Dislike of Enneagram type 3

[Gilly]

Does it mean, though, that which "other people" is dependent on how bad it gets?

I mean something like this.

1) You feel like king of the world among a certain crowd, because you feel that they recognize your achievements and it validates you.
2) You suffer a major setback as far as those achievements are concerned. That crowd doesn't say anything, but you feel diminished in their eyes.
3) In order to "bounce back", you move to another crowd, among which your "diminished" state is seen as "very good"? Which allows you to "climb up" again?

If the 3 is unhealthy, yes; obviously lots of things can go wrong. What you are describing is precisely what happened to me in college. I actually saw a movie today, Tropic Thunder, in which I believe Ben Stiller accurately portrays this kind if disintegration, which I believe could be seen as related to the complacency of an unhealthy 9.

But let's say you put a healthier 3 in an extreme circumstance: all they really need to keep going is to know that they are doing the "right thing" in the eyes of others. Lack of physical security, not being in control of the situation, being unsure of how things will turn out...the 3 can endure anything, as long as they have people who "reflect" to them that they are doing the right thing (perhaps part of why a typical EIE 3 would need an LSI 1?). Obviously things can go wrong if the whole group is misguided, in which case obviously the direction and discretion of a 1 is appreciated. But as long as there isn't mass hysteria (which, as a matter of fact, 3s, being part of the competency triad, are usually good at handling), and the 3 is in line with the wishes of the group, he can endure anything.

[Gilly]

A 3w4 instead starts with the purpose of the presentation. What SHOULD the artwork look like? What does the competition/exhibition want or need? The editing process begins before the creation process. I decide what I want the final product to look like, what it NEEDS to look like, before I begin to consider the raw materials. Then I will take the raw materials (the self) and shape it according to frame I have already constructed.

Wow, you are fucking good

[ScarlettLux]

Wow, this SHOULD be entitled Understanding the Enneagram 3. It deserves some kind of award -- I've never read anything that elucidated so well my own complexes, fixations, etc. Thank you so much unefille! I can't believe how similar you are to me. I don't think I could express myself as well as you could though, but I definitely act nearly identically to the way you do, and view the world through extremely similar eyes.

I have always had an inkling of a suspicion that you were EIE instead of IEE. I relate entirely too much, and although this CAN be contributed to our identical enneagram type, it still doesn't compute perfectly, imo. I think the way you approach everything and the way you think, type, is way more reminiscent of a Beta NF than a Delta NF. All your concerns and posts that I've read have given me that "vibe" -- the one I get when I read posts from people within my quadra. I know it's not real conducive evidence to validate an EIE typing, but I think you should seriously look into EIE. What exactly made you type yourself IEE anyway? I don't see any real focus on NeFi at all, and see you doing much better with an LSI rather than an SLI, whom I think would get superbly irritated with the way you see the world and behave in it, naturally.

Perhaps you should talk to niffweed more, he agrees with this EIE typing and likely sees the same thing I do about you.

[unefille]

Wow, this is awesome, especially the bolded. That makes so much sense. It's totally easier to look at it from your pov and see the difference.

Wow, you are fucking good

Thanks.

Wow, this SHOULD be entitled Understanding the Enneagram 3. It deserves some kind of award -- I've never read anything that elucidated so well my own complexes, fixations, etc. Thank you so much unefille! I can't believe how similar you are to me. I don't think I could express myself as well as you could though, but I definitely act nearly identically to the way you do, and view the world through extremely similar eyes.

I have always had an inkling of a suspicion that you were EIE instead of IEE. I relate entirely too much, and although this CAN be contributed to our identical enneagram type, it still doesn't compute perfectly, imo. I think the way you approach everything and the way you think, type, is way more reminiscent of a Beta NF than a Delta NF. All your concerns and posts that I've read have given me that "vibe" -- the one I get when I read posts from people within my quadra. I know it's not real conducive evidence to validate an EIE typing, but I think you should seriously look into EIE. What exactly made you type yourself IEE anyway? I don't see any real focus on NeFi at all, and see you doing much better with an LSI rather than an SLI, whom I think would get superbly irritated with the way you see the world and behave in it, naturally.

Perhaps you should talk to niffweed more, he agrees with this EIE typing and likely sees the same thing I do about you.

I have been giving EIE some thought over the last few days, but honestly, I can't see myself as one (not because of any negative stereotypes that are associated with the type - it's kind of nice having people think I'm so Fe competent and have strong Ni and that my Ti is not as weak as all that).

I think our identification in this thread is and can be attributed to our enneagram type. Socionics isn't a theory of personality, but information metabolism. Enneagram on the other hand is much closer to an actual theory of personality - since it describes fixations, thus prescribing central, driving concerns and the behaviours we will likely manifest in pursuit of these concerns.

As for duality - this is probably indeed the sticking point for me. Having had an relationship with an LSI that eventually disintegrated into a mass of misunderstanding and having numerous relationships with SLIs that worked out far better, intertype relations hold me back from retyping myself. I think in relationships, there is this 'honeymoon' period, where we don't exactly behave like ourselves - we behave like what the other person wants us to be, becuase we want to please them so much. That phase is what brought me and the LSI close together. Eventually though, I couldn't keep it up and I knew that he couldn't understand, nor would he be enamoured, of who I really am. In contrast, there are intial difficulties with me and some SLIs, but I can sense they don't value Fe, but Fi instead...and that's reassuring. It means that they put no value in my performance and thus, if I cease performing, that doesn't deter our relationship, possibly in fact strengthens it.

I know I've mainly addressed Ni and Fe image issues in this thread (and in some other posts) because those are the functions I draw on in my 3 persona. They are most adapted to facilitating my 3 self. But I use Fe 'badly' in the sense that I don't appreciate it as I think Fe valuers do. When I use it, I'm essentially 'faking' it. I think Fe-leading types are not only responsive to moods, but proactive in their ability to influence moods. That's an amazing gift which I don't have control over. I sort of use just enough faked Fe to 'ride' out of the atmospheres I'm in.

I'm looking into this further of course, but I could come up with numerous anecdotes of non-Fe valuing, using 'value' in the Socionics sense, as opposed to 'value' in the everyday sense meaning of the word - in the everyday sense of the word, I very much 'value' Fe as something necessary, as something powerful, as something protective. But in my natural, unexamined, unedited mode, I am almost certain that I operate in Fi. Whilst I try to 'be' Fe, I care very little for or about Fe from other people.

But as a 3w4, I'm glad that this thread has helped elucidate 3 issues more. I do so often feel like the black sheep of the Enneagram. The evil black sheep, with blood dripping from our lips and satanic symbols imprinted on our wool. Sorry, I had a weird moment there.

[unefille]

Maybe I'll make a type thread soon, once I have more posts on the forum, but I just wanted to say something else, which might also illuminate some issues with 3w4s.

Seeing all this 'image' focus, this 'social appropriateness', this awareness of 'social dynamics' in me is making it really difficult to NOT be that - or at least, not write like that here on this forum. I think this more than anything should demonstrate the conpulsive and self-deceptive aspect of being a 3. If I think this is what you expect from me, then I will begin to think in that mindset so that I can provide it. I step into an alternate reality where I am what you expect me to be, because I don't want to disappoint my 'audience'. So I cannot stop talking as though I am somewhat EIE-ish (as other people, including Niffweed and ScarlettLux have identified it as) - concered with proper social behaviour, the group mood, influencing other's perceptions, creating and cultivating an image.

How I've expressed myself on the forum, aside from posts in the Delta sub-forum, is not exactly my natural or automatic mode of expression. I do have to admit that sometimes I feel quite defensive posting, becuase the forum mood seems very combative and I don't know how I stand or how people will react to my posts. That lack of knowing, of certainty of my relations with other people (simply because of the anonymity of an internet forum) puts me on the backfoot. Knowing how people feel about me is usually my guide - without it, as I am here, I'm quite lost. So you could say, I sort of have my armor on right now - and this is what it looks like.

Lastly, I never seek to influence other people's moods - it's not their emotions I manipulate, but their relationship to me, or to other people. But I can't do that on a forum, either.

[Gilly]

Maybe instead of talking about valuing functions, it would be more useful for you, in deciding whether you are IEE or EIE, to talk about what you actually mean when you say "values Fi" or "values Fe."

Personally, I know that I often feel like I am "riding out" an Fe atmosphere, or keeping up an act just to deal with someone/get something from them; as a child I rarely wanted to go to dinner with my parents at other people's house because I felt like I had to put on a show, and it took energy. I have a hard time containing the "storm within," so to speak, so until I reached an age when I had learned to control and direct that energy, it was stressful for me to be around people in a closer setting if I thought I had to be worried about their opinion of me at all. When I'm around people I am comfortable with, I am not always bubbly or giddy; these qualities come out most easily when I feel they are expected of me by the people I am with, when that's the "me" who they "know," like at my work, or on stickam. And yes, I am pretty good at keeping that up, when I feel like I should.

By default, I am slightly monotone, not very expressive verbally, often sarcastic, not especially "nice," but with "bursts" of emotion; it's almost like my blood boils in my chest and I just have to kind of take the top off my pot by acting silly or insane or goofy. However on the whole I am very adaptive in terms of dealing with people; I tend to switch gears depending on what style of interaction seems appropriate for whoever I am talking to. I am good at getting "impressions" of people, so I even tend to "adapt" to complete strangers, depending on what I think they will react best to; only people who have known me for a LONG time, with whom I feel safe and am not worried about maintaining any kind of impression, get the unadulterated version of me. Now, that's not to say that I just lie about myself or who I "am," although I have in the past, but I do feel the need to "keep my shields up," as you say, until I feel very confident that people won't flee at the first sight of my "ugly" inner self (not that I think it's ugly, although I do struggle with some insecurity, but more than I fear that others will be driven away when I am completely honest about how I feel and what I think about; a lot of what goes on in my head would make many people want to have nothing to do with me).

I wouldn't say that I'm particularly good at intentionally influencing peoples emotions when it comes to stuff like calming someone down or cheering them up; I empathize honestly when I can relate to an experience, and I am very sensitive with people when I can tell that it is needed, but more than trying to help people "feel better," I tend to handle these situations by offering practical advice or helping people be "real" about what is going on that is making them flip out. I think this is actually characteristic of 3s on the whole, being part of the competency triad.

So, yeah, I can relate to some of the things you're saying, at least on the level that you are making them accessible at, but I think it would be very helpful if you referred to the actual occurrences, preferences, etc that you are talking about before translating them into "Socio-babble."

[Gilly]

And by the way, I care absolutely nil for social norms, expectations, "proper" behavior, or any of those things, unless it helps me get something I want. Don't fool yourself; EIEs can be some of the most outspoken against these kinds of things, especially if it relates to promoting freedom of self-expression.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[ScarlettLux]

And by the way, I care absolutely nil for social norms, expectations, "proper" behavior, or any of those things, unless it helps me get something I want. Don't fool yourself; EIEs can be some of the most outspoken against these kinds of things, especially if it relates to promoting freedom of self-expression.

Absolutely agree with this. This is one of the worst stereotypes about Fe out there.

And unefille, I have taken your thoughts about your type into account, but Gilly is right - you didn't necessarily give much information as to exactly why you are Fi creative rather than Fe dominant, or even just Fe ego. I dunno, I have an EXTREMELY strong conviction that you are a Beta NF. I will not let go of this idea until proven wrong, haha. Also : just because Enneagram is "closer" to a theory of personality, how can you say that Socionics is not? That doesn't necessarily make too much sense to me, because there are OBVIOUS similarities between persons of the same type -- not necessarily their "fixations" and whatnot that Enneagram focuses on, but moreso ways of dealing with the world that much of the time, result in similar personalities due to similar outlooks on life. Yes, it IS "information metabolism" but isn't the way we take in information about the world a HUGE deciding factor in how we act/behave?

[Gilly]

Um, just don't fool yourself. Period.

Huh?

[Gilly]

o_O k

[unefille]

Personally, I know that I often feel like I am "riding out" an Fe atmosphere, or keeping up an act just to deal with someone/get something from them; as a child I rarely wanted to go to dinner with my parents at other people's house because I felt like I had to put on a show, and it took energy. I have a hard time containing the "storm within," so to speak, so until I reached an age when I had learned to control and direct that energy, it was stressful for me to be around people in a closer setting if I thought I had to be worried about their opinion of me at all.

I don't have an inner storm. I look at Beta NFs and they seem to have this strange complexity about them, the way their mind works because of Ni, which I can't explain so much as I can describe, that to me it seems like this silvery, tightly wound cochlear. I get people like that to identify with my ideas sometimes, but I ALWAYS feel like fraud - like I'm pulling things out of then air, rather than from within.

It's been suggested that I don't always know myself - which combined with being supposedly self-aware is both perplexing, but something I have no problem dealing with. [I can hold in my mind multiple conflicting positions and ideas and not be particularly concered with gaining any 'clarity' amongst them - of course, what's in my mind and what I write are two separate things.]

This just a quote from a friend of mine sitting across from me:

I don't think [unefille] is as situationally adaptive as she has made out so far in this thread. I don't think her overriding instinct is to necessarily adapt to the social situation and give people what they, subjectively, want, but rather go in and ensure that everyone there knows that she is the best person at what she's doing. I guess what she's appealing to is their notions of competence - either intellectual or social or whatever. Even on these forums, she's displaying intellectual competence to impress this audience, and she'll draw on whatever parts of herself she needs to in order to do so.

But I don't think this changes what she's good at naturally. She'll do it for a while, and then she'll get fed up with it and either leave the location (so no one will be any the wiser to her frustration and subsequent alteration of behaviour) or go off away from there to re-charge in order to deal with the situation again. Her more natural self, when she's not acting to impress her audience, is more subdued, but also more analytical and...unconcerned with her appearance (in the persona sense, not physical).

She doesn't bother to...structure her thoughts. Is far more random. She tells this anecdote every so often, so I think I can share it here. But she'll be walking past a hedge with flowers in it, and even if you're walking NEXT to her, you'll see nothing, she'll wave her hands and chatter away, and at the end of the hedge you'll look back and all the flowers are gone and there'll be suspicious traces of petals in her hands. And if you go 'oh, can't take you anywhere' she'll just look at you and make some kind of protest, but not really be concerned with the sentiment expressed. And she meanders. She's like, constitutionally incapable of walking straight. Which frustrates me greatly.

(I can also talk about how I think she's Fi>Fe later, if there's still debate over her type.)

And by the way, I care absolutely nil for social norms, expectations, "proper" behavior, or any of those things, unless it helps me get something I want. Don't fool yourself; EIEs can be some of the most outspoken against these kinds of things, especially if it relates to promoting freedom of self-expression.

Yeah, I do agree - I think I can see EIEs being very radical in that sense - perhaps even militantly here. What I meant is that these features seem to be what is being identified with as reasons I could be EIE and I think 1) they're not an accurate reflection of me and 2) they're not an accurate reflection of EIEs and 3) the fact that image fits neither me nor an EIE does not, by dedution, make me an EIE either.

Absolutely agree with this. This is one of the worst stereotypes about Fe out there.

And unefille, I have taken your thoughts about your type into account, but Gilly is right - you didn't necessarily give much information as to exactly why you are Fi creative rather than Fe dominant, or even just Fe ego.

Good points, but on a tangential note:

I do feel like I am experiencing some problems articulating myself here and I'm going to abstain from using Socio-babble (cute word). The thing is I feel like I'm being asked to take something I know on an intuitive level - somthing that is like a lot of information balled up or in a cloud, without discrete shape or form - and being asked to pry that apart and tag relevants of that ball with different tags: Fi here, Fe there, Ti here, Te HA here. It is the most incredibly daunting task. I know it's necessary, because that's how socionics works that what other typers need - me to separate or break down information for them - but it's not easy for me. I don't even comprehensively know how to convey that lack-of-ease. I don't know what examples to give that are relevant here - which is not, I would argue, simply because I don't understand the theory enough, but because you are asking me to use a blunt knife to cut into a pulsating amorphous mass, like some sort of nebula.

Last thing, before I really do start a type thread (here comes socio-bable): I don't think what I described above is Ti dual-seeking rather than PoLR, though I'm willing to be corrected (I say this, do I mean this?) I think dual-seeking is a function you WANt help with, you appreciate help with. I think PoLR is something you're sort of embarrassed by - that yuou don't want anyone to look at to closely. For me, structuring my thoughts and analysing my reasons and being 'correct' is something I don't want help with - I don't want anyone to help me think. I know the pain and misery and the loops I tie myself into over what I will term loosely 'thinking analytically' but I WILL NOT accept assistance for it. My strategy is to retreat behind a metaphorical curtain (a blank expression), force myself to do what is a daunting and difficult task, and only show people the results of that. It's why I wanted to find my type before I got to the forums, rather than what a lot of people seem to do, which is arrive and demand that the forums help type them. It's the very stupid and often self-defeating marriage of what I see to be Ti PoLR and an obsessive desire for competence.

[Gilly]

I don't have an inner storm. I look at Beta NFs and they seem to have this strange complexity about them, the way their mind works because of Ni, which I can't explain so much as I can describe, that to me it seems like this silvery, tightly wound cochlear. I get people like that to identify with my ideas sometimes, but I ALWAYS feel like fraud - like I'm pulling things out of then air, rather than from within.

How do you know it's Ni if you don't know what it is?

Yeah, I do agree - I think I can see EIEs being very radical in that sense - perhaps even militantly here. What I meant is that these features seem to be what is being identified with as reasons I could be EIE and I think 1) they're not an accurate reflection of me and 2) they're not an accurate reflection of EIEs and 3) the fact that image fits neither me nor an EIE does not, by dedution, make me an EIE either.

You're right, it doesn't make you EIE; however, you seemed to be using that pre-supposed aspect of "Fe" as a way of discounting the EIE typing, which, I was trying to point out, is fallacious.

Good points, but on a tangential note:

I do feel like I am experiencing some problems articulating myself here and I'm going to abstain from using Socio-babble (cute word). The thing is I feel like I'm being asked to take something I know on an intuitive level - somthing that is like a lot of information balled up or in a cloud, without discrete shape or form - and being asked to pry that apart and tag relevants of that ball with different tags: Fi here, Fe there, Ti here, Te HA here. It is the most incredibly daunting task. I know it's necessary, because that's how socionics works that what other typers need - me to separate or break down information for them - but it's not easy for me. I don't even comprehensively know how to convey that lack-of-ease. I don't know what examples to give that are relevant here - which is not, I would argue, simply because I don't understand the theory enough, but because you are asking me to use a blunt knife to cut into a pulsating amorphous mass, like some sort of nebula.

Not to undermine your apparent perceptiveness, but I wouldn't count on any kind of "intuitive sense" of Socionics types in what seems to be fairly early on in your grasping of the theory.

Sounds a lot like FeNi "impressions" to me, though.

Last thing, before I really do start a type thread (here comes socio-bable): I don't think what I described above is Ti dual-seeking rather than PoLR, though I'm willing to be corrected (I say this, do I mean this?) I think dual-seeking is a function you WANt help with, you appreciate help with. I think PoLR is something you're sort of embarrassed by - that yuou don't want anyone to look at to closely. For me, structuring my thoughts and analysing my reasons and being 'correct' is something I don't want help with - I don't want anyone to help me think. I know the pain and misery and the loops I tie myself into over what I will term loosely 'thinking analytically' but I WILL NOT accept assistance for it. My strategy is to retreat behind a metaphorical curtain (a blank expression), force myself to do what is a daunting and difficult task, and only show people the results of that. It's why I wanted to find my type before I got to the forums, rather than what a lot of people seem to do, which is arrive and demand that the forums help type them. It's the very stupid and often self-defeating marriage of what I see to be Ti PoLR and an obsessive desire for competence.

Actually I do think it sounds like Ti seeking. It sounds like you have a lot of ideas that you may or may not have "Socionically significant" reasons for having, but nonetheless you appear to need some Ti "organization" for your intuitions and impressions.

I'm actually the same way: I don't want anyone "helping" me think. I want someone to push me to do so for myself, more than anything. I want to be put to the test, to be made to fend for myself, and to grow from that; that is pretty much my m.o.

TBH at this point I am seeing more IEI than EIE, but both Beta NFs seem like options IMO.

[idolatrie]

You're right, it doesn't make you EIE; however, you seemed to be using that pre-supposed aspect of "Fe" as a way of discounting the EIE typing, which, I was trying to point out, is fallacious.

Sorry for jumping in here, but I think there's a misunderstanding going on here. I think people are saying unefille is an EIE because she's socially aware and concerned with social conventions, and she's saying that while she is, that is not a reflection of her 'natural' use of functions, but rather a constuction created to interact with people who value such functions. I think she's trying to say that the basis of typing her is fallacious, rather than there being any error with the characteristics you have attributed to EIE.

So it's like saying that unefille is EIE because of Y, and that EIEs are Y (among other things). Gilly then says EIEs can be Z as well. But unefille is saying that she is neither Y nor Z, and thus the grounds for tagging her as EIE are invalid. And also the fact that EIE =\= Y (because EIEs also = Z) is not positive evidence that she is indeed EIE.

(...ok, that was...bizarre. Sorry.)

Not to undermine your apparent perceptiveness, but I wouldn't count on any kind of "intuitive sense" of Socionics types in what seems to be fairly early on in your grasping of the theory.

Sounds a lot like FeNi "impressions" to me, though.

I'm wondering why this is being characterised as FeNi rather than, say Ne. What is the inherent difference between the two you are pointing to here? I'm asking honestly here, because I don't understand how you got to FeNi when she's comparing two things using a metaphor, rather than referring to any 'essential self' in that description.

Actually I do think it sounds like Ti seeking. It sounds like you have a lot of ideas that you may or may not have "Socionically significant" reasons for having, but nonetheless you appear to need some Ti "organization" for your intuitions and impressions.

I'm actually the same way: I don't want anyone "helping" me think. I want someone to push me to do so for myself, more than anything. I want to be put to the test, to be made to fend for myself, and to grow from that; that is pretty much my m.o.

I think the use of Ti here is done purely for the purpose of communicating with others. I believe she touched on this in another post where she analysed the discursive aspect of Socionics, and in order to be heard in the dominant orthodoxy, one must necessarily speak the language. If she doesn't provide Ti, then she will be accused of not understanding Socionics and thus shut out of the discourse.

I think your description of Ti is different. You seem to cast it in a positive light. It is something that can lead to your betterment. It will teach you how to survive and grow, and the implication being it will help you flourish. Whereas I think unefille sees Ti as this necessary evil. She studies models and programs, and learns how to master them, but she resents having to constrain herself with such systems. She would prefer to be able to engage in a Ti-free environment, such as just brainstorming where tangential thoughts are the purpose, rather than an abberation to be pruned away by the cruel secateurs of Ti.

TBH at this point I am seeing more IEI than EIE, but both Beta NFs seem like options IMO.

Ahahaha...ah, she's definitely extraverted. Seriously. And I mean that in the socionics sense, not in the social, where you wouldn't necessarily think that all the time. I also think it is strange that identicals (if she were EIE, and you are EIE - which I'm not up to date with your typing, apologies) could so fundamentally misunderstand each other. Perhaps this is more indicative of quasis? Comparing her to other EIEs we have definitively typed as such (or those the forum has typed as such, in case there's some foundational issue with our mode of typing), there's just such a distinct difference in how they interact with people, and how they phrase and frame their thoughts. I think unefille is a lot more conciliatory than beta NFs, yet at the same time requires Te rather than Ti logic/reasoning to convince her to change her mind. She responds far better to Te-egos as opposed to Ti-egos, she encourages the friendship of Te-ers and makes every effort to reduce the emphasis of Ti-ers in her life.

I feel the need to end this post on a conciliatory note. (Is this deltaness leaking out?) Please don't take this as an attempt to be instigatory. I'm just trying to help paint a fuller picture of how I see unefille to really be.

[Christy B]

Sorry for jumping in here, but I think there's a misunderstanding going on here.

Welcome to our forum! LOL

[ScarlettLux]

Bah, I'm sorry that I really have zero back-up support for this vague "impression" I have, but I just don't know how to coherently break apart my thoughts either, just like unefille has described. I think this is something very common for Beta NFs to experience. I have noticed IEIs not participating in "intellectual" discussion here because they just don't know how to properly verbalize their jumble of thoughts OR they don't feel they know the material well enough to truly show their opinions for fear of being shot down or seen as incompetent. They are also lazy LOL

But really, what you described with your incoherent thoughts and stuff is something I relate to as well, and like Gilly, I see it as a sign of Ti Super-Id. I dunno, even though you SAY you see it as this necessary evil, it's just that I think your use of it is way too exposed and focused upon to be be part of your Super-Ego. Hm, I hate to question your entire understanding of Socionics functions and whatnot, but something about both you AND idolatrie smells of Beta. Yes, Betas smell.

I just "get" your way of writing way too much, it feels so familiar, I can't even emphasize that enough. And I have never known any LSEs IRL or even on the forum (haah, sorry UDP! still don't think you are and never will think you are), but I really do not see how idolatrie could possibly be my super-ego. Or how she could be the conflictor of an IEI. I also abhor to bring up stereotypes and all, but it is highly unlikely in my mind for an alleged LSE to write, be interested in the stuff idolatrie is in? (Totally discount this comment, I know it's very, very stereotypical)

I dunno, I have no clue what type she is, but I just sense a lot of Ti in her writing too. Gah, see -- Ti writing to me makes clear sense, I feel calm and reassured after reading it. Unlike Te which although may be clear is in a way, too "dull" and "dry" for me... too factual and just plain. It's again, a vibe that I can't necessarily describe too well. I apologize =[

[Gilly]

Sorry for jumping in here, but I think there's a misunderstanding going on here. I think people are saying unefille is an EIE because she's socially aware and concerned with social conventions, and she's saying that while she is, that is not a reflection of her 'natural' use of functions, but rather a constuction created to interact with people who value such functions. I think she's trying to say that the basis of typing her is fallacious, rather than there being any error with the characteristics you have attributed to EIE.

So it's like saying that unefille is EIE because of Y, and that EIEs are Y (among other things). Gilly then says EIEs can be Z as well. But unefille is saying that she is neither Y nor Z, and thus the grounds for tagging her as EIE are invalid. And also the fact that EIE == Y (because EIEs also = Z) is not positive evidence that she is indeed EIE.

(...ok, that was...bizarre. Sorry.)

Ummm...I never tried to offer that as positive evidence. I just meant it's not a good reason for her to NOT be EIE, which she presented it as.

My "grounds for tagging her as EIE" are more a combination of my impression of her as a person and the fact that she is an E3, which is a common E-type for EIEs. None of the reasons you mentioned really have anything to do with why I think she might be EIE.

I'm wondering why this is being characterised as FeNi rather than, say Ne. What is the inherent difference between the two you are pointing to here? I'm asking honestly here, because I don't understand how you got to FeNi when she's comparing two things using a metaphor, rather than referring to any 'essential self' in that description.

I'm not trying to characterize it concretely, but if I were to put it into words, I would say that it doesn't sound like it has anything in particular to do with Fi or Ti, which it would have to in order to "be Ne." It sounds more like a subjective impression based on instances of behavior, rather than discrete logical deductions, or anything to do with having a "relationship" with the person. I tend to associate this with Fe+Ni.

I think the use of Ti here is done purely for the purpose of communicating with others. I believe she touched on this in another post where she analysed the discursive aspect of Socionics, and in order to be heard in the dominant orthodoxy, one must necessarily speak the language. If she doesn't provide Ti, then she will be accused of not understanding Socionics and thus shut out of the discourse.

Actually I think it sounds like she LACKS Ti, and perhaps needs it in order to help organize and properly categorize these impressions or intuitions that she is having about people and their types. They very well be potentially type-related, but it doesn't quite sound like she's got the system down yet to the point that these "intuitions" can be well-explained, and theefore it sounds kind of silly when she says "I don't know, I can just intuitively tell this person's type."

I think your description of Ti is different. You seem to cast it in a positive light. It is something that can lead to your betterment. It will teach you how to survive and grow, and the implication being it will help you flourish. Whereas I think unefille sees Ti as this necessary evil. She studies models and programs, and learns how to master them, but she resents having to constrain herself with such systems. She would prefer to be able to engage in a Ti-free environment, such as just brainstorming where tangential thoughts are the purpose, rather than an abberation to be pruned away by the cruel secateurs of Ti.

I'm just wondering if she understands Ti.

BTW, EIEs are often noted as "rejecting" systems and rules and such, because they curtail their opportunities for self-expression.

Maybe unefille would gain something from reading Rick's description of EIEs (pay special attention to that fourth paragraph):

http://socionics.us/types/eie.shtml

Ahahaha...ah, she's definitely extraverted. Seriously. And I mean that in the socionics sense, not in the social, where you wouldn't necessarily think that all the time. I also think it is strange that identicals (if she were EIE, and you are EIE - which I'm not up to date with your typing, apologies) could so fundamentally misunderstand each other. Perhaps this is more indicative of quasis? Comparing her to other EIEs we have definitively typed as such (or those the forum has typed as such, in case there's some foundational issue with our mode of typing), there's just such a distinct difference in how they interact with people, and how they phrase and frame their thoughts. I think unefille is a lot more conciliatory than beta NFs, yet at the same time requires Te rather than Ti logic/reasoning to convince her to change her mind. She responds far better to Te-egos as opposed to Ti-egos, she encourages the friendship of Te-ers and makes every effort to reduce the emphasis of Ti-ers in her life.

All I'm saying is maybe you guys should spend a little more time with the theory before you use it to jump to conclusions and start rationalizing with them, which, IMO, you appear to be doing.

I feel the need to end this post on a conciliatory note. (Is this deltaness leaking out?) Please don't take this as an attempt to be instigatory. I'm just trying to help paint a fuller picture of how I see unefille to really be.

Sounds more like Fe to me :wink:


Hey, I hope this doesn't sound too much like I'm just trying to bash your understanding or anything...I just think it sounds like you guys are jumping in head-first with a couple of potentially dangerous inappropriate assumptions, which I think you might want to think twice about. No hate Just trying to help.

[unefille]

Call this Ti if you will, but I have 4 points to make:

1. I think there is fundamental miscommunication going on here. Reading the repsonses to our posts, there are huge questions marks floating over my (and idolatrie's) head. We don't know how we could be so misread - we believe you're reading things that we did not write. Perhaps we were not clear enough, but I don't think the substance nor the communication skills were faulty, so much as something else more fundamental was lost in translation. For instance, I never asserted I type by intuition, rather that I access my thoughts intuitively - I access myself intuitively. I don't say 'you feel like this to me' and promptly cease all attempts to examine the person, happy to rest on that conclusion. Moreover, for me, no conclusion is ever set in stone. This was just an example, that's all it is.

2. Whilst it may be easy to dismiss us on the basis that we don't know socionics sufficiently, I think that is presumptuous and false. We cannot claim to have perfect knowledge of the system, however we don't believe any person can. Of course we haven't finished learning, but being dismissed on the grounds of lacking authority from which to speak is incredibly irritating. We have studied this already - and read most of the material available online. What is different is that we have only recently begun to post here. The fact that you do not necessarily agree with us does not make us ignorant or wrong, since so little agreement seems to take place, even amongst those 'recognised' as authoritative. Please don't use authority to spank us down - that said, thank you for trying to (I believe sincerely) help us out.

3. I think our conciliatory and polite tone is being mistaken for hesitance borne out of ignorance, by assuming that we have the same values as you do. That is not so. Our conciliatory style is also not Fe - and the attempt to read any form of politeness, joking or the extension of human warmth and understanding as Fe is a serious flaw - what is Fi then? Personal relationships alone? Is there no politeness, decency or concliation in a relationship? We don't know you, but we have no reason to dislike you, nor any reason to encourage you to dislike us. Therefore, we are polite. If the insuination is that non-Fe-valuing people cannot be polite, then I would reject that even if I WERE Fe-valuing.

4. There is a lot of debate about the correlation between socionics and enneagram. At best, even if those who advocate that correlation prevail, correlation is never perfect. There are always anomalies in the system - we call them 'outliers' in statistics. Outliers are not, in fact, unusual when dealing with people because of human nature's complexities. Moreover, the correlation between the two can only, at best, be an approximation of two completely discrete systems that share no commonalities and certainly were not concieved to explain the same things, nor serve the same purpose (emphasis on what they were concieved to do, not what they are used for now by us). Socionics for one is much more rigorously formulated whilst the ennegram seems to have little explanatory basis and is based almost entirely on observed behaviour from which 'fixations' are intuitively extrapolated. Therefore, I personally do not find it convincing that I cannot be IEE and 3 at the same time - I value the empirical evidence that I perceive (which is that I am) - you may dispute this evidence, but you cannot show that my claim is false when the premise of your argument is highly dubious and completely unsubstantiated.

All in all, this has been both fun and frustrating at the same time! A two for one deal if there ever were such a thing. Hopefully nobody is offended by this post becuase we definitely do NOT mean any offence (y'all are awesome, yo - this is bad Fe, but see, we try), but we thought these things needed to be expressed.

[unefille]

Bah, I'm sorry that I really have zero back-up support for this vague "impression" I have, but I just don't know how to coherently break apart my thoughts either, just like unefille has described. I think this is something very common for Beta NFs to experience. I have noticed IEIs not participating in "intellectual" discussion here because they just don't know how to properly verbalize their jumble of thoughts OR they don't feel they know the material well enough to truly show their opinions for fear of being shot down or seen as incompetent. They are also lazy LOL

I think you're selling Beta NFs short here - I think you guys are highly intelligent and more than capable of expressing your thoughts. If the forum creates an environment where Beta NFs feel they cannot speak up, that is not necessarily a short coming of Beta NFs.

My post about intuitive understanding was not to say I cannot break down my thoughts at all, but rather I felt that in your post you were asking me for something - something which I do associate with Ti and I was merely expressing that I felt you were asking me for something that I perhaps could not provide as adequately as you would like. That said, I don't believe that just because you are NF, whether Beta or Delta, you should consider yourself functionally limited to only feeling vibes and never being able to articulate them.

<3

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[idolatrie]

I think unefile, that in the same way I feel that I easily understand other SFs, what they write and where they're coming from, including alpha SFs (jem, bionic, cracka, mime and so on) that NFs also do the same thing with each other. Sometimes this can throw people off if they're not taking other things into account. However, that doesn't explain the attempts to retype idolatrie!

I agree with you wholeheartedly! On both points.

But really, what you described with your incoherent thoughts and stuff is something I relate to as well, and like Gilly, I see it as a sign of Ti Super-Id. I dunno, even though you SAY you see it as this necessary evil, it's just that I think your use of it is way too exposed and focused upon to be be part of your Super-Ego. Hm, I hate to question your entire understanding of Socionics functions and whatnot, but something about both you AND idolatrie smells of Beta. Yes, Betas smell.

I'm not sure why unefille's evaluation of her usage of Ti should be found fallacious? I mean, surely she's the only one who is positioned to have that subjective knowledge of how she feels about and gains access to that function? Also, what you identify as strength and weakness in using functions is not as relevant as the relative stregth and weakness that unefille has since PoLR just has to be her point of least resistance, rather than adhering to some objective standard of universal weakness or incapacity.

I just "get" your way of writing way too much, it feels so familiar, I can't even emphasize that enough. And I have never known any LSEs IRL or even on the forum (haah, sorry UDP! still don't think you are and never will think you are), but I really do not see how idolatrie could possibly be my super-ego. Or how she could be the conflictor of an IEI. I also abhor to bring up stereotypes and all, but it is highly unlikely in my mind for an alleged LSE to write, be interested in the stuff idolatrie is in? (Totally discount this comment, I know it's very, very stereotypical)

I'm hesitant about placing too much weight on this part of your post given how you have qualified it, but it is also the comment with which I have the greatest problem. I'm not sure how to respond, actually, since I don't know what I wrote that can be construed as conclusively proving I am not the conflictor of an IEI. And yes, I will take your invitation to ignore the comment on the interests of LSEs as I did read it as derogatory, and would not want to become unnecessarily defensive.

I dunno, I have no clue what type she is, but I just sense a lot of Ti in her writing too. Gah, see -- Ti writing to me makes clear sense, I feel calm and reassured after reading it. Unlike Te which although may be clear is in a way, too "dull" and "dry" for me... too factual and just plain. It's again, a vibe that I can't necessarily describe too well. I apologize =[

I'm not sure why I wouldn't be capable of Ti in my writing. Given my educational background, I have had to learn how to talk in the dominant discourse, if you will, in order to be heard. And especially given the medium of communication here, if my desire for clarity of expression is being interpreted as demonstration of Ti, well, I am only the writer and cannot control the interpretation of my words. Nonetheless, I do not think my own mode of logical reasoning is Ti in the least. I'll leave the rest unsaid to avoid turning this into a discussion of my type here.

My "grounds for tagging her as EIE" are more a combination of my impression of her as a person and the fact that she is an E3, which is a common E-type for EIEs. None of the reasons you mentioned really have anything to do with why I think she might be EIE.

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood your point then. In any case, I would like to reiterate what unefille pointed to in item 4 of her general reply.

I'm not trying to characterize it concretely, but if I were to put it into words, I would say that it doesn't sound like it has anything in particular to do with Fi or Ti, which it would have to in order to "be Ne." It sounds more like a subjective impression based on instances of behavior, rather than discrete logical deductions, or anything to do with having a "relationship" with the person. I tend to associate this with Fe+Ni.

I think we disagree here. I'm not sure why Ne must, in this context, be blocked with Fi or Ti, and cannot be considered as a function by itself? Fi may give Ne a direction, but that does not mean the latter is not a separate function. If not, differentiating between base and creative would be irrelevant. I'm not sure we can get any further in discussing this though.

Actually I think it sounds like she LACKS Ti, and perhaps needs it in order to help organize and properly categorize these impressions or intuitions that she is having about people and their types. They very well be potentially type-related, but it doesn't quite sound like she's got the system down yet to the point that these "intuitions" can be well-explained, and theefore it sounds kind of silly when she says "I don't know, I can just intuitively tell this person's type."

Unefille has mostly replied to this in item 1 of her general reply.

I'm just wondering if she understands Ti.

I believe she does, but please don't take my word on it, perhaps this may be of assistance: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...10&postcount=9

All I'm saying is maybe you guys should spend a little more time with the theory before you use it to jump to conclusions and start rationalizing with them, which, IMO, you appear to be doing.

Hey, I hope this doesn't sound too much like I'm just trying to bash your understanding or anything...I just think it sounds like you guys are jumping in head-first with a couple of potentially dangerous inappropriate assumptions, which I think you might want to think twice about. No hate Just trying to help.

Maybe I'm reading this more sensitively than I should, but the presumption that I am jumping to conclusions and rationalising my behaviour is problematic for me. I wouldn't seek to engage with others based on a theory if I did not have an adequate knowledge of said system, and I do not feel my knowledge here is so lacking that I am using faulty reasoning within the model. Please see point 2 on the general reply for further details.

But hey, I do appreciate you taking the time to engage with us and I'll definitely consider the points you raise. Cheers.

[Ezra]

When 8s are openly expressing their competitiveness, I'm a little taken aback, because I find overt competitiveness unsettling and alien, yet at the same time, losing equals self-abnegation, so I have to win.

What! Like Threes aren't overly competitive?

[Gilly]

*shrug* This obviously isn't going anywhere.

[Christy B]

*shrug* This obviously isn't going anywhere.

Gilly it is going places... even if it is not the places you want to make it go! Listen to them please.

[unefille]

What! Like Threes aren't overly competitive?

It's a different type of competitiveness for me and I don't think I see everything as a competition - only certain arenas that pertain the image I've constructed, rather than all arenas the way it seems that competition and life sort of blend together for 8s, so they're never being particularly competitive, they're just being themselves - it's their base state.

With my 8 friend, she says things like: I don't want to lose to them! or I can't let them win! - in that sense of her competitiveness is very much about her competition - about beating those in competition with her and thus asserting some form of dominance.

With me, what I say is: I don't want to lose or I must win. The focus is on myself - not my competition. I need to win - the necessary corollary of that is that I have to beat other people - but it's not my concern, really. 'Not losing' drives me more than 'Beating Other People' or 'Asserting Dominance'. It's never about power or dominance or assertion of control to me. I just don't want to lose, because I've built an identity around success and to lose will lead to that identity crumbling.

[Expat]

3. I think our conciliatory and polite tone is being mistaken for hesitance borne out of ignorance, by assuming that we have the same values as you do. That is not so. Our conciliatory style is also not Fe - and the attempt to read any form of politeness, joking or the extension of human warmth and understanding as Fe is a serious flaw - what is Fi then? Personal relationships alone? Is there no politeness, decency or concliation in a relationship?

You are writing as if the use of Fi, or its valuing, would rule out Fe. That is not so at all. Politeness is indeed a manifestation of Fe, to the extent that you are "softening" logical information - just like saying "lol @ your ignorance for thinking that" is another use of Fe. Fi works as your understanding of the static relationship between yourself and another person; so it is Fi that may lead you to focus more on Fe, or Te, according to the person.

We don't know you, but we have no reason to dislike you, nor any reason to encourage you to dislike us. Therefore, we are polite. If the insuination is that non-Fe-valuing people cannot be polite, then I would reject that even if I WERE Fe-valuing.

I don't think Gilly subscribes to the notion, as I don't, that just because you don't value a function it means you can't use it. And what you just said, in the paragraph I just quoted, is precisely what I meant above. You are using Fi (we have no reason to dislike you) to determine your use of Fe (we are polite) because you are aware of Fe input on his Fi (encourage to dislike us).

[unefille]

You are writing as if the use of Fi, or its valuing, would rule out Fe. That is not so at all. Politeness is indeed a manifestation of Fe, to the extent that you are "softening" logical information - just like saying "lol @ your ignorance for thinking that" is another use of Fe. Fi works as your understanding of the static relationship between yourself and another person; so it is Fi that may lead you to focus more on Fe, or Te, according to the person.

Point taken. We misread Gilly as suggesting idolatrie was Fe-valuing as well, rather than just using Fe, having read both his and ScarlettLux's posts in a row. We meant to say, in short, that Fi-valuers are also polite, as are Fe-valuers. That argument only makes sense in the context of us mistaking Gilly for asserting that idolatrie was also Fe-valuing. Apologies Gilly. (I use we because idolatrie and I were sharing a computer at that point.)

[Expat]

Still on this ( I am using quotes because my paragraphs aren't working):

Pure Te: I think you are totally wrong.

The same point with polite Fe: Sorry I don't agree with you, my conclusions on this are different.

The same point with put-down Fe:lol @ you talking about stuff you are clueless about.

It its Ti, and/or Fi, that determines which form of Fe you use with whom.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

Try coding your posts like this (take out spaces for it to work)
< p > Write, la la la, here's a paragraph here, looky, looky < /p >
< p > & n b s p ; < /p >
< p > And here's a new paragraph here. < /p>
Let's see if that posts in right. . .

Cool. Thanks. I will try it later when I'm back home

[Gilly]

Gilly it is going places... even if it is not the places you want to make it go! Listen to them please.

I did listen to them. I just don't see any reason for me to elaborate on my point of view.

It its Ti, and/or Fi, that determines which form of Fe you use with whom.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this and what either emphasis says about a person's type?

[Gilly]

Gilly it is going places... even if it is not the places you want to make it go! Listen to them please.

I have been listening; I just don't see anything positive coming from my continued attempts to explain my point of view, so I'm not going to bother.

[Expat]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this and what either emphasis says about a person's type?

Well, what I mean is this.

Very simplistically, Te is "robotic" transmission of information; Fe-focused types may see the lack of Fe as meaning "bad Fe", but it's not so necessarily. It is what some people call "being dry".

Then there is "polite Fe" as I described above, which "softens" the "robotic" Te exchange of information. And there is, uh, "energetic Fe" which makes the exchange more lively, intense, "passionate" even.

If it is Fi that makes you choose one mode over the other - deliberately or not - it is dependent on the specific person you are interacting with. If you know that the person may find "robotic Te" too harsh, you go for "polite Fe".

If it is Ti that makes you choose the mode, then it's dependent on the situation as you see it, independently of the persons involved.

Of course, the two can get mixed up. For instance, it may be a Ti concept to be "polite Fe" to anyone you don't know well, which may apparently overlap with the Fi concept.

Obviously, Fi-Te quadra types are going to be guided more often by Fi, and Fe-Ti quadra types, by Ti.

However, since both Fi and Ti are "subjective", it may be tricky to actually spot the difference in real interactions.

ETA: and, obviously, it's not a black-and-white thing. Of course Fi-Te types can also be guided by Ti and vice-versa.

[Gilly]

Hmmm...well, with me my usage of Fe is primarily governed by Fi, my relationship with a person: what kind of rapport I have with them, what they know about me, what they have come to expect from me as a person, etc. For instance, I feel awkward being loud, ebullient and expressive around my family, because that simply wasn't part of how I acted when I grew up around them. We have "cutesy moments," in which some sort of Si+Fe-ness comes out, and my mother can be raucous at times, but on the whole we are mostly subdued as a group. However, at work, around the people who have come to know me as loud, somewhat obnoxious, uninhibited, expressive, etc, I act that way almost by default; even if I'm having a shitty day when I walk in, I will eventually start prodding people with jokes/snide remarks, making funny noises and faces, singing along with the music, etc. With my buddies from home, I act a little more down-to-earth, somewhat aloof, but with intervals of loud, raucous, even silly-expressive behavior.

It all depends on the version of "me" that the people I am with know.

As I said before, I do a similar thing with strangers. I will begin interaction with a very mild, nondescript attitude: polite, open, unobtrusively jovial. After observing them, I will get a sense for what kind of person they are, and adapt to whatever I think they will respond best to. It's like a game for me, trying to see what behavior will evoke the response I want out of people. It's uncanny sometimes how inconsistent I can be in a single interaction and still manage to get a favorable response when I "hit their spot" in terms of what they like to see in another person.

[Expat]

Hmmm...well, with me my usage of Fe is primarily governed by Fi, my relationship with a person: what kind of rapport I have with them, what they know about me, what they have come to expect from me as a person, etc. For instance, I feel awkward being loud, ebullient and expressive around my family, because that simply wasn't part of how I acted when I grew up around them. We have "cutesy moments," in which some sort of Si+Fe-ness comes out, and my mother can be raucous at times, but on the whole we are mostly subdued as a group. However, at work, around the people who have come to know me as loud, somewhat obnoxious, uninhibited, expressive, etc, I act that way almost by default; even if I'm having a shitty day when I walk in, I will eventually start prodding people with jokes/snide remarks, making funny noises and faces, singing along with the music, etc. With my buddies from home, I act a little more down-to-earth, somewhat aloof, but with intervals of loud, raucous, even silly-expressive behavior.

You see, that's where there may be an overlap. It could also be interpreted as Ti, as in two situations: family vs work .

As I said before, I do a similar thing with strangers. I will begin interaction with a very mild, nondescript attitude: polite, open, unobtrusively jovial. After observing them, I will get a sense for what kind of person they are, and adapt to whatever I think they will respond best to. It's like a game for me, trying to see what behavior will evoke the response I want out of people. It's uncanny sometimes how inconsistent I can be in a single interaction and still manage to get a favorable response when I "hit their spot" in terms of what they like to see in another person.

But I would argue that you may be seeing the person through Ti rather than Fi.

[Gilly]

You see, that's where there may be an overlap. It could also be interpreted as Ti, as in two situations: family vs work .

Mmmm...not quite; it's dependent on the individual.

But I would argue that you may be seeing the person through Ti rather than Fi.

Well I think it's mostly me using Fe+Ni to get a sense of the person, an "impression" of them, and use my aptitude at being a chameleon to evoke a response. But, in the sense of relying on my sense of different "types" of people (not just as governed by personality theories, but the archetypes I have formed in my head having interacted with a variety of people), and using that to correlate mannerisms and ways of interacting that I think will be useful in evoking a certain kind of response, yes, it is Ti>Fi.