.
Printable View
.
Not that my opinion matters much, but I do think you've matured since you first came on the forum.
I don't think ESEs are lemon types. I have greatly admired two of the ESE's I've known, even if we (they and i) did have communication problems and different focuses. I am sure i annoyed them, too. :biggrin: I do wish we had self-typed ESE regulars, because I think that many of the descriptions for Fe base are off. They could help provide this forum a clearer idea of how Fe base w creative Si could look...without the offputting Fe descriptions.
If I recall correctly, you self-type as an e3, right?
I wondered how much of the e3 was in effect in your earlier days, and how much of it might have influenced you to the LSE typing you had recently.
Conundrum time: if I click likes/constructive on your post, would that be like giving a beer to an alcoholic? O.o
Regardless of my conundrum, I vote for fun perspective, relaxed views, and only taking self as serious as a situation calls for. :D
Whatever type you choose for yourself, I appreciate your contribution to the forum. For you, I see ESE over LSE. I just spent 5 days with an ESE friend who is such an amazing and influential person. Her Fe makes her hard to ignore, and she has such heart for her cause, and at the same time she has her feet on the ground and gets so much accomplished.
I noticed once that I provided a bit of Te information that you needed clarification on that most any Te ego would pick up on, which was when I considered that you'd be ESE.
I also noticed that you got along very well with Woof and even visited him and that went very well. I don't think that intertype relation is asymmetrical.
That said, being a Si subtype would explain a few things. It would heighten both your sensing and logical characteristics and perhaps make you a bit more rounded out than a Fe subtype, and explain why you've considered LSE your type for quite some time, but would describe why you're a bit more social and friendly. I find that LSEs are more stoic than ESEs and even LIEs.
Your type confusion does make sense. Having Te role and Ti seeking would explain why you put yourself in a logical realm (manifesting on this forum in those giant multiquote arguments). Logical types still do it, but might be less reluctant to participate unless they'be been stirred up via an ethical function. I know I'm less inclined to argue in most cases, whereas you seem to press for proper logic and substantiated views. Woof seems to do that too. Ethical types are probably more inclined to demand that kind of presentation of information as they're (somewhat, and not in all cases) less able to produce it themselves. That said, Stephen Fry and Chris Hitchens come to mind as people that can put together a fierce logical argument yet be ethical types, so there's always that potential.
Just my two cents.
I have found that ESEs are often "left brained" types in the sense of modern American pop psychology, often good at business/finance/accounting and most seem to be good at computer programing. Dario Nardi's book (although MBTI) does EEG brain scans of people and all the left-brained logical analytical parts are very well developed with the MBTI creature called the ESFJ.
In my experience the ESEs I type are all Business/Finance types and also IT types. Some are also pretty sport orientated or jock like.
Let me look them up in Dario Nardi's book. (I cannot find it right now.)
Whatever your quadra, I don't want to be in it. Too unstable and untrustworthy for my likings. And I generally sense clashing ethical values, or perhaps a difference in priorities. That's my honest feedback.
@Narc, why is Hitchens not a logical type? And it's Christopher, not Chris.
I'm glad. Very few people do.
It's Chris for short in certain instances, like in that post I just made.
I have him as sensing creative, rational and Te valuing. It's either ESI or LSE. He VIs as Se creative in his younger years (and ESI >>> LSI) and looks a bit more Si in older age, in a similar way to Bill Bailey. Hard to say, but I lean ESI.
It's possible...that would mean I supervise you though. :hello:
I think when you try to help other people out emotionally you mean well but there's a side of you that just 'doesn't get it' or something, to be very fair you have really stopped doing this a lot lately and just seem to be kinda more human.
Ethics is about feelings, not people or behaviors.
Fe is about expanding and broadening upon one's personal values and one's understanding of them, to find fresh new feelings about things. This is the opposite of Fi, which is the conservative clinging approach towards feelings and personal values. Fi holds onto the feelings it already has and knows best, reflecting and relying upon them.
Some Fe types are expressive people because they're essentially trying on new shades of feeling; some Fi types are expressive people because their feelings manifest as such.
Essentially, Fi is about the old and Fe is about the new.
As to your type, your understanding and intake of the world is a mainly subjective/feeling-based one (you show great valuation towards things on the forum, and logical types don't do that), so you're an ethical type. If your understanding were purely objective/cold-truth-based, you would be a logical type.
I will someday type William in person. I do not think that we can do much here.
I found Nardi's book. It indicated the sharpest difference between ESFJ and ESTJ is the ESFJ engages in extensive "mimicking" behavior such as echoing other people's feelings and expressions, attitudes, but also workplace behaviors (like a kid taking on a role) while ESTJs largely cannot do this. They seem fake doing it, or angry. ESTJs instead focus on grounded belief - strong opinions - strong "likes and dislikes." This "grounded belief" is a trait shared with Fi dominates.
I will look up the other trait differences, but that one leaped out at me.
No, he did not explain that at all. He gave absolutely no reasons as to why he thinks Christopher Hitchens is not a logical type.
No, it wasn't. I didn't ask him which types he's considered, nor how he thinks Hitchens "VIs over the years." I asked him why he thinks he wasn't a logical type. And I neither like nor dislike his reasoning, it was just not an answer to my question.
I'm so tickled @William that you're finally taking a stand to be who you are. dooooooo it. It's a lot more likable than anything (unless you're the type of person in which who you are just sucks). But I don't think it is. You, Fe animal, you.
Ti is about the old and Te is about the new; it's an Xe/Xi thing. Ti builds upon the systems and understanding it already has, whereas Te has a more open and adapting mindset to knowledge like Fe has to feelings. So new systems/structures isn't a Ti thing.
Tes are more open to discussing their knowledge; they can take in a lot of knowledge and have no set ways about it, building understanding a bit at a time without having a firm base. (Of course I have a firm base, but it's an Fi base, not a Te one.)
As Te shares knowledge, so Fe freely shares its sentiments. Extroverted functions are sort of experimental functions, introverted ones bases.