EII/INFj Antagonists in Fiction

.

Apparently the Rus-sociosphere classifies Aglaya Ivanovna Prokovyevna as EII(see first translated comment after the initial list), from Dostoyevsky's The Idiot. She is strong-willed and does damage while acting for her own benefit, iirc.

villain and EII match badly
this type is lawfull and heedful to people. it's hard to describe naturally a villain with such traits

Interesting topic!

I would say Himemiya Anthy from anime series Revolutionary Girl Utena could easily be typed as an EII, although she does exhibit also typical SEI-Si characteristics (understandably, with fictional characters, they don't really have information metabolism and thus no sociotype so they are usually a mix of what a number of sociotypes tend to display).
Major spoilers for the entirety of the show:

While the audience may sympathize with her - she is something akin to a love interest for the main protagonist and also in a way, a 'damsel in distress' - she alludes to Lucrecia Borgia, as her all-consuming love for her prince, their morbid codependency, drives her to form relationships with others akin to political marriages, in order to empower her prince. She manipulates these persons skilfully (4D Fi) to her prince's own ends and once their uses are spent, she would leave them and if need be, stab them in the back literally as wel..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sol

villain and EII match badly
this type is lawfull and heedful to people. it's hard to describe naturally a villain with such traits

---

Mostly this. Although type is not associated with crime I feel that EII can go wrong with their ideal expectations. I recall an EII who may expect her daughter to stay committed in a bad relationship in the hopes of working it out but if the EII notices the health of someone deteriorate and this becomes significant she will retract from her ideals. That ideal is "a relationship of husband and wife was made in holy union and it SHOULD not be split easy without a good effort in working things out."

Another ideal for an EII is "young ladies should not wear promiscuous clothing" hence she may seem strict to those who are around her.

Villain? I'm not sure if I can see an EII becoming honestly hated as we are easy to forgive and generally kind and most of our values are humanitarian in nature.

EII will become frustrated and get angry (who doesn't?) but they don't want a significant break in relations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hag

you are absolutely correct, but I believe unhealthy individuals and bad people can come from any type. perhaps 'villain' is too harsh of a word. EIIs are inclined to respectability, yes—but they are surely capable of wrongdoing just as any human. how do their negative characteristics manifest at unhealthy levels?—that is the question I find interest in. I cannot claim to have full understanding of a type if I do not recognize their various manifestations.

---

There's one character on the Brothers Karamazov who is odd misunderstood and reactive. He is the closest resemblance to a disturbed EII. I'm going to leave it to you to find him :) we may discuss it when you do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hag

you are absolutely correct, but I believe unhealthy individuals and bad people can come from any type

---

I never saw EII among clear bad people and it's too hard to describe such contradictory personage. It's like to write serious horror story with mad rabbit who hunts for tourists. :) Can there be "unhealthy and bad" rabbits? Maybe. Now think how to write all this not in trash genre.

Quote:

---

they are surely capable of wrongdoing just as any human

---

while rabbits may bite people

Quote:

---

how do their negative characteristics manifest at unhealthy levels?

---

they can be too pacifist :)

Quote:

---

I cannot claim to have full understanding of a type if I do not recognize their various manifestations.

---

To understand types you need common manifestations. While what you are seeking for is 0.01% probability of manifestation.

DarkAngelFireWolf69s plus minus system can be explained here but notice in my speech I often say "if that person" referring to the individual

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Victor-DarkAngelFireWolf69

I just thought that Lars von Trier's female protagonists are often 'EIIs'. I haven't seen his movies in ages but in Antichrist, the heroine drives herself literally crazy (crazy evil) with guilt, such Fi thing. in Dogville, the heroine is impossibly kind and giving towards everybody and she sets no borders of her own, with that actually provoking townfolks to abuse her more and more to the point of breaking when she snaps and comes with vengeance. She is enneagram 9, as EIIs often are, and rare occurrences of 'elephant's rage' in otherwise stoic Nines are part of their description. That's the Dogville heroine.
In Breaking Waves the heroine sacrifices her own morals to fulfill the wish of her beloved husband who had become paralyzed. A martyr, in EII's description. Which brings me back to Himemiya Anthy because this is exactly what she does.

Anthy's evil deeds source out from many things in fact, the main being her codependency and utter devotion to a loved one who had been wronged and fundamentally hurt, the willingness to stand by him no matter what -, for that she sacrifices her morals. She becomes a martyr in her wrong doing. Since I like her so much, here's a fanvid about Anthy, summarizing and depicting pretty much what I've said so far on evil-martyr-EII front.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IULQ3N8eE7I

An EII anti-hero could be one that is so focused on their own ideals or pet projects (or even trying to be personally healthy) that they let important, action-requiring things slide. Or they don't recognize what's important to some people, ignoring it and not playing along with social structures the way many people feel it needs to be done.

So, being "bad" by letting bad or damaging things happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minde

An EII anti-hero could be one that is so focused on their own ideals or pet projects (or even trying to be personally healthy) that they let important, action-requiring things slide. Or they don't recognize what's important to some people, ignoring it and not playing along with social structures the way many people feel it needs to be done.

So, being "bad" by letting bad or damaging things happen.

---

so you're saying you could be a great anti hero?

i do think you would make an acceptable world ruler but yeah some st henchmen wouldn't hurt

i'd say eiis could be manipulate into unwittingly doing bad things more likely than outrightly doing so of their own volition

they could probably be used for their air of sincerity or naivete about the uglier things that might be at play politically or otherwise


or if they are in a situation where they don't realize they make a fi offense and then do the ensuing sate of feeling bad about it could be problematic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UDP

i'd say eiis could be manipulate into unwittingly doing bad things more likely than outrightly doing so of their own volition

they could probably be used for their air of sincerity or naivete about the uglier things that might be at play politically or otherwise

---

I find that unfairly condescending.
From where I stand, people with weak Fi look more naive - but that's understandable since it is the area where I get to notice the naivete, whereas in, say Se matters, I often don't until it becomes blatantly obvious.
I agree with you that there are certainly a lot of things Se-wise that fly over our heads. But this is just one plane of the game. EII antagonists focus on Fi manipulation to counterbalance that disadvantage (and EII have concrete, '+Fi' element to that, which means projecting it onto others, very useful in that case). So an antagonist EII may form any kind of relationship with chosen people (Ne helps them to fish out those who show potential), then change attitudes of said chosen people towards certain goals (Ne helps there, too) to suit EII's purpose, direct/mess with their relationships and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UDP

so you're saying you could be a great anti hero?

---

Hey now. What are you saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UDP

i do think you would make an acceptable world ruler but yeah some st henchmen wouldn't hurt

---

I see the entire socion as being able to play crucial parts in making a functional, healthy society. Everyone has gifts they can give to the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UDP

i'd say eiis could be manipulate into unwittingly doing bad things more likely than outrightly doing so of their own volition

they could probably be used for their air of sincerity or naivete about the uglier things that might be at play politically or otherwise


or if they are in a situation where they don't realize they make a fi offense and then do the ensuing sate of feeling bad about it could be problematic

---

this reminds me of the character of peter petrelli in 'heroes' who i see as EII, though the show often makes him a little too action-oriented and sometimes seems to push him into ESI territory. in season 1 he's easily EII and i kind of see season 1 peter as the "essence" of what the character is even though it is warped possibly a little too much after. but i think 'heroes' tried to use the excuse that when you give a "normal person" a lot of power they do end up being warped by it... i just think they went too far with their character acrobatics often. in peter's case they'll often use powers or alternate timelines to try to still keep it all "in character" but it's a bad magician trick (i didn't think it held the character together).

anyway, peter does approach crossing the line from hero to anti-hero or villain several times:

 

season 1: in the AU episode following a timeline in which peter *did* blow up new york due to not being able to control one of his powers, i would argue his character is approaching more of an anti-hero even though he doesn't specifically do anything anti-hero-ish. it is more his attitude since he already believes he has so much blood on his hands and he sees himself as entirely responsible. this makes him in a way more violent--he has killed before so he's more willing probably to kill for the "greater good." he no longer sees himself as a good person.

also in this AU future, peter and his brother nathan (the most important person to peter) are estranged.* peter i think is always darker when he can't believe in nathan who he really needs to have as an example to look up to. basically when nathan goes dark, peter tends to lose faith. (*it's actually nathan is dead and sylar is impersonating him, but peter doesn't know that until later.)

season 2: peter is deceived by adam who wants to unleash a deadly plague upon the world. he trusts adam because of adam's self-presentation and apparent ethics (adam seems like someone trying to do the right thing and claims he's trying to prevent the plague). but the big reason he trusts adam is because adam healed nathan. at the end of season 1 nathan is badly burned and injured because he had to fly peter away from new york so he wouldn't blow it up with his loss of control over his powers. that adam would heal and save nathan cements peter's belief in who adam is and that he can trust him. also, in a way adam heals peter as well by doing this. at the end of the season peter almost finishes helping adam unleash the plague until nathan shows up and helps him realize that he can't trust adam. also in the season finale peter was okay (i think i recall) with injuring or killing guards in the building the deadly virus was kept in, in order to get to it. he had seen the future in which the plague is unleashed and lost someone else important to him there and is willing to go to any lengths to prevent it from happening. with a lot of power and when stakes are high, peter tends to become an extremist and this is just a small taste of it.

season 3: peter from the future who *is* an anti-hero goes back in time and attempts to murder nathan to stop him from revealing to the world that there are people with special powers in a political speech. i thought this was so terribly out of character. it's like they forgot that peter is primarily motivated by his relationships--as i saw him, if you push him to it he would probably rather a great many people die than lose his brother, so to actually try to kill nathan was bizarre to me. in killing nathan, 'future peter' is trying to save the world of course. apparently thanks to nathan's speech, abilities later end up being sold to consumers. just a shot and you can have magical powers too--and you won't know which power you'll get. with all this power everywhere (some abilities are both extremely deadly and hard to control) those with the visionary ability all see a future in which the earth will explode. but future peter's "solution" was, imo, poorly reasoned (which *is* in character for peter :D) to the extent it seemed completely unjustified. the only way to prevent this future is by killing nathan before he can spill the beans about abilities? really?

it possibly was a little more complex in that in the future that 'future peter' came from, nathan is trying to kill him, so their relationship has been broken. 'future nathan' considers 'future peter' a terrorist and although i don't see everything 'future peter' does, i imagine he might even be hunting people with the 'exploding bomb' ability or other powers that could be similarly devastating. i also don't know if this was future peter's first attempt (to save the world). it's possible he tried non lethal methods before but found he couldn't change the future.

it's also true that nathan is himself an extremist and once he gets some notion fixed in his head he's relentless and single-minded in pursuing his objectives. nathan is kind of a faltering force to reckoned with. he's difficult to stop, but he's also kind of a tool and eventually he can be made to falter in his resolve, especially if he sees his course is getting out of control and leading to disaster (although this is another reason why i don't see why killing him would even be necessary, though it would take some manipulation probably which is maybe less straight forward than peter's approach). nathan believes the ends justify the means, but he needs the ends to be good usually. (although 'future nathan' from the other timeline really did seem darker, as though maybe he's not even trying to do the right thing anymore...)

to make matters worse, 'future peter' brings 'regular peter' to his future to show him what will happen. but 'regular peter' ends up acquiring sylar's nasty ability there and later kills 'future nathan' with it. apparently sylar's ability "to understand how things work" comes with the uncontrollable urge to cut open someone's skull in order to "understand" (that wasn't simply the way sylar chose to use it, as i would have preferred). what was interesting about this (other than that this was actually peter killing his brother :stroke:) was that he was trying to understand 'future nathan's intentions. this was not the nathan peter idolizes and looks up to and peter couldn't understand him. the show never tells us, but i wonder if this made him doubt nathan later (that maybe he's been blinded to who nathan actually is by rose colored glasses). as far as the show on the whole goes it's interesting because nathan is often someone's puppet (even his form remains for puppeteering after he dies) and it raises the question of whether peter does the same thing really: "i need you to be who i imagine you to be." often everyone's "image" of nathan is more important than nathan; and nathan himself sometimes seems like only an image (enneagram 3 probs suck).

honestly, i see 'future peter' as more of an ESI; but his mini storyline demonstrates kind of how extreme the character can get. (of course i'm sure the writers were busy orgasming over it, but anyway. :indifferent:)

returning to the main season 3 timeline, the future in which the earth explodes starts appearing again, and nathan is still on some dangerous path (albeit a slightly different one). even though peter knows the inevitable future he fails to talk nathan out of his path and ends up threatening his life (pointing a gun at him). nathan feels deeply wounded and betrayed by this (not to mention by the revelation that his brother from the future tried to murder him earlier, which he only knows because 'future peter' the fuck up confessed it to him lol). this creates the rift between the brothers for the remainder of season 3. i think really this is what the creators of the show wanted, to pit them against each other for the sake of drama. it didn't need to make sense.

season 4: peter tortures sylar trying to force him to take on (keep) the form of nathan (nathan was killed by sylar at the end of season 3 and matt parkman manipulated sylar into believing he actually *was* nathan... it's complicated). this is because peter just wants nathan back and will even accept an illusion because it hurts too much to accept that nathan is gone. i could actually see an EII doing this. by this point peter's character has been through a lot of shit and it cost him the person he loves the most. his sanity has been a bit stretched, and an illusion delays the pain of basically accepting the end of the world (a world without nathan). he also hates sylar for killing nathan and wants revenge.

ps: this character is never an antagonist, but i wasn't able to think of one... i'm still searching though.

I wonder if this thread would get more examples if placed in the Beta quadra? Stereotypically, wouldn't members of an opposing quadra find greater faults with their "opposites"? In here, it's like asking, "Find something bad about what you like and are comfortable with."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hag

thank you to everyone who has contributed so far!

i did a bit of research last night on fictional INFjs (all of the relevant search results were going by MBTI, though it's still viable. i just ignore what they have to say about functions) and it seems as if ra's al ghul is the quintessential EII villain. his character motivations echo what i originally posted—twisted sense of right and wrong (unsure which function to attribute this to), idealists, heroes in their own mind, noble goals yet bizarre methods... their motivations can typically be simplified down to "doing [insert evil deed] for the so-called good of humanity". it corresponds to the well-intentioned extremist trope.

i also think unhealthy EIIs, in fiction or otherwise, could potentially manifest self-righteous tendencies.

---

If you have a twisted sense of morals how can you be consistent

I'm guessing an EII that turns villain would do so not out of the desire for the material gain that comes from crime, but out of pure passionate hatred and desire for revenge. I read a theory once that a certain bad guy in history particularly hated Jews because he got rejected to a Jewish art school (not sure if that's actually true), so that could be the type of thing that could lead an EII down the path to hatred and the darkside maybe. I think you could make an argument that Sandman in Spiderman 2 could be EII, he just stole money to help his daughter pay for medical expenses. He seemed to forgive Spiderman at the end and go about his way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uncivilized

I'm guessing an EII that turns villain would do so not out of the desire for the material gain that comes from crime, but out of pure passionate hatred and desire for revenge. I read a theory once that a certain bad guy in history particularly hated Jews because he got rejected to a Jewish art school (not sure if that's actually true), so that could be the type of thing that could lead an EII down the path to hatred and the darkside maybe. I think you could make an argument that Sandman in Spiderman 2 could be EII, he just stole money to help his daughter pay for medical expenses. He seemed to forgive Spiderman at the end and go about his way.

---

No way

Hasn't anyone read Van Gogh diaries? He just lived a meager existence because he was poor and could not figure out a way to make money and market his paintings, he got into a lot of emotional sadness and mania due to loneliness and lack of companionship and ideal love, and then killed himself. He detached from external things that could bring him happiness and didn't try to have fun. A single tasked and amazing at it because of his approach

@Starfall what does your sister think of this

What is she capable of doing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minde

I wonder if this thread would get more examples if placed in the Beta quadra? Stereotypically, wouldn't members of an opposing quadra find greater faults with their "opposites"? In here, it's like asking, "Find something bad about what you like and are comfortable with."

---

I don't think so, mostly because the biggest critic we get is about being sanctimonious and inept, not traits typical villains have except in comedy. I think it's the Se polr that makes us neither villains nor heroes. We lack the drive to leave our footprints on the environment.

EII are not vindictive even if we say "I'll kill the person who hurts my loved ones" those are just sayings like little men syndrome lol

I think EII maybe persistent and annoying

Also EII suck everything in and eat at themselves emotionally. They are not very external.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malna

I find that unfairly condescending.

---

the aim was to portray something unhealthy and problematic

i wouldn't interpret me as trying to be fair or speaking how eiis are as a whole

Quote:

---

EII are not vindictive even if we say "I'll kill the person who hurts my loved ones" those are just sayings like little men syndrome lol

I think EII maybe persistent and annoying

Also EII suck everything in and eat at themselves emotionally. They are not very external.

---

oh - really?


"I think EII maybe persistent and annoying "

ah -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minde

I wonder if this thread would get more examples if placed in the Beta quadra? Stereotypically, wouldn't members of an opposing quadra find greater faults with their "opposites"? In here, it's like asking, "Find something bad about what you like and are comfortable with."

---

of course

gammas might fault eiis for being 'too forgiving' and betas i've heard say they were too illogical and superficial in their judgements

among other things

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa

If you have a twisted sense of morals how can you be consistent

---

probably by having a severely warped self image and poor understanding of how dealing with others or reality


some people will go to great lengths to justify that their square peg fits in that round hole

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uncivilized

I'm guessing an EII that turns villain would do so not out of the desire for the material gain that comes from crime, but out of pure passionate hatred and desire for revenge. I read a theory once that a certain bad guy in history particularly hated Jews because he got rejected to a Jewish art school (not sure if that's actually true), so that could be the type of thing that could lead an EII down the path to hatred and the darkside maybe. I think you could make an argument that Sandman in Spiderman 2 could be EII, he just stole money to help his daughter pay for medical expenses. He seemed to forgive Spiderman at the end and go about his way.

---

try gamma if you want to stereotype monte cristo type fantasies

or quintin tarinto romanticization of the revenge plot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hag

thank you to everyone who has contributed so far!

i did a bit of research last night on fictional INFjs (all of the relevant search results were going by MBTI, though it's still viable. i just ignore what they have to say about functions) and it seems as if ra's al ghul is the quintessential EII villain. his character motivations echo what i originally posted—twisted sense of right and wrong (unsure which function to attribute this to), idealists, heroes in their own mind, noble goals yet bizarre methods... their motivations can typically be simplified down to "doing [insert evil deed] for the so-called good of humanity". it corresponds to the well-intentioned extremist trope.

i also think unhealthy EIIs, in fiction or otherwise, could potentially manifest self-righteous tendencies.

---

probably - mostly with enneagram 1 energy also


most eiis tend to internalize their problems and retreat from the world or just sort of go into a stupor or passivity about it

im not really even sure that ras is eii - but you can look at Robespierre as being an example of a overly logical lii - so it would probably be in that same trend; rhetorical idealists

for an EII - i think it would have to be a very very personal attachment if anything - i'm not sure they would be as likely to be motivated globally but maybe


i'm not sure how useful discussions like this are for anything other than kind of 'oh isn't this an interesting thought' etc - but that's ok

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UDP

the aim was to portray something unhealthy and problematic

---

Sure, but it's also implicit assertion of EIIs means to present as such, our capability. So it's entirely possible to be condescending in that regard and I just found it uncalled for, as in not concurrent with what I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UDP

most eiis tend to internalize their problems and retreat from the world or just sort of go into a stupor or passivity about it

im not really even sure that ras is eii - but you can look at Robespierre as being an example of a overly logical lii - so it would probably be in that same trend; rhetorical idealists

for an EII - i think it would have to be a very very personal attachment if anything - i'm not sure they would be as likely to be motivated globally but maybe

---

That's very true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hag

true. i think that might be contingent on their capability to solve the problem, however.



me either, i don't know enough about ra's to say for sure, though the common consensus seemed to be that he was eii—my only argument against it is that he seems too externally violent, i think an eii would try to minimize fighting and causalities.

i don't see eii as working for the sake of their ego, money, fun, or power, but to bring about an end result that might ultimately benefit humanity (from their perspective, that is). utilitarian idealists. that does fit ra's, at the very least.



yeah true. eii villains seem to be rarer than i thought—conventionally evil eii seems like a misnomer. i don't know if the lack of fictional eii antagonists means that it's impossible for an eii to be anything other than lawful/neutral good, or if it's just really difficult to create a believable eii antagonist.

perhaps a hypothetical eii antagonist might not be evil in the sense that they're committing atrocities and kicking puppies, but speaking in the terms of the narrative, they could merely be coming from an opposing standpoint to the protagonist.

---

EII live for the big picture to make a difference for humanity and contribute in some way. They're not going to be found as depicted as some evil ness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beautiful sky

Mostly this. Although type is not associated with crime I feel that EII can go wrong with their ideal expectations. I recall an EII who may expect her daughter to stay committed in a bad relationship in the hopes of working it out but if the EII notices the health of someone deteriorate and this becomes significant she will retract from her ideals. That ideal is "a relationship of husband and wife was made in holy union and it SHOULD not be split easy without a good effort in working things out."

Another ideal for an EII is "young ladies should not wear promiscuous clothing" hence she may seem strict to those who are around her.

Villain? I'm not sure if I can see an EII becoming honestly hated as we are easy to forgive and generally kind and most of our values are humanitarian in nature.

EII will become frustrated and get angry (who doesn't?) but they don't want a significant break in relations.


There's one character on the Brothers Karamazov who is odd misunderstood and reactive. He is the closest resemblance to a disturbed EII. I'm going to leave it to you to find him :) we may discuss it when you do

---

Not all EIIs have the ideals you've mentioned. Especially the one about promiscuous clothing, ESPECIALLY in these modern times. Also, not all EIIs believe in the institution of marriage. i , personally, wouldn't want to have any formal wedding function and find it hard to think about getting kids. So that's more of a generalization, don't you think?

What we need to remember is all Fi is NOT created equal.

This guy:
http://psychopass.wikia.com/wiki/Shogo_Makishima
Literally describes him as a "humanist" on the dark side. He's also all about individuality and twisted morals.

"outwardly disdains humanity's way of living, considering humans worthless"

"Everyone is alone. Everyone is empty. People have no longer any need of others. You can always find a substitute for any talent. Any relationship can be replaced. That's the world I grew tired of…"

Itachi from Naruto is an EII villain, but as the story unfolds you actually just see hes a character capable of doing greatly horrific things to protect what he holds as more important (his baby bro). Ultimately he's a a neutral character capable of such honorable good deeds its almost unworldly, and just makes himself look like the bad guy to preserve the good hes done

EII and villain arent contradictory imo, they just dont make for as interesting of a villain in a novel format.

Satan. Prometheus. Persephone.

Not sure they're properly EII "bad heroes", they were just following the own visions, which differed from the mainstream and values. So, they've been labeled as outcasts from "society".
I think this could be a trait of EII. We can get extremely stubborn in our quest for what it's true for us.

@Minde has " "antagonized" " people here. Just ask them how they see her.
Terms such as these been thrown around: stubborn, self righteous, meddling , favoritism


I have heard of other EIIs, sometimes by other quadras discontent, that they can use a lame sense of morality to avoid seeing a situation for what it is, or seeing how their framing of situations is problematic for some, especially those they disagree with.


I can also see EIIs (Dopestoyvesky) becoming so self-intoxicated or depressed that they are basically dysfunctional and could let other people down, or, in critical moments, fail or fall victim to others schemes. Or potentially have their 'powers' of insight or diplomacy unknowingly be used for nefarious purposes, or potentially become consumed by an evil they were trying to remedy.

Gus from Breaking Bad.

Here are the tropes that most EII (and IEE) villains will usually fall into:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...tifiesTheMeans

Basically a villain of this nature usually has humanitarian/utopian ideals they have taken way too far and will not compromise on. Even worse, they have somehow got into a position of power, leading to extremely negative consequences for everyone around them.

The protagonist in a situation like this will probably be a Ni ego anti-hero of some sort, the moral theme being that good intentions do not always lead to good outcomes.

The Xenogears/saga series had ethical-oriented villians:
http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/Karellen - Very tragic EII anti-villian, you can easily tell from reading his quotes

and his beta counterpart from a similar game

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/Wilhelm - IEI

In spite of stereotypes, I feel EII's make excellent villains, albeit tragic.

Nobody can really come up with a good exampme, beacause all the "cool" EIIs are mistyped as IEIs anyway.

vespertine, I think I've finally got it

haku from naruto

haku was a young boy who inherited a rare ninja technique from his mother, which rendered both of them a threat to their village, which was pillaged by ninja that wielded similar ninja techniques in the past, so his father and a mob of villagers banded together to kill his mother, but when they tried to kill haku, his ninja technique activated and wiped the mob out. that's when orphaned little haku met zabuza (ninja with questionable morale) who proposed that haku become his new "weapon", which haku gladly accepted, as it gave him a "purpose", even if he was too young to comprehend the nature of his newfound "purpose". however, all throughout their murderous escapades together, haku made a point to cause the least amount of damage possible. at times he'd even put his opponents in a death-like trance to dissuade them from fighting any further, in order to preserve their lives... but haku's soft-hearted nature aside, he was - for all intents and purposes - still an "antagonist" and it wasn't until the arc unfolded that we got a peek into his past and realized the "good" underlying the "evil". haku had merely formed an unlikely alliance with someone who coerced haku into doing his dirty work for him.

I think this is the most likely path for EII antagonists. their naivete is taken advantage of by someone with an "evil" agenda, either because 1. they have no real say in the matter - caught between a rock and a hard place - so they pursue that path but they do so with a humanitarian bend by creating the illusion that they're doing more "evil" than they really are, or 2. they're tricked into it by being offered love, or even kindness, under the false pretense that their actions will make the community or the world a better place, and in turn, they partake in "evil" words or deeds without realizing that they are.

I think the evil we see in others is in large part projection rooted in the need to see the need for our gifts in the other such that the projection is most "valid" as applied to our dual. thus when we speak of evil we rarely see ourselves for what we are, which I think in the case of EII would actually be a failure of Ti Se, or a more picturesque way to put it would be: the failure to get off the couch. the real EII villian would be the total slob that can't make a coherent impact on anything or anyone... when we talk about the misguided but well intentioned misdeeds we're really talking about our dual and I actually think our vision of that is instructive as to our own type. in other words, EII is psychologically predisposed to find certain things in need of assistance but it is in many ways the projection of the ego's capabilities of offering correction to those who need them most, which would be those people who act in accordance with shared values, but imperfectly. that would be essentially "same" (rather than "other") i.e. fundamentally "familiar" yet "wrong" people (wasp seems to be describing LSE or maybe ILE, to me) etc (i.e. those close enough that our advice would apply to them and is welcome versus to those whom it is alien, even wilting when applied to them: conflictors, etc)

Dostoevsky himself explores this a bit when he imagines the devil as coming in the form of something we least expect: mediocre, underwhelming, disappointing, etc.. that is the true "evil" in EII

whereas to be a villain in the traditional storybook sense you already possess a great many heroic qualities, especially if they applied to EII. its hard to imagine an asskicking world changing EII who is also a villian because they wouldn't really be evil... however it is easy to imagine an asskicking world changing SLE who is a villian according to what an EII values. In some sense the nature of entertaining fiction is anathema to creating a centerpiece out of EII as villian, it is in some sense a contradiction...

an EII villian in fiction would look like heroin, not hero, it would tempt others by lulling them into complacency via a false morality that inured them to their misdeeds and lead them down a road wherein they were self satisfied with an empty existence: essentially using Fi and Ne as a way to justify inaction and lack of positive change to the absolute corruption and degradation of those around them, but not in an aggressive offensive manner, but in a self consumptive totally bland way. think those people in the grocery store you can hardly bear to look at...

films like requiem for a dream come closest to portraying the darkside of EII as far as I can tell

Cipher is a perfect example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0boRzSpu4Q4

Here's another female EII-Ne antagonist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJDgpFLLzOA

lmao

Of course, Hannibal Lecter (EII-Fi):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU8jKn7sMwU&t=3s

Lecter essentially has the same style of information processing as Catherine Trammel.

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. See the car-ride clip from basic instinct. in the meantime, the EII's own thoughts/memories/goals/discomforts/drives are pushed out of cognition and wind up in the PoLR.

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. in the clip you see lecter fishing for information that he can use to deepen his internal mirror of clarice.

EII vs IEE: The difference between Fi/Ne and Ne/Fi is Fi/Ne is drained by any environment/situation where they aren't directly involved with the person/people they have internally mirrored. Ne/Fi mirroring cognition reflects more the other person's external world and outer responses/inflections but doesn't go as inward. Ne/Fi mirroring changes rapidly from one environment to the next and just mirrors enough to adapt/blend in socially. It's very easy to tell who the EII has in their internal mirror because that's who they will constantly talk and/or wonder about.

Never really thought a EII would be able to break free of shackles, murder two prisons guards, hall them up into rafters, and skin them. :/

Look at cognition for socionics type. It's a theory of information processing, not behaviors. Anything goes in terms of behavior.

Lecter's psychopathic behavior can be chalked up to the fact he's a psychopath. any psychopath would look for an opportunity to escape and have no qualms about murdering the guards...nonetheless the escape plan he devised contained nuances peculiar to Fi/Ne cognition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imarite

Never really thought a EII would be able to break free of shackles, murder two prisons guards, hall them up into rafters, and skin them. :/

---

A clear contradiction.

Joanna from The Commuter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzdbcMFo2KU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

Nobody can really come up with a good exampme, beacause all the "cool" EIIs are mistyped as IEIs anyway.

---

Betas are always​ the villains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spermatozoa

Basically a villain of this nature usually has humanitarian/utopian ideals they have taken way too far and will not compromise on.

---

This is still more Beta (or Alpha NT, à la Robespierre) than Delta.

The problem with Deltas is that they're the grounded ones. :lol: They make better protagonists than antagonists.

Stratiyevskaya is generally good at critiquing and giving insight into the less savory motivations of every sociotype. Here, this article cuts fairly sharply into the EII.

http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t...Stratiyevskaya

As has been mentioned, Stratiyevskaya's storytelling is approximately high level socionics fanfiction.

Mainly, I find that EIIs can be sometimes: 1) selfish and self promoting and hording of their privileged comforts or of their surface prestige, 2) insecurely toxicly defensive of an uncritical foggy eyed self perception of their own prestige, 3) stagnant and insulated away from radical creative rethinking.

Gwyneth Paltrow.

https://scstylecaster.files.wordpres...ow_quote-3.jpg
https://scstylecaster.files.wordpres...ow_quote-2.jpg
https://quotes.thefamouspeople.com/i...trow-60010.jpg
https://scstylecaster.files.wordpres...ow_quote-1.jpg

Unintentional cruelty is probably what that would look more like rather than intentional...

Nancy Pelosi. I'm pretty sure Beautiful sky is up for something as well.