tereg's thread

[consentingadult]

The ISTps and ESTjs I know do not have "unrelenting standards". Te + Ni is different than Te + Si.

I think it is a good point in time to elaborate on schemas. A schema is a set of underlying believes, which involved cognitions, emotional memories (stored in the amygdala instead of the cortex) etc. etc., but in themselves they do not include the behavior that follows from the schema. In the case of maladaptive schemas (since not all schemas are maladaptive, in fact, each maladaptive schema has a healthy counterpart), there are typically three types of Coping Styles:

• Surrender
• Avoidance
• Overcompensation

In the case of Unrelenting Standards, these coping styles are:

• Surrender: attempts to perform perfectly; sets high standards for self and others
• Avoidance: avoids taking work on work tasks; procrastinates
• Overcompensation: Throws out high standards altogether and settles for below average performance.

So, as you can see, procrastination does not conflict with Unrelenting Standards, neither does having very low standards (although having low standards does not always imply a coping style of Unrelenting Standards).

I hope this clarifies things a little bit.

[consentingadult]

Also 'unrelenting standards' can be seen as being how impressive about adhearing to the demands of society (Fe and Se) something is.

I think 'Unrelenting Standards" is more common in combination with the so-called Self-Sacrifice Schema (which related to Fi), which is about self-imposed ethical standards. This is opposed to the so-called Subjugation Schema, in which a person subordinates themselves to standards that are not their own (perhaps on a subconscious level), i.e. against their will, which is more in line with Fe and Se. However, Unrelenting Standards are, in the opinion of Jeffrey Young, typically the result of demanding parents, and can indeed be manifest in all quadras, but imho more likely in the Delta and Gamma quadra.

[consentingadult]

Another way of looking at it:

Tereg could be complaining about how nobody understands the complexity and difficulty of the administrative details (Te and Si details), whilst they still have incorrect preconceived ideas about how things are supposed to work.

Isn't the essence of a Te-valuing person that they tend to think all people should be good at Te, thus have the ability deal with difficult and complex administrative details? I know I do. I typically have no sympathy for companies who fuck up and then blame it on complexties, computer malfunctions, procedures that have to be followed etc. etc. Why not? BECAUSE THESE THINGS DO NOT HAVE TO HAPPEND IF THEY ARE ANTICIPATED AND TAKEN CARE OF! As far as I'm concerned, the only good excuse is when you're hit by a tsunami or an earthquake, or in some cases, when a person's family member has died or their child is unexpectedly hospitalized and needs to be attended to. All other excuses are lame and invalid, especially those where blame is put on computers. I know this, because I am a software and systems developer myself, and typically, my systems work and they keep working. And I'm a mediocre programmer in my own eyes.

Edit: I do have sympathy for companies that do fuck up and admit that they did so and then take action to make up for it. Unfortunately, I increasingly see BPE (Business Process Re engineering) principles applied in corporate businesses, which means difficulties are solved in a Ti manner, neglecting an approach were a focus an Fi and Te would be more effective. Damn that ISO 9000 craziness!

[leckysupport]

Isn't the essence of a Te-valuing person that they tend to think all people should be good at Te, thus have the ability deal with difficult and complex administrative details? I know I do. I typically have no sympathy for companies who fuck up and then blame it on complexties, computer malfunctions, procedures that have to be followed etc. etc. Why not? BECAUSE THESE THINGS DO NOT HAVE TO HAPPEND IF THEY ARE ANTICIPATED AND TAKEN CARE OF!

IME Te leading people expect you to understand how your business works. They are thoroughly against people who are worried about the perception of competence opposed to really knowing what they're doing (Fe vs. Te). So my guess is they wouldn't want to be the idiot who doesn't understand how anything works, who demands things they can't get and then complains loudly about something they don't understand.

[Slacker]

A healthy person wouldn't have it indeed, and there are many healthy LSEs and SLIs. However, unhealthy SLIs and LSEs do project these standards onto other people, not on themselves: LSEs driving subordinates to unhealthy levels of productivity, and SLIs being critical of the 'incompetence' of other people:





P.S.: could you elaborate on the difference between Te+Ni and Te+Si and how you see it?

That's exactly how I see it. I guess expecting productivity seems worse to me, probably because of my quadra values. But, SLIs see people as incompetent, and I imagine my husband sees me as incompetent often (my computer just stopped working there a minute ago, and I asked him to fix it, and he said it wasn't anything that difficult), but he doesn't see me as worthless or have an expectation that I be competent - he just takes care of it. They don't necessarily expect others to be competent.

I will admit to scanning because I've been a little busy on and off today, but it sounded like you were saying that Te people would be annoyed by tereg because he's bad at Te. That doesn't make sense and contradicts the concept of duality. So maybe I just misread you.

[tereg]

I feel like I need to say something or contribute something at this point, but I'm not sure what.

[JuJu]

Isn't the essence of a Te-valuing person that they tend to think all people should be good at Te, thus have the ability deal with difficult and complex administrative details? I know I do. I typically have no sympathy for companies who fuck up

I cannot agree more strongly with this... Looking back on times when I've 'lost my cool,' inordinately, it's been in situations where a bureaucracy has mishandled info related to me, and thus caused me some sort of unfair punishment (how I see it) or inconvenience (how they see it.) This happened with my health insurance a few months ago--I lost health coverage for two months b/c of a clerical error (while changing addresses on the phone, the clerical worker transposed some numbers in my address and thus began sending important notices re: me to another address down the street)--one of my friends said that she'd never seen me so "livid."

Do other ENFps get 'livid' re: bureaucratic errors?

tereg, do you relate to this?

Te incompetence, in this regard, infuriates more than just about anything... Unfortunately for me, I'm not good at keeping/providing documentation, so usually my rage is nonconstructive... I need a ISTp, damn it.

[Slacker]

I cannot agree more strongly with this... Looking back on times when I've 'lost my cool,' inordinately, it's been in situations where a bureaucracy has mishandled info related to me, and thus caused me some sort of unfair punishment (how I see it) or inconvenience (how they see it.) This happened with my health insurance a few months ago--I lost it for two months b/c of a clerical error--one of my friends said that she'd never seen me so "livid."

Does this happen with many ENFps, i.e. livid at bureaucracy errors?

tereg, do you relate to this?

Te incompetence, in this regard, infuriates more than just about anything... Unfortunately for me, I'm not good at documentation, (keeping track of papers, etc,) so usually my rage is just that, and can't be used toward more constructive ends... I need a ISTp, damn it.

I get annoyed by this, but then my dual is someone strong in Te. People with Te in their ego block do not expect strong Te in other people. People expect others to be strong in what their duals are strong in.

[consentingadult]

I feel like I need to say something or contribute something at this point, but I'm not sure what.

You mean as in 'obligated' ?? If so, you do not have to. But may I ask how this discussion has affected you? What are your thoughts right now?

[munenori2]

I find this thread interesting. On one hand it's because I would not have described IEEs very much as they are being presented here. On the other it's that all the deltas I like and identify most with on the board always seem to get told that they aren't deltas at all.

[JuJu]

On one hand it's because I would not have described IEEs very much as they are being presented here. On the other it's that all the deltas I like and identify most with on the board always seem to get told that they aren't deltas at all.

How would you describe IEEs, mune? How is it different than what's being presented in this thread? (Only respond if you have time, of course--I'm interested.)

I get annoyed by this, but then my dual is someone strong in Te. People with Te in their ego block do not expect strong Te in other people. People expect others to be strong in what their duals are strong in.

Well-put... It's awesome that you are with your dual--someone who can help you with that stuff... Honestly, when that happens to me--I am not with my dual--I just throw up my hands, e.g. "what a bunch of incompetent *beep*beep," etc. "Don't they understand how they're making my life bad? I bet they could care less," etc.

Maybe I should work on becoming more accepting of Te incompetence. To me, Te incompetence seems like an epidemic.

[Slacker]

I find this thread interesting. On one hand it's because I would not have described IEEs very much as they are being presented here. On the other it's that all the deltas I like and identify most with on the board always seem to get told that they aren't deltas at all.

I wouldn't describe IEEs as they are being presented here. Especially this part:

is, amongst other things, about morals, about ethics, about ethical behaviour between people. Have you ever seen the anger or rage of an ESI or EII when their value system is violated? Well, with IEEs it's the same thing, but less intense: when you violate an IEE's Fi-based values (whatever they are) they will use their demonstrative Fe to burn you down to the ground (Borderline PD style rage). Their is no hint of Fi in your posts, no moralism, certainly not Fe rage which is rooted in Fi. To me, you seem to be a good guy, one who is very accepting of people, not someone who, like a tradittional IEE, is very picky and moralistic in their approach to choosing friends (Betas especially find this kind of 'clientelism' very annoying).

I have never burned someone to the ground. I am not moralistic. I really think that's more accepting Fi than creative Fi. I think we're more about ethics, like that change from circumstance to circumstance. And I'm not picky or moralistic in choosing friends. If someone burns me, I'll stop hanging out with them, but I have friends who live their lives in ways that I don't agree with, but it's not my issue and I wouldn't stop having someone be a friend for that reason. Basically, IMO that whole quote above is just plain wrong.

[consentingadult]

I cannot agree more strongly with this... Looking back on times when I've 'lost my cool,' inordinately, it's been in situations where a bureaucracy has mishandled info related to me, and thus caused me some sort of unfair punishment (how I see it) or inconvenience (how they see it.) This happened with my health insurance a few months ago--I lost health coverage for two months b/c of a clerical error (while changing addresses on the phone, the clerical worker transposed some numbers in my address and thus began sending important notices re: me to another address down the street)--one of my friends said that she'd never seen me so "livid."

Do other ENFps get 'livid' re: bureaucratic errors?

tereg, do you relate to this?

Te incompetence, in this regard, infuriates more than just about anything... Unfortunately for me, I'm not good at keeping/providing documentation, so usually my rage is nonconstructive... I need a ISTp, damn it.

up to 10 years ago I was able to bypass all such shit by taking a personal approach and stimulating personnel to start fixing the problem. But then companies started to implement BPR procedures and things like scripts that only dealt with the most common issues and I no longer was able to use my Fi/Fe skills. Then, at times I got angry and started to really to fuck up. But I've learned from it. One thing I have learned, is not to subscribe to services of new companies, or new services of existing companies, and if something goes wrong, I always write letters that the recipient has to sign for (what's that called in English??), so they can never say they never got my letters.

[Slacker]

And I should add that I'm not just talking about me. I don't think IEEs in general are like that at all. I don't personally know any IEEs who fit that description IRL.

[consentingadult]

IME Te leading people expect you to understand how your business works. They are thoroughly against people who are worried about the perception of competence opposed to really knowing what they're doing (Fe vs. Te). So my guess is they wouldn't want to be the idiot who doesn't understand how anything works, who demands things they can't get and then complains loudly about something they don't understand.

Thank you, this has helped increase my understanding.

[consentingadult]

And I should add that I'm not just talking about me. I don't think IEEs in general are like that at all. I don't personally know any IEEs who fit that description IRL.

You could very well be right, but then again, I have seen self-acclaimed IEE (e.g. on the wiki) that have made statements to that effect. Perhaps its one of the things that only applies to pathological persons (not necessarily IEEs).

By the way, do I recall correctly that you wrote somewhere in the past that at some stage in your life you were diagnosed with BPD? If yes, do you think it was an applicable diagnosis, or were they wrong about it?

[tereg]

Isn't the essence of a Te-valuing person that they tend to think all people should be good at Te, thus have the ability deal with difficult and complex administrative details? I know I do. I typically have no sympathy for companies who fuck up

I cannot agree more strongly with this... Looking back on times when I've 'lost my cool,' inordinately, it's been in situations where a bureaucracy has mishandled info related to me, and thus caused me some sort of unfair punishment (how I see it) or inconvenience (how they see it.) This happened with my health insurance a few months ago--one of my friends said that she'd never seen me so "livid."

tereg, do you relate to this?

Te competence, in this regard, is EXTREMELY important to me.

Actually, no, I don't. Typically when someone messes something up administratively with regards to myself, I will a vast majority of the time be of the attitude of understanding or "I'm sure there's a reason why this is happening".

This is one example, but, say for instance I order food for delivery and I'm told it will take 40 minutes. If 50 minutes later it hasn't arrived, I don't think much of it, honestly. I sort of look at the conditions (like, weather, or time of day, day of the week, even unforeseen things, things like this) that might affect the delivery. There's a cushion that I automatically give plus or minus if I am promised or told something will happen. If they arrive in an hour or whatever, and they apologize for the wait, I will undoubtedly, and naturally say something "Hey, it's all right. No problem." and honestly not think much of it. I think it would take something really egregious for me to, you know, start to wonder. Like, if it had been, say, anywhere from an hour and a half to two hours, I might at that point just call to check on the status. But even then, I take the position of, "any reasonable explanation will be acceptable". I take a rather soft stance with regards to these sorts of situations.

Like, I seem to recall one time when I ordered something and they had lost my order or there was a mix-up of some sort which delayed the delivery, and once they realized what they had done, I don't really remembered if they offered it at a discounted price or that they would get it out to me immediately and add something to what I had ordered. And I think in either case, I pretty much accepted whatever they offered. I'm usually like "Hey, look, I understand, it happens."

Actually, yeah, a similar thing did happen once when I ordered Chinese food. And it was one of those situations where they suddenly got extremely busy, and I could hear the state of affairs when I called them, it sounded like they were understaffed, falling behind, but were doing everything they could. And I reassured them over the phone "Hey, I can hear and tell that it sounds pretty stressful there. I know you guys are doing whatever you can, trust me, I understand. [then something about working in food industry] How long do you think it will take from this point?" [they tell me] "Ok, no problem. I'll be here."

They seemed rather touched or relieved when I told them that. When the guy arrived with the food, he said that the manager wanted him to tell me how thankful they were about understanding. They threw in some extra stuff with the delivery and included a roll-up calendar too. I was very accepting and thankful, telling them again that I understand these sorts of things happen from time to time.

So, that's one example, but generally I handle similar sorts of things in similar ways.

[consentingadult]

I get annoyed by this, but then my dual is someone strong in Te. People with Te in their ego block do not expect strong Te in other people. People expect others to be strong in what their duals are strong in.

This I find very interesting, because I feel there is something I can learn here. Does your husband also take care of issues with companies that fuck up, and if so, how does he do that?

[leckysupport]

People expect others to be strong in what their duals are strong in.

I disagree.

[Slacker]

You could very well be right, but then again, I have seen self-acclaimed IEE (e.g. on the wiki) that have made statements to that effect. Perhaps its one of the things that only applies to pathological persons (not necessarily IEEs).

By the way, do I recall correctly that you wrote somewhere in the past that at some stage in your life you were diagnosed with BPD? If yes, do you think it was an applicable diagnosis, or were they wrong about it?

No I have never been diagnosed with anything like that. You must be thinking of someone else. I've never had an issue where I've had to see a psychiatrist or psychologist. I was told in school that I had ADHD, or whatever they called it in the 70s, but that doesn't seem to be a serious issue and I did well in school so I don't think that's relevant.

[Slacker]

This I find very interesting, because I feel there is something I can learn here. Does your husband also take care of issues with companies that fuck up, and if so, how does he do that?

Yes he does. Our health insurance had issues a few weeks ago. They wanted us to prove that our 6-year-old daughter isn't married and therefore covered under her husband's health insurance. And we had to prove this in a very small amount of time, and I'm pregnant and therefore we're going to have a ton of big medical bills coming up soon that we can't afford to pay without insurance. I was stressed, but he said not to worry about it and completely handled it. There have also been times where I've been charged incorrectly for something, and sometimes even partially due to my own incompetence or lack of attention, and he still makes all the calls and takes care of it. He pays all bills and everything because for the short period of time I was in charge of that, things weren't getting paid properly and we were getting late fees from people. Late fees drive him crazy. But he said that he'd rather just take care of it anyway, he'd just thought that since I was at home all the time it might be something I could do.

[JuJu]

Actually, no, I don't. Typically when someone messes something up administratively with regards to myself, I will a vast majority of the time be of the attitude of understanding or "I'm sure there's a reason why this is happening".

This is one example, but, say for instance I order food for delivery and I'm told it will take 40 minutes. If 50 minutes later it hasn't arrived, I don't think much of it, honestly. I sort of look at the conditions (like, weather, or time of day, day of the week, even unforeseen things, things like this) that might affect the delivery. There's a cushion that I automatically give plus or minus if I am promised or told something will happen. If they arrive in an hour or whatever, and they apologize for the wait, I will undoubtedly, and naturally say something "Hey, it's all right. No problem." and honestly not think much of it. I think it would take something really egregious for me to, you know, start to wonder. Like, if it had been, say, anywhere from an hour and a half to two hours, I might at that point just call to check on the status. But even then, I take the position of, "any reasonable explanation will be acceptable". I take a rather soft stance with regards to these sorts of situations.

Like, I seem to recall one time when I ordered something and they had lost my order or there was a mix-up of some sort which delayed the delivery, and once they realized what they had done, I don't really remembered if they offered it at a discounted price or that they would get it out to me immediately and add something to what I had ordered. And I think in either case, I pretty much accepted whatever they offered. I'm usually like "Hey, look, I understand, it happens."

Actually, yeah, a similar thing did happen once when I ordered Chinese food. And it was one of those situations where they suddenly got extremely busy, and I could hear the state of affairs when I called them, it sounded like they were understaffed, falling behind, but were doing everything they could. And I reassured them over the phone "Hey, I can hear and tell that it sounds pretty stressful there. I know you guys are doing whatever you can, trust me, I understand. [then something about working in food industry] How long do you think it will take from this point?" [they tell me] "Ok, no problem. I'll be here."

They seemed rather touched or relieved when I told them that. When the guy arrived with the food, he said that the manager wanted him to tell me how thankful they were about understanding. They threw in some extra stuff with the delivery and included a roll-up calendar too. I was very accepting and thankful, telling them again that I understand these sorts of things happen from time to time.

So, that's one example, but generally I handle similar sorts of things in similar ways.

With food delivery, I tend to be the same... If it's not there in the allotted time and I'm really hungry, I will call... But I won't give anybody shit.

In the case with my health insurance though, I had a dr's app't the next week, an expensive Rx--losing my health insurance for 2 months was about to put me out over $1000... (Ultimately, it put me out almost $1500.)

On the phone, I absolutely laid into the lady who was at fault, spoke with her supervisor at length re: her incompetence and what it cost me--and I wouldn't be surprised if both remember my name... All I really wanted them to know was the human/monetary cost of the blunder, and for them to be wary of doing it again to me or someone else.

In other words, I am accepting of small stuff... But, I admit, once it gets to about $500, I get hot-headed, (increasingly hot-headed as the dollar amount rises.)

[tereg]

I need to add a point that someone has brought up that I think is important.

Take the same food industry situation, or a similar one. If I detect that there is some sort of insubordination, where they are not taking the situation seriously or I detect a sort of laughter in their voice, then I get rather annoyed. Like steaming annoyed.

But if some unforeseen circumstance happens where I will be steaming and I realize that there was some reason unseen, I'll feel embarrassed that I got annoyed, even though I didn't say anything.

So, it can happen, but it's usually if I detect that there's some lax effort of just insubordination of some sort.

You mean as in 'obligated' ?? If so, you do not have to. But may I ask how this discussion has affected you? What are your thoughts right now?

No, not obligated, just... I guess when a discussion of this calibre goes for a period of time without me saying anything, I start to get a feel for the progression of the discussion. It's not really obligation, per se, but just sort of sensing moments in which more input from me might progress the discussion.

[consentingadult]

In other words, I am accepting of small stuff... But, I admit, once it gets to about $500, I get hot-headed, (increasingly hot-headed as the dollar amount rises.)

Same thing here: I had an issue with cable company UPC, who for 9 months 'denied' that the house I moved in existed, so I couldn't get cable internet (although cable TV was working just fine for all these months), which costed me 2400 guilders ($1200 at the time) in phone bills (for dial-up). I called them two times a week asking if my house was already in their computer untill I finally broke and called the kid on the other end of the line and the company he was working for 'incompetent', to which he objected fiercely first, but then I said: "listen, you punk, I have been calling you people two times a week for 9 months in a row now, each time explaining the same problem over and over again, and all these months neither you or any of your co-workers said "Mr. CA, what is happening to you is outrageous, I'm personally going to see to it it gets resolved". Now are you really going to uphold that you are competent? You should be ashamed to work for a company that offers such bad service!" I probably also used some terminology that is used on this forum by people as Niffweed and Phaedrus. Anyway, this did not solve my problem, so I violated the rules of the company I worked for at the time, and pulled UPC's CTO's phone number from our CRM database and called him. The problem then was fixed within two days.

God, I'm getting all worked up again over that shit

[JuJu]

Same thing here: I had an issue with cable company UPC, who for 9 months 'denied' that the house I moved in existed, so I couldn't get cable internet (although cable TV was working just fine for all these months), which costed me 2400 guilders ($1200 at the time) in phone bills (for dial-up). I called them two times a week asking if my house was already in their computer untill I finally broke and called the kid on the other end of the line and the company he was working for 'incompetent', to which he objected fiercely first, but then I said: "listen, you punk, I have been calling you people two times a week for 9 months in a row now, each time explaining the same problem over and over again, and all these months neither you or any of your co-workers said "Mr. CA, what is happening to you is outrageous, I'm personally going to see to it it gets resolved". Now are you really going to uphold that you are competent? You should be ashamed to work for a company that offers such bad service!" I probably also used some terminology that is used on this forum by people as Niffweed and Phaedrus. Anyway, this did not solve my problem, so I violated the rules of the company I worked for at the time, and pulled UPC's CTO's phone number from our CRM database and called him. The problem then was fixed within two days.

God, I'm getting all worked up again over that shit

LOL!!! I like how you resolved the problem--got it done in a way you knew would work... Fixed in 2 days. Awesome. (BTW, the 9 mos. calling 2/wk is pretty much the story of my life, haha!!)

Re: tereg... Do you believe that differences between him, and for example, me, could be explained with subtypes? Him as Ne-ENFp?

[consentingadult]

Re: tereg... Do you believe that differences between him, and for example, me, could be explained with subtypes? Him as Ne-ENFp?

Is this a question for me or Tereg? If it is for me, I'm afraid I can't give you an answer, because I feel uncertain about the concept of subtypes, I have never been able to confidently perceive them in other people and when trying to make sense out of them, it only added to my confusion and uncertainty. I mean, how do I tell the difference between an LSE-Si and and SLI-Te? Suppose someone is SLI-Te, how can I be sure they are not LSE?

Once I was skeptical about Socionics, I'm perfectly happy I got as far as where I am now. At this stage, subtypes are not my kind of thing.

[tereg]

You mean as in 'obligated' ?? If so, you do not have to. But may I ask how this discussion has affected you? What are your thoughts right now?

Sorry, I forgot to answer the other half of the question.

My thoughts right now. I think this thread is very interesting. I like the robust discussion happening here. I think some interesting points are being made, but I'm not quite sure where I lie in that though. I'm still sort of in a suspended state I guess.

[Sirena]

I wouldn't describe IEEs as they are being presented here. Especially this part:



I have never burned someone to the ground. I am not moralistic. I really think that's more accepting Fi than creative Fi. I think we're more about ethics, like that change from circumstance to circumstance. And I'm not picky or moralistic in choosing friends. If someone burns me, I'll stop hanging out with them, but I have friends who live their lives in ways that I don't agree with, but it's not my issue and I wouldn't stop having someone be a friend for that reason. Basically, IMO that whole quote above is just plain wrong.

And I should add that I'm not just talking about me. I don't think IEEs in general are like that at all. I don't personally know any IEEs who fit that description IRL.

I couldn't agree with you more, SM.

[JuJu]

I couldn't agree with you more, SM.

Agreed... "Moralistic," lol, NO... And as to burning someone to the ground--I'd be more likely just to leave the situation.

The other IEEs I know are pretty live and let live too.

The only times I really get angry=rage against the bureaucracy... Also, if someone has betrayed me somehow... Even then, it's more disappointment than anger.

[dbmmama]

P.S. what is it you mean by "i do that same thing, again." Are you unsure about your type?

yes, still going around about it all within myself. i did relate to your post about being a more balanced person who would be hard to type. i've done a lot of "work" within myself to get to that place.

anytime i write about myself, it's about what i'd like (value) to be not how i am. i see myself as i want to be in the answers to any "test" i take at any given moment. i'm not objective about myself as a "whole."

[dbmmama]

My thoughts right now. I think this thread is very interesting. I like the robust discussion happening here. I think some interesting points are being made, but I'm not quite sure where I lie in that though. I'm still sort of in a suspended state I guess.

i find this thread interesting as well. some of the things i relate highly to and some of the things i am the exact opposite in.

i am one who "naturally" goes off on people in some of the ways described throughout this thread. my hubby hates conflict of any sort and so i naturally deal with issues where confrontation needs to be made to set things straight. i don't necessarily like it but will and have done it.

i've done a lot of work on myself to chill out and not be so hotheaded and charging into situations that way. work where i have learned to be more relaxed about small things the way tereg and juju have described.

i'm interested to read more.

[unefille]

Agreed... "Moralistic," lol, NO... And as to burning someone to the ground--I'd be more likely just to leave the situation.

The other IEEs I know are pretty live and let live too.

The only times I really get angry=rage against the bureaucracy... Also, if someone has betrayed me somehow... Even then, it's more disappointment than anger.

I have never burned someone to the ground. I am not moralistic. I really think that's more accepting Fi than creative Fi. I think we're more about ethics, like that change from circumstance to circumstance. And I'm not picky or moralistic in choosing friends. If someone burns me, I'll stop hanging out with them, but I have friends who live their lives in ways that I don't agree with, but it's not my issue and I wouldn't stop having someone be a friend for that reason. Basically, IMO that whole quote above is just plain wrong.

I read consentingadult's post about moralism and Fi dramatism a little differently, I think. To me, the overall gist of the post was that Fi can get offended and can and does express that offense drawing upon demonstrative Fe, and he does not see that strong sense of Fi being expressed in Tereg in any form. I think I intuitively filled in something that were left unsaid (mostly because I think it was written from an ENFp perspective, rather than a general perspective - I think I have an awful temper and am often rude, but I doubt an outside observer from a more 'aggressive' quadra would note the same qualities in me - an SEE friend, if I've typed her correctly, often thinks I'm too even-keeled and polite.)

As I read it, I have some things to add because what was missing was an explanation of when Fi is offended sufficiently in an IEE to produce an Fe 'burn down' (a burn down probably would require some Se as well, as opposed to an Fi+Fe moral rant - which is also something that I don't think is alien to IEE, though it might not be somewhere IEEs frequent often.)

JuJu mentioned getting angry when people were grossly and unapologetically incompetent. I have to say, to the extent that that is linked to Te, incompetence is a bit of a bug-bear for me. However, whilst incompetence will definitely provoke to annoyance and irritation (and something that can only be described as mock rage - I am producing the Fe for the rage in that it sounds and looks like how someone might act if angry, but there is no real aggression, no real anger, no Se being drawn upon - and if you mock me for it, or just stare at me long enough, I will start laughing in the middle of the 'rage'), it never really produces anger.

Also, I agree with Slackermom that NeFi has quite an 'elastic' sense of ethics in the sense that even if you do something which offends my personal ethics or ideals, I am unlikely to hold it against you severely, because I recognise that what you violated are MY ethics, which are not UNIVERSAL principles, and thus, whilst I can private miffed inside, there is no basis upon which I am entitled to get shitty at you. I simply recognise that you and I are different people and to some extent, that there is no one right standard. If the ethical breach is HUGE, I might decide that I can't really trust you anymore, though nothing may change too much outwardly - I certainly won't shut you out of my life and it is unlikely I will try to do too much to change you, or force you to see the wrongness of your ways. Of course, this becomes much more complicated when we bring in 3rd party interests or a professional/legal context, because I have to not only act with respect to the breach of my private standards, but possibly your breach of an objective or external standard.

However, that doesn't mean that I never get angry, that my Fi is never sufficiently offended to create 'burn down'. When does it happen? Well first, it is VERY UNLIKELY to ever be directed at strangers or people I am not very close to. You are too far outside of my world for me to feel that I am in anyway entitled to lecture or explode at you. With closeness however comes responsibility and respect and thus, your affairs are entangled with mine sufficiently that I do feel I can extend some sense of private right and wrong toward you. Second, it would have to be a repeated breach. I can rationalise away the first breach - I'm still tentative about making a judgement about you from one violation - but repetition will confirm my suspicions about your character. Third, it will require you to seek to engage me in some way, particularly if it's related to whatever shitty thing it is I think you do. Te general rule is - if you leave me alone, I leave you alone. Don't bother me and I can pretend you don't exist. I would never seek out someone to yell at them or tell them off - only if they come find me first. And last, I would probably have to be a situation where I cannot leave or get away from your easily - if I am trapped in an enclosed space with you, that is probably a very bad thing, especially if there's no way to escape if you try engaging me.

To summarise - my conditions for what CA called a 'Burn Down':
1. Close relationship
2. Repeated offence
3. You attempt to engage me
4. Enclosed spaces/situations

When all these conditions are met, I will basically snap 'ENOUGH' and yes, I can yell both loudly and articulately and there will be fireworks.

But as I said elsewhere, I've only gone to this very angry, aggressive and moralistic place with one person in my life thus far. It's rare, but explosive.

[JuJu]

That post is awesome, unefille.

I identify with your conditions for a "burn down." (Only two people in my life have gotten me to that point... Break-up situations.)

As to bureaucratic, Te incompetence, I'll clarify: the incompetence must cause sufficient loss--e.g. an excessive amount of money, usually, although it's been known to occur when a mega-company puts me on hold/shuffles me around from CSR to clueless CSR for hours, and then ultimately does not resolve my problem--for me to lay into someone.

Te incompetence anger=righteous indignation/chastisement
burn down anger=no holds barred

[munenori2]

How would you describe IEEs, mune? How is it different than what's being presented in this thread? (Only respond if you have time, of course--I'm interested.)

What Slacker Mom posted in response seems a lot closer to what I envision an IEE to be.

I have never burned someone to the ground. I am not moralistic. I really think that's more accepting Fi than creative Fi. I think we're more about ethics, like that change from circumstance to circumstance. And I'm not picky or moralistic in choosing friends. If someone burns me, I'll stop hanging out with them, but I have friends who live their lives in ways that I don't agree with, but it's not my issue and I wouldn't stop having someone be a friend for that reason. Basically, IMO that whole quote above is just plain wrong.

The thing which always strikes me about IEEs (judging from the one I know irl who is probably the closest friend I have) is precisely how open he is to receiving other people, particularly those who are completely different from him. He does seem to have standards regarding people, but they seem very basic, like making sure people have good intentions in how they deal with people and that they are willing to 'grow into themselves'. I have an immense respect for the way he goes about this because in a lot of ways I consider myself much more intellectual than he is, yet he always seems to come up with pearls out of thin air.

Like, even though we went to high school and roomed together in college for a couple years, he ended up dropping out because he didn't think that there was much he could learn there in terms of realizing his dreams, which was to become the best person he could be and help others do the same. He's very hard to predict in a lot of ways, which I find to be very endearing, and he had a significant impact on me in knowing him. That's part of the reason that I think I resonated with EII for a while, because I admired him for that ability of his to see how things came together and I really wanted that to be a part of who I was.

But anyway, taking him as my example, he would never burn someone down, unless he knew them well and he thought it would help them, but I still can't imagine him doing it except in a very diplomatic way. He wouldn't want to cut them out of his life so much as convince them to look at things from a different perspective. He's easily the most tolerant and open-minded person I've ever met in my life.

[unefille]

What Slacker Mom posted in response seems a lot closer to what I envision an IEE to be.

The thing which always strikes me about IEEs (judging from the one I know irl who is probably the closest friend I have) is precisely how open he is to receiving other people, particularly those who are completely different from him. He does seem to have standards regarding people, but they seem very basic, like making sure people have good intentions in how they deal with people and that they are willing to 'grow into themselves'. I have an immense respect for the way he goes about this because in a lot of ways I consider myself much more intellectual than he is, yet he always seems to come up with pearls out of thin air.

Like, even though we went to high school and roomed together in college for a couple years, he ended up dropping out because he didn't think that there was much he could learn there in terms of realizing his dreams, which was to become the best person he could be and help others do the same. He's very hard to predict in a lot of ways, which I find to be very endearing, and he had a significant impact on me in knowing him. That's part of the reason that I think I resonated with EII for a while, because I admired him for that ability of his to see how things came together and I really wanted that to be a part of who I was.

But anyway, taking him as my example, he would never burn someone down, unless he knew them well and he thought it would help them, but I still can't imagine him doing it except in a very diplomatic way. He wouldn't want to cut them out of his life so much as convince them to look at things from a different perspective. He's easily the most tolerant and open-minded person I've ever met in my life.

The thing is - and I accept that some people at the moment are questioning whether I am IEE or not, and maybe I'm not, or I'm just a really shitty version of one - your description of your friend essentially makes him sound like he's inhumanly patient and angelic.

Is that something we expect from EVERY IEE? The same degree of acceptance, of patience, or humility, without ever acting on their own impulses? Isn't there something quite unfair about placing people on such a pedestal - denying them the human capacity to be angry, to act in a foolhardy fashion, in a way that hurts other people because for one moment they stop being other-focused and release their own emotions?

I can accept that maybe I'm a more self-centered and impulsive and 'imperfect' and fallen version of an IEE - what I can't accept is that everyone that is less than absolutely humble, sweet and caring (almost approximating a biblically derived notion of the good virtuous person) by default is not or cannot be IEE.

[munenori2]

The thing is - and I accept that some people at the moment are questioning whether I am IEE or not, and maybe I'm not, or I'm just a really shitty version of one - your description of your friend essentially makes him sound like he's inhumanly patient and angelic.

Is that something we expect from EVERY IEE? The same degree of acceptance, of patience, or humility, without ever acting on their own impulses? Isn't there something quite unfair about placing people on such a pedestal - denying them the human capacity to be angry, to act in a foolhardy fashion, in a way that hurts other people because for one moment they stop being other-focused and release their own emotions?

I can accept that maybe I'm a more self-centered and impulsive and 'imperfect' and fallen version of an IEE - what I can't accept is that everyone that is less than absolutely humble, sweet and caring (almost approximating a biblically derived notion of the good virtuous person) by default is not or cannot be IEE.

Well, I don't think he denies himself at all. Rather, he's got things down so well that he manages to affirm who he is pretty much without fail. Add that to a kind of sociability I've never seen anyone else possess (his charisma is off the charts) and he has this way of drawing people into his way of looking at things, namely by finding some way of uniting his view and the other persons without any sort of contradiction. It's a very natural occurrence. However, there is also the chance that he's not IEE at all, but I'm not sure what else he could be.

And I agree with you on being who you are. You shouldn't feel a need to stifle yourself. I'd feel bad if you did.

[JuJu]

But anyway, taking him as my example, he would never burn someone down, unless he knew them well and he thought it would help them, but I still can't imagine him doing it except in a very diplomatic way. He wouldn't want to cut them out of his life so much as convince them to look at things from a different perspective. He's easily the most tolerant and open-minded person I've ever met in my life.

IMO, you raise an important point here... "Unless he thought it would help them."

As to 'burning down'--the two times I've done it, the motives were not vindictive. They were comparable to the reasons you describe--re-framing someone's actions so they could, in the words of Michael Jackson, "make that change." (One was on heroin and acting like a SOB; the other was lying every other word.) I did not do this in a diplomatic way; rather in a very blunt way... That said, these were both ppl I was dating--and to quote Bush, "we'd exhausted diplomatic options."

Diplomatic, open-minded, tolerant--all of these words could be used to describe many IEEs, I believe... That's not to say that IEEs can't be petty and "fallen" (I like that word, unefille) b/c I know we can, (see: my Harvard comment to Niffweed several weeks ago.)

EDIT @ Unefille, I get the feeling that some ppl on this forum have never met a SLI or IEE IRL... You seem IEE to me, and as they say, it takes one to know one.
EDIT @ Mune, I have to admit, I always kinda thought you might be SEI... You see, one of my best friends is SEI and you look A LOT like him/have a very similar sense of humor... Good inter-type relations regahhhdless.

[dbmmama]

Well, I don't think he denies himself at all. Rather, he's got things down so well that he manages to affirm who he is pretty much without fail. Add that to a kind of sociability I've never seen anyone else possess (his charisma is off the charts) and he has this way of drawing people into his way of looking at things, namely by finding some way of uniting his view and the other persons without any sort of contradiction. It's a very natural occurrence. However, there is also the chance that he's not IEE at all, but I'm not sure what else he could be.

this friend sounds exactly like my sister and she believes she's SEI right now. ENFp was always the alternate. with INFj recently. that's exactly how and what she does!!

[munenori2]

this friend sounds exactly like my sister and she believes she's SEI right now. ENFp was always the alternate. with INFj recently. that's exactly how and what she does!!

When I first showed the type descriptions to my friend, he picked EII. Delta NF I think makes a whole lot of sense for him, imo. His relationship with my SLI friend I lived with for a few years is exceptionally strong, though they've sort of drifted apart due to differences in life direction over the last couple of years.

[dbmmama]

When I first showed the type descriptions to my friend, he picked EII. Delta NF I think makes a whole lot of sense for him, imo. His relationship with my SLI friend I lived with for a few years is exceptionally strong, though they've sort of drifted apart due to differences in life direction over the last couple of years.

this is one reason i am curious about your ideas of Fe/Fi as i said in that other thread. i think my sis is delta but she has such strong Si and understanding vibes and moods and does what your friend does. she also gets along with SLI and ENFp type people.

if i could clear this up about her, it would give me more understanding for myself too.

that may also help tereg, since this is his thread. LOL it may not be a question of Ne or Si for him, but more Fi or Fe. and that would help point him in either direction.