Beta Zoids or Delta Droids?!

[unefille]

Warning: LONG POST.

About me:

1. Three female fictional characters I have always identified with strongly are Teresa from Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being and Anna from Tolstoy's Anna Karenina and Jane from Bronte's Jane Eyre. All three were pivotal books for me. Nevertheless, this identification is not complete. Both characters resonate deeply with me, but what is ultimately lacking is that I cannot always identify with the decisions they make. Anna for instance, to me, could not expect forgiveness, for she acted against her better judgement and on a whim. That doesn't mean I believe she should be punished or condemned, but there had to be consequences for her action, because she knew she would hurt numerous people and yet did it anyway.

2. I have a strong sense of appropriateness, but one which I think is borne out of consideration for other people and not because I have been taught 'thou shalt behave this way'. I've always been sensitive to the way people express themselves; the way the same sentiment can be harmless or destructive, depending on the way in which it is expressed. I take a great deal of care not to hurt other people and to express myself as diplomatically as possible.

3. As I expressed in another thread, the three qualities I like most about myself are optimism, adaptability and my communication skills. The qualities I don't always like about myself are that I can often come off as aloof, that I often hold myself back from acting on my impulses and then regret the missed opportunities, that even though I seek to not hurt people through my behaviour, often I hurt them inadvertently because I am not as emotionally invested in them as they are in me. I cannot 'fake' that; I can only be sorry for my inability to reciprocate.

4. Although idolatrie and I were convinced of my 'irrationality', I am actually quite a controlled personality. I can be spontaneous, unpredictable and do and say shockingly unexpected things, but I am very rarely impulsive. Most of my actions are planned in some way. When I withdraw into myself if I feel I'm being 'attacked' in some way, I am not shutting down to protect myself, but rather pulling back so as to assess my options for action. Unless my head is clear, I will usually not act because I am too aware of the possibility of bad and regrettable outcomes. This awareness of possible consequences holds me back from doing a lot of things that I might want to do, such as insult people, approach people I find interesting or throw things and misbehave generally.

5. My favourite theorist is Michel Foucault, whose methodology and philosophy has deeply influenced my own approach to analysing political problems. I think I have a strong identification with Foucault - all my lecturers have commented my uncanny knack for understanding and being able to explain Foucault's theorising, especially as a lot of my peers have often found him influential but alien and difficult to access.

6. Idolatrie and I have, since high school, had long lively discussions about power. POWER and its theorisation and manifestations is something which has long fascinated us. Even my current areas of study reflect that. It's less of an obsession with having power, but more of a concern with the existence and permeation of power, which colours the relations between people, institutions and nations.

7. I hate being told what to do by someone who makes it seem that is my only option and I have no choice in it. It frustrates me. Even if I have already decided on that course of action, I will deliberately rebel or sulk and hold off from doing it, simply because it thoroughly irritates me. I often know I am not acting rationally then, but something in me just simply RESISTS. And I have to let that feeling subside first, before acting.

8. I always say I want to 'fly free'. What I really mean is that I want 'wide horizons'. I don't want to be limited in any sense, I want to feel as though the breadth of the world is open to me. The distinction I make with flying free is that I need an ultimate destination, somewhere I am going, or somewhere I can return. I say 'oh, let's just wander, why plan everything?' but I only mean 'let's wander for NOW', knowing in my head exactly where we're going to be once that wandering if over.

9. I have a tendency to 'take over' when I think someone is doing something badly or incompetently. I try to explain what's going wrong, but because I don't want to insult them too much, if they don't really understand immediately, I will 'teach by showing'. In that sense, I can be quite controlling, I suppose, though I've never thought of it that way. I have very high standards and people always call me a perfectionist. Whenever I join a student organisation, the first thing I need to know is what our 'purpose' is to really contribute. What are we trying to achieve/do?

My Relationship with Idolatrie:

We've been best friends since we were 14 (so 7 years now, I guess). We originally thought our relationship was activity, but it might be duality. I don't know. I tell her everything. I share every aspect of my life with her. No one knows me like she does. She's the only person I really show all vulnerabilities to - no other relationship has yet reached that point, unfortunately. In senior year of high school, I was really emotionally messed up inside and I feel that our friendship was the only thing that got me through it. Whenever I'm stressed or in a panic or about to breakdown, she's the first person I turn to. What I like about her is her firmness, her concreteness. She very much keeps me grounded. I tell her how things are going to happen; she makes them happen. I often say 'we should do this' but then I hesitate - she will promptly act and I can follow her into action, relieved.


Relevant Links:
Questions about EIE/Fe-Leading: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=20976
Hating the Enneagram 3: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=20847

[idolatrie]

The only reason I am putting my type up for consideration in this sub-forum is because unefille is questioning her type, and the possibility of us being from opposing quadra is really mind-boggling. So I would like to start with the caveat that I am not necessarily ready to accept whaever conclusions are reached here about my type. I don't mean to be difficult or obstructive by that, but my type is necessarily a personal thing, and it is confronting to be told that the type which makes the most sense to you subjectively is somehow wrong. However, I would be needlessly constraining unefille's exploration of possible types by not at least considering that I'm one of the Beta ST types.

Reasons Why I Believe I'm LSE
1) The LSE descriptions have always made the most sense and just rung true completely for me. Particularly Filatova's LSE description on the wiki, the Beskova female LSE description, and even the main LSE page.

2) I believe I have Te rather than Ti in my ego block. This is my take on the two functions, as posted in another thread:

In terms of the functions, however, I think my biggest sticking point is Te/Ti. My understanding of Ti is that it is like a model, a closed logic system. Following the rules laid down, if A then B. It implies that there is a single correct approach to follow, that there is the possibility of right and wrong in an objective sense. Sort of like mathematical reasoning: rules deduced from a set of governing axioms. That there is nothing outside the system. Best practice as opposed to best fit.

My understanding of Te is that it is more about locally contingent information gathered to create the most holistic basis of knowledge. You look at how things work, and derive your understanding of that in a way that is particular to that phenomenon. That reasoning cannot necessarily be generalised from the individual to the aggregate. So you judge things on their particular effectiveness - does it work? There is no objective set of rules that can be applied from above.

I reject the possibility of universal, objective values/standards. I think everything has to be evaluated on its own utility value. And that my reasoning cannot necessarily be imposed upon another, because our perception of phenomenon are not objective but rather always subjective and value-laden. But my own knowledge, I am certain of. I do not believe someone can tell me what to think because I can do that for myself. I may be presented with another way of reasoning, and I'll evaluate it, and if I find it relevant or effective, then I'll adopt it - either integrating it with my exisitng approach or if it is incommensurable, I'll determine which is more appropriate according to its ability to accurately reflect the reality of the situation.

I accept that in reality one has to generalise rules in order to have some guiding principles, if not you'd have anarchy.

3) Looking at the dichotemies, extrovert fits better than introvert, pretty much on a point-by-point basis. And rational over irrational, definitely. As in, 7-0 in favour of rational based on the characteristics on the wiki, and similar skewing on Rick's rationality/irrationality page.

So taking it holistically, LSE just seemed like the best fit.

Rather than trying to preemptively lay out more information, I'm leaving it short and sweet. I'd really prefer to answer questions than ramble on initially.

Niffweed made a strong case for me being LSI. I don't expect him to go to the bother of rewriting it here though. Suffice to say it is one of the other main reasons why I'm considering LSI. My objections, as listed above, still stand, but I could see his reasoning.

[Gilly]

1. Three female fictional characters I have always identified with strongly are Teresa from Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being and Anna from Tolstoy's Anna Karenina and Jane from Bronte's Jane Eyre. All three were pivotal books for me. Nevertheless, this identification is not complete. Both characters resonate deeply with me, but what is ultimately lacking is that I cannot always identify with the decisions they make. Anna for instance, to me, could not expect forgiveness, for she acted against her better judgement and on a whim. That doesn't mean I believe she should be punished or condemned, but there had to be consequences for her action, because she knew she would hurt numerous people and yet did it anyway.

Sounds like valuing Se/Ni to me.

2. I have a strong sense of appropriateness, but one which I think is borne out of consideration for other people and not because I have been taught 'thou shalt behave this way'. I've always been sensitive to the way people express themselves; the way the same sentiment can be harmless or destructive, depending on the way in which it is expressed. I take a great deal of care not to hurt other people and to express myself as diplomatically as possible.

I definitely identify here.

4. Good vs. evil. He never does things he considers as evil, and is very intolerable to evil in others. However, his ethical theory is based on his own principles, without consideration for customs and authority. Sometimes his views on problems of good and evil are very original. In any case he consequently acts on them and insistently defends them.

3. As I expressed in another thread, the three qualities I like most about myself are optimism, adaptability and my communication skills.

I think these can be "chalked up" to Fe pretty easily, although obviously they aren't solely related to it.

The qualities I don't always like about myself are that I can often come off as aloof

I don't think it is uncommon at all for EIEs to come off as aloof; in fact I think it is rather common.

that even though I seek to not hurt people through my behaviour, often I hurt them inadvertently because I am not as emotionally invested in them as they are in me. I cannot 'fake' that; I can only be sorry for my inability to reciprocate.

Devalued Fi, I think; most likely 4th or 7th function. Again, I thoroughly relate.

4. Although idolatrie and I were convinced of my 'irrationality', I am actually quite a controlled personality. I can be spontaneous, unpredictable and do and say shockingly unexpected things, but I am very rarely impulsive. Most of my actions are planned in some way. When I withdraw into myself if I feel I'm being 'attacked' in some way, I am not shutting down to protect myself, but rather pulling back so as to assess my options for action. Unless my head is clear, I will usually not act because I am too away of the possibility of bad and regrettable outcomes. This awareness of possible consequences holds me back from doing a lot of things that I might want to do, such as insult people, approach people I find interesting or throw things and misbehave generally.

This reeks of Ni.

5. My favourite theorist is Michel Foucault, whose methodology and philosophy has deeply influenced my own approach to analysing political problems. I think I have a strong identification with Foucault - all my lecturers have commented my uncanny knack for understanding and being able to explain Foucault's theorising, especially as a lot of my peers have often found him influential but alien and difficult to access.

I don't know much about Foucault, but it is very common for Betas to be attracted to esoteric bodies of knowledge/areas of study.

6. Idolatrie and I have, since high school, had long lively discussions about power. POWER and its theorisation and manifestations is something which has long fascinated us. Even my current areas of study reflect that. It's less of an obsession with having power, but more of a concern with the existence and permeation of power, which colours the relations between people, institutions and nations.

Se ftw. An important thing to note about "valuing" a function that is often a topic of confusion is that it does not so much imply that, for example, an Se valuing type would necessarily WANT power (although it is common), but moreso that they have a particular focus on power, or a marked position on it. For example, I have an EIE friend from college who was vehemently opposed to the idea of any power structure or authority, from government down to social hierarchy, on both a philosophical and sociological basis. The important thing is not necessarily a desire or psychological need, but rather a focus.

7. I hate being told what to do by someone who makes it seem that is my only option and I have no choice in it. It frustrates me. Even if I have already decided on that course of action, I will deliberately rebel or sulk and hold off from doing it, simply because it thoroughly irritates me. I often know I am not acting rationally then, but something in me just simply RESISTS. And I have to let that feeling subside first, before acting.

I don't know how I would attribute this functionally, but I relate entirely.

8. I always say I want to 'fly free'. What I really mean is that I want 'wide horizons'. I don't want to be limited in any sense, I want to feel as though the breadth of the world is open to me. The distinction I make with flying free is that I need an ultimate destination, somewhere I am going, or somewhere I can return. I say 'oh, let's just wander, why plan everything?' but I only mean 'let's wander for NOW', knowing in my head exactly where we're going to be once that wandering if over.

I think this sounds like Ni valuing, and weak Ti.

9. I have a tendency to 'take over' when I think someone is doing something badly or incompetently. I try to explain what's going wrong, but because I don't want to insult them too much, if they don't really understand immediately, I will 'teach by showing'. In that sense, I can be quite controlling, I suppose, though I've never thought of it that way. I have very high standards and people always call me a perfectionist. Whenever I join a student organisation, the first thing I need to know is what our 'purpose' is to really contribute. What are we trying to achieve/do?

Se/Ni values IMO.

What I like about her is her firmness, her concreteness. She very much keeps me grounded. I tell her how things are going to happen; she makes them happen. I often say 'we should do this' but then I hesitate - she will promptly act and I can follow her into action, relieved.

Sounds like Se+Ti valuing to me.

When we were graduating high school, I was still emotionally unstable, though I doubt anyone could really tell. To most people, I suspect I seemed perfectly Ok.

Lol, my senior year of high school/sophomore year of college. I was a total wreck inside, but even when I went back and asked people about it, they told me that I hardly let on at all, that I seemed like the same old George for the most part.

[aka-kitsune]

The two of you (unefille & idolatrie) sound like duals with all this "we" stuff all over the place.

Perhaps you're an LSE-EII pair...

[unefille]

The two of you (unefille & idolatrie) sound like duals with all this "we" stuff all over the place.

Perhaps you're an LSE-EII pair...

LoL, I'm pretty sure Idolatrie would reject the idea of me being EII pretty strongly, even if I were her dual. In fact, we thought about it and it made her laugh. A lot.

[idolatrie]

The two of you (unefille & idolatrie) sound like duals with all this "we" stuff all over the place.

Perhaps you're an LSE-EII pair...

I think it is more indicative of our long history of co-dependence. That, or delusions of grandeur leading to use of the royal plural.

Actually, to explain seriously, we discuss things constantly, so by the time anything reaches any public venue, we've already come to a consensus position and I actually feel comfortable expressing our thoughts since I know what she's thinking.

I would be very surprised if unefille is a rational type. Whilst she is my best friend, and I could not in my wildest imagination come up with the model of a better friend to me, having to make life decisions with her would drive me batshit insane.

[aka-kitsune]

LoL, I'm pretty sure Idolatrie would reject the idea of me being EII pretty strongly, even if I were her dual. In fact, we thought about it and it made her laugh. A lot.

Would you mind explaining why? Or point me where you have elaborated regarding this elsewhere on the forum?

I don't think your forum behavior or the details you've laid out contradict the concept so obviously that it's a ridiculous notion out-of-hand. Either way, you two seem to have the kind of eerie closeness that people here speak in hushed tones regarding duality.

(Personally, duality sounds too completely merged for my comfort).

[Expat]

I would be very surprised if unefille is a rational type. Whilst she is my best friend, and I could not in my wildest imagination come up with the model of a better friend to me, having to make life decisions with her would drive me batshit insane.

If she is EIE, that illustrates the problem of going for descriptions of rational vs irrational as far as their behavior is concerned; their dynamic can appear as irrationality to others.

[unefille]

Would you mind explaining why? Or point me where you have elaborated regarding this elsewhere on the forum?

I don't think your forum behavior or the details you've laid out contradict the concept so obviously that it's a ridiculous notion out-of-hand. Either way, you two seem to have the kind of eerie closeness that people here speak in hushed tones regarding duality.

(Personally, duality sounds too completely merged for my comfort).

She basically thinks I'm too irrational and that someone like me would torment her. She wants stability - I think she's BORING and that I make life more interesting for us - by doing things like dragging us into socionics, or getting us into trouble. Ha!

Also, if this is duality, then I can assure you - duality isn't perfect. We have similar backgrounds and interests. We never fight, never misunderstand each other, never get angry at each other. But it's really really not the land of milk and honey either. It's why I'd almost prefer to believe that's it's activity relations instead - because then duality would be better than this!

[aka-kitsune]

Hmm... either way, I think accurately defining your relationship with each other is probably the key to typing both of you. It's really a striking example of some precise relation socionics should be able to explain.

(I've not mastered socionics relation-fu yet).

[Gilly]

Duality isn't necessarily "The land of milk and honey," as you put it; what it really boils down to is that your dual covers your weaknesses proportionally and in a way that is comfortable for you, and there are very few psychological barriers to overcome in order to achieve a close psychological distance in most situations. Activity relations are probably more likely to produce the dizzying highs of finding someone who is both compatible and very similar to you, but over time they can be tiring and the psychological distance is not always as...umm...well-meshed.

[idolatrie]

Hmm... either way, I think accurately defining your relationship with each other is probably the key to typing both of you. It's really a striking example of some precise relation socionics should be able to explain.

(I've not mastered socionics relation-fu yet).

Well, if there is anything in particular that would help to define our relationship, just ask it! I don't really know where to start if describing it. She's the only person I'm this close to though.

Duality isn't necessarily "The land of milk and honey," as you put it; what it really boils down to is that your dual covers your weaknesses proportionally and in a way that is comfortable for you, and there are very few psychological barriers to overcome in order to achieve a close psychological distance in most situations. Activity relations are probably more likely to produce the dizzying highs of finding someone who is both compatible and very similar to you, but over time they can be tiring and the psychological distance is not always as...umm...well-meshed.

Well, we did get sick of each other once. After oh, about 60 days straight in each other's company (travelling overseas together). ;P On the last leg home, we were cranky and tired and snapped at each other. That's the closest we've ever come to actually 'fighting'.

[Gilly]

If that's the closest you've ever come to fighting, Duality would seem more likely.

[unefille]

Well, we did get sick of each other once. After oh, about 60 days straight in each other's company (travelling overseas together). ;P On the last leg home, we were cranky and tired and snapped at each other. That's the closest we've ever come to actually 'fighting'.

I also have to point out that we pretty much spent the 60 days ONLY in each others company. And we were exhausted. I really wanted somebody else to talk to by the end of it! And we snapped at each other for a few minutes. And then stopped. I get more talkative when I'm upset. She clams up and stops talking. She literally becomes a stone sort of. 'I want to do this'. No more discussion. And well, I'm not always the most compliant of people. You can say we're both strong-willed.

But yeah, that was it. The closest we've come to fighting. I think the whole 'silence' thing lasted about 20 minutes.

[Expat]

I disagree, actually. I don't have an opinion yet on idolatrie's type, but LSE-EIE super-ego could also fit. I had an ESE girlfriend for 2 years, and we never actually had a fight -- there was just a sense of "something's missing".

[unefille]

I disagree, actually. I don't have an opinion yet on idolatrie's type, but LSE-EIE super-ego could also fit. I had an ESE girlfriend for 2 years, and we never actually had a fight -- there was just a sense of "something's missing".

Hmm, is it possible to see eye-to-eye about everything in super-ego relationships? It's not that we have the same political views and the same ideas about what worthwhile and what isn't; it's that we have the same values, the same concept of what the world is. Often one of us will start saying something about what we think, and the other will say it instead. We used to joke that we actually had one brain between the two of us and for a long time, people kept telling us we were actually the same person.

Since High School, we've developed separate identities more concretely, but people really used to think we were actually exactly the same, because we shared the same values, likes and dislikes, and world-view.

We never even have misunderstandings or miscommunications. Is that possible for two people from opposing quadras?

[idolatrie]

I disagree, actually. I don't have an opinion yet on idolatrie's type, but LSE-EIE super-ego could also fit. I had an ESE girlfriend for 2 years, and we never actually had a fight -- there was just a sense of "something's missing".

Is there anything specific you do need to know to come to a clearer conclusion of my type?

[aka-kitsune]

I disagree, actually. I don't have an opinion yet on idolatrie's type, but LSE-EIE super-ego could also fit. I had an ESE girlfriend for 2 years, and we never actually had a fight -- there was just a sense of "something's missing".

Tee...! I've never NOT had a fight with anyone I've ever known!

I suppose I might actually enjoy conflict at times when I feel things are too stagnant. I do tend to subconsciously "bestir the emotional pot" in service to breaking barriers to intimacy between myself and another, or bringing out in the open issues I've been avoiding dealing with more directly.

On the other hand, I also find disagreements painful and want to resolve the issues that prompt them sooner than later.

[tiny_dancer]

it's that we have the same values, the same concept of what the world is.

I don't think anyone would say this about their super-ego. I certainly wouldn't say it about mine.

[Gilly]

It's also not necessarily exclusive of a super-ego relationship, though it is hardly indicative of one.

[Slacker]

I agree with how Gilly went through your post point-by-point. I can't identify with about anything you wrote. It's all very Se-oriented. And not Fi.

[unefille]

<stupid>I'm not entirely comfortable with the terminology: victim.</stupid>

Actually, I think I'm very stuck on what Si PoLR means. For both EIE and IEE, they want the dual to help them care of daily details and cares, because both are sort of 'head in the clouds' - just different clouds, I guess. I do things like I forget to eat sometimes and I won't know how to take care of myself when I get sick - I need to be told to go to bed, or to take medicine. Often I won't even think to go to the doctor, because I just think the cold will go away eventually - I can just sort of 'tough it out'.

There is one thing - is this Si PoLR: I feel really uncomfortable when people focus on my appearance, even if they're complimenting me. It makes me suddenly aware of me, the physical being again, and I get irritated. I definitely put effort into looking nice and I like that appreciated, but when people comment on it, I sort of squirm inside and want them to stop looking.

[Gilly]

That does sound very much like Si PoLR. I find the same to be true: I can handle a small compliment on my outfit or something, but if someone tries to like analyze how I've put myself together well, or how something is out of place, I feel really awkward; makes my skin crawl.

[unefille]

That does sound very much like Si PoLR. I find the same to be true: I can handle a small compliment on my outfit or something, but if someone tries to like analyze how I've put myself together well, or how something is out of place, I feel really awkward; makes my skin crawl.

There is one ESE who, to me, always seemed to have this 'scrutinising' gaze. She never said anything unfavourable, but the way she looked at me seemed to take my presentation apart. She really seems to NOTICE what I wear. With capitals and everything. And I absolutely HATE it when someone asks me if I feel comfortable in what I'm wearing, or comments that I don't look comfortable.

But I do like to talk about clothes a lot. A lot of my conversations with idolatrie revolve around clothing and presentation and this is going to make me sound really vapid right now, but the sort of Trinny and Susannah-esque make-overs we would like to do on our friends. I guess that's part of image-focus, and how you present yourself.

[aka-kitsune]

I do things like I forget to eat sometimes and I won't know how to take care of myself when I get sick - I need to be told to go to bed, or to take medicine. Often I won't even think to go to the doctor, because I just think the cold will go away eventually - I can just sort of 'tough it out'.

This is extremely enneagram 3 behaviour, btw. (Just felt like interjecting that). My 3w4 friend used to do this all the time -- overwork himself, pay no mind to his health and wind up with pneumonia...! Pneumonia!!

I am a Big Baby when it comes to my health; I start to feel sniffles or run down, and off I go home to cocoon with tea and toast in front of the TV. I'm very cautious in taking care of myself and thus usually head off the major cold or health issue before it becomes serious.

(Of course, I also like ready-made excuses to self-indulge).

[Expat]

Is there anything specific you do need to know to come to a clearer conclusion of my type?

Could you point me out to your discussion with niffweed? I couldn't find it.

[unefille]

I think she means the discussion we had with niffweed on stickam the other day.

She can elaborate on herself later, but 3 Things about Idolatrie

1. She has all these weird rules she follows. Whilst she's not bound to them to the point of being ridiculous, thus demonstrating some pathology, she has them: you cannot wear the same outfit to see the same group of people; you have to lock all your luggage in a hotel room; things have their designated places. There are a lot more, but I honestly don't pay that much attention to them because I just disregard them. I'm sure there is some 'utility' basis of for a lot these rules, but they often also create more problems than they solve. I think she's convinced she has these because they WORK but very often they DO NOT WORK, but she still does her best to follow them anyway. It makes her feel happy and stable. This is part of the reason she is convinced I'm 'irrational': I act flagrantly against her ideas of how a person should behave all the times. It doesn't really bother her, I think (she just makes shocked little faces and wrings her hands), but it's why she's convinced her dual is an INFj - they would be calmer and more 'rational' and not challenge her sense of appropriateness, I guess.

2. I don't know if she has Ni or Ne PoLR, but there is definitely something 'blocked' in her thinking. Once, in NY, her water bottle leaked in her bag. From that point on (so for the next 4 weeks we were travelling) she refused to carry a water bottle, no matter how thirsty she was. My water bottle also leaked once, I cleaned it up, and proceeded without any problems. I couldn't make her see that 1) just because it happened once, it wouldn't happen again and 2) you can't mitigate all bad potential outcomes, because there is always something unpredictable about life. This is another reason she probably sees me as 'irrational' (as well as N).

3. We're pretty good travel companions. She can't estimate time very well. She'll either to get to places incredibly early or run late, because she planned to be on time, but failed to estimate the amount of time she needed to get there. When travelling, I would do all the scheduling. I would work out what we needed to do, how long everything would take, what foreseeable external factors there might be and then just tell her when to do what. Usually I was pretty accurate. On the other hand, I don't do things like scrub pots or clean bathroom floors or iron. It just doesn't occur to me. She, even when sick, will scrub a pot or clean the bathroom floor. She's much more of a 'do-er' in that respect then I am. I would wash clothes according to the clothes I needed in the upcoming days; she washes clothes, but doesn't think about that, and will often be missing what she needs on the morning she needs it. I guess I'm lazier, but think ahead more than idolatrie. [Uh, this description probably isn't very flattering - she has a lot of other strong points aside from 'manual labour' that I don't have; but it's something that became very stark from living together.]

[Gilly]

*coughLSIcough*

[Slacker]

*coughLSIcough*

LOL yeah that last description makes her sound that way anyway, doesn't it? I had a terrible memory pop up of a woman I used to work with. Ack. LOL. Little rules all over!

[unefille]

LOL yeah that last description makes her sound that way anyway, doesn't it? I had a terrible memory pop up of a woman I used to work with. Ack. LOL. Little rules all over!

Is it still LSI if she doesn't force them onto other people? I'm sure on some level she's disturbed by rule-breaking ways, but I ignore her, she pouts and it's all OK. Her disapproval doesn't bother me very much and she doesn't force me to do things her way.

[unefille]

*coughLSIcough*

Gilly, would you mind breaking it down functionally? I'm sure it seems self-evident, but I'm also sure idolatrie would make an argument based on the utility of her rules (Te>Ti) because of her experiences and generally being a rational sensor.

That and she's very hard to convince of anything, anyway. Which is good. People should ponder their decisions more. I rush too much into things sometimes.

[strrrng]

1. She has all these weird rules she follows. Whilst she's not bound to them to the point of being ridiculous, thus demonstrating some pathology, she has them: you cannot wear the same outfit to see the same group of people; you have to lock all your luggage in a hotel room; things have their designated places. There are a lot more, but I honestly don't pay that much attention to them because I just disregard them. I'm sure there is some 'utility' basis of for a lot these rules, but they often also create more problems than they solve. I think she's convinced she has these because they WORK but very often they DO NOT WORK, but she still does her best to follow them anyway. It makes her feel happy and stable. This is part of the reason she is convinced I'm 'irrational': I act flagrantly against her ideas of how a person should behave all the times. It doesn't really bother her, I think (she just makes shocked little faces and wrings her hands), but it's why she's convinced her dual is an INFj - they would be calmer and more 'rational' and not challenge her sense of appropriateness, I guess.

ego block - developing an internal system of rules which you then apply on a concrete level. She's LSI, lol.

[ScarlettLux]

That and she's very hard to convince of anything, anyway. Which is good. People should ponder their decisions more. I rush too much into things sometimes.

LOL, PoLR

I will do a break-down of idolatrie based on your post about her sometime in the next few days? I can't be bothered atm, very tired

[unefille]

LOL, PoLR

I will do a break-down of idolatrie based on your post about her sometime in the next few days? I can't be bothered atm, very tired

Hahaha, thanks SL.

When it seemed that I might be typed wrongly that we might have to reconfigure everything, idolatrie's reaction was actually to just basically 'denounce' the forum accepted version of socionics. She was happy just to have our own system, which was formulated around our understanding of my type (you can see why changing my type would then be a problem), and just to use that as long as it worked for us. We'd have a separate, self-contained system that worked specifically for our subjective understanding.

The only reasons she's here, doing this, is because of me. In so many ways, I drag her into things. And I'm not so good at shutting out the possibility that my understanding is wrong and needs fixing.

[Gilly]

Well, the "rules" bit is highly Ti. LSEs have Ti as their 7th function, which is also known as the "ignoring" function, and for a reason. An LSE will nearly always choose what is practical, what is expedient, what "works," over any set of rules, just about no matter what, occasionally to the detriment of consistency in their lifestyle and being "practiced" at their methods. An LSI will develop a set of solutions or rules to deal with various situations, and rely on their familiarity and proficiency with these solutions to carry them through any obstacles than they meet. An LSI's "rules" are set up as what they see as working consistently; an LSE's decisions vary almost entirely based on the situation.


The example with the watter bottle is, IMO, very Ti with Ne PoLR: she had one bad experience, and drew what, to an intuitive type, would seem to b a "hasty" conclusion about water bottles: they can't be relied upon. From the perspective of an Ne dominant, she totally discounted the "potential" of a water bottle to be useful, and to work properly, because of one bad experience; in her eyes, given the experience, it wasn't "worth it" to have a water bottle if it meant she had to run the risk of her stuff getting wet again. Therefore she made a "Rule" about not using water bottles, to the practical detriment of her physical well-being later; this is a classic example of using Ti with poor consequences in the realm of Si as a result of having paranoid Ne.

In this same sense, an ESI (Fi with Ne PoLR) will often "cut out" people who they see as untrustworthy without giving them a chance to redeem themself (unless the person was already deep in the ESI's graces).

[Park]

LOL, PoLR

Then I must have Ne PoLR as well.

[Gilly]

When it seemed that I might be typed wrongly that we might have to reconfigure everything, idolatrie's reaction was actually to just basically 'denounce' the forum accepted version of socionics. She was happy just to have our own system, which was formulated around our understanding of my type (you can see why changing my type would then be a problem), and just to use that as long as it worked for us. We'd have a separate, self-contained system that worked specifically for our subjective understanding.

Again, this is very consistent with the supposed "shortcomings" expected of Ti + Ne PoLR: "sticking" to your ways either despite apparent conflict with what actually works, or because of presumed inconsistencies with what was already known.

[Gilly]

Then I must have Ne PoLR as well.

If you are like that, then I would hardly discount the possibility.

[Slacker]

Is it still LSI if she doesn't force them onto other people? I'm sure on some level she's disturbed by rule-breaking ways, but I ignore her, she pouts and it's all OK. Her disapproval doesn't bother me very much and she doesn't force me to do things her way.

Yes, the ISTj that immediately reminded me of DID force her rules upon people, but I worked with a very nice ISTj last school year at the school and she made rules and didn't like if they weren't followed but didn't freak out or anything. But she was a very nice ISTj. The other ISTj was not nice. LOL. It's having the little rules at all that's an issue. Anyone who is open to Ne is going to be open to things being done differently, but with ISTjs they really need things to be done their way - there isn't any real openess to change. I'm sure they could be convinced to change if you worked at it hard enough but it wouldn't be easy like it is with someone who values Ne.

[Slacker]

Then I must have Ne PoLR as well.

If it's very hard to convince you of something, you should consider that you don't value Ne. People who value Ne are open to change.