Not showing emotion is not the same thing as not feeling emotion.
Not showing emotion is not the same thing as not feeling emotion.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
But the measurements are not all the same. People are very different, rarely one can find two with the same psychological or somatic reactions. Of course psychologists can classify them in different classes, and give them generic terms, but that does not tell that all people feel similarly.
That is what I base my conclusion on - and it is not even "my" conclusion - people depict the same experiences differently, sometimes radically different. And I'm not talking about differences in choices of words.
Yeah that is why there is conflict and misunderstanding all around, right? That is why Duality, and Conflict, and Super-Ego and so on exist...
To some they come naturally, you can tell that based on their history and world view.
Yes, but not feeling some emotions doesn't mean hiding them.
Do you people actually believe everyone feels the same? That this society is so uniform and all individuals are so identical? (in feeling and perception) Where do you live, what make you think so? This is something totally new to me... the closest theory reminding me of this uniformity is the communist ideology.
I'm surprised that you say it in this context... but thanks for supporting my point.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Yeah, but if descriptions are of people then they already apply to us; all people have a little of each other in our selves. Se is either in the conscious or subconscious; to cringe at a function as though it were one you loath is to say you cringe at yourself; either your conscious or your subconscious.
You and I will arrive at the same answer from differing perspectives
Me, from internal model of conceptualized people; and you from external perception.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I honestly don't think she's talking about whether these descriptions are accurate or not; she is referring to any description of Se. She just doesn't like Se as though it were another country she doesn't like not because she knows people of that country but as thought the model of that country is a "bad" country. It's a prejudice of something not known but unnecessarily projected fear upon.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
The part of Marie which you quoted: "in the same way that I often cringe at Se dominant descriptions"
She is referring to descriptions.
In particular, descriptions of Se as a dominant function.
And then she specified: "because I don't value it, not because Se base observations portray a negative individual"
Here she clearly stated that it's not that she sees Se base people as negative...
She just doesn't value what the descriptions describe. Which means, she allows herself to feel a like/dislike towards things she values, and things she doesn't. (You know, Fi.)
So she can still like Se dominant people, but dislike the descriptions of Se as a dominant function.
If the descriptions she is reading are inaccurate, then there is no conflict.
If the descriptions she is reading are accurate, then she's saying that the people are not negative, she basically does not relate to them..the opposite of relating. This is in full keeping with Fi...no matter which location the IE is in.
Nothing she has said in this regard is hypocritical.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Yes, I stipulated this as well in my reply. Of course people are complex, and of course they experience many different shades of feelings. But to say that whole sociotypes don't experience an entire basic category of feeling…? Sounds like a stretch to me.
Sure, I definitely believe that intertypes are a factor in influencing empathy and theory of mind between different people.Yeah that is why there is conflict and misunderstanding all around, right? That is why Duality, and Conflict, and Super-Ego and so on exist…
?To some they come naturally, you can tell that based on their history and world view.
Stated another way, Fi PoLR implies something of an exaggerated Fe POV… Fe in a basic and primitive form says, "if a feeling isn't visible, then the feeling didn't happen."I'm surprised that you say it in this context... but thanks for supporting my point.
Uhh, the liking of post 143 was done unintentionally and is in error. If i could take it off, i would.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
<.< I call bullshit. I'm MBTI ISFP (certain of that now) :\ and I value Fi-Te Se-Ni, this essentially makes me ESI and I'm not hyper judgmental or structured in any way. In fact I'm more of a go with the flow kind of guy who doesn't even schedule the next morning, let along the entire day lmao. I'm ISFP for fracks sake the freaking concrete utilitarian composer artisan. What the yotz are you talking about? that description sounds like some SJ Si-Ne Fe-Ti ISFJ concrete cooperator.
Big5 rxUa|I| 6w7- 4 - 1 So/Sx
= Fear is a cage where you locked yourself up. Courage & faith in yourself is the key to freedom. =
= Shit happens. Realx and make the most of it. You can not control what is outside of yourself. =
Alignment: Neutral Good-ish / Snarky-Needy Bastard
The post is good. Issue is in your typing.
I think no one will be interested in helping you mixing socionics with MBTI.
I am the opposite of Rim; I'm (prettysureI'm) SEI but relate more to the ESI side of that post.
Look at that subtle off-white coloring. The tasteful thickness of it. Oh my God. It even has a watermark.
1. In retrospect, I'm not sure what I wanted to achieve from my post. Some clarification? Similar experiences? Just showing Rim he wasn't alone? Probably all of the above.
2. That was my first post.
3. Rim was the first poster in this conversation. We are different people with different types.
Look at that subtle off-white coloring. The tasteful thickness of it. Oh my God. It even has a watermark.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Fi base types are more compassionate
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I wish the whole "humanist / moral paragon" thing with Fi would just die already. Being a certain type does not make one an inherently better person. -_-
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
It is an Fi thing to be choosy about people. It has nothing to do with acceptance of others it's about depth
This being selfish and self involved is what I mean by less compassionate
Yes I can be exacting over some things. When someone tells me that they want a relationship with me but hints at just having sex with me there's no consistency and it's a lie so I will get upset and want to know what exactly do they want. I want moral and emotional consistency and for that I will be exacting in that I will ask which does he want. I may seem strict about my wants and needs but only because I know which line I walk on and want to walk on forever. I won't respond until an inconsistency arises (when somethings are said and indicated that go against my values). In that case I only want clarify things "tell me what it is that you want so that I may decide if the relationship is worth it or move on" I want things set in the beginning and not ambiguous and this allows me to seek and have stability which is essencial for my emotional wellbeing. So yes I demand an answer and my demand of a yes/no decide what you want may seem exacting.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 09-16-2016 at 06:14 PM.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Taking into account external factors one might able to see and hear about it.
Being a work horse despite of being well over the age of retirement and gone through multiple cancer diagnosis (yes, it is wise to continue working with hazardous chemicals in that case... ). For example? Or not?
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I don quite understand what it is you want to know?How an ILE would detect being in the presence of on ESI? Well, for example, lets suppose an ILE male is making love to an ESI female. While taking her doggy style, he slaps her ass quite convincingly, and finds out the ESI responds quite positively to it. Now this won't happen this easily, because most ILE males are not into spanking. Like most SEIs are not into being spanked. But even if it were to occur, I wonder if ESIs would accept something like that from en ILE.
Of course I'm talking stereotypes here...
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
You are quite selective in taking aspects from both types and then coming to a conclusion. My rebuttal:
http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...ld-digger.html
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
wow. I come here to read about the differences between SEI and ESI but instead I find inane sibling style arguments that go nowhere except down the rabbit hole. you guys have a propensity for shitting all over informative threads kidding
if you're torn between SEI and ESI for a person who is clearly an introverted sensing ethical type or whatever:
chances are it's an SEI. ime it's extremely rare for people to mistake an ESI for a feeler, but if you're still torn...
throws a histrionic fit? SEI.
believes everything their partner tells them, even if it's painfully clear to everyone else around them that they're being manipulated? SEI.
(^ I'm not even kidding. I've seen several SEIs believe some next level bullshit, they're quite delusional in that regard)
the lazy friend you love to hang out with because they're fun as hell? SEI.
misplaced familiarity that is disconcerting i.e. makes you a v-day card two days after meeting you? SEI.
thinks they're smarter than they actually are? SEI.
fluid movements, good in bed? SEI
not the jealous type - in fact, they can't even fathom the concept of jealousy? SEI.
makes little to no sense when they talk? SEI.
describes themselves as hedonistic? SEI.
triggered by a minor offence that anyone else would've let go of years ago? ESI. or ILE.
doesn't believe a single thing their partner tells them, even if it's painfully clear to everyone else around them that they're adored? ESI.
the often misunderstood friend that you'd entrust with your deepest, darkest secrets? ESI.
goes straight for your jugular if you even attempt to fuck with one of their friends? ESI.
thinks they're dumber than they actually are? ESI.
rigid movements that give the impression they're being maneuvered by a skillful puppeteer? ESI.
inclined to jealousy and possessiveness? ESI.
takes on a more serious tone in conversation, occasionally making a cutting remark? ESI.
describes themselves as intimidating? ESI.
I have no clue why people are describing SEIs as conflict-avoidant. they're generally laidback and fun, I agree, but I've known more than a few to completely ruin an emotional atmosphere by leaving a dramatic shit-storm in their wake. it's still kind of funny to me how negatively ESIs are portrayed on this forum. I have difficulty distinguishing between the two types as well, but I find the easiest way to figure it out, for me, is by assessing my attitude toward them. I'd trust an ESI with my life. I wouldn't trust an SEI with anything except ensuring that we have a good time. although either type can be artistic, SEIs are much more likely to be, whereas ESIs, on average, are more likely to take an interest in pragmatic matters. another big difference is that I've often wondered if the SEIs I know are mentally retarded, whereas ESIs give the impression of suffering from PTSD. SEIs blow up immediately, ESIs fester before blowing up some months later. SEIs are unnecessarily cocky, ESIs are strangely self-deprecating.
Last edited by wasp; 03-16-2017 at 07:48 AM.
The VI difference between ESI and SEI:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BlY3w06HuQy/
SEI in cool, complex colors, ESI in two colors and red jacket.
ESI's seem to think that you feel as they feel. That is the universal fallacy of Fi base. It seems like short circuiting itself.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
ISFj vs ISFp
moralistic vs vigilant
reductionistic vs empathetic
detached vs protectionistic
aloof vs tuned-in
likes conquerors vs likes intellectuals
would like to have more control vs would like to have more vision
prefers productivity vs prefers skillfullness
occasional blindness vs occasional tunnel-vision
planned vs ad hoc
soloist vs team player
what I want vs what they want
objective oriented vs target focus
unsure vs fearful
explosive vs reactionary
wants predictability vs wants security
a.k.a. I/O