Socionics Types and Quotes

[UDP]

Why is this thread in the Delta Quadra subforum? Wouldn't it be better placed in General Discussion? It deals with all types.

This isn't necessarily related to only deltas, but, it's something we could talk about. Basically, post things that you see as being socioincally relevant - or instances in real conversation/interaction where you think socionics comes through in a clear way. There are some moments where I say "wow, this really exemplifies...." - do you have the same? I've been thinking about making a thread like this for a while, and some things from today finally led to it happening.

It was created in a time where there was very little happening in the delta quadra subforum; it was a means to get some deltas talking in here.

[07490]

N

[UDP]

heh, I touched on a slightly uncomfortable subject with an SLI
and they bow out and change subjects to how they need to do something to their car.

classic.

[Danielle]

Trying to help an ESE who is in a relationship with another ESE:

Me: I just wish the two of you could have a level-headed conversation for once.
ESE: ...
Me: You need to sit down at a time when you're both calm and talk about your future and make a plan with a timeline and everything. Like, date for a year, plan marriage, get married. Or not.
ESE: We already made a plan but we don't follow it. We make plans in our "intimate moments". (said with air quotes)
Me: And then you fight. You two are always fighting or having intimate lovey-dovey talks, when are you ever just calm so you can talk about the relationship and get to know each other?
ESE: We are passionate people! She thinks I'm yelling when I'm not. Do I sound like I'm yelling?
(he kind of does, but I know that's how he talks when he's feeling strongly, which is almost always)
Me: No I know you're not yelling now but you were yelling on the phone with her.
ESE: We were both talking passionately!
Me: You've got to be able to talk some other kind of way if you want to get to know each other. Remember we talked about building relationships before you can commit to them?
ESE: ...
Me: What do you want to do?
ESE: I don't know! I don't want to break up with this girl, I love her!
Me:...
ESE: I've got to end it right now, cut it off!
(goes off and cries)

[Satan]

Trying to help an ESE who is in a relationship with another ESE:

Me: I just wish the two of you could have a level-headed conversation for once.
ESE: ...
Me: You need to sit down at a time when you're both calm and talk about your future and make a plan with a timeline and everything. Like, date for a year, plan marriage, get married. Or not.
ESE: We already made a plan but we don't follow it. We make plans in our "intimate moments". (said with air quotes)
Me: And then you fight. You two are always fighting or having intimate lovey-dovey talks, when are you ever just calm so you can talk about the relationship and get to know each other?
ESE: We are passionate people! She thinks I'm yelling when I'm not. Do I sound like I'm yelling?
(he kind of does, but I know that's how he talks when he's feeling strongly, which is almost always)
Me: No I know you're not yelling now but you were yelling on the phone with her.
ESE: We were both talking passionately!
Me: You've got to be able to talk some other kind of way if you want to get to know each other. Remember we talked about building relationships before you can commit to them?
ESE: ...
Me: What do you want to do?
ESE: I don't know! I don't want to break up with this girl, I love her!
Me:...
ESE: I've got to end it right now, cut it off!
(goes off and cries)

You're an expert in destroying relationships.

[Mattie]

heh, I touched on a slightly uncomfortable subject with an SLI
and they bow out and change subjects to how they need to do something to their car.

classic.

Yeah, really weird to me, like the most inorganic way to move the conversation. I was talking to this SiTe I had a rocky time with, and he brought up why I didn't talk much with him and why I seemed mean when we talked. I brought up all the times he continued to flake on me, and that I waited months for him to live up to his word and continued to have my patience tried to the point where I just gave up. Like, he directly asked for this, and then instead of answering anything, he just goes "Let's talk about something nicer." And we haven't talked since then, so I'm just like screw him

[Cyrano]

heh, I touched on a slightly uncomfortable subject with an SLI
and they bow out and change subjects to how they need to do something to their car.

classic.

Well...what kind of car was it? ;-)

[Danielle]

You're an expert in destroying relationships.

[iAnnAu]

Well...what kind of car was it? ;-)

Jeez, can't you read? It was *classic.*



(still not ontopic)

[redbaron]

From an online conversation w an SLI friend/ex-coworker of mine:

Me - Thank you, [SLI]! It has been too long... as much as I enjoy your wit via the internet, it isn't the same as in person. I don't know if you're free, but we [at work] are having the Halloween Extravaganza next week - it'd be great to see you [and your offspring!] if you can make it... if not, hopefully I'll see you soon... I need to have a party or something, and if I do then hopefully you and your wife can make an appearance ;-)

SLI - these things you've said all sound very reasonable, and i'll see what i can do

"very reasonable" indeed.

[Cyrano]

From an online conversation w an SLI friend/ex-coworker of mine:

Me - Thank you, [SLI]! It has been too long... as much as I enjoy your wit via the internet, it isn't the same as in person. I don't know if you're free, but we [at work] are having the Halloween Extravaganza next week - it'd be great to see you [and your offspring!] if you can make it... if not, hopefully I'll see you soon... I need to have a party or something, and if I do then hopefully you and your wife can make an appearance ;-)

SLI - these things you've said all sound very reasonable, and i'll see what i can do

Aw, now that's bad. Even I can see that.

[Cyrano]

Really? I didn't take it as bad at all; that's just how he is online [well, and irl too a lot of the time] even though he's actually a very warm person inside and a great friend. I kind of like it :wink:

Not to be judgmental, but it sounds like he has a cork stuck somewhere.

[Cyrano]

Hmm... I think that's a bit harsh. Granted that was one of his more... blunt? [can't think of the right word atm]... responses, but considering our interactions overall I don't see what's wrong w it. Then again, I guess if that was all I had to judge on, I might think the same thing....

I'm sure he's cool...he is SLI afterall. :wink:

[jewels]

From an online conversation w an SLI friend/ex-coworker of mine:

Me - Thank you, [SLI]! It has been too long... as much as I enjoy your wit via the internet, it isn't the same as in person. I don't know if you're free, but we [at work] are having the Halloween Extravaganza next week - it'd be great to see you [and your offspring!] if you can make it... if not, hopefully I'll see you soon... I need to have a party or something, and if I do then hopefully you and your wife can make an appearance ;-)

SLI - these things you've said all sound very reasonable, and i'll see what i can do

lol, that's cute. That kind of response wouldn't bother me at all either. It almost seems like he wrote down exactly what he was thinking, but that's what's cute about it.

[UDP]

The laugh of an LSI who is anxious about showing a receptivity to positive emotional content when in the presence of a perceives superior.

mmm

[Marie84]

LSE supervisor during an extremely busy shift: "All breaks are cancelled!!"

Yah I could see that, it's their Ni vulnerability

[crazedrat]

SLI-Te vs. SLI-Si difference there

[UDP]

That is so adorable. Seriously. (Granted, I can sometimes be one of those people that irritates her... >_>)

On a side note, it must be especially difficult to be a female LSE in American society. Sheesh--I find it bad enough that I don't like soap operas and shoes, but from society's perspective I'm probably "appropriately" feminine that I don't get flack for that. But I can't even imagine how especially challenging it must be for the female LSEs...

its not that bad.

[UDP]

lses can be motherly. LSE women can take fairly good care of themselves. Some of them can be very domestic and family oriented. Etc etc etc.

Not all of them. but. I don't see a reason to assume all lse women are going to have major issues with gender roles.

[UDP]

Ryu: how YOU doin?
SLIfemale: i smell like rust, am a few shades darker from rust dust, and probably inhaled way too much rust dust as well
SLI: yaaaay sculpture
Ryu: mmm
Ryu: you soundl ike a true SLI.

[silverchris9]

Re: forced emotional topics...well, I guess sometimes I view emotional topics as obligatory hurdles to clear. Sometimes relationships just become a set-up like that. And, if they don't get addressed, things can't move forward. So it's better to get them out of the way as soon as possible. So, in that sense, given a relationship's evolution that becomes that kind of situation, I'll force those kinds of issues. And, ideally, it'd make things stronger--doesn't always work out that way though, in practice.

sounds Fi/Te to me. Like, extremely Fi/Te.I think a Fe/Ti view would view emotional topics as an excuse to be emotional and emotive and expressive. More of an end in themselves and less of an unpleasant necessity. I also think a Te-ego would ultimately appreciate being forced to deal with emotions as long as they were prodded in an appropriate manner, even if they didn't completely enjoy it at the time. I'd imagine it's similar with Ni-egos being forced to deal with the real world by Se-egos.

Also, I understand the idea of using a party as an excuse to have a great big cry-fest; somewhat staged scenes of emotionality. I get that. I mean, the emotion is always there, and the party is an excuse to let it out. It's not ideal, but it makes sense. It sorta reminds me of the time some friends of mine got together to have a "bitter single people's party".

LSE supervisor during an extremely busy shift: "All breaks are cancelled!!"

That would piss me off on multiple levels, especially if I already didn't like the person. I'm having trouble picturing a scenario in which that wouldn't be really irritating.

[Lobo]

lol. ftr that was also during a shift that was extremely understaffed as well, but yeah, i already didn't like her. i feel like she bullshits a lot and it's similar to what i've experienced with another LSE... it's hard to explain, it's possibly that i just don't "trust" the Te very easily due to my polr... i just get the impression that they are looking out for themselves and their own benefit first and foremost to the point that they'll screw me over (which one of them did, and this is while she called me her "friend")... and they'll present something as a win-win situation when it really isn't. :/

Yeah, this is one thing about Te types that makes me wary. I remember this one time a Te friend helped me with a project. When we talked about it later, he told me that the main reason he helped me was because he would be getting something out of it, and not because we were friends... Sometime later on he basically tells me how he chooses his friends based on what they can provide for him, and that's why he "chose" me as a friend, because he thinks I'm smart and provide him new ways of seeing things. This kind of thing is disturbing to me.

Especially when I was younger and naive, it was relatively easy to be used without me knowing it by this type of people. Fortunately, this only happened with a couple of people. It's not really friendship, it's more like maintaining you "happy" so that they keep getting what they want from you. Once you stop providing, you are laid off so easily. Of course, this only applies to the more hardcore Te types.

[silverchris9]

Yeah, this is one thing about Te types that makes me wary. I remember this one time a Te friend helped me with a project. When we talked about it later, he told me that the main reason he helped me was because he would be getting something out of it, and not because we were friends... Sometime later on he basically tells me how he chooses his friends based on what they can provide for him, and that's why he "chose" me as a friend, because he thinks I'm smart and provide him new ways of seeing things. This kind of thing is disturbing to me.

Sounds like serious need for Fi to me. I definitely think that LSEs need a source, real or artificial, of Fi in order to maintain ethical behavior in the face of a system of cognition that encourages them to do the most effective thing regardless of consequences that go beyond their own bodies/comfort. Sort of like how IEIs have a system of cognition that encourages us to stay in our heads 100% of the time and never really actively do anything in the real world. All strategies/modes of cognition have blind spots. That, presumably, is what duals are for. Of course, sometimes it's hard to recognize and accept help from duals/superid functions until one has hit a brick wall a few times by doing things purely through ego functions.

[Lobo]

Sounds like serious need for Fi to me. I definitely think that LSEs need a source, real or artificial, of Fi in order to maintain ethical behavior in the face of a system of cognition that encourages them to do the most effective thing regardless of consequences that go beyond their own bodies/comfort. Sort of like how IEIs have a system of cognition that encourages us to stay in our heads 100% of the time and never really actively do anything in the real world. All strategies/modes of cognition have blind spots. That, presumably, is what duals are for. Of course, sometimes it's hard to recognize and accept help from duals/superid functions until one has hit a brick wall a few times by doing things purely through ego functions.

Yeah, that makes sense. It's kind of odd for me to "teach" someone my own age about these things. It feels weird, because I don't see myself as having any authority on the matter. In general, I hate having to tell someone they are being unethical, unless it really crosses a line to me.

[UDP]

Yeah, this is one thing about Te types that makes me wary. I remember this one time a Te friend helped me with a project. When we talked about it later, he told me that the main reason he helped me was because he would be getting something out of it, and not because we were friends... Sometime later on he basically tells me how he chooses his friends based on what they can provide for him, and that's why he "chose" me as a friend, because he thinks I'm smart and provide him new ways of seeing things. This kind of thing is disturbing to me.

Really?
Maybe that's why Fi types are what they are, a sense of "moral outrage" about something like that.

That's really how I see all of my friends and relationships as well, and I think it's pretty silly if anyone says otherwise. Even my ESI oldest friend uses the same mechanism, just in 'ethical' terms; We've had so much history and experience, that it's beneficial for him to stay in contact with me.

People don't like looking at thins in raw terms :-/

Especially when I was younger and naive, it was relatively easy to be used without me knowing it by this type of people. Fortunately, this only happened with a couple of people. It's not really friendship, it's more like maintaining you "happy" so that they keep getting what they want from you. Once you stop providing, you are laid off so easily. Of course, this only applies to the more hardcore Te types.

I do not agree with that.
Don't mix personal maturity and self-centeredness with socionics. Even though Te types may be very focused on benefit, it doesn't mean they are by nature going to be as you describe.

Especially the more mature, and 'enlightened' Te types; they realize that 'benefit' is something more than what serves themselves.

[UDP]

Sounds like serious need for Fi to me. I definitely think that LSEs need a source, real or artificial, of Fi in order to maintain ethical behavior in the face of a system of cognition that encourages them to do the most effective thing regardless of consequences that go beyond their own bodies/comfort.

Possibly... but that 'source' can be experience and seeing how his actions influence others/ the group/ the organization as the whole.

To be honest, I've been the one holding down the fort when it comes to ethical matters a lot of times, because other people aren't willing to stand up or put their neck on the line, or confront strong personality types. And it's not because some Fi ego type was there by my side encouraging me to do so.

I appreciate strong Fi a lot and it is a great support for me, but, I don't think its fair to say LSE's are morally incompetent. I think they may need some 'training', or Fi education, but even then, I was always sensitive to exploitation and justice.

Sort of like how IEIs have a system of cognition that encourages us to stay in our heads 100% of the time and never really actively do anything in the real world. All strategies/modes of cognition have blind spots. That, presumably, is what duals are for. Of course, sometimes it's hard to recognize and accept help from duals/superid functions until one has hit a brick wall a few times by doing things purely through ego functions.

I don't really like attributing so much to duals or needing other people, or even socionics. If you pay attention and are mature, you realize what you need to do, and its not because you were dualized.

I know IEIs who work hard at realistic things and don't need to be told to do it, they are motivated by themselves. I know an IEI accounting major who is really disciplined and an honors student, and he definitely doesn't have a dual in his life harping in him to do any of that. It's because he's a mature, motivated, considerate person.

[silverchris9]

I appreciate strong Fi a lot and it is a great support for me, but, I don't think its fair to say LSE's are morally incompetent. I think they may need some 'training', or Fi education, but even then, I was always sensitive to exploitation and justice.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that LSEs *are* morally incompetent. I just mean that the LSE way of viewing things is a way that lends itself to a certain degree of pragmatism over respect-for-feelings. That being said, I think it is also a way of viewing the world that lends itself to the assumption that one must be a moral person to be a good person, or that in order for the LSE to respect him/herself s/he must be a good person. I just think that's something that maybe the LSE has to learn moreso than understand innately.

[somavision]

Yeah, this is one thing about Te types that makes me wary. I remember this one time a Te friend helped me with a project. When we talked about it later, he told me that the main reason he helped me was because he would be getting something out of it, and not because we were friends... Sometime later on he basically tells me how he chooses his friends based on what they can provide for him, and that's why he "chose" me as a friend, because he thinks I'm smart and provide him new ways of seeing things. This kind of thing is disturbing to me.

Especially when I was younger and naive, it was relatively easy to be used without me knowing it by this type of people. Fortunately, this only happened with a couple of people. It's not really friendship, it's more like maintaining you "happy" so that they keep getting what they want from you. Once you stop providing, you are laid off so easily. Of course, this only applies to the more hardcore Te types.

I've noticed this as well. I reckon if it's a pretty good friend though, molesting them with a bit of guilt never goes too far wrong.
"I thought we were friends? do you know what friendship is? how long have we known each other? that's right since we were fucking kids and I've always been there for you, so get your fucking coat on, get down the pub and entertain me with stories about that delighfully tasteful new oak dresser of yours and how you managed to haggle a 20% discount due to some minor discoloration on the inside of one of the rear legs!! And how the funny thing is that you can't even notice it"

[UDP]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that LSEs *are* morally incompetent. I just mean that the LSE way of viewing things is a way that lends itself to a certain degree of pragmatism over respect-for-feelings.

Sure, but how is that different from any ST, or T type?
Perhaps Ti/Fe type are more bound by perceived emotional impact, but even then, that emotional impact is subjective as to who is important or beneficial to them.

Feelings don't really have much meaning to me unless there is something behind them, supporting them; feelings on their own are just things in your head.

That being said, I think it is also a way of viewing the world that lends itself to the assumption that one must be a moral person to be a good person, or that in order for the LSE to respect him/herself s/he must be a good person.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean here. I've been a pretty nasty person at times, certainly not at 'good' or even 'moral' person. But I've always had plenty of pride, and 'self respect'.

Different types (and enneagram types) of LSEs probably experience such things differently.

mmm and even now that I am 'more mature', to some extent, being good or moral doesn't particularly affect my self respect or self esteem. It's more a sense of usefulness or contribution or productivity.... (rick's article comes to mind)

I just think that's something that maybe the LSE has to learn moreso than understand innately.

I think what LSEs could use is an education or expanded view (ala, Fi combined with Ne...) so they start viewing their impact beyond their own personal selves; something that makes them see how what they do affects other people. When you have a broader process of measuring what success is, then it will likely be more accurate than a narrow measure.

This seems to be dependent on other people, really, because I have very little ability to conceptualize certain things or very large, intuitive like leaps from what I know to something I don't know or understand. An LSE can benefit from a wide variety of personal experiences growing up, or, someone with Ne (especially Ne and Fi), and I think that is an important part to the education and development of an LSE.

Transitioning 'benefit' towards an increasingly larger scale, if you will.

[Lobo]

Really?
Maybe that's why Fi types are what they are, a sense of "moral outrage" about something like that.

That's really how I see all of my friends and relationships as well, and I think it's pretty silly if anyone says otherwise. Even my ESI oldest friend uses the same mechanism, just in 'ethical' terms; We've had so much history and experience, that it's beneficial for him to stay in contact with me.

People don't like looking at thins in raw terms :-/

It's not a moral outrage. In fact, it has nothing to do with morality... I'm not saying that it's universally good or bad, it's just that it's disturbing to me since I cannot empathize with that way of going about friendship. It seems shallow and lacking depth to me. Sure, there are people who are my contacts and who are beneficial to have, but they are not my friends. This probably has to do with how you define "friends," but I don't want to get into that.

I do not agree with that.
Don't mix personal maturity and self-centeredness with socionics. Even though Te types may be very focused on benefit, it doesn't mean they are by nature going to be as you describe.

Especially the more mature, and 'enlightened' Te types; they realize that 'benefit' is something more than what serves themselves.

Yes you do. Can maturity truly equal natural behavior? I see the maturity you are talking about as development of functions. A Te type that changes their view of 'benefit' is no longer a model Te type, but somewhere in a continuum. The concept of serving others as a philosophy is not a practical one to have. I don't see that as being Te development.

[Lobo]

I've noticed this as well. I reckon if it's a pretty good friend though, molesting them with a bit of guilt never goes too far wrong.
"I thought we were friends? do you know what friendship is? how long have we known each other? that's right since we were fucking kids and I've always been there for you, so get your fucking coat on, get down the pub and entertain me with stories about that delighfully tasteful new oak dresser of yours and how you managed to haggle a 20% discount due to some minor discoloration on the inside of one of the rear legs!! And how the funny thing is that you can't even notice it"

When my friend told me that I was really shocked... Did not expect that it was possible for somebody to be like that after knowing them for quite some time. Just when you think someone will have your back, they throw something at you like that.

[silverchris9]

Sure, but how is that different from any ST, or T type?
Perhaps Ti/Fe type are more bound by perceived emotional impact, but even then, that emotional impact is subjective as to who is important or beneficial to them.

...fine. Maybe I'm imposing my own type-related assumptions by arguing that Te-leading is especially inclined to excluding certain kinds of ethical matters.

Feelings don't really have much meaning to me unless there is something behind them, supporting them; feelings on their own are just things in your head.

I disagree, obviously, but I don't think that arguing the point would be a worthwhile exercise.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean here. I've been a pretty nasty person at times, certainly not at 'good' or even 'moral' person. But I've always had plenty of pride, and 'self respect'.

Different types (and enneagram types) of LSEs probably experience such things differently.

mmm and even now that I am 'more mature', to some extent, being good or moral doesn't particularly affect my self respect or self esteem. It's more a sense of usefulness or contribution or productivity.... (rick's article comes to mind)

I was attempting to draw some generalizations based on the functions. Te ego = likely to focus on efficiency over morality. Fi superid = likely to give moral rules lots of weight/importance, or, apparently, in your case, incorporate morality into their definition of efficiency. They balance each other out.

But are you saying that you could now behave generally without any special regard to the results of your actions for others and still consider yourself a good person? I understand now that you experience this focus on the results of your actions for others as a sense of usefulness or productivity, but I think it is the result of the process you describe below of gaining an "expanded view".

I think what LSEs could use is an education or expanded view (ala, Fi combined with Ne...) so they start viewing their impact beyond their own personal selves; something that makes them see how what they do affects other people. When you have a broader process of measuring what success is, then it will likely be more accurate than a narrow measure.

This seems to be dependent on other people, really, because I have very little ability to conceptualize certain things or very large, intuitive like leaps from what I know to something I don't know or understand. An LSE can benefit from a wide variety of personal experiences growing up, or, someone with Ne (especially Ne and Fi), and I think that is an important part to the education and development of an LSE.

Transitioning 'benefit' towards an increasingly larger scale, if you will.

Makes sense to me, I think. To my mind, you just added the Ne component to what I was already thinking, although I might not have stated it in a clear manner. I understand you as saying that Ne broadens the conditions of success to include, among other things, certain Fi-related ethical matters, i.e., how actions affect others. Am I right?


Geez... I'm sorta overwhelmed by my pathetic attempts to delta-tize my posting. I need to go back to beta and get in a fight with someone over Nazis and sexy women.

[silverchris9]

Alright, I'm having trouble remember the exact quotes, but there was a guy that I'm now positive is IEE having a conversation with another guy (not sure which type) about relationships (epitomizing the IEE "psychologist" characterization), and he basically described caretaker/infantile relationships, then victims from a caretaker POV, and then how a dual relationship develops. It was hilariously socionics-y

Anyway, here are some rough reconstructions of some of the socionics-y bits.

"You seem kinda like me; let me guess, what you want in a girl is no drama, and a girl that will give you a lot of 'care'" (care was literally the word he used)."

"Here's how my best relationships developed. I hung around this girl's friends, being funny and crazy or whatever. At first I didn't notice this girl at all, and then one day I noticed her when she was dancing. We had great chemistry and I kissed her and from then on it was great." He also talked about how their relationship was really "mutual"; that's a word he emphasized a lot.

Then he went on to talk about how some girls seem to be addicted to drama and depreciate girls that you have to pursue (i.e., Victims) as bad relationship partners, etc.

Anyway, it just all seemed very socionics-y, especially when he explicitly stated that he liked girls that give a lot of "care".

[UDP]

Yes you do. Can maturity truly equal natural behavior? I see the maturity you are talking about as development of functions. A Te type that changes their view of 'benefit' is no longer a model Te type, but somewhere in a continuum. The concept of serving others as a philosophy is not a practical one to have. I don't see that as being Te development.

Then what is it 'development' of?
Fi and Ne?

Perhaps I don't like the word development so much. I really don't see anyone's information elements "becoming stronger", and thereby a function "becoming stronger". What I see is perhaps an increased awareness of how various elements play a part in things.

For an LSE, who has weak functions of Fe Fi Ne Ni, I can see changes happening when it is explained how those things play a part/influence achieving goals or important things. But I do not particularly see Ni or Fe 'developing' in me, or other LSEs. I don't think I get better at it or stronger in it - nor do I really have a desire to do so. It is something I understand more over time, and learn how to fiddle with and deal with in my own way, but I cannot ever try to deal with Fe situations like someone who is Fe dominant, and I don't suppose I ever will. I don't suppose I am going to develop Fe and become something other than what I am. It's not an excuse for a weakness, it's realizing my own limitation.

So I really don't see it as developing anything.
Perhaps an increasing (or increasingly holistic) understanding of how all the elements fit together in human interaction, and then realizing your place within that context ("realizing your type")... but I'm still wary about saying you can simply develop a function. It seems a lot more like you simply learn how to deal with weak functions better, and perhaps through good advice from people learn some tips or techniques, or even just learn you need to be 'aware of' or 'pay attention to' some things.

[UDP]

...fine. Maybe I'm imposing my own type-related assumptions by arguing that Te-leading is especially inclined to excluding certain kinds of ethical matters.

Excluding is not always a matter of ignorance or disliking something, sometimes it is simply not valuing something (not in the socionics sense, necessarily)

I disagree, obviously, but I don't think that arguing the point would be a worthwhile exercise.

I figured you would.

I was attempting to draw some generalizations based on the functions. Te ego = likely to focus on efficiency over morality. Fi superid = likely to give moral rules lots of weight/importance, or, apparently, in your case, incorporate morality into their definition of efficiency. They balance each other out.

Yeah; I kind of see Te ego, particularly dominance, as being very Bee-lined, what is the shortest distance to achieving the goal. Where as Fi, especially dominance, is all about where to not go because it is important for various (ethical/relational/rules) reasons; Fi is less concerned about mobility and results or going anywhere at all, really - it wants to do whatever it is in the right way. And yes, each type that is dominant in that function is that way to a fault; that's the 'lacking' that we have as beings with lopsided psychological natures.

But are you saying that you could now behave generally without any special regard to the results of your actions for others and still consider yourself a good person?

I don't understand the question.

I understand now that you experience this focus on the results of your actions for others as a sense of usefulness or productivity, but I think it is the result of the process you describe below of gaining an "expanded view".

What I said below is not unrelated to my understanding of usefulness and productivity.

Makes sense to me, I think. To my mind, you just added the Ne component to what I was already thinking, although I might not have stated it in a clear manner. I understand you as saying that Ne broadens the conditions of success to include, among other things, certain Fi-related ethical matters, i.e., how actions affect others. Am I right?

Perhaps.
I don't think "Ne" as an information element is doing it.

I think, because I value both Ne and Fi and see explanations from my dual (particularly my duals that seem trustworthy or 'skilled' or 'good at' Fi), that they have the best ability to educate me or say things that I'd be receptive to, and I see how their Fi+Ne brings understanding and balance to me.

Geez... I'm sorta overwhelmed by my pathetic attempts to delta-tize my posting. I need to go back to beta and get in a fight with someone over Nazis and sexy women.

enjoy

[UDP]

An EII thanked me for reminding her about the flashdrive she put in a specific location ( she mentioned she was worried about forgetting it there)

And then she said:
"I'm glad you're stress free, it sounds well-deserved. For some reason other people being un-stressed makes me less stressed too. So here's to spreading un-stress!"

[UDP]

A bit of irony:


learning a new word and having it explained: equifinality

.... by an LSI

[UDP]

Yes you do. Can maturity truly equal natural behavior? I see the maturity you are talking about as development of functions. A Te type that changes their view of 'benefit' is no longer a model Te type, but somewhere in a continuum. The concept of serving others as a philosophy is not a practical one to have. I don't see that as being Te development.

This is something to be considered.

[Minde]

"You know, [Minde], sometimes I just feel like taking care of you," said an ESFj to me as we walked back from the beach. The ocean had attacked me, and now my feet coldly squished with the rough sand in my not-tall-enough rubber boots. "Someday when I'm a billionaire I'll buy a big house and take care of you. I don't know why I feel like taking care of you. I hope you don't mind."

I contemplated my unhappy toes and dirty camera; and I didn't mind. Though I was pretty sure I knew why she felt like taking care of me.


----


A couple of friends had been talking about various injuries they had gained and suffered through various happenings and adventures. "Tripping over my own feet," I muttered ruefully to myself.

"I didn't hear you - what did you say?" asked one.

"I said tripping over my own feet. You're a daredevil," I gestured toward one. "And you overwork. Me - I just trip over my own feet."

"You're like a fragile, delicate china doll," said my ESFj. She laughed, "We should put you in one of those gerbil balls. Then you could roll around and nothing would hurt you. Even if the ocean washed you away. And you could have a little window you could open every time you wanted to take a picture." She laughed some more, obviously enjoying the mental picture.

I thought of a million practical problems with that idea but didn't bother mentioning them.

"You're delicate," she said slightly more seriously. "Someday you're going to fall and break into pieces, and I'm going to have to clean you up and glue you back together."

I'm still not sure if I should take that well or not.


----


"Oh, bluebird, light of my life!"

I rolled my eyes and my ESFj laughed. "I'm having so much fun coming up with names for you. Good names," she hasted to assure me, "not bad names."

"That's fine," I said. "I'll be your light, though I'm not sure how good I'll be at it. My glowing capacity is somewhat limited."

[Minde]

To tell a brief and truncated story:

I packed my camera in its case, tucked in the ends of my scarf, and put on my gloves. Then I hoisted myself up the side of the jetty, ever so carefully circumnavigating pitfalls and traps such as slick wood and loose boulders. I moved slowly, stopping often to plan my next move over the rough terrain. Two of my friends were quickly gaining ground on me ahead, but I didn't bother worrying about it. Health over pride for me.

"[Minde], are you afraid of heights?" asked a (I suspect) ESTj, climbing up behind me.

I reached out and clutched an out-flung branch of driftwood, vaguely fearing that to speak would be to lose my concentration and thus my balance, and said, "No - I'm afraid of klutziness." Whew - my legs had not buckled, I was still standing in one piece.

"Ah. That makes sense." He climbed up further and looked down the jetty toward the others. "I like the jetty at [another beach] better. It's better constructed. This one has more places where someone could fall."

I nodded and said something like "Oh?" and slid over the next log. He disappeared.

It was getting warmer, but I was glad I had my coat and gloves on. Without them I probably would have had a few bumps and slivers by now.

A couple minutes later he came up behind me again. "Look at this interesting rock I found," he said. I settled my feet and looked. It was pebble-sized, very dark and round, and had the suggestion of a seam around its circumference.

"It looks like a seed," I said. "You should plant it somewhere."

"Hm," he said, looking at it more closely. "You could be right." He stepped up and over to a thin log pointing high into the air. "I'll put it in the end of this. Lots of sunlight and air. Water. It will grow tall there."

I thought, "Probably too much air, not enough soil," but only smiled and said something like, "That's nice." It was a bit impractical but poetic gesture.

He looked back over to the beach. "Hm, it looks like the kids are getting back into the water." He started climbing back down, going back to watch them I knew. He had said earlier that he like to be within sprinting distance of them while they played in the ocean. I was glad of that.


EDIT: Some illustrative pics, because I feel like it.

My path along the jetty, with my two friends ahead of me:




The ESTJ (small speck in upper left) watching the kids (small specks in upper right):




----


I don't remember exactly how the conversation unfolded, but some of us were cleaning up in a kitchen, and my ESFj poured some cold water into a hot pan to cool and clean it. Both I and an ESTj talked for a minute about how and why that's not good for the pan as well as how to fix warped pans. The ESFJ started getting pouty and feeling ganged-up on, which I felt bad about but didn't know how to help after the fact. From my point of view, and I suspect the ESTj's, we had just been casually sharing information about how to do things right and practically.