i don't think i'm gamma

[Brilliand]

I honestly haven't actually looked into Clinton's type, but EIE kind of surprises me, but what do I know.

That's Bill Clinton I'm referring to, of course.

I think Rick typed him as ESE, but the thread Winterpark linked to suggests otherwise.

[Park]

I think Rick typed him as ESE, but the thread Winterpark linked to suggests otherwise.

I think that thread is a very good read. That description there almost totally beats ESE out of the picture, imo.

[implied]

I think that thread is a very good read. That description there almost totally beats ESE out of the picture, imo.

that thread actually makes him sound "cold" to me, too, and is probably an accurate representation of how i wouldn't want to be described or how i would imagine my dual CANNOT be. i would describe such a person as very cold and quite possibly one of the most frightening people i could imagine trusting, if that makes any sense. it chills me, almost. the description of him lavishing affection on strangers and then being cold with his closer ones is just creepy.

[implied]

Sounds like he's got...problems. Lavishing affection on strangers? wtf. I only lavish affection on my pet bird (to her utter annoyance). I could never do that with strangers. I may have to look into his type further. And yeah, that's just cold.

same here. and i've also lavished affection on pet birds (and pet dogs) that i would not give a shit to do with someone i don't really know. but i have definitely seen that "fake" affection towards strangers that does not extend past that or isn't "real." and i do associate that with as it's something meant to please the public/group.

[Gilly]

I can identify with the bit about Clinton being affectionate towards strangers and not as much so towards intimates. To me, being "nice" is a tool to be used; if I'm not all happy and giddy around someone, it's just me being genuine, not feeling the need to be forced or fake. I think I could be described as cold by people who know me well, but I'm certainly not indifferent to them: I'm very supportive of my friends and family, always there when they need me, never unnecessarily harsh, and I do my best to make sure they're in good spirits. However I find it all but impossible to be super cheery with them; it feels like I would be lying to them, that it would be insincere and somehow in violation of mutual trust, if I were to be "overly nice" in terms of smiling, saying nice things, being gregarious, etc with someone I love and trust. It would feel wrong and forced; it would be a lie. I have no qualms about lying to strangers or even acquaintances, but to my friends, no way, can't do it.

[07490]

I can identify with the bit about Clinton being affectionate towards strangers and not as much so towards intimates. To me, being "nice" is a tool to be used; if I'm not all happy and giddy around someone, it's just me being genuine, not feeling the need to be forced or fake. I think I could be described as cold by people who know me well, but I'm certainly not indifferent to them: I'm very supportive of my friends and family, always there when they need me, never unnecessarily harsh, and I do my best to make sure they're in good spirits. However I find it all but impossible to be super cheery with them; it feels like I would be lying to them, that it would be insincere and somehow in violation of mutual trust, if I were to be "overly nice" in terms of smiling, saying nice things, being gregarious, etc with someone I love and trust. It would feel wrong and forced; it would be a lie. I have no qualms about lying to strangers or even acquaintances, but to my friends, no way, can't do it.

definity agree for the most part, if someone assused someone of being more friendier to strangers than family members, I would be the perfect example. I still love my family, but I wont push my self to be extra friendly with my family and I would be more honest to them.

[implied]

I think Fe types want their friends/family to be "true" with them and types want their friends/family to "favor" them.

what do you mean by "true"? i relate with both and , as you have stated it here.

[Gilly]

I think Fe types want their friends/family to be "true" with them and types want their friends/family to "favor" them.

That's fair. Although I favor people I like, and definitely favor people I consider friends/family, I can see these things as being manifestations of Ti/Fi DS.

For example, with my book, I have sent pages of it to various people. My sister, probably SEI, is unfailingly supportive and positive, which bugs the SHIT out of me; it makes me feel like she's just being nice to me to encourage me to keep writing. My parents, Delta rationals, are honest with their criticism, but cast everything in a mildly positive light. This I appreciate more, but it often still feels like they're not telling the whole story, which makes me slightly paranoid. My LSI roommate, on the other hand, is totally blunt with what he thinks about my writing, isn't afraid to point out petty things like grammatical errors that have been made for stylistic purposes, will honestly tell me things like, "Honestly this is crap, you need to just take this out." And that's what I need, for one because I want to know where I stand, and to correct errors if I did, indeed make them, and for two because I like to be challenged; it forces me to rise to the occassion, which brings out the best in me. The first time I pitched him my story line, he said, "Honestly, I don't think anyone would read this. It sounds boring." I wasn't offended at all, because I knew he was just giving his opinion, but what it did was force me to reconsider my storyline; I had been set on keeping it exactly as it was at that time, even after some light suggestions by my sister, but after hearing his feedback, I went back and rethought the entire second half of the book, and now I have added a whole new part to the story that is pretty much the main focus of the book. It's like, he understands that I want my writing to be good; I'm not writing a book just for fun, because I have these nifty pictures in my head that I want to put on paper, but because I want to write a good book, to do something that I can be proud of.

[implied]

I can identify with the bit about Clinton being affectionate towards strangers and not as much so towards intimates. To me, being "nice" is a tool to be used; if I'm not all happy and giddy around someone, it's just me being genuine, not feeling the need to be forced or fake. I think I could be described as cold by people who know me well, but I'm certainly not indifferent to them: I'm very supportive of my friends and family, always there when they need me, never unnecessarily harsh, and I do my best to make sure they're in good spirits. However I find it all but impossible to be super cheery with them; it feels like I would be lying to them, that it would be insincere and somehow in violation of mutual trust, if I were to be "overly nice" in terms of smiling, saying nice things, being gregarious, etc with someone I love and trust. It would feel wrong and forced; it would be a lie. I have no qualms about lying to strangers or even acquaintances, but to my friends, no way, can't do it.

well like, i have no real problems saying to a bum on the street that i have no more cigarettes, although sometimes i might actually have them. hah. but not like i have done that all the time. just sometimes i feel as though i've reached my bum-cigarette quota for the day. i DON'T want my loved ones to feel like they have to be fake around me. because i am pretty much incapable of being fake around them, or forcing myself into a good mood for their benefit. i'm saying that realizing that the kindness towards strangers is simply an act is annoying as well and seems like a lie. my first tendency to imagine that people aren't lying to me and speculate optimistically on someone else's motives. or at least not immediately paint them as evil-doers.

[Gilly]

what do you mean by "true"? i relate with both and , as you have stated it here.

Yeah, and I do too, but I think the idea is that you would be disappointed/feel that something is lacking if you didn't get one or the other from your dual.

[implied]

Yeah, and I do too, but I think the idea is that you would be disappointed/feel that something is lacking if you didn't get one or the other from your dual.

well then i want a true person who favors me.

[Gilly]

well like, i have no real problems saying to a bum on the street that i have no more cigarettes. i DON'T want my loved ones to feel like they have to be fake around me. because i am pretty much incapable of being fake around them, or forcing myself into a good mood for their benefit. i'm saying that realizing that the kindness towards strangers is simply an act is annoying as well and seems like a lie. my first tendency to imagine that people aren't lying to me and speculate optimistically on someone else's motives. or at least not immediately paint them as evil-doers.

I relate with pretty much all of this. I wouldn't say I speculate optimistically on people's motives, though; more like I accept that there is a valid reason for them to be the way they are. It doesn't mean I trust them, but it does help me refrain from being indignant

[implied]

I relate with pretty much all of this. I wouldn't say I speculate optimistically on people's motives, though; more like I accept that there is a valid reason for them to be the way they are. It doesn't mean I trust them, but it does help me refrain from being indignant

well, i accept that there are valid reasons for people to be "the way they are" but it doesn't help me at all from remaining pissed off and calling them SOBs if they actually do have negative character traits.

[strrrng]

same here. and i've also lavished affection on pet birds (and pet dogs) that i would not give a shit to do with someone i don't really know. but i have definitely seen that "fake" affection towards strangers that does not extend past that or isn't "real." and i do associate that with as it's something meant to please the public/group.

I don't know that it's that strongly related to Fe. From what I have gathered about Clinton, there may be a sociopathic personality thing going on (or at least a narcissistic lack of empathy, to a degree). Given that he is Fe-ENFj, his personality will only amplify these tendencies, as will his profession. Now, I do agree that Fe ego types—more so beta NFs—have a stronger propensity for, or easier time with, adapting to the public emotional sphere to 'get what they want.' But I don't see how this necessitates a callousness towards intimates; I can say this doesn't hold true for me. Although I agree with Gilly, that I don't need to be "fake" around family and close friends, because it would feel deceptive and inane. And I may be more likely to "push my personal vision onto them," but it is only because I care about them more.

I believed you mentioned an ENFp who had a tendency similar to this last night?

ENFj parents (especially Ni subs) can seem cold and pushy, even if they care. It's all part of the beta attitude. Si quadras tend to find it cold, while the Se valuers more often than not, appreciate that indifferent 'push.' I don't want to be supported or praised; just tell me what I'm doing is shit and that I need to step up, and I will perform—no added baggage, I suppose.

I can see the loftily sociable attitude of ENFjs highly nettling a type like ISTp, who has no use for "useless visions," and is already fixated on finding strong internal relationships that don't depend on, or pertain to, any sort of effusive emotional displays, 'games,' etc.


edit: lol Gilly, I didn't know/forgot your parents were delta as well. And the story goes on...

[UDP]

The Te type wants a static evaluation of the relationship, and for the emotional expressions to reflect that static evaluation.

The truth of this static evaluation and the truth of the dynamic vicissitudes of one's mood are not always going to be in sync. Either one is only half-truth in a sense.

It's not unlike how a Fe-base might see a Te-creative as not giving them straight answers about what matters (despite the Te-creative being factually accurate.) It may percieve the Te-creative as trying to overwhelm them with uncondensed data.

Ti-creatives are prone to giving those straight answers while bullshitting Te they perceive unimportant to those answers.

(Rationals take both of their strong rational functions fairly seriously, but they depend more upon one kind of their weak rational functions. For irrationals, the same relationship applies to the irrational functions.)

Mood is less objective than fact. For one to be deceived by accurate facts also depends upon mood (to be suggestible and not scrutinize the facts at face value.) So Te base are the most objectively truthful of types and value the same in others. But there are of course different kinds of "truth".

Good post.

I also particularly like this: "For one to be deceived by accurate facts also depends upon mood"

The Te type wants a static evaluation of the relationship, and for the emotional expressions to reflect that static evaluation.

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

[astralsilky]

well then i want a true person who favors me.

I'm a true person, and I favor you.

[FDG]

I think EIE tend to do something like this but the description is a bit biased and highly exaggerated. They do give and withhold affection to their loved ones. They have very high demands on close ones and should they fail or seem unmotivated to meet those demands, they will withhold their affection. I think coming from a outside perspective or a information incompatible perspective they can seem unduly harsh on their loved ones. They do practice a bit of tough love and demand in some cases perfection. EIE's try to develop and improve their loved ones, often with a stern hand, they can be quite proud of their achieving children and spouses and dis-satisfied with the runts and weak ones.

Lavishing affection on strangers is how EIE's build a big network of followers and friends, this help them fulfill their super-id Se desires.

ESE's are a bit different from EIE's as they enjoy a more peaceful home enviroment that allows their children to reach their potential rather then the constant competition for achievement, although they can be demanding parents just the same.

Sounds like EJs are unsuited to be parents, mostly.

[Park]

It's not unlike how a Fe-base might see a Te-creative as not giving them straight answers about what matters (despite the Te-creative being factually accurate.) It may percieve the Te-creative as trying to overwhelm them with uncondensed data.

OMG, yes.

Mood is less objective than fact. For one to be deceived by accurate facts also depends upon mood (to be suggestible and not scrutinize the facts at face value.) So Te base are the most objectively truthful of types and value the same in others. But there are of course different kinds of "truth".

Makes sense.

[Brilliand]

Sounds like EJs are unsuited to be parents, mostly.

Not with an IJ on hand for balance.

[crazedrat]

i think you're being a little too INTj right now

[strrrng]

I actually relate a lot to this. Except, instead of acting "happy and giddy" I act very reserved, pleasant, and polite.

It's kind of like a shell or shield I subconsciously uphold upon myself. It's almost impossible not act that way with strangers, yet at the same time it's extreamly impossible to act that way around people I'm close to.

I tend to agree. There's a quiet amiability I usually use to 'get by' with strangers. The main issue is, I don't care for small talk and all that stuff, but I'm usually not feeling callous enough to simply ignore people. Obviously there are exceptions, but I guess the Fe gets somewhat turned on when a person comes around, and I just naturally react to what I see as the latent activity between us; it can be fun, in a monotonous way. Other than that, I don't bother much. I guess it says something about you if I extend myself past simple reactions. With family, the guard is down more, but sometimes I will act "ok" if I'm in a bad mood, simply to efficiently get through socializing. But I don't feel the need to ever do it in the same way as I do around strangers.

****** could have gotten some ass without triggering a second world war.

lmao

[Gilly]

I actually relate a lot to this. Except, instead of acting "happy and giddy" I act very reserved, pleasant, and polite.

Well, I wouldn't say I act happy and giddy, necessarily; I do sometimes, but it's more like, I am polite and I smile and pay attention to the way I come across. However being outwardly happy is definitely something I have a hard time doing around family or good friends.



[quote]It's kind of like a shell or shield I subconsciously uphold upon myself. It's almost impossible not act that way with strangers, yet at the same time it's extreamly impossible to act that way around the people I'm close to.

Yes, exactly. Whether I am being polite/happy (which I detest and only do with customers at work), casual/easygoing or formal/business-like, it's a mask, a mask which I automatically wear when with strangers, that changes/disintegrates slowly over time, and eventually, after a long, long time, there is no mask.

A line clearly written by a Beta NF, imo:

If you wanna find out what's behind these cold eyes
You'll just have to claw your way through this disguise.

- In the Flesh by Pink Floyd

[Gilly]

I tend to agree. There's a quiet amiability I usually use to 'get by' with strangers. The main issue is, I don't care for small talk and all that stuff, but I'm usually not feeling callous enough to simply ignore people. Obviously there are exceptions, but I guess the Fe gets somewhat turned on when a person comes around, and I just naturally react to what I see as the latent activity between us; it can be fun, in a monotonous way.

+1

[olduser]

"i'm really serious about minute interpersonal signals"-everyone on internet

[Khola aka Bee]

Implied = LII

too awesome to be gamma.

[Ezra]

lol

If you're not Gamma THEN WORRRRT ARRRRE UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!????????????????????????????

[Gilly]

maria is my dual <3

[Ezra]

maria is my dual <3

and my mirror <3

[RSV3]

I still think it is possible you are IEI Maria.

[Ezra]

I still think it is possible you are IEI Maria.

So the legends are true! RSV3 exists!

[RSV3]

So the legends are true! RSV3 exists!

Haha, not sure what you mean by that. But yeah, I exist.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

You're Maria.

You are not a type. You are a person with many complex layers. You are many different things, to many different people. You play the hero, the villain, the standby- depending on who is writing the story. But a type, one thing- you are not. Things are just not that simple.

You can't really spend a lifetime analyzing yourself completely. We all get ourselves in glimpses. Who you are dissolves. Identity is shifting, changing, mendy and bendy. We think there is a core some sort of 'true self' or spirit but how can that really be? Different circumstances, such subtle in-grainy precise circumstances that only YOU will live, will bring out different parts of you that are locked.

[Ezra]

You're Maria.

You are not a type. You are a person with many complex layers. You are many different things, to many different people. You play the hero, the villain, the standby- depending on who is writing the story. But a type, one thing- you are not. Things are just not that simple.

You can't really spend a lifetime analyzing yourself completely. We all get ourselves in glimpses. Who you are dissolves. Identity is shifting, changing, mendy and bendy. We think there is a core some sort of 'true self' or spirit but how can that really be? Different circumstances, such subtle in-grainy precise circumstances that only YOU will live, will bring out different parts of you that are locked.

Yeah... but in her spare time I'm sure she wants to know what type she is.