Which types do you get tend to have trouble getting along with?

[MensSuperMateriam]

LOL, Amber.

A). I do not spend my time analizing everybody. As I barely know him, I have no reason to question his self-type.
B). That's your opinion, about his type.
C). As usual, you feel the irresistible compulsion of showing yourself "above others" even when nobody is talking to you. Maybe that's the only way you can feel worthy, but self-typing as E5+ESI is a very,very bad sign, both as a proof of lacking any real mental skill and a childish need of feeling worthy.

I think it's pretty clear since our former exchange of words that I have zero interest in interacting with you, although you have continued several times (which I have ignored). This is pointless. So please, be a good gamma, and do not waste your time and mine. Of course you can post whatever shit you want, but you do not need to direct that shit to me.

This is the last time I'll bother to say anything to you. I suggest you do the same.

[Amber]

LOL, Amber.

A). I do not spend my time analizing everybody. As I barely know him, I have no reason to question his self-type.
B). That's your opinion, about his type.
C). As usual, you feel the irresistible compulsion of showing yourself "above others" even when nobody is talking to you. Maybe that's the only way you can feel worthy, but self-typing as E5+ESI is a very,very bad sign, both as a proof of lacking any real mental skill and a childish need of feeling worthy.

I think it's pretty clear since our former exchange of words that I have zero interest in interacting with you, although you have continued several times (which I have ignored). This is pointless. So please, be a good gamma, and do not waste your time and mine. Of course you can post whatever shit you want, but you do not need to direct that shit to me.

This is the last time I'll bother to say anything to you. I suggest you do the same.

too much energy expense for your alleged message. What your long tirade communicates is "I give too much of a damn about your having proven me wrong, so I wanna make up for feeling like a fool by taking it out on you. You guilty I'm not smart&objective enough to spot IEs in what ppl say.".

[wacey]

too much energy expense for your alleged message. What your long tirade communicates is "I give too much of a damn about your having proven me wrong, so I wanna make up for feeling like a fool by taking it out on you. You guilty I'm not smart&objective enough to spot IEs in what ppl say.".

You and Absurd should hook up.

[mikemex]

Unhealthy EII-Ne's are the worst, I know a couple, we can talk/interact only for a while before a bad type of irritation comes up either from my side or from theirs. From Ne subtypes it's just too much randomness of the wrong kind via their strong Creative contact function also with weird attempts at logic, too much complaining and especially from the Fi subtypes, overly moralistic feelings. The healthy EII's (of either subtype) aren't too bad, their tolerance and attempts at being nice (if I'm liked by them) is cool. Just not going to ever get close for sure. The overly moralistic attitude sometimes displayed still confuses or annoys me even if coming from healthy EIIs. And often I try to encourage/push them with Se because they seem so low in Se but it never works but it doesn't cause a conflict, so just mentioning this on the side.

I listed IEE's as second worst only because they cause fewer crap overall. By default they either tend to be completely indifferent from a distance or they can try to be nice just fine. If in interaction with unhealthier ones, can get irritated by each other, me by too much randomness, by their bitching and they may start to criticize some bs about me that I don't even understand what their problem is about. If it's criticism over social norms, which I do get from IEEs more than EIIs, I sometimes try to pay attention to what they say about it but it's irritating and I fail eventually because it's just their subjective ideas on what's good. At other times I don't accept and criticize their moralistic idea in return. Also when their way of thinking in general gets exposed it often makes no sense and I really quickly tune out of it. I can't even be bothered to argue for long with IEE's which is funny because I'm otherwise very persistent in arguments, not an understatement there at all, heheh. @Reficulris, @mikemex, you both should be really happy I wasn't ever into arguing for long with you

That's because you're SLE and not LSI. And to respond you, the difference between Ne phobic and Ne annoyed is the strength of each function. Think about the function structure:

Between super egos (Ne annoyed): Ne as 1st vs Ne as 3rd & Se as 1st vs Se as 3rd. (battle between equals).
Between conflictors (Ne phobic): Ne as 1st vs Ne as 4th & Ti as 1st vs Ti as 4th. (assymetrical battle)

Since opposites are Ne<->Se, Ni<->Si, Fi<->Ti, Fe<->Te, it should be clear that the LSI responds to IEE's 1st degree Ne (4D) with 2nd degree Se (3D) and is in an intrinsic disadvantage against it. Not so the SLE, which responds with 1st order Se (4D) to balance.

In plain English, an SLE understands Ne a little but misses by a long shot what the IEE truly means. Since he's confident in the area of perception, he has little trouble dismissing it off. An LSI is less confident than an IEE in the perception area, thus when an IEE expresses his own perception, it is always going to seem more complete than his own Se version.

The more apart are two functions, the better they complement each other. That's the reason why duals work well together. And for the same reason, conflictors understand each other much better than what theory predicts, it's just that, even if they follow the same paths, they do in the opposite directions and thus tire each other rather quickly.

[wacey]

That is so nasty! I can't stop watching...zooming in...looks..so real.... i just can't....

[Amber]

@Myst

probably SLE-Ti indeed

[Emmym]

EII,
okay, what's with the being a snob, when I know you really, truly are not at all? Get out of your skin a little and commit to the conversations instead of projecting. This would help make other feel less stupid and vapid around you. I hate it when you are just pure equanimity. Except when you are not. And you are not a lot more then you think you are. Does everyone need to walk on eggshells?

Lol, I'm going through this right now with my younger EII brother (who depends on me for a lot of financial things atm, which makes it 100x worse... INFs can be so oblivious to how greedy/entitled they are) and I feel like his parent. It's also probably the most embarrassing thing ever to be reminded of acting that way when I was a teen.

[Myst]

That's because you're SLE and not LSI. And to respond you, the difference between Ne phobic and Ne annoyed is the strength of each function. Think about the function structure:

Between super egos (Ne annoyed): Ne as 1st vs Ne as 3rd & Se as 1st vs Se as 3rd. (battle between equals).
Between conflictors (Ne phobic): Ne as 1st vs Ne as 4th & Ti as 1st vs Ti as 4th. (assymetrical battle)

Since opposites are Ne<->Se, Ni<->Si, Fi<->Ti, Fe<->Te, it should be clear that the LSI responds to IEE's 1st degree Ne (4D) with 2nd degree Se (3D) and is in an intrinsic disadvantage against it. Not so the SLE, which responds with 1st order Se (4D) to balance.

In plain English, an SLE understands Ne a little but misses by a long shot what the IEE truly means. Since he's confident in the area of perception, he has little trouble dismissing it off. An LSI is less confident than an IEE in the perception area, thus when an IEE expresses his own perception, it is always going to seem more complete than his own Se version.

The more apart are two functions, the better they complement each other. That's the reason why duals work well together. And for the same reason, conflictors understand each other much better than what theory predicts, it's just that, even if they follow the same paths, they do in the opposite directions and thus tire each other rather quickly.

Eh, I also read that superego conflict will be more apparent than conflict between conflictors. This fits my experience well.

What you say about the Ne/Se symmetry is interesting but where did you get the idea that I see your Ne as an SLE would?

I do agree that we seem to be following in opposite directions. Precisely why I don't bother arguing for long

If you want to comment more on this, better do it in my type thread here.

@Myst

probably SLE-Ti indeed

If you have specific reasons for thinking so, please do provide them in my type thread

[blackburry]

@wacey, interesting descriptions, which are funny despite "offensive", typical gamma at its best. But:



This (not the text itself, but the fact that this is your opinion) pretty much sums what I think about ESIs as a group (individuals can vary of course). Self-rightous bitches who think everything they do is always justified (particularly in a moral sense) whereas other's justifications for their equivalent cases (or even the exact same thing) are usually never valid. They always do right (right, not well), others don't.

In few words, absolute lack of objectivity. You would make awful judges, fortunately most of them (afaik) belong to logic types.

Eh... I often ask for feedback from friends and acquauntences on important matters.. And I often don't initially trust my own judgment. I try to stay open to more details. Life's hard, man.

But I don't disagree because I don't have any ESI friends for a reason: ones I've met irl and see kinda here too: are often very very touchy, moody, kinda mean, pretty judgey, lack sense of humor (tho occassionally really funny when in goofy mood). So yep. And I self-loathe when I see myself get that way which def happens. .


**that being said, I'm sure there's cool ones, and I'm sure there's super cool traits of the ones on here/and irl..... Just do not communicate to see that ( I often feel uncomfortable and misunderstood by ESIs and I believe it's 9/10 times mutual).

But on the whole- LSEs still bug me more somehow.

[MensSuperMateriam]

Eh... I often ask for feedback from friends and acquauntences on important matters.. And I often don't initially trust my own judgment. I try to stay open to more details. Life's hard, man.

But I don't disagree because I don't have any ESI friends for a reason: ones I've met irl and see kinda here too: are often very very touchy, moody, kinda mean, pretty judgey, lack sense of humor (tho occassionally really funny when in goofy mood). So yep. And I self-loathe when I see myself get that way which def happens. .


**that being said, I'm sure there's cool ones, and I'm sure there's super cool traits of the ones on here/and irl..... Just do not communicate to see that ( I often feel uncomfortable and misunderstood by ESIs and I believe it's 9/10 times mutual).

But on the whole- LSEs still bug me more somehow.

Don't take my comment personally. I was talking about a general impression of the type, but each individual is a particular case of course. I also exaggerated ESIs attributes because, as Wacey judged them in a less severe way than other types, he "deserved it" .

[Fay]

Sometimes everyone buggs me, sometimes I can't stand my own self and sometimes it's just EIEs and SEEs that provoke the urge to kill... not really kill, Iam pretty much a pacifist...probably just tu hurt them possibly badly.

[wacey]

. I also exaggerated ESIs attributes because, as Wacey judged them in a less severe way than other types, he "deserved it" .

Going purely off the outward appearances of a sociotypes behaviour without digging into some of the psychology behind it, I guess, would be lazy typology on my part.

This uncovered profile seems to get closer as to why ESI might behave and appear they way they do for others.

ISFjs are deeply sensitive individuals for whom the normal "give-and-take" of every-day life is a threatening, anxiety-producing affair and they usually hide from confrontations however minor. Instead, they will stew. Their feelings are easily hurt and they do not know how to verbalize their displeasure without "making a federal case" out of trivial issues.

They are not the most optimistic of persons. Fearing the spontaneous side of life makes them attempt to control everything and everybody in their lives.
They have a propensity to jump to conclusions. Being hesitant to discuss any subject that may lead to their psychological or emotional discomfort, they will stand by their frequently error-ridden judgements without ever trying to verify them. Their inability outside the home to willingly confront issues leads them to "take it home" where they expect their mates to uphold and support them. They are not, however, willing listeners to criticism or advice that is not supportive of their positions, particularly if told they invite much of the abuse.
So ISFjs exhibit a propensity to see one side of an issue - the side with which they agree. For this reason, they can be difficult to interact with on a personal level and their self-imposed martyrdom becomes tiresome. Every argument becomes a "poor me" statement or a "do you know how that makes me feel" statement without addressing the facts.
Their need to control in an attempt to subvert "bad things happening" can also create and transmit tension to all around them. If they are not able to resolve internal conflicts and anxieties, they, because of their inability to give voice to their inner turmoil, can bring out psychosomatic illnesses to draw attention away or to extricate them from the give-and-take dynamics of life. If not, they could explode with physical violence.
Although they are generally sweet personalities, their mood swings make it difficult for people to be comfortable with them on a continuing basis and make them difficult to understand since they do not give voice to inner and outer struggles. They are generally able to be demonstratively affectionate but only with family members within the shelter of their own homes where they tend to "own" the home, the spouse, the children, etc. ISFjs often go unappreciated because they give quietly and unobtrusively in their martyr-like way.

I believe this article was written by an alpha sociotype. The outward behaviours are true, but the nuances of the motivations are somewhat off base.

This sense of "creating tension" I can guarantee you, is not intentional of the ESI. What type of ethical person, or even any person, would like to make others around them feel that way? This is doubly so for opposing quadra members, you alphas, who might interpret this as someone intentionally spoiling the mood. Again, this is just not true. Sublimating inner tensions is an extremely bad habit of ESIs especially if living around Fe valuing people. Others can sense the emotional turmoil radiating from them. One analogy I could think of for this is imagine a wounded animal, they will tend to hide their injuries and the pain from others in an attempt to appear as though everything is "okay".

In real life this might look like hiding a sense of shame over a work place mistake; trying not to appear hurt by a family argument while at school with class mates; grieving deeply, yet in secrecy away from others. Because these struggles are bottled up within them might mean it can take a long time to see alternate means of coping. Bottling up is a habit done more for the benefit of other people, which is why ESI deeply value and hold onto those people who they feel they can be 100% authentic with. This means sharing their true thoughts and expressions in a safe environment. Being introverted feelers, ESI are constantly working and reworking what they think of the world AND themselves within it AND the people around them in real terms and not hypotheticals. The challenging part for ESI is finding this "tribe" of confidants where they feel they can be themselves.

Types who cannot understand that the ESI directed emotional expressions about whatever troubles them comes out in often pointed insights and poignant Se force (in the here and now), ESI can be seen and thought of as a difficult person and this can in fact aggravate and hurt the ESI even further. This is troubling because as the article suggests, the ESI him/her self becomes their own worse enemy, pulling away further, or digging in their heels in an effort that is making things even worse. Frequently they might even be aware of this with maturity. At least this is how I see it in myself.

as clearly "wrong", or not in the spirit or essence of the feeling or mood he's trying to convey. Here is where we find the nitpicking perfectionist hiding inside the otherwise easy-going, friendly observer: strike at something too close to her heart, and you may quickly find an unexpected blowup when the normally quiet and compassionate ISFj is forced to assume a decision-making leadership role that, truth be told, she'd prefer would never have to occur because people should know how to conduct themselves in a reasonable and compassionate way.

"I don't want to be the bad guy, but if you keep pushing me I'm going to have to set things straight." Well aware of the uses of Se in terms of aggression and intimidation, most ISFjs tend to hide that side of themselves away except in situations where they believe it's necessary to protect their internal selves from similarly aggressive behavior from others.

it typically means you've done something he finds so unacceptable that he has to disrupt his natural flow of harmonious action and reaction in order to get something extremely threatening under control--and that's really not something he wants to do often.

Since this response is something he normally despises in others, seeing it from himself creates feelings of hypocrisy and the resultant guilt. It takes a long time and a lot of experience for the ISFj to learn to communicate his grievances calmly and productively enough to lead a group effectively while balancing the competing goals of respecting everyone's individuality and simultaneously generating measurable results. Sometimes the two goals conflict and a decision has to be made--the generally idealistic and amiable ISFj may have serious difficulty putting his foot down on anything or standing up for his own viewpoint, even when others are actually taking advantage of his natural kindness and patience. Since they know they tend to be unable to control themselves when this sort of situation arises, they do their best to simply avoid confrontations until they've learned to develop a sort of detached diplomacy, by which they can comfortably voice their concerns--and even criticisms--without sounding too harsh for their own standards or letting their feelings boil over and exaggerate the criticisms being offered.

These two quotes also ring true for me and probably other ESI.

[MensSuperMateriam]

Wacey, I don't think that explanation was necessary. The purpose of the thread was to point out whichever typer(s) irks to anyone, and this would inevitably lead to more or less subjective causes. It's not supposed to be a serious, deep, analysis for each type.

That being said, imo you're doing the same mistake again:

Going purely off the outward appearances of a sociotypes behaviour without digging into some of the psychology behind it, I guess, would be lazy typology on my part.

True, but in your observations you're being biased. Not because you point faults in others, but because, again, you're presenting ESI ones as particularly justifiable. Like if others should be blamed due to their faults, but not ESIs. Intentionally or not, it seems like ESIs should be "a special case". That ain't going to happen.

This sense of "creating tension" I can guarantee you, is not intentional of the ESI. What type of ethical person, or even any person, would like to make others around them feel that way?

I don't think any person belonging to any type would intentionally want to cause discomfort in others (there are always exceptions of course). For ESIs could be this, but logic types could be perceived as particularly mean by Fs (even inside the same quadra), when in their minds all they are doing is just presenting facts or universal truths (something positive according to their isosyncrasies).

An atheist (assumed T) commenting to a believer (assumed F) why his/her belief does not make sense, is not caused by a malignant desire of dooming the believer to the hell. Maybe the former is just trying to make the later to understand that true/false and real/not real has nothing to do with desired/undesired and good/evil... Just an illustrative example which should not be taken out of context.

This is doubly so for opposing quadra members, you alphas, who might interpret this as someone intentionally spoiling the mood. Again, this is just not true.

Alphas as drinking hobbits/dancing hippies is a bad stereotype imo. Maybe there's some truth in this spoiling mood thin when ILIs are interacting with ESEs, but it's not a valid generalization, much less considering that ESIs are still enough proficient with Fe.

If so, LIIs should not be considered as alphas...

Sublimating inner tensions is an extremely bad habit of ESIs especially if living around Fe valuing people. Others can sense the emotional turmoil radiating from them. One analogy I could think of for this is imagine a wounded animal, they will tend to hide their injuries and the pain from others in an attempt to appear as though everything is "okay".

In real life this might look like hiding a sense of shame over a work place mistake; trying not to appear hurt by a family argument while at school with class mates; grieving deeply, yet in secrecy away from others. Because these struggles are bottled up within them might mean it can take a long time to see alternate means of coping. Bottling up is a habit done more for the benefit of other people, which is why ESI deeply value and hold onto those people who they feel they can be 100% authentic with. This means sharing their true thoughts and expressions in a safe environment. Being introverted feelers, ESI are constantly working and reworking what they think of the world AND themselves within it AND the people around them in real terms and not hypotheticals. The challenging part for ESI is finding this "tribe" of confidants where they feel they can be themselves.

Types who cannot understand that the ESI directed emotional expressions about whatever troubles them comes out in often pointed insights and poignant Se force (in the here and now), ESI can be seen and thought of as a difficult person and this can in fact aggravate and hurt the ESI even further. This is troubling because as the article suggests, the ESI him/her self becomes their own worse enemy, pulling away further, or digging in their heels in an effort that is making things even worse. Frequently they might even be aware of this with maturity. At least this is how I see it in myself.

These two quotes also ring true for me and probably other ESI.

I understand the message, and I think most people are more or less aware of such behavior. But there are words that you're not explicitly using, yet they could be inferred: "it's unfair that other people get mad at us because of what we do". Is it? Everyone can claim the same, the "poor me" perception that ESIs could have about themselves does not make them worthy of special treatment.

The problem is not that you could suffer more, that you have a lower threshold of pain, which I'm not judging. The problem is when you project your negative feelings onto others. It's not "spoling the mood"; it's the faulty reasoning that makes you think that "because you suffer more" you also "deserve more" and you think people and world in general owe you things that they do not. Typical manifestations of this behavior is, for example, projecting onto person X what person Y did to you.

When you (ESIs) reach this point, you start to expand your ego and act in an obtrusive way, with very little concerns about other people's needs and space. Everything becomes an extension of you, so you feel that you have the right to manage everything and everybody as you wish. If X is not as you need you suffer (fair). So you have the right to change it according to your nature. If the change causes suffering in other people is irrelevant, because your suffering is more authentic and therefore matters more... (unfair). Such emotional egocentrism is what bugs me up.

Learning to negotiate a point of concensus instead steamrolling with your needs, or trying to impose your opinions about topics which are inherently subjective (going more in the line of actions/behavior than ideas), would help a lot. Those more controlled and unobtrusive ESIs, I can interact reasonably well with them.

[wacey]

Wacey, I don't think that explanation was necessary. The purpose of the thread was to point out whichever typer(s) irks to anyone, and this would inevitably lead to more or less subjective causes. It's not supposed to be a serious, deep, analysis for each type.

That being said, imo you're doing the same mistake again:



True, but in your observations you're being biased. Not because you point faults in others, but because, again, you're presenting ESI ones as particularly justifiable. Like if others should be blamed due to their faults, but not ESIs. Intentionally or not, it seems like ESIs should be "a special case". That ain't going to happen.



I don't think any person belonging to any type would intentionally want to cause discomfort in others (there are always exceptions of course). For ESIs could be this, but logic types could be perceived as particularly mean by Fs (even inside the same quadra), when in their minds all they are doing is just presenting facts or universal truths (something positive according to their isosyncrasies).


Alphas as drinking hobbits/dancing hippies is a bad stereotype imo. Maybe there's some truth in this spoiling mood thin when ILIs are interacting with ESEs, but it's not a valid generalization, much less considering that ESIs are still enough proficient with Fe.

If so, LIIs should not be considered as alphas...



I understand the message, and I think most people are more or less aware of such behavior. But there are words that you're not explicitly using, yet they could be inferred: "it's unfair that other people get mad at us because of what we do". Is it? Everyone can claim the same, the "poor me" perception that ESIs could have about themselves does not make them worthy of special treatment.

The problem is not that you could suffer more, that you have a lower threshold of pain, which I'm not judging. The problem is when you project your negative feelings onto others. It's not "spoling the mood"; it's the faulty reasoning that makes you think that "because you suffer more" you also "deserve more" and you think people and world in general owe you things that they do not. Typical manifestations of this behavior is, for example, projecting onto person X what person Y did to you.

When you (ESIs) reach this point, you start to expand your ego and act in an obtrusive way, with very little concerns about other people's needs and space. Everything becomes an extension of you, so you feel that you have the right to manage everything and everybody as you wish. If X is not as you need you suffer (fair). So you have the right to change it according to your nature. If the change causes suffering in other people is irrelevant, because your suffering is more authentic and therefore matters more... (unfair). Such emotional egocentrism is what bugs me up.

Learning to negotiate a point of concensus instead steamrolling with your needs, or trying to impose your opinions about topics which are inherently subjective (going more in the line of actions/behavior than ideas), would help a lot. Those more controlled and unobtrusive ESIs, I can interact reasonably well with them.

Thanks, Dad.



I don't agree with about 40% of what you wrote (the other 60 who knows). Some of it would be better served as advice for an IEI.

[MensSuperMateriam]

Thanks, Dad.

LOL.

I don't agree with about 40% of what you wrote (the other 60 who knows)

It doesn't matter if you agree or not, as it's not a description about how ESIs perceive themselves, but how ESIs could be perceived by others.

Some of it would be better served as advice for an IEI.

Only the last paragraph (two lines) fits in that category. The rest of the post is a description, not an advice. And nope, IEIs are victims, not agressors, so most said things do not apply to them.

Imo your reaction doesn't make any sense. You complain about how others see you type, yet you seem to lack any real interest in why they could see it in such way. That is, you don't want to go beyond your own POV, apparently.

What did you expect exactly, a pat on the back?

[wacey]

Wacey, I don't think that explanation was necessary. The purpose of the thread was to point out whichever typer(s) irks to anyone, and this would inevitably lead to more or less subjective causes. It's not supposed to be a serious, deep, analysis for each type.

Yet I did it, sue me.

True, but in your observations you're being biased. Not because you point faults in others, but because, again, you're presenting ESI ones as particularly justifiable. Like if others should be blamed due to their faults, but not ESIs. Intentionally or not, it seems like ESIs should be "a special case". That ain't going to happen.

I was admitting and shining a light on some of the perceivable faults. I made no value statement on whether the behaviour was justifiable or not. You did, though. I never mentioned other people being blamed for their faults, nor did I "hint" that ESI are a special case. Fi base of either type are noted for turning their judgement inwards and thus the amount they blame others in in direct proportion to the amount they blame themselves.

I don't think any person belonging to any type would intentionally want to cause discomfort in others (there are always exceptions of course). For ESIs could be this, but logic types could be perceived as particularly mean by Fs (even inside the same quadra), when in their minds all they are doing is just presenting facts or universal truths (something positive according to their isosyncrasies).

I was doing the same thing, but I guess because I am not a logic base must mean I am not allowed to discuss idiosyncrasies without justifying them myself. The bolded sentence could easily be said of an F type. Only logical types can be objective about that sort of thing?..... "women, know your limits"

Alphas as drinking hobbits/dancing hippies is a bad stereotype imo. Maybe there's some truth in this spoiling mood thin when ILIs are interacting with ESEs, but it's not a valid generalization, much less considering that ESIs are still enough proficient with Fe.

If so, LIIs should not be considered as alphas...

I don't know where the stereotype is coming from, it def was not what I was thinking?

I understand the message, and I think most people are more or less aware of such behavior. But there are words that you're not explicitly using, yet they could be inferred: "it's unfair that other people get mad at us because of what we do". Is it? Everyone can claim the same, the "poor me" perception that ESIs could have about themselves does not make them worthy of special treatment.

Sure they can. The description was from socionics.org, it was not my writing. Still, I would say the poor me treatment if you were paying attention, gets turned inwards. No where did I say I, nor anyone else deserved special treatment? I was just saying that sometimes this can happen.

The problem is not that you could suffer more, that you have a lower threshold of pain, which I'm not judging. The problem is when you project your negative feelings onto others. It's not "spoling the mood"; it's the faulty reasoning that makes you think that "because you suffer more" you also "deserve more" and you think people and world in general owe you things that they do not. Typical manifestations of this behavior is, for example, projecting onto person X what person Y did to you.

Again, you are going way off the handle, I did not say or mean any of this at all..... not to be a stick in the mud I will say its not unusual for people of any type to project onto others. I find it a little bit humorous though that an alpha would accuse ESI of projecting, when I think traditionally alpha types are the most notorious for projecting perceived wrongs onto other people ( see ENTp/ESFj/ISFp). Fi is kind of is an internal compass that works in favour for those that value it against projecting onto other people. Introverted ethics is like the least susceptible to projecting onto other people because its a kind of hyper focus on the subjective self and relationships and ethics with other people. As well I think you are completely not on the point I was making about suffering in silence. Its not like ESI, (or me like you are implying) has a lower threshold for pain, its that if they are suffering they either 1.) want to talk about it and if they do with you its because they deem it alright to do so. 2.) Keep it bottled up if surrounded and or perceive it is not appropriate. But they are NOT ignoring things, or compartimentilizing stuff like so many other sociotypes have a habit of doing. I think most ESI recognize the importance of unloading trouble with people in ways I see other types as so clueless about.

When you (ESIs) reach this point, you start to expand your ego and act in an obtrusive way, with very little concerns about other people's needs and space. Everything becomes an extension of you, so you feel that you have the right to manage everything and everybody as you wish. If X is not as you need you suffer (fair). So you have the right to change it according to your nature. If the change causes suffering in other people is irrelevant, because your suffering is more authentic and therefore matters more... (unfair). Such emotional egocentrism is what bugs me up.

The outcomes of your scenario are incorrect. I would never think my suffering was more authentic and so mattered more then other people. No one gets ahead in this case. And the bolded? Okay, sure, freely admit to that. Again, where is the problem? Oh right, As an Fe valuer, I can understand how it might be difficult for you to appreciate how some people do not need to take care of your feelings for you ( like your dual might). I have seen this time and again in my difficulties with Alphas. In alpha it is not okay to talk about one's sentiments, reflections, judgements regarding other people, discussions about their own behaviours and where they come from for extended periods of time. It is not okay to voice one's feelings and if they do make sure it's not in a expressive and wild sort of way that might disturb the peace. Because you are so quick to pass judgement about ESI, who are often as you say, yet fail to recognize you are seeing this from your own terms values, it means you are justifying your world view in the same way you accused me of doing.

Learning to negotiate a point of concensus instead steamrolling with your needs, or trying to impose your opinions about topics which are inherently subjective (going more in the line of actions/behavior than ideas), would help a lot. Those more controlled and unobtrusive ESIs, I can interact reasonably well with them.

I agree, negotiation is a part of maturity, certainly. As to being obtrusive, I will ask what exactly do you mean by that?

I'm not going to be apologetic. I find this quality about myself to be an amazing strength and one of my most important assets.

[MensSuperMateriam]

Yet I did it, sue me.

Overreaction to a simple observation.

I was admitting and shining a light on some of the perceivable faults. I made no value statement on whether the behaviour was justifiable or not. You did, though. I never mentioned other people being blamed for their faults, nor did I "hint" that ESI are a special case.Fi base of either type are noted for turning their judgement inwards and thus the amount they blame others in in direct proportion to the amount they blame themselves.

Silences are as relevant as musical notes. You did not say it explicitly (I pointed this). But you did say a lot of things about other types in a peculiar fashion, whereas the same judgement was notoriously different when you talked about ESIs.

Bolded part is dangerously close to textbook projection.

I was doing the same thing, but I guess because I am not a logic base must mean I am not allowed to discuss idiosyncrasies without justifying them myself. The bolded sentence could easily be said of an F type. Only logical types can be objective about that sort of thing?..... "women, know your limits"

Nobody is allowed to discuss without justification, because if so there's no discussion, only opinion. Never said that T types can ignore this rule. Strawman + a bit of playing the victim.

I don't know where the stereotype is coming from, it def was not what I was thinking?

Just an analogy for illustrating that the problem alphas could have with ESIs is not necessarily related to spoiling the mood.

Again, you are going way off the handle, I did not say or mean any of this at all.....

I think I've already remarked this several times. Here I go, again. I'm not saying you said this, or you think you do this, or you think ESIs do this. I'm trying to show you how other people could perceive ESI behavior (the truth probably lies somehwere in the middle). This is essential if you want to understand why they have such "negative perceptions" about your type. You need to go beyond your Fi-centric (+Se) POV if you have any intention of correcting this.

But if you prefer to stay in your zone of comfort, that's legitimate of course.

I find it a little bit humorous though that an alpha would accuse ESI of projecting, when I think traditionally alpha types are the most notorious for projecting perceived wrongs onto other people ( see ENTp/ESFj/ISFp).

LOL, are you serious? Says who? Sure anyone can project stereotypes, but it's nonsensical affirming that alphas do this more than others. They are a democratic quadra, and Fi (unvalued here) is particularly efficient inducing long lasting emotional effects in its users (remember: relational ethics).

Fi is kind of is an internal compass that works in favour for those that value it against projecting onto other people. Introverted ethics is like the least susceptible to projecting onto other people because its a kind of hyper focus on the subjective self and relationships and ethics with other people.

That's exactly the reason that explains it works in the opposite way. Relational ethics.

As well I think you are completely not on the point I was making about suffering in silence. Its not like ESI, (or me like you are implying) has a lower threshold for pain, its that if they are suffering they either 1.) want to talk about it and if they do with you its because they deem it alright to do so. 2.) Keep it bottled up if surrounded and or perceive it is not appropriate. But they are NOT ignoring things, or compartimentilizing stuff like so many other sociotypes have a habit of doing. I think most ESI recognize the importance of unloading trouble with people in ways I see other types as so clueless about.

Once the suffering, pain (or whichever word you prefer) builds up too much, it ends being discharged, even if unkowingly, in close people that most likely had nothing to do with the source of such pain.

Oh right, As an Fe valuer, I can understand how it might be difficult for you to appreciate how some people do not need to take care of your feelings for you ( like your dual might). I have seen this time and again in my difficulties with Alphas.

LOL. Never in the whole conversation it has been even remotely suggested that you should have take care of alpha (or anyone in general) feelings, like if you're forced to smile even if you do not want, or something.

This is a good example of how deep you're stuck in your personal bubble and do not want to look beyond it. Is it so really difficult for you to understand that the problem is not if you want to contribute with the "positive mood" or not? That the problem is that you tend to discharge your shit in people who have nothing to do with what bothers you? Others are not automatically responsible for your pain.

In alpha it is not okay to talk about one's sentiments, reflections, judgements regarding other people, discussions about their own behaviours and where they come from for extended periods of time. It is not okay to voice one's feelings and if they do make sure it's not in a expressive and wild sort of way that might disturb the peace. Because you are so quick to pass judgement about ESI, who are often as you say, yet fail to recognize you are seeing this from your own terms values, it means you are justifying your world view in the same way you accused me of doing.

Projecting much? Look at what you've done: since almost the beginning you rised my POV as representative of "alphas" and "how evil they're". At least I've spoken about ESIs, not gammas as a collective (did I mention other gammas, or EIIs for example?).

Let me say something to you... alphas are not only ILEs, and you cannot automatically attribute what you think Fi-PoLR is to the whole quadra. Amazing, right?

That thing that discussions about feelings are not welcome is bullshit. I do it a lot with other alphas. Yes, ILEs included. Personal advices flow freely in such conversations.

Only a handful of conditions are required: trust & minimum degree of objectivity. If your conversation will be my feelings, my pain, my... all the time, nobody will listen to you. Sorry buddy, you [ESIs] are not the center of the universe.


I do not think this conversation is progressing or ever will. Peace.

1407261342000-phxdc5-6ggrxt28vc7yvxm073u-original.jpg

[wacey]

No you are right, your logic is undeniable. Things must be as you say they are, there is no denying that. You argument is pretty air tight and if I went on I would be entirely out of my element. Truly, and this is not sarcasm. You speak with an authority that leads me to believe you have some first hand experience with a(n) ESI.

[MensSuperMateriam]

[Myst]

Supervisor, supervisee, then conflictor:

Supervisor/LSI tends to create anxiety, come off as always thinking they're right/you're wrong, and crude and overbearing. Most are weak in tact and diplomacy, come off as rude and arrogant. We can get along so long as boundaries are maintained, though often the supervisor type will cut into my space abruptly which can cause discomfort and resentment. Obviously, exceptions exist, especially where self-control and maturity is present.

Supervisee/EII are put off by my way of doing things. I prefer to maintain a distance from most. I can see them as sweet and mild mannered or else as cold, judgmental, and caustic. In a working environment, I tend to get annoyed by their seeming obliviousness and slowness to react to immediate external stimuli. Can be two faced and passive aggressive. Exceptions, of course, exist.

Conflictor/LII and I have the largest communication gap. A meeting of minds is very difficult to reach and our ways of communication are often so foreign, it makes cooperation nearly impossible. I find them easier to get along with than the previous types mentioned, however, simply by keeping a large interpersonal distance. Same with the previous descriptions, there are always exceptions.

You make a good point, conflictor isn't the type you'll conflict with the most exactly because of how naturally a large distance is kept. I'm also like that with IEEs.

[Myst]

Not sure where I put SLE, I didn't figure out that yet.

OK I figured it out I think, thought through some past experiences/observations, it's definitely in the workable relations category.

[Olimpia]

Supervisor, supervisee, then conflictor:

Supervisor/LSI tends to create anxiety, come off as always thinking they're right/you're wrong, and crude and overbearing. Most are weak in tact and diplomacy, come off as rude and arrogant. We can get along so long as boundaries are maintained, though often the supervisor type will cut into my space abruptly which can cause discomfort and resentment. Obviously, exceptions exist, especially where self-control and maturity is present.

Supervisee/EII are put off by my way of doing things. I prefer to maintain a distance from most. I can see them as sweet and mild mannered or else as cold, judgmental, and caustic. In a working environment, I tend to get annoyed by their seeming obliviousness and slowness to react to immediate external stimuli. Can be two faced and passive aggressive. Exceptions, of course, exist.

Conflictor/LII and I have the largest communication gap. A meeting of minds is very difficult to reach and our ways of communication are often so foreign, it makes cooperation nearly impossible. I find them easier to get along with than the previous types mentioned, however, simply by keeping a large interpersonal distance. Same with the previous descriptions, there are always exceptions.

I'd like to comment on that from my point of view.

Supervisor/LIE: I find them rather obnoxious if they are the "raw" version – strong Te subtype, disregarding of other people's view points, etc. Very poor Fi, very condescending of myself. I cannot deal with that kind of LIE, they can be worse than my Conflictor, because they are psychologically closer to me. We both share the same Cognitive style, so surprisingly we can agree on a number of things when it comes to how we see the world. As a consequence, if a person like that, who actually has a similar way of viewing the world, brings me down by attacking my PoLR, it can be crushing – also, due to my inability to defend myself. Now, the Ni subtype of LIE can actually be interesting in a few ways. The disparity of power between us is not as great, and they are more in touch with their Fi. There are still Te-Ti, Fe-Fi clashes happening, but a sense of repulsion of the other is lacking. I have read that one's Supervisor is watching your every step, but in the positive form it can be like someone's Guardian Angel is watching over them. With the LIE-Ni, this is more the case. It can still be grating at times, but it resembles more of a love-hate relation... in the case of an immature LIE-Te, it is often just hate.

Supervisee/ESE: They can be annoying, at times. They won't listen to me, and when things go wrong, I tend to say "I knew that would happen, why didn't you listen to me." At the same time, they can be sort of adorable... It feels like they are an annoying little sibling. Cute, in need of help, sometimes driving me nuts, but all in all I can kind of like them. They are concerned with Si stuff, like a comfortable clean environment, where everything has its place, and some pleasant music is playing at every meal... It is annoying, and our different interests and foci can drive the other insane, but as long as there is a level of maturity and acceptance of the other's weaknesses, it can work... kind of.

Conflictor/LSE: As long as there is a playful distance, and some other person is there, it is okay. Once I am alone and closer with an LSE, fights over virtually nothing will ensue. Just how the other is being themselves annoys the heck out of the other party. Much worse than with Supervision. The similarity to Supervision is the fact there can be temporary moments of positive activity, likely when both parties are more in touch with their Demonstrative at the moment. But once that moment is over... oh my. So, in comparison to Supervision, Conflict is more distant, with shorter moments of (illusionary) bliss, and stronger fights. Both can give the other painful hits at the PoLR, so the fighting is in a way more fair, but at the same time more explosive and damaging in total.

[xerx]

I'm a likeable person and haven't had any trouble except with unlikeable people.

[Muddy]

I don't know very many people on a personal level, especially gammas, I don't think I've ever been close friends with a gamma though I know a few on a shallow level. However, that said, the only people I ever have a hard time getting along with are, yes, my conflictor LSEs. Back when I was in high school my SEI mother divorced my SLE father (she didn't like his drinking problems) and married an LSE who I was forced to live with for 2 years, so I'm very aware of all the nuances of why I don't get along with them.

LSEs always try to pull me into doing work with them, which I have neither the desire or ability to, due to them pulling me into things they are experts at while I know nothing. Then they get mad that I not doing it right and try to explain the right way to do it in a Te instead of Ti way, which leaves me even more confused. I do the job for the sole reason of maintaining good relations with them, but they still get mad anyway. Their loud talk and to the point attitude also smothers my subtle Fe in that I feel uncomfortable telling jokes and fooling around. Opposing worldviews, opposing interest, opposing everything.

ILIs also piss me off a lot with their tendency to point out all your flaws and treat you as some sort of idiot. I wouldn't be surprised if they make up 80% of the dota/league of legends communities. I seem to have trouble getting on the same page as SEEs sometimes. I don't dislike SEEs, but they are truly an enigma to me. ESIs occasionally scare me. SLIs can occasionally be dicks. ESEs/SEIs/IEEs/EIIs sometimes annoying. Thats pretty much it.

[lemontrees]

I can "passively" get along with most people but I think I only actively get along with a few.

I get along better w/ beta irrationals than with alpha rationals, I think. I actually don't like Si creative directed towards me at all. It makes me feel like a... child. I wonder if that's what Fe-base people feel like around me, as I try to "show good will" and "smooth over" their emotions.