Any thoughts on this?
Printable View
Any thoughts on this?
Idk but I like this because it removes the only real obstacle in the way of me being ESE.
It's said that both attitudes typically exist in a person, and you alternate between the two.
Could be a couple of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by sorrowsofyoungwerther
Subtypes. Fe-ESE has stronger Ne hidden agenda and will project as being more "childlike" than Si-ESE. Ti-LIIs will sometimes behave in a serious and delta-ST manner. IEE-Fi will be more of a "caregiver" than IEE-Ne. In dualities of different subtypes the roles are almost flipped around.
Another thing is that socionics is not the only typology out there. Other typologies also contribute to one's image, and sometimes their associated traits will run contrary to what is predicted in socionics. For example, with instincts Sp is associated with childhood, Sx - with adulthood, and Soc - with mature age. Certain enneagram types are described as more carefree, playful, imaginative (e.g. 7) and others as more serious, having gravitas (e.g. 8). So, for instance, if you have an IEE so/sp 6 that person is going to project themselves closer to what's described of socionics "caring" types when compared to an IEE sp/sx 2.
ESEs are caregivers in the sense of being able to empathize with someone's plight and trying to offer advice and do things to resolve their issues; they're more dutiful than nurturing. They can be so focused on others that they sometimes ignore themselves and thus can need someone else to look after them; and they also seek interaction with others to resolve their own issues. These tendencies can make ESE appear childlike at times but this is an illusion; one merely has to dig deeper into processing structure/motivation. I see IEE as potentially much more nurturing than ESE but not nearly as dutiful; IEEs can be somewhat naïve (childlike) regarding the needs of others so the title caregiver would not really fit them as much as it would ESE - your perception of what would be caregiver and childlike seems to different from mine but I wouldn't attach these words to type because they can be rather misleading......
a.k.a. I/O
I will join the chorus to say i also act childlike sometimes - often it's to bring a lightheartedness to the ambiance. My mentality is not immature though and i wont act immature, so this does not include things like temper tantrums if i dont get my way. Just a lighthearted childlikeness, superficially, like e.g. joking in a baby voice or something. I also tend to default to an innocent view of the world, but in some cases not - like I was not gullible at all about DT & gang, saw the evil potential from day #1 (even before day #1). But was a bit innocent in the sense that i assumed the vast majority of people in the US would see through his act.
I find this to be true and it was listed by Socionics Britannica a couple of months ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by sorrowsofyoungwerther
True caregiving/infantile relations are between Ni and Si leads, especially in Alpha since Delta has the concept of pseudo-caregiving/infantile. Having Si or Ne in the creative position sort of creates a diffusion.
I generally think the erotic styles are overblown, but slater had an interesting take on them: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ays-every-role
What is a spiritual victim?
Someone looking for being shaken in its beliefs ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suz
spiritual is just the word he used for anything in the realms of Ni or NeQuote:
Originally Posted by 1981slater
Si changes oneself physically to adapt to others, so therefore "care-taking" (like a parent sacrificing him/herself physically for the child)
Ne mentally demands others to adapt to its ways, therefore "infantile" (like a child that demands parents to get his/her way)
Ni changes oneself mentally to adapt to others, so therefore "victim" (an indecisive, self-sacrificing adult)
Se physically demands others to adapt to its ways, therefore "aggressor" (like a bossy authority)
well i got as much from that post - my question was how exactly would that manifest. Shining suggested someone looking to be shaken in their beliefs. Any other thoughts?Quote:
Originally Posted by squark
SLI and LSEs are like little boys
No that's the Ne types. Ne types are usually spoiled as children, because they demand that they get want they want. Ne types are like little boys and girls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa
While Si and Ni types usually stay in the background, seemingly not wanting anything for themselves.
Tsk tsk... shameful.
No they are like little boys because they want to play with motorcycles and not adult responsibilities hahahQuote:
Originally Posted by Singularity
Yes, this is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by sorrowsofyoungwerther
I'm not sure, but I still relate to it. :?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suz
I have no interest in playing with motorcycles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa
We should get into it together :love:Quote:
Originally Posted by Director Abbie
This is a huge improvement over the original erotic styles.Quote:
Originally Posted by sorrowsofyoungwerther
Matter of degree and you supposedly like that mentality...
Let's think of case like this:
Someone is pressuring LII. ESE reacts and takes care of it.
ILE is all over the place. SEI: Let's turn that shirt inside out, your shoelaces are open, put socks on, your hat is crooked and does not cover your ears...
I think that need for combustible engines is common among all STs. I know one who attached tractor's engine to a bicycle when he was a child.... He recommends it to nobody. :rolleyes:
.
I know an infantile ESE, I think it was due to childhood trauma and not getting all the toys and care they wanted though.
:Se: Physical aggressor (Se Lead) , spiritual infantile (Ne Role)
:Si: Physical caregiver (Si Lead) , spiritual victim (Ni Role)
:Ne: Physical infantile (Ne Lead) , spiritual aggressor (Se Role)
:Ni: Physical victim (Ni Lead) , spiritual caregiver (Si Role)
:Te: Mental aggressor (Te Lead), emotional infantile (Fe Role)
The rest doesnt make much sense to me.
I found this and looks interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suz
Quote:
Spiritual abuse is the abuse of the human spirit. And while many would say that the spirit cannot be wounded, it is definitely possible to split off from conscious awareness of the spirit. It is possible to live a life totally bereft of any real connection to the spirit—a term used here synonymously with soul and authentic Self. We can live so identified with a role, a mask, and costume, that we do not even allow the mind to wander into the fields, climb the mountains, swim the oceans of the human spirit. That’s what spiritual abuse does. It cuts us off from spirit so that we don’t live in it or from it.
How does that happen? Well, it can happen as a result of other kinds of abuse. When a child is physically abused, for example, that child might identify as a “bad kid” who deserves to be punished. This might mean that he will act out, expecting to get punished or trying to strategize as to how to avoid it. Either way, he has not identified with his own true Self, his deepest essence, his soul, his spirit. Where does that spirit go? It goes into the unconscious, where it is only allowed out at night when this young man is dreaming. How sad, how angry, how small, how “bad” will he have to be before he can wake up to who he actually is?
But it can also happen whenever someone tries to tell you how to feel, what to think and/or what to believe so much that your own original thoughts, feelings and beliefs are not allowed into the room. A case in which someone is told by a spiritual leader, for example, that the reason she had an auto accident was that she’d been thinking negative thoughts, that she needs to control her negative thinking to keep negative things from happening to her. This has the potential to raise so much anxiety that she will try ever after that to push away (repress) any negative thoughts or feelings and to replace them with what seems to be positive thoughts and feelings. This puts her in a constant, moment-by-moment battle with her own inner world so that she cannot allow thoughts to arise, and feelings to be made conscious. No, she must fight these off to make sure nothing negative ever happens to her. This is spiritual abuse because it teaches her to go to war with her own spirit.
Or, what about instances in which children are beaten by spiritual mentors of a certain philosophy because they cannot stand out in the snow barefoot. They were supposed to learn mind over body. But they could not do it, so they were beaten. This is not only physical abuse but spiritual abuse for it teaches the child to ignore his own inner world in favor of a philosophy that may or may not work for him.
Or, what about children who are made on Halloween to walk through a so-called “haunted house” in which terrible visions of torturous hell are played out dramatically, thus terrifying the children into believing that if they don’t get “saved” right away they may go, that very night, to that terrible torturous place for all eternity. Those children have not been challenged to decide what they believe by giving them information and allowing them to explore, question and think original thoughts about that information. Rather, they’ve been scared into accepting a belief that may or may not work for them. Thus, they are taught not to go to their own original thinking, feeling and believing to discover the truth. Rather they are taught that only other people have the truth for them, and they must be very, very afraid that, if they do not accept other people’s ideas about the truth, there are terrible and very personal consequences for them.
Anytime we are split off from conscious awareness of our own inner world, we are being spiritually abused. We need to treat the inner world, the deepest essence of who we are, as sacred land—we must first get permission, and then take off our shoes to walk there.
source
I most certainly have seen spiritual victims. One typical example:
They take on various projects and later realize limits of their own well being or can not regulate it well as they should learn critical self reflection among those who can assist. On the other side of the coin you will encounter Ni bases who help them decelerate.
I'd replace the term "Lead" with "Valued" and "Role" with "Unvalued". Problem is that the Role function is a unvalued function, so the conection to Role doesn't fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragdoll Cat
Ok, I make a new table:
Physical aggressor: :Se: valued + :Si: unvalued — high-dimensional sensing functions
Physical caregiver: :Si: valued + :Se: unvalued — high-dimensional sensing functions
Physical victim: :Se: valued + :Si: unvalued — low-dimensional sensing functions
Physical infantile: :Si: valued + :Se: unvalued — low-dimensional sensing functions
Spiritual aggressor: :Ne: valued + :Ni: unvalued — high-dimensional intuition functions
Spiritual caregiver: :Ni: valued + :Ne: unvalued — high-dimensional intuition functions
Spiritual victim: :Ni: valued + :Ne: unvalued — low-dimensional intuition functions
Spiritual infantile: :Ne: valued + :Ni: unvalued — low-dimensional intuition functions
Mental aggressor: :Te: valued + :Ti: unvalued — high-dimensional thinking functions
Mental caregiver: :Ti: valued + :Te: unvalued — high-dimensional thinking functions
Mental victim: :Ti: valued + :Te: unvalued — low-dimensional thinking functions
Mental infantile: :Te: valued + :Ti: unvalued — low-dimensional thinking functions
Emotional aggressor: :Fe: valued + :Fi: unvalued — high-dimensional feeling functions
Emotional caregiver: :Fi: valued + :Fe: unvalued — high-dimensional feeling functions
Emotional victim: :Fi: valued + :Fe: unvalued — low-dimensional feeling functions
Emotional infantile: :Fe: valued + :Fi: unvalued — low-dimensional feeling functions
OCD?Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
Spiritual victims are those who suffer spiritual abuse by spiritual aggressors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heretic 007
Yeah, ofc. The only valid explanation. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragdoll Cat
btw. Copy and Paste are two good friends of mine. With their help I hadn't much work to do.
naturally when source is not mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
Source are available infos about Socionics & my brainpower... which means: I created that table.
then OCD. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
you mistakeQuote:
Originally Posted by sorrows
Yeah, Orderly Collected Data. That's right. :whistle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragdoll Cat
Id say sensors are either aggressor or caregiver primary and secondary. Dont forget that they help their duals with their strong, not weak functions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragdoll Cat
Same goes for intuitives not being caregiver or aggressor but Either victim or infantile and vice versa
I was seeing a Si type who gave my dick a pet nickname. He would baby talk to it calling it winky.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
ESE are vastly different from LSE. The same, but different.
I base the opinion on normal types theory and my experience which match. as ESE I typed several people IRL and watched them enough to be sureQuote:
Originally Posted by timber
This is exactly why I only date Se/Ni types. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by timber
Sorry for reviving an old thread. I've been browsing the forum and found that the OP resonated; before now, while I have considered that I could be an SEI I did always discount it on the grounds that I feel like I'm more childlike, vulnerable, than empowered competent caregiver. However on reading the above, I can see how I do engage in Caregiving behaviors (adapting to other's wants and needs, doing what they want, trying to be pleasing and non offensive in social situations, and physically). I always took Caregiving/Infantile to mean "do you want to look after someone and be their surrogate Mum, or be looked after?" which I always choose "looked after", because I do want to feel safe and secure in all my relationships, and I guess pampered in a romantic one. But I'm aware my views are a bit naive and Caregiver/Infantile is not a black and white scale..Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
Love this and honestly agree with a majority of itQuote:
Originally Posted by squark