I want to talk about Ni

[Bertrand]

we're talking about actually pulling the trigger here. alpha prefers more humane solutions like they're very likely to be against capital punishment and they're definitely not the ones to be the executioner even if they do

they really just want bad people to "go away" but not go away, if you know what I mean

alpha making it everyone else's problem is precisely how they try to keep it from coming to that, by leveraging social pressure, keeping it artificial, within the bounds of the group, they don't want it to come to the state of nature although they do kind of inadvertently create a lord of the flies social dynamic sometimes, because of that <-- this is where Dostoevsky would like to stop the madness

alpha will ostracize people socially for sure

[Bertrand]

If you want to talk about brutality here is how I see it:

Beta is the worst, they're basically responsible for the inquisitions, the holocausts, the gulag, etc

not far behind though is Gamma, who will basically employ all the same methods but moderate the political philosophy employing them. so they're not really any better

after that is Delta, which can range from just as brutal as gamma (if Stirlitz is running the show) or to SJW utopia (if Dostoyeski gets his way)

Alpha is nestled within Delta, they're not onboard with Stirlitz Gamma or Beta, they don't want any of that. But they're also not as extreme as Dostoyeski at his most humanitarian. Dostoevsky treats everyone with worth and dignity no matter what and will not employ certain methods even if it means his own destruction. Alpha will therefore draw political lines, especially in the name of self preservation, but they don't approve of beta/gamma methods.

[Hope]

Nah, I don't doubt of your Ni, I just wanted to know your thougths about ILE. As I said you can be LIE Ni.

[Bertrand]

never be afraid to supervise (I know you won't), because I feel like you perceive the little corners I've neglected and cracks in what I'm putting out before I do, so by voicing those thoughts you draw my attention to them and really make me think... which I feel is a good thing and heads off a lot of potential trouble before it can grow into something monstrous and devour me

I just hope there's always someone like unsuccessfull Alphamale to come in and help too

supervisors can help prevent us from unwittingly becoming a pawn of the trickster

[nokomis]

This is the most insightful and refreshing thread I've read on here in months. Thank you

I would like to hear your thoughts on Ni in Se creatives.

[wasp]

maybe it's that i believe toxic words can pack just as much of a punch as a real punch, if not more so, i've known alphas to go above and beyond in making their contempt for a particular person known to the general public. think of where "belonging" ranks on maslow's hierarchy of needs, it's right there above the most basic of needs, so to deprive another person of that "belonging" via forced social isolation based solely on the grounds that you dislike them, to me, reaches new heights of inhumanity, but, even at their worst, it's usually just poking and light trash-talking. if there's one thing alpha has going for them, it's that you usually know where you stand with them. there might be a lot of poking and light trash-talking before they take you to the "executioner's block" but once they've released their pent-up frustration, it's usually buried quickly after, unless they've deemed you worthy of a spot on their blacklist, which is rare. betas are more inclined to "scapegoat" those on their blacklist and it usually results in a longer-lasting "grudge".

so you raise a fair point, it's small-fry compared to what beta/gamma are capable of doing. it's lighter in nature but it still makes me wildly uncomfortable.

i'm curious to hear your thoughts on xLE-ExI supervision/conflict relations. SLE and ILE are easy to distinguish from one another, but ESI and EII are harder to tell apart. how would ESI go about supervising SLE and how would EII go about supervising ILE? how would these two methods of supervision differ from conflict relations? "how can anyone trust them?" (ESI on SLE and EII on ILE) but wouldn't Fi-leads feel similarly about both Fi PoLRs?

my reasons for inquiring are somewhat selfish. i don't find SLE threatening because their methods are direct and brash, so it catches up to them eventually, and i know that they're trapped by the constraints of "reality" as it is. ILE go beyond "reality" and it usually manifests as indirect methods of wreaking havoc (i.e. triangulation techniques) so it rarely, if ever, catches up to them, which means that there's little incentive to change. no repentance.

(disclaimer: these are merely a few manifestations of Fi PoLR at its worst, ILE and SLE have a lot going for them in other areas of human interaction)

@Slugabed (and anyone else who is interested in sharing their input) feel free to weigh in, if the topic is of interest to you.

[Bertrand]

I just want to say, I could be wrong about your type but that reads to me like the most EII analysis ever, which is a good thing... I think you see clearly how alpha is out of control in their own way and they can essentially keep the body alive but destroy the spirit. I think when you hit on SLE v ILE doing this you're hitting on the downstream effects of Fi polr. But I always remind ESI when they point this out that it is cause for pity and compassion, because like you said Fi polr is a bitch and at least for SLE they're constrained by reality itself. In a different but similar sense ILE is also constrained by physical reality though, their Si. I feel like when ILE gets too out of control they get super gross like that one youtube of the SEI ILE couple, and their ability to influence "reality" is mainly limited to self destruction (and this is not so different for LIE, Fi/Si "death")...

I feel like SLE can be "inspired" to do the right thing and that deep down they really desire to be "on track." I think they know they're something of a loose cannon and want to do the right thing, they just have trouble discerning it in a world of shit. ILE I honestly don't know, maybe they just want someone who demonstrates real not "abstract" care for them, because on some level they know that is a manifestation of true love towards them, because on some level they feel unlovely. Perhaps just wanting to truly be around them and take care of them is the true litmus test for goodness in their eyes because they know how hard they make it on some level. I was roomates with ILE and I'm sad to say our relationship kind of fell apart cause I really got tired of being around him, and he knew what that meant. I basically did not show love for him because he was kind of gross in his own way and he gravitated away because he could see I was failing the test of "really caring about him", so he had to find people who did. I don't blame him, we all have to go through that process in our own way. I think this is why SEI is calibrated from my point of view towards "mindless encouragement" because Don has a rigorous "intellectual conscience" but needs care on that level

I'll come back to this but this is off the top of my head

[Stellafera]

I feel like SLE can be "inspired" to do the right thing and that deep down they really desire to be "on track." I think they know they're something of a loose cannon and want to do the right thing, they just have trouble discerning it in a world of shit.

I get the sense with Fe HA types that they want to make other people happy and feel good, but they're too insensitive to do it right. The example that leaps to mind is someone telling a joke that goes too far.

"I didn't mean to hurt you when I said you were a waste of space with no job and no life and on the track to no home, I just wanted to lighten up your mood about it! I didn't think you were going to be offended because you know you're unemployed... oh... uh... well... goddammit why are you so sensitive!"

[Bertrand]

yeah Fe HA is judging their results in terms of the ethics of emotions (Fe), so negative emotional responses as a consequence of misjudging their values (Fi) and then joking on them is painful

Fe HA is definite concern for "being a good person" Fi polr is just having trouble at ascertaining how to go about achieving those results despite wanting them dearly. its rough, but it lends a shade of nobility to their character to be honest

[Stellafera]

Fe HA is definite concern for "being a good person" Fi polr is just having trouble at ascertaining how to go about achieving those results despite wanting them dearly. its rough, but it lends a shade of nobility to their character to be honest

now you're thinking like a true SEI/IEI dual

[Grendel]

maybe it's that i believe toxic words can pack just as much of a punch as a real punch, if not more so, i've known alphas to go above and beyond in making their contempt for a particular person known to the general public. think of where "belonging" ranks on maslow's hierarchy of needs, it's right there above the most basic of needs, so to deprive another person of that "belonging" via forced social isolation based solely on the grounds that you dislike them, to me, reaches new heights of inhumanity, but, even at their worst, it's usually just poking and light trash-talking. if there's one thing alpha has going for them, it's that you usually know where you stand with them. there might be a lot of poking and light trash-talking before they take you to the "executioner's block" but once they've released their pent-up frustration, it's usually buried quickly after, unless they've deemed you worthy of a spot on their blacklist, which is rare. betas are more inclined to "scapegoat" those on their blacklist and it usually results in a longer-lasting "grudge".

so you raise a fair point, it's small-fry compared to what beta/gamma are capable of doing. it's lighter in nature but it still makes me wildly uncomfortable.

i'm curious to hear your thoughts on xLE-ExI supervision/conflict relations. SLE and ILE are easy to distinguish from one another, but ESI and EII are harder to tell apart. how would ESI go about supervising SLE and how would EII go about supervising ILE? how would these two methods of supervision differ from conflict relations? "how can anyone trust them?" (ESI on SLE and EII on ILE) but wouldn't Fi-leads feel similarly about both Fi PoLRs?

my reasons for inquiring are somewhat selfish. i don't find SLE threatening because their methods are direct and brash, so it catches up to them eventually, and i know that they're trapped by the constraints of "reality" as it is. ILE go beyond "reality" and it usually manifests as indirect methods of wreaking havoc (i.e. triangulation techniques) so it rarely, if ever, catches up to them, which means that there's little incentive to change. no repentance.

(disclaimer: these are merely a few manifestations of Fi PoLR at its worst, ILE and SLE have a lot going for them in other areas of human interaction)

@Slugabed (and anyone else who is interested in sharing their input) feel free to weigh in, if the topic is of interest to you.

It's simpler than that. Social approval is a staple to survival. You can be as strong or intelligent as you want, but you'll always have to work at least ten times as hard as the average chump to get half the reward if no one will listen to you. This applies to any society.


Quadral complexes are based around core fears and adaptations to those core fears, so you can bet at least a portion of said hostilities are in response to legitimate ostracization, not always personal projections or paranoia. Frankly I've more often seen Gammas dish out subtler, calculated hatred that's clearly rooted in grudges and designed to hurt you and not your ideas. IME this has often been done on the overtly stated assumption that the target's relative intellectual level disquqlifies him from the bare minimum of human respect regardless of his outward behavior.


If the socially dominant are scapegoating and marginalizing the weak without provocation for ANY reason then massacring their feewings and permanently emasculating them is a merciful fate. Anyone who does that needs to hang from a meathook.

[Bertrand]

I dunno I feel like its projections all around, one mans "objective statements of fact" are "attacks on the core being of other individuals" meanwhile "support for others" can constitute "factual absurdities" which result in dire consequences when used as the basis for action amounting to "attacks on others" just one step removed, etc etc

[Grendel]

I dunno I feel like its projections all around, one mans "objective statements of fact" are "attacks on the core being of other individuals" meanwhile "support for others" can constitute "factual absurdities" which result in dire consequences when used as the basis for action amounting to "attacks on others" just one step removed, etc etc

Nah you just haven't been there or seen it happen. There's a wide gulf between throwing a blunt fact into the field for its own sake, and sharpening it and dipping it in sardonic venom to make it feel like an attack even when it's based on reality. You'll probably know the difference when you see it.


An objective statement can be an insult but not the other way around. You can say "I think your IQ is 80" and be stating a fact if that's correct, but there's no way "lmao eat a bleached cock and die retard mongrel" can ever be a fact, even if the logic that drove a person to make the value judgment behind the insult is solid. Judgments are never facts.



Also I could be mistyping people lol. Stratiyeskava insinuates that it's the Fi quadra that hold the longest grudges and take issue with people rather than actions, with Fe being more utilitarian use of humiliation/control via combustive emotions.

[Bertrand]

if insults cannot be facts then ive never insulted anyone in my life

[Grendel]

if insults cannot be facts then ive never insulted anyone in my life

Maybe you haven't.

[Bertrand]

wishful thinking. sounds like a piece of logic balzac would come up with

edit: this is overly harsh and I apologize. your creative logic is interesting, but its just not how I do my program

your idea sounds like a restatement of Fe PoLR

[End]

It's simpler than that. Social approval is a staple to survival. You can be as strong or intelligent as you want, but you'll always have to work at least ten times as hard as the average chump to get half the reward if no one will listen to you. This applies to any society.


Quadral complexes are based around core fears and adaptations to those core fears, so you can bet at least a portion of said hostilities are in response to legitimate ostracization, not always personal projections or paranoia. Frankly I've more often seen Gammas dish out subtler, calculated hatred that's clearly rooted in grudges and designed to hurt you and not your ideas. IME this has often been done on the overtly stated assumption that the target's relative intellectual level disquqlifies him from the bare minimum of human respect regardless of his outward behavior.


If the socially dominant are scapegoating and marginalizing the weak without provocation for ANY reason then massacring their feewings and permanently emasculating them is a merciful fate. Anyone who does that needs to hang from a meathook.

I will actually agree with you @Alioth on that point. It is very much indeed the fact that our "betters" deserve the guillotine for their sins. This new "noble" class is everything except noble. They are sinners of the highest caliber, true Satanists in all but outright admonition. Fuck em'! The trumpets of the final end are about to sound and I know I'll dance while they tremble ...

[Shytan]

You didn't do EII Ni

[Bertrand]

sorry it just takes time, ive been mostly thinking about Te lately and what 4d Te means

[Tigerfadder]

sorry it just takes time, ive been mostly thinking about Te lately and what 4d Te means

So what does it mean? You still strike me as ESI so comon why you got 4d Te?

[Bertrand]

im just gonna start and see where it takes me because i've tried ordering these thoughts in my head and I can't so Im going to stop trying to make it happen up front and let it rip

All men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.

the deal, as far as I can tell, with Te is that Te (dominance) is a form of meta cognition centered around facts, methods, implications, motives, and returns. the 4th dimension to it is what gives it a capacity to assess itself and grow thus taking on an occasional "meta" quality when one begins to reflect on one's own thinking as better or worse from a Te perspective, which would be stuff like asking oneself if its "useful to think x way" etc.. the whole concept of "overthinking" and being able to actually put a stop to it seems like one manifestation of 4d Te.. sometimes this looks like "head in sand" especially from Te Si egos, but I think its more sophisticated than that (in this way 4d Te is concomitant to repressed Fi, because the "logic of actions" as applied to itself can extinguish reflection of a Fi nature, that may in fact be useful, which would be a consideration that would further take us up or down the helix of "meta cognition"--this is how I envision the complex relationship between Te/Fi)

Te, as far as I can tell, cannot be separated from Fi because Fi provides base facts, informs other facts, and provides motives, it assesses implications and judges methods (from the point of view of feeling, rather than logic, but intuition perceives the two as taken together, and sensation manifests in response to both)

Te needs Fi because Te is in the business of working from the ends backward into some kind of workable idea, course of action, plan, scheme, method, or technique

this is further linked to intuition of time because limited time is the ultimate over riding fact that is as close to a pure value free fact as one can have. its pure perception prior to Te and Fi which both judge, its what gives basic format to the judgements. everything to be judged must be judged in light of something, this something is time, and it forms the basis for a psychological perspective, beneath which there is nothing on the phenomenological level, except perhaps sensation, in its most basic form which happens to be pain

so i want to do something i normally wouldnt do but i feel like its the only way I can really move forward with my point and not create more problems for myself later so i want to posit a little framework of my own that I came up, although of course nothing is totally your own. I'm borrowing the terms from Jung but I think I'm applying them in my own way in order to make my point

I want to order things in terms of 1) conscious 2) semi conscious and 3) unconscious

traditional socionics, according to popular perception, as I see it anyway, says something like, ego functions, take LIE for example, are conscious; and the super id i.e.: the role and suggestive are unconscious and this forms the structure of the "valued functions."

I want to say that I would modify role and suggestive to be something more akin to "semi-conscious" because I don't feel like you can make a Te deliberation without in some sense consulting Fi in an intuition ego, because there's simply too much to potentially focus Te on to not prioritize in some way that gets outside of Te itself because intuition in the ego is by definition the conscious awareness of the integrity of the internal situation, which is comprised of the implications and attitudes and plans and thinking oriented towards time. I think Si blocked with Te has it a little easier because their perception is, as far as I can tell, more uni dimensional in that I feel a decent definition of Si in the ego would be it fills the role of dispensing with anything but concrete time concerns (like "real" time limits, "I've got an appointment in 30 minutes", etc , and not more "existential" questions of time). In other words, from my point of view Si in the ego could be defined as the absence of Ni while at the same time providing the basis for considerations that Ni would, however in its own distinct way.

I personally believe I have 1D Si so I think this characterization of Si does not at all account for the complexity of Si but this is rather a personal phenomenological account from my perspective, and this is how I see it which is something like a void or privation... in other words, the aforementioned is a purely negative Te definition of Si, from the perspective of Ni

continuing on, I tend to experience (creative introverted) intuition as a "reaching ahead" which blindly "feels its way" forward by perceiving various configurations of feeling and thought in light of time and which needs to be judged in order to be refined into a finished product (this is the Te "lens" through which Ni manifests its creativity)

this goes to dominant Te, dominant Te is like constantly pondering course of action... or pondering more general ideas in terms of course of action. This inexorably refers back to Fi values, how can it not? If intuition is going to be holistic and balanced, i.e.: posses "integrity" it has to account for Fi in some way, even if it means dispensing with it or consciously ignoring it. This is why intuition lends self awareness to the psyche, because you cannot flat out ignore Fi and maintain the integrity of the situation because it will bubble up through the cracks and fill you with doubt. That is what constitutes, as far as I can tell, at least half and potentially all of what doubt is.

I used to tell people "I think all the time--doesn't everyone?" turns out No!, they don't, and I honestly can't really conceive of what that must be like except to imagine how I feel when I meditate except doing that with the plurality of your time.

people will say, wow you think a lot, sounds like Ti... except it isn't and I'll tell you why

first of all, lets distinguish something in principle, which is that there are at least two forms of thinking proper, Te and Ti. Because I think people pay lip service to that, and then promptly throw Te out the window and label anything that comes across in language as some manifestation of Ti. which is true, it is some manifestation of Ti. the alternative are positive acts of intention acted out in their purely physical manifestation which might be something like Te Se, but that is beyond the scope of what we're talking about here, because I'm writing on the internet, via language, which is a manifestation of Ti, among other things. But it would be a mistake to strip everything out except the language, which by the way, is precisely what I see Ti egos do when they apply their analytic. which is called literalism, which is ironic that gamma gets accused of being "the most literal quadra" because as far as I can tell its because they strip out all the meaning to gamma communication and then after having done so judge it by what remains, all the while assuming that's only what was ever there...

but I digress, my point is this dominant Tx is 4d Tx is "my Tx is the best" and is constantly developing in time. not only that it can develop itself by projecting itself in time i.e. running purely mental experiments and moreover make use of such a process in a legitimately productive way that pushes the function forward in a way that can only be accomplished by many other people via experience, which is quite an achievement

Tx, or any function, refining itself in time by itself as a ongiong and energetically sustainable process, is how I would define the base function. so there are at least 4 different modes of "I x all the time"-- and really you could of course put a finer point on it with attitude, etc

So what does dominant Te look like?, firsthand-- it looks like this: as soon as I take in any peice of information via perception I already have an idea of what the implications could result in (my knowledge of rules, facts, the universe, etc) and I reflexively assess that data in terms of the consequences of those implications judged in light of the perceived intentions and cause of the person both as I imagine it appears to them and it appears to me. my mom calls me "incredibly judgemental." now before you assume this means Fi, think of it in terms of Te. All Te is as far as I can tell is taking my knowledge of the world, and laying it over the statements actions or emanations of the other person and seeing if what they're doing is consistent with my body of knowledge in light of what I perceive their goal to be. This is a purely objective assessment, inasmuch as I strip my feelings out of it, I dont "want" them to be doing anything, I take it as it is and then see what results it will likely produce and then assess it on the basis of its own likelihood of meeting its apparent goal. In other words, its the Te version of Ti scanning for contradictions, but from the point of view of "logic of actions" this is pre-Fi value assignment and thus coloring. The Fi value assessment only comes next when I decide if what they're doing, "even makes sense" and if it does or doesn't maybe there is some kind of underlying "value justification, or want, or need" in play that would then make sense of it.

it comes down to: is what they're doing productive/counterproductive for them? for me? and then, "how do I feel about this?" and then "are those feelings productive/counterproductive?" purge the useless, and find out the best way to implement your response. sometimes thats nothing, but it always takes on the character of efficiency of effort/return

I want to make a little aside on Ti. Ti, to me, seems to take the implicit Te stance of, "I will look to the formal structure of an idea and scan for contradictions, first, and clarify/eliminate those, or the dismiss the proposition as invalid if it can't be--and only then assess the underlying truth of the intuition it is mapped over" whereas I see Te Ni as trying to understand "what they mean" [1] first and then asses from the back end whether or not the proposition entails a contradiction, were it applied, whatever that may look like. I don't go back to correcting the language until I judge it worthwhile to do so. Hence conversations between Te/Fi types will entail a lot of "..but I get what you mean" or "I feel you" I don't care to waste time correcting the construction if I know what the construction represents and I agree with it--I just move forward--unless forward motion necessitates the correction, because I feel like it will create problems for me or the other person or the idea down the line. so instead of attending to language first I attend to it more or less dead last. There are other distinguishing marks of Ti v Te, so I don't mean to limit it to this, but this is one major one that I think many people do not fully understand or appreciate...

a constant issue I have with Fe/Ti is I feel they dismiss information that could be extremely useful prematurely on the basis of its formal presentation. I feel like they miss out and if its someone I care about I want to help them. this forms the basis of many arguments over "semantics" whether Fe or Ti (semantics in the Fe sense being "how it influenced the vibe in the room" being the criterion for dismissal/acceptance)

what distinguishes me from an alpha Ti user who "thinks all the time" is that I don't study bear nuts in India because one time it got a laugh so it seemed like a better course of action than all the rest. by this I mean Ti Fe types, from my perspective, have a tendency to be interested in Ti for its own sake and utilize Fe to stratify Ti pursuits as better or worse, which is objective but also seemingly very capricious. now obviously I take a pejorative and condescending tone and Fe entails a lot more feedback than a simple laugh, but in principle its an objective criterion wherein all other things being equal a laugh could cast the deciding vote... this is not how Te Ni Fi goes about its business [2]

honestly there's not enough time to do it all and I've had one question on my mind my whole life. Why do people believe what they believe?. That's it. Why this and not that? Why is there conflict? Why don't my parents love me?

(these are all derivations of the one.. the Fi pursuit is to go into yourself and examine why you care, if you should care; the Te pursuit is to make a job of going into the world and figuring it out "fixing" the "problem" it poses)

and this is why no one understands Te because to understand Te you have to understand something so deep and so personal Te is not going to just let that out, even if it could, even if it could understand itself. Fi will spend its whole life working on that question, whereas Te works the other end (rushes to meet the goals). rarely do they meet in such a way that you can connect the dots and work out both issues to a sufficient degree where you feel satisfied. because there's not enough time in the world

this is the common cause over which ESI and LIE part ways in regard to method but are united deep down by and why they need eachother and how they can help eachother

[1] this is an overall multi-factor assessment rooted in contextual clues and all known facts past and present... the logic of actions applied to a statement

[2] admittedly, Fi comes off as even more capricious, in its own way

[wasp]

This is the most insightful and refreshing thread I've read on here in months. Thank you

I would like to hear your thoughts on Ni in Se creatives.

being static types, their Se acts as a block for potentially pertinent Ni-related information. all new Ni-related information is filtered through the Se creative's Ji-related initiatives. being dynamic types, Ni-leads are less biased towards new Ni-related information; "ok, but where's the rest?" before they proceed to fill in the holes, whilst remaining open to any new Ni-related developments, so they adjust to the ever-changing terrain. Se-creatives may get caught in "Ni daze" mode wherein they absorb a ton of new Ni-related information, but it won't be long before "resistance" (Ji-Se) kicks in and they re-enter "tunnel vision" (Ni HA) mode, wherein they etch a new path on the ever-changing terrain. Ni-leads may experience the opposite phenomenon wherein Se temporarily takes over Ni before they realize what's happening and re-enter "Ni daze" mode.

Se-creative and Ni-lead both read a book. Se-creative goes in with a specific topic in mind (Ji). throughout the process of reading, their Ni will be more receptive to information which relates to that specific topic. their Se obstructs or dilutes unrelated information from being adequately absorbed (Se block). if it does absorb unrelated information, it'll be filtered through their specific topic of interest (Ji) before it is absorbed (Se). Ni-lead doesn't go in with a specific topic in mind. their Ni absorbs everything. they both write an essay. Se-creative writes about their topic of interest, Ni-lead writes about everything, vaguely, while occasionally touching on the Se-creative's topic of interest. Se-creative will be extremely insightful in regards to their topic of interest, they'll be confident in their correctness, but they may be missing a few crucial "context clues", which fudges their insights a bit. Ni-lead's insights may not be as in-depth in regards to that specific topic, but they're more aware of these crucial "context clues", so their insights feel less definitive, more up in the air, but they're more comprehensive. now apply that same principle to life.

tl;dr Ni-egos submerge themselves in water and wait for the impending wave before capitalizing on its opportunities, Se-egos make the wave.

Se-creative's Ni isn't any less insightful. more often than not, it's geared toward something specific, their personal program (Ji), but there's a reason why xSIs are IxI's beneficiaries. ESI and IEI are both deeply feeling individuals. they put their emotional experiences under a microscope, but ESI will be more confident in regards to how they feel and why (for better or for worse) which "inspires" IEI with the confidence to "own" their feelings, too. ESI gives IEI that Se push, but IEI's Ni is useless to ESI. (sidenote: it's not useless in general) they don't need anyone to instill confidence in them in regards to their personal program (Fi). if it's a healthy friendship, the ESI will defend and protect the IEI's feelings.

BUT ESI may spend so much time focusing on their own personal feelings toward other people, how other people's words/actions impact them, specifically, that they may not realize that so-and-so person treats everyone this way, so although they're correct in thinking that it's unfair, even vile, treatment, they're not always correct in thinking that it's personal, but they'll defend themselves anyway. IEI will try to talk ESI down, they may explain to them why it isn't personal, why it isn't in their best interest to "speak up", but ESI will probably just (kindly!!!) shrug it off.

this lightly touches on the key difference between ESI's version of Te-seeking and EII's version of Te-seeking. the ESI will research external sources of information that corresponds with their personal program, but, in true gamma fashion, they may rely too heavily on tried-and-true external sources of information, which may or may not be factually correct. the EII will research external sources of information that corresponds with their personal program, but they're more inclined to branch out to different external sources of information, including the "enemy's" side, to gain a more holistic view of the situation at hand. they may be too open-minded. this is why EIIs are plagued by Se PoLR. they see all sides of the same situation so they don't know how or when to act, even if it comes at the expense of themselves. for better or for worse. ESIs are plagued by Ne PoLR. they may see all sides of the same situation but, when push comes to shove, they'll know when or how to act, even if it comes at the expense of themselves. for better or for worse.

@Shaebette ^ the un-spoilered paragraph sort of answers your question to me from earlier about how Te-seeking manifests in Fi-leads.

It's simpler than that. Social approval is a staple to survival. You can be as strong or intelligent as you want, but you'll always have to work at least ten times as hard as the average chump to get half the reward if no one will listen to you. This applies to any society.

i didn't keep up with the rest of the conversation but this part was on point

[wasp]

I just want to say, I could be wrong about your type but that reads to me like the most EII analysis ever, which is a good thing...

maybe, or maybe ESI descriptions are just poorly written.

i relate to both EII and ESI profiles, even their respective quadral complexes, but i feel like my affinity for strati's "complex of tied hands" puts me out of the running for EII. i like to consider myself a humanist and a pacifist, but i'll be damned if lisbeth salander wasn't justified in everything that she did in the girl with the dragon tattoo. it was the only time i'd ever read a book and felt satisfied with the protagonist's reactions to adversity. i wouldn't say i'm capable of that, but it didn't make uncomfortable. if it weren't for my clear preference for "feelings" and "ethics" (as is evidenced by my writing style) i'd probably type myself LII (detached flow of thought, poor motor coordination, infantile tendencies) or SLI (constant readiness for irony, lazy underachiever, skeptical treatment of everything). true to form i'm being semi-satirical but those two female portraits have always been highly relatable to me.

plus LIEs don't really appeal to me. most of the descriptions that LIEs have written about ESIs on this site have eventually led to me vomiting in a bucket. if that's what dualization with this pair entails then please, oh lord augusta of russia, put a gun to my head and let me die in peace, undualized.

[Bertrand]

This is the most insightful and refreshing thread I've read on here in months. Thank you

I would like to hear your thoughts on Ni in Se creatives.

I think ESI treats Ni the way LIE treats Se, which is to say its the criterion by which they assess themselves in terms of efficacy-in-the-world, which is a Te word for "self esteem." When Ni is giving positive feedback they know they're on the right track and they want to be viewed as such. In other words they want the integrity of the internal situation to be in place and will adjust themselves according to feedback on that function. They don't necessarily care about their objective role so much as they have come to terms with their subjective position. This is what allows them to do things like choose grandma over money or fame or anything else (belle who dreamed of a bigger life but who was staunchly loyal to her father embodies this, ESI doesn't want cheap tricks they're waiting for the real deal). If their feeling and thinking is aligned internally in a harmonious state and they know it, that may be all they need to stay the course hell or high water, because that is "winning" to them. They like Jack because when he models Ni that "works for them" its like what they've been searching for their whole life. They're ready to go with him despite all sorts of objections from others if the Ni is right. ESI might be "nuts" but they're "nuts in love" and if the "image" [1] is right then it makes whatever may come acceptable, even right. Its how they can be comfortable with being "the bad guy" in many people's eyes. They're not about pleasing people they're about being true to themselves... its the opposite of a numbers game and if the crowd is reducing them to "one" thing, even mockingly--all the better, because Dreiser knows an insult from an idiot is a compliment, and stupidity follows groups like stink on shit. ESI can preserve individuality despite all hostility. Often, it only makes them stronger. The only way to slip past those defenses are via Te Ni, which is what makes them so threatening to (and thus ridiculed by) alpha.

This is precisely what Jack needs, because to see visionary projects through (the only projects worth undertaking), you can't go belly up at the first sign of environmental resistance. Jack is all about real progress [2] and Dreiser is the only one with enough fortitude to confront chaos and defend Jack from himself and others and not get tired or give up but instead grow and prosper by being introduced to it in Jack's characteristic manner

[1] the underlying picture. if their friends say, "you're blinded by love for Jack", she says "well that's how I know its right then"--the blindness isn't a problem, if its part of a bigger (internal) picture Dreiser likes. the way to upset the picture is bring in Te issues and alternative Ni "narratives" that capture things in a better way that paint a more unfavorable picture. that's how you move Dreiser. that is Te/Ni "truth"

[2] in the apolitical sense, Jack is probably anti political inasmuch as politics represent mass stupidity

[wasp]

^ case in point

[Bertrand]

i think what characterizes LSE/EII over LIE/ESI is the former is totally linear. I.e.: bigger is better. Can you imagine happiness as a big truck?

[wasp]

i think i'd prefer anything over a noose tied around my neck which is pretty much what a relationship with an LIE amounts to, really


darling

[Bertrand]

you could have just said yes

[Bertrand]

ESI gurls are more beauty and the beast, EII is more frozen

this is the best example of EII that i've seen

notice her reference to Si mobilizing

my father is borderline OCD (hyper vigilant, tireless) in regards to putting the environment in order (we call him "the stasher") which I believe is a manifestation of creative Si, oriented towards EII. he doesnt really demand that other people do so much as he freely takes it on, without invitation, to the chagrin of others many times

I feel bad for him because everyone hates his creative sometimes, but then again I know exactly what that feels like, so we deserve eachother I guess.

also we're never gonna change and don't really take it to heart too much because its a zone of confidence, so things could definitely be worse

and here you can hear her distinguish between socials pragmatists and her own humanitarian interests quite nicely

Jack is a researcher not a pragmatist (in the socionics sense, in a philosophical sense he is highly pragmatically oriented, just like all Te valuers)

[wasp]

that was an informative and relatable video, but i still don't think that talking about a group of people (dual or not, socionics or otherwise) like that is helpful in the slightest. it feeds into the gamma stereotypes that you claim to abhor so much, which in turn renders any efforts you make to reverse them, invalid. i get that you're most likely being semi-facetious with the crux of your posts on here, but, joke or not, that post still rubbed me the wrong way.

(i'll see myself out, dis ain't any of my business)

[Bertrand]

there's definitely a cost benefit anaylsis to whether your actions undermine themselves (which is certainly something LSE needs to pay more attention to) but I think on this point stereotypes will always exist because theyre not really rooted in good faith assesments of other groups, rather they're heuristics themselves created as a product on condition of lack of time [1] (lack of time to fully embrace multiculturalism, for example). thus you cant be held hostage by what amounts to something you can never remedy because it doesn't want to remedy itself, by definition, because that is what it exists to do. inasmuch as you can legitimately improve relations through tact and consideration of course one is obligated to do so but the question is where is the line between speaking the truth as best you know how and holding back under the boogeyman of politically correct speech? in the end if you go too far in that direction you're only ultimately harming people by being less effective at spotting danger and outlining solutions than you could be, and there is a real cost to that. I suppose this comes down to a question of getting the calibration right on Te/Fi, but I do think there's something to be said for Dostoevsky speaking psychologically from a world that is safe(r) and (more) stable, thanks to gamma which provided those conditions for him, on the basis of what they were willing to do, by them being them, by staying true to their own psychological values...

in other words, you're talking from my point of view from the point of view of Se polr, which I'm not sure is the world we live in yet... but whether it is or isn't these sorts of disagreements are a natural part of the socionic ecology, which is why conflict bugs me less

I hope this does not sound too arrogant because I like you and don't want to alienate you... this is just how I perceive that stance... you don't need to leave because you're not unwanted, I appreciate the feedback and my thing about the truck was just joking I don't mind that people like what they like and I think everyone is entitled to whatever that is when its not hurtful.. this is something I was not raised to understand very well and has been hard for me to come to terms with sometimes...

I definitely think you're right that maybe I'm too aggressive with things that should be tools not weapons and to use them as such and gratuitously IS counter productive because it undermines my credibility in the eyes of others and also because its wrong for other reasons

[1] which isn't going anywhere, it is a condition of existence itself, although maybe alpha will one day come up with a technical solution for that

[Saoirse]

Creative Ni is the ability to mold and shift your orientation in order to meet goals that are likewise shaped by Ni. Thus Ni often has the feeling of a "self fulfilling prophecy" because Ni orients itself towards the flow of time, but in doing so influences events-in-time, because that orientation itself has a casual influence on the outcome. When people without intuition egos perceive Ni in action it often looks like "prophecy" but intuition tends to "see the game", especially in the case of Ni creative, and see it more as a willfull product manifest in free manipulation of the self in regards to a perceived future.

I think this is a really important insight, and actually almost answers a question I've been pondering a while, which is, "Do Ni leads actually control the future, OR do they simply look like they do by not explicitly making a prediction until things are far enough along and/or only verbalizing desires that they know for sure will be achieved, unlike me, who says like everything that pops into her mind?" Does an IEI ever purely express a real desire (that they will not eventually achieve) for the sake of expressing it (as opposed to for the sake of some other greater desire that they will achieve through expressing this unachievable desire)?

I also really liked the part about Ni being like the brain watching itself. I don't remember the exact words you used, and I can't find the part again, but one of my ILI friends experiences this a lot. He often gets the sensation of being completely detached from himself and just watching himself. Or, his brain watches his brain form patterns. The interesting thing is, he assumed everyone has these sensations. I think that's another characteristic of your lead function--it's like breathing to you, so you assume all human beings also have the cognition associated with your lead function--at least, until you learn socionics.

Bertrand, your writing style is similar to an IEI. What's your type? I thought you were an ESI? Your profile says you are a LIE.
No LIE writes like this

This could be because IEI and LIE both have vortical-synergistic cognition. I do feel like Bertrand's writing style is very vortical-synergistic. But, I feel like he doesn't naturally provide examples/stories like Adam the Strange does, and I thought Te would like to provide more examples? But maybe that's just the LIE-Te vs. LIE-Ni difference? I just feel like Bertrand is more abstract than other Te leads I know, and while there's some really useful stuff in these posts, I got the urge to ask for an example after, like, every paragraph (see below).

I want to say that my personal vision of evil is 4d Si with 2d Ni and 3d Fe, and here is what it feels like:

This post was very interesting to me because it's hard to imagine my meek beneficiary freaking the fuck out of my stately semi-dual. I always assumed that SEI-LIE conflict would be based on SEIs being boring, not on being evil somehow (not that I think SEIs are all boring! just that this is the only possible complaint I could imagine anyone to have of them--also IME, SLEs just think I'm boring, not threatening). But maybe their boringness is rooted in resistance to change, which is exactly what might be considered evil by LIEs, if society needs to evolve in a certain way to be saved (e.g., Elon Musk wants us to colonize Mars)? Can you give a specific example of an SEI behaving in a way that you felt was dangerous? I feel like some really big changes in history involved society being caught up in one LIE's vision for the future (Hamilton, Musk), and I don't think all the SEIs in the world could have stopped them. Or would have even wanted to; they're much more local in their concerns, caring about their specific family and friends, not really trying to move history in a particular direction.

I definitely resent Fe in ESE, EIE, and even IEI (in IRL situations; I feel like Fe is really diluted in internet posts, and I enjoy the posts of all our Fe ego buddies here). I don't know why I don't resent it in SEI. I guess the asymmetry of my relationship to them makes me unable to think of them as a threat.

Anyway, scintillating thread! You have inspired much discussion.

[may]

Uh, I don't think SEIs are evil... I think I have trouble understanding them, but that doesn't really make them look evil. Anyway.

[Bertrand]

Elon Musk is pretty much on top of the world right now, but imagine him as a young man trying to hawk some brave ideas and trying to break into a relatively inert and entrenched social dynamic wherein the guys' girlfriends he was trying to convince shut him down with a word and who knows how many interesting initiatives never took flight because of stuff like that. Its about a tug in the war in the world between betting on the future and vision but needing some degree of support and having the people who most represent the support structure of the world innately distrust you and work against you because by being on the opposite pole of being they see you as a threat (and vice versa) to their comfort they provide and thus their reason for living, so they do what they can to minimize your vision and they can exert a lot of influence from the inner circles of the world [1].

I know I'm inviting a counter stroke of the kind I just described so let me reiterate I don't think SEI is the enemy, just that their natural psychological predisposition to view the world in certain terms sets them against LIE in terms of priorities. That's precisely what conflict is. When it comes to groups and politics they each pursue their interests to the exclusion of the other inasmuch and they do it by the methods that come naturally to them. So losing to SEI is not necessarily something that happens in front of you, but can be the soul crushing dynamics you're subject to as a result of the implementation of their program across time... when talking about "how evil is experienced" its about tackling problems that are the negative manifestations of the conflicting program. Things like tribalism, limited resources, close midnedness, social jockeying, blind eye to problems, over consumption, rigid thinking, "fakeness" to the point of making reality unrecognizable, softness to the point of self defeat and surrender to nature, feels over reals all the while heading off a cliff, emotion and sensation over "truth" and "effectiveness", numbness, empty headedness, decadence, escape from reality, etc etc

imagine if singularity was a plump smiling blonde woman who was well liked around here and followed you around and made the same kind of comments he does about me about you and your ideas while substituting cookies for rational thinking and all you saw were all the many excellent prospects exponentially more powerful than a cookie that could benefit everyone all get left on the floor

[1] this happens in a myriad of ways, LII SEE feels it in its own way, the superficial description may make it seem like I'm talking about that, which is the forer effect applied to personal experience of conflict relations

[wasp]

@Bertrand nah i didn't think your tone was aggressive. i didn't find your joke about the truck offensive either. "you could have just said yes" even made me laugh out loud. for me it was just uncomfortable to witness you (or anyone, really) treat an interpersonal arrangement as an opportunity to capitalize on another person's weakness(es) for your own means, which is your prerogative, but still. irrespective of socionics, i don't think it's anyone's responsibility except your own to take the heat for your words and actions, it's pretty inconsiderate to use another person as a protective shield (or, as you say, "a weapon") which hints at cowardliness. for the time being i've settled on LIE-ESI duality being shit. if there's any validity to the system then i'll gladly take the ESIs so they don't have to settle for opportunistic money-bags with no balls or a backbone. [insert joke to lighten the tension here]

i mean, you do you. after all this is just an inconsequential online message board based around pseudoscientific theories ft. fun chats and a dash of interpersonal connection. it was only worth noting insofar that i disliked what might've prompted those thoughts, rather than the thoughts themselves.

[Bertrand]

when i was speaking in terms of using socionics as a weapon I was thinking more in terms of making SEI or any type feel bad because how I percieve their flaws

duality is definitely not a case of me thinking I'm going to "use" ESI, but duality itself is duality for the reason that both sides get something they lack out of it. It is not parasitic rather it is synergistic

the idea is EII/LSE is the same way, as are all dyads.. which I do think your critique is rooted in an EII orientation towards relationships and morality and that is the root of this misunderstanding. you wouldn't want someone talking about your relationship the way I talk about relationships here, and LSE wouldn't! In the same way, a different type would harbor distaste for the way LSE talks about his relationships, etc etc. It is of course, EIIs domain to "perfect" relationships hence your willingness to fight over this battleground, as I see it, so this is your area of expertise and I imagine you feel strongly about it; but keep in mind the idea of what a healthy relationship to one dyad is is common only in its most general form: "mutual support" "kindness" etc, the specifics, what that means and what that looks like differ. projections occur when we assume with their words they mean what we would mean were they our words, and I think that is going on to some extent here. perhaps from my side as well. I feel like you're really coming down hard on me, but perhaps that isn't really the case...

I hope that clarifies

[Rebelondeck]

I wrote the below referenced article many years ago. It has a bit of a tongue-in-cheek 'element' to it but for many, it seemed to have rung true. Note that I did not have Socionics models in mind when I wrote it.

http://www.socionics.com/articles/nisi.html

a.k.a. I/O

[Bertrand]

I really liked your article, thank you for that

the faith v skepticism thing rang particularly true to me. and what I have come to appreciate is there's a kind of vitality to the even the atheism of the SLI for example that exudes life in the same way I feel my faith does for me, so I see God in both of us in our own peculiar ways...

[Bertrand]

I want to add an aside about ego functions because I think its something a person questioning their type can easily verify in practice, although it is strange to me that so few people seem to make the effort

the idea is simple: your ego functions are the two functions you can use and in doing so sustain nearly indefinitely, but certainly for extended periods, and gain energy and self esteem from doing so. further theyre the functions you can make real progress on as a solo effort.

i think people don't get that Dresier when immersed in Fi Se (direct action though the lens of the ethics of relations) gets real pleasure from it and could keep that up almost indefinitely. its like how I can sit here for 6 hours and work out a ridiculous treatise while my legs fall asleep and when I get up I nearly pass out from exhaustion and not having moved more than my fingers nearly that entire time and yet I feel like I really did something of value and furthermore it felt like it took 20 minutes, whereas for a Si type I believe such a thing under such conditions would be akin to torture and to even hear me talk about my bizarre rants in uncomfortable conditions (right now im sitting on the floor in a new apartment) is alien beyond belief, [1] etc etc

so if it seems distasteful to hear about someone working their ass off on behalf of someone they truly care about and being glad to do it, then it might be because for you such a thing would be torturous and the golden rule is a nice idea but it really lacks psychological depth because it focuses on acts and not states of mind. in other words the common state of mind between me and dreiser might be one of flow but what that literally looks like is different, but taken together it comprises a synergistic whole (assuming no other negating factors). thus when one type views the relationship dynamics of a different dyad they tend to project and, especially delta, assume that because they wouldn't want their relationship to take on those particulars that that somehow constitutes abuse. hence all the rape jokes about IEI etc etc...

the point is if you think you're IEI but going deep into your soul in a 1d Se and Ne ignoring way is boring and you cant keep it up for significant periods of time (the oft cited going to a party and spending 3 hours in a corner fantasizing about how much youd like to say something to person x and what youd say), maybe you're not IEI and the same goes for every type. In fact an interesting project would be to make a list of 16 things each unique to each type they can gladly sustain for at least 20 hours straight without having to be compelled in some way to do so.

tl;dr: think about the unique shit you do that very few else seem capable or willing to do but that you tend to do repeatedly and for long stretches and with a certain degree of satisfaction

[1] SLx is of course an incredibly diligent worker, but generally not under conditions deprived of food, drink, breaks but especially bathroom breaks, freedom of movement, fresh air, music or silence as they prefer, sunlight or shade, at the expense of sleep, and without a chair... especially all just to make a conceptual point. If LIE has the reputation as a crazy worker its more because they can do what needs to be done under adverse conditions, provided they actually envision a reason to do so, but not because they're working a 12 hours a day every day just to never advance and get paid shit because they "love work" but because their ability to envision a path to success transcends the particulars and they can tap into a flow state that enables adaptation to all sorts of multifarious work, conceptual or physical. i know this comes off as self aggrandizing but it carries with it just as many ugly drawbacks and theres 16 different ways this thing gets sliced each with their pros and cons so this isnt about jerking LIE but just to illustrate a point.. I can be just as relentlessly lazy and useless if I see no point to an activity

[ouronis]

I don't really get the whole intuition of time and integrity of internal situation link. You didn't really talk about the mechanics of this relationship, so I scanned the rest and didn't see anything addressing it.

Also, I think your use of reinin for Ne went off the tracks. I don't know if you're trying to converge with what you imagine to be his viewpoints, but I don't think what you mean by integrity of the outer situation and what he means are the same thing, or at least I didn't find the bread crumb trail.