize objects and are very in tune with them, whereas EIE and intuitives in general i feel seem to treat the physical world as if it's this great external *thing* that they are unsure of. like they're doing stuff to it or are in it while not completely being a part of it.

can you talk about this some more? I don't think I've ever heard it being put like that!

[Pink]

can you talk about this some more? I don't think I've ever heard it being put like that!

I resonate with the said quote. I'm not sure if it's necessarily an intuitive thing or just an introverted trait, but the surrounding world around me is irrelevant, unless I consciously make the effort to focus on what's going on around me. I can be so absorbed in my own internal world that the physical world is completely shut out.

I've also had many cases where people would run into me in public and wave at me and I'd miss them completely.. It's as if my physical body is on auto pilot, but my mind is thriving.

[JWC3]

Group orientation and self identification based on group membership is generally telling. SEEs also trip over their own feet less.

[huiheiwufhawriuhg]

SEEs are more visibly all over the place, you can feel their presence everywhere.
EIEs are less physically presented and act more reserved to mention a certain image or a status.

[ConcreteButterfly]

EIE ENFj

carefree

obstinate

dynamic

aristocratic

strategic

constructivist

negativist

decisive

merry

process

asking

SEE ESFp

farsighted

obstinate

static

democratic

strategic

emotivist

positivist

decisive

serious

process

asking

Carefree types (EIE)

1. Inclined to solve problems by primarily using that information which is 'at hand'. Accordingly, their solutions are likely to be particular to that situation.
2. The search for the solution is implied in the answer.
3. “You cannot prepare for everything.”

Farsighted types (SEE)

1. Inclined to solve problems by primarily using that information which they possess through knowledge and experience. Accordingly, their solutions are likely to be of a general nature.
2. The search for the solution is explicit in the answer.
3. “It is best to prepare in advance.”

Obstinate types (BOTH)

1. Ideas are 'sacred', but resources are freely shared and manipulated.
2. Easily aware of the boundaries between their and others' resources.
3. Guard their interests from intrusions, and their reaction to such intrusions may be quite sharp.
4. “I won't abandon my interests just because my resources are inadequate, but simply work towards improving my resources until they ARE adequate.”

Static types (SEE)

1. Perceive events in an episodic manner – discrete states rather than continuous changes.
2. More inclined to say how stages A, B and C are.
3. Describe events in a general manner and by comparing them to other similar events.
4. More inclined to talk of properties and structures of reality.
5. The stories of statics usually involve one constant main character.

Dynamic types (EIE)

1. Perceive events in a continuous sequence – continuous changes rather than discrete states.
2. More inclined to say how stage A leads to stage B, and how stage B leads to stage C.
3. Describe events in a specific and concrete manner.
4. More inclined to talk of movements and interactions of reality.
5. The stories of dynamics usually involve multiple main characters.

Aristocrats (EIE)

1. Inclined to perceive and refer to other people, and themselves, by means of groupings and categories that they see these people belonging to; these groupings may be created and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, rather than be already existing and socially defined ones.
2. Their initial attitude towards another person is influenced by their attitude towards the grouping they see this person belonging to.
3. Tend to attribute common qualities to members of same groupings, and define such groupings by these same qualities.
4. Inclined to refer to others using expressions that mention generalized features of their groupings.

Democrats (SEE)

1. Perceive and refer to other people, and themselves, primarily describing individual, personal qualities: frank, trustworthy, generous, unimaginative, lighthearted, good-looking, etc. which are generally not in connection to any grouping to which they might belong.
2. Form their relationships and attitudes toward other persons based on their own individual characteristics, rather than taking into account which grouping these persons fall into or their own relationships with the members of these circles and groupings.
3. Not inclined to perceive people as representatives of a certain grouping that supposedly possesses qualities inherent to people who comprise it.
4. When referring to others, not inclined to use expressions that mention the generalized features of the grouping or categories that these people belong to.

Strategy (BOTH)

1. Focus on goals, and manipulate them, with methods unsettled.
2. Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals.
3. Prefers to defend goals. Doesn't like to be forced to deviate from them.

Constructivist (EIE)

1. Tend to minimize the emotional elements of interaction, preferring to focus on the 'business' elements.
2. Have emotional 'anchors' (eg, books, films, places) which they use to support their internal emotional state.
3. Can become 'emotionally hooked', and can have a strong reaction to a particular part or section regardless of their feelings towards the entirety.
4. Have greater difficulty disassociating from others' emotions and experiences than from requests for action or consideration.
5. “I prefer when people offer concrete solutions instead of comfort or sympathy.”

Emotivist (SEE)

1. Tend to concentrate foremost on the emotional background of interaction, with 'business' a secondary concern.
2. Prefer the new and novel over the old and known.
3. Information perceived as unprofessional or low-quality can leave them indifferent.
4. Have greater difficulty disassociating from requests for action or consideration than from others' emotions and experiences.
5. “If a conversation is emotionally negative, I consider it wasted.”

Positivists (SEE)

1. More inclined to optimize already functional systems of things and processes.
2. "This glass is half-full", "We have already collected $438,000 for that project"
3. Usually more complimenting than reprimanding.
4. Socially and intellectually more trusting.
5. Explains what things are (irrationals) or should be (rationals).

Negativists (EIE)

1. More inclined to solve problems in systems of things and processes.
2. "This glass is half-empty", "We need $62,000 for that project"
3. Usually more reprimanding than complimenting.
4. Socially and intellectually more mistrusting.
5. Explains what things are not (irrationals) or should not be (rationals).

Decisive (BOTH)

1. Natural state is readiness.
2. Work best if they are able to tart mobilizing in preparation for what they must do.
3. Easily go from 'relaxed' to 'mobilized', but not from 'mobilized' to 'relaxed'. Thus, they may need external stimuli (like a movie) to relax.
4. Tend to perform an entire task at once, and to maintain their internal 'readiness' between tasks.
5. Become of aware of their own mobilization at its maximals – i.e., when it is time for action. However, they are often poorly aware of when the mobilization firsts manifests – i.e., when they first start considering an action.
6. Focuses and places the most importance on taking action – preparation is considered implicit and given less attention.
7. Consider the possible results and rewards of their work (e.g., how much they are paid) more important than the working conditions (e.g., comfort, freedom, and convenience).
8. This attitude is strengthened by extroversion.
9. More aware of when they are relaxed than when they are mobilized.
10. "I will not get stuck in the process of consideration – it always ends in a decision being made."

Merry (EIE)

1. Good at noticing emotional background and perceive the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') separate from the activity.
2. 'Getting to know someone' happens naturally, and they are well aware of the purpose(s) for which they are meeting. The proper emotional distance is easily established, adapted/regulated, and manipulated, and they easily decrease distance through their emotional 'brilliance'. A person's name (and other formalities) are peripheral to their relation with and interest in them, and thus they don't care much about formal introductions..
3. Not inclined to deduce 'objective truths' from their own and others' experiences – everything is relative. This relativity is perceived as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person. Accordingly, another person's actions are judged as correct or incorrect according to a set of subjective criteria. They attempt to compare others' views to their own, and to explain their own views in order to make sure that all parties understand the concepts being spoken of.
4. They are inclined to propose (or impose) another conception of the situation ('look at it this way'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they will ask WHY it was done that way. When talking about optimums, they are inclined to do it subjectively ('optimum compared to what?').
5. “Fun is involvement, active participation; a state of constant excitement that one cannot confuse with leisure or rest.” “I have my own ideas about how things should be done – a 'mind of my own' – but so does everyone else.”

Serious (SEE)

1. Bad at noticing emotional background and do not separate the emotional aspect (particularly 'fun') from the activity.
2. Acquaintance with others is established by ritual (e.g., introduction), and they prefer if the context of interaction is externally set (eg, by a mediator (think 'arranged marriages') or situation) so that they can skip the first phases and begin closer interaction. They approach others through stages defined by 'rules' and 'rituals', which may be created by themselves and/or already existing; thus, they are very aware of the stages of the process of acquaintance – e.g., when a person is no longer a stranger. The title, name, and any other information about the other person are considered important, and for this reason formal introduction is important.
3. Inclined to believe there are 'objective truths' – the truth is not always relative. Therefore, they believe that there are two types of actions/perspectives: those which are subjective (connected with personal preferences and motivations) and those which are objective (only one 'correct' or 'best' way of doing something). Whether something is correct or not is judged by comparing it with what they see as 'objectively correct'. In disagreement, they first attempt to make sure that the other person understands the concepts and terms 'correctly'.
4. They are inclined to offer (or impose) what they see as the 'best' or 'correct' way of doing something ('it should be done like this'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they ask WHO did it that way. When speaking of optimums, they are inclined to do so objectively (the 'absolute' optimum).
5. “It is difficult for me to differentiate between activity/work and fun; work is necessarily fun – without an element of entertainment, it would be impossible” “If something is being done the wrong way? Oy! IMO, there is only one proper way to 'hammer a nail'”

Process types (BOTH)

1. Do things sequentially, from the beginning to the end.
2. Immersed to a process and inclined to single-tasking.
3. Focus between the beginning and the end of processes.
4. More inclined to read texts on books or computer from beginning to the end.
5. "Of course the answer is right, since we followed the correct procedure."

Askers (BOTH)

1. tendency to dialogue
2. much of what an asker says seems more question-like, even statements
3. always, as the other person talks, affirm the receipt of information with yeah, mhm, etc.
4. can talk to an audience as a whole very well
5. starts talking at times expecting someone to get interested and start paying attention
6. has a tendency to interrupt and feels comfortable pausing half way on the speech and with "questions allowed all the time" way, returning to what was said later if necessary
7. quite often asks a non-rhetorical question and answers it himself
8. often just asks questions to fill in time, without serious need to actually find the information asked

[chemical]

You're worrying about lead vs HA? e.g. say, EIE vs ILE would be another example.

Really in a way, you can understand HA and demonstrative as both background processes (the demonstrative more directly relevant to the contents the ego is concerned with, just not the slant towards acquiring those contents preferred).
With ILE, the two extraverted judgings. The general theory goes, one in a given framework/ego-attitude cannot maintain both a judging and a perceiving one equally, despite both being relevant to getting any sort of complete picture. The creative is how T in ILE gets any independent energy -- hence in a way why it's creative where you break out of the easily accepted Ne info, e.g. to go from perceiving a static intuition to defining some framework capturing something about it. Automatically, often, en route to gaining static intuitions of a situation, Te will have collected relevant facts and so forth, since ILEs are interested in situations of an intuitive logical nature. More or less because Ne is base, Te can't get any independent valuation. Fe can also work in the sidelines, and because it is extroverted, supports the main attitude...but without really supporting the main informational needs directly.