Differences between ISFj-ESI and ISFp-SEI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marie84

Seriously? He created an entire site just for his alternative theory (which is fine)

---

Nope, it was created as a bastion away from NcNew, not to promulgate any alternative theory.

Quote:

---

but simultaneously calls it Socionics (which isn't),

---

I don't know about that. For someone who supposedly isn't doing "proper Socionics", it looks like I have rather high concordance ratings with many other users here re: typings. Or are they all my followers now?

Quote:

---

chaotically and carelessly spreading misinformation while also using this site to troll, harass and school impressionable people who are actually trying to learn.

---

Aw, poor things.

Quote:

---

In terms of followers, I basically see a group of users and yes men who have rejected dozens of peer-reviewed papers published by actual professionals

---

What "peer-reviewed papers" and "professionals"…? Last I saw, Socionics has never been an accredited field of study acknowledged by actual practicing academics and legitimate experts. Socionics is rightfully considered a pseudoscience, not far removed from astrology and other esoteric mumbo-jumbo.

Quote:

---

in favor of a charismatic internet dweller

---

Now I'm 'charismatic'. Cute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ineffable

Indeed it is annoying to be required to address any crap written of random internet users in the name of free-speech, especially rhetorical harassment and misguiding information. The quality of the information on the forum is a responsibility of the administration, IMO. Since I can't remember I told the leadership that taking an *active stance* is a necessity, whatever that is. Active stance means getting one's hands dirty, they should judge the content, trying to prevent and penalize misinformation, to a reasonable extent. Reasonable but still limiting at their discretion.

And I'm not suggesting that Ashtonian Socionics should be banned, on the contrary, if he were an admin, his Socio-Jungio-whatever mix would be the official view, anyone who disagrees could leave. I would support that as well.

---

This is a open and forum and people are allowed to post generally what they wish. There is no official stance as far as what socionics is here, especially in the discussion area of the forum, but the moderation staff takes a active role in the management of the CMS and any articles hosted here.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php This is about as far as the administration will take as far as an active stance on socionics.

I think often Ashton's viewpoints are misleading and this is likely due to unresolved issues with his own self-typing, there are many users who type him something other than his self-typing. However, people can come to their own conclusions on this topic as well as the veracity of Ashton's ideas about socionics.

I've never really had a problem challenging people about Socionics or viewpoints I don't think are valid, but I don't see any reason to codify something like socionics here on this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

I think often Ashton's viewpoints are misleading and this is likely due to unresolved issues with his own self-typing, there are many users who type him something other than his self-typing.

---

There you go with your appeals to imaginary consensus, again. Unspecified claims about what "many users" supposedly think.

Let's try putting some numbers up instead of bantering generic hearsay. According to the typings spreadsheet, there are 30 specified typings of me. Of that, 70% say LIE while 20% say SLE. Then there are 2 SLI typings and Effie who types me SEE I think.

"COTERIE A small circle of persons who form an intimate group, applied to the followers of some school of thought or sectarian belief."

I think this word applies here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Herp derp! Though you don't seem to be grasping how relative it is.

---

Not at all. On the Socionics scale of rigidity, which goes from 1 to 16, ESIs score 15. Only LSIs score higher. LIIs and EIIs can be rigid as well, but they lack the Se required to enforce it.

wtf do u mean by rigid exactlY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by consentingadult

Not at all. On the Socionics scale of rigidity, which goes from 1 to 16, ESIs score 15. Only LSIs score higher. LIIs and EIIs can be rigid as well, but they lack the Se required to enforce it.

---

Gotta love the irony of someone making rigid declarations about others so-called rigidity.

condescendingadult strikes again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by consentingadult

Not at all. On the Socionics scale of rigidity, which goes from 1 to 16, ESIs score 15. Only LSIs score higher. LIIs and EIIs can be rigid as well, but they lack the Se required to enforce it.

---

I would somehow rate process-STs (meaning, STjs) as being more rigid than result-SFs (SFjs). I'd rank ESIs around the 12th position. Do you remember the DarkAngelFireWolf69 article about stress tolerance? I believe it may be taken as a good proxy for rigity. Process-rational types were considered as the apex of stress intolerance, then result-rationals and process-irrationals slightly less intolerant, while result-irrationals were the most stress tolerant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by consentingadult

Not at all. On the Socionics scale of rigidity, which goes from 1 to 16, ESIs score 15. Only LSIs score higher. LIIs and EIIs can be rigid as well, but they lack the Se required to enforce it.

---

Yes, this is why my ESI cousin, verses myself, is able to effectively discipline her kids and get them to do what she wants them to; she is so quietly and effectively controlling and keeping the ducks in line. My bf has said to me that he sees himself being a disciplinarian because he thinks that I can't do that well, but that it balances us out because the kids will always get the warmth and love from me. I would be more inclined to see the kid's side of the issue as opposed to him stating the reasons why the kids shouldn't do things.

Me: "do it"
Them: "no" followed by a frown
Me: feeling like I'm being too hard or not seeing it from their pov. "ok, we'll try it another day."

A semi-translation of Augusta's comparison of SEI and SEE Sensory attitudes: Dual Nature of Man

"Sexual behavior of different types of IM is very different. Therefore, the real sexual compatibility can only talk between complementary. We illustrate this with an example of two opposing dyads - dyad sensory-ethical extravert and introvert sensory-ethical. These two opposite sensing dictate to its partners and the opposite of "touch" behavior. In the dyad sensory-ethical introvert, "love" the skin, its entire surface. There are no sudden movements, as partners would melt into each other's arms. In the dyad sensory-ethical extravert, on the contrary, avoid contact with skin and merging bodies. There are many sudden movements, postures and almost gymnastic exercises. Interestingly, the sensory extroverts do not bear the touch of another person, even, for example, the contact of your doctor. Another person's hand and that only serves its own initiative."

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gustinaviciute

Just account for the differences in temperament EP → IJ ; SeFi → FiSe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

Just account for the differences in temperament EP → IJ ; SeFi → FiSe.

---

"Just change the whole neurological make-up of the subject, transforming the most important personality axis"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

"Just change the whole neurological make-up of the subject, transforming the most important personality axis"

---

What's being described is approach to sensational reality due to Sensory function, not much that is relevant is distorted by the switch.

Or are you just being contrarian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

Too bad I've been in a relationship with an ESI for 5 years...as usual, you have "strong belief" about concepts and occurrences which conflict with reality.

the only observation which I found true is:



which is a kind of obvious difference between IJ-negativist-result-serious and IP-negativist-process-merry. It's much more pronounced for male ESIs (they tend to be more reserved than female ESIs).



Do you really believe that the way of living of your grandparents can be extended to ESIs (or LIEs) who are in their 20s, 30s or even 40s? Old people tend to be scheduled, strict and boring compared to youngsters, ceteris paribus.

---

What do you consider "boring" in this context? Any Ne-PoLR type needs a high degree of predictability in their lives and therefore plan ahead and schedule things. My ESI sister cringes all the time when she is confronted with my lack of planning and last minute procrastination. She is very disciplined, organized and strict (mostly with herself though - with her kids, she is pretty laid-back), but that doesn't make her boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kim

What do you consider "boring" in this context? Any Ne-PoLR type needs a high degree of predictability in their lives and therefore plan ahead and schedule things. My ESI sister cringes all the time when she is confronted with my lack of planning and last minute procrastination. She is very disciplined, organized and strict (mostly with herself though - with her kids, she is pretty laid-back), but that doesn't make her boring.

---

What. I was making a generalization "old people vs young people" and potentially attributing part of the traits listed by yellow to such schism. I'm not sure how it ties with your sister?

Yeah I see ESIs as being very scheduled, I think we were describing other character traits such as being demanding towards other people, that's not typical for IxFx types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

What. I was making a generalization "old people vs young people" and potentially attributing part of the traits listed by yellow to such schism. I'm not sure how it ties with your sister?

---

I was generally wondering what exactly you found "boring" about her description and assumed it was her claim that they are prone to scheduling and planning. I might have misunderstood. Don't hate me!!! :cry:

I am also curious about what it is you find attractive about ESIs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kim

What do you consider "boring" in this context? Any Ne-PoLR type needs a high degree of predictability in their lives and therefore plan ahead and schedule things.

---

Sounds more like Ni PoLR to me. With LSEs typically being the worst offenders when it comes to over-planning things.

Granted, most ESIs will tend to be more structured and conscientious than I am, which can be nice. But too much would drive me bonkers, and I don't see how someone that strictly regimented would tolerate most LIEs very well. Also consider that both LIE and ESI are Result types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

What. I was making a generalization "old people vs young people" and potentially attributing part of the traits listed by yellow to such schism. I'm not sure how it ties with your sister?

Yeah I see ESIs as being very scheduled, I think we were describing other character traits such as being demanding towards other people, that's not typical for IxFx types.

---

I don't think exacting is the same as demanding, although I've found some ESI's to be demanding as well due to creative Se. However creative :Se: types have this function as cautious, so I'm sure there are ESI's that seem tentative about using this function and only do it once they're older and more developed in their creative function.

I don't know what people think of me, but I'm view myself as a demanding and exacting person myself, due to :Ti: creative and :Se: as a bold function. However due to the fact that I have :Ne: as a base function, I try to arrange things to get the result.

I think people have to deal with the post 30's version of a individual a lot longer than the pre 30's version, the time period of 20 to 30 is a very short period of time while the time period of 30-60/70 is a long period of time. Most children will experience interaction with adults post 30 or post having their first kids(if parents) and most people will experience these interactions for far longer then the short period of development that occurs 20-30. I think generally the descriptions are concerned with adults and not really even young adults but 30+ adults and 40+ adults.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revan

I was wondering if anyone could give me the fundamental differences between a SEI and an ESI?

---

First, if you're looking at the IE, it's fairly easy to confuse SEI and ESI, because they both have the same dimensions.

• Si, Fi = 4
  Fe, Se = 3
  Ni, Ti = 2
  Te, Ne = 1

There are, however, a few different approaches to help tell them apart.

By temperament (IJ vs IP). This would not just be their energy levels, but also if their energy level compliments you're own. Are your energy levels compatible, helping support each others' or do they conflict? And no, I'm not talking about if their's is as high/low as yours at the same time as you.

(I wrote an extensive description on the temperaments, in response to this thread, but posted it on my blog rather than here.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ts-IJ-EJ-IP-EP )

Another method is by quadra focus/values.

• * Alpha (SEI) prefers dealing with explicit relationships between TPE and their actions/paths. The TPE/actions themselves are generally loose, undefined.
  * Gamma (ESI) prefers dealing with expliicit TPE and their actions. The relationships/interconnected paths may be harder to define.

Or, you can even try to see which specific elements they consciously focus on, and which aren't conscious but might still show up in behavior anyways. (this might be the hardest path)

Or, again, you can try to figure out if the person fits a given type description or not. (not necessarily accurate nor effecient, as you're dealing with a) the level of accuracy of the descriptions, b) the depth of knowledge you have of the person and their psyche, c) like the IE attempt above, you still have to determine what is conscious focus vs what is unconscious behavior)

Interesting post. Also wrt "Reason: Not sure why lists give one dot at beginning only...grrr" you must add[*] to the beginning of each line you want bulleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

I don't think exacting is the same as demanding, although I've found some ESI's to be demanding as well due to creative Se. However creative :Se: types have this function as cautious, so I'm sure there are ESI's that seem tentative about using this function and only do it once they're older and more developed in their creative function.

I don't know what people think of me, but I'm view myself as a demanding and exacting person myself, due to :Ti: creative and :Se: as a bold function. However due to the fact that I have :Ne: as a base function, I try to arrange things to get the result.

I think people have to deal with the post 30's version of a individual a lot longer than the pre 30's version, the time period of 20 to 30 is a very short period of time while the time period of 30-60/70 is a long period of time. Most children will experience interaction with adults post 30 or post having their first kids(if parents) and most people will experience these interactions for far longer then the short period of development that occurs 20-30. I think generally the descriptions are concerned with adults and not really even young adults but 30+ adults and 40+ adults.

---

I understand. But my mother is ESI, too. I'd be hard pressed to call her demanding; she's mostly just stupid when she tries to argue because I always win the argument and she's not willing to recognize my intellectual superiority but...she has always let me do whatever the hell I wanted. I've also had ESI teachers and professors, and in my experience when they do try to be demanding, it's always detrimental to their base function and they end up regretting it. I remember this elementary school ESI E1 teacher; I was her best student, however after 4 years of great homework, one day I just forgot to do it. What did she do? She punished me in the same way she would punish a guy that always forgot her homework. What happened? I never tried to reconnect with her afterwards (oftentimes my friends would go visit her even during middle school, she was rather popular), and some of my friends told me she was very sorry about it. This is an example of a :Fi: type overdoing their :Ti:, and their duals are there to stop or alleviate this tendency. The socionics.com description explictly mentions among ESI's weaknesses "You try too hard to be logical and consistent"; it's a weakness because they can't pull it off without being at odds with their core values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Or you're over-literalizing the descriptions and inducing confirmation bias—like a Forer Effect, except applied to other people.

---

Which is not what you're doing at all? You've literally built an image of what you think ESI's are like and anything that does not fit that idolized image is labeled as unhealthy or wrong. The difference here is that at least I provided sources to back up my position

Quote:

---

And like I said, I think at least some of this is a perspectival issue too, where each type perceives other types differently. That is, you could take the same ESI and different types would form different impressions about that person, because they're seeing and experiencing different things about the person relative to their own sociotype's reference frame.

---

Than why did you state a more positive reaction towards Yellow's observation of SEI's? If it's about type perspective than, I'd probably be categorized as rather neutral between the two types, yet I didn't find either of her observations to be negative, they're just describing different qualities of two types that will likely sound more or less favorable depending on the IE values of the person reading them.
In that sense, I can see how any "Ep" type, particularly Fi PoLR , would react very negatively to her ESI description. For instance, you and FDG came off as being put-off by the "rigidness" of the ESI one, yet Yellow, an Ej herself, was not http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post846346

Quote:

---

What? Get your history straight. That site was created at the time because a lot of people hated Reuben McNew. It had nothing to do with advocating any particular brand of typology.

---

Fair enough. However, the site has at the very least turned into a separate school of typology

Quote:

---

Aushra used VI too.

---

There is a difference between making a hypothesis based on observation and using conclusive observation. From what I've read so far, I don't think Augusta typed based on physiognomy

Quote:

---

Woah there… actual sociologists, psychologists, and PEER-REVIEWED papers… in Socionics?! Are you kidding me?

---

http://translate.google.com/translat...sci%2F&act=url

Obviously Socionics cannot, or at least presently can't, be verified as a fact, but there has been academic inquiry of it for decades amongst various psychologists and sociologists in the East

Quote:

---

There are useful aspects to it; I wouldn't be here if I didn't think there was. But there's nothing objectionable about utilizing a theory while simultaneously maintaining skepticism towards it. This is constructive to how humans eventually become more knowledgable about the universe.

---

But you're actively typing and stating things while at the same time claiming you're skeptical of typology, this doesn't make any sense

Quote:

---

Nonsense. I've never anointed myself as any kind of "guru". If you see it that way, then I suppose that's your problem.

---

I think it's something that just happened, I have no idea if you had a motive for it.

Quote:

---

Again, criticism ≠ trolling.

---

You've done some serious trolling here, and I'm not even talking about Socionics related things, such harass members. There are 3 or so pages of reports just to do with things you've done or said to people here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

I don't know about that. For someone who supposedly isn't doing "proper Socionics", it looks like I have rather high concordance ratings with many other users here re: typings. Or are they all my followers now?

---

Cognitive bias

I think I will ignore this whole thread and just say what I notice as differences between them.

SEIs have a slower pace to their lives. They are more relaxed, while ESIs seem busier, though they aren't frantic or anything, but they seem to keep chugging along at things more.

They both can be artistic - I know artistic SEIs and artistic ESIs.

The ESIs I know have strong feelings about honor and respect and telling the truth and that kind of thing. They also hold onto relationships longer than they should sometimes, out of a sense of commitment and responsibility. I haven't noticed that to that degree at all with SEIs. I also think ESIs value being strong and capable in a way that SEIs don't - like it isn't as important to SEIs, not that they can't be strong and capable. And for that matter not that ESIs can't fall short of that. I guess it just seems like ESIs strive toward that more.

Either one can be gentle, and either one can have a bad temper. I know both ESIs and SEIs with each trait.

A lot of SEIs I know are into gardening. I don't know why that is. Also, fishing, and carpentry. Maybe it's just the SEIs I know. I don't know any ESIs who are really into those things, but maybe it's just the ESIs I know. Anyway, it's a trend I've noticed, whether it's coincidence or not. I guess I think something that SEIs and SLIs have in common is that they like to have physical projects and hobbies. Although, on the other hand, as I said before I know a few very artistic ESIs, and that is also a physical hobby. Maybe not in the same way, though? I don't know. There seems to be a difference in what they do for fun, but I can't put my finger on how to explain it.

Oh, and IMO (and this is most likely just the perspective of a supervisory relationship) ESIs are more argumentative and bull-headed. :D I bet my LIE mom would disagree 100% :D

I don't want to get into this argument, btw, so disagree with me if you will but keep me out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker

Maybe not in the same way, though? I don't know. There seems to be a difference in what they do for fun, but I can't put my finger on how to explain it.

---

Maybe ESIs sort is more rationalized and intellectualized? IME Si-Base type hobbies are more on the side of the simple and natural (I would call it so), while Se-Creative's are more meaningful.

I know many Si-Base pranksters, but no Se-Creative like that comes to my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slacker

I think I will ignore this whole thread and just say what I notice as differences between them.

SEIs have a slower pace to their lives. They are more relaxed, while ESIs seem busier, though they aren't frantic or anything, but they seem to keep chugging along at things more.

They both can be artistic - I know artistic SEIs and artistic ESIs.

The ESIs I know have strong feelings about honor and respect and telling the truth and that kind of thing. They also hold onto relationships longer than they should sometimes, out of a sense of commitment and responsibility. I haven't noticed that to that degree at all with SEIs. I also think ESIs value being strong and capable in a way that SEIs don't - like it isn't as important to SEIs, not that they can't be strong and capable. And for that matter not that ESIs can't fall short of that. I guess it just seems like ESIs strive toward that more.

Either one can be gentle, and either one can have a bad temper. I know both ESIs and SEIs with each trait.

A lot of SEIs I know are into gardening. I don't know why that is. Also, fishing, and carpentry. Maybe it's just the SEIs I know. I don't know any ESIs who are really into those things, but maybe it's just the ESIs I know. Anyway, it's a trend I've noticed, whether it's coincidence or not. I guess I think something that SEIs and SLIs have in common is that they like to have physical projects and hobbies. Although, on the other hand, as I said before I know a few very artistic ESIs, and that is also a physical hobby. Maybe not in the same way, though? I don't know. There seems to be a difference in what they do for fun, but I can't put my finger on how to explain it.

Oh, and IMO (and this is most likely just the perspective of a supervisory relationship) ESIs are more argumentative and bull-headed. :D I bet my LIE mom would disagree 100% :D

I don't want to get into this argument, btw, so disagree with me if you will but keep me out of it.

---

I believe your post is spot on, although I don't know that many SEIs. However, it seems to make perfect sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

I understand. But my mother is ESI, too. I'd be hard pressed to call her demanding; she's mostly just stupid when she tries to argue because I always win the argument and she's not willing to recognize my intellectual superiority but...she has always let me do whatever the hell I wanted. I've also had ESI teachers and professors, and in my experience when they do try to be demanding, it's always detrimental to their base function and they end up regretting it. I remember this elementary school ESI E1 teacher; I was her best student, however after 4 years of great homework, one day I just forgot to do it. What did she do? She punished me in the same way she would punish a guy that always forgot her homework. What happened? I never tried to reconnect with her afterwards (oftentimes my friends would go visit her even during middle school, she was rather popular), and some of my friends told me she was very sorry about it. This is an example of a :Fi: type overdoing their :Ti:, and their duals are there to stop or alleviate this tendency. The socionics.com description explictly mentions among ESI's weaknesses "You try too hard to be logical and consistent"; it's a weakness because they can't pull it off without being at odds with their core values.

---

I think some of this only applies with people they like and want to establish a relationship with, with people they see negatively, their behavior can be quite different. I don't think a ESI is going to be very genial with someone they consider evil or harmful, we can even see a little bit of it here with your conflict with an EII, Marie84.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marie84

Which is not what you're doing at all? You've literally built an image of what you think ESI's are like and anything that does not fit that idolized image is labeled as unhealthy or wrong. The difference here is that at least I provided sources to back up my position

---

It's better than what you're doing, which is pointing at anything with Se and labeling it as "bad" or projecting an image onto it as a stereotype of something bad. There's nothing to cringe about Se; Se is just how some people see the world. It's not out to kill people or hurt them; the narrow assumption that are built around certain functions is the inability or unwilling to obtain all of the information we need to make a proper conclusion; this inability and unwillingness is caused by ones prejudice without due cause.

For the record EVERYONE; there's nothing harmful about Se.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Originally Posted by Ashton
Must be mine too. ESIs sound horrid from yellow82's description.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marie84

of course they would

---

This is the beginning of your prejudice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marie84

I disagree, I think Yellow painted a fairly accurate observation of SEI vs ESI with a few generalizations (such as ESI's only wanting to be with people their own age, which isn't really applicable to type).
I for one did not find her remarks about either types as painting unhealthy or unlikeable people, but I can understand why neither you or FDG would particularity like the characteristics of an Fi base rational introvert in the same way that I often cringe at Se dominant descriptions...because I don't value it, not because Se base observations portray a negative individual

---

I don't cringe at functions; I cringe at people, mostly because of who they are not how they use what they have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

It's better than what you're doing, which is pointing at anything with Se and labeling it as "bad" or projecting an image onto it as a stereotype of something bad. There's nothing to cringe about Se; Se is just how some people see the world. It's not out to kill people or hurt them; the narrow assumption that are built around certain functions is the inability or unwilling to obtain all of the information we need to make a proper conclusion; this inability and unwillingness is caused by ones prejudice without due cause.

For the record EVERYONE; there's nothing harmful about Se.





This is the beginning of your prejudice.



I don't cringe at functions; I cringe at people, mostly because of who they are not how they use what they have.

---

Notice how you only bolded the part that fit into your self-serving need for attention? I clearly did not attack Se or Se's, I just stated I'm often put off by reading the descriptions of Se dominants.
Also, I can like and dislike whomever I want. My dislike of you, for instance, does not make me prejudice, I just don't like you as a individual. Some things are deeper than "type"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

I think some of this only applies with people they like and want to establish a relationship with, with people they see negatively, their behavior can be quite different. I don't think a ESI is going to be very genial with someone they consider evil or harmful, we can even see a little bit of it here with your conflict with an EII, Marie84.

---

This

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marie84

Which is not what you're doing at all? You've literally built an image of what you think ESI's are like and anything that does not fit that idolized image is labeled as unhealthy or wrong.

---

I don't think I've ever talked about ESIs at length, so I'm not sure how you would know that. More assumptions from you.

Quote:

---

The difference here is that at least I provided sources to back up my position

---

I provide sources quite often.

Who here do you type ESI, anyway? It'd probably be more instructive to talk about actual people, rather than trying to interpret 2nd-hand descriptions.

I think there are what… 4 self-typed ESIs here? Allie, blackburry, Bardia, kassie. I agree with all of them being ESI, so I don't think my views are that idealized.

Quote:

---

Than why did you state a more positive reaction towards Yellow's observation of SEI's?

---

Um, what? I don't think I ever commented on yellow82's observations of SEIs.

Quote:

---

If it's about type perspective than, I'd probably be categorized as rather neutral between the two types, yet I didn't find either of her observations to be negative, they're just describing different qualities of two types that will likely sound more or less favorable depending on the IE values of the person reading them.

---

Yes, I think that's part of it.

Quote:

---

In that sense, I can see how any "Ep" type, particularly Fi PoLR , would react very negatively to her ESI description. For instance, you and FDG came off as being put-off by the "rigidness" of the ESI one, yet Yellow, an Ej herself, was not http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post846346

---

I think we just see different sides of our duals than the rest of you. When ESIs are 'rigid', they're not trying to be a bitch. It usually indicates that they're upset, insecure, or nervous about something. They just usually won't let that out, unless they know you well and feel safe around you.

Quote:

---

There is a difference between making a hypothesis based on observation and using conclusive observation. From what I've read so far, I don't think Augusta typed based on physiognomy

---

AFAIK, the only person using physiognomy is Ganin. This is not something I advocate.

Quote:

---

http://translate.google.com/translat...sci%2F&act=url

---

Yes, but none of those people are actually accredited professionals. Socionics isn't a recognized academic discipline in the former USSR, nor elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Obviously Socionics cannot, or at least presently can't, be verified as a fact, but there has been academic inquiry of it for decades amongst various psychologists and sociologists in the East

---

Last I checked only people doing 'inquiries' on it are hobbyists and pseudointellectuals—more or less the same as what we have here on the forum. There isn't anything wrong with that per se, but let's at least be honest about the extent of Socionics's academic credibility.

Also, quite a few Socionics 'experts' like Meged and Boukalov for instance, are dabblers in astrology and new age mysticism. There was a thread on this somewhere, I'll try to find it.

Quote:

---

But you're actively typing and stating things while at the same time claiming you're skeptical of typology, this doesn't make any sense

---

Well, theories are like tools. For instance, if something was wrong with the hammer you were using to pound a nail, you'd surely notice the defect in the hammer and how it's impeding your work. Or if you were so inclined, you might even notice ways a hammer could possibly be improved for more optimal use. Tools can and should improve over time, just like theories.

So usage doesn't have to be 1-sided. You can have a reciprocal interaction between theory ⇋ evidence that improves both ends.

Quote:

---

I think it's something that just happened, I have no idea if you had a motive for it.

---

I didn't. It's nothing I ever asked for nor wanted to happen.

Quote:

---

You've done some serious trolling here, and I'm not even talking about Socionics related things, such harass members. There are 3 or so pages of reports just to do with things you've done or said to people here

---

Hahaha. What the hell are people reporting me about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

I don't think I've ever talked about ESIs at length, so I'm not sure how you would know that. More assumptions from you.

---

You've been doing it in this thread and in Kassie's

Quote:

---

I provide sources quite often.

---

Jung

Quote:

---

Who here do you type ESI, anyway? It'd probably be more instructive to talk about actual people, rather than trying to interpret 2nd-hand descriptions.

---

I don't think there are any Gamma rationals on this site atm

Quote:

---

I think there are what… 4 self-typed ESIs here? Allie, blackburry, Bardia, kassie. I agree with all of them being ESI, so I don't think my views are that idealized.

---

outside of Bardia (who I don't know about), I'm hesitant to agree with any of those so far. Allie, at least from the Socionics.ws board, sounds like an IEI to me

Quote:

---

Um, what? I don't think I ever commented on yellow82's observations of SEIs.

---

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post846326

Quote:

---

I think we just see different sides of our duals than the rest of you. When ESIs are 'rigid', they're not trying to be a bitch. It usually indicates that they're upset, insecure, or nervous about something. They just usually won't let that out, unless they know you well and feel safe around you.

---

You're speaking of an Se, one of the types that is supposed to be naturally wired to deal with confrontation and mobilization

Quote:

---

AFAIK, the only person using physiognomy is Ganin. This is not something I advocate.

---

:confused:

Quote:

---

Yes, but none of those people are actually accredited professionals. Socionics isn't a recognized academic discipline in the former USSR, nor elsewhere.

Last I checked only people doing 'inquiries' on it are hobbyists and pseudointellectuals—more or less the same as what we have here on the forum. There isn't anything wrong with that per se, but let's at least be honest about the extent of Socionics's academic credibility.

---

I'm not referring to Socionics professionals (whatever that is), but they are are accredited in the fields of psychology and sociology

Quote:

---

Also, quite a few Socionics 'experts' like Meged and Boukalov for instance, are dabblers in astrology and new age mysticism. There was a thread on this somewhere, I'll try to find it.

---

And Newton was involved in alchemy, that didn't mean his theories on physics were wrong. John Nash was also insane but he was a great mathematician
In general, I don't like using ad hominem in discussions, it doesn't get you any closer to finding out truths

Quote:

---

Well, theories are like tools. For instance, if something was wrong with the hammer you were using to pound a nail, you'd surely notice the defect in the hammer and how it's impeding your work. Or if you were so inclined, you might even notice ways a hammer could possibly be improved for more optimal use. Tools can and should improve over time, just like theories.

So usage doesn't have to be 1-sided. You can have a reciprocal interaction between theory ⇋ evidence that improves both ends.

---

Of course, but theories are tested before they're classified as theories (at least in science). Deciding to change things just because you believe it to be true can lead to all sorts of biases and projecting.
In that sense, if you think Socionics is flawed, than create a separate theory, don't hijack it

Quote:

---

Hahaha. What the hell are people reporting me about?

---

Harassing and invasion of peoples privacy, should ring a bell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

AFAIK, the only person using physiognomy is Ganin. This is not something I advocate.

---

:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

I use it[VI] because it tends to work pretty well (though it's an acquired skill). It's not about the person's facial features and what not; it's more their facial expressions, body demeanor, etc. The approach can be backed by interesting research, too.

Anyway, there's many different ways to help determine type—be it by VI, word usage, intertype relations, cognitive styles, etc. I like getting as many different angles as possible.

I can't think of any questions to ask you atm. Maybe something will come up in chatbox.

---

Any kind of Visual Identification is physiognomy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marie84

You've been doing it in this thread and in Kassie's

---

Um, where? I disagreed with a few negative descriptors about ESIs in this thread, that's about all.

Quote:

---

Jung

---

And Kepinski… as well as DarkAngelFireWolf69, Reinin, Mironov, etc…

Quote:

---

I don't think there are any Gamma rationals on this site atm

outside of Bardia (who I don't know about), I'm hesitant to agree with any of those so far. Allie, at least from the Socionics.ws board, sounds like an IEI to me

---

Okay.

Quote:

---

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post846326

---

That was more about disliking the ESI description she provided, not affirming the SEI one.

Quote:

---

You're speaking of an Se, one of the types that is supposed to be naturally wired to deal with confrontation and mobilization

---

Every normal human being experiences fear, anxiety, self-doubt, worry, hesitation, etc. Se people aren't supermen. Fear of the unknown, fear of rejection, fear of danger, or whatever, can plague Se types just as much as anyone else.

Quote:

---

:confused:

---

Sergei Ganin, the socionics.com dude.

Quote:

---

I'm not referring to Socionics professionals (whatever that is), but they are are accredited in the fields of psychology and sociology

---

According to what…? AFAIK, the only institution which gave 'accreditation' to Socionics was the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences—an institution with a notorious reputation for peddling pseudoscience.

This was investigated thoroughly by a few people in this thread (worth reading).

Quote:

---

And Newton was involved in alchemy, that didn't mean his theories on physics were wrong.

---

That's hardly a fair comparison. Newton lived over 300 years ago, back before people knew as well as they do now how bogus alchemy is.

Quote:

---

John Nash was also insane but he was a great mathematician

---

John Nash has schizophrenia, which is a treatable and manageable psychiatric condition. That doesn't mean he's a New Ager.

Quote:

---

In general, I don't like using ad hominem in discussions, it doesn't get you any closer to finding out truths

---

Statements of fact aren't ad hominem. See for yourself:

Meged and Ovcharov are apparently astrology kooks
Krylova likes to talk about chakras
Filatova also boasts about chakras, and phrenology too

I'm sure more doozies like this can be dug up, if you want.

Quote:

---

Of course, but theories are tested before they're classified as theories (at least in science). Deciding to change things just because you believe it to be true can lead to all sorts of biases and projecting.
In that sense, if you think Socionics is flawed, than create a separate theory, don't hijack it

---

It's unavoidable that anyone who utilizes socionics is going to develop their own interpretations about what it means. If there were substantive research to support and clarify it, the range of interpretation could be narrowed. But until that happens…

Quote:

---

Harassing and invasion of peoples privacy, should ring a bell

---

It doesn't. What are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

Any kind of Visual Identification is physiognomy.

---

Physiognomy usually connotes analysis of static facial features, not general demeanor like VI does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Every normal human being experiences fear, anxiety, self-doubt, worry, hesitation, etc. Se people aren't supermen. Fear of the unknown, fear of rejection, fear of danger, or whatever, can plague Se types just as much as anyone else.

---

Yeah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marie84

I don't think there are any Gamma rationals on this site atm

---

Your thinking is flawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

I think some of this only applies with people they like and want to establish a relationship with, with people they see negatively, their behavior can be quite different. I don't think a ESI is going to be very genial with someone they consider evil or harmful, we can even see a little bit of it here with your conflict with an EII, Marie84.

---

Sure, that makes sense yeah. But well, I suppose people are neutral towards each other, most of the time? So the standard behavior for a ESI would be neither of deep appreciation, nor of scold?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

Sure, that makes sense yeah. But well, I suppose people are neutral towards each other, most of the time? So the standard behavior for a ESI would be neither of deep appreciation, nor of scold?

---

I think ESI can be wonderful people in service industry, my last dentist was ESI and she was a very nice person and helped me a lot. However, she also was a perfectionist, demanding, exacting and etc, all of which are kinda of useful traits in dentistry. However politically/socially/in a close relationship we would have had conflict and problems. Socionics more or less says you won't get along with your conflicting quadra, but that doesn't stop them from being decent and good people. And there is value that each member of the socion contributes when they're at their best and manners in which they can can cause harm when they are doing foul.

It's wierd because I've met far more ESI's then SEI's in my life, so I can't really give a good assessment of SEI's. :mad:

This is getting interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hkkmr

I think ESI can be wonderful people in service industry, my last dentist was ESI and she was a very nice person and helped me a lot. However, she also was a perfectionist, demanding, exacting and etc, all of which are kinda of useful traits in dentistry. However politically/socially/in a close relationship we would have had conflict and problems. Socionics more or less says you won't get along with your conflicting quadra, but that doesn't stop them from being decent and good people. And there is value that each member of the socion contributes when they're at their best and manners in which they can can cause harm when they are doing foul.

---

Yeah, I definitely agree. Personally, when ESIs becomes too "heavy" (perfectionist and exacting), I start to lightly make fun of them and/or try to show how small mistakes might still be fixed - ofc I'm not talking about the professional realm, but rather their private lives. ILEs might just reply with an intellectual putdown or by arguing their own counter-point, which yeah is generally unproductive with ESIs who are too entrenched, it's best just to lighten up the atmosphere with some stupidity. I believe this part of LIE's description is strictly related to what I'm talking about:

Quote:

---

Optimist . Responds quickly to all causes emotions - especially positive. It is programmed to lift his mood is always like a little frightened, or angry co-player. Continuously radiates friendliness, positive emotions and smiles. He tries to laugh, in every way and bother pulling partner, yet not cause a reaction - positive or negative - would not otherwise receive information about his condition. He loves to talk and discuss read and heard. He can easily turn to a stranger.

---

Where co-player here means duals, since it's a machine translation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Every normal human being experiences fear, anxiety, self-doubt, worry, hesitation, etc. Se people aren't supermen. Fear of the unknown, fear of rejection, fear of danger, or whatever, can plague Se types just as much as anyone else.

---

How do you know this?

It is more intuitive that they feel these differently, as long as their congnition differs. The dog also feels some of those sentiments, though they are obviously different (IE there's no animal comparison to the fear of going broke), we are not interested in what doesn't hints at the differences between the types, but in what does. In Socionics, and Jung as well, it is fundamental that different types of people view things differently, start from here.

IME SLIs and LSIs don't experience fear, in many ways experienced by other people, especially by extraplonating events into a feeling of doom - they don't. I will try to recall whether I witnessed panic or helplessness in people I typed as such; for now I don't remember and based on their ways I find it unlikely.
Theoretically, this makes sense as well:
- Introverted attitude: formal, detached perception;
- both functions External: deal only with concrete, solid information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ineffable

How do you know this?

---

Talk to people. Ask them.

Quote:

---

It is more intuitive that they feel these differently, as long as their congnition differs. The dog also feels some of those sentiments, though they are obviously different (IE there's no animal comparison to the fear of going broke), we are not interested in what doesn't hints at the differences between the types, but in what does. In Socionics, and Jung as well, it is fundamental that different types of people view things differently, start from here.

---

Sure, but the basic physiological indices of fear are pretty much the same in all humans and other mammals. The sympathetic nervous system kicks in, adrenaline gets released… inducing pupil dilation, vasoconstriction, increased pulse and respiratory rates, higher galvanic skin response, body shaking, etc. All of this stuff is easily measurable and quantifiable.

Naturally, every individual will respond a bit different depending on their physical makeup, the psychological stressors present, and so forth. But you'll find this same basic set of observable response patterns in nearly every human when they're placed in a situation they find fearful.

Granted, I can't actually measure empirically whether an individual's external objective symptoms of fear necessarily coincide with an internal subjective experience of fear on their part. But I would have little reason to assume that such experiences aren't occurring given said physiological data. Also, this is what self-reports are for—ask a person, and they'll probably tell you what they're experiencing.

This is part of what underpins our capacities for empathy, too (with humans and other creatures). We perceive (and sometimes mirror) emotional cues similar or complementary to our own, and thereby infer generally accurate assumptions about what the other is feeling.

Quote:

---

IME SLIs and LSIs don't experience fear, in many ways experienced by other people, especially by extraplonating events into a feeling of doom - they don't. I will try to recall whether I witnessed panic or helplessness in people I typed as such; for now I don't remember and based on their ways I find it unlikely.
Theoretically, this makes sense as well:
- Introverted attitude: formal, detached perception;
- both functions External: deal only with concrete, solid information.

---

Or maybe they hide it well and you're just not noticing it?