ENFjs and INFps: passionate and enthusiastic but not edgy and extreme?

[mikesilb]

Hi everyone,

Over these last few weeks, as my type determination has pulled me more in the EIE direction, I am deeply curious about an aspect of Beta NFs that has confused me.

Is it at all possible that Beta-NFs (and especially EIEs, although I imagine IEIs also being this way too) can be passionate and enthusiastic in general but not in an 'in-your-face' type of edgy way that betas are often described?

I find that I am most likely -valuing since I can be very much in tune with the feeling/emotional tone of people within a given room and especially those who I am talking to (in sort of a warm, people-pleasing way). I am also very sensitive to any sudden emotional changes that may suddenly come on. In addition, I am very much interested in abstract, conceptual, and mystical/spiritual-based topics. I find myself constantly contemplating about life, the universe, and everything (including my purpose within it). I believe that this also puts me in a -valuing camp. Despite this, I am not an edgy/extreme person in general.

The question is whether these characteristics generally can fit within the general mindset of a Beta type. Does a Beta-NF (by definition) have to be on the edgy side of things or is that merely a stereotype in general?

Could it be a more unanimous description of Beta NFs involve a deep-rooted desire to live a dynamic life...lived to the fullest in terms of their passions, imaginations/fantasies, and are generally driven in order to bring that life to fruition?

Let me know your thoughts about this.

[Linas]

The question is whether these characteristics generally can fit within the general mindset of a Beta type. Does a Beta-NF (by definition) have to be on the edgy side of things or is that merely a stereotype in general?

of course not, Beta NF doesn't have to be Beta ST

Could it be a more unanimous description of Beta NFs involve a deep-rooted desire to live a dynamic life...lived to the fullest in terms of their passions, imaginations/fantasies, and are generally driven in order to bring that life to fruition?

yes, why not to live to the fullest.

you see IEI is feminest type of all, but I still may be really loud and all that, and also edgy a little bit, in-your-face. but i should admit that, that is pretty rare from my experience. but you know, having the right company you may become a f** different person

[Gilly]

I tend to oscillate a lot in my behavior...I can be pretty aggressive/in your face; other times I just sort of float on by. Ni-IEIs are probably the least openly aggressive of Beta NFs. But if you are never like this, you should consider Alpha SF.

[Gilly]

Yes, actually.

[Gilly]

I don't mean to be mean, but that's all I can be; it's just me.

[Gilly]

Get the fuck out of my facebook before I sue you.

[redbaron]

and there are subtle ways to be edgy too. And there's the appreciation of edginess in others. You could be a harmonizing subtype or something, like I am. I'm drawn to aggressiveness in others, even if I'm not that way myself. I admire people who don't back down from confrontation, etc. But I'm rarely the type to take it on myself unless it's something I really believe in. I once got in a nearly-screaming fight with my aunt over the appropriateness of VBACs (vaginal birth after c-section).

[Gilly]

I'm a Harmonizing subtype. I can be pretty aggressive.

[Gilly]

What? I didn't get in there. Someone sent a request, which I accepted. Why don't you just unadd me.

I never added you, you fucking stalker.

[redbaron]

I'm a Harmonizing subtype. I can be pretty aggressive.

testosterone.

[discojoe]

Calm down.
Do you even know about the picture that I am talking about.

It seems like that thread was deleted, where discojoe posted a picture of you and someone else going for a bike ride.

I don't find you on my facebook account...anyway, if you find me on there, you can delete me.

I didn't post shit, you damn gypsy.

[xerx]

I find that I am most likely -valuing since I can be very much in tune with the feeling/emotional tone of people within a given room and especially those who I am talking to (in sort of a warm, people-pleasing way). I am also very sensitive to any sudden emotional changes that may suddenly come on.

If you don't mind me asking, what do you see as ? I'm not try to retype you, just curious what you think.

In addition, I am very much interested in abstract, conceptual, and mystical/spiritual-based topics. I find myself constantly contemplating about life, the universe, and everything (including my purpose within it). I believe that this also puts me in a -valuing camp.

I don't think this is true, or else Aushra, Einstein and a number of other Ne/Si valuers would have to be retyped.

[discojoe]

Please excuse me, I may be mistaken, it may have been Hitta.

[redbaron]

life, the universe, and everything

[redbaron]

I just wanna point out that NOT being edgy or extreme a lot of the time does NOT necessarily point you to alpha SF. Alpha SF indicates >, not a lack of edginess.

[discojoe]

I appologize. I'm truly sorry.

How will you make it up to me?

[discojoe]

Are you inside it?

[redbaron]

I thought maybe it was a metaphor for an anatomical feature.

[Blaze]

testosterone.

either that or a massive build up of sperm from not getting laid.

[discojoe]

either that or a massive build up of sperm from not getting laid.

George can probably get laid if he wants to.

[mikesilb]

If you don't mind me asking, what do you see as ? I'm not try to retype you, just curious what you think.

What I am writing below is not an exact definition of , but hopefully it will somewhat suffice to answer your question.

It seems that has more of a consistent moral/ethical compass which as a static function (rather than a dynamic one) is not as easily affected by the moment to moment changes in the emotional mood of others. I would imagine that while is more tailored to the emotional energy that is dynamically taking place all around, is not as focused on this and instead is focused on those deeper values that extend beyond the emotional reactions and interactions of others.

Those are my preliminary thoughts as to the / differences in the tiniest nutshell imaginable.

[mikesilb]

I tend to oscillate a lot in my behavior...I can be pretty aggressive/in your face; other times I just sort of float on by. Ni-IEIs are probably the least openly aggressive of Beta NFs. But if you are never like this, you should consider Alpha SF.

What I don't understand is why someone like me with either dominant or creative (due to enthusiasm, passion, as well as empathy, sensitivity) who thinks about strong NF-based topics in general such as spirituality, mysticism, theoretical ruminations about science, philosophy, psychology, etc. cannot fit beta simply because I am not extreme enough in my behavioral style. While I like when things have a more indulgent/looser, non-PC flavor to it (and also while I can be very impulsive as well), the truth of the matter is that most of the time I am definitely checking out whether there is an emotional resonance between myself and the person/group who I am interacting with (making me more 'streamlined' [for lack of a better word] and less edgy overall).

I don't feel that my interests and way of viewing the world is an SF style. I always felt that I gravitated more towards the abstract, theoretical, and imaginative domains in my life. I live a lot of my life in my head and really enjoy analyzing and grappling with various puzzles and intellectual topics that intrigue me. (I also am very interested in topics of meaning, destiny, spirituality, etc.) However, I feel way too emotional (i.e. sensitive, empathic, etc.) to be an NT type either. I wear my heart and emotions on my sleeve, and while I may not always say the first thing that is on my mind (although conversely, when I am pissed off, I can go on a big time temper tantrum as well, so I can switch that way), the bottom line is that I can deeply feel the emotional mood within a room and would rather be in a place where there is a unified, harmonious setting, rather than a place where anyone might not feel as welcome in general.

Based on all this, can I still not fit within the Beta framework? Would an Alpha or even Delta make just as valid sense?

Can anyone thread all this together to determine the most suitable quadra for me? (I still would say a beta EIE with a harmonizing/Ni subtype for now). Let me know.

[mikesilb]

I just wanna point out that NOT being edgy or extreme a lot of the time does NOT necessarily point you to alpha SF. Alpha SF indicates >, not a lack of edginess.

This is what I am thinking as well, that the only way that I could be Alpha is if I actually favored over while still showing a dominant overall. As I imagine it, I don't feel that is that high (over ). Likewise, I also don't think that I use the brainstorming on-my-feet as much as either. So this is why I still feel in the Beta camp unless there is a solid reason to think otherwise.

[Gilly]

testosterone.

either that or a massive build up of sperm from not getting laid.

George can probably get laid if he wants to.

I turn girls away on a pretty regular basis. My sperm is mine, and it goes on pages, not latex.

[silverchris9]

I turn girls away on a pretty regular basis. My sperm is mine, and it goes on pages, not latex.

lol. Apparently, that was Shakespeare's take on it too:

"Th' expense of spirit in a waste of shame
Is lust in action..."

Mike, you don't have to necessarily be "edgy" to be beta. What you do have to do is value Se and not value Fi. That is, you have to be more concerned with sheer unfiltered sense perception and volitional energy/certainty than with how stimuli make you feel physically and the desire to reach/maintain homeostasis, and you have to be more concerned with keeping the emotional energy in a room high/strong (whether positive or negative) than with making sure everybody feels positive about everybody else. That doesn't mean you can't care about the Si and Fi related stuff. But if you don't prioritize Se over Si and Fe over Fi, you're probably not beta.

I mean, what would you rather happen: everybody be super calm and cool at a party because one person isn't comfortable with high energy activity and might withdraw if the energy gets too overwhelming, or one person withdraw and maybe be a little offended, but everyone else have a wild, crazy energetic party? Or would you rather one person express themselves fully and passionately even if it makes some other people uncomfortable, or for that one person to "hold it in" and not make a big deal so that everybody can be comfortable and not have to have an emotional reaction?

[redbaron]

I turn girls away on a pretty regular basis. My sperm is mine, and it goes on pages, not latex.

pages?

I'm quite certain you don't have a problem finding girls as you're quite good looking. having a high level of testosterone isn't a put-down either. I think it also might boost the aggression a bit, is all I'm sayin. (not a bad thing)

[Aiss]

What I am writing below is not an exact definition of , but hopefully it will somewhat suffice to answer your question.

It seems that has more of a consistent moral/ethical compass which as a static function (rather than a dynamic one) is not as easily affected by the moment to moment changes in the emotional mood of others. I would imagine that while is more tailored to the emotional energy that is dynamically taking place all around, is not as focused on this and instead is focused on those deeper values that extend beyond the emotional reactions and interactions of others.

Those are my preliminary thoughts as to the / differences in the tiniest nutshell imaginable.

-egos have strong, but unconscious , and vice versa. From what you've written earlier I got the impression that you focus more on connection with people than emotions, which seem to be recognized more as a means for creating the connection (this includes temporary connections).

What I don't understand is why someone like me with either dominant or creative (due to enthusiasm, passion, as well as empathy, sensitivity) (...)

None of these are inconsistent with Delta NF. They're in fact usually described as very empathetic, very sensitive, and IEEs in particular as very enthusiastic. Passion as in expressiveness is more of a Beta thing, Delta passion being more inward, I think (I'm not sure of this one. Beta's is usually more obvious from outsider's point of view, though.)

(...) who thinks about strong NF-based topics in general such as spirituality, mysticism, theoretical ruminations about science, philosophy, psychology, etc. cannot fit beta simply because I am not extreme enough in my behavioral style. While I like when things have a more indulgent/looser, non-PC flavor to it (and also while I can be very impulsive as well), the truth of the matter is that most of the time I am definitely checking out whether there is an emotional resonance between myself and the person/group who I am interacting with (making me more 'streamlined' [for lack of a better word] and less edgy overall).

I don't feel that my interests and way of viewing the world is an SF style. I always felt that I gravitated more towards the abstract, theoretical, and imaginative domains in my life. I live a lot of my life in my head and really enjoy analyzing and grappling with various puzzles and intellectual topics that intrigue me. (I also am very interested in topics of meaning, destiny, spirituality, etc.) However, I feel way too emotional (i.e. sensitive, empathic, etc.) to be an NT type either.

This is what I am thinking as well, that the only way that I could be Alpha is if I actually favored over while still showing a dominant overall. As I imagine it, I don't feel that is that high (over ). Likewise, I also don't think that I use the brainstorming on-my-feet as much as either. So this is why I still feel in the Beta camp unless there is a solid reason to think otherwise.

The way you describe your interests here and in your other posts sounds rather to me. It seems more of a big picture thing, zoom out, and static over dynamic. It's similar to Alpha NTs, in a way. I don't think can be reduced to brainstorming, either.

I wear my heart and emotions on my sleeve, and while I may not always say the first thing that is on my mind (although conversely, when I am pissed off, I can go on a big time temper tantrum as well, so I can switch that way), the bottom line is that I can deeply feel the emotional mood within a room and would rather be in a place where there is a unified, harmonious setting, rather than a place where anyone might not feel as welcome in general.

This paragraph makes me thing of Delta. Whatever Maritsa claims, all EIIs aren't ice queens. While unity and harmony are somehow related to harmonizing subtypes, in this context it seems to refer more to Delta atmosphere, stereotypically at least. Also Delta aristocracy seems inclusive compared to Beta's exclusive one.

Based on all this, can I still not fit within the Beta framework? Would an Alpha or even Delta make just as valid sense?

Can anyone thread all this together to determine the most suitable quadra for me? (I still would say a beta EIE with a harmonizing/Ni subtype for now). Let me know.

I think Delta makes more sense than Beta. It's just a personal opinion, of course, but the general tone of your posts in this thread makes me think so.

Also, a few snippets from EII profile to consider. You've probably read it countless type by now, but I took it out of context to point out what's very similar to what you've written in this thread.

EIIs are very attuned to the psychological atmosphere of interaction and to their own feelings towards people and things.

(...)

EIIs are very capable of "sizing people up". They rely heavily on their instincts to understand the inner feelings of an individual. They are very empathetic people and find it very easy to feel with others. This makes them very sensitive to the moods of people, and they treat them the way they want to be treated, that is, with respect.

(...)

They are willing to listen to anyone who is knowledgeable or has a brilliant idea to share regardless of whether that individual is an expert or authority in his/her field since they strongly believe that there are many perspectives in an issue.

(...)

EIIs can become expressive and very lively in groups for brief periods of time, but they always gravitate to deep, focused communication between two people or a small, close-knit group. They tend to shun wildness and prefer serious, more sensitive communication.

EIIs are usually very straightforward about their feelings in front of others; what you see from them is what you get. Even at a party where everyone is supposed to be happy, they still find it hard to conceal their true feelings when they are in a bad mood.

(...)

The individual is also not naive to future happenings. He will often warn others of negative consequences. In this way, he uses his Ni to help the PoLR of his dual. However, unlike an EIE, he will not often take his own advice nor expect others to. His Se PoLR makes it impossible for him to demand that others heed his advice, and his Ne-ego makes him place more value in the possibility that he is wrong - and that things will play out differently - than in avoiding foreseeable disasters.

[mikesilb]

Mike, you don't have to necessarily be "edgy" to be beta. What you do have to do is value Se and not value Fi. That is, you have to be more concerned with sheer unfiltered sense perception and volitional energy/certainty than with how stimuli make you feel physically and the desire to reach/maintain homeostasis, and you have to be more concerned with keeping the emotional energy in a room high/strong (whether positive or negative) than with making sure everybody feels positive about everybody else. That doesn't mean you can't care about the Si and Fi related stuff. But if you don't prioritize Se over Si and Fe over Fi, you're probably not beta.

I totally agree with this by definition of the quadras and how certain IM elements are valued. So that makes 100% sense!

I mean, what would you rather happen: everybody be super calm and cool at a party because one person isn't comfortable with high energy activity and might withdraw if the energy gets too overwhelming, or one person withdraw and maybe be a little offended, but everyone else have a wild, crazy energetic party?

Very, very tricky to say the least. I am the type of person that wants people to be happy and feel comfortable at a get together or party. On the flip side, if it means that the mood must be dampened in order for others to feel good, I may not be as much in favor of it. I can enjoy a more serious get-together as well for sure, but if it is meant to be in more of a celebratory way, then I have no problem with it becoming more upbeat. The bottom line is that I would rather have as many people as possible feel good and comfortable (with a minor compromise by dampening the mood) rather than to piss off/upset someone important in my life because of the party's dynamic nature. Now that does seem to favor an alpha or delta setup (at least from the way that I am interpreting this answer). What do you think?

Or would you rather one person express themselves fully and passionately even if it makes some other people uncomfortable, or for that one person to "hold it in" and not make a big deal so that everybody can be comfortable and not have to have an emotional reaction?

Boy is that tricky once again! I could certainly enjoy full expression and dynamism...but at the same time, making another person uncomfortable might give me pause about the whole thing. I know what it is like to feel left out during situations like that, and I probably would not wish that on the other person. Maybe what I am asking for is more of an optimal win-win setup with a dynamic vibrancy and at the same time everyone remains comfortable. But if that can't happen, I tend to be more sensitive to the fact that others should/will feel included (and thereby allowing the nature/dynamics of the party to accommodate this).

Again, it almost sounds like "Score another for alpha or delta!" (at least in terms of my interpretation here).

Based on all this, would you say that my ego-block consists of 1) (in no partic. order), 2) , or 3) ?? How might my own dynamics be similar or differ from the dynamics of Beta NFs? Any thoughts about this would be awesome!

[redbaron]

all fans of Lost are Ni valuers. end of story.

just kidding.

[mikesilb]

all fans of Lost are Ni valuers. end of story.

just kidding.

That's what I would have thought!!! (Well at least in my personal case, I would have thought that. ;-) )

[redbaron]

That's what I would have thought!!!

I adore that show. It's my favorite!

[mikesilb]

I adore that show. It's my favorite!

I adore it too! It's too sad that characters are now dying right and left during this most climactic portion of the show. But what a long, strange trip that show has been!! Absolutely memorable!

[silverchris9]

Very, very tricky to say the least. I am the type of person that wants people to be happy and feel comfortable at a get together or party. On the flip side, if it means that the mood must be dampened in order for others to feel good, I may not be as much in favor of it. I can enjoy a more serious get-together as well for sure, but if it is meant to be in more of a celebratory way, then I have no problem with it becoming more upbeat. The bottom line is that I would rather have as many people as possible feel good and comfortable (with a minor compromise by dampening the mood) rather than to piss off/upset someone important in my life because of the party's dynamic nature. Now that does seem to favor an alpha or delta setup (at least from the way that I am interpreting this answer). What do you think?



Boy is that tricky once again! I could certainly enjoy full expression and dynamism...but at the same time, making another person uncomfortable might give me pause about the whole thing. I know what it is like to feel left out during situations like that, and I probably would not wish that on the other person. Maybe what I am asking for is more of an optimal win-win setup with a dynamic vibrancy and at the same time everyone remains comfortable. But if that can't happen, I tend to be more sensitive to the fact that others should/will feel included (and thereby allowing the nature/dynamics of the party to accommodate this).

Again, it almost sounds like "Score another for alpha or delta!" (at least in terms of my interpretation here).

Well, I mean, they weren't great questions, so it's not clear evidence regardless, but you did certainly pick the Fi answers over the Fe answers, so I think you may be an Fi-valuer. I mean, compassion is important, and I consider myself a fairly compassionate person, and I'm definitely not an Fi-valuer. Here's a better way of asking it. Regardless of what your goal is in those scenarios, how do you accomplish it? Do you expect people to recognize their social duties to one another, maybe call in favors, maybe remind your friends that "well, we really should include x, because that's the right thing to do, I mean, I think x is feeling really lonely right now...". Or, do you sort of manipulate the emotions of the party to get what you want to happen; like, do you sort of put out positive encouraging vibes/act friendly towards the lonely kid, sort of subtly express negative emotion when the party starts getting too excited, maybe "guilt" people into doing things by implying that you'll personally be happy, sad, upset, etc., if they do a certain thing, etc.

Also, how do you tend to think about the people involved? Is the one kid who can't deal with the excitement a party pooper? Or are the people who don't take that one kid's feelings into account inconsiderate? Maybe talk about that some.

Honestly, I'm sort of suspecting alpha or delta for you, but I can't really tell that for sure. Why do you think you're beta? (I can take this to a different thread, if you want?)

[Aiss]

Honestly, I'm sort of suspecting alpha or delta for you, but I can't really tell that for sure. Why do you think you're beta? (I can take this to a different thread, if you want?)

He probably doesn't enjoy watching the paint dry. Or something of the sort.

[Gilly]

You don't have to be edgy to be Beta NF, but if you're not and you ARE a beta NF, you're probably either a 9 or a 3 and are repressing it really well. That's how I was before I found this forum.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[mikesilb]

Also, how do you tend to think about the people involved? Is the one kid who can't deal with the excitement a party pooper? Or are the people who don't take that one kid's feelings into account inconsiderate? Maybe talk about that some.

I find this one to be the easier of the two questions. Actually I am going to detach a bit from the party scenario and generalize a bit more about how I would react to this question. My strong feeling is that I would be more attentive to the impressions and feelings for the single kid, rather than to consider him a party pooper. I would want to (in a very kind way) ask if something is bothering him/her in a way that is affecting his/her ability to relax at the party. Honestly, I have at times been that exact person who may have been left out or who may have felt out of place, and so I would want to empathize and understand what might be bothering him/her. I don't like to see people feel left out and since I understand what it might feel like to be on the fringe of the social activity, it would be of importance to me to do whatever I can to help this other person fit in and feel comfortable. I would not interpret this person typically as a party pooper. However, if this person had no justification for feeling out of sync, I might want to try to help/urge him to get more in sync with the 'party'. If it is an extreme situation, I might advise the person who feels out of sync that may be it is worth it for him/her to simply leave the party, and if I felt a need to escort that person home (lets say if he/she was a close friend of mine), then I might just leave as well. To me, it is better to be a loyal friend than to abandon the 'party pooper'. But before it would ever get to the point where I would consider leaving, I would need some sort of 'justification' from him/her as to why he/she is feeling uncomfortable. That definitely comes first.

Regardless of what your goal is in those scenarios, how do you accomplish it? Do you expect people to recognize their social duties to one another, maybe call in favors, maybe remind your friends that "well, we really should include x, because that's the right thing to do, I mean, I think x is feeling really lonely right now...". Or, do you sort of manipulate the emotions of the party to get what you want to happen; like, do you sort of put out positive encouraging vibes/act friendly towards the lonely kid, sort of subtly express negative emotion when the party starts getting too excited, maybe "guilt" people into doing things by implying that you'll personally be happy, sad, upset, etc., if they do a certain thing, etc.

I think that if I knew the kid who was feeling uncomfortable, I would approach him in a very open and friendly way and to either engage in a dialogue that had no direct connection to the party, or I would directly ask him "Is everything OK? Are you feeling uncomfortable here?". Now if I didn't know him/her, I probably would stay out of it and would not approach the kid. It is much easier for me to start communicating with friends of mine who I know reasonably well. So I might not even strike a conversation with the person if I hadn't known him previously. I figure that it is not my business to ask this random person about why he/she is not feeling comfy. To him/her, an approach on my part might even be intrusive. So this is probably how I would handle this.

Honestly, I'm sort of suspecting alpha or delta for you, but I can't really tell that for sure. Why do you think you're beta?

Because at the onset of this thread, I thought that I had as my ego block. What bothered me more than anything else was assuming that I did have those two IM elements there, I did not exhibit much of the outward behavior that most Betas on this board exhibited. So either one of two possibilities could happen, 1) The concept of Beta-NFs need to expand or generalize to include non-edginess (since I still cannot for the life of me understand why necessarily exhibits such intensity, especially when Ni is more about imagination, contemplation, mysticism, and conceptual understanding), or 2) I am actually incorrect about being part of Beta, and am actually either an Alpha or a Delta (I highly doubt that I am Gamma).

I started this thread to investigate this issue. Honestly, the more that I deal with this topic, the more that I am confused.

Feedback would be pretty helpful right now!

[Aiss]

Because at the onset of this thread, I thought that I had as my ego block. What bothered me more than anything else was assuming that I did have those two IM elements there, I did not exhibit much of the outward behavior that most Betas on this board exhibited. So either one of two possibilities could happen, 1) The concept of Beta-NFs need to expand or generalize to include non-edginess (since I still cannot for the life of me understand why necessarily exhibits such intensity, especially when Ni is more about imagination, contemplation, mysticism, and conceptual understanding), or 2) I am actually incorrect about being part of Beta, and am actually either an Alpha or a Delta (I highly doubt that I am Gamma).

I started this thread to investigate this issue. Honestly, the more that I deal with this topic, the more that I am confused.

Feedback would be pretty helpful right now!

That seems to be the problem; are you sure you're using ? As I mentioned earlier, what you say seems more to me.

[mikesilb]

-egos have strong, but unconscious , and vice versa. From what you've written earlier I got the impression that you focus more on connection with people than emotions, which seem to be recognized more as a means for creating the connection (this includes temporary connections).

You may be right about this. Deep down, it is connections that I value the most. Sometimes I can switch in order to care more about the emotional dynamic; however, I think that when I am often emotionally relating to another, I am attempting to create a resonance emotionally. This would allow me to genuinely (or at least pseudo-genuinely) connect with the other, while at the same time allowing the other person to feel at ease with me.

The way you describe your interests here and in your other posts sounds rather to me. It seems more of a big picture thing, zoom out, and static over dynamic. It's similar to Alpha NTs, in a way. I don't think can be reduced to brainstorming, either.

I am so damn confused about this honestly. On a theoretical level, how can we separate from , and which one appears to make more sense in the context in which I am mentioning this? BTW, I very much can relate to the Alpha NT style of theorizing in sort of a loose/lighthearted way. So you are on the right track here.

While unity and harmony are somehow related to harmonizing subtypes, in this context it seems to refer more to Delta atmosphere, stereotypically at least. Also Delta aristocracy seems inclusive compared to Beta's exclusive one.

All this definitely applies to me. Either I am a Delta (or Alpha), or I must be a harmonizing subtype within the EIE camp. But no matter what, I can relate way more to inclusivity, unity, and harmony, than the lack thereof.

Also, a few snippets from EII profile to consider. You've probably read it countless type by now, but I took it out of context to point out what's very similar to what you've written in this thread.

EIIs are very attuned to the psychological atmosphere of interaction and to their own feelings towards people and things.

This definitely makes sense.

EIIs are very capable of "sizing people up". They rely heavily on their instincts to understand the inner feelings of an individual. They are very empathetic people and find it very easy to feel with others. This makes them very sensitive to the moods of people, and they treat them the way they want to be treated, that is, with respect.

You bet!

They are willing to listen to anyone who is knowledgeable or has a brilliant idea to share regardless of whether that individual is an expert or authority in his/her field since they strongly believe that there are many perspectives in an issue.

Certainly!

EIIs can become expressive and very lively in groups for brief periods of time, but they always gravitate to deep, focused communication between two people or a small, close-knit group. They tend to shun wildness and prefer serious, more sensitive communication.

Do I shun wildness? This I am not 100% sure. I like a dynamic element within a group, but at the same time, I don't at all mind the serious, sensitive side as well. I have been told that I am very passionate and enthusiastic for someone who might have in my ego block. This is what has made my own type determination very very tricky.

EIIs are usually very straightforward about their feelings in front of others; what you see from them is what you get. Even at a party where everyone is supposed to be happy, they still find it hard to conceal their true feelings when they are in a bad mood.

I am not even sure about this one. I have a bad tendency to 'sugarcoat' a lot of interpersonal situations and to make it sound as if everything is fine (when inside me things are far from fine). It takes me a while to state my deepest truth if that means that it will hurt the other person. As a result, I will stall to state this inner truth. This is a pretty big reason why I debate whether or not EII is actually my type. I am more prone to "make it look like I am satisfied" (when in fact, I am not).


The individual is also not naive to future happenings. He will often warn others of negative consequences. In this way, he uses his Ni to help the PoLR of his dual. However, unlike an EIE, he will not often take his own advice nor expect others to. His Se PoLR makes it impossible for him to demand that others heed his advice, and his Ne-ego makes him place more value in the possibility that he is wrong - and that things will play out differently - than in avoiding foreseeable disasters.

If I state something that is my own opinion and that I feel dearly about, I do not appreciate if it is ignored. While I anticipate that others should ideally follow their internal/subjective guidance about a given situation, I also absolutely would want to be listened to as well...and perhaps even have my advice heeded to. So it is tricky as to whether or not this paragraph applies.

I agree that we have to consider Alpha or Delta here (in addition to the possibility that I still fit the Beta framework but from a slightly different standpoint). I am open to the various possibilities here, and am not sure at all which ones make the most sense right now. Time will tell...

[redbaron]

I dunno, for IEI, I think it's more of an underlying intensity which only sticks its neck out once in awhile (at least in my case).

In any case, I'm not sure you're beta? You seem too nice or something (yeah okay I know I'm nice on the forum). but for instance, being all worried about that person enjoying themselves at a party? I have to say, I'm not like that. I would never have those questions running through my head. Maybe if they were my best friend or something but then I would already know why they were sad. Otherwise, I'd just assume they were in a bad mood and probably avoid them! I definitely don't see it as my responsibility to make sure others have fun. In other words, as sad as this probably sounds to you, I would probably abandon the party pooper rather than trying to be some "loyal friend" by pulling them in. To me, if they aren't in the mood to have fun, then they aren't and my job is to leave them alone.