Banana Pancakes is ESI

[Banana Pancakes]

Look at it this way... roughly how often do you have "down" periods when you're not trying to deal with someone? Even if you're not actively dealing with the person, then thinking about them; even if you're not thinking about/dealing with/involved in/trying to start a romantic relationship, how about considering and thinking about people in general? I'm not sure that that's a necessarily a good litmus test, though.

Also, being Ethical doesn't mean magically having social skills, especially not if you were brought up in the sort of environment you were brought up in. That's why they're called "skills".

Anyway, that sort of absolutist thinking of "I absolutely can't see myself as Fi ego" would seem to betray that you're maybe focusing on one aspect of Fi, like, say, chain relationship failure. An exercise then is to think of all the reasons Fi ego is "ridiculous" to you.

1. Down periods? I'd say I think about people...10% of the time on average. 5% normally, more if I'm having a problem with someone and can't analyze their behavior.

2. Okay, granted. My brother the IEE grew up in the same situations as me and turned out great with people, however. Logical tasks, not so much.

3. Didn't mean to sound absolutist, I'm open to it, I just don't see it, no one has made a claim that made sense to me yet.

Why don't I think I'm Fi? The function just seems so foreign to me. Let's look at wikisocion for a moment:

Introverted ethics is generally associated with the ability to gain an implicit sense of the subjective 'distance' between two people, and make judgments based off of said thing.

Ugh, I'm abysmal at this. I don't know if you're my best friend or my worst enemy. All I have to go on is whatyou tell me, and whether you trash me around other people or promote me.

Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family.

I'm fairly distant from both my family and my friends. Few people know me well. If we're just meeting I may tell you something ridiculously personal, but afterwards I'll feel weird and possibly avoid you.

They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.

I try to be sensitive to feelings, specifically because of some instances where I've failed in the past. Telling someone my innermost feelings and sentiments? Yikes! Maybe after I've known you for 20 years, maybe.

Also, these types convey emotions in terms of how they were affected by something (such as "I did not like that"), rather than an Fe approach that would describe the object itself without clear reference to the subject involved (such as "That sucked").

I would say "that sucked". My brother would say "I didn't like that." One learned technique I've picked up from a book I read at some point is making myself the problem when saying something negative ("I find ephemeros comments arrogant" vs "epheremos is an arrogant jackass"). This is something I've picked up and try to be diplomatic with so people don't think I'm an asshole.

Much of their decisions are based on how they themselves (or others in relation to them personally) feel in contrast to considering how "the big picture" is affected (like groups of people).

This is the only part I agree with. I don't give a shit about the group. I definitely focus on how I feel first. I have had criticisms about this in the past. Then again I think my behavior in the threads where I've highly edited my responses to epheremos and insisted they be in a separate thread are taking into account the group opinion and perception of me (I can be pretty image conscious at times).

[edit] as a base (1st) function (EII and ESI)

The individual sees reality primarity through static personal ethics and stable interpersonal bonds between individuals, including himself, where the status of such interpersonal bonds is determined by his personal ethics.

My reality is based on the potential of things and whether I'm interested in them.

Crude example:
This chick is hot and nice, therefore she could be someone I could date.
NOT: I've known this chick for a while and our relationship has progressed to the point that we could begin dating.

The individual is very confident in evaluating the ethical or moral qualities, and their consistency, of other people.

Not at all

This makes the individual seem "judgemental" or "self-righteous" to people less so inclined.

Hell no.

If he has difficulty in deciding the status of a personal relationship, he will take action to try to reach a conclusion but if that continues to elude him, he will regard the relationship as not worth it.

Maybe...I'm not too interested in the status of a relationship, but if we're talking romantically I can focus on this a bit.

His own sense of constancy in personal ethics and in his relationships with others is a very strong factor in his sense of self-worth.

Nope. My self worth is based on the amount of potential in my future, and my ability to create more.

in this position implies the ability to almost instantly recognize whether someone is a friend or an enemy, whether they are demonstrating good will or ill will, and whether they are drawn to or repelled by the individual.

As mentioned earlier it is extremely difficult for me to identify friend/enemy, good/ill, etc.

as a creative (2nd) function (IEE and SEE)

The individual is very adept at perceiving, establishing, and maintaining personal bonds between people. However, these bonds are often perceived as being situational and flexible rather than static. The individual is inclined to focus on establishing personal bonds with other people in the context of realizing or following perceptions from his base function.

Okay so manipulating bonds between people to achieve Ne/Se goals. NO! I'm scared of hell of those bonds, I don't want to touch them. I see them as static, not flexible, and determined by the other person.

The person easily creates a sense of closeness and kinship between people by expressing like and acceptance, but these sentiments are situational rather than an expression of permanent feelings. If the person's mood or external situation changes, he or she may "turn off" the feelings instantly, even forgetting whom they had created the feeling of kinship with.

Similar to earlier, not really. I try to accept people, I rarely would say I like them, and it would always be permanent. My opinion of people doesn't change unless something extreme happens. Turning off the feelings sounds freaky, I would not want that in an SO.

On a side note:
If I were allie, all you'd be getting from me right now would be the following:
a;lskdfjaiofjeowipjaweriofdjl;kadfiodfjs

Something to think about.

[electric sheep]

for anyone that missed it:

I can relate to BP a lot. I'd say he's about as much as an ethical type as I am. I have a lot of relationship issues too--that's the entire content of my forum blog so far. I don't write about theoretical concepts because they just aren't that interesting to me. I'm interested in people because people are important in my life. Socionics is great, but it is only an aid in understanding people. The end result is (hopefully) better relationships. What better way for a logical type to understand people better? imo it would be strange for someone to be interested in Socionics, while not being interested in their relationships.

So yes, if you must doubt the fact that he is a logical type, then you have to doubt me as well.

[Banana Pancakes]

Yeah

and Gul you have to apply the same thing to T types as well. They aren't going to be magically argumentative or "super-intellectually inclined". Not to say BP is a dumb layman because i dont believe he is.

I'll admit I'm much less interested in the theory of socionics compared to you, or epheremos, or hkkmr, etc. I do however pursue other intellectual topics often.

I think perhaps my current focus on people as an area to improve in life is causing me to focus more on ethical issues than an average ILE would. I feel my approach to this is still fairly logical:

"People with more positive relationships live longer, I need to make more friends."
"All these old/dying people focus on relationships, perhaps I should take their advice."
"If I could establish a romance with a dual I'd be a lot more balanced and not have to worry about irritating social issues as much"
etc.

For me, establishing a group of positive friends and a romantic partner (sx enneagram stacking...) is highly important to me, but it hasn't always been. Only in the last few years have I given a shit about how I treat my friends and had previously been highly uninterested in dating. Tbh I just got kind of lonely.

[Banana Pancakes]

If you're interested, I'd be willing to respond to some things on cam, or do a stickam session.

[ArchonAlarion]

I'll admit I'm much less interested in the theory of socionics compared to you, or epheremos, or hkkmr, etc. I do however pursue other intellectual topics often.

I think perhaps my current focus on people as an area to improve in life is causing me to focus more on ethical issues than an average ILE would. I feel my approach to this is still fairly logical:

"People with more positive relationships live longer, I need to make more friends."
"All these old/dying people focus on relationships, perhaps I should take their advice."
"If I could establish a romance with a dual I'd be a lot more balanced and not have to worry about irritating social issues as much"
etc.

For me, establishing a group of positive friends and a romantic partner (sx enneagram stacking...) is highly important to me, but it hasn't always been. Only in the last few years have I given a shit about how I treat my friends and had previously been highly uninterested in dating. Tbh I just got kind of lonely.

Hah thats my thought process as well.

For clarification, I knew you were interested in intellectual matters other than socionics.

[Banana Pancakes]

Hah thats my thought process as well.

For clarification, I knew you were interested in intellectual matters other than socionics.

lol I know you did...that was for the audience.

[Creepy-male]

That was from Fi base, though. I'd be looking at Fi creative.

That said, the points you made I could take as T>F. It just seems weird that you would be responding to Fi base and not Fi creative.

EDIT

And, ok, the intro. ILE BP works for me.

[Banana Pancakes]

That was from Fi base, though. I'd be looking at Fi creative.

That said, the points you made I could take as T>F. It just seems weird that you would be responding to Fi base and not Fi creative.

EDIT

And, ok, the intro. ILE BP works for me.

Oh, I was responding to the ESI there I guess, I'll add my notes on Fi creative to that post.