Differences between ISFj-ESI and ISFp-SEI

[consentingadult]

It's very easy, if you are really ILE: an SEI will listen endlessly to your theoretical Ne-ramblings, and give you the impression they understand and agree, even when they don't. Your ramblings will be met with disapproval by ESIs, and at best they will argue with you and constantly disagree with most of what you say, opposing it with their own perspective, which you think is rather narrow-minded, outdated and makes you feel they haven't understood a single bit of what you said, that they didn't get the point.

ETA: another thing, SEIs, although not as expressive as ESEs, might laugh boisterous when they think something is very funny. ESIs are more likely to chuckle, or just smile, not even baring their teeth.

[Beautiful sky]

Fi value is more about emotional comfort and Fe is more about humor and not taking the “truth” to heart even if the truth is blunt and very offensive to some; take me for instance, I help out an ILE by giving her business and referring a dual client to her; she could have said, “thanks for being so considerate;” instead what she told me was “well, it's always best to recognize when you're in way over your head and to consider that someone else can cover that role better.” I thought, “really?” that's how you say “thanks?” that hurts my feelings because there was not thanks in that; it was in fact, telling me something about myself that I already knew and because I knew that I acted in the most rational sense which was to refer her and I didn't get a thanks but a criticism of me.

There are so many commonalities between SEI and ESI; both "monitor" or "mediate" their future and idea oriented partners. They both weigh the pros and cons of their partner's suggestions and ideas. They are both Sensory types so both earthen these grand ideas. Both dress well and can seem like they are concerned about their fashion or style of the time, in general. Both are family and kids oriented and both are "home-keepers" in the everyday sense of the word.

[Beautiful sky]

It's very easy, if you are really ILE: an SEI will listen endlessly to your theoretical Ne-ramblings, and give you the impression they understand and agree, even when they don't. Your ramblings will be met with disapproval by ESIs, and at best they will argue with you and constantly disagree with most of what you say, opposing it with their own perspective, which you think is rather narrow-minded, outdated and makes you feel they haven't understood a single bit of what you said, that they didn't get the point.

ETA: another thing, SEIs, although not as expressive as ESEs, might laugh boisterous when they think something is very funny. ESIs are more likely to chuckle, or just smile, not even baring their teeth.

Yes, and that may be because an ESI expects pragmatic, concrete actions. ESI are "very exacting of others. And no one gets away with any irresponsibility."

SEI are more socially expansive than ESI. I, or an EII, unlike and ESI, won't clean to the point of sterilizing the home. They have immense amount of energy that they can lend to tasks.

[The Ineffable]

I forgot where (i'll post it if i find it) but Aushra described SEI/IEI as the "warmest" of the socion, and ESI/EII as the "coldest" of the socion.

No, it was something along the lines that Introversion makes Logic colder but Ethics warmer, or something like that. For instance EII is warmer than IEE but LII is colder than ILE. I don't remember exactly but it was about Logic colder and Ethics warmer, certainly Fi-Base are not the coldest of the Socion.

[717495]

Aw maritsa. You always have a way for words.

[FDG]

Yes, and that may be because an ESI expects pragmatic, concrete actions. ESI are "very exacting of others. And no one gets away with any irresponsibility."

That's not an accurate characterization for a horizontal relationship - how do you think ESIs could get along with dominants by being "very exacting"?. If you have an ESI boss or neurotic mother, that might be true, even though they tendentially act in such a way when they are stressed and insecure as to what to do next.

[EyeSeeCold]

certainly Fi-Base are not the coldest of the Socion.

Who is?

[Radio]

Cold to whom?

[mfckr]

I wanna hear ENTj POV on ESIs and SEIs.

On surface impressions, ESI and SEI can seem similar IME. Both tend to be approachable, somewhat warm, playful, etc. The term 'quasi-identical' can be taken literally in this respect.

Differences become markedly salient once psychological distance is tightened, however. Invariably, a lot of what I discuss tends to be more philosophical in nature—including observations of people, generalizations about life, history, etc. SEIs usually don't have a lot of patience for this sort of thing, at least coming from me. But ESIs will tend to find it interesting.

[717495]

Oh true. SEIs I've known are like hmm and just ignore it, or else they don't know what to make of it like it's too abstract. I guess that's what being dominant does to you and why they need ILEs to spell principles out for them. On the contrary ESIs seem to go along with whatever it is and help generalize in their own way, that's part of their charm too.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Oh true. SEIs I've known are like hmm and just ignore it, or else they don't know what to make of it like it's too abstract. I guess that's what being dominant does to you and why they need ILEs to spell principles out for them. On the contrary ESIs seem to go along with whatever it is and help generalize in their own way, that's part of their charm too.

Now explain mune the ostensible SEI being a philosophile, or my SLI chum having a philosophy degree.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Mune as in EII mune?

I haven't scrutinized him too closely but he says he's SEI, and I have zero doubts about my SLI friend's type. He's a bit like me in various ways except he's rather more pointedly sadistic, he likes mountain climbing, and he'd would rather kill babies than eat them.

I wasn't being overly specific anyway, I think well-balanced individuals of any type can be.

And I am being specific to point out that your generalization stands a fair chance of being flawed, which you've shown the good sense to concede.

[717495]

Mune as in EII mune? I wasn't being overly absolute, I think well-balanced individuals of any type can be. Just I tend to see Ni-agendas taking this philosophical openness toward the unknown more than I do Ne-dual seekers, since Ne is often based on more objective conceptions, like SLI philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer is based around concrete qualia. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...hopenhauer.htm

[Korpsy Knievel]

overly absolute

^ Nice one. I hope the next edit bears even more fantastic fruit.

[717495]

I haven't scrutinized him too closely but he says he's SEI,

Except that he doesn't know much about how ExIs actually are? Maybe if we hold hands, go back to basics and read Jung. I have no problem with yours or his disagreement on the matter, just no info I take into consideration to my generalization on SEIs.

and I have zero doubts about my SLI friend's type. He's a bit like me in various ways except he's rather more pointedly sadistic, he likes mountain climbing, and he'd would rather kill babies than eat them.

Ah ok, I wasn't implying he's not SLI because he's interested in philisophy. I think logical types will show more interest in such technical designations on average anyway.

And I am being specific to point out that your generalization stands a fair chance of being flawed, which you've shown the good sense to concede.

Flawed is such a general word. Also saying I agree with Ashton, so something you might take up with him too since you're mirror chums.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Except that he doesn't know much about how ExIs actually are? Maybe if we hold hands, go back to basics and read Jung. I have no problem with yours or his disagreement on the matter, just no info I take into consideration to my generalization on SEIs.

That's a poor dodge. ExI* isn't Si-base/-ego and you know that that isn't the point of dissent. Also, if you missed it in the catbox, mune says he'll probably add his two cents to this thread tomorrow.

Also saying I agree with Ashton, so something you might take up with him since you're chums.

Dude, show some dignity.

Ah ok, I wasn't implying he's not SLI because he's interested in philisophy. I think logical types will show more interest in such technical designations on average anyway.

Puffery. You said quite clearly in reference not just to SEIs but to Si-bases in general, i.e. SLIs too:

Oh true. SEIs I've known are like hmm and just ignore it, or else they don't know what to make of it like it's too abstract. I guess that's what being dominant does to you and why they need ILEs to spell principles out for them. On the contrary ESIs seem to go along with whatever it is and help generalize in their own way, that's part of their charm too.

But we can let you halfway off your petard because your original argument is anecdotal, so it's possible you've yet to encounter SEIs or Si-base types who can plunge in the abstraction pool without inflatable swimmy-wings.

Flawed is such a general word.

Walk it off, guy. Walk it off.

[FDG]

and he'd would rather kill babies than eat them.

Yeah, reasonable over resolute, clearly.

[717495]

That's a poor dodge. ExI* isn't Si-base/-ego and you know that that isn't the point of dissent. Also, if you missed it in the catbox, mune says he'll probably add his two cents to this thread tomorrow.

Dude, show some dignity.

Your point?

Puffery. You said quite clearly in reference not just to SEIs but to Si-bases in general, i.e. SLIs too:

"and why they need ILEs to spell principles out for them." Your point?

But we can let you halfway off your petard because your original argument is anecdotal, so it's possible you've yet to encounter SEIs or Si-base types who can plunge in the abstraction pool without inflatable swimmy-wings.

Not many, but I did make a reference to the type of philosophizing I see Si doms go into, which is more or less what I think Ashton had in mind with his problems with SEIs. I was just stating my agreement.

But in your exacting principle-seeking, this is something you can take up with him and speak the Gamma-lingo, like I already suggested. Let me know what you find out.

[Korpsy Knievel]

That's a poor dodge. ExI* isn't Si-base/-ego and you know that that isn't the point of dissent. Also, if you missed it in the catbox, mune says he'll probably add his two cents to this thread tomorrow.

Your point?

The dispute is over whether SxI are capable of digesting and working with abstractions, not properties of ExIs as understood by this party or that. However you already know that.

Dude, show some dignity.

Your point?

You're a nine.

Puffery. You said quite clearly in reference not just to SEIs but to Si-bases in general, i.e. SLIs too:

Your point?

A very niney nine.

Not many, but I did make a reference to the type of philosophizing I see Si doms go into, which is not exactly what I think Ashton had in mind with his problems with SEIs. I was just stating my agreement.

"Not many" as in none, per your original description. This implicit allusion you're claiming as a reference to types of abstraction looks like post hoc ass-covering. Either way, thanks for the Se-polr demo, Ne-EII/E9.

[717495]

I think you're too absolutist/read into things only the way you want. You might take some lesson from Lenore Thomson et cetera on developing your second function more, I'll send you her book.

[Korpsy Knievel]

I think you're too absolutist/read into things only the way you want. You might take some lesson from Lenore Thomson et cetera on developing your second function more, I'll send you her book.

Stick with art, smoke-blower.

[717495]

Stick with art, smoke-blower.

You've yet to make a point this whole thread. So whether you restate the obvious or give some unproven fact, it's not helping the topic at hand. You can call it being Ni vs Se-PoLR all you want, it's irrelevant

Step back and learn to comprehend what's being said by the other party before mentally masturbating on the issue. Also give some time for people to respond/word things out. I don't know what your schtick with exactness is, when I and most people on here are being general. It's an inactive social forum. Why I say this is, you seem to take things too literally and miss the point, can't tell if you're doing it on purpose.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Step back and learn to comprehend what's being said by the other party before mentally masturbating on the issue.

Excuse me for having ruined your own wank by highlighting your chosen fantasy's flaws. While it's arguable whether you'd have remained contently oblivious to its errors without being elbowed, I do agree to your subsequent clarification, that Si-doms are likely to be receptive to and creative via certain fields and explanations of philosophy. However, see the concluding summary below.

Also give some time for people to respond/word things out.

06:24 kassie, since you and poli are chums you shoudl explain to him why he ought to use the "preview post" feature instead of repeatedly revising his shit after publication.
06:24 and by should I mean, would you be so kind as to.
06:24 with a question mark
06:24 plz
06:25 he does himself no favors by giving daily tours of his sausage-making factory.

I don't know what your schtick with exactness is, when I and most people on here are being general.

It's useful when generalizing to announce it. Doing so prevents the watchful from raising the alarm when there's shit in the pudding. Btw, nice popular appeal in bold.

You seem to take things too literally, can't tell if you're doing it on purpose either.

I used to wonder the same about the reason for the habitual abandonment of your own perspective in favor of Ashton's whenever he says "But..." Likewise your indignation when that strange capitulation is questioned. I'd held out hope that it was actually a sly prank you were pulling, but now I can see that it isn't. So, 9w1 sp/sx it is. But in response to your implicit question, logical inconsistencies and demonstrable falsehoods capture my attention automatically. Verbalizing corrections to them is volitional.

And on that note, my first objection was to your original blanket statement: SxIs as Si-doms are incapable of adroitly handling abstractions. It's since been shown that the absolutism of your binary argument leads to false conclusions, which, though you're presently too sour to admit it, you've already realized by altering your stance in a manner that accommodates greater reality and rationality. Good job. Feel free to lecture me on aesthetics in return when it suits your whimsy.

[Korpsy Knievel]

So far all you've done is be nitpicky and overly literal and I can see my own attempt at it has excited you. But no, you're still confused.

Then trim your shaggy logic down to an acceptable fuzziness and point out where I've gone wrong instead of making unsubstantiated assertions. But if that's too much effort just wait for Ashton to explain to you what I've said.

[717495]

Excuse me for having ruined your own wank by highlighting your chosen fantasy's flaws. While it's arguable whether you'd have remained contently oblivious to its errors without being elbowed, I do agree to your subsequent clarification, that Si-doms are likely to be receptive to and creative via certain fields and explanations of philosophy. However, see the concluding summary below.



It's useful when generalizing to announce it. Doing so prevents the watchful from raising the alarm when there's shit in the pudding. Btw, nice popular appeal in bold.



I used to wonder the same about the reason for the habitual abandonment of your own perspective in favor of Ashton's whenever he says "But..." Likewise your indignation when that strange capitulation is questioned. I'd held out hope that it was actually a sly prank you were pulling, but now I can see that it isn't. So, 9w1 sp/sx it is. But in response to your implicit question, logical inconsistencies and demonstrable falsehoods capture my attention automatically. Verbalizing corrections to them is volitional.

This here is your own game. Have no idea how you pull it out your ass and if it's directed towards me.

And on that note, my first objection was to your original blanket statement: SxIs as Si-doms are incapable of adroitly handling abstractions. It's since been shown that the absolutism of your binary argument leads to false conclusions, which, though you're presently too sour to admit it, you've already realized by altering your stance in a manner that accommodates greater reality and rationality. Good job. Feel free to lecture me on aesthetics in return when it suits your whimsy.

This here is your problem with direct comprehension. You're too hyper-literal, I never said anything 100% literal nor do I refer to every SEI I know. This is your invention.

06:24 kassie, since you and poli are chums you shoudl explain to him why he ought to use the "preview post" feature instead of repeatedly revising his shit after publication.
06:24 and by should I mean, would you be so kind as to.
06:24 with a question mark
06:24 plz
06:25 he does himself no favors by giving daily tours of his sausage-making factory.

. No this just shows how into it you really are. I still treat this place as a light discussion forum, not some talent show for poetry reading.

[717495]

Then trim your shaggy logic down to an acceptable fuzziness and point out where I've gone wrong instead of making unsubstantiated assertions. But if that's too much effort just wait for Ashton to explain to you what I've said.

You've said so much but so very little

[Korpsy Knievel]

This here is your own game. Have no idea how you pull it out your ass and if it's directed towards me.

This is an interesting projection considering that I just explained the exact opposite.

This here is your problem with direct comprehension. You're too hyper-literal, I never said anything 100% literal nor do I refer to every SEI I know. This is your invention.

Observe, via a few underlined additions, how clearly stating your original meaning (supposing this is what you actually meant at the time instead of pretending to later) would have prevented me from pointing out that your shoes are untied:

Oh true. Many SEIs I've known are like hmm and just ignore it, or else they don't know what to make of it like it's too abstract. I guess that's what being dominant can do to you and why they sometimes need ILEs to spell principles out for them. On the contrary most ESIs seem to go along with whatever it is and help generalize in their own way, that's part of their charm too.

Reading! Writing! How do they work?!?

Even if you go full van Gogh and impressionistically represent a scene with swirls and blobs it still looks like the horrifying potato field or stunning starry dome it was modeled upon. Likewise, despite the smudges and smears you've dabbed upon your original sketch, from beginning to end there's no mistaking that you're full of shit.

. No this just shows how into it you really are. I still treat this place as a light discussion forum, not some talent show for poetry reading.

What's showing is your love of contortionism in corners. Also:

Aw maritsa. You always have a way for words.

O:

You've said so much but so very little

In recognition of your inability to explain my error in any way but chanting "I CAN'T HEAR YOU I CAN'T HEAR YOU I CAN'T HEAR YOU", I hereby accept your passive-aggressive surrender. And as establishment of law is due the victor within the spoils of war, let the word go forth:

I got the last word, buttface.

[717495]

ILI clusterfuckery.

[consentingadult]

On surface impressions, ESI and SEI can seem similar IME. Both tend to be approachable, somewhat warm, playful, etc. The term 'quasi-identical' can be taken literally in this respect.

Differences become markedly salient once psychological distance is tightened, however. Invariably, a lot of what I discuss tends to be more philosophical in nature—including observations of people, generalizations about life, history, etc. SEIs usually don't have a lot of patience for this sort of thing, at least coming from me. But ESIs will tend to find it interesting.

I can assure you that SEIs have a lot of patience listening to observations of people, generalizations about life, history etc., when it is provided by Ne-base types ;-) FWIW, I have noticed my GF is often very dismissive when she sees LIEs (and to a lesser extent ILIs) on TV. Sometimes she even asks me: "Now is that a Gamma?"

[Beautiful sky]

That's not an accurate characterization for a horizontal relationship - how do you think ESIs could get along with dominants by being "very exacting"?. If you have an ESI boss or neurotic mother, that might be true, even though they tendentially act in such a way when they are stressed and insecure as to what to do next.

In the exacting attitude, they help to ground their inventive, venturing duals and also participate in their business.

[munenori2]

Mune as in EII mune? I wasn't being overly absolute, I think well-balanced individuals of any type can be. Just I tend to see Ni-agendas taking this philosophical openness toward the unknown more than I do Ne-dual seekers, since Ne is often based on more objective conceptions, like SLI philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer is based around concrete qualia. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...hopenhauer.htm

Oh god. Look I know you see us as identical shadow clones or something, but my type really doesn't have anything to do with the particular claims you're making or all the backpedaling you've done in this thread.

Except that he doesn't know much about how ExIs actually are? Maybe if we hold hands, go back to basics and read Jung. I have no problem with yours or his disagreement on the matter, just no info I take into consideration to my generalization on SEIs.

You do realize you sound like a tool when you insist on a generalization regardless of any information or arguments someone might make before you've even heard them.

The crux of what you're trying to say seems to be that having Ne as a suggestive function makes one capable of dealing in philosophy in a 'concrete' sense (not sure what you mean by that or what a few quotes by a guy is supposed to communicate) and sort of dismiss abstractions with a ho hum derpishness. On the other hand, Ne-PoLRs with Ni as hidden agenda renders one fully capable of abstract thinking. Or to put it in your words:

Oh true. SEIs I've known are like hmm and just ignore it, or else they don't know what to make of it like it's too abstract. I guess that's what being

dominant does to you and why they need ILEs to spell principles out for them. On the contrary ESIs seem to go along with whatever it is and help generalize in their own way, that's part of their charm too.

Abstract vs Concrete

So unless you've got some idiosyncratic definitions of these terms, should we expect Si-doms incapable of categorizations, logical relationships, concepts such as mathematics, truth, justice, physical principles governing phenomena? Whereas abstractions such as these are accepted easily without objection by xSIs?

I'll save my personal account of why I enjoyed philosophy, what I got from it, how I use it and how I can't very well, as you won't give a shit since we're mind twins and I know neither what it means to be ESI, EII nor obviously SEI. Furthermore, I'd also like to note objections over how useful a generalization you're even holding, since you maintain that it is counterevidenced by well-balanced individuals, among other things. Though who knows, maybe you also hold that most people are pretty fucked up.

Terminological notes

Suggestive Function

The suggestive function is also called the dual-seeking function. The subject finds it difficult to be overwhelmed by this element, since it perfectly complements and drives the activity of the leading function. The more it is present in his daily life, the more he will naturally adapt to its presence (see dualization). They are easily entertained by this kind of information, and its sustained presence creates a soothing psychological effect. If someone experiences a deficiency of it in his environment, he may attempt to supply it himself, but become soon exhausted. Unlike the mobilizing function, concentrated and prolonged doses from other people are received positively (depending somewhat on the individual's degree of dualization).
People focus deeply on the use of this function in day-to-day life, always attempting to digest information received from the environment through this aspect of reality. This is because it complements the leading function, making an individual not only more understanding but more satisfied about their pursuits in the Ego.

Hidden Agenda

The mobilizing function is also called the activating function and the hidden agenda function. Help in this element is appreciated, but past a certain point is seen as excessive. The subject is more comfortable using this function than the suggestive function but still can only use it sporadically. If he isn't careful and directs it at an individual who does not value it, he will likely meet a harsh response, since they are almost sure to see it as a puerile gesture (more so than when he uses the suggestive function, usage of which comes off as more mature and well-considered, since he takes it more seriously in the first place). The subject's innate lack of balance in the mobilizing function can easily cause him to indulge in it recklessly or to sorely neglect it. It is best used in support of the suggestive function.
If too much of this element is ambient, the person will get bored or even become repelled. He sees it as a necessary part of good living, but not a primary life goal.

[FDG]

In the exacting attitude, they help to ground their inventive, venturing duals and also participate in their business.

That's not what most people think when they see "exacting attitude".

[717495]

I think you're missing the context of what Ashton was talking about partly therein taking the generalization too far like sir corpse did. The idea that Si-PoLRs ultimately find fault with Si due to its specific more down-to-earth nature in cognition isn't a bad claim. I can post quotes by these LIE, ESI, ILE and SEI philosophers and it might shed a bit of light on which from experience most SEIs often lack and Ne dominants seem to provide this more objectivizing basis that they show interest in and wrap their mind around, which is probably a large reason for why many non-philosopher Si doms I know officially study it in terms of Ne being processed and "read", it's a bit different from fully gratifying Ne themselves. I know some SEIs who type INTJ in MBTI, they're interested like anyone else in philosophical quotes and general phrasings and principles about life, yet wouldn't be one to openly meander and enlighten themselves with that heavyness I see in ESIs and Ni-agendea, it's really an opposite feel to one another because ESIs have no objectivizing basis (Ne) nor one to dual-seek, they seem to be engrained into it as a strictly personalized process away from labels and the like. Hopefully I've worded this with simply enough posturing of 'appropriateness' to be considered to hold any merit.

Suggestive Function

[/COLOR]The suggestive function is also called the dual-seeking function. The subject finds it difficult to be overwhelmed by this element, since it perfectly complements and drives the activity of the leading function. The more it is present in his daily life, the more he will naturally adapt to its presence (see dualization). They are easily entertained by this kind of information, and its sustained presence creates a soothing psychological effect. If someone experiences a deficiency of it in his environment, he may attempt to supply it himself, but become soon exhausted. Unlike the mobilizing function, concentrated and prolonged doses from other people are received positively (depending somewhat on the individual's degree of dualization).
People focus deeply on the use of this function in day-to-day life, always attempting to digest information received from the environment through this aspect of reality. This is because it complements the leading function, making an individual not only more understanding but more satisfied about their pursuits in the Ego.

Hidden Agenda

The mobilizing function is also called the activating function and the hidden agenda function. Help in this element is appreciated, but past a certain point is seen as excessive. The subject is more comfortable using this function than the suggestive function but still can only use it sporadically. If he isn't careful and directs it at an individual who does not value it, he will likely meet a harsh response, since they are almost sure to see it as a puerile gesture (more so than when he uses the suggestive function, usage of which comes off as more mature and well-considered, since he takes it more seriously in the first place). The subject's innate lack of balance in the mobilizing function can easily cause him to indulge in it recklessly or to sorely neglect it. It is best used in support of the suggestive function.
If too much of this element is ambient, the person will get bored or even become repelled. He sees it as a necessary part of good living, but not a primary life goal.

This is more or less true.

since we're mind twins

[munenori2]

I feel like if I drilled a hole in my forehead suddenly I would understand everything you've said and how far back you've tracked.

[yellow82]

In my experience: In a nutshell: SEI's can be rather random and tend to always be thinking of others comfort and are less judgmental [at least out loud]. On the other hand, ESI's are stricter and much more likely to be judgmental and may not let something go if they were hurt "too much" by you.

Some other differences I have noticed are: an SEI will go shopping with you and randomly go "oh X would really like that." While ESI's if they're shopping for someone else will have a tendency of already thinking about it before they go shopping. SEI's also may try to pay for dinner if they sense that you're having a bad week/day, while ESI's tend to think that you should just learn to deal with the pain, however on occasion they may take you out to "celebrate" something, but I've never had one pay for a meal when I was feeling down. SEI's will be much more open to hearing how your day went [even if it was a negative day.] While ESI's will generally cut you off as soon as you start getting negative, some are much more tactful at this then others. SEI's tend to not be very scheduled, although they may stick to a to-do list every now and then. ESI's tend to be very organized and scheduled, and often expect others to be just as much as they are and they will get stressed out if you aren't. When an SEI goes to an event they will tend to seek out other people to talk to, while an ESI will often be very awkward and hope and pray that someone will approach them, and if someone does they will in a very polite manner talk to them. [This is a weird one, and I'm not sure if it's true, but:] SEI's tend to get along with all ages, especially those young at heart, while ESI's generally like only those their age or over, they tend to go for more "mature" people. One that I knew only had my brother, I and another friend that were her age at the wedding, and everyone else seemed to be fourty and above. It was really odd. . .

Hopefully this helps.

Also, the difference between duality and conflict is with conflicters you tend to always be stressed out and in the end you're wondering how you can change yourself to make yourself more agreeable to them. While with duals you tend to just go with the flow and be yourself.

[The Ineffable]

Who is?

Try to guess.

[FDG]

I think SEIs are my duals.

[mfckr]

I can assure you that SEIs have a lot of patience listening to observations of people, generalizations about life, history etc., when it is provided by Ne-base types ;-)

Yeah, hence the operative phrase "at least coming from me." TeNi does it differently.

I think SEIs are my duals.

Must be mine too. ESIs sound horrid from yellow82's description.

[Marie84]

Must be mine too. ESIs sound horrid from yellow82's description.

of course they would

[mfckr]

of course they would

Or yellow82 has typed people wrong. Or she's typing unhealthy people with neurotic attributes. Or it's just how ESIs subjectively come across in her perspective. Or some combination thereof.