Just to be sure you're both in the same page, I think she is talking about these two profiles:Originally Posted by Myst
ESI uncovered profile
ESI normal profile
Just to be sure you're both in the same page, I think she is talking about these two profiles:
ESI uncovered profile
ESI normal profile
Yeah I don't understand all the hate for the type either. Truly, I feel like a ESI is a gift from the gods as they are so passionate, and smoulder away like a sacred fire. I find them fascinating to unravel.
Though a word of warning; anyone who seeks out the nectar better be prepared for marriage vows, and an instant family
Same page, yeah. I don't see those as any worse than the other profiles.
I'm thinking maybe it felt subjectively harsher to you because it hit you in the right spots (you being possibly ESI - not trying to retype you if you are not open to discussing the idea). I had that with reading my type profiles originally until hmm, I accepted the negatives (where applicable - I'm not just a type stereotype) in myself.
Btw it's not true that there are only those two positives in that profile, I see these as positive too for example:
- ISFjs notice people who do not obey ethical norms.
- ISFjs have a very well developed sense of duty.
- Where the reviewing of any new project is concerned ISFjs are critical, actively seeking out major defects. They try to analyse the situation logically, objectively and with emotions detachment.
- Their quick wit enables them to reply effectively to people with sharp tongues.
- They know how to find the most defenceless place for their strike (assuming it's for the right cause, anyway)
the esi uncovered profile seems almost sweet, i can't see any hatred in that
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
ESI can be very narrow-minded in how they relate to someone. There is no openness to the other person, just their own "truth" paired with the urging character of creative Se.
It's like they monopolize the relationship and if you deviate from that in any way, they will look perplexed and maybe blame you for that.
They don't notice this in themselves because the base function feels so natural.
The functions should be used for some task, not as a general way to relate to someone, for that you have to be present as a whole human being, and that goes far beyond Socionics.
But, it depends on the person, as usual. In developed, mature ESIs you don't see this negative trait so much. This goes for all types btw. Neurotic persons tend to be caught up in the ego functions as if it was the whole person. It's like they become identified with their type.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
They try to understand other people. But it's hard for them.
They may be offended where you don't even expect, then calm, think and forgive you.
It's also harder for them to understand themselves, own motives and (linked with it) how they are perceived by others, so they may be sincerely suprised by rather expected consequences.
The ESI seems to be a protector and conservator of values and relationships in the group.
The "problem" is that on a more personal level it is not enough to relate to the other with just Fi. Because at the end of the day Fi is just a function. But some ESIs stay in "Fi mode" all the time. What they actually are doing is shutting themselves for the other person. What then might be needed is some kind of shock, maybe even illness, that shocks the person out of base function mode so he becomes truly present. This can have a positive effect on relationships.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
They care about emotional comfort. While "values and relationships" are just a means for this, one of them.
I thought so too, when I read it recently.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
That I rather see with the NTs. FiSe may try to be logical this way but at the end of the day decides by standards of the heart. ESI to me neither is evoking either of these violent (and indeed problematic) archetypes but more of a principled, evaluating, and strong conscientious figure with a sense of comfort. ESI is the moral backbone of society and likely the one strictly condemning the kink master and police officer for their harmful conduct. I'm always talking about mom who has this type, she's neither realistic nor just but entirely partial, driven by "should". Not very realistic about what you can effectually do,is down the drain. Creative - yes, her sense of aesthetics is quite unsurpassed. She can tell which clothes look good and fit on someone without the person present, just from memory. Very refined furniture selection/matching and painting skills.
Nice. It so happens I need new furniture.That I rather see with the NTs. FiSe may try to be logical this way but at the end of the day decides by standards of the heart. ESI to me neither is evoking either of these violent (and indeed problematic) archetypes but more of a principled, evaluating, and strong conscientious figure with a sense of comfort. ESI is the moral backbone of society and likely the one strictly condemning the kink master and police officer for their harmful conduct. I'm always talking about mom who has this type, she's neither realistic nor just but entirely partial, driven by "should". Not very realistic about what you can effectually do,
.That I rather see with the NTs. FiSe may try to be logical this way but at the end of the day decides by standards of the heart. ESI to me neither is evoking either of these violent (and indeed problematic) archetypes but more of a principled, evaluating, and strong conscientious figure with a sense of comfort. ESI is the moral backbone of society and likely the one strictly condemning the kink master and police officer for their harmful conduct. I'm always talking about mom who has this type, she's neither realistic nor just but entirely partial, driven by "should". Not very realistic about what you can effectually do,
I don't think that justice implies a logical framework. I would say there is the local, personal sense of justice. Unfairness, indignation, begin as emotional reactions. Then there is justice in a more global, abstract sense, that is based much more on impartiality, law, order, and political and social harmony. I would think an ESI would be good at judging the immediate fairness and focus on resolving them, but like most people, also trust and care about global justice, as long as it is fair and honest. I think tribalistic cultures, or subcultures, are less apt to hand justice over the government.
Those reactions areand belong to the sense of justice you mentioned afterwards. ESI works with case-by-case judgement that is not global, it ties into Gamma's individualism. It may not be immediate since Gamma still has a focus on
. Only with the creative element that works for ESI. The tribalistic idea belongs to Alpha which is much less decentralized, Beta has justice in the hands of the government.
I agree with what @Sol said earlier about how they jump to surface issues a lot and can be particularly quick to make judgments and criticize. They then don't change these judgments easily and can be very tunnel-visioned in how they interact with the world and other people. One moment they can look sweet and caring and the next moment they can turn around and be bitching at you or pulling up something that they had been hiding to themselves beneath the surface emotionally yet gave no outer indications of, making assumptions that other people should know better on how to deal with them and their specific needs. They can seem like they can't see out of their tiny bubble to the big picture; the simple way to alleviate this particular problem imo is for them to self-supplement Te--not difficult nowadays with plenty of information and ways to self-educate online and in many different forms of media etc.
Honestly I can't remember a single instance of being criticized on my morals or relations with others by an ESI, as their supervisee. If they are critical towards me it's usually to do with my low level Ni, or if I feel supervision it's from me feeling anxious about inadvertently hurting an emotional/sensitive person like them. I've had my fair share of negative ESI/supervision experiences but the person who I've long considered to be my "real mom", my grandmother, is an ESI, and she basically raised me and my experience with her was overwhelmingly positive. She might nag a bit in a smothering way from time to time but even that's rare and non-imposing. I think healthy ESIs have a lot of advantages and strong points which socionics literature never really gets into anyway, while also seeing where the dirt on them comes from.
lol you mean like this
pm.jpg
this was (I think) in response to a post I made about us living in the best of all possible worlds, which would also (if you take it as approval of anything and everything bad that has ever happened) implicate me as every brand of racist, sexist, homophobe, communist, fascist, black militant, radical terrorist, imperialist oppressor, rapist, murderer, basically advocate of all sin in general and generally terrible person. essentially anti Ne in a nutshell. this was by the way totally out of nowhere with no dialogue precipitating it
I think it just goes to them thinking that if we live in the best of all possible worlds it eliminates the need for "the punisher" Fi/Se or whatever, but it fails to realize that people still have their role to play despite the fact that things are "perfect", because they're not really perfect so much as the consequence of the world having an element of irreducible evil as a condition of being, which is a consequence of freedom; this doesn't make ESI's role futile it just means their ultimate goal is sisyphean (as is everyones) but no less meaningful or important, because you can act so as to make things better, "best of all possible worlds" is retrospective not a determinism going forward that would tie someone's hands
It's also E-9 related, which are not rare among base Fi types.
> They can seem like they can't see out of their tiny bubble to the big picture
By this way they may too underestimate someone cause having bad emotions to him/her. Or too idealize the ones who inspired good emotions in them, being blind to issues. Base Fi types are the most conformistic with personal sympathy, and the most negatively prejudged in case of antipathy. S types have this more, than N - which better understand the essence.
Also as base F types - they are quite emotional ones. But for base Fi it's not so clear on the surface where they may look even cold and restrained (E-9 especially), making harder to see F type in them. When base Fi supress own emotions (bad ones generally), they may shift the attention to T region and such talk closer to boring T types style. The high emotionality strongly affects their perception, sometimes making them to think and behave unreasonably preconceived to the suprising degree as they may be highly intelligent (high IQ, success in hard intellectual tasks). So when base F says stupid things - this may be due to emotional situation, but not because generally bad intellect.
> Honestly I can't remember a single instance of being criticized on my morals or relations with others by an ESI, as their supervisee.
I had it.It's mostly annoying and boring in offline even for me their semi-dual. They have emotions, but not much to argue besides banal things. While their emotions are not seen to affect your thoughts. You may understand they were right later, - as F types they are experts there, but the offline moral talking looks just funny.
> I think healthy ESIs have a lot of advantages and strong points
Unlike enneagram, socionics has no healthy state of types conception. Jung described own types as personal disorders and the more a type is expressed - the worse. Also there are non-types factors which make the difference between people of the same type.
Good "socionics literature" should describe types in good and bad sides equally. It's nice to have strong functions better than average, but nothing good to have weak which are below average.
That uncovered profile, and the alpha NT bias in socionics, might be to blame for the bad reputation that ESI has online. On this forum in particular, discojoe might be to blame because he self-typed ESI for a while, and he's quite the character (I think that he really is ESI btw).
This thread contains some valuable data regarding the real nature of ESI's. Despite being my duals, I do not hold them in very high regard. They can be very critical and mean, can hurt people back when they feel they've been "wronged" (even if it was just their perception, or it was deserved), they can be hypocritical, preaching one thing and doing the other. They can stay for too long in partnerships that make them unhappy, just because they are afraid of being alone or can't find something better. They are hedonistic. They will make a mental framework of your personality, and if you act even slightly out of character with this idea they have of you, they will think you have snapped. Their branch of "morality" is highly subjetive, convenient, and dubious. Actually, I think prefer SEE's and EII's to ESIs (or at least I've got less to criticize about them). Most of this I've written applies to ESI-Fi; ESI-Se's are generally cool.
Stratievskaya bashes LIE's big time in some of her writings (which seem very biased btw; it wouldn't surprise me if she mistyped some other type such as ESE-Si as LIE), so perhaps the feeling is mutual.
May I add to the "bad words list": "capitalist" and "liberal"?
thank you
> I think it just goes to them thinking that if we live in the best of all possible worlds it eliminates the need for "the punisher" Fi/Se or whatever
meanwhile ooo is IEI. her reasons I'm sure were different
Also in case we'd lived "in the best of all possible worlds" that would not mean "no problems". ESI are not specific "punishers". All types are "punishers" in their strong and valued regions where they see how and want to improve the world and keep the good.
P.S.
communists were the main opposition to fascists, so something one should be there
you can be ESI
I think it is hasher for people of that type to read their own "uncovered" article. Some are worse then other but still, it is one persons viewpoint.
You can Google information, like the date of Princess Diana's death or who shot Abe Lincoln - which is, I'll admit a conveniency, but you aeren't gaining expertise through googling.
I find Fi doms are generally attracted to the expertise of Te ego types, like those who know how to do everything related to their line of work or expertise in some more theoretical field. I find Fi ego types usually don't accumulate facts about a topic as quickly as Te ego types, nor do they manipulate those facts to see a general field more clearly either. Fi egos can retain facts of course, just that factual information is less the realm they live in, so they enjoy a person who can make up for their weakness in that area.
ESIs respect knowledge but are generally more narrow in their centers of interest compared to EIIs who are more general knowledge seekers due to their curiosity (intuitives). EIIs are more omnivorous when it comes to knowledge.
At least that's my impression.
this was my point, it naturally puts you on both sides simultaneously which is why its a silly inference
"It's also E-9 related, which are not rare among base Fi types."
I agree it's probably in part to do with that. I also agree that there are a lot of E-9 Fi bases from what I've seen, and I also think the "tiny bubble" effect around themselves is related to this too.
"Good "socionics literature" should describe types in good and bad sides equally."
This is what I meant. Perhaps with ESI cognition it can be harder to live a healthy constructive life but idk about that, I have met plenty of ESIs that seem perfectly fine to me, it's just that people have a bad reaction to their bitchiness that a lot of them have and that's reflected in how people react towards them in literature and in socionics communities without very many of their good and bad points being illustrated in an equal manner. Not only is it unfair but it's anti-informative and doesn't paint a very thorough picture. That's what I meant.
I agree with the rest of your thoughts too. Also btw ESI moralizing has a style that probably affects you less since they aren't your dual. I think EIIs tend to use more N type logic when they discuss morals so it probably gets to you more--it's not that Fi bases are non-logical or ineffectual when they do this although they can be emotional and have outbursts as you said.
@Sol
I find ESI in moral opinions as too assertive, banal and not always appropriate. It's the 1st impression from what they do. They may look rude and even shallowminded for me, really. After time their words may look as more reasonable.
EII are softer and better play with words, so they penetrate you deeper. Also they do it where it really worth to influence you. In ideal case. Probably I may tune to ESI style, mb will try if will have close friendship sometimes with this type. I had significant communications with ESI, but not personally close. I'd wish to taste them better. Also to play limited victim-role with passionate aggressor-woman can be funny, while ESI may pretend as soft-infantile for a while - in sexual sense and wider.
> I think EIIs tend to use more N type logic when they discuss morals so it probably gets to you more--it's not that Fi bases are non-logical or ineffectual when they do this although they can be emotional and have outbursts as you said.
It's mostly from F, as emotions oppose to logics. So the more emotions - the lesser logics and reason there. It's the theory and practice of communication with ESI, EII, EIE. In emotional situations and themes they may say especially stupid things, almost like kids. If I did not know those women better, I'd think them just stupid, but I know they are not.
I notice today western propaganda forces to equal communism and fascism. This works as most people know a few and think by irrational mass media images. Hence, I assumed you followed talking heads in TV-box too. Also I have found the case deserving to point on the principle difference between those ideologies.
******'s fascism claims to be as collectivistic ideology, but it's surface layer of it. The core of fascism - the "best" minority have more rules to live and develop than majority. This minority is a race, or nation, or "uber" men, or richy ones, - it's always the minority among majority of inferior slaves. It's anti-collectivistic ideology, it's aristocratic ideology which has nothing with socialism or humanism, except surface frame for masses. While the core of communism is to give the most equal chances to develop to anyone so he was able to serve to all, but not to "special minority".
USSR was the 1st country to allow 8 working hours per day, as it allowed people to develop in the rest time - physically, culturaly, morally. The 1st with free uni education - so anyone could to study and then to work according to own wishes and abbilities, but not to money limitations. While western propaganda says mostly about gulag, meanwhile ignoring the conditions of recent civil war, ww2, hard international relations, the need of fast industrialization. Such strong distortions allow to compare in minds communism and ******'s fascism, which are opposite as ideologies and what was done by them.
****** was rised to protect capitalism in West. As the success of USSR was dangerous for it. They always were the opposition and this leaded to the war. Not USSR, the capitalistic Europe have surrendered to ****** almost without fight and then produced weapons and sent people to fight against USSR. Then USA have come and established the control over Europe and integrated many of fascists inside, have rised own ones, - as they were ideologically close (blacks were descriminated until 60s! and still are such by indirect ways; supressing of other nations, including by wars, - same nazism, just with more pleasant propaganda).
yeah totally, the US has a fascist streak, our primary public school system was initially set up as a fascist system, before fascism became a dirty word because of ******, but the spirit in some sense is alive and well. I like to think I perceive clearly the difference between authoritarianism on the left v the right, although of course it has never been so near as it has in Europe, etc
Communism killed more people than fascism. That's a fact, regardless of "free" education/healthcare (technically no such thing).
Noone has to chose between the two anyways, and anyone who says you do is retarded. ****** despised liberalism just as much as he did marxism, so there are other political ideologies out there than communism and fascism, which despite their differences, are not opposite to each other as they also have alot in common. Anyone who creates a false alternative between fascism and communism to win people over to one or the other loses my respect, as noone has to chose between the two.
The United States and western ideology is rooted in classical liberalism, not fascism, anyone who suggests that western society even so much as resembles nazi Germany is a complete retard, or just a propagandist, nazi Germany, when you study the roots of its worldview is so different from what we call the west that it is fairer not to speak of different worlds, but of different universes. To quote Louis Pauwels, the west has more in common with an Amazonian tribe than with nazi Germany (not the exact quote but you get the point).
Classical liberalism, fascism, and marxism are three very different ideologies, and only the adherents of the latter seem to confuse the first two, not realizing the first two probably have less in common with one another than they (marxists) do with fascism.
The main difference between authoritarianism on the "left" vs authoritarianism on the "right", was that the former killed alot more people than the latter. I'd be willing to bet the so called "free education" of the USSR and Maoist China was not education at all, if it was people would have been more critical of the system they were being brought up in, as the role of education is to teach critical thinking skills. It wasn't free either, nothing is, just that someone else was paying for it.
Last edited by WVBRY; 03-16-2018 at 03:36 PM.
yeah the role of education gets subverted super easily in totalitarian systems
Hi?
best of possible worlds? you mean the post were you call muslim people savages? I was acting on that one
ps, I'm seriously sorry for having overaccted on that but it's a series of things really, it's since Xmas that I found some of your posts slightly offensive for some people of some groups, or just for some people on here in particular. I sincerely don't want to be friend with such things... this takes nothing away from the fact that you're better than those posts and I have nothing against you personally, I'm sorry for my bad behaviour... but yeah, that's it.
Btw I am not judging anyone for their political views, regardless of what they may be, I am just pointing out that the whole "if you're not on the side of communism, you are enabling the far-right" is far-left propaganda, I don't respect someone who chooses based upon that, choose with what you think is right. I am not trying to tell people what to think, just pointing out that there is alot of propagnada in the recent posts, some by me but not exclusively.
I was trying to say three things. 1)If you choose the far-left as your political ideology, then do it because you agree with their tenets not as a reaction to the far-right. 2)Also that there are other ideologies than communism and fascism, like classcial liberalism, social liberalism, social-democracy, anarchism, conservatism (which varies from place to place), libertarianism...etc. 3) I think opposing the far right to the far left is an outdated paradigm, even though it continues to dominate the political debate. We're no longer in WW2 Europe.
I hope I am being a bit more neutral this time in my presentation of my pov as I regret the more dogmatic tone of my last post.
Anyways, this has gone a bit off topic, lol.
Who are you addressing, lol?
PS I have no idea how to address the OP.
Last edited by WVBRY; 03-16-2018 at 05:51 PM.
@Avebury I was replying to Bertrand that posted a screenshot of my pvt message (see above) and then analyzed my behavior in the light of what he thinks.
Idk how this turned into fascists vs communists but in both of those groups there's racism anyway. Anyway you can say that communists killed more than fascists-nazis but that's a geographical factor mainly because Russia and China have always had 100 times more citizens than Germany, Poland and Italy, aha
This http://www.socionics.com/articles/gammasf.html is very interesting.
It's MBTI meme so it's about ESI.
9e89b0edf5ab0ac6fb256f5f0ad01fa9.jpg
Huh I don't see ESI hate. I think ESE is probably the type most hated on message boards?
As an IEI I feel like people either see my good qualities too much- or focus too much on my shadow. There was finally a LSI woman I liked a lot that seemed to understand my strengths and weaknesses very well and objectively after everybody else saw me as the second coming of the anti-christ, or viewed me too much as an innocent mama's boy gary stu. It was refreshing. <3
I'm under the impression that while some of the literature on socionics is slightly biased towards alpha NTs, the supposed ESI hate is blown out of proportion. There are various "uncovered" profiles for almost all the types, they all describe the types on a bad day, their worse traits and try to paint it in a humorous way. So I don't see why ESI would be getting a worse reputation than the others.
The article about Gamma SFs is interesting but all it is saying is that they aeren't more moral or ethical than the other types. It is saying to beware of the idea that some types are more "moral" and "ethical" than others. Every type has its role and society as well as its flaws. It is not really saying anything else.
So it is not really anything I have noticed.
IMO, this article is too generalized, it talks about Gamma SF who uses their Se/Fi in a bad way. I knew Gamma SF who could fit that description but they tend to be unhealthy ones. You can find Gamma SF who're not self-serving/inconsiderate and the rest bad traits mentioned there.
Yes, the hate is also present in mbti. More than hate, I think ISFJ are seen as synonym of obtuse, traditionalist and close minded ppl.
Anyway, mbti is full of intertype discrimination btw...T hates F because they are dumb and overly sentimental, Intuitives think Sensors are dumber, stuff as politics, religion or profession determine entirely your type, etc. A lot of cliches and stereotypes basically.
To OP, that can be a biased perception from the author of the page you mentioned, it doesnt occur exclusively to ESIs in socionics descriptions, I was reading Jung the other day and he seems to be describing Si types just from a negative perspective. Basically he says that the perception of the real world of Si types is useless, that we are all powerless, primitive, archaic, with poor logics (even if we have T, it doesnt work), with poor skills of any kind, bad artists etc. His perception of Introverted Elements in general is negative, among them Si and Ti. So I dont think there is something as generalized hatred in socionics, it really depends on the author.
Last edited by Hope; 03-19-2018 at 02:11 PM. Reason: op
Stupid propaganda. Communism killed no one. It's only collective humanistic ideology with the task to allow anyone to do the best he can for the interests of the most. Which is opposite to egocentric ideologies like cannibalistic liberalism/capitalism which is like cancer and criminals.
Formal communists killed mostly the ones who were against the interests of humanity and the most of people (in nation, for example). For example, they killed and supressed fascists and other antihumanistic scum.
Fascism in essence is individualistic ideology close to liberalism (including today capitalism) under the surface cover of national socialism. Try to count how many people were killed by the rule of egocentric capitalists and similar individualistic ideologies. Many more. Who and why were killed? Common people to more rob and exploit them.
Who made war in Syria with mad islamists? - USA's scum. Who arised ******? - USA and Britain. Who organised both World Wars? - USA and partly Britain. Who did many wars in 20 century? Mostly capitalists. Who makes terrible life conditions to other nations by robing them where people die from crimes, sickness and other negative factors, can't to born children because of poverty - capitalists.
What [besides taking part in civil war] USSR did in Afganistan? - built factories, roads, schools. What USA do there? - rise drugs and support the economical backwardness. USSR cared about people. USA just robs for own needs. This is the difference.
Also there are huge falsifications in anti-communistic propaganda. Like idiotic numbers about 100 millions killed in USSR for political reasons. There were 2 hard wars: civil and with ******ists, and this leaded to ~700 death condemnations for politics during 1922-1953 years. Significant part of those political were prisoned nazis and their helpers. And some have died being prisoned due to different reasons. ~2-3 mil in sum. You may count what is that % of USSR population and then compare the % of killed/died during civil wars and inprisoned enemies in other countries like USA and France. You'll find nothing special about communists there.
It's a day of nice derails.
Oh, how ironic, considering the rest of your post is nothing but propaganda.
I can't even read that shit, it's unbearable.
Do you even believe yourself?
It is worthwhile to listen to alternate views of history and politics. You can always judge for yourself whether or not they make sense, but in any case, you get a different perspective which can help you better integrate your own ideas.
Just imagine what the world would be like if our president got his ideas solely from Fox News.
I agree, I guess what I'm trying to say as that everything is propaganda, be it the communist narrative or the American one, in the case of Sol's posts though not only is the narrative propaganda but the facts are wrong. Saying communism killed noone but that people who were killed by communist regimes were killed because they were "traitors to the nation" isn't fact, it's a value judgement.
I would be willing to listen to alternative views of history, different from the ones we learned in school, I'm just not gonna bother discussing with demagogues, though. If the narrative is a matter of interpretation, at least let the facts be correct. For example saying the US and the West are influenced by fascism is plain wrong, in terms of facts, the US is rooted philosophically in John Locke and his contract theory (the state is an invention of man, for man) whereas fascism is rooted in Hegel and the idea that the state is prior to man (dialectic).
Sol's failure to grasp even these basic facts is distrubing to me, and makes me not want to listen to anything else they say.
Hmmm.Just imagine what the world would be like if our president got his ideas solely from Fox News.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
