Well you have delusions of grandeur and see yourself as all-knowing and as some kind of Jesus Christ do-no-wrong figure. So yeah, I'm sure you feel that way. Also, you know very little about Socionics and have yourself mistyped, so whatever you say about Socionics doesn't interest me.Originally Posted by Maritsa33
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
No I don't. You think I do because it justifies your argument.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
.
Last edited by anou; 03-11-2010 at 03:39 PM.
Yes, you are right. "Amoral" is more of what I was referring to. However, I'd like to think of it as developing a different ethical standard, like consentingadult mentioned.
Yeah, it's an ethical system that changes with time, based on observations and analysis. I can then arrive at certain conclusions about a situation, which to others might seem like there is no thought behind it unless I explain why I think it's that way.
I don't believe that your thoughts about people have remained the same since you were 7. At least it seems really unlikely... For one, I doubt that a kid will experience backstabbing and genuine evil, which has a way of shaking your belief system quite a bit.
I wasn't really getting at what you are describing. It's more like having the feeling that you could potentially be "kicked out of delta" if it were some sort of club. Regardless, I don't see those things you mention as "sinful," more like being clueless.
The threatening part makes sense, but then it would mean that I don't have feelings for the other person... I can see it as knowing someone and making them believe I'm their friend, and then threatening the "friendship" as a way to manipulate, when I didn't have any feelings invested whatsoever. Yeah, that would be evil.
The passive aggressive part is the EII stereotype, and I see it as the result of being in a bad state of mind. Sort of like Cesar Milan, and how he shows that dogs in a bad state of mind will do the behaviors that the owners don't like. I personally don't value Se, don't see it as the preferred way of handling things. However, that doesn't mean that I will necessarily be passive aggressive in situations, especially when I realize that it's not the best way to deal with the particular situation. In fact, I don't remember the last time I was passive aggressive, but it's something that I know I have the inclination of doing if I don't fight the urge, hehe. It's the easy way of dealing with situations, but doesn't mean it's the best.
Overall, I get the impression that you read my post as a critical attitude towards Fi egos in general, and EIIs in particular, which is not the case. Let me go over your points one by one:
That's not what I meant. Obviously, people differ in their ethical standards, and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm thinking more about things that most people would consider extreme, such as having sex with one year old babies as a way to prevent AIDS. We can be relativistic about that, but I think we probably agree that such 'ethics' are insane. That's the kind of extreme things I'm talking about.
I never said EIIs have tunnel vision or a narrow minded, and I don't even think that. However, any mentally unhealthy person can have tunnel vision or can be narrow minded, but that was not the point I was making. What I mean by Fi making value judgements, can be taken two ways: the healthy way, which is trying to establish a value judgment in the sense of "how does this other person relate to me, is he going to cross my boundaries and if I can't defend myself against that, I'd better stay away from him", or an unhealthy way in the sense of "that person holds different political ideas than I do, and thus he must be a bad person and not worthy of my respect". Making value judgments is in itself not a bad thing, all of us do this all day long. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of how.
I refer to what I said earlier about totally insane morals. As to hypercriticalness, I mean this in the pathological sense. It's also known as (part of) obsessive-compulsive personality, anal personality or whatever you want to call it:
UNRELENTING STANDARDS / HYPERCRITICALNESS (US)
The underlying belief that one must strive to meet very high internalized standards of behavior and performance, usually to avoid criticism. Typically results in feelings of pressure or difficulty slowing down; and in hypercriticalness toward oneself and others. Must involve significant impairment in: pleasure, relaxation, health, self-esteem, sense of accomplishment, or satisfying relationships.
Unrelenting standards typically present as: (a) perfectionism, inordinate attention to detail, or an underestimate of how good one's own performance is relative to the norm; (b) rigid rules and “shoulds” in many areas of life, including unrealistically high moral, ethical, cultural, or religious precepts; or (c) preoccupation with time and efficiency, so that more can be accomplished.
Source: Listing of Schemas & Domains
I fully agree: groups sometimes holds very destructive ethics, and in that case it's better to hold on to your own concepts of what is ethical or not. But this will come at a price: being shut out of the group. But when you find yourself in a group where the morals greatly differ from your own, it is always a good idea to ask yourself: are the people in society-at-large really wrong and am I right, or might I be deluding myself?
Like the quote from the Schema therapy page says, it is indeed possible to tyrannize yourself. And I never said that hypercriticalness is exclusively related to Fi egos, I said Fi egos can turn hypercritical if unhealthy, your reversing my statement. Any type can be hypercrital, e.g. an unhealthy ILEs and SLEs who lean too much on their Fi-PoLR, can become very hypercritical in the ethical area as well, having rigid ideas about decency. But where an Fi-ego will optimize and regulate the psychological distance between themselves and the interactor, an Fi-Super-Ego is more likely to 'force' their morals onto someone else.
BTW, the worst combination of self-tyranny is not just Fi, but the combination of Fi-ego + Te Super-Id. Especially EIIs and ESIs can have a tendency to be perfectionistic. IEEs and SEEs too, but not as strong as their rational counterparts.
As to unhealthy/insane: you made that connection, not I!
Finally I would like to say that most people I recognize to be EII have no problem interpreting my statements. On the other hand, ESIs typically do, and their style of misinterpretation is very similar to yours. Perhaps you might want to consider that you are ESI instead of EII, but I leave that up to you.
Last edited by consentingadult; 03-10-2010 at 10:48 PM. Reason: typo
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I don't think that makes you more immoral, just more amoral.
Good to read that. Overall I have the feeling that you're on the right track towards the future, existentially speaking. Keep going like that, you will get there!
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I don't know who is supporting that idea or where it comes from, but, you're not the first EII to express things like that. . . It's not particularly that way, obviously.I wasn't really getting at what you are describing. It's more like having the feeling that you could potentially be "kicked out of delta" if it were some sort of club
As far as the 'sin' remark I made, I didn't intend for something to be sinful or bad in the moral sense, I was listing common ways for EII 'treachery' to develop.
.
Last edited by anou; 03-11-2010 at 03:40 PM.
Yes, I can indeed be quick with estimating other people's type, especially when they present their souls to me on a silver platter. It's true that I don't know you, but then again: you have exposed yourself to me quite a bit. Of course it is possible that you are EII, but all of us have to estimate other people's attitudes all the time, it's a natural part of survival, and so far I have way more reasons to believe you're ESI than EII, so I'm going with that for the moment.
You are describing interactions with a friend, who said things as "are you stupid?" Imho, you really have do drive an ESI crazy before they start saying such things. Perhaps with the exception of SEIs, ESIs are amongst the most friendly and composed people. When they don't have a lot of self-esteem, they can be bitter or harsh in their judgments, but I have difficulty recalling an ESI who ever said such blantant things. Could it be that your friend was LSI instead of ESI?
As to Se in ESIs: there is a common misunderstanding that Se is always about 'force'. It often is in Beta Se-egos, but Gamma Se-egos are way more diplomatic about applying Se. In ESIs, Se manifest itself not as physical force or violence, but as willpower, as stamina, as the capability to determine how much 'pressure' must be applied in order to get what you want. E.g. my mother is ESI and by many people considered the most sweetest and kindest of people, she will give the shirt of her back if that can help you out, even when you're not that close to her. But if she goes to buy a new laundry washer and dryer and a dishwasher as a package deal, she's is perfectly capable of estimating how far she can go with negotiating a good price, and she will keep negotiating till she gets the price she wants, even if it takes an hour (where I would have given up after 30 seconds). All the while she remains friendly, not emotionally manipulative at all, but steady anyway. That's how Se works in ESIs. You can also see it in their work ethics, they can work extremely hard.
And yes, it is possible for Se egos to be hurt, especially in ESIs, who have strong expectations on how they themselves and other people should behave properly. But even SLEs can be hurt, but they are more likely to express that hurt by creating a lot of angry drama to cover up that they feel hurt (like most EP's by the way).
One more reason why I think you might be ESI: it almost sounds like you're trying to get some recognition from me. Assuming I'm acting as an IEE here, our interaction makes more sense as a supervision than a mirror relationship. In time, you will learn that my style of Te is not LxE style Te and realize the folly of interacting with me: you're never going to get your suggestive-Te needs fulfilled from me
Hope this helps.
ETA:
This is another thing I often hear from ESIs when they don't agree with me: that I don't have sufficient empirical data to justify the conclusions I've drawn
Last edited by consentingadult; 03-11-2010 at 02:14 PM. Reason: typo
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
This is another thing I often hear from ESIs when they don't agree with me: that I don't have sufficient empirical data to justify the conclusions I've drawnI thought it was a typical reaction that people have to others turning a response they made in a post into a discussion about their type while claiming things about their motives, etc. I've noticed it lots of times.
Last edited by marooned; 03-11-2010 at 03:44 PM. Reason: typical is a better word than standard
No worries, I don't quite understand you either
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
No, I was referring to her objection to you re-typing her based on how you don't know her... that I don't think this is an example of "an ESI saying you don't have enough empirical evidence" but rather a way that a lot of people respond in these types of situations.No worries, I don't quite understand you either
Ah, I understand you now. I have not noticed such a thing, but since I haven't been looking for it, you might be right, and I'm willing to take your word for it.
But I also mean this in regards to normal conversations with ESIs, that do not involve typings or Socionics discussions. If I draw conclusions that come forth of what I call a process of "pattern recognition", some sensors, mainly those who value Ni, will object to my conclusion by referring to a lack of empirical sources on my behalf, completely bypassing the fact that I have applied a a process of pattern recognition, which does not require knowing all facts in order to come to a generalized conclusion. Does that make sense?
Like I said in my first response to Sasha, I'd leave it up to her to decide if she wanted to do anything with my remarks about her type, since it was not a big deal to me. But apparently I did strike a sensitive snare with her.
Last edited by consentingadult; 03-11-2010 at 04:34 PM. Reason: typo
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
That's odd... Sasha removed her contributions to this thread, as apparently she did before. I wonder why...
Last edited by consentingadult; 03-11-2010 at 04:33 PM. Reason: typo
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
What personality disorder she has, in your opinion?
ahahahahahaha.
Although I am actually interested in CA has one/some possible suggestions.
What type are you consenting? I ask because "pattern recognition" is exactly how I think, and I consider it to be related to Ni. It is possible, however, that drawing conclusions without evidence is just an intuition related thing, and it annoys you if it comes in the form you don't value, while you think it's awesome if it comes in the form you do value.
EDIT: also, lack of empirical sources sounds like a Te complaint to me. Lack of logical coherence is a more Ti complaint, I think.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
I don't know what type I am, however, IEE seems to make the most sense based on dynamics of interpersonal relationships.
"Pattern recognition" is indeed related to "intuition", though not per sé in the Socionics sense. My free-floating thoughts on pattern recognition:
So yeah, Ni imo is one of the attitudes that perceives reality in terms of pattern recognition, more in particular cause/effect patterns. And as such, does not require knowledge of all facts in order to come to conclusions.
- Ne: pattern recognition based on genus/differentia attributes of two or more phenomena
- Ni: pattern recognition based on cause/effect relationships between two or more phenomena
I got this idea from a program on Discovery or Nat Geo channel, or something like that. It investigated certain metal attitudes, and investigated what it was that made grandmaster chess players so good at chess. A lot of people think grand masters are very good thinkers, being able to come up with a strategy. But research has shown that this is not the case, and that many grand masters decide upon their strategies because they perceive almost instantly that a pattern unfolds in front of them. So the thing that makes grand masters good at chess, is not logical thinking, but intuition.
ETA: in the past I have been pondering the question if not every information Element in Socionics is a form of pattern recognition, but I have not been able to answer that question satisfactory.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
No, in this particular case I have not. The pattern I perceived told me nothing more than that her type is probably not Ne-ego. Some aspects led me into the direction of Ne-PoLRs, but the way she entered discussion made it less likely that she was LSI, because LSIs (such as tututututu... whatever) are typically more hostile towards me.
She does seem to be quite sensitive though....
Last edited by consentingadult; 03-11-2010 at 07:57 PM. Reason: typo
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Huh. Interesting ideas. As far as all IEs being related to patterns, my theory for Se at least is that most of the properties ascribed to Se by socionics are actually results of the "core" of Se which is attachment to sensory data with no mental manipulation/change, which means Se egos, unlike the rest of us, exist in a very, very concrete, solid, believable world. I actually arrange all the perceiving functions along a scale from most concrete (Se) to most abstract (Ni), with the assumption that S is more concrete than N, and E is more concrete than I (insofar as the external world is more concrete than the internal world). But that's pretty unrelated.
Patterns based on cause and effect does make sense for Ni. Also interesting is that it works both ways; it's discerning effects from causes, but also causes from effects (in the sense of the insight into people aspect of Ni + Fe, or constructing a story of how some evidence occurred aspect of Ni + Te).
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
Im not sure what you mean when you speak of "moral" and "immmoral" people since I dont see people as being moral or immoral.
But I the person I hate the most in the world is an EII. She was so mean to me and profited from me just to please our ENTj teacher that its almost unbeleivable. Im not saying all IEIs are like this though most of them are cool just not this girl.
Last edited by Ave; 03-13-2010 at 08:43 AM.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
You story about Se reminds me of what Ayn Rand once wrote in "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" (for what that book is actually worth), where she discerned between sensations, perceptions (automatic integrations of sensations, if I recall correctly) and concepts (abstractions from perceptions). Which leads us to the Problem of Induction, which in turn makes me think about Ne and Ni as forms of induction. But wait, wasn't induction a form of logical reasoning?? And if so, is it Te or Ti
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Hmmm... that actually makes an awful lot of sense to me. In that case, Si would be sensations, Se would be perceptions, and Ni and Ne would both be abstractions, although I consider Ni to be abstractions of abstractions, insofar as it is abstractions about how abstract entities relate over time (that is, how a particular type of "anger" reacts with a particular set of "verbal responses"--both of these as generalized concepts, not as their particular manifestations at the time and moment). lol @ induction should be Ti or Te. I think that actually all the functions could be described as inductive or deductive (or maybe that all the functions can act both deductively and inductively), really, but yeah, of course anything related to logic must be Ti or Te, so that's out.You story about Se reminds me of what Ayn Rand once wrote in "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" (for what that book is actually worth), where she discerned between sensations, perceptions (automatic integrations of sensations, if I recall correctly) and concepts (abstractions from perceptions). Which leads us to the Problem of Induction, which in turn makes me think about Ne and Ni as forms of induction. But wait, wasn't induction a form of logical reasoning?? And if so, is it Te or Ti.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
(EIIs who've been naughty need spankings)
What gets me is that Ryu's responses, like that, strike me as EXTREMELY the same way that beta STs respond to things. That response in and of itself makes reminds me of a SLE who is excited when it starts to see a need to get a response out of someone who is otherwise reserved - an EII, so to say.
EII - Ne
5w6 sp/so/sx
I'm an SLE according to Marista.What gets me is that Ryu's responses, like that, strike me as EXTREMELY the same way that beta STs respond to things. That response in and of itself makes reminds me of a SLE who is excited when it starts to see a need to get a response out of someone who is otherwise reserved - an EII, so to say.
The difference is that I say things like that after I know someone or an comfortable with a situation. The thing is, IEIs like it a lot when I act that way and expect me to be that way all the time, which is annoying. They don't get how I can just be that way for 'fun'.
Which is more why I felt weird about you, because you seem to be more that way first and as a primary way of being, rather than something fun. But, I can see some EIis who are somewhat more that way, particularly the Ne-subtypes.
I don't like it when beta NFs try to pressure me to be that way or try to draw it out of me - it's annoying. But when it comes up on my own and is organic, that's what I like - and the delta NFs are much better at allowing that to happen by providing relational / 'ethical' stability or goodness.
~"Relax and have fun with your 8th function"~
There are no subtypes.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
IVE ABANDONED MY CHILD
IVE ABANDONED MY CHILDThere are no subtypes.
IVE ABANDONED MY BOY
What does your message mean?
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
It is a play on a movie where there are people who are somewhat "forcing" confessions from each other. I haven't seen all of it yet, though.
Why are you using it on me?
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I found it personally humorous to relate your statement that there are no subtypes to a movie where people where two people 'forced' confessions from each other, the confessions were made in a way that was pleasing to the ego of the other person.
So I thought it was humorous for you to tell me there are no subtypes, and picturing it in a way that made it seem like you wanted to save me and bring me to enlightenment about socionics.
"confess that there are no subtypes"
"THERE ARE NO SUBTYPES, THERE ARE NO SUBTYPES... etc"
Lol, Ryu.......I was pulling your leg. *chuckles*
But yeah, I can totally see what you're saying, and that kind of Se behaviour is definitely more tolerable to me because it's controlled and predictable, being used appropriately rather than all the time, which would annoy the crap out of me (which is the way it *usually* ends up with SLEs).
I can see how it came across that way in my first couple of threads.
However, as I think I've now shown, this is not my primary way of being, per se. While looking back at my first threads, I was trying to figure out why I felt compelled to be so Fe. And I think the answer is that I used it initially as a kind of buffer to shield myself from "anticipated" oncoming negativity/rejection/criticism etc which is very, very stressful for EIIs, certainly for me.
I've also realised, upon further reflection, that I actually do this A LOT when meeting new people, putting on an outward show of Fe/Se in the beginning. It's almost as if I'm trying to keep them blinded to the real me, at least until I've had enough time to study them and decide to what level they can be trusted.
Well, I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I definitely, definitely do not make any attempt to draw people into a state of emotion that they are not naturally in the mood for. This feels too much like imposing my will on others, which is entirely repulsive to me.
Now that I think of it, the IEIs in my life do this ALL THE TIME, trying to get me to liven up etc. when I am just not in the mood. Which does become highly irritating to me.
EII - Ne
5w6 sp/so/sx
..I was aware..
I just had to voice my skepticism. I too am skeptical that you are EII. I can't see an EII making a show of Fe and Se when they meet people (I've generally noticed that EIIs rarely display much Fe, and they have *no* Se and would totally fail at making a show of it). As a possible fixer-upper solution that might not be your actual type but would make more sense to me, I would suggest Fi creative (XEE) over Fi leading. IEEs for instance can be very "introverted" seeming (and some may see themselves as introverts, and may be in the standard non-Socionics definition of the word) and can make a show of Fe/Se as Fe is the 8th function for them and Se is their role and does come out sometimes. I could see an IEE being this way when meeting new people 100x easier than I could see it of an EII. Anyway, I kinda think you're either XEE or EIE for the most part. I can see the arguments for you being an Fe type, but I'm not really sure one way or the other on that due to my own deficiencies in recognizing Fe vs. Fi. (I can't say it's impossible you're EII or anything, I'm just really skeptical of it.) /out of nowhere post
It's a good post.
There seems to be a lot of 'something' going on.
I think even more questionable than EII for Shag is the typing of E5.
And I could see a Fi-IEE acting somewhat similar.
I have seen EII-Ne's act somewhat similar in terms of trying to foster a sense of positive relationships, but, I feel something slightly different from that.
That said, I have less problems now seeing EII, than before, when it comes to trying to talk to Shag in different situations (PM). When the contradictions between how he says he is and says he acts, and how he is actually acting, is resolved, that will be when I feel more comfortable about his typing, whatever it is. I feel like something is mixed up somewhere.
This makes some sense. I know an EII-Ne (probably 4w3) who was very much that way, although more so focusing on pleasantries to disarm people. I guess it's also similar to Christy B who may be the same typings. But those EIIs, imo, acted that way out of social uneasiness, as a sort of disarming strategy. And they felt they were personally very awkward when it came to such things, and seem to, ultimately, prefer to not be that way.
But at the same time, they seemed to get into trouble because they kept trying to be 'pleasing' to other people by being a certain way and inviting things that they were not particularly up for. It's almost catering way too much to other people. It strikes me as an EII trying to be IEI or trying to be E3 when they really don't want to be deep down, but still use that strategy as some sort of coping mechanism for dealing with social situations.
I can't really tell if you are trying to pull it out of me or not. That's what is tricky. I read what you say about yourself and I try to believe that, but, it's just weird when you act the way you do.Well, I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I definitely, definitely do not make any attempt to draw people into a state of emotion that they are not naturally in the mood for. This feels too much like imposing my will on others, which is entirely repulsive to me.
Now that I think of it, the IEIs in my life do this ALL THE TIME, trying to get me to liven up etc. when I am just not in the mood. Which does become highly irritating to me.
Why do you think IEIs do it "all the time", and why do you see yourself as being different from them?
Yes, YES!!! +1000
EII - Ne
5w6 sp/so/sx
Other than "just trusting you" (which I can do but is only so much), the only way for me to feel like I know that is really the case is to interact more with you over time. It's a matter of figuring out what the real you is. There's just no short cut in that sense, for me - especially because I tend to take a while to feel relationally comfortable with (brand new) people anyway.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
