Back to the drawing board

[Krig the Viking]

Here's the relevant Filatova descriptions (who herself is EII):

Here's her description of EII Fi:

Fi – program function. Introverted ethics determines that the EII focuses her attention on judgments about good and evil, morals and depravity, decency and dihonourableness. She precisely senses the norms of behaviour, which govern different groups of people, and she tries to follow these norms in order not to insult the feelings and morality of those that surround her. When she first arrives amongst a group of people she holds herself back. Once she has established a degree of control in regards to the psychological atmosphere of occurences within the group, and only then, after she has soaked herself in the atmosphere, will she consider becoming a full-fledged member of the collective.

EII often makes acquaintence with those that are weak or unhappy. These people serve to incite the desire to help, to support, and to comfort others, within her. To her others will frequently turn for help and she accepts them by examining their confessions for hours on end. She attempts to get accustomed to the psychological difficulties being experienced by the collocutor and she tries to take their side and support them.

EII is often wounded and always emotional, however, she turns all her experiences inward; thus these qualities are not always observable from a distance. She sometimes appears as a steady, even cold person, but this impression is illusory. Every event, even those popularly deemed insignificant, leaves in her soul a deep track that survives for a long time. As a rule she represses in herself anger, irritation, and the desire to reproach. One of the EII’s characteristic manifestations of offense is the creation of a psychological barrier between themselves and the offender. In such cases she’ll assume a position emanating stressed, cold, politeness. She’ll answer all questions monosyllabically. This style of behaviour, characteristic of this psycho-type, is very difficult to deal with for some people; they’d prefer that the EII shouted or somehow otherwise expressed her indignation. It is not even easy for her to exist in such a state. However, if the offender asks for forgiveness and manifests the desire to change the situation than this state of offense may rapidly pass.

High emotionalism, in combination with rationality, frequently leads the EII to replay their role in a past situation over and over. The center of excitation, in their consciousness, darkens all other aspect of life when this occurs. She finds it difficult to focus on anything different. Mentally, again and again, she returns to one and the same; she may speak about this lest it occur that others, around her, find it irritating.

Contrast that with her description of LII Fi:

The realm of ethics presents weakness for LII. In this area she adheres to the norms and traditions of society. May develop sufficient care and restraint so as to avoid such situations, in which she’s badly oriented. LII poorly measures the emotional climate, prefers not to interfere in conflicts and – as much as possible – to avoid such situations. Finds it difficult to comfort others. In such cases prefers to render concrete assistance, or, if this is impossible, to simply walk away and not interfere. Does not understand what to do, or what to say, when confronted by another’s tearful emotional outburst.

Tends to associate from a distant psychological distance; does not express familiarity well with others. Thus, as a child and as an adult, she fails to develop and maintain many friendships. In this the weakness of the ethical function manifests itself.

LII follows tradition. Is proper and exercises restraint, does not succumb to deplorable expressions of behaviour, but this is not the essence of her nature – under the mask of restraint is often hidden a strained spiritual life, influenced by intense experiences. However, her reserved nature does not permit her to share her misfortunes with others. For years she may carry an offense, in the depth of her soul, only with difficulty pardoning the offender.

LII develops relations with caution, behaves towards others with restraint and respect. Is noticeably enkindled by intellectual conversation – in this area she feels herself sufficiently well grounded.

Likewise, her description of LII Ti:

LII’s ideology is founded upon the idea of the interdependence of phenomena in the surrounding world; everything that occurs is subordinate to laws and structure.

Her thinking takes an analytic nature. She gathers knowledge and, investigating it, analyzes the facts. She understands the essence of a situation by creating a model for this knowledge in her consciousness that corresponds with her experiences. She’s guided by the universal ideas she’s found and comprehended, regardless of others’ opposition. By no means will she be distracted from what she deems the principal purpose in her life and will only forsake something she’s started if convinced, on her own, of its error. Her work frequently becomes the focal point of her existence.

LII loves precision and order in everything; she is scrupulous and meticulous. Finds pleasure in systematizing, organizing everything “on the shelf.” Everything is done according to plan. Considers that the behaviour of people, especially at work, must be subordinate to a logical and definite system. Immediately notes the illogicality and contradictions present in the actions of people and, as much as possible, attempts to introduce corrections: depending on whom she’s dealing with can express criticism or propose assistance. Generally is irritated by chaotic, disorderly, inconsiderate people.

Contrast that with Filatova's description of EII Ti:

Ti – normative function. The EII attempts to consider all its activities ahead of time. She determines concrete priorities for herself, which serve to shroud the main plan. Such an approach does not always succeed as emotionalism frequently pushes or pulls her from the original direction she planned to follow. Nevertheless she tries to organize her activity into a definite system, to organize order, and this requires vast efforts from her.

Trying to work as conscientiously as possible, EII is not always capable of working effectively. Thus she spends much of her time in an unproductive fashion. She sometimes compensates for this by working from dawn to dawn. She finds it difficult to bind her workday with a reasonable framework: there always seems to be something that’s unfinished. As a consequence of her propensity to self-perfection she sometimes devotes herself to work, which contradicts her nature; the feeling of duty exceeds her other needs.

I dunno if this'll help. I don't usually trust the Wikisocion descriptions. In my opinion, you match the LII stuff better than the EII stuff. In this case, try not to focus on what you'd like to do or be, but instead focus on what you're good at doing. After all, you can only be strong in one of the two (Fi or Ti).

Given all that you've said in this thread, in my opinion I'd say you're almost certainly an H-LII rather than a C-LII as I had initially speculated. My understanding of both you and the DCNH theory has grown quite a bit since then. H-LIIs are more focused than other LIIs on creating and maintaining harmony in their surrounding environment, which could explain why you feel a connection to EII. It's mainly the C-LIIs who do things like come up with new type and function descriptions from scratch. N-LIIs are focused on maintaining order in their little personal domains, and D-LIIs are more focused on achieving whatever logical goals they've chosen in the outside world.

Not to pimp my own work, but I think my analysis in this thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...pes-bones.html might be helpful in that regard.

[The Exception]

Here's the relevant Filatova descriptions (who herself is EII)

From the Filatova descriptions, I relate more to the Fi in LII than Fi in EII but I still found the majority of the Fi EII description to fit me. The part that didn’t fit so well was making acquaintance with those who are weak or unhappy. I usually feel sorry for these people but I generally don’t go out of my way to make acquaintance with them. I think its primarily because I feel awkward around such people, don’t know what to say in their presence to make them feel better. Which suggests weak Fi.
Most of the LII’s Ti description fits me. What doesn’t fit as well is the part about the behavior of people having to be subordinate to a logical and definite system and correcting of people who are contradictory in their actions. That seems rather severe to me. I may be like this some of the time but not as a general rule. Could be subtype related. I think maybe N-LIIs are more like this?
About half of the EII Ti description fits. I do have issues with working effectively at times. I can overfocus on certain details that don’t really matter that much in the whole scheme of things. I am also prone to distraction. Not so much emotionalism but rather I get distracted by something like a new idea I should consider. Thus it takes me awhile to finish projects. I can be exhaustively thorough, wanting to consider every possible angle, overlooking nothing. I identify strongly with the self-perfection and the feeling of duty mentioned in the description.
So going by the Filatova descriptions, LII is a somewhat better fit but I still don’t feel convinced enough to make LII definite.

I dunno if this'll help. I don't usually trust the Wikisocion descriptions. In my opinion, you match the LII stuff better than the EII stuff. In this case, try not to focus on what you'd like to do or be, but instead focus on what you're good at doing. After all, you can only be strong in one of the two (Fi or Ti).

Just out of curiosity, why don't you trust the Wikisocion descriptions? They look pretty good to me. Which brings me to another point. I've noticed that other LIIs appear to be more assured about which descriptions are trustworthy and which are less so. Its harder for me to distinguish a good description from a not so good one. Of course I'm still in the beginner stage of socionics so that could explain it. The only one's I've been rather skeptical about were the socionics.com ones because they're too dichotomy and VI oriented without a solid model A foundation.

I have noticed that I'm overall less skeptical about things in general than some other LIIs. When exposed to new information, I generally don't reject it straight away. I view it as additional data to consider and some more stuff to try to fit in to my framework.

If I had to pick one, I'm better at Ti than Fi but I've come to wonder if I'm good enough at Ti to claim it as my base function.

Given all that you've said in this thread, in my opinion I'd say you're almost certainly an H-LII rather than a C-LII as I had initially speculated. My understanding of both you and the DCNH theory has grown quite a bit since then. H-LIIs are more focused than other LIIs on creating and maintaining harmony in their surrounding environment, which could explain why you feel a connection to EII. It's mainly the C-LIIs who do things like come up with new type and function descriptions from scratch. N-LIIs are focused on maintaining order in their little personal domains, and D-LIIs are more focused on achieving whatever logical goals they've chosen in the outside world.

Not to pimp my own work, but I think my analysis in this thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...pes-bones.html might be helpful in that regard.

Wouldn't an H-LII feel a stronger connection to ILI since is enhanced and is the base function for ILI? This may sound kind of crazy and I don't know if how much you subscribe to the 8 subtype system that JohnDo talks about, but what about Normalizing- subtype for me?? I would think this subtype would definitely have a strong resemblance to EII. Although I have to admit I kind of hard time imagining how that subtype would play in practice. It makes more sense that an LII would have a stronger function enhanced like , , , or instead of a weaker one like , , , or .

Not trying to question your typing of H-LII for me. Subscribing to the 4-subtype system I definitely agree that its the best fit one. I'm just wondering more how the connection of H-LII to EII works when the function in the H-LII enhanced is not in the ego, let alone valued in the EII. I will say though that ILI is another fairly high scoring type for me on socionics test but, its usually ranked lower than EII. Typically the top four types are LII, EII, ILE, and ILI in that order although the last three can and do switch places sometimes.

Just out of curiosity, how would the four DCNH subtypes play out in EII's? Can you think of examples of board members or famous people with each of the four EII subtypes?

Also, how do you perceive the DCNH subtypes of other LIIs on this forum?
I think Matthew said he was H and Tcaud said C and I see no reason to disagree to disagree with those but what about the others?

I'm going to see if there is a way I can view a Bones episode through YouTube or some other similar site.