Instinctual Stacking Confusion (Continued from Previous Conversation)

[Neokortex]

I'm not surprised. There were at least three movies dealing with themes of virtual reality, mindbendage, philosophy, reality twists, etc. that came out that spring of 1999. You had the Matrix (1999), eXistenZ (1999) and the Thirteenth Floor (1999). Obviously the best of these was the 13th Floor (1999). Second place eXistenZ (1999). And then wayyyy down at last place, in third place... you had the Matrix (1999).

The best? According to whom?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but it's beside the point, as I see it. Labeling people as 'beta males', to me, reeks of a sort of "Look at this beta male pussy ****** loser cuck. What a fucking ******. Look at this cuck.. Let us all point at him and call him names and make fun of him, for his inability to get laid. What a loser. Fag." Not extremely mature or civilized, if you ask me.

I agree, it's not... and I'd also add that it looks really ugly written down why it is not (by you). It's similar to the case of the guy who said he would stop cursing, yet all he ended up doing was teaching others curse words not to use - so in effect he was still talking dirty. It's as if you were trying to be an artist by teaching others what beauty is by telling them rules about what subjects to avoid - so essentially you still think of these subjects but believe by talking about them you distance yourself from them (Lacan). Except that this distantiation is still not beauty. Or another example: Christians teaching you not to sin, they tell you not be aggressive, not to say the word "cunt;" then, you inadvertently blurt it out once in a calm manner and they get really mad and jump at you: "quit saying the c word you little piece of shit!!" Who's aggressive, then?

Many men falsely believe that "beta male" boils down to lack of big muscles and being intellectual. That's simply not true. Jordan Peterson isn't a "beta male" either. "alpha" bs "beta" boils down to strength of character for most women, afaik. A guy with muscles can be "beta" if he acts like a "p*ssy" and has no opinions, no boundaries, no self esteem/confidence, is a pushover, acts insecure/needy, etc. Christopher Hitchens does/is none of that, so i think he's not "beta". He might not "look" "Alpha", but his personality and confidence are strong, and he's socially savvy, so women won't think too poorly of him in that respect. But to be fair, I might be biased. Also it's amusing to see that you type him ILE and WSS types him ESI. I think the truth is in the middle: ILI-Te. He even fits "the critic" stereotype.

What's with this "Jordan Peterson," anyway? D I'm just becoming aware of him being talked about and mentioned a lot. It's like there was a trend or something...
Naaa, I meant "beta male" more loosely and if you noticed I've also added the "parameter" "extroverted." So you can expect less of the stereotypical "beta male" qualities with an "extroverted beta male." Actually, for me "beta" was just a shorthand for saying not a leader type and not ultrasocial. I'm not seeing the Sx-dom qualities you mentioned, though.

4w5 can be Social first, which results in an "ambiverted" focus/outlook.

It can result in that... if the rest of their tritype doesn't negate that.

It is not a matter of not comprehending the "dots", but merely not finding them helpful. I find it makes matters too convoluted.

Ni does tend to exclude information but "helpfulness" as you use it, depends on what your purposes are. If it is about Fe, your subjective perception of group needs, harmony, then it may not benefit you to introduce more variables to (your use of) the theory. That's why I wrote you wouldn't want more Ne use.

I'm not familiar with either very much, but I would say Tilda is social. Her image to me is identifying with that outsider status in a very overt way that others can recognize. When I think of sx 4 females I think of Shirley Manson from Garbage and Lyyke Li. This is what I mean with sx 4s and aggression said by Manson: "I have a temper on me that could hold back tides," or Lykke Li, "I wanted to create something really aggressive and psychedelic." Lyyke Li seems like a sx 4 with a 9 fix too btw.

Manson: to me she looks like a very healthy E2 that has integrated 4ish qualities. E2 is also an optimistic, assertive, her power is backed by the 8 disintegration point. I've took a glance of the first two of the interviews and to me she doesn't look like aggressive at all, instead a very nice, optimistic, empathic person. So/Sp.
Li: watched two brief interviews (that duckduckgo returned), not the best ones since she is not interacting, no sudden, potentially embarrassing questions to catch her off guard. But, looking at her facial reactions, she appears to be a female version of my male INTJ So/Sx 5w4 childhood pal. If you look at her brows, she has this aggressive, yet sneaky, somewhat conforming, conceding look to her. She says in the latter when talking about garment choice that she'd walk outside naked rather, yet you often see her face hidden behind shades. Took a glance at the music video of "Hard Rain," there she looks at lot softer but of course the musical and cinematographic style is pop, mainstream. So yeah, sublimating the intimate into the social. 5w4s (by and large) are more aggressive than 4w5s.
As for Tilda..., I believe, going back to that Late Show clip, her quip at Steven (5:24-5:35) is revealing: "And I come to Manhattan and it's all very sparkly and I get a velvet jacket and I sit down with you - this is high brow for me, believe me, where I live it's er, yeah, underground low." This is, of course, to deflect Steven's criticism of the premeditatednesss of her arty image, but here she is able to put aside the expectation of the show and answer by breaking the 4th wall: she may be implying that she has these looks only to fit in with the big city culture, as well as the show. She is still aware of the villager standards and she is not willing to pretend that her background didn't matter, that now that her fame rose, she perfectly fit in with this glitzy world. Social firsts may want to fit in more, pretending that they always had been "born for the high life." Tilda's modesty contrasts her looks, hence I think she's more "creative" about her image, she conforms to expectations but that's not her main priority.

Yes, that's the attraction to an elitist group.

... nnnnot quite (!). Point out at the first person you know who likes stuck up people. Honestly, is there anyone who likes elitists? That is, the elitists, who may not even accept them in their exclusive niche? That's E3w4 you're talking about.

[Olimpia]

It can result in that... if the rest of their tritype doesn't negate that.

Tritype wouldn't really "negate" anything. The stacking remains as a big part of the person's value system. (That's how people of compatible stackings can feel camaraderie even with people from the opposite Quadra, or with incompatible stackings, can feel a bit off with people of the same Quadra in certain areas).

Someone whose values encompass SO/SX will by default have an outlook that is quite social and open and light, and even if the individual is 4-5-9 tritype, they will have that focus. So they will alternate between high introspection and especially if average to unhealthy, isolation, but they will also move to the social sphere, trying to communicate their findings and insights to others in an engaging way, so it will be a back forth between the two modes. Yes, it is a contradictory combination, which can be stressful, but so it is. 3-7-8 Sp/Sx would have a similar dynamic, albeit a bit different obviously.

[andreasdevig]

The best? According to whom?

Me, of course.




"I agree, it's not... and I'd also add that it looks really ugly written down why it is not (by you). It's similar to the case of the guy who said he would stop cursing, yet all he ended up doing was teaching others curse words not to use - so in effect he was still talking dirty. It's as if you were trying to be an artist by teaching others what beauty is by telling them rules about what subjects to avoid - so essentially you still think of these subjects but believe by talking about them you distance yourself from them (Lacan). Except that this distantiation is still not beauty. Or another example: Christians teaching you not to sin, they tell you not be aggressive, not to say the word "cunt;" then, you inadvertently blurt it out once in a calm manner and they get really mad and jump at you: "quit saying the c word you little piece of shit!!" Who's aggressive, then?"

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say. I wasn't calling anybody any names. I was just criticizing those who do. But yeah, I am perhaps oversensitive about these words and terms. It's just a bit tiresome to me, frankly, to hear 'underdogs', unpopular people, soft people, people who can't get laid, etc. being attacked and called names ('beta males', 'pussies', 'cucks', etc.). And it's usually men who get called these names too, so it shows inequality - that men are expected to do and be things that women are not expected to. And yes, I know that women, too, are expected to do/be things that men are not expected to. There's inequality directed at both genders.

[VenusRose]

The way you describe how you are seems more 9 to me. I'm not saying you're a 9, but have you looked at sx 9 if you have a problem with sx 4 descriptions? They can be confused with 4s. I don't want to take this away from andreasdevig's thread, and a lot of this discussion about sx 4 is doing that. I did find it interesting and couldn't help myself.

And yeah, no, I don't think I am a 9. One of the reasons I was avoiding responding is because I am not fond of attacks/confrontations. Not your fault, you are being yourself, but I don't want to be run over, and with what I am saying - a couple times at least - twisted. To me it feels like being forced into accepting something I don't actually. Like I said before, there is no need to force yourself to fit into whatever description; it should fit comfortably, otherwise just look at what does make sense if the whole thing clearly doesn't.

Of course, feel free to examine core 9 for me, lol, but I think people who know me would probably agree with SX and 4, but definitely not with 'SX 4'

Yes, I agree that the 3 wing would bring out the narcissistic traits more. I don't agree that it doesn't make sense that you think Fi base can't have those feelings. Se is about action. You don't even have to act on those feelings as a 4 with Fi and Se PoLR. If you don't have those negative feelings, it would surprise me if one was a 4. A type that tends towards modesty is a 9, not a 4.

Of course I have 'negative feelings' lol. But I am not narcissistic, not even remotely so.
And no, I don't agree with your last statement...sounds like you are projecting the Beta quadra onto it. I don't like over-the-top things, at all, narcissism being one of them. Comes across as kitschy and unnatural and weird.
No offense, of course, but that's how I feel about it.

Yes, that's true for 4s. The way you describe tying one self to another is more 9 though. 4s are more independent in their sense of self and seek to find the other who will redeem them from their flawed state. There's a hole of emptiness they are trying to fill. They aren't so much tied to their "special other half" as they idealize them. 9s merge, 4s long.

I am not sure if you are just reading things into it to make them sound different...and yeah I do have a 9 fix, so I am sure that's part of that, but it was a very general SX description, not really 9-ish. The last part was specifically 'SX 4' (the other two: '4' + 'SX').

You take issue with Beatrice Chestnut's description but are there any other sx 4 descriptions you relate to? Surely there is one that resonated with you can speak to? They don't all paint a picture of an aggressive, angry type. The link I provided earlier by Riso Hudson isn't like that, for reference. I think it's probably the best one I've seen.

Here's one, though I am not entirely sure what they mean. I will just tell you my interpretation of it...

SX 4: Double nudity, open hole, bruised and exposed

It's still over-the-top, but I was thinking about it, and wondering if this is what it meant...

"double nudity" in the sense of being vulnerable not just in the SX way, but in the sense of being wounded as well. I guess the rest of that description plays off of that.

Oh, so this IS the Riso-Hudson one. I don't entirely mind this one, will go through it bit by bit...

Sexual Fours: Infatuation (Ichazo's "Competition")
Sexual Fours focus their envy and hypersensitivity in their intimate relationships. They are perhaps the most emotionally intense type of the Enneagram, which is both their gift and their potential downfall. They possess both a capacity and a desire for profound intimacy, and they derive tremendous insight into human nature through the ups and downs of their romantic lives.

Yeah, so, though I do relate to it, I have a couple of issues with this one:
1) I have had my own issues that I am hesitant to relate to the enneagram, because I have mostly lived in the 'unhealthy levels' for most of my life, and I don't think that's how most 4s are, of course. So would my intensity simply be a by-product of that unhealth, or actually 4? Probably both, but I don't want to muddy the waters, so I keep the issues I think don't have much to do with the enneagram, out of this entire topic.

2) It also makes it sound like SX 4s are the only ones who have a capacity for 'great intimacy,' or that maybe they are more capable, better at it...which doesn't make sense. Nor are they the most 'intense' necessarily. They can show their scars very early on in the ('mating') process, but I honestly think all SX types are very, very intense. In a good way

They have a sultry, sullen quality that can be attractive and mysterious, or at times, off-putting to others. Sexual Fours pour their energy and attention into the object of their affection, often becoming infatuated or even obsessed, sometimes after only one meeting. Sexual chemistry triggers their powerful imaginations, leading them to create enormous expectations of potential partners.

Yeah, this is true.

Sexual Fours tend to be drawn to people who possess qualities and talents that they believe they lack. They want to complete themselves by associating or merging with the valued other. But this almost never works, so they may also end up envying and resenting their romantic partner for unintentionally reminding them of what they feel they are missing. In any case, Sexual Fours go through tremendous shifts of feeling about their loved ones—everything from idolization to unbridled hatred. Generally speaking, this type is aware of these feelings, including the dark ones, and finds ways to express them, sometimes in self-destructive ways.

Yeah, the striked out one, I don't really understand. I don't compete with my partner. I don't compete, period. Lemme grab that Se PoLR description again...

The second manifestation of our PoLR is a complete aversion to force, aggression, conflict, violence, competition, and the whole idea of bending people and situations to get what one wants. This is where you get the “overly sensitive” aspect of our personalities. If someone says something in a way that is remotely confrontational, we retreat. If someone really wants to argue, we fall silent. If people are fighting, we will either try to settle the disagreement, get up and leave, or both. We will not “intrude on others' space,” whether physically or psychologically. We are virtually incapable of making anyone do anything or refusing a request. No matter how badly we may want something, if you flatly refuse, we are likely to back down, at least after a short while. EIIs do not make things happen – we prefer to wait for them to happen or let someone else take the lead. In those rare occasions where we try to be forceful, we become extremely uncomfortable and vulnerable. It's terrifying. We want everyone to get along, to share their thoughts in an accepting and peaceful discourse. We want everyone to “win” and leave unscarred, and since that seldom happens in an Se environment, we avoid such environments.

I know I have used this several times now, but it is so me, I cannot help emphasizing it in context of what I am trying to explain. Someone like this ^ is not fond of any sort of meanness, competition, aggression - not just literal! It should be obvious that this is psychological too. Psychological aggression, force of any kind - even a little bit! Being mean or spiteful is part of 'competitiveness' and again this type of person will steer clear of that.

No matter what type you are on the enneagram, if you are Se PoLR, those things should be true of you.

As for 'unbridled hatred,' again I don't want to conflate my lower health levels, or my own unique struggles, with a personality type...so I wouldn't say 'unbridled.' Some hatred, sure. But it's like, it's kind of hard to not at least somewhat hate someone who make yourself vulnerable to in the SX way - which I mean, SX firsts do all the time, doesn't even have to be a romantic thing, it's just what they are like - and they hurt you. That hurts worse than anything else. So then, of course there would be some hatred. I dunno if that's 4 or if it's just...human.

I kind of like this one as well:

Intimate Fours
• Intimate Fours love others in a deep way, and possess a sensitive, complex, poetic intelligence about matters of the heart
• This is a highly romantic subtype, visible in the realms of romantic poetry, the troubadour tradition and popular music about love, especially in the lyrics of confessional singers
Obviously, I am not literally a confessional singer or anything like that, but I get the archetype he is trying to create here, and I can see it.
• Often stay friends with ex-lovers
• A focus on aesthetics; some Intimate Fours are tasteful, flashy dressers
Absolutely not flashy. Never going to happen. Tasteful, yes.
• Can harbor a fantasy of perfect union, a redemptive love that will heal the wound of being an unwanted outsider
• Prone to jealousy and may be competitive in close relationships as well as generally; can feel like there is only so much love to go around
Striking out that part, everything else is true for me.
• Want to be Number One in their beloved’s heart or the only person their partner has ever loved; could be jealous of their partner’s past relationships
• A stronger connection to Two
I can see that I guess, but a couple of these might just be things people can project whatever they want, onto. Including this one.
• May be surprised to discover that their beloved has different needs; they assume mutuality of purpose and are unprepared to negotiate
Lol, I don't understand this. "Might be SURPRISED their beloved has different needs" - why would anybody be surprised by that, haha?
• Also prone to professional envy and try to best others at work
Absolutely not.
• May be unable to enjoy their successes without demeaning the achievements of others
Absolutely not.
• Intimate Fours can resemble Eights just as romantic Intimate Eights can resemble Fours
Nope, not really.
• Can believe that without someone to love they are nothing and life is not worth living
• When in love, images of their partner fill the Four’s awareness and attention. The beloved is a muse, necessary to connect Fours to their own life force
• May take no responsibility for their life until Mr. or Ms. Right comes along
• There can be a willful immaturity to this stance, a stubborn refusal to face facts no matter what the practical costs
Sounds more like SP last, though.
• Can be love addicts who lack the memory of being loved and believe they are condemned to search the world for something or someone to fill them up
• Some Intimate Fours act markedly seductive to stave off being rejected
nope
• May engineer rejection by picking unavailable or inappropriate people to become infatuated with
...yes.
• A few have ambiguous, confused or exaggerated sexual identities or a chronic identity crisis around their sexuality
Not really. Doesn't sound specific to a type, anyway...

Sources for SX 4 descriptions:
The enneagram universe
Riso and Hudson
Tom Condon

[andreasdevig]

Yes, I agree that the 3 wing would bring out the narcissistic traits more. I don't agree that it doesn't make sense that you think Fi base can't have those feelings. Se is about action. You don't even have to act on those feelings as a 4 with Fi and Se PoLR. If you don't have those negative feelings, it would surprise me if one was a 4. A type that tends towards modesty is a 9, not a 4.



That can be more attributed to 3 wing.



In what way? A 4 is a type driven by envy. That surely can make one spiteful if you think someone has a better lot in life than you.

I can see that point. For me, I can feel negative feelings towards people. You might never know it, though. For instance, if I were to see a happy couple walking in the park, holding hands, it can be hard for me to feel happy for them. It might be easier for me to feel lonely and sad, because it reminds me of what I don't have in my life. But, again, you might not know it. I try to keep my feelings inside, as I don't want to be the "self-absorbed complainer" and I don't want to hurt people's feelings. I try my best to be soft-spoken and un-aggressive.

Because of my jealous and possessive nature, I, admittedly, have a fetish for lonely/solitary women (women who don't have/had a lot of friends or lovers). Because the more friends/lovers a woman has/had, the less special I would feel I am to her. It's also harder for me to relate to and feel similarity to someone who's very 'socially/sexually/romantically successful'.

Thoughts like "Everyone else gets to have intimacy. Why can't I have it." or "Other people gets to release their art and be somewhat famous. I have to do that too." can go through my mind. But there can also be another part of me that comes in and says "But I guess we all have our struggles. Some people can't walk, some people can't see, some people can't hear, some people have AIDs, etc." Maybe this is a conflict between the strong 4 in my tritype and the strong 9 in my tritype. (??). I really don't know.





"No, many people aren't really that in my experience. Have you seen a 9 act that way? Have those feelings? You really have to push a 9 especially 1 wing to become aggressive towards you. They have a hangup with getting angry. 4s not so much. You tick them off, question their identity, trigger their envy, and they will let their feelings dictate where they go, unfortunately."

I relate to the bolded parts. I dislike it if people call me normal/mainstream, treat others better than me, etc. But, in my honest opinion, I'm not hostile, and I'm certainly not aggressive. (Sometimes/often times I may even be completely passive, even though my feelings have gotten hurt). Not only does it come very unnaturally to me to be aggressive/loud/violent, but I also un-value it. I would feel very bad about myself if I were to act that way. And so I try not to (and it's not very hard, since I'm naturally a very shy and gentle person), because I absolutely can't stand it when others act that way (unless they had a really good/fair reason to act that way, obviously).
Perhaps because my feelings get hurt so easily, I try to be extra-careful to not hurt others's feelings.

But perhaps I'm biased. There was an instance where a platonic internet friend of mine said/did something. It made me feel jealous/envious. And I was afraid to be honest/direct, so my words came out wrong. And so my words sounded like I meant something more cruel than I actually meant. And she took it very badly and felt really upset and hurt. And I felt very upset and hurt by her behavior as well. But I tried (I'd like to think) to be as soft-spoken and diplomatic as I could be.

[Samson]

It is OK to not identify as Sx or 4.

[Neokortex]

I wasn't calling anybody any names. I was just criticizing those who do. But yeah, I am perhaps oversensitive about these words and terms. It's just a bit tiresome to me, frankly, to hear 'underdogs', unpopular people, soft people, people who can't get laid, etc. being attacked and called names ('beta males', 'pussies', 'cucks', etc.). And it's usually men who get called these names too, so it shows inequality - that men are expected to do and be things that women are not expected to. And yes, I know that women, too, are expected to do/be things that men are not expected to. There's inequality directed at both genders.

I'm sorry to read that you find it tiresome to hear all those kinds of people being attacked and called names but like you say you wasn't calling anybody names, I am mirroring you in that respect: I wasn't attacking anybody either. I think a lot of this inequality can be put down to biological evolution. At less civil, less organized places (back of beyond), "jus naturale" rules apply, so instead of written laws, the stronger, braver males band together and they do what they think is a noble goal: protect the "innocent." This leads to inequality, however, since their collective strength affords them more women, whereas the ones they are protecting others from become marginalized, disenfranchised, atrophied throughout generations.

Tritype wouldn't really "negate" anything. The stacking remains as a big part of the person's value system. (That's how people of compatible stackings can feel camaraderie even with people from the opposite Quadra, or with incompatible stackings, can feel a bit off with people of the same Quadra in certain areas).

Someone whose values encompass SO/SX will by default have an outlook that is quite social and open and light, and even if the individual is 4-5-9 tritype, they will have that focus. So they will alternate between high introspection and especially if average to unhealthy, isolation, but they will also move to the social sphere, trying to communicate their findings and insights to others in an engaging way, so it will be a back forth between the two modes. Yes, it is a contradictory combination, which can be stressful, but so it is. 3-7-8 Sp/Sx would have a similar dynamic, albeit a bit different obviously.

I'm following the "Oceanmoonshine's" (or something) descriptions, that is, I designate an "instinct" to each type in the tritype. In that way I don't treat the "stackings" as "instincts" but as focalizers. By and large you can say that a 4w5 so/sp is ambiverted but when typing someone you really have to figure out the priority of their values. You thought Tilda Swinton was a social 4 and at first glance she does seem to be superficially invested in giving the 4 look but at the same time that 4 can stand in more positions in the tritype and that defines priority. If Tilda was a tertiary 4, then her 4ishness was only a tool for her other, deeper motivations. Out of their configuration does one overall "instinct" and "main type" emerge. In my case it's "Sx/Sp 6" - but my 6 is a "countertype" in the sense that I have both 9 and 3 phases at differing intervals. 6 for me is second nature but, ultimately, only a means to an end. Within this internal prioritization do "instincts"/focalizers have a role in what or what doesn't get negated or "cancelled out" from the general qualities of a "type."
So according to your (borrowed) definition, my so/sp 4w3 would be more than ambiverted and tritype "wouldn't negate it," yet I'm afraid you're more than a wee bit off the mark there. While I have bursts of extroversion, my 4 qualities are visible, at the most, through my E6 reasoning. And yes, in that way no one can really identify with all the enlisted qualities of a certain (sub)type because everyone is a tritypal mishmash.

Moreover, and I'm writing from experience, no one has only just one "flow." Or more precisely, everyone has a "flow" but that oscillates between benevolent and malicious, earnest and spiteful attitudes. When saying someone is So/Sx, you refer to a certain "complex" of traits. The more typical So/Sxes are easily recognizable, yet some traits of the "So/Sx" are also noticeable with ENTPs or ENFPs, even if they apparently are not the lowest on Sp (I have examples). This is where the "ranges" come in.

The bolded part: treating "instincts" as focalizers helps understand what and how is communicated when an otherwise withdrawn person reenters the social. Looking at Tilda, I find that she's more assertive with emotions instead of "head type" or "gut type" matters. She does it in a British/intuitive type way, of course, unlike the tantrum that ones with a 4 + 8 would throw. In that sense, she's more social (adaptive) on gut/head, whereas she's more Sx (dominant, assertive) in the heart.

You may have an So/Sx on your 5 but overall, in your current YT videos, I see you as a higher range So/Sp. Hence, the Si-dom remark.

[VenusRose]

@andreasdevig this is not to say you are mistyped or anything, but I was just curious...
How do you feel about Se suggestive for you, compared to Se PoLR (since they are both 1D)?

[andreasdevig]

@andreasdevig this is not to say you are mistyped or anything, but I was just curious...
How do you feel about Se suggestive for you, compared to Se PoLR (since they are both 1D)?

Why do you ask? Do you see me as Se Suggestive?

To answer your question, I read a description, and it does sound relatable (as does Se PoLR, too, of course). And perhaps (perhaps) I could see Ni-base for myself (or Si-base, for that matter), but it comes coupled with either Te or Fe, and I can't really see those functions/elements in myself.

[VenusRose]

Why do you ask? Do you see me as Se Suggestive?

To answer your question, I read a description, and it does sound relatable (as does Se PoLR, too, of course). And perhaps (perhaps) I could see Ni-base for myself (or Si-base, for that matter), but it comes coupled with either Te or Fe, and I can't really see those functions/elements in myself.

I was curious

Here's an Se PoLR description:

Extroverted sensing or “Se” is responsible for the perception, control, defense, and acquisition of space, territory, power and control. It observes outward appearances, estimates and analyzes whether forces are in alignment or conflict, and uses strength of will and power-based methods to achieve purposes. Se understands territory (who has acquired what) and physical aggression. It is also the function of contact and apprehension of qualia, constant physical traits of objects. In EIIs, Se is weak and subdued.

Se will manifest in roughly two ways in an EII: The first is our virtual obliviousness to our surroundings. Although we tend to be very organized people and feel like our thoughts are fairly organized too, they are quick to leap from one subject to another thanks to Ne, and we often feel overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information running through our minds. EIIs have a tendency to “space out.” We will leave personal belongings in places and fail to notice changes in our environment. We are frequently lost in our own thoughts and can tune out external reality, even in the middle of something like driving or a conversation. This has the potential of causing major problems. More than once I have had to ask someone, “I’m sorry, what were you saying?” only to have them become frustrated at having to repeat themselves and then assuming that I just don’t care about what they have to say, which is usually a grossly incorrect assumption. Personally, I have to sort of shift my focus in order to take in stuff going on around me, but it’s not long until something I see propels me into thought and I am lost again. I also have a hard time with directions, so getting physically lost is not a difficult feat either. I also don’t feel a need to maintain eye contact with people – I can listen and know what they’re saying and its emotional context without measuring all their body language and facial expression. Of course, that varies from situation to situation. In any case, I would like to let everyone out there know that it’s not because we don’t value what you have to say and you shouldn’t take it personally. I am being honest when I say that I always mean well – always. Sometimes, negative emotions (mostly anger, not sadness) given off by someone are so strong that I can’t bear to look at them.


The second manifestation of our PoLR is a complete aversion to force, aggression, conflict, violence, competition, and the whole idea of bending people and situations to get what one wants. This is where you get the “overly sensitive” aspect of our personalities. If someone says something in a way that is remotely confrontational, we retreat. If someone really wants to argue, we fall silent. If people are fighting, we will either try to settle the disagreement, get up and leave, or both. We will not “intrude on others’ space,” whether physically or psychologically. We are virtually incapable of making anyone do anything or refusing a request. No matter how badly we may want something, if you flatly refuse, we are likely to back down, at least after a short while. EIIs do not make things happen – we prefer to wait for them to happen or let someone else take the lead. In those rare occasions where we try to be forceful, we become extremely uncomfortable and vulnerable. It’s terrifying. We want everyone to get along, to share their thoughts in an accepting and peaceful discourse. We want everyone to “win” and leave unscarred, and since that seldom happens in an Se environment, we avoid such environments.


People with strong Se are able to weigh out how much “force” is being applied and to what effect. EIIs simply cannot do this. We interpret most forms of criticism as personal assaults on our character which are meant to demonstrate a disapproval of some integral part of our self-concept. We sometimes have trouble differentiating between a sarcastic jab and an insult because we are inclined to think that even negative comments directed toward someone as a joke are still implying some kind of honest criticism underneath the supposed lightheartedness. In short, we can take lots of things personally unless given some kind of clear signal (spoken or otherwise) that we aren’t actually being attacked.

Te PoLR:
Lol while looking for the description, I found this. It's a humorous way to depict Te PoLR.

Te PoLR description:

SEI and IEI (Te PoLR) feel very uncomfortable in a situation that forces them to admit:
- That they do not have the necessary knowledge and skills;
- They do not know that in fact they are not able to display an active business attitude;
- They do not understand the rules of management, principles of operation;
- They do not understand the fitness of things, i.e. how external events are connected with things happening around them;
- They do not know how to optimize, calculate efficiency.

This is so true! I think I had an IEI professor once, at least Beta NF seems to fit him quite well...
Anyways, so he gave us all a self-quiz to determine what sort of Psychologists'/counsellors' ideas we were aligned with personally. I was going through it, and then at the results section I thought they had mixed up Jung and someone else...I looked into it again, just to make sure, and it seemed like that was very possible. I pointed this out to him through email, to which he did not respond. When I broached the topic with him in person (since it seemed like he gave this quiz to students possibly every class he had...so I thought perhaps this would be important), he said he "hadn't looked into it yet" while seeming kind of wary and/or insecure. I found that very strange because all you would need to do is google and check...so I wonder if Te PoLR (and to some extent role, perhaps) is kind of like pretending evidence that might be right in front of you...does not exist. Or not wanting to look into the evidence to begin with.

I could not find as good of a description for Te PoLR, but yeah...
Which one of those feels more like a painful function to you?

[andreasdevig]

Which one of those feels more like a painful function to you?

Intuitively, I want to say Se. Te can be painful too. I can feel insecure, in terms of feeling like I don't have the facts that I should, and so on and so forth. I dislike being proven wrong, and so on and so forth. I guess that's human, though.

I could never work in a facts-oriented job. I don't think I would willfully ignore facts, though, frankly.

I would assume Se PoLR would manifest, partly, (in me) as a feeling like I'm not what society says a "real man" should be. So this can cause me to feel insecure. Perhaps this is human, too, though, I don't know. But I often feel like I'm not what society deems an acceptable man, or what society says that women are supposedly attracted to (dominance, strength, assertiveness, etc.). Perhaps a lot of men feel this way. I really don't know. I can't say. I can only speak for myself. But yeah, it's a painful feeling, of feeling inferior, weak, etc. But I guess it doesn't come up all that often, since I don't tend to seek out these kinds of environments, I suppose.

I tend to be extremely careful with my words and actions and what not, so as not to hurt people's feelings and what not. I never want to initiate force (violence, yelling, etc.). I would feel very bad about myself if I did. I absolutely cannot stand aggressive, violent or loud people.

What about yourself? I assume Se feels more painful to you?

[VenusRose]

What about yourself? I assume Se feels more painful to you?

Yes, I agree for myself, with the quote I posted about Se vulnerable. Te has never really been a 'painful' spot for me.