what are the observable differences between these two?
Printable View
what are the observable differences between these two?
From afar, I think EII will likely appear somewhat stiff or reserved, and likely more conservatively attired whereas IEE tend to have an informal aura even when well-dressed in a formal setting. They behave differently due to divergent motivating forces - one being input oriented while the other output. The dominant processes are still in control and set the agendas. They may seem to share some behaviour patterns but realize that like icebergs, nine-tenths are below the surface. Many seem to assume that two different types, who use their IEs to the same extent, can behave similarly; but this superficial approach doesn't consider the overriding effects of different system configurations and priorities.......:content:
a.k.a. I/O
Very little. The biggest difference will be the temperament. IEE-Fi will be more phlegmatic compared to IEE-Ne which is full-blown sanguine. Likewise EII-Fi will be full-blown phlegmatic while EII-Ne will be more sanguine.
One would be similar to an Ne-LII and the other an Fi-SEE.
They should be distinct from each other.
Definitely wondering about this myself; these are two of the types I'm considering I may be.
This. Ne-EII has more in common with Fi-EII and Ne-LII than Fi-IEE and Fi-IEE has more in common with Ne-IEE and Fi-SEE than Ne-EII. Standard subtypes is basically just describing a gradient or spectrum of Socionics in greater detail. It's another way of saying that there is a gradient or spectrum within each type like so: Fi-SEE -> Fi-IEE -> Ne-IEE -> Ne-ILE or Ne-LII -> Ne-EII -> Fi-EII -> Fi-ESI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
@Pookie @Raver
I wasn't going to say anything but since you both mentioned cross Quadra comparisons I'll respond. You are totally wrong. All EIIs have far more in common with all IEEs compared to LIIs. Function order is #2. Function blocks is #1. EII and IEE all share the same blocks. This translates to Quadra values.
The spectrum of subtypes is: EII-E, EII-I, IEE-E, IEE-I.
Hence IEE-E is between EII-I and IEE-I.
In common does not equate to appear to be. Temperament is huge in appearances.Quote:
Originally Posted by domr
The question is about observable differences. Observably IEE-Fi and EII-Ne are not very similar, at all.
I think pookie is right about at that, and I think one of the unfortunate prevailing assumptions is that creative function subtype makes you look more like your mirror. its true in some sense it has to, but that is not the sense people usually assume it to be. seeing the world through different lenses is a big difference and whether the accent is on, as rebelondeck would say, input or output does not mitigate, rather it accentuates that base difference. in other words, a EII with an accent on Ne and Te might superficially sound like "oh thats more IEE" but you must realize accent does not shift dimensionality or I/O sequence, so its not like some "middle ground" in the way people assume it to be, based on how they seem to be talking about it. admittedly this is a hard difference to articulate, but I would say subtype shifts you in many ways to your extinguisher or business in as many ways to mirror (which is to say: only in a highly attenuated sense), thus when people in the situation think "well im stuck between [delta NF for example]" they assume they are creative subtype as if that explains the ambiguity--it really doesn't, its more a handwave compounding the unknown, but it gets repeated so often people mistake it as useful and accurate
Yeah I find that I have way more in common with ESI personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
This is simple DCNH has already addressed this:
EIIs are still "IJs" they are measured in energy and linear in their approach.
IEEs are always "Eps" expansive in energy and adaptive.
Extroverted "IJs" have a distorted signal, they superficially resemble EPs being more expressive, you'd actually mistake them for EPs; however, after a prolonged interaction, the IJ restrictiveness comes through.
Introverted EPs similarly have a distorted signal, mistaken for introverts because they are less expressive, seeming to be interested in minding their own businesses like introverts. Mutually after a prolonged interaction, the EP expansive energy and adaptability reveals itself.
I don't even know if thats true: an EP with a "contact" subtype doesn't seem to be less energetic, only by a very specific meaning, an I don't think "expressive" would be one of them. for example I imagine a IEE Fi as being probably more expressive, at least in terms of intensity if not extensivity, because of the focus on depth of feeling and making contact. I do believe it would be more "targetted" i.e. aimed at individuals and 1 on 1s, all else being equal, but through the lens of opportunities and alternatives, it would nevertheless be "scattered"--what you would have is a person making deep contact with a variety of people, that if viewed from afar would certainly seem energetic. to say an accent on Ne in EII is to realize "more" opportunities begs the question that they are energetically expansive when it may simply be on increased creativity to the same amount and so on. for example an accent on Se and Te doesn't necessarily mean "more" in ESI it may simply be "harder" i.e.: requiring more determination and persistence. this is why EII as "contact" does not see the world through the lens of opporutnity they see it through the lens of depth of connection, thus "contact" is going to revolve around that, meaning Ne subtype is not necessarily more connecitons but a more far flung or "meaningful" connection. anyway I'm not saying they can't look alike, just that the subtype system does not necessarily blur them the way people assume it does. that is in of itself only one possible manifestation and kind of an attenuated one based on what I think its really attempting to get at. what im really trying to say is contact/inert moves the types across a different dimension than the one that linearly separates mirrors, think of it as breaking out a third dimension rather than moving them toward or apart eachother on a single continuum
Basically this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
Technically the strongest IE of IEE-Fi is Fe, whereas of EII-Ne it's Ni.
You should be able to tell that, too. At least with IEE-Fi, the stronger Fe is rather obvious (Je IEs are the easiest to detect in regular interaction).
I see your point. I was wondering though for instance why IEE-Fi can't be more similar to ESI rather than SEE? If all what you're saying applies, then if you take into account the thinking style "hologrpahic" too, and, assuming that that is preserved as well, than wouldn't IEE-Fi be more similar to ESI? Just wonderingQuote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
All IEEs and EIIs value FiNe as their ego block. That means they have the same MO. FiNe is Stoicism or Daoism, basically Jedi code. This is completely different from SEE or LII.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
LII is TiNe is research, the R in R&D. SEE is FiSe which is hedonism or more common known as being an artist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by domr
I think the point is you continually gloss over the difference between FiNe and NeFi and if you just recognized that space as being the difference rather than ignoring it, you'd never get confused as to how subtype could blur them. so bringing in all this EP/IP stuff, Jedi code, "research" (have you been reading vultology?) etc, is like ptolemaic in its lack of elegance
also one of the exact tenets of M+O's system is that subtype does in fact "mirage" you into other quadra, so it seems odd to deny such a claim as preposterous on its face when the very creators of the system you seem to accept made precisely that claim (edit: what this refers to has since been edited out because I guess he realized this)
Socionics Crash CourseQuote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
Choice 1 & 2: Choose a P and J function. = IE/SL & IL/SF. //IE in this example
Choice 3: Add Introversion and Extraversion (-/+) = 8 Blocks // -E+I in this example
Choice 4: Pick which function is dom/aux = 16 Types // EII and IEE in this example
Choice 5: Choose how strongly you like that aspect = 32 Subtypes // EII-E, EII-I, IEE-E, IEE-I
-E4+I3 and -E3+I4 are the same at 2^3. It's only at 2^4 that we differentiate between them. Hence at 2^5 we further refine our seperation of the two. Every time you add a new choice, you get more refinement i.e. less differentiation between types.
t e r r y o l o g y
Quote:
Terrence, please stop driving yourself insane. Math is merely symbols representing computations that exist in nature. All you’re doing is either changing the number value, or changing the function of the multiplication and addition symbols. Let’s look at a few things you’ve put out there. You say the square root of two should be one. Which is the same thing as saying 1×1=2. But the square root of two is 1.414 We know this because of the pythagorean theorum. Also, if 1×1=2…what does 1×2 equal? 3? Essentially, your reverse engineering of complex binomial and trinomial equations leading you to 1×1=2 doesn’t take into account the fact that multiplication is a function of addition. For instance 1×3 is the same as 1+1+1 Due to the definitions of math, you can’t describe multiplication without addition. Essentially your process of determining that 1×1=2 pretty much changes the definition of the + sign and the x sign . So, what you’re actually saying is 1+1=2…just changing the symbol of what the plus sign and multiplication sign actually mean. Please stop driving yourself crazy thinking about this. Math was described a long time ago…and using your method with make higher level math like calculus and statistics impossible.
No it means they have the same strengths and values, the modus operandi is way different. EJ has consistent high energy + IP has inconsistent energy that's typically low. How in the world could mirrors of those types go about doing(action) anything the same way? Content does not equal form.Quote:
Originally Posted by domr
It's why EIE have earned an archetype of the popular mean girl, while IEI the loner who doesn't know how to communicate with peers. Content-wise, both have a fundamental disconnect with others stemming from (what I believe to be) the weaknesses of Si super ego, but there isn't a soul who would confuse one for the other.
8 Blocks = MO
+J/Choleric, -P/Melancholic = Temperament
EI+ and IE- are the same MO. Both are trying to gain consumer insights. What do humans desire? What are their hopes, dreams, wishes? EI+ (Prophet) is focused on guiding, communicating and influencing people to those goals while IE- (Oracle) is focused on discovering those insights. Same MO, different temperament.
Modus Operandi - a particular way or method of doing something, especially one that is characteristic or well-established.
You just listed two different ones.
Of doing life. Both do life the same way, with consumer insights. This is arguing semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
P.S. When comparing types you want to compare them at their best, not at their worst or near worst. Teenager years is the worst, the beginning of a person getting competent. As they mature, EI+ and IE- are going to coverage and will be much more similar to each other than any other type.
Arguing semantics is arguing meaning. So yeah, obviously. The person asked a question, you answered in a way that makes the meaning they can draw from that answer misleading. You used the wrong word. They don't do life the same way. They see life the same way. The topic is about appearances. Modus Operandi is about actions. Who someone is on the inside is not visible to anyone. What you do is the only thing people can see. IEE-Fi & EII-Ne do not act similar enough to confuse with each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by domr
I don't think you have a good understanding of types. They aren't just what a person does on the inside. People communicate and enact their thinking in reality. As I said, both IE- and EI+ have the same MO which is consumer insights. Their primary decisions will be on -I+E.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
With regards to IE+E and EI-I, they will be even closer to each other than IE+ and EI-. This is because of how we create the subtypes. Subtypes are defined to have stronger ODD functions (incl. creative) and weaker EVEN functions (incl. leading). IE+I = IE+ and EI-E = EI-. The two subtypes, IE+E and EI-I are basically hybrids of the two types.
Look at the chart below to see why.
Code:-E+I
-E4+I3, -E3+I4
-E4+I3, -E3.7+I3.3, -E3.3+I3.7, -E3+I4
(-/+) Subjective/Objective
I/E = Intuition/Ethic
# = Differentiation (Dimension)
by dichotomies
IEE is more similar to SEE. Quantitative shifts in balances of functions (the only adequate "subtypes") have lesser influence, than types - what is evident - and hence subtypes are practically useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delilah
While if to take into account different baseless bs like thinking styles or other - than can be gotten anything.
"more similar" is a matter of perspective, since it depends on what information the judger is picking up and comparing. from some points of view IEE and ESI are more alike, which is the basis for supervision--maximal information transfer. different points of view, namely those viewed from the outside in terms of gross behavior alone without respect to cognitive style or other internal processes, will see more in common with SEE... if you throw out cognitive styles altogether as well as understanding most introverted processes, and also have a low res in general understanding of Fi, what is left is that IEE and SEE are basically the same except SEE is more forceful and IEE is more imaginative. its not that this is wrong, but it entails stripping out all the things that differentiate them up front, and results as a consequence of the person viewing them, not a reflection on their ultimate similarities or differences. the truth is people always want to frame things as either/or, when the reality is closer to all types are equally different and similar. when sol says compare traits he is not off base in this regard, you will notice almost everyone has about 50% common in traits with one another, the only difference is which ones. the ones that stick out the most are rooted in who is doing the judging, thus the tendency to priveledge some differences, i.e.: traits, as more meaningful
Subtypes are heresy, but a simple way to answer your question would be to read the bullshit subtype descriptions of each type and compare them. If you can’t do this on your own you are hopeless. It won’t be very useful though, since subtypes are heretic bs. But at least it’ll be better than the different baseless opinions of non-authorities here.
They aren't BS. If you interact with enough maintypes then you'll be able to identify subtypes. I'm IE+I and I get along much better with ES+S and LI+I because we are all P subtypes. In practice the subtypes act more like the opposite -/+ so ES+S is more like SE-E; less Choleric and more Melancholic temperament.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffer
This is so wrong. Are you serious? You have 5k posts and you think IE+ and SE+ are basically the same. Do you even Model A bro. 4 out of 8 functions are different between the types. Completely different Quadras and Families. SE+ and IE+ are only similar at a superficial +P level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
Take your made up codes and put them up back up your ass where they came from charlatan.Quote:
Originally Posted by domr
I was pointing out a conclusion, not my conclusion, about how if you strip out everything that otherwise differentiates them up front, that's the low res picture you end up with
And put some glass shards up there too while you’re at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by domr
Innovate all you want. I will felch your anus along with broken shards of glass, and drain out all your life force and creativity.Quote:
Originally Posted by domr
And you’d better get used to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by domr
Me being fixed to your butthole that is.
I am honestly flabbergasted that you could write a sentence like "Types aren't just what a person does on the inside" and then follow it up with "both IE- and EI+ have the same MO which is consumer insights". And not detect the irony. Insight is entirely internal, isn't an MO, and Consumer Insight is about selling products.Quote:
Originally Posted by domr
"People communicate and enact their thinking in reality" Yes. And where the IEE and EII differ the greatest(This is intertype relations 101) is enacting that similar thinking into reality. Ref. Mirror. Theres a reason why people can confuse themselves with their mirror, and yet its rare for someone else to do so. While at the same time that person would never confuse themselves with their super-ego, and yet a stranger might. Or why Look-a-like is a term used for a type in the same temperament. This is because Temperament is the single biggest factor in the expression of ones IEs. You know, someone's M.O. Temperament is what stands out the most. This is the root of the argument. This is what they are asking about.
"With regards to IE+E and EI-I, they will be even closer to each other than IE+ and EI-. "
yes.
"Subtypes are defined to have stronger ODD functions (incl. creative) and weaker EVEN functions (incl. leading)"
No. Half are. Base subtypes are the reverse... and I think you're mix-matching odd and even.
"IE+E and EI-I are basically hybrids of the two types."
Sloppy. You are equating Strength with function. Weakening base & bolstering creative does not do anything about function order. Bolstering creative means youre also bolstering Role and weakening PolR. Because elements grow in strength with use, if it is bolstered, it is used more than typical for the type.
So, Imagine an IEE who uses Ne less than normal, and uses Se more than normal, all while the Fi is being used more than normal as a contact function. Unless you don't know what creative does, there's little chance you would mistake those behaviors for EII-Ne. An EII-Ne's control of Se is going to be atrocious. And IEE-Fi's control of Se is going to be surprisingly refined.
The closest match to this in the Socion is SEE-Fi, who uses Se less than normal, Ne more than normal and Fi is being used more than normal as a contact function.
Introvert, extravert, J or P
What problem are you trying to solve here? Are you perhaps trying to find out whether you are IEE or EII yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Delilah
Semantics & Metaphor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
You just contradicted yourself. 1 is blocks. 2 is temperament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
C4/C2/U4/U2 are even. Leading/Role/Demonstrative/MobilizingQuote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
If half the functions were stronger creative subtypes would be stronger than leading subtypes. leading subtypes would have total function strength of 20 while creative would be more than 20. That doesn't work.
That's exactly how Jung explained it. In Socionics, the strength of the functions comes from the dimensionally. So to bolster a function means to increase it's strength.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
I never said it does. Like I said, it makes leading ~3.7D instead of 4D and all functions get scaled accordingly. Order is the same but strength changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
That doesn't make any sense. Role function opposes creative. +P vs -J. If you were to strength both, it would negate the changes in temperament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
Plus in reality, creative subtypes appear more balanced and have a better use of both suggestive and vulnerable functions.
Again you don't seem to even understand basic Model A block theory. SE+ has completely different blocks than IE+ or EI-Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
Oh, you just don't know much, ok. You're not arguing my conclusions, your arguing structural axioms. Not going to make sense to you until you read it yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by domr
Your reading comprehension might be why everyone who's been here for 5-10 years is disagreeing with you. The bolded doesn't contradict. Semantics doesn't mean meaningless it means meaning. Creative is an even numbered function, Base is odd. Creative and Base subtypes don't strengthen the same functions. Maybe you don't mean that, but your words say that. Which is why I said your being sloppy with your words.
@Pookie
That's exactly correct. I am arguing axioms because your conclusions don't follow the axioms which means they are not real.
As I said, I define even as C4/C2/U4/C2. I'm not using the illogical geometric black/white figure model because it's not correct.
Define C4.Quote:
Originally Posted by domr
Conscious LV4/D4 i.e. Leading FunctionQuote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
Example: SE-Quote:
Originally Posted by domr
This is the psyche of the SE- type. If you want to create a subtype then you need to modify this diagram. That's the axiomatic way to create subtypes. With this system the only way to do that would be the change the function strength.Code:Subjective | Objective
S-4 | E-3 [Ego]
Conscious I-2 | L-1 [Super-Ego]
----------------|-----------------
Unconscious E-4 | E-3 [Id]
L-2 | I-1 [Super Id]
I'm impressed anyone got pookie to talk so much :content:
more DarkAngelFireWolf69 heresy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrBJ...=youtu.be&t=41
@Bertrand
DarkAngelFireWolf69 is totally clueless to intuitive ethics @1:40, also called maturity. People learn and grow and they develop other aspects to themselves besides the leading function. Does he not understand Model A has 8 functions and not 1?
Ambivert does not exist because a person would be indifferent between functions. It would freeze them. The entire reason we have function strengths is to get around this indifference problem.
I'm going to borrow "depth of interactions" because that's a good point
so I actually think there are more base similarities between IEE-Fi + EII-Fi and IEE-Ne + EII-Ne
tl;dr IEE-Fi is what would happen if you fed EII-Fi a bunch of MDMA, whereas EII-Ne is what would happen if you fed IEE-Ne a bunch of Xanax
IEE-Fi seeks depth in their interactions, but they do so while "planting seeds" across a wide spectrum (work, school, extracurriculars) in stereotypical Ep fashion, but they're still not Dostoevsky, so it doesn't magically become a matter of deepening emotional bonds between other people, it's just making friends on an individual basis across a wide spectrum, and they do so in almost a Dostoevsky way - think Huxley motivation (Ne) Dostoevsky method (Fi)
EII-Ne seeks depth in their interactions, and they might collect their friends from various places (work, school, extracurriculars), but eventually they'll want to bring those friends into a single place, so there's an attachment at play (and by that I mean static bonds, Fi) and their means of communication is less about kindness, even if it's still there, it's more about connecting through common interests - think Dostoevsky motivation (Fi) Huxley method (Ne)
I don't usually like using forumites as examples, but in this case, I remember I recognized more immediate similarities between Raver and Subteigh, than I did between Subteigh and myshkin, but after I spent more time on the forum, I began to see growing similarities between Subteigh and myshkin
I've read 2 EII-Ne subtype descriptions, one by DarkAngelFireWolf69 and the other one i can't recall who it was written by (Meged? rings a bell? ). Anyway, the differences weren't very clear to me. Are there any other subtype descriptions i am missing out on? Thanks
Read the Fi-EII and Fi-IEE descriptions and see if any of them fit you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Delilah
http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/t...INFj/subtypes/
http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/t...ENFp/subtypes/
Both are at the bottom.
Hey Raver,Quote:
Originally Posted by Raver
thanks for the links. I'll read them. However, I'm very intrigued by the EII-Ne subtype. Both, for seeing if it fits and for understanding that subtype better. Are there any other ones out there? I kinda vaguely recall having read something by Beskova (i think that was their name....?) a few years back and can't seem to locate it now. Thanks.
@consentingadult: only partially my interest in this started as i was wavering between 3 Fi-ego types, and then continued to read as it was still intriguing and i made the thread after i realized that even having read the subtype articles i was having difficulties differentiating between EII -NE and IEE for instance. Thanks for your comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by consentingadult
I'm Fi-IEE - sometimes I relate a lot to ESIs more than SEEs despite being us both being EPs. I read about a Fi-SEE who felt the same about EIIs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delilah
Yeah. IEE's and ESI might both perceive offensive humor as very bad.. They are both "feel good" people. Like everyone should be OK with it. SEE's usually have much less problem with division and I might say that this even applies to EII's in some limits and these are not really so much "feel good" people.Quote:
Originally Posted by inabox
I think it’s because IEE and ESI both share -Fi and SEE and EII both share +Fi. Being ethical types, their style of ethics is probably the most important thing that bridges their relationships with people - including the two Ep types who aren’t ethical base. IEE and ESI are both the type of people you’d expect at a protest, for example, because of the nature of -Fi. SEE and EII are more harmonic, I think, even if SEE is more bold than IEE (they still try to get along generally and aren’t as hostile as -Fi; I’ve noticed my IEE friend has a quick temper and there’s a line you can’t cross with her otherwise she’s ruthless and ESIs are famously the same way).Quote:
Originally Posted by inabox
Anyways, I think the difference between IEE and EII is pretty big regardless of subtype. IEE is a lot more risqué and morally ambiguous; not that they don’t have morals but you’ll notice they do and justify things that an EII never would. Basically, differences in temperament which can be stark.
I’m quite, calm, not a lot of energy and I don’t show much excitement and enthrallment
I think Fi-subtype IEE (and Fi-SEEs I suppose) are less inclined to be morally ambiguous. At least I perceive that difference between myself and Ne-IEEs (with one of them I was like, the f-k? But then all types can have uhh moral ickiness). But still, immnot morally unambiguous as my Ne-EII sister whom I look up to.Quote:
Originally Posted by flames
This is what have I noticed about the differences between the IEEs I know (myself included) and the EIIs. I'm considering EII-NE and IEE-FI, but many of the things I will say also apply to the other subtypes.
I believe there are frequent mistakes in considering Fi in these two types, which appears to everyone as a system of rigid values for the EII and adaptable for the IEE. But this is not the case, and it is the reason why many ENFps tend to be typed as INFj. Speaking about these two subtypes will help me better explain what I mean.
Communication:
- An IEE in general has a very straightforward way of speaking or writing. He tend to send a lot of separate messages, as if he were launching into the discussion brainstormed informations that in their mind are perfectly connected as a whole, but which on paper are much more difficult to understand for those who read due to the lack of a structure of the argument (Ti PolR). However, thanks to their high knowledge in what interests them, they are able to construct excellent metaphors or using specific terms that mitigate the defects caused by the lack of shape, so they still manage to communicate their message.
The Fi subtype understands the importance of its thought structure, and over time develops a high interest in improving its exposure.
They are better at speaking out, making far fewer mistakes than when they chat on socials. They're better "on the spot".
- An EII-Ne on the other hand in their messages prefers a more concise type of expression. Often in their discussions they write a single message explaining their point of view, trying to avoid brainstorming (fearing to say something wrong and make people misunderstand them). PolR Se, so they try to they try to avoid arguing, and always answer quietly enough even in quarrels. They initially lack adequate knowledge but their argument have a better structure, unlike the IEE which immediately have a high abstract power, but which lack shape (which improves with time). They need more time to be able to present a dialogue clearly in a real life speech. This is why they are very fond of writing, which gives them time to organize their thoughts.
How they act and what they like:
- Iee prefer to produce or consume works that show (such as manga and comics, or movies) rather than novels (books), perceiving writing as limiting (but they still could be interested in reading and writing, just less than EII-Ne).
They are more impulsive. They are not afraid to say what they think clearly if they know they are right and have little fear of the consequences. For this reason they can easily antagonize people. They treat others well and with an apparent great interest, but could feel a certain detachment from others at the same time. It's not they are fake, but they always want to happear optimistic. They hardly idealize someone for too long.
The IEE-Fi subtype places a greater value on self-improvement (which pursues abstract paths). He has less confidence in his blind feelings and for this reason he can be at times more rigid in his emotions than the EII (more willing to sacrifice himself for his loved one and to put dignity in the background).
For the IEE-Fi, his values appear something to be reached in a perfect state, appearing almost outside of themself, not perfectly internalized, lacking confidence in them. Values are too important to be bent in the present moment, this is because they are very tied to the vision they have of themselves. An EII is very confident about his choices and because of this, even by behaving differently from how he preaches, he is still sure that he is doing the right thing. He infacts bends his logic (Role Ti) to his feeling, "rationalizing" his choices (and it can appear very contradictory on the outside). The IEE has a hard time doing so: Ti PolR makes him hard to rationalize for himself something. For this reason he needs external confirmation more, because he is unsure.
This is important because I consider a bias that EII have true strong values and the IEE care less about them. EIIs have barriers that appear inexpugnable, but in life they very often do the same things they criticize of others because "in my case it is right for reasons X, Y, Z" (Ti role).IEEs have fewer initial barriers but lie less to themselves because they just can't create personal rationalities, which would be fake. They have more clarity about how they act towards others and what they preach (for this reason they find excessive barriers to entry unnecessary).
- I disagree on defining the EII-Ne subtype as necessarily more extraverted. Indeed, often a greater focus on the abstract (EII-Ne) extinguishes some of the type's interest in the real world of action. EII-Fi in my experience are much more present. EII-Ne's energy flows more in abstraction (Ne), and therefore they are more extroverted only in the communication of ideas related to media and ideas in general. But in everyday life they are much more introverted. This is a clear difference which, in my opinion, divides EII-Ne from IEE-Fi a lot.
Personal identification:
- I have noticed that my EII-FI friends tend to be more rebellious, but often only in "words" . They maximize the safety of friends and loved ones by trying not to provoke anyone. But there is a desire for rebellion dampened by themselves. Every EII-FI I've met loves ESI characters, precisely because they are more "active" versions of themselves: Same dominant but different auxiliar function. It's a sort of ideal self.
- EII-Ne, on the other hand, prefer IEE (IEE-Fi more) characters (their mirror), because they tend more to the idealization of their auxiliar function rather than dominant, without never reaching confidence in it, exactly like IEE-Fi do with Fi! Ironic, but they all love spiderman (precisely the ENFp versions) and they identify a lot with them, while remaining very different in the everyday life. It's like "I feel to be like them" but they aren't actually chiller. Too many personal barriers to do it.
Fi-IEE = ENFps who are cynical/judgmental, take themselves seriously and act like karens sometimes. Polite enough but don't suffer fools and can be surprisingly conservative socially in some respects (even when they're left wing). Examples: Ana Kasparian from the Young Turks, Tucker Carlson, Ellen Degeneres, Cole Sprouse
Ne-EII = EIIs that are dynamic, bubbly and have a good sense of humor. Can be more down to earth, accepting and fun than some Fi-IEEs ironically. Examples: the twitch streamer xqc, Andrew Garfield, Robert Pattinson
I didn't know what "karen" meant so I googled it and found a youtube video which illustrates this... behavior. The youtuber Girl "SSSinperWolf" has almost 40 million subscribers :eek: !Quote:
Originally Posted by Averroes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_dYdyT08K0
SEI - IEE ?? .
I don't know many Deltas. I wonder if I look too Se that I scare them off and they don't approach me or what it is. I really have relatively few friends in Serious quadra, the vast majority of people I consider close friends are Beta STs creative function subtypes and some ILE-Ti and a few gammas and Beta NFs here and there... most of my friends are female.
However, from what it seems to me like what I've observed afar of IEE-Fi and EII-Ne, is that IEE-Fi are more depressed and outwardly calm and they tend to fear things going wrong, yet they're likely to help someone even if they don't like them. EII-Ne seem a bit more willing to be aggressive in defense of their ideas actually. IEE-Fi are a bit faster in conversation and perception and they tend to hold onto relationships that aren't working well for them. IEE-Fi are physically stronger and more enduring than EII-Ne, and IEE-Fi are a bit more diplomatic and openly thin-skinned. IEE-Fi project more sex signals. They're more similar to an SEE-Fi (but IEE-Fi are still not really societal and into image creating and achievements quite as much as SEE-Fi or other Gamma SFs) while EII-Ne is more similar to an LII-Ne. IEE-Fi don't constantly look up factual info and observe like EII-Ne do. IEE-Fi is more gentle than EII-Ne.
I hope this helps.
All I know is that I cannot relate to the idea that an EII does not have a sense of humor and is super serious, maybe that is the EII-Fi, but it is not me. Ne is an addiction for me, but Fi is a condition. An addiction I am not attached to but I crave, but my condition is attached to me and I can't escape it. But with IEE's, even though we share the same sense of humor and I can follow their thoughts usually, it's the flexibility they have and their way of throwing ideas together that can sometimes seem to contradict that seems to be the first alarming difference I notice, or their willingness to express their Fi, while for me Fi is super private. I notice that on social media alot, I see IEEs posting posts like "Sitting in my car alone before going into the house is self-care." and other posts that are considered relatable, but more Ne posts are funny faces, puns and funny unconventional shocking random statements, while EII NE posts seems to take pride in their "unusual perspective" or "extraordinary" pun, or be really serious when taking about people being fake, them being asked to be fake or some emotional injustice.