this is how I feel about myself (and about IEEs in general)

[applejacks]

I think IEE's "program" is better suited for a set of conditions that is different than the current set of conditions (at least where I live). I think IEE might've been a common type in the early days of Homo sapiens, but I think they are relatively unfit for the modern world. In short, I think IEE is a "dying type", and I think Delta is an "archaic quadra".

This is hard for me to explain; I agree with Carl Jung's characterization of Fi-egos:


Sorry for rambling; I truly believe IEE is obselete, and that makes me feel very sad. I see mostly Fe- and Ti-egos where I live; I honestly think Fi/Te is "on its way out", evolutionarily speaking.

Where are you, and how do you see them as they're unsuited or unfit for current conditions?

Wouldn't that then mean that IEE types would feel outcast or insufficient? As Carl Jung states, if Fi is truly more difficult to be understood than subjective thinking, shouldn't Fi-egos feel misunderstood all the time? Or are you stating that Fi-egos must rely on other Fi-egos / Deltas because of the nature of Fi, and because of that, they are inferior?

No offense to anyone, but I imagine quite an unstable world if Fi/Te dissolves and is replaced completely with Fe / Ti. In many of our recent IEE / Fi thread discussions, we've discussed how Fe handles the raw emotion of situations, whereas Fi tries to get to the field of influence causing of the emotion ( @anndelise explains it more eloquently than I). And in this case, I don't think I can agree that Fi is "on it's way out", simply because there is need for both.

You might have a case for how Fi-egos may be on the downward trend, but I don't believe, even if that were true, that that makes us obsolete.

[Olduvai]

Where are you

I'm in Michigan.

and how do you see them as they're unsuited or unfit for current conditions?

Because as you're now discovering, our thinking isn't very precise. I don't think this was an issue back in the day, as the problems that needed solving were simple and of a practical nature; but nowadays, the problems are complex and deep, and I don't think IEE possesses the mental rigor that is necessary to tackle them.

Wouldn't that then mean that IEE types would feel outcast or insufficient?

Yup, and that is exactly how I feel.

As Carl Jung states, if Fi is truly more difficult to be understood than subjective thinking, shouldn't Fi-egos feel misunderstood all the time?

Only if they're surrounded by types who are incapable of understanding them, i.e. Fe/Ti people (Ti-egos especially).

Or are you stating that Fi-egos must rely on other Fi-egos / Deltas because of the nature of Fi, and because of that, they are inferior?

No, IEEs are inferior because they think in too broad of terms.

I'm not so sure I can debate, because I'm most certainly biased, but I imagine quite an unstable world if Fi/Te dissolves and is replaced completely with Fe / Ti.

The world is already unstable.

In many of our recent IEE / Fi thread discussions, we've discussed how Fe handles the raw emotion of situations, whereas Fi tries to get to the field of influence causing of the emotion ( @anndelise explains it more eloquently than I). And in this case, I don't think I can agree that Fi is "on it's way out", simply because there is need for both.

I'm not sure that's a correct characterization of Fi and Fe, but I'd rather not get into a debate about it because I made this thread to sulk, not to argue.

You might have a case for how Fi-egos may be on the downward trend, but I don't believe, even if that were true, that that makes us obsolete.

Sorry, but I really don't think you're an Fi-ego; I meant it when I said "LII".

[applejacks]

@Kenneth Chesney -

1) I personally believe IEEs to be quite capable of solving deep, complex problems, even if their Ne thinking is broad and jumpy at times.

2) Solving deep, complex problems isn't always the requirement. Sometimes coming up with a new idea, injecting innovation, or amping people up towards a unified vision is equally as important.

3) Sorry if I come across as debating within your sulking thread. You may commence sulking if you still believe all of this, but I'm perfectly happy with my IEE broad thinking, colorful ideas, charm, and natural talent for innovation and creativity

Sorry, but I really don't think you're an Fi-ego; I meant it when I said "LII".

lol.

EDIT: Also, I'm very sorry to hear that you feel misunderstood. Sounds like Michigan may not be the state for you. Have you thought about moving?

[Olduvai]

1) I personally believe IEEs to be quite capable of solving deep, complex problems, even if their Ne thinking is broad and jumpy at times.

It's broad, imprecise, and vague at all times.
.

2) Solving deep, complex problems isn't always the requirement. Sometimes coming up with a new idea, injecting innovation, or amping people up towards a unified vision is equally as important.

That sounds more like EIE than IEE; IEE's "ideas" and "innovations" aren't grounded in logic, and that's our problem.

3) Sorry if I come across as debating within your sulking thread. You may commence sulking if you still believe all of this, but I'm perfectly happy with my IEE broad thinking, colorful ideas, charm, and natural talent for innovation and creativity

It must be nice being LII.

lol.

Why "lol"? What makes you think you're IEE? Do you "know without a doubt" that you are IEE, or is it merely "the best fit as far as you can tell"?

No offense, but I don't think you know what IEE "looks like". I think IEE is one of the rarer types for the reasons I listed above; they're unfit for the current set of conditions, and natural selection is weeding them out.

[applejacks]

I know without a doubt. The IEE Filatova description is me to a tee, down to the way I act, carry myself, and dress. I had my husband read the description, and he said it was uncanny how accurate it was of me.

Ok, just trying to understand...you're basically saying the IEE is not "best" at anything valuable? For example, "ideas" and "innovation" are done better through EIE, so therefore IEE isn't needed because they're not the best at logic, nor the best at creativity?

I still think IEE has grace in the way we carry out our duties. We get along with everyone (or at least many of us do) and that "buy-in" from others allows us to build bridges, give council, and "champion" ideas in a way that other types may not be able to do.

Have you been isolated for awhile? IEEs tend to wilt and get sulky when isolated.


EDIT: This next question may come across as snarky, but I truly mean it in a comical way: If all you're saying is true, and you're also claiming to be IEE, wouldn't that mean that your logic is not sound, and therefore your argument is invalid because it's inferior? *eyebrow wiggle*

[Olduvai]

I know without a doubt. The IEE Filatova description is me to a tee, down to the way I act, carry myself, and dress.

Yes, but does it accurately capture "the way you are"?

I had my husband read the description, and he said it was uncanny how accurate it was of me.

I honestly think this reasoning is Ti/Fe in nature. It's "I am this because others say I'm this"; with me, it's "I am this because I myself know I'm this". I don't need external validation; hell, I never mention typology to the people I know IRL. I feel like they'd find it creepy.

Ok, just trying to understand...

If you really were IEE, I don't think understanding would be an issue. It's the vagueness, isn't it?

you're basically saying the IEE is not "best" at anything valuable?

What I'm saying is they're not well-equipped to deal with the current set of conditions.

For example, "ideas" and "innovation" are done better through EIE, so therefore IEE isn't needed because they're not the best at logic, nor the best at creativity?

I honestly don't know what I was saying there, lol. It was a Ti-PoLR-barf.

I still think IEE has grace in the way we carry out our duties.

You say "duties" like you owe something to society or to other people; I've never felt like I owed anyone shit. "Social obligation" is another "quality" I associate with Fe/Ti.

We get along with everyone (or at least many of us do) and that "buy-in" from others allows us to build bridges, give council, and "champion" ideas in a way that other types may not be able to do.

lol, just today my EIE friend commented on my "antagonistic" nature.

Have you been isolated for awhile? IEEs tend to wilt and get sulky when isolated.

I've not been "isolated" necessarily, although my number of social contacts has definitely diminished over the past few years. Ultimately I am lonely; I am single and, despite having plenty of prospects, what I want is "true love". Unfortunately I've only met one female SLI in my life, and she wasn't "up to par" physically. I've been seeing lots of sexy female SLE (just the other day I had one tell me about her past sexual escapades, and it made me reconsider the whole "duality" thing; however, there is too much of a communication gap between us for a relationship to work), but they're way too socially demanding and emotionally needy for me. "Quiet", "independent", "kind", "understanding", "sensual", and "low-maintenance" are words I would use to describe my ideal mate. The female SLEs I've met have been "overbearing", "interpersonally demanding", "fundamentally unkind", "intolerant", "roughnecked", and "emotionally needy".

EDIT: This next question may come across as snarky, but I truly mean it in a comical way: If all you're saying is true, and you're also claiming to be IEE, wouldn't that mean that your logic is not sound, and therefore your argument is invalid because it's inferior? *eyebrow wiggle*

lol I'm glad you said this: your clever (and logical) argument here kinda proves my point about your "essence".

[IBTL]

I've not been "isolated" necessarily, although my number of social contacts has definitely diminished over the past few years. Ultimately I am lonely; I am single and, despite having plenty of prospects, what I want is "true love". Unfortunately I've only met one female SLI in my life, and she wasn't "up to par" physically. I've been seeing lots of sexy female SLE (just the other day I had one tell me about her past sexual escapades, and it made me reconsider the whole "duality" thing; however, there is too much of a communication gap between us for a relationship to work), but they're way too socially demanding and emotionally needy for me. "Quiet", "independent", "kind", "understanding", "sensual", and "low-maintenance" are words I would use to describe my ideal mate. The female SLEs I've met have been "overbearing", "interpersonally demanding", "fundamentally unkind", "intolerant", "roughnecked", and "emotionally needy".

This is how I "understand" SLI/IEE... or how the "he", who was mentioned in this thread I'll assume, has filtered down the dynamics of SLI/IEE through lyrical analysis. Afterall, I'm only an IEI, so it's not very easy for me to give "proof" with overly logical methods. Exactly how does a girl scout succeed in life anyway? However she ****ing can! LOL

Ok...

Let's just say that Amy Winehouse is SLI (SiTeFiNe).

In her song "Amy Amy Amy", she talks about a coworker who "distracts" her, which stops her from doing the work that she hates (which is intentionally written in the present tense, being an ever-changing dynamic, I believe).

Let me give you a few lines to digest and see if you agree:
"Attract me till it hurts to concentrate" - Ne is valued here by Si
"Distract me, stops me doin' work I hate" - Ne is valued here by Si
"Although I've been here before" - Te ("to know")
"I think you'd wear me well" - Te
"Where's my moral parallel?" - Fi in relation to being a sexual, sensual Si
"It takes me half an hour to write a verse" - Te (not very practical for such a practical person, right?)
"He makes me imagine it from bad to worse" - Si as a form of "intellectual" sexuality
"My weakness for the other sex" - Si
"My train of thought spins right off track" - Te
"He's just too hard to ignore" - weak Ne --------------> weak Se for me = too hard to ignore the sweets!
"I'll let you know when you should stop" - Te
"Now from the picture my mind drew" - Si
"Creative energy abused" - Si taken over by Ne
"And all my lyrics go unused" - Te
"I drift off, I fantasize" - Si

As an extroverted, feeling intuitive type or an essence thereof, NeFiTeSi, you are the master of distraction to an SLI.

Now go find your own Amy before she overdoses on sensual distractions...! (I believe from personal experience within my family, that Blake Fielder, Amy Winehouse's object of affection, was ESFp and gave her drugs to break her down "piece by piece", but that's probably for another discussion.)






Unfortunately, I agree with you about SLE's. Maybe there's a healthy SLE that can prove otherwise?!

Communication via duality is theoretically much, much easier. You are right about communication gaps! I'm just too independent and sensitive (perhaps even afflicted by personality typology) to compete with SLE's who play "sadistic-like" games...

[Olduvai]

EDIT: Also, I'm very sorry to hear that you feel misunderstood. Sounds like Michigan may not be the state for you. Have you thought about moving?

I've absolutely thought about it, although "dreamed about it" might be the better way to put it. It's hard to move anywhere when Ti is your PoLR, i.e. when you give zero fucks about meeting obligations. I'm working on it, though; my goal is to end up somewhere warm, sunny, and sparsely populated.

[Olduvai]

I think Fe/Ti people view "type" as a "label" when it is really an "essence". Here's another quote (all I can do is quote others; I can't explain this shit myself):

It was (and is) common to think that other animals are ruled by "instinct" whereas humans lost their instincts and are ruled by "reason", and that this is why we are so much more flexibly intelligent than other animals. William James took the opposite view. He argued that human behavior is more flexibly intelligent than that of other animals because we have more instincts than they do, not fewer. We tend to be blind to the existence of these instincts, however, precisely because they work so well -- because they process information so effortlessly and automatically. They structure our thought so powerfully, he argued, that it can be difficult to imagine how things could be otherwise. As a result, we take "normal" behavior for granted. We do not realize that "normal" behavior needs to be explained at all. This "instinct blindness" makes the study of psychology difficult. To get past this problem, James suggested that we try to make the "natural seem strange"

On this view, all normal human minds reliably develop a standard collection of reasoning and regulatory circuits that are functionally specialized and, frequently, domain-specific. These circuits organize the way we interpret our experiences, inject certain recurrent concepts and motivations into our mental life, and provide universal frames of meaning that allow us to understand the actions and intentions of others. Beneath the level of surface variability, all humans share certain views and assumptions about the nature of the world and human action by virtue of these human universal reasoning circuits.

In short, the circuits of the brain are designed to generate motion -- behavior -- in response to information from the environment. The function of your brain -- this wet computer -- is to generate behavior that is appropriate to your environmental circumstances.