Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 49

Thread: IEE-Fi versus EII-Ne

  1. #1
    aka He Died With a Felafel Delilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,201
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default IEE-Fi versus EII-Ne

    what are the observable differences between these two?
    "Inasmuch as it is nothing but pure communicability, every face, even the most noble and beautiful, is always suspended on the edge of an abyss"

  2. #2
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    780
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    From afar, I think EII will likely appear somewhat stiff or reserved, and likely more conservatively attired whereas IEE tend to have an informal aura even when well-dressed in a formal setting. They behave differently due to divergent motivating forces - one being input oriented while the other output. The dominant processes are still in control and set the agendas. They may seem to share some behaviour patterns but realize that like icebergs, nine-tenths are below the surface. Many seem to assume that two different types, who use their IEs to the same extent, can behave similarly; but this superficial approach doesn't consider the overriding effects of different system configurations and priorities.......

    a.k.a. I/O

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    TIM
    Sanguin Spiritualist
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Very little. The biggest difference will be the temperament. IEE-Fi will be more phlegmatic compared to IEE-Ne which is full-blown sanguine. Likewise EII-Fi will be full-blown phlegmatic while EII-Ne will be more sanguine.

  4. #4
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,318
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    One would be similar to an Ne-LII and the other an Fi-SEE.

    They should be distinct from each other.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  5. #5
    Mio Q's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    TIM
    I like bugs
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Definitely wondering about this myself; these are two of the types I'm considering I may be.

  6. #6
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,056
    Mentioned
    130 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    One would be similar to an Ne-LII and the other an Fi-SEE.

    They should be distinct from each other.
    This. Ne-EII has more in common with Fi-EII and Ne-LII than Fi-IEE and Fi-IEE has more in common with Ne-IEE and Fi-SEE than Ne-EII. Standard subtypes is basically just describing a gradient or spectrum of Socionics in greater detail. It's another way of saying that there is a gradient or spectrum within each type like so: Fi-SEE -> Fi-IEE -> Ne-IEE -> Ne-ILE or Ne-LII -> Ne-EII -> Fi-EII -> Fi-ESI.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    TIM
    Sanguin Spiritualist
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Pookie @Raver

    I wasn't going to say anything but since you both mentioned cross Quadra comparisons I'll respond. You are totally wrong. All EIIs have far more in common with all IEEs compared to LIIs. Function order is #2. Function blocks is #1. EII and IEE all share the same blocks. This translates to Quadra values.

    The spectrum of subtypes is: EII-E, EII-I, IEE-E, IEE-I.
    Hence IEE-E is between EII-I and IEE-I.

  8. #8
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,318
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domr View Post
    @Pookie @Raver

    I wasn't going to say anything but since you both mentioned cross Quadra comparisons I'll respond. You are totally wrong. All EIIs have far more in common with all IEEs compared to LIIs. Function order is #2. Function blocks is #1. EII and IEE all share the same blocks. This translates to Quadra values.

    The spectrum of subtypes is: EII-E, EII-I, IEE-E, IEE-I.
    Hence IEE-E is between EII-I and IEE-I.
    In common does not equate to appear to be. Temperament is huge in appearances.
    The question is about observable differences. Observably IEE-Fi and EII-Ne are not very similar, at all.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  9. #9
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,795
    Mentioned
    462 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think pookie is right about at that, and I think one of the unfortunate prevailing assumptions is that creative function subtype makes you look more like your mirror. its true in some sense it has to, but that is not the sense people usually assume it to be. seeing the world through different lenses is a big difference and whether the accent is on, as rebelondeck would say, input or output does not mitigate, rather it accentuates that base difference. in other words, a EII with an accent on Ne and Te might superficially sound like "oh thats more IEE" but you must realize accent does not shift dimensionality or I/O sequence, so its not like some "middle ground" in the way people assume it to be, based on how they seem to be talking about it. admittedly this is a hard difference to articulate, but I would say subtype shifts you in many ways to your extinguisher or business in as many ways to mirror (which is to say: only in a highly attenuated sense), thus when people in the situation think "well im stuck between [delta NF for example]" they assume they are creative subtype as if that explains the ambiguity--it really doesn't, its more a handwave compounding the unknown, but it gets repeated so often people mistake it as useful and accurate
    Last edited by Bertrand; 06-13-2018 at 03:03 PM.

  10. #10
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,815
    Mentioned
    279 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    In common does not equate to appear to be. Temperament is huge in appearances.
    The question is about observable differences. Observably IEE-Fi and EII-Ne are not very similar, at all.
    Yeah I find that I have way more in common with ESI personally.

  11. #11
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    458
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is simple DCNH has already addressed this:

    EIIs are still "IJs" they are measured in energy and linear in their approach.
    IEEs are always "Eps" expansive in energy and adaptive.

    Extroverted "IJs" have a distorted signal, they superficially resemble EPs being more expressive, you'd actually mistake them for EPs; however, after a prolonged interaction, the IJ restrictiveness comes through.

    Introverted EPs similarly have a distorted signal, mistaken for introverts because they are less expressive, seeming to be interested in minding their own businesses like introverts. Mutually after a prolonged interaction, the EP expansive energy and adaptability reveals itself.

  12. #12
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,795
    Mentioned
    462 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't even know if thats true: an EP with a "contact" subtype doesn't seem to be less energetic, only by a very specific meaning, an I don't think "expressive" would be one of them. for example I imagine a IEE Fi as being probably more expressive, at least in terms of intensity if not extensivity, because of the focus on depth of feeling and making contact. I do believe it would be more "targetted" i.e. aimed at individuals and 1 on 1s, all else being equal, but through the lens of opportunities and alternatives, it would nevertheless be "scattered"--what you would have is a person making deep contact with a variety of people, that if viewed from afar would certainly seem energetic. to say an accent on Ne in EII is to realize "more" opportunities begs the question that they are energetically expansive when it may simply be on increased creativity to the same amount and so on. for example an accent on Se and Te doesn't necessarily mean "more" in ESI it may simply be "harder" i.e.: requiring more determination and persistence. this is why EII as "contact" does not see the world through the lens of opporutnity they see it through the lens of depth of connection, thus "contact" is going to revolve around that, meaning Ne subtype is not necessarily more connecitons but a more far flung or "meaningful" connection. anyway I'm not saying they can't look alike, just that the subtype system does not necessarily blur them the way people assume it does. that is in of itself only one possible manifestation and kind of an attenuated one based on what I think its really attempting to get at. what im really trying to say is contact/inert moves the types across a different dimension than the one that linearly separates mirrors, think of it as breaking out a third dimension rather than moving them toward or apart eachother on a single continuum
    Last edited by Bertrand; 06-13-2018 at 03:27 PM.

  13. #13
    Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    7,606
    Mentioned
    654 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    One would be similar to an Ne-LII and the other an Fi-SEE.

    They should be distinct from each other.
    Basically this.

    Technically the strongest IE of IEE-Fi is Fe, whereas of EII-Ne it's Ni.
    You should be able to tell that, too. At least with IEE-Fi, the stronger Fe is rather obvious (Je IEs are the easiest to detect in regular interaction).
    NEW DISCORD SERVER
    "This server's purpose is to give us a platform to talk about various typological theories for fun,
    but also to go through our personal evolution by improving our instincts."


    Typing [x] Theory [x] Tumblr [x] YouTube [x] Film [x]



  14. #14
    aka He Died With a Felafel Delilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    1,201
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I think pookie is right about at that, and I think one of the unfortunate prevailing assumptions is that creative function subtype makes you look more like your mirror. its true in some sense it has to, but that is not the sense people usually assume it to be. seeing the world through different lenses is a big difference and whether the accent is on, as rebelondeck would say, input or output does not mitigate, rather it accentuates that base difference. in other words, a EII with an accent on Ne and Te might superficially sound like "oh thats more IEE" but you must realize accent does not shift dimensionality or I/O sequence, so its not like some "middle ground" in the way people assume it to be, based on how they seem to be talking about it. admittedly this is a hard difference to articulate, but I would say subtype shifts you in many ways to your extinguisher or business in as many ways to mirror (which is to say: only in a highly attenuated sense), thus when people in the situation think "well im stuck between [delta NF for example]" they assume they are creative subtype as if that explains the ambiguity--it really doesn't, its more a handwave compounding the unknown, but it gets repeated so often people mistake it as useful and accurate
    I see your point. I was wondering though for instance why IEE-Fi can't be more similar to ESI rather than SEE? If all what you're saying applies, then if you take into account the thinking style "hologrpahic" too, and, assuming that that is preserved as well, than wouldn't IEE-Fi be more similar to ESI? Just wondering
    "Inasmuch as it is nothing but pure communicability, every face, even the most noble and beautiful, is always suspended on the edge of an abyss"

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    TIM
    Sanguin Spiritualist
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    In common does not equate to appear to be. Temperament is huge in appearances.
    The question is about observable differences. Observably IEE-Fi and EII-Ne are not very similar, at all.
    All IEEs and EIIs value FiNe as their ego block. That means they have the same MO. FiNe is Stoicism or Daoism, basically Jedi code. This is completely different from SEE or LII.

    LII is TiNe is research, the R in R&D. SEE is FiSe which is hedonism or more common known as being an artist.
    Last edited by domr; 06-14-2018 at 02:58 AM.

  16. #16
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,795
    Mentioned
    462 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domr View Post
    All IEEs and EIIs value FiNe as their ego block.

    I think the point is you continually gloss over the difference between FiNe and NeFi and if you just recognized that space as being the difference rather than ignoring it, you'd never get confused as to how subtype could blur them. so bringing in all this EP/IP stuff, Jedi code, "research" (have you been reading vultology?) etc, is like ptolemaic in its lack of elegance

    also one of the exact tenets of M+O's system is that subtype does in fact "mirage" you into other quadra, so it seems odd to deny such a claim as preposterous on its face when the very creators of the system you seem to accept made precisely that claim (edit: what this refers to has since been edited out because I guess he realized this)
    Last edited by Bertrand; 06-14-2018 at 03:12 AM.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    TIM
    Sanguin Spiritualist
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I think the point is you continually gloss over the difference between FiNe and NeFi and if you just recognized that space as being the difference rather than ignoring it, you'd never get confused as to how subtype could blur them. so bringing in all this EP stuff Jedi code etc, is like ptolemaic in its lack of elegance
    Socionics Crash Course

    Choice 1 & 2: Choose a P and J function. = IE/SL & IL/SF. //IE in this example
    Choice 3: Add Introversion and Extraversion (-/+) = 8 Blocks // -E+I in this example
    Choice 4: Pick which function is dom/aux = 16 Types // EII and IEE in this example
    Choice 5: Choose how strongly you like that aspect = 32 Subtypes // EII-E, EII-I, IEE-E, IEE-I

    -E4+I3 and -E3+I4 are the same at 2^3. It's only at 2^4 that we differentiate between them. Hence at 2^5 we further refine our seperation of the two. Every time you add a new choice, you get more refinement i.e. less differentiation between types.

  18. #18
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,795
    Mentioned
    462 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    t e r r y o l o g y

    Terrence, please stop driving yourself insane. Math is merely symbols representing computations that exist in nature. All you’re doing is either changing the number value, or changing the function of the multiplication and addition symbols. Let’s look at a few things you’ve put out there. You say the square root of two should be one. Which is the same thing as saying 1×1=2. But the square root of two is 1.414 We know this because of the pythagorean theorum. Also, if 1×1=2…what does 1×2 equal? 3? Essentially, your reverse engineering of complex binomial and trinomial equations leading you to 1×1=2 doesn’t take into account the fact that multiplication is a function of addition. For instance 1×3 is the same as 1+1+1 Due to the definitions of math, you can’t describe multiplication without addition. Essentially your process of determining that 1×1=2 pretty much changes the definition of the + sign and the x sign . So, what you’re actually saying is 1+1=2…just changing the symbol of what the plus sign and multiplication sign actually mean. Please stop driving yourself crazy thinking about this. Math was described a long time ago…and using your method with make higher level math like calculus and statistics impossible.

  19. #19
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,318
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domr View Post
    All IEEs and EIIs value FiNe as their ego block. That means they have the same MO. FiNe is Stoicism or Daoism, basically Jedi code. This is completely different from SEE or LII.

    LII is TiNe is research, the R in R&D. SEE is FiSe which is hedonism or more common known as being an artist.
    No it means they have the same strengths and values, the modus operandi is way different. EJ has consistent high energy + IP has inconsistent energy that's typically low. How in the world could mirrors of those types go about doing(action) anything the same way? Content does not equal form.

    It's why EIE have earned an archetype of the popular mean girl, while IEI the loner who doesn't know how to communicate with peers. Content-wise, both have a fundamental disconnect with others stemming from (what I believe to be) the weaknesses of Si super ego, but there isn't a soul who would confuse one for the other.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    TIM
    Sanguin Spiritualist
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    8 Blocks = MO
    +J/Choleric, -P/Melancholic = Temperament

    EI+ and IE- are the same MO. Both are trying to gain consumer insights. What do humans desire? What are their hopes, dreams, wishes? EI+ (Prophet) is focused on guiding, communicating and influencing people to those goals while IE- (Oracle) is focused on discovering those insights. Same MO, different temperament.

  21. #21
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,318
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Modus Operandi - a particular way or method of doing something, especially one that is characteristic or well-established.

    You just listed two different ones.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    TIM
    Sanguin Spiritualist
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    Modus Operandi - a particular way or method of doing something, especially one that is characteristic or well-established.

    You just listed two different ones.
    Of doing life. Both do life the same way, with consumer insights. This is arguing semantics.

    P.S. When comparing types you want to compare them at their best, not at their worst or near worst. Teenager years is the worst, the beginning of a person getting competent. As they mature, EI+ and IE- are going to coverage and will be much more similar to each other than any other type.

  23. #23
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,318
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domr View Post
    Of doing life. Both do life the same way, with consumer insights. This is arguing semantics.

    P.S. When comparing types you want to compare them at their best, not at their worst or near worst. Teenager years is the worst, the beginning of a person getting competent. As they mature, EI+ and IE- are going to coverage and will be much more similar to each other than any other type.
    Arguing semantics is arguing meaning. So yeah, obviously. The person asked a question, you answered in a way that makes the meaning they can draw from that answer misleading. You used the wrong word. They don't do life the same way. They see life the same way. The topic is about appearances. Modus Operandi is about actions. Who someone is on the inside is not visible to anyone. What you do is the only thing people can see. IEE-Fi & EII-Ne do not act similar enough to confuse with each other.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    TIM
    Sanguin Spiritualist
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    Arguing semantics is arguing meaning. So yeah, obviously. The person asked a question, you answered in a way that makes the meaning they can draw from that answer misleading. You used the wrong word. They don't do life the same way. They see life the same way. The topic is about appearances. Modus Operandi is about actions. Who someone is on the inside is not visible to anyone. What you do is the only thing people can see. IEE-Fi & EII-Ne do not act similar enough to confuse with each other.
    I don't think you have a good understanding of types. They aren't just what a person does on the inside. People communicate and enact their thinking in reality. As I said, both IE- and EI+ have the same MO which is consumer insights. Their primary decisions will be on -I+E.

    With regards to IE+E and EI-I, they will be even closer to each other than IE+ and EI-. This is because of how we create the subtypes. Subtypes are defined to have stronger ODD functions (incl. creative) and weaker EVEN functions (incl. leading). IE+I = IE+ and EI-E = EI-. The two subtypes, IE+E and EI-I are basically hybrids of the two types.

    Look at the chart below to see why.
    Code:
                        -E+I
                  -E4+I3, -E3+I4
    -E4+I3, -E3.7+I3.3, -E3.3+I3.7, -E3+I4 
    
    (-/+) Subjective/Objective
    I/E = Intuition/Ethic
    # = Differentiation (Dimension)
    Last edited by domr; 06-14-2018 at 08:22 AM.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,108
    Mentioned
    686 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    by dichotomies

    Quote Originally Posted by Delilah View Post
    I see your point. I was wondering though for instance why IEE-Fi can't be more similar to ESI rather than SEE? If all what you're saying applies, then if you take into account the thinking style "hologrpahic" too, and, assuming that that is preserved as well, than wouldn't IEE-Fi be more similar to ESI? Just wondering
    IEE is more similar to SEE. Quantitative shifts in balances of functions (the only adequate "subtypes") have lesser influence, than types - what is evident - and hence subtypes are practically useless.
    While if to take into account different baseless bs like thinking styles or other - than can be gotten anything.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  26. #26
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,795
    Mentioned
    462 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    "more similar" is a matter of perspective, since it depends on what information the judger is picking up and comparing. from some points of view IEE and ESI are more alike, which is the basis for supervision--maximal information transfer. different points of view, namely those viewed from the outside in terms of gross behavior alone without respect to cognitive style or other internal processes, will see more in common with SEE... if you throw out cognitive styles altogether as well as understanding most introverted processes, and also have a low res in general understanding of Fi, what is left is that IEE and SEE are basically the same except SEE is more forceful and IEE is more imaginative. its not that this is wrong, but it entails stripping out all the things that differentiate them up front, and results as a consequence of the person viewing them, not a reflection on their ultimate similarities or differences. the truth is people always want to frame things as either/or, when the reality is closer to all types are equally different and similar. when sol says compare traits he is not off base in this regard, you will notice almost everyone has about 50% common in traits with one another, the only difference is which ones. the ones that stick out the most are rooted in who is doing the judging, thus the tendency to priveledge some differences, i.e.: traits, as more meaningful

  27. #27
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,815
    Mentioned
    279 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Subtypes are heresy, but a simple way to answer your question would be to read the bullshit subtype descriptions of each type and compare them. If you can’t do this on your own you are hopeless. It won’t be very useful though, since subtypes are heretic bs. But at least it’ll be better than the different baseless opinions of non-authorities here.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    TIM
    Sanguin Spiritualist
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    Subtypes are heresy, but a simple way to answer your question would be to read the bullshit subtype descriptions of each type and compare them. If you can’t do this on your own you are hopeless. It won’t be very useful though, since subtypes are heretic bs. But at least it’ll be better than the different baseless opinions of non-authorities here.
    They aren't BS. If you interact with enough maintypes then you'll be able to identify subtypes. I'm IE+I and I get along much better with ES+S and LI+I because we are all P subtypes. In practice the subtypes act more like the opposite -/+ so ES+S is more like SE-E; less Choleric and more Melancholic temperament.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    what is left is that IEE and SEE are basically the same except SEE is more forceful and IEE is more imaginative.
    This is so wrong. Are you serious? You have 5k posts and you think IE+ and SE+ are basically the same. Do you even Model A bro. 4 out of 8 functions are different between the types. Completely different Quadras and Families. SE+ and IE+ are only similar at a superficial +P level.

  29. #29
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,815
    Mentioned
    279 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domr View Post
    They aren't BS. If you interact with enough maintypes then you'll be able to identify subtypes. I'm IE+I and I get along much better with ES+S and LI+I because we are all P subtypes. In practice the subtypes act more like the opposite -/+ so ES+S is more like SE-E; less Choleric and more Melancholic temperament.
    Take your made up codes and put them up back up your ass where they came from charlatan.

  30. #30
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,795
    Mentioned
    462 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was pointing out a conclusion, not my conclusion, about how if you strip out everything that otherwise differentiates them up front, that's the low res picture you end up with

  31. #31
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,815
    Mentioned
    279 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domr View Post
    You first with your MBTI and non-unique socionics codes
    And put some glass shards up there too while you’re at it.

  32. #32
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,815
    Mentioned
    279 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domr View Post
    It's okay man. We can't all be leaders like me, innovating new and improved notation. Some people have to be followers like you, using notation other people created without thinking bout it
    Innovate all you want. I will felch your anus along with broken shards of glass, and drain out all your life force and creativity.

  33. #33
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,815
    Mentioned
    279 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domr View Post
    Fixed.
    And you’d better get used to it.

    Me being fixed to your butthole that is.

  34. #34
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,318
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domr View Post
    I don't think you have a good understanding of types. They aren't just what a person does on the inside. People communicate and enact their thinking in reality. As I said, both IE- and EI+ have the same MO which is consumer insights. Their primary decisions will be on -I+E.

    With regards to IE+E and EI-I, they will be even closer to each other than IE+ and EI-. This is because of how we create the subtypes. Subtypes are defined to have stronger ODD functions (incl. creative) and weaker EVEN functions (incl. leading). IE+I = IE+ and EI-E = EI-. The two subtypes, IE+E and EI-I are basically hybrids of the two types.

    Look at the chart below to see why.
    Code:
                        -E+I
                  -E4+I3, -E3+I4
    -E4+I3, -E3.7+I3.3, -E3.3+I3.7, -E3+I4 
    
    (-/+) Subjective/Objective
    I/E = Intuition/Ethic
    # = Differentiation (Dimension)
    I am honestly flabbergasted that you could write a sentence like "Types aren't just what a person does on the inside" and then follow it up with "both IE- and EI+ have the same MO which is consumer insights". And not detect the irony. Insight is entirely internal, isn't an MO, and Consumer Insight is about selling products.

    "People communicate and enact their thinking in reality" Yes. And where the IEE and EII differ the greatest(This is intertype relations 101) is enacting that similar thinking into reality. Ref. Mirror. Theres a reason why people can confuse themselves with their mirror, and yet its rare for someone else to do so. While at the same time that person would never confuse themselves with their super-ego, and yet a stranger might. Or why Look-a-like is a term used for a type in the same temperament. This is because Temperament is the single biggest factor in the expression of ones IEs. You know, someone's M.O. Temperament is what stands out the most. This is the root of the argument. This is what they are asking about.

    "With regards to IE+E and EI-I, they will be even closer to each other than IE+ and EI-. "
    yes.
    "Subtypes are defined to have stronger ODD functions (incl. creative) and weaker EVEN functions (incl. leading)"
    No. Half are. Base subtypes are the reverse... and I think you're mix-matching odd and even.
    "IE+E and EI-I are basically hybrids of the two types."
    Sloppy. You are equating Strength with function. Weakening base & bolstering creative does not do anything about function order. Bolstering creative means youre also bolstering Role and weakening PolR. Because elements grow in strength with use, if it is bolstered, it is used more than typical for the type.
    So, Imagine an IEE who uses Ne less than normal, and uses Se more than normal, all while the Fi is being used more than normal as a contact function. Unless you don't know what creative does, there's little chance you would mistake those behaviors for EII-Ne. An EII-Ne's control of Se is going to be atrocious. And IEE-Fi's control of Se is going to be surprisingly refined.
    The closest match to this in the Socion is SEE-Fi, who uses Se less than normal, Ne more than normal and Fi is being used more than normal as a contact function.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  35. #35
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking cookies
    TIM
    SEI 9
    Posts
    1,752
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Introvert, extravert, J or P

  36. #36
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,928
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delilah View Post
    what are the observable differences between these two?
    What problem are you trying to solve here? Are you perhaps trying to find out whether you are IEE or EII yourself?
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    TIM
    Sanguin Spiritualist
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    I am honestly flabbergasted that you could write a sentence like "Types aren't just what a person does on the inside" and then follow it up with "both IE- and EI+ have the same MO which is consumer insights". And not detect the irony. Insight is entirely internal, isn't an MO, and Consumer Insight is about selling products.
    Semantics & Metaphor.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    "People communicate and enact their thinking in reality" Yes. And where the IEE and EII differ the greatest(This is intertype relations 101) is enacting that similar thinking into reality. Ref. Mirror. Theres a reason why people can confuse themselves with their mirror, and yet its rare for someone else to do so. While at the same time that person would never confuse themselves with their super-ego, and yet a stranger might. Or why Look-a-like is a term used for a type in the same temperament. This is because Temperament is the single biggest factor in the expression of ones IEs. You know, someone's M.O. Temperament is what stands out the most. This is the root of the argument. This is what they are asking about.
    You just contradicted yourself. 1 is blocks. 2 is temperament.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    No. Half are. Base subtypes are the reverse... and I think you're mix-matching odd and even.
    C4/C2/U4/U2 are even. Leading/Role/Demonstrative/Mobilizing

    If half the functions were stronger creative subtypes would be stronger than leading subtypes. leading subtypes would have total function strength of 20 while creative would be more than 20. That doesn't work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    Sloppy. You are equating Strength with function.
    That's exactly how Jung explained it. In Socionics, the strength of the functions comes from the dimensionally. So to bolster a function means to increase it's strength.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    Weakening base & bolstering creative does not do anything about function order.
    I never said it does. Like I said, it makes leading ~3.7D instead of 4D and all functions get scaled accordingly. Order is the same but strength changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    Bolstering creative means youre also bolstering Role and weakening PolR. Because elements grow in strength with use, if it is bolstered, it is used more than typical for the type.
    That doesn't make any sense. Role function opposes creative. +P vs -J. If you were to strength both, it would negate the changes in temperament.

    Plus in reality, creative subtypes appear more balanced and have a better use of both suggestive and vulnerable functions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    So, Imagine an IEE who uses Ne less than normal, and uses Se more than normal, all while the Fi is being used more than normal as a contact function. Unless you don't know what creative does, there's little chance you would mistake those behaviors for EII-Ne. An EII-Ne's control of Se is going to be atrocious. And IEE-Fi's control of Se is going to be surprisingly refined.
    The closest match to this in the Socion is SEE-Fi, who uses Se less than normal, Ne more than normal and Fi is being used more than normal as a contact function.
    Again you don't seem to even understand basic Model A block theory. SE+ has completely different blocks than IE+ or EI-

  38. #38
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,318
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domr View Post
    Semantics & Metaphor.




    You just contradicted yourself. 1 is blocks. 2 is temperament.



    C4/C2/U4/U2 are even. Leading/Role/Demonstrative/Mobilizing

    If half the functions were stronger creative subtypes would be stronger than leading subtypes. leading subtypes would have total function strength of 20 while creative would be more than 20. That doesn't work.



    That's exactly how Jung explained it. In Socionics, the strength of the functions comes from the dimensionally. So to bolster a function means to increase it's strength.



    I never said it does. Like I said, it makes leading ~3.7D instead of 4D and all functions get scaled accordingly. Order is the same but strength changes.



    That doesn't make any sense. Role function opposes creative. +P vs -J. If you were to strength both, it would negate the changes in temperament.

    Plus in reality, creative subtypes appear more balanced and have a better use of both suggestive and vulnerable functions.



    Again you don't seem to even understand basic Model A block theory. SE+ has completely different blocks than IE+ or EI-
    Oh, you just don't know much, ok. You're not arguing my conclusions, your arguing structural axioms. Not going to make sense to you until you read it yourself.

    Your reading comprehension might be why everyone who's been here for 5-10 years is disagreeing with you. The bolded doesn't contradict. Semantics doesn't mean meaningless it means meaning. Creative is an even numbered function, Base is odd. Creative and Base subtypes don't strengthen the same functions. Maybe you don't mean that, but your words say that. Which is why I said your being sloppy with your words.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    TIM
    Sanguin Spiritualist
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Pookie

    That's exactly correct. I am arguing axioms because your conclusions don't follow the axioms which means they are not real.

    As I said, I define even as C4/C2/U4/C2. I'm not using the illogical geometric black/white figure model because it's not correct.

  40. #40
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,318
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domr View Post
    @Pookie

    That's exactly correct. I am arguing axioms because your conclusions don't follow the axioms which means they are not real.

    As I said, I define even as C4/C2/U4/C2. I'm not using the illogical geometric black/white figure model because it's not correct.
    Define C4.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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