fluid identity?

[wasp]

my apologies in advance for the lengthy post. i'll bold the questions for those of you who don't care about context.

is it type related? if not, is the method one employs to create a fluid identity (whether it's intentional or not) indicative of type?

most of what i know to be true about myself, i've learned through relentless observation and comparison (and introspection, i guess?). by contrasting my behavior with others, noticing similarities and differences and realizing that the negative similarities often evoke the strongest reactions in me, listening to their opinions of me and comparing it to previous opinions to see what's true, what isn't, and what they only believe to be true because they don't know me well enough to know that it isn't.

i've had many different words assigned to me: *insert list of contradictory traits here* it's funny, though, because people tend to agree on their assessments of me, despite all the stark contrasts, and my writing style is very easy to identify. another funny pattern i've noticed is that when a trait or type is assigned to me, my brain immediately deems it unappealing. just like that, it's all it takes. i think it's clear that the root of it is deep-rooted insecurity and self-hatred, but alas...

so, i've been reading about dichotomies (reinin, as well as I/E/S/N/T/F/J/P) and and i know there's a lot of controversy surrounding the legitimacy of reinin's theory, in particular, but let's say, for argument's sake, that it holds water. how is it that i can tell which i relate to more, when i catch myself relying on both an equal amount, depending on which method is more advantageous to me at the time? i can't even get a handle on S/N because i'm not even remotely aware of my surroundings, but i also feel that i miss a lot of hidden connections, like i'll reread a conversation years after it's happened and think to myself, "how the heck didn't i catch that?"

[Exodus]

Like I said before, this is related to Fe and is characteristic of EIEs in particular.

"i can't even get a handle on S/N because i'm not even remotely aware of my surroundings, but i also feel that i miss a lot of hidden connections, like i'll reread a conversation years after it's happened and think to myself, "how the heck didn't i catch that?""

Most likely you're not seeing yourself objectively here. Someone who is strong in a certain area may make mistakes from time to time, and realize and correct themselves. Are you missing unobvious things in that area or are you making really boneheaded mistakes on a regular basis? Many people find it difficult to assess themselves like this.

[ashlesha]

I'm gonna hijack this thread to ramble with some thoughts that probably won't be very useful to you because this topic is a tangle in my head that I have an interest in. ive expressed a view that identity is fluid in the past and it has been used as evidence for typing me IEI. fluidity isn't an intuitive frame of mind for me. my thoughts tend toward discreteness. but when trying to fit my identity into discrete characteristics, I end up with a lot of cognitive dissonance. there are some personal qualities that are more enduring than others. like, for some people it might be obvious to place themselves as Fe valuing and struggle to determine whether they are introverted or extroverted. I'm gonna say the obvious, which is that this could just as easily be a matter of that person intrinsically not being particularly inclined towards one end or another on the I/E scale as it could be a matter of them not understanding the theory or themselves - but this is going to be an underplayed pov when the presumed goal of typology is to place the person in one or the other category. however another goal of typology (imo?) is for the map to match the territory as much as possible, and insisting on a map>territory preference is um, distasteful to me (yeah, its a socionics forum, yadda yadda). I'm curious whether @thehotelambush, when calling this Fe, is referring to the tendency to have difficulty placing yourself in one category or the other or the tendency to see identity as fluid in the first place, as a sort of philosophy. he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this has to do with seeing it as a "social chameleon" thing and I think that's sort of faulty - imo the patterns we notice are transposed over a fluid reality and a lack of noticing or preferring those discrete patterns...isn't the same thing as being socially adaptable?

[ashlesha]

Maybe that's just where the Ni would come in, if it's presumed to be more of a beta thing.

[ashlesha]

Okay, that helped, thanks.

[Adam Strange]

Regarding fluid identities:
I work with a guy who is ESI-Fi, and when I was in the process of writing an on-line dating profile for myself and had to describe the person whom I was seeking, I asked him how he would describe himself, so I could include "Seeking a person who is X, Y, and Z". He replied that he didn't really know who he was, but he was certain of how he felt about people. (Incidentally, he divides people into two groups; People Who Are On His Side, and People Who Aren't.)

[wasp]

@thehotelambush i mean, there have been plenty of instances where i've completely misread situations, like i couldn't get an objective read on what was happening, as it was happening, because i was too emotionally invested in the outcome. my brain wanted to see something so it saw it, but when i revisit these conversations years later, with an open mind and from a detached position, my reads are much clearer. i'd say i'm a fairly perceptive person but i've purposefully overlooked inconsistencies in others' behavior to avoid confronting harsh truths about myself, them, or the status of our relationship, and my self-esteem issues often stop me from vocalizing these insights because i don't have enough confidence in myself, ergo i doubt the veracity of my insights. so, even if i know exactly what's happening, i'll pretend that i don't and go along with their bs to either keep the peace or keep them around. i'm also afraid of inadvertently influencing the outcome of events by speaking up.

but you're probably right about me not being able to see myself objectively.

@lungs you remind me a lot of myself. i'm always hesitant to throw out comparisons like that because how the recipient take it depends heavily on how they feel about you personally, and since you don't know a damn thing about me, you won't know how to interpret it. i mean it as a compliment tho. not that i think ultra highly of myself or anything, i just get a kick out of reading your posts. typology is a funny thing because i have no issue typing other people but when it comes to myself i haven't a single clue what i should identify as (which has sparked some controversy in the past, i.e. "how can you type others when you can't even type yourself?")

@Adam Strange interesting. i sorta relate to that. i'm much better at tracking patterns in my behavior than i am at attaching adjectives to myself. the latter feels too static, like i have to be this or that all the time. i can't be this sometimes and that other times. this and that being placeholders for two contrasting adjectives. i know that i'm prone to distancing myself from hostile people or environments, and that i'll only dislike someone if they dislike me first, but i can't tell you if i'm naturally a nice or mean person.

tl;dr i feel that how my personality manifests itself is highly dependent on external factors, so i'm wondering what functions most closely correspond with that type of behavior. would you say there's a difference between having a multi-faceted personality and no identity, period?

[Exodus]

I'm curious whether @thehotelambush, when calling this Fe, is referring to the tendency to have difficulty placing yourself in one category or the other or the tendency to see identity as fluid in the first place, as a sort of philosophy.

It's both of these things. The very concept of identity is + (emphasis on the Ni), it's a concept generally used by Beta NFs (critical theory and sociology are based all around this kind of thinking). The Gamma viewpoint is more "people are what they are, and it's evidenced in their actions" (like the pic I just posted in the Gamma pictures thread).

Difficulty placing someone in one category or another is just the weak that goes along with that. It's arguably also about weak too, in the sense of not having a firm grasp on what is "real" or not. ESEs tend to be a lot more stubborn and don't use such ethereal language.

he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this has to do with seeing it as a "social chameleon" thing and I think that's sort of faulty - imo the patterns we notice are transposed over a fluid reality and a lack of noticing or preferring those discrete patterns...isn't the same thing as being socially adaptable?

I think I agree with you but I'm having difficulty interpreting what you mean.

[Exodus]

@thehotelambush i mean, there have been plenty of instances where i've completely misread situations, like i couldn't get an objective read on what was happening, as it was happening, because i was too emotionally invested in the outcome. my brain wanted to see something so it saw it, but when i revisit these conversations years later, with an open mind and from a detached position, my reads are much clearer.

ok, that's more clear, it suggests that you're more on the emotional side than the objective/logical side.

i'd say i'm a fairly perceptive person but i've purposefully overlooked inconsistencies in others' behavior to avoid confronting harsh truths about myself, them, or the status of our relationship, and my self-esteem issues often stop me from vocalizing these insights because i don't have enough confidence in myself, ergo i doubt the veracity of my insights. so, even if i know exactly what's happening, i'll pretend that i don't and go along with their bs to either keep the peace or keep them around. i'm also afraid of inadvertently influencing the outcome of events by speaking up.

tl;dr i feel that how my personality manifests itself is highly dependent on external factors, so i'm wondering what functions most closely correspond with that type of behavior.

The having self-doubt and lack of confidence is strong and weak . Confronting the "harsh reality" means leaving mode and entering mode. IEI is also plausible, especially if your default mode is conflict avoidance.

would you say there's a difference between having a multi-faceted personality and no identity, period?

I don't know what it means to have "no identity." If someone has, say, "no personality" that would be more like weak .

[ashlesha]

It's both of these things. The very concept of identity is + (emphasis on the Ni), it's a concept generally used by Beta NFs (critical theory and sociology are based all around this kind of thinking).

I can see this.

The Gamma viewpoint is more "people are what they are, and it's evidenced in their actions" (like the pic I just posted in the Gamma pictures thread).

You seem to be positioning this viewpoint in opposition to the way beta approaches identity, in which case seeing people as discrete and unchangeable objects would be an attribute of Fi/Te. Which does make sense - determining closeness/distance with an object requires that object to stay fairly constant. But what role does Ni play in the gamma approach?

I'm frustrated because I don't see the two viewpoints ('identity is fluid'/'people are what they are') to be in direct contradiction. I feel like there would be some kind of insight or closure in better being able to see a tangible reconciliation between the two, but what comes to mind at the moment is: "identity is fluid" /= "people change" /= "you can't predict what anyone will do."

Edit: I think more essentially it might come down to identity not being so closely linked with outward behavior, but I'd need to think about it more.

Difficulty placing someone in one category or another is just the weak that goes along with that. It's arguably also about weak too, in the sense of not having a firm grasp on what is "real" or not. ESEs tend to be a lot more stubborn and don't use such ethereal language.

I strongly object to the idea that categorizing someone has anything to do with reality. For example, seeing a stranger laughing on the street and determining that they must be forever&always a happy human being may be Se related (?) but it is a falsehood. This is overly simplistic, but it ties into that last bit I said about discrete patterns versus fluid reality...this person has probably spent a lot of time laughing in their life, and a lot of times crying in their life, and you could probably pick out a pattern of, say, they've laughed 10% more often than they've cried, but that means very little wrt an actual lived experience (ie. reality).

[Exodus]

You seem to be positioning this viewpoint in opposition to the way beta approaches identity, in which case seeing people as discrete and unchangeable objects would be an attribute of Fi/Te. Which does make sense - determining closeness/distance with an object requires that object to stay fairly constant. But what role does Ni play in the gamma approach?

Arguably the viewpoint I described is , though is an implicit part of it, in the process of accumulating facts about the person. I'd have to think more about how comes into it exactly. The Ni/Se quadras tend to have a stronger opinion on "who the person really is" in terms of being good or bad etc.

I'm frustrated because I don't see the two viewpoints ('identity is fluid'/'people are what they are') to be in direct contradiction. I feel like there would be some kind of insight or closure in better being able to see a tangible reconciliation between the two, but what comes to mind at the moment is: "identity is fluid" /= "people change" /= "you can't predict what anyone will do."

Edit: I think more essentially it might come down to identity not being so closely linked with outward behavior, but I'd need to think about it more.

Well, they are adjacent quadra views so arguably they don't directly conflict. Intertype conflict arises when people try to apply their preferred strategies to the same situation. For this one, a Beta might find a Gamma type to be overly judgmental of a particular behavior, e.g. because somebody is "just joking" or something like that.

I strongly object to the idea that categorizing someone has anything to do with reality. For example, seeing a stranger laughing on the street and determining that they must be forever&always a happy human being may be Se related (?) but it is a falsehood. This is overly simplistic, but it ties into that last bit I said about discrete patterns versus fluid reality...this person has probably spent a lot of time laughing in their life, and a lot of times crying in their life, and you could probably pick out a pattern of, say, they've laughed 10% more often than they've cried, but that means very little wrt an actual lived experience (ie. reality).

Well, that's a silly example of applying a category. To me it is obvious that certain people are inherently more angry than others, or more withdrawn, etc. Certain people you know are going to go off the cuff more easily, so you have to be careful what you say to them. Others are lazy or unreliable so you can't entrust them with crucial tasks. Etc. That all is very real and experienceable to me. Are you saying that you don't see any traits existing like that?

[ashlesha]

Well, that's a silly example of applying a category. To me it is obvious that certain people are inherently more angry than others, or more withdrawn, etc. Certain people you know are going to go off the cuff more easily, so you have to be careful what you say to them. Others are lazy or unreliable so you can't entrust them with crucial tasks. Etc. That all is very real and experienceable to me. Are you saying that you don't see any traits existing like that?

No, i see those things too. I'm just thinking of the inner awareness of being an angry person as opposed to noticing that another person is inherently angry. The latter is fine to notice and take action on, but the former is a lot more real for Mr. Angry himself.

Also, you can have an awareness that the inner life of another person is complicated and fluid and still pragmatically decide to take action on it based on the way they're likely to behave.

Anyway, I'm not trying to debate so much as using you as a sounding board to figure out my own thoughts on this. Sorry if i'm irritating.

[Exodus]

Anyway, I'm not trying to debate so much as using you as a sounding board to figure out my own thoughts on this. Sorry if i'm irritating.

Nah, no problem

[Neokortex]

Well, what I can add as to contribute, that I've known some So/Sx people having problems with this. That's Enneagram. I've the slightest idea how it translates to Socionics but in MBTi, if the ability to get in sync with groups is connected to Fe, then I'd say this is an issue of being too much of chameleon but not necessarily an empath. Like I have accomodating qualities as an INFP but I can always keep my sense of self no matter what. And this is even stronger as being Sx/Sp as I'm not even aware of where I stand with a group. I'm less conforming. Although I've seen INFPs pretty much being the lukewarm average Joe, going after the folk, not as much rebellious. So in a sense, I think Fe can be divided into at least 2 subfunctions (yeah, to sound sciency) a) interpersonal empathy b) group 'empathy' OR taking the conformity to groups as a way to survive... and if you have identity problems, that means you overdo group conformity. So/Sx can catch themselves trying to appeal to everyone then later harshly going against the idea of them being appealers. Their facade is that they're rebellious, that they do want to make a difference (so as to hide the true intent of appealing), whereas the people who have difficulties using this strategy may provide a facade that they were social (and not rebellious and frustrated all throughout). Hence people with weak identities gravitate toward people with strong identities.

[Pookie]

Theyre probably right. You are what you do. Other people see the qualities of yourself you utilize the most, and if theyre all agreeing...

[Pallas]

@thehotelambush IAmA EIE-, AMA! Also goldenbane and GuavaDrunk type EIE. Anyways, here are some things about EIE for you so you can stop spreading these lies and slander misconceptions:

- EIEs often seem a bit disturbing
- Probably because EIEs are disturbing
- EIEs can read minds
- EIEs can control minds
- EIEs can see the future
- EIEs believe in "ghosts and shit"
- because there ARE "ghosts and shit"!
- Unhealthy EIEs act like James Bond villains
- Healthy EIEs act also like James Bond villains
- EIEs just are James Bond villains
- Gulenko has a fetish for their minds and wants to get in there and torture them
- Since they're Victims, they probably generally like that
- EIEs see life as a struggle (cue unwanted comparisons)
- EIEs are the only people who find LSIs interesting, but their interest in LSIs makes up for everyone else's lack of interest in them since they can read minds and are intensely passionate
- EIEs dress like people from the 18th century or rock stars
- Tons of poets and dramatists are EIEs
- EIEs highly intelligent and also attractive when they're not disturbing (or are both attractive and disturbing)
- Some of your friends or family could be EIEs
- You wouldn't even know because we're chamelleons
- How does that make you feel?

(I'll interview people from all the other types and write cool descriptions for them too, even the more unpopular types, if anyone wants to give me stuff.)

[Pallas]

@circles are neat People are deep and involve lots of paradoxes and contradictions in general. I wouldn't type myself based on just that. This is why I often have difficulty trying to describe myself or others even if I know them well, because people are complex and it's utterly dehumanizing to reduce them to, say, five adjectives.

[golden]

I don't know that I agree on seeing as having to do with fluid identity. I'd say that what I notice more is how little I actually change, and how little other people change. It surprises me. I'd think identity could be more fluid than it is, but human beings are remarkably repetitive and conservative.

What would be more accurate for me, if I had to point to a way in which I was fluid in identity, is that I can play a wide variety of roles fairly convincingly, and I will do so according to the exigencies of my situation. But I still feel myself to be the same, more or less, behind these masks.

What I despair of more is being "not seen" or wrongly understood because of the role playing.

[Pallas]

@goldenbane I used to have to do that very, very intensely just to survive. Now I have to do that somewhat but not so badly. It's amazing how little others seem to pick up of the fakeness in general. EIE isn't called Hamlet (who pretended to be insane) for nothing. It's pretty lonely to interact with nearly everyone but have no one interact with you for sure.

[wasp]

Theyre probably right. You are what you do. Other people see the qualities of yourself you utilize the most, and if theyre all agreeing...

i think your core traits become irrelevant when the person or people you interact with already have an idea in their head of what to expect from you, because then every action you take will be filtered through their narrow perception of your personality; acknowledging what confirms their biases and discarding what doesn't. which makes this even more confusing for me because the feedback i get varies wildly from group to group. i tend to size people up based on consistent patterns in behaviour, rather than static character traits, so when i'm told "you're *blank*" it feels definitive and restricting. like i can't take it seriously, even less so when i'm met with a bundle of contradictions. but i dunno..

@goldenbane i think ikwym. my core remains the same but its manifestation is malleable. kinda like dis:

[Pookie]

i think your core traits become irrelevant when the person or people you interact with already have an idea in their head of what to expect from you, because then every action you take will be filtered through their narrow perception of your personality; acknowledging what confirms their biases and discarding what doesn't. which makes this even more confusing for me because the feedback i get varies wildly from group to group. i tend to size people up based on consistent patterns in behaviour, rather than static character traits, so when i'm told "you're *blank*" it feels definitive and restricting. like i can't take it seriously, even less so when i'm met with a bundle of contradictions. but i dunno..

@goldenbane i think ikwym. my core remains the same but its manifestation is malleable. kinda like dis:

Define core traits.

[wasp]

Define core traits.

the personal qualities you utilize most frequently.

[yeves]

i think your core traits become irrelevant when the person or people you interact with already have an idea in their head of what to expect from you, because then every action you take will be filtered through their narrow perception of your personality; acknowledging what confirms their biases and discarding what doesn't. which makes this even more confusing for me because the feedback i get varies wildly from group to group. i tend to size people up based on consistent patterns in behaviour, rather than static character traits, so when i'm told "you're *blank*" it feels definitive and restricting. like i can't take it seriously, even less so when i'm met with a bundle of contradictions. but i dunno..

@goldenbane i think ikwym. my core remains the same but its manifestation is malleable. kinda like dis:

does this have anything to do with Fi v Fe differences? open question to anyone willing to answer

[Pookie]

the personal qualities you utilize most frequently.

Most people arent like that. The behaviors you show around others is exactly how they characterize you. If you started acting like an asshole tomorrow, people would notice it and maybe comment that your behavior is asshole-ish. They wouldnt discard it via cognitive dissonance. Your past with them is a big pool of interactions, so that will carry weight. But those preconcieved biases you mention are derived from the interactions youve had with them, or their own prejudices. Its atypical that someones viewpoint of you is not due to what youve done. Usually that happens when they dont know you at all, and someone else has checkered your history.

[wasp]

Most people arent like that. The behaviors you show around others is exactly how they characterize you. If you started acting like an asshole tomorrow, people would notice it and maybe comment that your behavior is asshole-ish. They wouldnt discard it via cognitive dissonance. Your past with them is a big pool of interactions, so that will carry weight. But those preconcieved biases you mention are derived from the interactions youve had with them, or their own prejudices. Its atypical that someones viewpoint of you is not due to what youve done. Usually that happens when they dont know you at all, and someone else has checkered your history.

i was speaking generally there, but yeah. i agree that people rely primarily on past experiences to judge others. the past is very telling, but it isn't the be-all, end-all.

it's important to consider the source before believing the content. how one acts around their parent, sibling, friend, competitor, stranger, etc, it varies, and how one is perceived / received by said folks is just as dependent on the other person as it is the individual themself. in that sense, social interactions are something like chemical reactions.

sorry to cut the discussion short but i think this is getting a little off topic. i'm just curious if chameleon-like behavior is type/function related.

[Pookie]

i was speaking generally there, but yeah. i agree that people rely primarily on past experiences to judge others. the past is very telling, but it isn't the be-all, end-all.

it's important to consider the source before believing the content. how one acts around their parent, sibling, friend, competitor, stranger, etc, it varies, and how one is perceived / received by said folks is just as dependent on the other person as it is the individual themself. in that sense, social interactions are something like chemical reactions.

sorry to cut the discussion short but i think this is getting a little off topic. i'm just curious if chameleon-like behavior is type/function related.

I dont know if it is, but Si and Fe seem the most suitable for developing skill in that behavior.

[Pallas]

@Pookie and , not

[Pole]

my apologies in advance for the lengthy post. i'll bold the questions for those of you who don't care about context.

is it type related? if not, is the method one employs to create a fluid identity (whether it's intentional or not) indicative of type?

most of what i know to be true about myself, i've learned through relentless observation and comparison (and introspection, i guess?). by contrasting my behavior with others, noticing similarities and differences and realizing that the negative similarities often evoke the strongest reactions in me, listening to their opinions of me and comparing it to previous opinions to see what's true, what isn't, and what they only believe to be true because they don't know me well enough to know that it isn't.

i've had many different words assigned to me: aggressive, passive, passive-aggressive, outgoing, reserved, rude, polite, real, fake, obnoxious, unobtrusive, both selfless and selfish beyond reason, too pessimistic, too optimistic/idealistic, open, secretive, emotional, distant, controversial, peaceful, predictable, inconsistent, weak, tough, cowardly, brave, dependent, independent, goofy, serious, insecure, arrogant, and... well, you get the gist. it's funny, though, because people tend to agree on their assessments of me, despite all the stark contrasts, and my writing style is very easy to identify. another funny pattern i've noticed is that when a trait or type is assigned to me, my brain immediately deems it unappealing. just like that, it's all it takes. i think it's clear that the root of it is deep-rooted insecurity and self-hatred, but alas...

so, i've been reading about dichotomies (reinin, as well as I/E/S/N/T/F/J/P) and and i know there's a lot of controversy surrounding the legitimacy of reinin's theory, in particular, but let's say, for argument's sake, that it holds water. how is it that i can tell which i relate to more, when i catch myself relying on both an equal amount, depending on which method is more advantageous to me at the time? i can't even get a handle on S/N because i'm not even remotely aware of my surroundings, but i also feel that i miss a lot of hidden connections, like i'll reread a conversation years after it's happened and think to myself, "how the heck didn't i catch that?"

When I meet people like this I think they are IEE. Or, they have a Cluster B personality disorder.

[wasp]

When I meet people like this I think they are IEE. Or, they have a Cluster B personality disorder.

haha, implying you think IEEs act like they have personality disorders?

[Pookie]

@Pookie and , not

Yeah, completely disagree. Chameleon people are rarely ever Ni types. Both the dynamic involved elements are the most suitable for getting a feel for others. If it was used in conceptual/consequence/abstract realm of application, Ni would trump Si, but directly dealing with other people and getting that feel, Si + Fe trumps all as both ego element's either develop around understanding the impact actions and words have on people or inferring the affect after the fact.

Its kinda why an IEI can immediately realize the negative effect they might have had on the room, but they cant catch it beforehand. While an SLI can knowingly pull you aside and tell you why that just happened in that setting, and all the while totally miss it if they did have a negative affect on their surroundings.

[Exodus]

Yeah, completely disagree. Chameleon people are rarely ever Ni types. Both the dynamic involved elements are the most suitable for getting a feel for others. If it was used in conceptual/consequence/abstract realm of application, Ni would trump Si, but directly dealing with other people and getting that feel, Si + Fe trumps all as both ego element's either develop around understanding the impact actions and words have on people or inferring the affect after the fact.

Its kinda why an IEI can immediately realize the negative effect they might have had on the room, but they cant catch it beforehand. While an SLI can knowingly pull you aside and tell you why that just happened in that setting, and all the while totally miss it if they did have a negative affect on their surroundings.

You bring up some interesting points, but as you @circles are neat originally stated it:

it's important to consider the source before believing the content. how one acts around their parent, sibling, friend, competitor, stranger, etc, it varies, and how one is perceived / received by said folks is just as dependent on the other person as it is the individual themself. in that sense, social interactions are something like chemical reactions.

This has almost nothing to do with Si or Ni. It is mostly Fe -- EIE is the canonical "chameleon" type, but as described it here it applies nearly equally to ESEs. That being said, yes, IEIs do sometimes say things where they seem to not be aware of what the reaction will be (Von Trier's comments about Nazis are a perfect example of this). But SEIs do the same thing -- I would simply chalk that up to creative rather than lead Fe.

The difference between ESEs and EIEs is that EIEs have more of an edge in the creativity area (Demonstrative Ne). There is also arguably a certain usefulness of this kind of fluidity in maneuvering tactically and getting what you want (Se). So really this is all in the domain of extroverted elements. I'm not sure I quite agree with your description of SLIs. Si is merely responsible for recognizing when something is annoying or disruptive, it has nothing to do with modifying one's behavior dynamically when dealing with different people. The typical SLI approach is simply to act in the same benign and unobtrusive way in all settings. If they pull you aside and criticize you it may have to do with Fi more than anything.

[wasp]

Yeah, completely disagree. Chameleon people are rarely ever Ni types. Both the dynamic involved elements are the most suitable for getting a feel for others. If it was used in conceptual/consequence/abstract realm of application, Ni would trump Si, but directly dealing with other people and getting that feel, Si + Fe trumps all as both ego element's either develop around understanding the impact actions and words have on people or inferring the affect after the fact.

Its kinda why an IEI can immediately realize the negative effect they might have had on the room, but they cant catch it beforehand. While an SLI can knowingly pull you aside and tell you why that just happened in that setting, and all the while totally miss it if they did have a negative affect on their surroundings.

they most definitely are. Ip types are prone to malleable behavior for self-preservation purposes, which would require going with the flow and "melting" into the environment, so to speak, but where Si leads would be a reflection of their immediate environment, Ni leads would be a reflection of society at large (see: upcoming popular trends). for simplicity's sake, the former is more focused on getting along with a specific group, whereas the latter would aim to appeal to a wider audience, to the masses.

that being said, Ni creative types are the chameleons of the socionics world, with EIEs trumping LIEs in this area. there's a driving force behind this facade, it's orienteered toward accomplishing a large scale goal; a means to an end.

@thehotelambush that quote was me, haha.

[Exodus]

@thehotelambush that quote was me, haha.

whoops, got confused.