:Te::Ni::Se::Fi:
Printable View
:Te::Ni::Se::Fi:
INTjs use logic more.
INFjs use ethics more.
:Ti:
Strong, confident logic. System thinking. Skill to separate the main thing from the secondary. Scrupulousness in the study of facts, the skill to see the connection between them. Bringing in all into the system. Organization of structural order. Rationality, accuracy, systematization, consistency. Analytical turn of mind. Skill in everything to find cause-effect connection tendency toward the abstract, system thinking. Skill to separate the main thing from the secondary. Theorisation, tendency toward the mental labour, the construction of abstract models.
:Fi:
Natural and complete understanding of the nature of the relations between any people, their sympathies and antipathies. A fundamental understanding of moral and ethical aspects of life. Skill to understand desires and interests of people. Mercy, benevolence, tact. Excellent understanding of the diverse subtleties of interrelations between the people, error-free understanding of their relation to itself. Idea about the life as about the battlefield of good and evil. Tendency to eradicate evil, moralist, maximalist (as opposed to minimalist), moral cleanliness.
agree with discojoe
but erm
yeah
i think when i think INFj, i think of someone who is depressed, or acts this way. They often seem tortured. I think INTjs seem like this too, but in a different way. haha yeah different types are different lala
but i think the lookalike description is pretty good for this, maybe cos i am an INTj and have close friends who are INFj. i think they act similarly, it will just matter different things to them. hows that for grammar miss linguist. :) I also like how it would have been much easier just to edit what i wrote but i just dont feel like it.
and even though i go on about how INTjs are not emotionally cold, i think that INFjs are extremely sensitive. So a Te definition would be all the cliches of a sensitive person.
er..............................
that probably didnt help, but i think its true they act the same a lot of the time. Maybe a Te definition isnt the most helpful?
anyway youre cute
I know I know!
INFJs have social skills. :lol:
INFJs are a bit more amiable and more likely to be sociable, but not quite as "brainy."
yeah like they wont f*cking argue about some silly minutiae. They also wouldnt use the word "minutiae" as much as an INTj.Quote:
Originally Posted by gilligan87
The INFjs i know are: appreciative of art, interested in human relations, interested in harmony, good listeners, don't judge people, love animals. IF they are upset they'll go away for a few days, or for a whole night. They will like music but can be not as naturally good at producing it as others. They can also show their Ne a lot through art and the way they speak, but i think if i had to pick something definitive id say they care a lot about other people and are good listeners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by implied
infjs are not :Ne: dominant but rather :Ne: auxiliary, in socionics anyway since this is kinda socionics oriented forum. Also it depends what exactly do you mean by "their appearance".
I have long-term, close-range experience with an INTj and INFj, so let's see what I can come up with.
The INTj's social relations are on the whole calm and constant. He is submissive amongst most people, and this trait allows him to obtain good relations with everyone. He is intelligent and detached from most social expectancies, and he dresses in a way that attracts the least amount of attention from others, yet still doesn't make him look "somewhat strange". He has this air of extreme rationalism, alot like Brian off of Family Guy. He is less critical than an INTp, and you almost never feel threatened to allow him to see what you like, how you act, and what you want to do with yourself in the future. He is very non-judgmental, but he still dislikes stupidity.
The INFj comes across as a completely different entity. In comfortable social settings, including one-on-one dialogues, he comes off almost as an attention-starved performing monkey, acting in eccentric ways and flooding you with his behavior if you even show the slightest amount of reinforcement (ESTjs seem to eat this stuff up.) He is highly obsessed with his image, to the point of being in love with it. He is highly immersed in most social expectancies, although he often comes across as somewhat awkward, almost like he "tries too hard". His social relations are highly varied. There are some who hate him, some who absolutely love him, and some who latch onto him and never let go. His intelligence is strange and annoying to alot of people. He seems to have a knack for picking up random knowledge and half-truths. In conversation, he will often argue about many of your own premises and add highly questionable information to fill in the (supposed) gaps. So it goes without saying that discussion with him is extremely frustrating. He often likes to give advice, and many people even actively seek him for it. He is highly interested in people, and he knows more people than I could ever imagine. He is overly focused on others' weaknesses, which makes him almost impossible to impress. Although he is very easy to talk about feelings and emotions with.
So on the whole, the INFj is more outward and strange than the INTj, and the INTj is easier and calmer to be around than the INFj.
Wow that was fast. Are you married to you comp or something? :P
:Se: would be pumped up muscles and expensive clothes. not infj
People often seek me out simply so they can divulge something they've been "hankering" to get off their chest, thus corroborating Cone's observations of individuals feeling rather unthreatened around INTjs.
Yes, I know. :oops: But it's very difficult to give a full, objective account of someone, since so much of what you know about a person is how he reacts to you.Quote:
WOW. Some of the descriptions of the INFj you gave were very revealing of your relationship with them.
yeah me too......Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticSonic
one of my friends' parents would disclose stuff to me and then hang up with their spouse came home. I guess it makes some sense though since their problems were with their child (my friend) and i would have a different perspective. and they probably wanted someone to vent to outside their family. Anyway, point is i dont really judge about much.
@Cone
I think your INFj vs. INTj post says so much more about you than it does either of those types.
I would not like to believe that anyone is so desperate and unpopular that they would just take any friend they can get but I keep wondering why you would have a friend you persistently write so negatively about and sometimes seem a bit envious of and fixated on?
I accurately predicted as soon as I saw this topic that it would not be long before you came spurting forth the usual.
Most of the things that I sometimes waste my time bothering to read that you write about your friend seem so much more bias and malicious than actually friendly. Maybe friendship means something very different to INTps or maybe just Cone.
Less importantly, like Curious Soul, I have doubts that your friend is an INFj. There is no need that I can see to challenge the points you raised about INFjs generally. After all, they are merely your opinions and probably not much else beyond that.
I am more interested in what Discojoe or Topaz has to say about INFjs, good or horrible they seem to know this type extremely well.
P.S I live with an INTp and one day if I can be bothered, I will write some sort of assessment of not mainly the weaknesses I see in him but also about a lot of his strengths... this to me would be more balanced and fairer.
I thought the INFjs would be pissed at me.
So I have decided to admit defeat. There's so much good that he has done for me, and that is why we are still friends, but there is mutual damage done to both sides. I don't know, I think we're both insecure about something. Like I said, he's impossible to impress, as nothing I do is good enough for him. How am I supposed to say good things about him when he never acknowledges anything I do? Ugh, I feel like a child complaining about his father. Ok, perhaps I accent his weaknesses way too much, but for christ's sake, realize that I am not the only sick, immoral bastard on the planet! Shall I sugarcoat my INFj description like everyone else does? Does complaining about something really make me an insecure person?
Thanks, implied, I can always count on you for support.Quote:
Originally Posted by implied
As for the rest of you, perhaps we should just stand where we are, as we obviously seem to be coming from different points of view. Perhaps I've hit harder than I should have, but I must stand by my view. Relations are nothing more than realizing potentials.
@ implied
I hate to disagree with you as I often share your observations. I think Cone has acknowledged that his post in question has been exaggerated due to personal reasons. I do not believe that you have correctly observed an actual INFj closely, I have read many of your post on this matter and I am still waiting to see any person described that sounds like an INFj. You even once said INFjs were inclined to be practical... that is like a big joke. I just ignored that.
INFjs tend to be more in touch with their flaws/weaknesses than you can ever image. INFjs know it when they see it even if they have never previously acknowledged or recognized it. INFjs like to "confess" to personal flaws (to themselves) so that they can attempt to fix them.
Like when discojoe talked of buying his father a utilitarian type of gift because apparently INFjs like that. As offensive as that sounded at first, I instantly knew his father was indeed an INFj. Or when Topaz talked of INFj's secretly liking rebellious people who act out their(INFj) repressions a lot, I would not generally admit this, but I knew that it was likely that he was in close contact with an INFj to know that. No INFj would ever willingly tell you that. How many INFjs here could honestly say that they take of and go to parties if they are upset enough like Cone's friend does?
@maizemedley
I think I agree with many of your observations.
@Cone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cone
Yes, but perhaps you figured that you would be ignored like all the other times. Generally, there is a trend here among certain people to "pick" on types they figure will not hit back or have few or no representatives here.
I am sure if he is really an INFj then he must be impressed by quite a few things about you if he persists in being your friend. Not all INFjs find it comfortable to express compliments even if they are thinking many good things about a person. This is a flaw common to INFjs and others.Quote:
I don't know, I think we're both insecure about something. Like I said, he's impossible to impress, as nothing I do is good enough for him.
Why do you so badly want to impress him?Quote:
How am I supposed to say good things about him when he never acknowledges anything I do? Ugh, I feel like a child complaining about his father. Ok, perhaps I accent his weaknesses way too much, but for christ's sake, realize that I am not the only sick, immoral bastard on the planet! Shall I sugarcoat my INFj description like everyone else does? Does complaining about something really make me an insecure person
Most likely he is secretly admiring you. This introduces us to a second INFj flaw which is the secret insecurity about expressing compliments to some people. I note and admire many things about INTps here and in real life. I often do not know how to say it in case it comes out "wrong" or insincere sounding. Things like you are often very funny without even trying to be and your grammar and punctuation is near flawless. I have noted and marvelled at how you accomplish these things on many occasions. Of course, praise seem like it could be something that INTps don't welcome as much or I might think that the things I really admire about INTps may not be that important to them. I am now even marvelling at how you have managed to neutralize the force of my little attack. If I decide to leave my "resting state" I am not usually as quick to go back to it.
I do not think INFjs are sugar coated here. If you were an INFj you would probably really dislike being considered passive, always serious, outwardly cold and the repressed librarian, all giving, all loving, absolutely not cool type.
there's someone i know that sounds like INFj from cone's description. but i'm not sure as i don't know him that well to type him. :P
At maizemedley
I think if Cone's friend is an INFj then you might be correct in observing that it is a relations of benefit issue. I think exactly the same thing that Cone has written about my ISFp friend. If self-control did not restrain me, then I would be here bitching constantly about her stupidity, avoidance, passivity and not complimenting me on my "greatness" :8* . Of course when I leave emotions out of it and look at all of her qualities, I feel better about her and her skills and abilities.
In fact I am still wondering if Cone's friend is not one of those ISFps that people confuse with INFjs.
I like and admire INTps but I would probably never be close friends with one.
@ implied
Yes, I do believe INFjs like when people who give to charity if the giving actually means something and it is not done for reputation or gain. Anonymous giving is generally best in my opinion.
@implied
If an INFj was your close friend it is likely that you might be burdened with having to supply frequent critical appraisals of him/her.
ENFj or ENTj yes, INFj or INTj no. The latter more affected about :Si:Quote:
Originally Posted by implied
But hey, take the wheel - you're the expert :D
Two of my closest friends are INFjs (I'm reasonably sure of their type) and what I found oddest about Cone's description is this:
I never saw any evidence of that. The two INFjs I know are very knowledgeable but very aware of the limits of their own knowledge, and very willing to absorb new facts and ideas when presented to them. If they have "highly questionable information" - like everyone does, on occasion - they are also open to listen to factual evidence that will correct that, and very easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cone
I never thought their intelligence was "strange" or "annoying" - the only annoying thing about them is a tendency to try to guess my "secret" emotional motivations when making an objective statement about someone or something.
And I think that's a clue when telling INTjs apart from INFJs: an INTj is less likely to make assumptions about one's secret emotional motivations.
I hate it when people assume things about me, or when they have "theories" or "ideas" about who I am and why I act like I do, or when they have any kinds of "views" about me at all. I didn't think it had anything to do with type?Quote:
Originally Posted by maizemedley
I so agree. Charity is often a greater benefit to the giver in terms of "prestige" which reflects into other gains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megan
Aww, why so? :(Quote:
I like and admire INTps but I would probably never be close friends with one
Because he tends to allow me little room for self-worth, constantly arguing over every little bit of knowledge I try to teach him about and overadvertising his own skills and abilities. Truthfully, I think this is the biggest (and perhaps only) irk I have about him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megan
Also, I know he does admire me in some way (he kind of hinted towards it one day), however his behavior makes me wonder how he could ever admire me. And I'm not even sure I really show him anything that he could possibly acknowledge. Yet, he seems to want me as a friend much more than I want him as a friend (as sorry as I am to say that.) I don't really get it much. But perhaps I'm not supposed to?
But once again, I must stand by my description. Perhaps it could act as a basis for an uncovered profile? Or perhaps it's still too biased? Could you point out where I perhaps may be biased?
@Expat: My observation is not a personal bias. Many people would agree with me on his behavior. It stems from the motive of wanting to help people, which one would easily surmise as being :Ne: .
Where did you get the social negative ne theory from?It does sound strange. The intj good friend i know never seemed or tried to seem optimistic. He would rather be real as opposed to fake.The entp's i know may seem optimistic but not the intj. Actually when growing up as childhood friends when wewould say " lets go get" the intj to join us in an activity my entp friend would complain about the intj's negativity and pessimism. In our teen years the opposite sex would find him attractive and very interested having a relationship with him untill they got to know him better. Then they complain to a mutual friend of ours that the intj was too negative and too serious for them to take to to a boyfriend -girlfriend relationship.. He had a hard time understanding that people especially the opposite sex didn't want to be around a pessimistic person or a person who could not lighten up a female's day with some optimism. Around us he was cool and could lighten up and have fun and laugh but when it came to the opposite sex socially they found him very uncomfortable to be with.If anyone had negative social ne it was him.He could see the negative potential qualities of a person or situation so he would try to correct it.Girls found that as a put off. They didn't want to be around a guy that was always trying to fix them instead of letting them be them and accepting them as they are flaws in all.Thats the opposite of an enfp in my opinion.If anything we see positve potential in people and have firm faith in the positive potential qualities we believe a person possess. :D :Ne: positive neQuote:
Originally Posted by implied
@Cone
Could you be having a comparative relationship with this person? Your relationship sounds a bit like this to me http://www.socionics.com/rel/cmp.htm.Quote:
Because he tends to allow me little room for self-worth, constantly arguing over every little bit of knowledge I try to teach him about and overadvertising his own skills and abilities. Truthfully, I think this is the biggest (and perhaps only) irk I have about him.
Regardless, why are you trying to teach him when he so obviously does not want to learn from you?
Also, maybe trying to impress him will not work. I have never been impressed by anyone who has tried to impress me.
Whatever this person's type you really do not seem to understand them or their values very well hence why you are not seeing what he could be valuing/acknowledging about you. I believe you when you say you are insecure, you seem to be seeking some sort of external validation from this person and because you are not getting that from him you are angry with him. I think it might be this anger and arrogance that you have towards him that has influenced you to speak here constantly about him even though you claim not to be that interested in him. At one point, I swear I almost thought you had a crush on him. These are just my evaluations. I am no psychologist, but I figure that if you felt better about your own strengths and abilities then this person's impression of you would not be so important.Quote:
Also, I know he does admire me in some way (he kind of hinted towards it one day), however his behavior makes me wonder how he could ever admire me. And I'm not even sure I really show him anything that he could possibly acknowledge. Yet, he seems to want me as a friend much more than I want him as a friend (as sorry as I am to say that.) I don't really get it much. But perhaps I'm not supposed to?
Your description seems to have come from a place of frustration rather than fairness to me. For that reason it is perhaps not that valuable if one is seeking a bias free evaluation. Also, I do not think it can be a starting point for any uncovered profile. It is just your one opinion based mainly (perhaps even solely) on this one person.Quote:
But once again, I must stand by my description. Perhaps it could act as a basis for an uncovered profile? Or perhaps it's still too biased? Could you point out where I perhaps may be biased?
Is it me or do you seem to have this desire to show him up and prove to the world the many horrible qualities "INFjs" really have?
You seem to have implied in one of your previous post that INFjs are getting away with a good reputation while INTps are being thought of as bastards. However, I think most people already at least suspect that there is good and bad things about every individual person specifically and every type generally.
Not Expat, but like I said, I think your observations are biased. So far they have proven to be only or mainly your (tainted?)opinions and not much else. You have spoken of your insecurities and frustration with trying to impress him and I think you might be experiencing too much personal negativity with him to be unbiased yet. You believe him to be an INFj, myself and others who know INFjs do not believe that the person you are describing is one. Who knows and who cares who is right I am starting to wonder. I have come to know several (well three) people who I believe are of this type and none of them is very much like the person you described.Quote:
@Expat: My observation is not a personal bias. Many people would agree with me on his behavior.
Who are these many people who would agree with you anyway. You seem to want some type of gang to form against him.Quote:
Many people would agree with me on his behavior?
Also, why are you friends with him if you are having self-worth problems when dealing with him. My unsolicited advice is that you dump him mercifully and quickly. He will find other friends but then should you really care? Like you said, you are not as interested in him anyway... right?
But you just said "intj would be seen as easier to get along with socially. "but from personal experience and what i been reading from here from many posts they have trouble getting along with people socially because they are uncomfortable in social situations especially with the opposite sex. Where as the enfp as so much more at ease in getting along with people socially the opposite sex mistakenly assume the enfp has a romantic interest in them. Actually an entp - intj relationship would be a mirror relation not an identity relation but i understand what you mean. If that is your opinion that an intj is more easier to get along with socially i have no problem with it but for myself i have a hard time believing it. I would be very gratified if you can tell me any personal observations to support your beliefs. :) ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by implied
Here's an amusing story about an Infj friend i known since childhood. He had a problem of making others uncomfortable in social setttings because he would just watch and stare at folks, that at one point him and a bunch other friends had to flee for their personal safety from a movie theatre. My Infj had the bad habit of staring at people for too long in a way it made people very uncomfortable. One night he and few of my friends( an intj, enfj, infp, entp, and enfp) went to see a movie when they was 17 or 18 years old. In my culture it is not a good idea to keep staring at someone , for myself for another guy to keep staring at me i would think he is gay or he has a problem with me.From what my friends told me as they were finished watching the movie and were walking outside to walk home somebody out of crowd a little bit from them yelled that 's the profanity blank blank guy right there. Right then and there a whole group of teenagers started running towards my other teenager friends.Sensing danger and seeing they were badly outnumbered my friends took off running from the busy shopping center across a busy intersection(luckily no one was hit by a car)towards the direction where we live. Happily to say my friends was too fast and had a enough distance on them that didnt get caught and get beat up. Even 2 and 3 years later after that incident they would talk about it ( lol, they would say "yo baydog it was about 20 or 30 or them muthuhfukuhs chasing us")and explain our friend started it unintentionally because he didn't know how to observe people properly without making them feel like something was wrong with them. I'm surprised my friends didnt' mention to him about not to stare at a person to long but i guess they didn't think they were going to might have to take a beatdown and run like hell for their safety because of that before the incident.
@Megan: He's INFj, you're right with your "psychoanalysis", and if you want it to be fair, then I would have to add all the other stuff I know about him, while keeping what I have already written. For you see, I'm not the only person who agrees with me (implied). But perhaps you won't stop until I renounce my stance? You have already turned the tables on me, making me look bad in comparison with my friend, and with no malicious intent loaded into that statement...perhaps we can all be friends?
As for my irk about biased perceptions of type, perhaps. But that was not my initial intent. For it would be stupid to try an equalize the dilemma without realizing that I would be making myself look even more of an asshole.
I still want to know why one would not want to be a friend to an INTp. Seems like type bias and I hope Im wrong. I would hope that anyone is capable of giving a fair chance. To not seems totally lame, "Im sorry, I cannot be your friend as you are not a type that I prefer." /boggle Isnt that predjudice? I seriously dont understand and Im trying to think of a justification for it but I simply cant unless, say, one was highly traumatized (phsycially, verbally, sexually, etc) by another type. I'd understand the associations that would draw...
Well, it's like, would you want to be friends with a rapist, murderer, or child molester? It may work out initially, but eventually you get it in the ass or the back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadae
What in the fuc...? Are you implying INTps are like that or are you implying that her relation to INTps would be like that. Either way, I find that silly-- fallacy: applying part to the whole as a congruent truth for the whole (I so could make a dirty joke with that one... but seriously, Preparation H is good on the whole).Quote:
Originally Posted by Cone
*sigh* It's an analogy. It means that the specific relationship she would have with INTps would be strained and not in her best interest. And yes, in a way, the beneficiary can get "stabbed in the back" in one of these relations.
About INFJs:Quote:
Originally Posted by implied
Feeling isn't about "values", it's about relationships. Give and take. The values emerge from feeling's need to relate, accented by thinking. So an INFJ is always trying to be on even kilter with everybody. They are trying to maintain an even "give-and-take". When you act in a way that is not an even give-and-take with them, they look at it not from the immediate perspective of "you're not being fair" (like an S would do), but from the intuitive perspective that their communication pattern with the world around them is flawed. Since they are the masters of that pattern (in their own minds) then it seems to them that they are responsible for the communication breakdown.
Who are you and how do you know me ?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cone
that's not how I am at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wacey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cone
Really??Quote:
Originally Posted by Wacey
@Maritsa, my impression of you is someone who very much values their image. "There are some who hate him, some who absolutely love him, and some who latch onto him and never let go."
Does this quote not apply to your experience here on the16types? From everything I have observed this is how people feel towards you. And over time how many members feel towards me.
@Esaman, yes. This description is one of the more down to earth ones I have read about EII's. And LII's for that matter. The only part I personally disagree with is the part about being impressed. I am very impressed by people. With the exception being those super close to me. Then I often seem to hold those people to such high standards (the standards I set for myself and never quite reach) that it is impossible for them to reach and thus events often leave me unimpressed. Does my avatar look impressed?
@Wacey
I have been assigning my straight out avoidance of being seen as trying to stick out or build an image/character to strong Se devaluing. Still do, actually.
@Esaman
Is that not what INTj's are famous for? I am learning this is one reason the LII is orientated towards the Fe of their ESE dual, a person who creates a setting in which an LII does not need to create nor hide their image or character, they are simply free to be as they are.
Se-devaluing plays out quite differently in FiNe base. Does cutting loose with close friends and a dual make me any less of an Se-devaluer? Or coveting an image of myself that I wish others would see? I think that is why it is such a relief to have a dual around to see past the equanimous persona. For the equanimity you see in EII is a persona half the time.
It's appropriate we are having this discussion right now in a thread devoted to fleshing out the differences between EII and LII.
that description doesn't sound anything at all like my idea of EIIs either but if wacey isn't EII i'll eat my toe.
@Wacey, are you saying that when you cut loose in environment fitting for that, it is characteristic to you to entertain/create/play character, as in finding what would be interesting for you and your company for you to be and going for that?
That would allow following to be possibly applicable as unfavorable description.
That is certainly not characteristic for LIIs regardless of openness and activation level.Quote:
almost as an attention-starved performing monkey, acting in eccentric ways and flooding you with his behavior if you even show the slightest amount of reinforcement. He is highly obsessed with his image, to the point of being in love with it.
Not communicating and hiding what you think and feel does not constitute a persona.
Being polite is acting according to good social norms and is that regardless of whether there is good will behind that(likely) or whatever. From that perspective "fake politeness"(which I have read used) is senseless combination of words.
Se entertains the image giving it power. Ne disregards it searching for essential qualities and potentials that can be exploited/realized, not changed. That seem to me to directs toward recognition of inherent qualities not creation of persona. Not assuming that I know all the ways the element can be applied though.
Unlike to Fi, concrete people do not exist to Ti, there is only abstract of "a person", one for everyone. That is the difference that might be an explanation, provided you are correct and such is needed.
I like to put my best foot out and be personable and open to new people. I don't really understand or can see and figure out what the general atmosphere or the impression of me by others is or how I come off to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wacey
I'm just naturally eccentric. Haters gonna hate.
But no.
I think LIIs may have a tendency to think about their image, but don't other types care about how people view them as well? If I had to describe the image I tend to portray of myself, "eccentric", 'intellectual", "absent-minded" would definitely be adjectives to make an appearance. For example, if the line for food is too long at college, then I'll go do something else even if all of my friends are going to eat dinner at that time. I genuinely don't want to wait in line for food, but I also sometimes enjoy people finding it funny how "odd and quirky" I am.
And I do think that LIIs like ESEs because they give praise so easily. Yes, yes I am "so smart".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaman
Hey @Esaman. I was having a look over what you wrote and I wanted to tell you that my impression of you is that you are subtly kind. It's nice how straight forward you are, so thank-you.
To your first point my thoughts are no, it is not characteristic for me to play a role or entertain and create a character by imagining what would be interesting then going for that. That is not the reason I would cut loose in an favorable environment. I can guess that would be the realm of Fe/Ni, or Ni/Fe. You see when I read the original quote that I stated I relate to, I wasn't taking it verbatim and applying it word for word to my experience. I felt that the writer was being poetic and this appealed to me. He states it's "almost as an attention -starved monkey", not, they are an attention starved monkey. My thoughts went something like this: "what does the writer mean when he says that?" Is what he said true for my experience?" "Is there some kernel of truth here", "what is he/she trying to get at?"
I believe he was trying to say that EII's really do lack for attention. I often feel as though I want to act a little odd ball and be seen and appreciated for my good qualities. I would like to be this way, because in truth I am a tightly wound person who is highly critical. It's strange because on one hand EIIs are so kind and really do see all the subtle inter-plays and yet they are so stubborn. It could be that I am a little different then many EII's out there and this could be because I had a painful upbringing that included foster care homes and a government home. I cannot relate to this fairy tale image of the ever compassionate EII. I do not feel kindness for others at all times and I am quite defensive, even unnecessarily so. I am a little leery to admit this, because it might be inturperated the wrong way. Sometimes I can behave like a real dink. I am sorry for it and always feel a ton of remorse when it happens. I often was made to feel like a bad child, even though in my heart I did not feel like that was true. So, yes, I am somewhat eccentric and as I become older I care less about hiding that fact. I had to make peace with my past, and must deal with the residual fallout in my minds eye. We are both a product of our upbringing and free of it as well. Was not the writer Dostoevsky eccentric?
I have met others who do not "shut me down" by offering subtle disapproval, or mockery, or strange looks and what not if I act a little goofy or say things that are not quite "right". When I am with these people and have mentally assessed that it is safe for me to do so, then I will flood others with strange, wistful behavior usually. If you have ever met a LSE in real life, then you will see that for them a little bit of performing on cue and following their lead is sort of expected by them. I was not taking this sentence literally and I feel that others shouldn't either.
Now, about the persona, everyone has a persona, or the face that the world views them by. Not communicating and hiding what you think may not constitute a persona, but it certainly is part of the process of a persona. I want to be myself.
I am not sure what you meant by talking about fake politeness, because I was not talking about that. I was talking about equanimity, or composure. I am naturally composed and have a hard time remaining so when I am very upset, this is part of the balance I strike with polr Se. The realm of assertiveness is where polr Se plays out in our EII. I either go way over board, screaming, shouting, or on the other hand by totally withdrawing. For example, if I need to approach a boss or co-worker about easing tensions that I and them have found ourselves in I would rather just say nothing at all, even though clearing the air would be so much more helpful. In this way I appreciate when others broach the subject for me and am at a loss when no one ever does that.
polr Se also plays out in image. I am chronically unsure of how others think of me and am continually thinking about that. I think this is where @Maritsa comes in. I too am personable to pretty much everyone in real life. Image consciousness is an area of extreme discomfort for me and is part of the reason EII are supervised by SEE. For instance, I once wrote this long ass entry here a while back. @Scapegrace pointed out that I was basically writing in my journal. I was peeved for sure because this was not the image I was wanting to have. I simply wanted to be candid and share. She was absolutely right and she helped me see that what I was writing did indeed seem like journaling. It's this image that I worry about and why flattery does nothing for me. Nobody likes to hear their faults and like I have stated many times on this website, EIIs are always aware of their faults and as they get older are less apt to apologize for them. It's why they so adeptly handle LSEs who come with many faults and who need a flexible person to handle them. If a EII has faults, then you can be sure an LSE is going to point them out often bluntly, and no matter how painful for the EII they will acquiesce and try to change for the better, because self improvement is deeply rooted in an EII psyche.
If an LII has faults, be it social or personal, an ESE has a very different approach to handling them. It's as though the try and set the stage by allowing the LII over time to see where they can improve. Personally I think alphas like nit picking in a Ti and Fe sort of way that drives me bananas.
I apologize if this post seems to meander, I really am trying to get my point across and feel as though it is lost in translation from my brain to my fingers.
Yes, self improvement and constant evolution is highly important to me. But, I'm often misunderstood and so are my intentions which is sad because I only intend and want the best for others. I aspire internally to be a safekeeper and a care taker inside because I value those traits and those qualities in others and strive to fulfill them when I don't see such activity around me and I have to say that I'm not very good at those things at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wacey
@Wacey
Thanks, that was helpful.
Of the thoughts I have formulated at this time is:
Fi is 3rd person perspective.
@Esaman,
Interesting, how so?
Fi is primarily evaluation of actions socially and social contracts. Those evaluations are somewhat objective- external to subjectivity of a individual to be interpersonal. Evaluations then characterize the individual. Primary interest of Fi in internal world of the individual is the degree to which he has internalized and is committed to different social contracts.
No matter how involved and complete is the insight of the Fi base in to subjectivity the final conclusion is to be of the above perspective- 3rd person (outside) characterization of social entity.
That perspective is functional and is beautiful in its aristocratic (classical, idealized) way of holding a person/oneself...
.. but I reject it. It seems like playing with dolls to me, and I will not hold myself or anyone as such. I attribute this to Fe valuing. Looking in to individual looking for Fe, means finding what he wishes and what he feels about things. Then you analyse it on how much sense it makes and what connections to be had with your own wishes. Straightforward as hell. Fe is first person perspective. No personas or characterizations are needed if you connect on such level - you are behind all the faces.
I think, LII would have instinctual barrier of holding persona as self.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wacey
Persona is image or construct.
Fe is not image or construct.
Consciousness is not image or construct.
Ti construct is a construct. ohh... I guess that happens, while being undermined by Ti not being personal.
Cannot say that for myself, because "self" refers to Fe in me and Fe is to be accepted on it own terms. Add to that negativism and issues, and I have a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wacey
@lungs
Ne subtype is foggy. Ij judgements kept more on the low (as if under a curtain) with increased sociability. I suppose reaction to Fe could be it ..but I'm not sure. Already know EII who can come across as Logical unless you know them well or there's a situation that demands "ethical action".
Those are also in a state of flux depending on internal factors. Fields + subjectivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaman
LII have periods when they are much louder and spontaneously exited expressive than I am. I tend to not produce loud fun joking things or ways much. I'm much more melancholy and serious although I tend tolaugh and get light hearted perioda where fun is brought to me
What are the strong, manifestly observable differences between LII and EII??
The profiles that are out there seem vaguely interchangeable to me. Arguments can be made for EII overanalyzing too much, and LII being a perfectionist and so on.
What are some clear ways you can distinguish between the two, especially overlooking nuances that could be associated with gender instead?
I find quite hard to mix them.
Deltas are very earthy people and thus they drive towards it in every way possible. This is very explicit in their speech.Their idealism is also very pragmatic in common but bit more fluffy when considering individuals. This is more apparent in EII than in IEE.
When contrasting LII's and EII's EII's are not the ones who will hold a fixed view but may exhibit stubbornness in more singular directions than in holistic ways.
https://www.sociotype.com/tools/type-comparison/LII-EIIQuote:
Differences between LII (INTj) and EII (INFj)
1. INFjs are more likely to believe in objective truths than INTjs. That is, INFjs are more likely to believe there is a correct or best way of doing something than INTjs.
2. INFjs are often better at solving and minimizing interpersonal problems, where as INTjs often struggle understanding them.
3. INFjs place greater value on their resources than INTjs. For INFjs, resources like their money, time, sleep, etc., fall into their "inner personal space," and the INFjs will be more likely to deprioritize an interest if it starts to drain these resources too much.
4. INTjs place greater value on their interests than INFjs. For example, INTjs will maintain high levels of energy and focus on an interest they value, even deprioritizing their other resources to maintain the interest. For example, INTjs may spend a large amount of energy on an interest they value, often to the detriment of their time, sleep, relationships, money, etc.
5. When conversing, INFjs types are inclined to communicate in the form of monologues, where each party has "its turn." Because of that they subconsciously attempt to transform a dialogue into a series of monologues. Conversely, INTjs tend to prefer more of a question and answer style format.
6. INTjs are more likely than INFjs to perceive and distinguish themselves primarily through personal qualities. INTjs focus on individualism more than INFjs.
7. INFjs are not as inclined to compare and verify concepts as INTjs. INFjs assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" interpretation), and INFjs often do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently. Much more than INTjs, INFjs apply concepts such as "objective reality," "unequivocal facts," and de-emphasize concepts; INFjs consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "truly is," etc.
8. INFjs are often able to form quicker opinions of others they have just met than INTjs. This is based on the ability of INFjs to draw conclusions about the person based on the groups the person belongs to; INTjs are more reluctant to make these inferences.
9. INFjs are more likely than INTjs to use "emotional anchors" that resonate with their internal emotional condition. These emotional anchors could be a book, a movie, a place, a song, etc. INFjs use these anchors to strengthen their inner emotional state and thus will repeat the experience: e.g., re-reading a book, re-watching a movie, continually going back to a place to experience the emotions associated with it.
10. INFjs, more than INTjs, frequently perceives and defines themselves and other people through group associations. INFjs focus on collectivism over individualism.
11. When working on a project, INTjs experience more discomfort (than INFjs) if the project does not have a clearly delineated end-goal or result. This happens because INTjs have more difficulty monitoring and understanding how the project is developing than INFjs because they are outside of the process.
12. When assessing an option or available choice, INFjs tend to focus more on how the choice could benefit them (what it would potentially yield) than INTjs would. On the other hand, INTjs would be more cognizant of the potential risks and potential losses that may accompany the decision that INFjs may unconsciously minimize.
13. INFjs tend to internally combine emotional exchanges with other activities rather than separating them out like INTjs. E.g., INFjs see having fun occurring simultaneously with other activities, such as work or even serious affairs. INTjs are more likely to internally separate out having fun with other activities, although the two can be interchanged at a high frequency.
14. INTjs are more inclined to believe there are relative truths than INFjs. That is, this relativity is perceived by INTjs as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person.
15. INTjs are more likely to make decisions based on logical reasons than INFjs, who are more likely to make decisions based on their own feelings.
16. INFjs are more likely (than INTjs) to use special rituals or other culturally accepted formalities when forming relationships with others. What that means is that the emotional proximity and relationship status for INFjs be more externally predetermined. Additionally, INFjs generally progress in relationships through stages, and therefore are more familiar with these stages than INTjs. INFjs tend to be more linear in their relationship progression than INTjs, and INFjs assign importance to the formalities of recognizing the start and end to each of these stages.
17. INTjs are often more interested in studying systems, structures, and functionality than INFjs.
18. INTjs are relatively better at assessing the emotional atmosphere occurring in a group or during an activity than INFjs.
19. When meeting someone knew, INTjs are not as likely as INFjs to perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity. INTjs know very well whey they are getting acquainted (i.e., what the purpose of the relationship is, be it business, personal, travel, etc.). INTjs, in contrast with INFjs, do not divide the process of getting acquainted into consecutive stages; rather INTjs immediately establish the necessary emotional distance in contact and can regulate it if needed. To bridge the gap between poorly acquainted people in a group INTjs amp up the emotional tone; this can be mutually experienced happiness or misfortune. The name and title of the person are of secondary relevance to INTjs and their relationship with the other person.
20. When INFjs form opinions of others, these opinions are formed under the influence of their attitude towards the group to which the person belongs. To INFjs, it is incomprehensible how it is possible to belong to two opposing groups at the same time:, i.e., "you're either with us, or with them and against us."
21. INFjs tend to prefer using persuasion as a means of convincing others to do something, where as INTjs prefer to use argumentation as a means of convincing others.
22. INTjs pay more particular attention to aspects of a situation or plan that are insufficient or lacking. This can be interpreted by others as INTjs having a negative assessment of various situations and events (.e.g, "the glass is half empty). On the other hand, INFjs pay more attention to what is actually present in a situation, and this can be interpreted as an affirmative or positive manifestation of the surrounding world, situations, possibilities, and prospects (e.g. "the glass is half full").
23. When developing a plan of action or process, INFjs tend to see themselves as "within the process"; they are immersed in it. Often because of this, they have more difficulty managing several plans at once. On the other hand, INTjs tend to place themselves "outside of the process"; they dissociate from it. For them the process or situation is something external from themselves.
24. When something is perceived by INFjs as being incorrect, they are more likely (than INTjs) to tell the person who made the error what they did wrong and how to do it the right way. INFjs are focused on who made the error and helping them to correct the mistake.
25. INTjs are more likely (than INFjs) to seek new and novel experiences rather than returning to something already lived through. They will generally only re-read a book, re-watch a movie, or revisit the same place if they have forgotten it or are hoping to learn something new from it.
26. INFjs are more vulnerable to logical manipulation than INTjs. However INTjs in contrast, are often more vulnerable to emotional or ethical manipulations than INFjs.
27. The "comparison and verification of concepts" is a more common phenomenon among INTjs than INFjs. This comparison not only concerns INTjs methods, but also their understanding, terminology, etc. INTjs are attuned to the fact that different people might understand and interpret different concepts and terms differently. They perceive terminology as well as actions of other people as part of the subjective concept inseparable from personal opinion, position, intent, etc. In contrast to INFjs who perceive terminology as "objective," INTjs understand personal differences behind terminology (this applies even to well established terms) and they attempt to compare and verify them.
28. When something is perceived by INTjs as being incorrect, they are more likely (than INFjs) to ask why it was done that way. Instead of necessarily trying to correct the person who made the error, INTjs attempt to understand the person's reason for their decision/action.
29. INTjs attitude towards a specific person (more so than INFjs) is based on their personal characteristics (authority, intellect, personal achievements, etc.) INTjs recognize superiority of certain individuals drawing from their personal qualities
That one on number 7 always triggers me because I think both approaches can exist depending on your level of analysis. But taken at face value asserting that your way of seeing things is the only way of seeing things seems impossibly dense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
LIIs value Fe and EIIs don't. So LIIs are more likely to "loosen up" and participate in a lighthearted atmosphere.
EIIs think a lot more about their relationships and the people around them. They're better at being sensitive to other's feelings. They may focus a lot on work-related tasks but they also find them inherently stressful and ask for help more unlike LIIs.
Ugh, this is based on Reinin dichotomies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
Yes, I am being a heretic. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
I’m serious type. I think about and am concerned for the serious matters in life. LII still like emotional varied environment. My LII friend posted this on his Facebook “Cheers happy venereal disease day” while matters of sexuality I view as serious holy almost difficult to talk about and instead I speak about love. Still he speaks about love too but he finds a lot more to laugh about than I do. He can be very much like ESE in his intensity of expression on a rare occasion “loud, intense”
EIIs are softer, more concerned with feelings and moralityQuote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
LII are more lone wolf deep system thinker types
I wonder if deltas are fans of Monty Python's Flying Circus. That could be a real clarifier.
Personally, I am a fan. @Beautiful sky, what do you think of Bjork and Monty Python? Are you a fan or are these artistic forms of expression too out there for you??
I feel like I am both.Quote:
Originally Posted by peteronfireee
I like the idea of being EII more. But then I recall a manager I had for two years. She looked like Mike Tyson. She acted like a guardian angel toward me, as my physical energy was kind of low for the job and she filled in the gaps for me with vigor and strength and would assure me everything was done, time and time again. So maybe SLE is my Supervisor and SEE my conflictor.
base T types are cold, technically interested
base F - the opposite
I would say they are too out there for meQuote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
Thomas Sowell vs Luciano Floridi
Stern vs Cold (autistic)
//In a superficial way as both are Balanced Stable in temperament, both types - especially their masculine representatives, are composed "serious" and seem to have it together with a direction and chosen orient towards life.
INFJ are stern, ideological on matters of principle, especially the more traditionally masculine representatives who become seers for their community.
INTJ by contrast are cold-autistic nominally as opposed to serious, taking things as a matter-of-fact
Collectivist vs Individualist
(generally ideological "group" worldview vs generally individualist)
*gets a bit tricky considering Sowell is a libertarian, nevertheless his ideology is a blue print for the collective as opposed to embracing chaotic, incoherent individualism as is the justification with individualist libertarians - Luciano isn't a libertarian BTW.
Individualists are less interested in a overarching worldview looking at things peripherally, more concerned with looking at the world as is - predominantly. That's the more dispassionate scientist in general (by the way all types do science even SFs, the supposedly least interested as evident in Neil DeGrasse Tyson ESE)
Pseudo-caregiver vs infantile
if you know them personally this will become evident, Pseudo-caregiver has a habit of teaching and coaching their partner whilst the infantile does not being sort of manipulated and lead by their caregiver. Feminine LSE women are more matter of fact dutiful dealing with more pragmatic matters in care and attentiveness, whilst Feminine ESE jazz it up with more flare and unorthodox attentiveness to their partner.
I think main difference really comes in Fi/Fe valuing and how this shows up in their life-
For example, an EII friend in my friend group at uni really doesn't like it when the atmosphere becomes too "childish/emotively emotionally charged". Sometimes IEI friend and I will be just making weird faces at each other, or making random noises to laugh over them, while she would seem fairly uncomfortable with the attitude and stay away a bit instead of joining in. She also tends to have a... heavier, more melancholic vibe to her, and while I'm not the most social butterfly (far from it) I tend to be known more as cheerful/a lot more emotive when I actually get out of my head and actually look at what is going on around me.
ESI friend and her tend to talk a lot about other classmates' lives and about interactions they had with others from the uni, or if they have a love interest on someone, the mood is generally a lot more subdued as they talk, though some laughter either from ESI friend making a blunt, unexpected comment or a joke at EII's expense comes up. When they talk about others, 60% of the time I have no clue who they are even talking about, as now I'm realizing that I don't even know the names of half of the class, whoops.
From distance, we both come off as not exactly the most social ones and tend to interact with people if other side initiates contact first, but once the contact actually develops, the difference is usually that she is actually interested in details of others' lives/somehow ends up actually involved in others' lives, while I tend to stay peripheral aside from common interest talks and when I find a common interest, people do say that I suddenly light up, while her demeanor is more stable. Even when I try to be more considerate of others and actually try to show an interest in someone's life, I end up worrying that I might end up asking too personal questions and don't want to have a misstep by assuming I'm close to someone or that they even want to become someone that is a part of my life, while her contact with others is a lot more fluid and has her actually getting to know them, while I either get bored with such topics or again, feel worried to ask too many questions on the personal life (or even forget that I should be asking those at least out of courtesy when I get too hyped about a common interest).
We both have an interest in art/literature, though her main interest lies in more tragic real life influenced stories, a more grounded in reality and people approach to it (with 4w5 sp first morbidness and interest in especially death related music/art/stories) that are more personal to her that she doesn't share as openly, though it can get quite image heavy and generally emotionally heavy, while I tend to try to find someone to share my thoughts and feelings on anything that gets me emotionally stimulated and want to bounce off thoughts with someone, a need/desire to share that experience with someone and tend to skirt around as heavy topics. (my 9ness might be rubbing off on that, though.)
That's all anectdotal though, but didn't want to give a complete cookie-cutter copy paste on the matter, so welp.
This was all extremely helpful. I consistently am like you more than the EIIs you describe.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApeironStella
The way you approach the theory is of a feeling type. “I like this person, thus he is my dual.” “I hate this person, so he is my conflictor.” Thinking types are not that confident in their likes/dislikes to base the entire theory around their attitude towards others. In fact thinking types might ruin real relationships if they don’t think someone is their dual or mirror. It’s totally the opposite of what you are doing. You get what I’m saying?
I may be wrong but that’s my impression.
Without a word spoken, it can be difficult to tell them apart and both are perfectionists in their own way but once they speak, they're really easy to distinguish.
LII vs EII :content:
strategist vs moralist
absolute vs relative
practical vs philosophical
smarter than thou vs holier than thou
advisor vs preacher
accomplishment vs nirvana
director vs diplomat
straight forward vs complicated
clear vs nuanced
cutting vs sensitive
doer vs organiser
wants competence vs wants respect
analyse vs valuate
projects vs causes
seeks resolution vs seeks balance
a.k.a. I/O
compare enneagram 4 with 5Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
ahhhhhhh i'm kind of both. I never did decide which was stronger. Then again the last test I did was radically different and was 3w2 but who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
I think your list is very well done. I also think that it illustrates for myself why I find making a distinction so difficult. I think I have well-developed Ti and Fi. I suppose there is no reason why that cannot be possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
One could possibly be on the fence but both the Ti and Fi-processes would likely have to be somewhat reduced sets due to processor limitations. One has to keep in mind that only one set of processes can arbitrate in a stable system. Process priority establishes type - not online time. A process control split between Fi/Ti would likely create chaos. Both types can do both sides of my list to some extent but when the rubber hits the road, which side has the highest tendency/priority?:content:Quote:
Originally Posted by vesstheastralsilky
a.k.a. I/O
Yes, it could mean reduced resources overall if the two are more evenly balanced. When I look at my overall quality of life, my academic and professional successes in areas of logic outweigh my relationship successes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
I found it easy to make friends in high school and college and then early in my career, but have struggled with this ever since. My family relationships have been horrific in recent years and situations in which one should "fight for oneself" in response left me horrified to even be in such a situation to begin with, and leaving the battlegrounds rather than engaging in my basic human rights. Instead I would retreat into reason and would question, how could they behave so irrationally and hurtfully with their ignorance? So if there must be a weighing of F and T, it seems I would be more of a T type female.
As a reminder, I aced college philosophical Logic class no problem, didn't even have to read the book, whereas the average grade in the class was a C and many had dropped it due to the difficulty level. Every aptitude test I have ever taken in pure logic has been an A or usually a perfect score. It is much higher than my analytical reasoning (which is more deductive). I have more confidence in my ability to deal with the logical than the interpersonal aspects of a situation. When it comes to interpersonal relations, I lean toward an overly idealistic goodwill to all and control none type of approach.
Also, when it comes to the interpersonal life, I married late in life for the first time at age 44. I would imagine that F types would tend to marry easily younger and be able to capture their significant others more easily at a younger age. I have had some pretty exacting standards and was not usually assertive towards those I was interested in over the years, to the loss of many interested prospects who also would not make the next move, awaiting a cue from me first. That lead to several impasses.
Just a reminder - the first type test I ever took was an MBTI one at age 15 and I got INFP. Then by age 18/19 for years I got INTP most of the time yet occasionally INFP, INFJ, INTJ. It was always high intuition, high introversion, and the rest was up in the air. I got even scores between F and T much of the time. I relate to type profiles of INFP INTP INTJ and INFJ particularly certain INFJ MBTI profiles seemed accurae when they wrote more about the mystically-oriented side of ones nature.
Subjects I have studied in my lifetime include - dance including choreography of ballet and modern/jazz, visual art, piano (self-taught), music composition, computer programming (8 languages), philosophy, foreign language dabbling, drafting and layout spaceplanning, architecture, jewelry making, CAD (7 systems), theology, comparative religions, religious textual studies, chakras and kundalini, personality type systems (enneagram, socionics, DISC, mbti), astrology, tarot, Jungian psychology, cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy, physics, fractals, mathematics, Celtic cultural studies, music appreciation (folk, new age, pop, alternative, electronic, choral, classical), drawing and painting (acrylic, oil, watercolor, gouache), writing avant garde poetry, photography, stained glass work (limited experience), mythologies, collecting rocks and minerals, metaphysical lore of crystals and meditations with them and much experimentation, new age ideas.
@vesstheastralsilky When under stress or out of their comfort zone, LIIs can behave ESE-like (secondary configuration); they can often become fairly animated and or chatty - sometimes dramatic. However, once this spate is over, the results are viewed through LII processes so I wonder if your perception of EII processes being at work is really the behaviour your secondary processing configuration as seen through LII glasses.
a.k.a. I/O
Skip to end for core distinction.
Ti and Fi are not value judgments....neither falls into some moral domain. Socionic functions are information processors. Ti and Fi are information processors. That means value neutral. As I have said many, many times before, the butchering of any socionics function into a conflation with morality must end. It's good that people start seeing socionics purely in terms of cognition...
Let's start with definitions:
Fi cognition is an internal mirror of other people's inner worlds. It would be like having another person inside your skin, that you're constantly introspecting to. Fi has heightened capacity to experience that other person's thoughts/memories/goals/discomforts/impressions and grasp the other persons' psychology as if it were organic to their own.
Fi/Ne cognition excels at envisioning/anticipating/forecasting immediate and distant futures for the person....so the possibile ways in which the surrounding context will effect that person's psychology.
Ti-lead equals hard-headed data collection. Ti-leads are looking to get the most fundamental truths (axioms) and then build knowledge from the ground up. It's the ultimate in the linear, logical, clear-headed scientific approach. (in contrast, Ni-leads have the strongest cognition for archetypes.) Ti-dom is looking more for the unknowns and perpetually involved in looking for and identifying problems that go into the deeper "undercurrents" of an outward structure. In contrast to Ti/Ne, Ne/Ti has a more non-linear cognition....you can find examples of time distortion in Ne-lead's reasoning process once you start to pull them out of their skin. Not so for Ti-lead.
Ti/Ne is a correlator of systems as Ne lends a cognition for synthesis. However, Ti/Ne has no vision in which they're sacrificing off old systems in order to build a new one. They aren't innovative, but tend to be doggedly loyal to what's already in place.
Distinction follows from definition:
the main distinction between Tidom and Fidom is in their approach to knowledge about other people. Ti-dom disregards aspects of the inner view - thoughts, feelings, spirit, values, consciousness (the mental, emotional, spiritual inner life)-- in their approach to studying and explaining people's behavior. Fi-dom overemphasizes the inner mental, emotional, spiritual inner life when it comes their evaluation and understanding of other's people's behavior. Thus, Fi devalues/underemphasizes the objective properties in other people and strongly cognizes subjective properties...Ti devalues/underemphasizes the subjective properties in other people and strongly cognizes objective properties.
Ne-creative in Ti-dom cognizes the possible ways in which the environment will condition an individual's behavior. Ne-creative in Fi-dom cognizes the possible ways in which the environment will effect an individual's inner world.
If it weren’t for the occasional ting of Fe, LII look like me (emotional, easily bothered sensitive, thoughtful and somewhat melancholy). I think we look a lot alike but they can obviously do Ti so much better than I can. I know this because my use of Ti never frees my sister’s clenching Fe moods.
I am having exactly the same difficulty deciding my type. Mostly I tend to lean towards EII but some people got me to convince myself I am LII based on the photo thread. I definitely feel more fulfillment in small social circles compared to lively groups.
This post isn't about the differences between LII's and EII's, but rather is about their similarities.
I know an LII researcher, and every time I stop by his office, the first thing he does is offer me a coffee from his wide selection of coffees. I will drink anything because I'm Si-PoLR, but he doesn't know that. He's treating me as if I were an ESFj instead of an ENTj. My mask is that I dress very, very well during business hours. Plus, he probably feels that weird mental attraction that takes place between Ti-doms and Te-doms and is mistaking it for Duality.
I have an old drinking buddy whom I kind of love, and I recently realized that he is a semi-Dual, an EII. I don't see him very often, but he stopped by this weekend and before we sat down, he asked me if I was going to offer him some coffee?
I paused, reoriented, and said, "Sure! Um, the place is being renovated and all I have right away is instant in cold water." (It's what I drink, actually.)
He just looked at me like I was a total dummy.
"But I have some real coffee in the freezer."
"I'll have that."
So I brushed the plaster dust off the coffee grinder on the floor and washed the wood chips out of the pot on the stove and started boiling water while I cleaned the French Press, and he was happy.
Lol. This reminded me of several EIIs I’ve known. Since it’s relevant to the thread, EIIs often seem to expect that other people take care of them, especially in relationships.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
I forget if I’ve mentioned this anecdote here before, but once my EII and LSE grandparents visited my family. My parents gave a list of restaurants to the EII, expecting her to choose where to eat. She chose a Mediterranean restaurant. After leaving the restaurant, she mentioned offhandedly that her husband didn’t like Mediterranean food. My parents were confused, and asked her why she had picked the restaurant. She simply responded “I do.”
My SEI ex has an EII sister. When they lived together, the EII would get upset when she “was in the mood” to eat something, and the SEI didn’t offer to make it or buy it for her. This greatly annoyed the SEI, but she would often end up feeling that she was acting mean to the EII and eventually give in. I saw this happen quite a few times, and I got somewhat angry, and asked the SEI why she kept doing this. The SEI said something to the effect that the EII wasn’t capable of taking care of herself, and since the EII would never take action to make her own food, she couldn’t bear to hear her talk about how hungry she was when she knew she could just make the EII food. Lol.
LSEs might have a similar impression of EIIs: the EII can’t take care of himself, so it’s the LSE’s duty to care for them. From what I’ve seen, LSEs don’t generally seem to mind this task.
Most accurate portrayal XD I guess that's why they're considered an infantileQuote:
Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman
They look alike, one should make sense, the other should not. If it relies on emotional platitudes instead of sound logical reasoning, you get EII. If not, LII
Also, one being ethical vs one being logical is a crappy description. It is logical to be ethical. So what do you do then? Mine is a more useful description of the same thing.