Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 58 of 58

Thread: What does people don't like about SEE and IEE?

  1. #41
    Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Europe
    TIM
    So/Sx Introvert
    Posts
    7,961
    Mentioned
    717 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    Not really. Logics =/= being good at math and logic.
    I didn't even mention or refer to math, so don't put words into my mouth I didn't say...

    Having said that, to answer your implicit question, it's simply like this: Those people who are the best at math are generally Logical. Those who are the worst at it are generally Ethical. But that doesn't mean that every Logical is going to be great at math, and that every Ethical is going to suck at it. There are exceptions etc. So there is not a direct causation, but a clear correlation, imo.

    The same principle would apply to Emotional Intelligence (EQ). Those with the highest EQ will generally be Ethical etc., but not every Ethical will have a great EQ, and not every Logical person will have a bad one. Etc.
    New Youtube [x] Get Typed! [x]
    Celebs [x] Theory [x] Tumblr [x]

    *********** 21-04-19:
    "Looks like a mystic that just arrived to battle and staring out at the battle, ready to unleash"



  2. #42
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,235
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Please take a look at IQ tests (those that are scientific) and reasons why those tests are constructed. Better to include card sorting tests (made for example ADHD cases).
    Wechsler's test is one example. I don't mean that you should take one.

    Things like short term memory etc might influence on your ability to solve logical problems regardless of personality.

    Indulgence of logical matters and in that case you're most likely logical and obviously raises performance in that area.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    343
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    I didn't even mention or refer to math, so don't put words into my mouth I didn't say...

    Having said that, to answer your implicit question, it's simply like this: Those people who are the best at math are generally Logical. Those who are the worst at it are generally Ethical. But that doesn't mean that every Logical is going to be great at math, and that every Ethical is going to suck at it. There are exceptions etc. So there is not a direct causation, but a clear correlation, imo.

    The same principle would apply to Emotional Intelligence (EQ). Those with the highest EQ will generally be Ethical etc., but not every Ethical will have a great EQ, and not every Logical person will have a bad one. Etc.
    Fun facts: I met lots of ExEs who rocked maths more than the logical types back in school. They probably tried to master their inferior function/ induldged in it.
    I am also fairly certain that most of the best types at school were ethical and not necessarily logical. Many IEIs and SEIs I know were extremely good at it.

    But yeah logical types have more of a knack for logical and technical stuff obviously.

    Even though I am highly aware of others' feelings and how and why they feel that way (and their feeelings definitely influence me and my mood), I wouldn't say I am always emotionally intelligent. Might be my cruel/ selfish Beta streak. I find Alpha Sfs often more emotionally intelligent than me and I met many logical types who were by far better at handling people than me.
    Last edited by dot; 08-30-2017 at 03:51 PM.

  4. #44
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,235
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Women are more motivated to do calculations and they are more careful as well.

    When we talk about academic math that doesn't hold anymore.

    I sucked at elementary school math because I'm motivated by doing my own things. I understood it and that was enough. Applying it was more than easy.

    Before computers women did lots of routine calculations.

    Anyways there are still lots of women mathematicians.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  5. #45
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    I didn't even mention or refer to math, so don't put words into my mouth I didn't say...

    Having said that, to answer your implicit question, it's simply like this: Those people who are the best at math are generally Logical. Those who are the worst at it are generally Ethical. But that doesn't mean that every Logical is going to be great at math, and that every Ethical is going to suck at it. There are exceptions etc. So there is not a direct causation, but a clear correlation, imo.

    The same principle would apply to Emotional Intelligence (EQ). Those with the highest EQ will generally be Ethical etc., but not every Ethical will have a great EQ, and not every Logical person will have a bad one. Etc.
    I have high IQ and high EQ. Explain.




    Super mbti user


  6. #46
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    I didn't even mention or refer to math, so don't put words into my mouth I didn't say...

    Having said that, to answer your implicit question, it's simply like this: Those people who are the best at math are generally Logical. Those who are the worst at it are generally Ethical. But that doesn't mean that every Logical is going to be great at math, and that every Ethical is going to suck at it. There are exceptions etc. So there is not a direct causation, but a clear correlation, imo.

    The same principle would apply to Emotional Intelligence (EQ). Those with the highest EQ will generally be Ethical etc., but not every Ethical will have a great EQ, and not every Logical person will have a bad one. Etc.
    That wasn't an implicit question at all though. I was saying that logical goes way beyond those kinds of things. Pretty much anyone can go off and learn calculus if they want, because that's like a skill. Logics is more like a way of being that you can't compensate for just by learning math and programming or whatever, and you definitely can't compensate for by using calculators.

    Here's an example: I posted Bertolt Brecht's Insufficiency Song a while back. It's just like "you're not clever enough or unpretentious enough, you're not bad or good enough to amount to anything." That's completely contradictory from a Ti-perspective, but from an Fe-perspective you're just evaluating things as good or bad without as much attention to the actual qualities. I thought he really believed what he was saying in the song and just trying to make an actual point about the insufficiency of human striving that I thought felt wrong until I learned what the context was and was like "oooooh..." Then after that I really liked the song because it reminded me it's impossible to be "just bad" (or "just good"), while before then I tended to think of things as being just bad and good a lot. That's a lot more significant than just being good at science or whatever. The fact that you don't see that makes me think you're probably a Logical type.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    TIM
    SEE! Type 7
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I already know why some people don't appreciate all my wonderful qualities.

    I'm a lady who does her own thing, I live life according to what I want to do, I do what I feel is right, I think I'm confident, fun and open. I'm very honest and I suck at sugar coating. If I say I love you, I really love you (right now, at least). I never have motives that differ from my actions. If I think your haircut is bad I'll tell you the truth if you want to know. These things are not perceived as positive to a lot of folks, especially Fe doms
    I'm just an effin ray of sunshine

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    TIM
    IEI-Ni H946
    Posts
    2,134
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It can get really annoying when you’re talking to them
    and they’re not really listening, they’re kinda just using you as a sounding board to think about themselves and their own stuff, I’m actually shocked and in disbelief when they aren’t doing this, sometimes it’s just so bizarre that someone is constantly in their own head, even though someone is talking to them

  9. #49
    dewusional entitwed snowfwake VewyScawwyNawcissist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    uNdeR yOur SkIn
    TIM
    NF 6w5-4w5-1w9 VLEF
    Posts
    3,084
    Mentioned
    141 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IEE can be similar to LSE where they push some bs without realizinv the consequences implications negative etc even after u explain and they can be self righreous. SEE searches for a reason to feel offended and justify assault, demonetize, cancel, slander etc someone

    Both xscammer types.
    https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
    Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals

    self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective


    Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality

    I want to care
    if I was better I’d help you
    if I was better you’d be better

    Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1




  10. #50
    pasleine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    TIM
    EII-Fi
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ti polr, being oblivious to motivations behind things and logical consistency. not taking analysis seriously, flitting between too many things at once
    the good thing is they are hard to offend, because a lot of the time they don't really care. they basically shed the "small stuff" very easily, and they are actually pretty damn good at taking reasoned criticism (at least if they understand it) i'm guessing you need to present it in a Te way. they don't like reading long text

  11. #51
    Shadow Squirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Where God decides I should be
    Posts
    1,770
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yesterday I found out that my sister is actually IEE , not IEI

    I found this out after noticing Si suggestive, huge dependence on Te ( compared to a Te polr ), and Fi smile

    She doesn't really look like Ne ego , but other functions are clear to me now

    Anyway, what I hate in her :

    Excessive randomness: she likes something and after two or three seconds changes her mind and hates it

    Little girl who needs a lot of care: she wakes my mother up from sleep just to cover her up when she wants to sleep, she totally depends on others to do trivial things like charge her phone , bring her water or set an alarm for her wake up time (and also depends on others to wake her up)

    She blabs for hours about her personal preferences in trivial things , especially in music

    Logically inconsistent (although she's actually smart) but that doesn't bother me too much and we usually laugh when I point out her contradictory statements.

  12. #52

    Join Date
    Jun 2022
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    1,387
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    being oblivious to motivations behind things
    only for SEE, as this is connected with weak Ne, and with unvalued this is especially tough to consider a lot
    the good thing is they are hard to offend
    ethicals are as a rule easier to offend. Fi types especially if you do or say something that they personally don't like, hurt them or someone close to them, or if you have a rude and unpleasant attitude to people
    i'm guessing you need to present it in a Te way
    yes. criticism in valued functions are taken much more easily because of greater interest in dealing with those things, a feeling that those areas are naturally more important/better/more right for your life; criticism in weak, even valued, functions can result in ignoring behaviour or infantile rejection (they are weak, after all), but the weak valued variants of the functions elicit much more interest, give more often, when dealt with, inspiration and colour to life, are the most 'suggestive' to open influence. this is why correction from your dual or activator is more rarely frustrating, but correction from your conflictor or superego is not commonly met well (unless it's in small doses), even though the areas that are corrected are very similar, and improvement of a valued function should also improve the unvalued variant, as they work with the same data.
    Last edited by nifl; 03-31-2023 at 03:10 PM.

  13. #53
    WVW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Posts
    60
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They don't pay attention to rules and procedures. Disregard the chains of command, because they aren't paying attention to the hierarchical system they are operating in. If the SEE is in a position of authority, they will frequently overreach the scope of authority their position holds. For example, Trump as president made several orders and commands that he didn't have the authority to make on his own as president. Something IEEs may do is they will overreach but it would be an overreach of intellectual scope. I don't think Jordan Peterson is a IEE, but an IEE may be like him by making lots of connections to different fields and subjects that they likely don't have a great depth of knowledge about. As when he debated someone on marxism and read some literature on the subject, but wasn't prepared to discuss it fully. He was only making connections to serve his greater point, which is more an EIE trait but the making of connections aspect can be IEE too.

  14. #54

    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    TIM
    IEI-Ni H946
    Posts
    2,134
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    Both types seem to get bored very easily and are so distractible; they never seem to have a plan or want to adhere to one. Even if people can show them the errors of their ways, they'll always think of themselves as being on the moral high ground. They often give the impression that they're tuned into you when they're really in their own head space. One has to accept that a lot of their next moves will be on a whim and somewhat unexpected - like throwing a ball at an uneven surface and trying to anticipate where it will bounce.

    a.k.a. I/O
    how to tell if you are them

    esp…’often being in their own head space’

    ILI and SLI must pull them out of it a bit I guess

    impossible people lol

  15. #55

    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    168
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I mostly dislike their superficiality. I used to be close to an SEE, and I didn't like how they seemed to view friendships as a social popularity contest.

  16. #56

    Join Date
    Jun 2022
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    1,387
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby13357 View Post
    I mostly dislike their superficiality. I used to be close to an SEE, and I didn't like how they seemed to view friendships as a social popularity contest.
    ''social popularity contest'' reminds me more of Fe valuing people (mostly the extraverts). SEEs usually are down to earth, interact directly and easily, and have in my view more sincere way of understanding this due to Fi valuing (they just prefer whom they like, are generally nice, tactful, hysteria is limited).
    superficial they can seem, undeniably; extraversion, ethics and irrationality means that contacts are wide and easily changed, which leads to unstable contacts with people that are less interesting for them. but i don't see their ''superficiality'' as very damning, but more as a reflection of what is nice and attractive about them - perhaps you have bad intertypes with these people

  17. #57
    Riven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2023
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    289
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lack of long-term commitment. SEEs I know will show no worries about where things are being lead to. They'll be going out every week, talking about who they wanna have sex with and other kind of drama I don't really care. That's whatever to me. I just hate seeing them doing badly at tests because they do no effort to get a passable grade, and then complain about teachers, say they're too demanding, that they request too much stuff. IEEs on the other hand can sound worried about their future, they'll have doubts about the degree they picked etc, but all in their Ne style. They won't take any factual action and will let things happen to them in a passive way despite having looked through other possibilities, and they'll keep talking about the "issue" and never solving it. They're also too relaxed, wanting to go out every week to get new experiences, which is fine, but they have the need to drag me with them. Sometimes I just wanna chill on my own way studying at home and they'll say I should go out, take time to relax, which is what I actually were doing until you talked to me.

    I like both a lot too though. SEEs will just do whatever I ask them to, no questions, no need to ask twice. They're also good at letting me do my own business, they never bother me at all and even help me in ways that allow me to keep my freedom. IEEs are the ones I can ask the most autistic I-do-not-understand-people-and-feelings questions and they'll actually give me good well-thought answers.

  18. #58
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Inside the Windfish's egg
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    1,703
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nifl View Post
    ''social popularity contest'' reminds me more of Fe valuing people (mostly the extraverts). SEEs usually are down to earth, interact directly and easily, and have in my view more sincere way of understanding this due to Fi valuing (they just prefer whom they like, are generally nice, tactful, hysteria is limited).
    superficial they can seem, undeniably; extraversion, ethics and irrationality means that contacts are wide and easily changed, which leads to unstable contacts with people that are less interesting for them. but i don't see their ''superficiality'' as very damning, but more as a reflection of what is nice and attractive about them - perhaps you have bad intertypes with these people
    I got the same impression from a SEE I was involved with. I was let down. They're sometimes too superficial.
    Then, the angel asked her what her name was. She said: "I have none"

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •