Your type, your mother's type

[anndelise]

Me: NeFi
Mom: FiNe (but I didn't grow up with her)
Step-mom: i think FiSe, but sometimes I wonder if maybe FeSi
She was heavy into always having to be moving, always having to be productive. Supportive of sports, not so much of mental pursuits. That woman never stopped. I think she saw physical activity, physical movement as easier to see as productive than the more sedentary mental pursuits. She didn't believe in reading for pleasure, either. If you wanted to do something relaxing, she'd send you out to dig in the garden. Other parts of her personality are difficult to tell how much was innate and how much learned. She grew up in Guadalajara, dirt poor....literally, and raised her four or so siblings since she was 11yo. So as much as we conflicted in our definitions of productive, I admired her greatly for her strong will and sense of purpose.

[Suz]

Me: Delta NF

Mom: SEI

lol me too!! (I think)

[DividedsGhost]

mother: SEI-Fe
me: LII

mr aleksei, you make an interesting point about their might not really being much of a root process. i guess personally i would say the functions are easy to understand in definition, but harder to apply to behavior because we are really trying to simplify overall behavior to cognitive archetypes. that's what you mean though when you say different typologies can explain different things?

but anyway, what do you see Fe leading as in socionics? from my personal experience i would have a hard time typing someone Fe leading if they were naturally argumentative as if in an intellectual competition or openly willing to destroy the mood by insulting people habitually (like with your signature, for example). ive always gotten the sense that Fe leading wants to be in line with the Fi that they observe around them or they feel stressed and out of place within themselves and feel uncertain about how to express themselves. and then Ne leading that is looking for a way to interpret or understand through the Ni it observes. i guess the main question for me is 'is it Ne trying to explain the imagination or Fe trying to affect an overall positive social atmosphere'?

and just so you know where im coming from, i dont really care about convincing you about a type since ive never even met you before and probably never will and can never really know anyway as a result. so it doesnt have to be about being right or wrong or just having different perspectives. we can still entertain each other's perspectives without openly committing to any particular idea of thought. i would greatly enjoy that if you would. i really would like to hear what you think.

[Creepy-]

I will call myself ILI for now. Anyway, my mother exudes Fe and has demonstrated many examples I could construe as Si, so I would say she is alpha SF.

[silke]

1) I already explained that your Hannibal Lecture doesn't apply, as my reasoning only applies in the manner you described to typology, and only because to my estimation the Socionics model of the psyche is crap.

"Hannibal Lecture", lol. This is why on Russian socionics websites the ENTp profile is associated with the character of Don Quixote, for this propensity to engage in imagining epic battles of good vs evil in which of course ILE fights the evil forces which usually have the upper hand.

I've seen nothing of what you mentioned in either site, so I need you to point it out and explain it specifically, if you'll be so kind. In return I can give you a point by point analysis of what fits and doesn't fit from the ILE and EIE profiles (vetted by friends, so this isn't just me saying "AM NOT!"). But you need to do your homework.

I've already done this in your typing thread and am not experiencing a burning desire to beat the dead horse over and over again, but here is yet another manifestation of Ne-Si in your cognition:

A name, a title, is naught but a shell; which houses a concept. What that concept is, is arbitrary -- it exists by that name, simply because whomever thought up the concept gave it to it. If the same name is given to a different concept, then the two concepts still have naught to do with each other.

Which is what happened here. Out of the multiple characterization traits a human being can be described through (numbering in the dozens), each author of Jungian typology picked a series, which corresponds to what they felt corresponded best to a given personality element being described -- from which arose a type system from each.

They are all related insofar as they all describe human personality traits. As they describe distinct traits, any one trait (value, thought pattern, personality quirk..) can fall within the range of one arbitrarily-named element defined into existence and another with a different name in a different Jungian typology system, or simply out of the range of one, or both.

You do not see that those "characterization traits" can be boiled down to the same core concepts. Instead you see them as distinct units of concrete information (Si) which can be given arbitrary categories and symbols (Ti), and seeing them so, they appear to you to give rise to divergence of concepts, which is Ne.

[Aleksei]

Just for starters, Don Quixote is an EIE -- the ILE typing is entirely ridiculous. Imagining epic battles of good vs evil, idealizing a past era and seeking to push it forth into a glorious future is as as it can possibly get.

You do not see that those "characterization traits" can be boiled down to the same core concepts.

THOSE ARE THE FUCKING CORE CONCEPTS. I have looked already, and there is nothing, NOTHING, beneath them. Just empty brain space.

For fuck's sake.

[MisterNi]

Just for starters, Don Quixote is an EIE -- the ILE typing is entirely ridiculous. Imagining epic battles of good vs evil, idealizing a past era and seeking to push it forth into a glorious future is as as it can possibly get.

No, Don Quixote is definitely an ILE. The book itself is more about the notions of romanticism and fantasy, so the main character of the book had to be someone who would be able to play out a fantasy or fantastic notion outside of their own head. That's when it isn't supported by their judging function.

Don Quixote is obviously a terrible example of an ILE though, with almost no use of , which is why I'm glad Socionics finally dumped those labels.

[Azeroffs]

my mom is ILE

[silke]

Just for starters, Don Quixote is an EIE -- the ILE typing is entirely ridiculous. Imagining epic battles of good vs evil, idealizing a past era and seeking to push it forth into a glorious future is as as it can possibly get.

No, Don Quixote is definitely an ILE.

Yes, Don Quixote's character is a prototypical ILE. This sort of imaginary romanticism that he displays in the story I've noticed can be characteristic of ILEs, probably due to conjoining of Ne and Fe. Ne unanchores ILE's perceptions from the physical world and its needs, while Fe-HA makes ILEs desire to see the goodness in people. Unfortunately that need is often not met but it dwells as a romantic ideal in ILE's mind.

In short, Aleksei, you are mistaking your Fe hidden agenda for your dominant function.

THOSE ARE THE FUCKING CORE CONCEPTS. I have looked already, and there is nothing, NOTHING, beneath them. Just empty brain space.

For fuck's sake.

Exactly. There is nothing beneath them because you perceive them as literal, static, concrete. You have looked and found nothing as is expected of someone who is Si-valuing. If you were really a Ni-ego your mind would be bursting with all kinds of possible associations and contextual references.

[Nico1e]

My mom seems to be ESI. My dad is either SLI or ILI - I'm not really sure which, and I hesitate to take a guess. Mom is a stay-at-home mom, but before that, she was a nurse. She met Dad in medical school.

Dad is a retired radiologist. He reads a lot of books about astronomy and outer space and physics. I hesitate to call him an ILI because he doesn't usually talk in a 'symbolic' way. I don't get a lot of abstract ideas from him. I'd need to spend some time around people who were clearly and unmistakably ILIs in order to be sure whether or not he was one.

Mom's favorite hobby is working with horses. They have several horses and actuallly I can't remember how many they have now, I think maybe three. I haven't visited in a while, and one of the horses died not too long ago.

My brother seems to be SLI. He didn't have as many health problems as I have had, and so he didn't turn into the health-obsessed SLI that I am, but instead, he is more of the 'having fun' type of SLI, someone who likes sports cars. He works as a computer programmer.

My dad's sister (my aunt) seems to be an IEI, and her husband is a SLE. He's mellowed out a lot now that he's older (and now that he's on blood pressure medication). My aunt used to make a lot of quilts until her hands and fingers became too stiff to do sewing. I never really liked the quilts she made sorry, but it's true, and whenever we went out to eat together to celebrate our birthdays - our birthdays are very close together - I always found it very hard to think of anything to say, and very hard to be myself. I couldn't relax and just talk in an uncensored way. The conversation seemed to just die.

My aunt sometimes writes quirky little fanciful stories, which is part of what helped me to decide she was an IEI. For instance she once wrote a little story about how the littlest flashlight grew up to become a full-sized flashlight, and how it was given as a Christmas gift to her husband. She also had the 'quirky cultural practices' kind of stories, similar to Prairie Home Companion, and other people have typed Garrison Keillor as IEI. I don't recall all the details, but there was a story about some kind of a saloon in Alaska where the moose were watching people dance, or something like that, and the moose and other animals were talking and were involved in the story.

I really wonder how much of our personality types are hereditary. Whenever I have children in the future, at least I will know that 'personality types' exist, and that will help me if I have children that I don't get along well with, or children that I dislike, or children who I don't understand very well. The knowledge will help me to not be too harsh to the kids who are different from myself. If I couldn't get along with them very well, I would want to at least find some other healthy role model for them, some other person with a more compatible type that they could spend some time with.

[717495]

In short, Aleksei, you are mistaking your Fe hidden agenda for your dominant function.

I can sort of imagine how an ILE mind works, and its difficult to convince them of anything in their argumentative nature, because they feel great passion for their own thoughts and are genius at twisting things around with . We can keep telling others about him so they don't make mistakes, but to convince him would be easier if maybe he can figure it out by himself, since ILE is too likely of an option for many ILEs to accept.

[Aleksei]

Yes, Don Quixote's character is a prototypical ILE. This sort of imaginary romanticism that he displays in the story I've noticed can be characteristic of ILEs, probably due to conjoining of Ne and Fe. Ne unanchores ILE's perceptions from the physical world and its needs, while Fe-HA makes ILEs desire to see the goodness in people.

1) What makes you think Ne manifests this way?

2) What makes you think Fe manifests this way?

EDIT: Nevermind, don't bother. I'm just gonna put you on ignore, because the more I see you, the more I get the urge to split your skull open and feed your useless brain to the crows. If I keep this up, I'll just end up looking up your address and giving it to the /i/nsurgency.

[Crispy]

lol @ massive amounts of pathetic angst

[MisterNi]

No, Don Quixote is definitely an ILE.

Yes, Don Quixote's character is a prototypical ILE. This sort of imaginary romanticism that he displays in the story I've noticed can be characteristic of ILEs, probably due to conjoining of Ne and Fe. Ne unanchores ILE's perceptions from the physical world and its needs, while Fe-HA makes ILEs desire to see the goodness in people. Unfortunately that need is often not met but it dwells as a romantic ideal in ILE's mind.

No, Don Quixote isn't a prototypical ILE. He was a delusional old man who displayed no or -- the creative and role functions when imagining his great adventures or dangers. If anything, his character was gone wild with no support from the creative function. That's hardly prototypical behavior. In fact, any type actively ignoring their creative function would be considered unbalanced and perhaps mentally ill.

I can sort of imagine how an ILE mind works, and its difficult to convince them of anything in their argumentative nature, because they feel great passion for their own thoughts and are genius at twisting things around with .

Yeah, well define "twisting things around with ". So I think an ILE who's painted themselves into a corner argumentatively speaking, would be prone to use every tactic and strategy available to argue/debate themselves out of it. If that's what you consider "twisting" then that's really something an intelligent irrational would be adept at, and would not just be limited to ILE.

[Pookie]

Interesting how many Quasi-identicals there are. It probably has something to do with the Conscious ego of our parents becoming the subconscious foundation for our own ego.

Me:IEI
Mom:EII

[strrrng]

sigh

The problem is deciding what is an introvert, what is an extrovert, and so on, as I've explained in detail already. Do you have an actual rebuttal to that? (to the long answer that is -- you have a somewhat annoying tendency to avoid arguments).

the only consistent problem you bring up to others, is your inability to relate basic perceptions through words without having them redefine systemic boundaries anew each discussion. now.

A name, a title, is naught but a shell; which houses a concept. What that concept is, is arbitrary -- it exists by that name, simply because whomever thought up the concept gave it to it. If the same name is given to a different concept, then the two concepts still have naught to do with each other.

no, the name is what's arbitrary. your argument implies that concepts are incepted in a vacuum, and then linguistically sequestered from each other; this is because you fail to perceive their phenomenological basis, i.e. overemphasize external fields to the unconscious exclusion of external objects.

following your semantics, the concepts are what house the phenomena. so, if the same name can be given to different concepts, the opposite is true; hence being able to extract similar information from different systems.

thus:

The objective basis is the definition.

falls apart.

also, the fact that you deem a set of symbols an objective basis for an "arbitrary concept" renders your epistemology a sophomoric joke.

Which is what happened here. Out of the multiple characterization traits a human being can be described through (numbering in the dozens), each author of Jungian typology picked a series, which corresponds to what they felt corresponded best to a given personality element being described -- from which arose a type system from each.

assuming that disparate ideas are randomly aggregated, and then contradicting yourself by sticking to strict definitions of said "arbitrary" ideas. guess what type this is common to?

They are all related insofar as they all describe human personality traits. As they describe distinct traits, any one trait (value, thought pattern, personality quirk..) can fall within the range of one arbitrarily-named element defined into existence and another with a different name in a different Jungian typology system, or simply out of the range of one, or both.

they describe patterns of human behavior and cognition, not compartments of personality.

go read Rick's function semantics article. his "objective basis" of proves that you don't have it in your ego.

Just for starters, Don Quixote is an EIE -- the ILE typing is entirely ridiculous. Imagining epic battles of good vs evil, idealizing a past era and seeking to push it forth into a glorious future is as as it can possibly get.

lol, identifying with beta. "gurr, epic mythological warfare plastered on paper, I'm an idealistic EIE!"

THOSE ARE THE FUCKING CORE CONCEPTS. I have looked already, and there is nothing, NOTHING, beneath them. Just empty brain space.

yup

[Aleksei]

^My problem is that the Socionics model of the psyche is bullshit, therefore I must use it in a way that salvages its usability from the bullshit. I don't have that problem with anything else.

[Crispy]

I don't have that problem with anything else.

I find it very hard to believe that Socionics is the only phenomenon you have a problem understanding.

[Aleksei]

Hey Crispy, it's 5 in the morning. Do you know where your mother is?

[silke]

No, Don Quixote isn't a prototypical ILE. He was a delusional old man who displayed no or -- the creative and role functions when imagining his great adventures or dangers. If anything, his character was gone wild with no support from the creative function. That's hardly prototypical behavior. In fact, any type actively ignoring their creative function would be considered unbalanced and perhaps mentally ill.

It depends on the perspective that you take. There is a lot of discussion, essays upon essays written about whether Don Quixote is truly mad or whether his is a form of clearer and higher perception that prompts him to challenge the vices of the world. If you accept the first interpretation then I can understand why you don't want to see him associated with your type. Some other Russian profiles get similarly interesting characters assigned to them. For example the prototype for ESTj profile is Stirlitz, a Soviet spy sent to Germany in WWII. There are a lot of jokes about this character that poke fun at his very concrete literal-minded straightforward deductive style of thinking when applied to complex situations which creates unexpected scenarios.

I can sort of imagine how an ILE mind works, and its difficult to convince them of anything in their argumentative nature, because they feel great passion for their own thoughts and are genius at twisting things around with . We can keep telling others about him so they don't make mistakes, but to convince him would be easier if maybe he can figure it out by himself, since ILE is too likely of an option for many ILEs to accept.

yes I agree with you here

Yeah, well define "twisting things around with ". So I think an ILE who's painted themselves into a corner argumentatively speaking, would be prone to use every tactic and strategy available to argue/debate themselves out of it. If that's what you consider "twisting" then that's really something an intelligent irrational would be adept at, and would not just be limited to ILE.

It is not really twisting words but more like finding ways to circumvent the other person's arguments by suggesting more and more alternate options that I've noticed is characteristic to ILEs. Something that Aleksei is doing right now by stating in self-defense that "Socionics model is bullshit" anyways, so he is forced to use some modified system that, of course, somehow justifies his EIE typing. Sometimes this leads to very far-fetched, highly improbable scenarios being brought up and this is where it gets frustrating. It starts to look like the person will say anything, twist words and invent facts, just to make himself sound right and thus further discussion is futile.

... I'm just gonna put you on ignore, because the more I see you, the more I get the urge to split your skull open and feed your useless brain to the crows. If I keep this up, I'll just end up looking up your address and giving it to the /i/nsurgency.

first you need to resolve this little problem for yourself

 

[strrrng]

^My problem is that the Socionics model of the psyche is bullshit, therefore I must use it in a way that salvages its usability from the bullshit. I don't have that problem with anything else.

tweaking a system to one's fancy would seem justified if it was "bullshit."

[Absurd]

Just for starters, Don Quixote is an EIE -- the ILE typing is entirely ridiculous.

Of course. Hamlet the Prince of Denmark is ILE, I mean living in a castle and being prince should point towards some type. I don't know what's the commotion at all, siuntal, MisterNi and strrrng are giving you a hard time, for when Hamlet says "to be or not to be: that is the question", he's thinking about him being ILE or not.

That's what I call a giveaway.

[MisterNi]

No, Don Quixote isn't a prototypical ILE. He was a delusional old man who displayed no or -- the creative and role functions when imagining his great adventures or dangers. If anything, his character was gone wild with no support from the creative function. That's hardly prototypical behavior. In fact, any type actively ignoring their creative function would be considered unbalanced and perhaps mentally ill.

It depends on the perspective that you take. There is a lot of discussion, essays upon essays written about whether Don Quixote is truly mad or whether his is a form of clearer and higher perception that prompts him to challenge the vices of the world. If you accept the first interpretation then I can understand why you don't want to see him associated with your type.

That's quite an interesting perspective siuntal. I think I should re-read the book.

[meals]

SLI, ESI mom

[mikemex]

My dad is either SLI or ILI - I'm not really sure which, and I hesitate to take a guess. (...) Dad is a retired radiologist. He reads a lot of books about astronomy and outer space and physics. I hesitate to call him an ILI because he doesn't usually talk in a 'symbolic' way. I don't get a lot of abstract ideas from him. I'd need to spend some time around people who were clearly and unmistakably ILIs in order to be sure whether or not he was one.

It's very easy to tell. SLIs are caregivers, ILIs are victims. Caregivers like the company of infantiles and victims like the company of aggressors. Lot's of differences, actually.

I really wonder how much of our personality types are hereditary. Whenever I have children in the future, at least I will know that 'personality types' exist, and that will help me if I have children that I don't get along well with, or children that I dislike, or children who I don't understand very well. The knowledge will help me to not be too harsh to the kids who are different from myself. If I couldn't get along with them very well, I would want to at least find some other healthy role model for them, some other person with a more compatible type that they could spend some time with.

Yes, it's about the only realistic use for Socionics. It's not some self-improvement ideology in which just knowing what's wrong in you or others will allow you to fix it; you can't change the way you -or others- are.

But like I said, that's not a reason to stop trying.

[Joven Erudito89]

me EII, mom IEI

Same here!
Me: EII NE subtype
Mom:IEI Not sure of subtype

[World Socionics]

[quote=siuntal;801694]

In short, Aleksei, you are mistaking your Fe hidden agenda for your dominant function.

He's mistyped just about every ILE as an EIE.

Don Quixote, the Joker, Eleventh Doctor. :S and the only time he said someone was ILE, he was more IEE.

[Radio]

Me: EII-Ne
Mother: EII-Fi or IEE-Fi

[Leader]

Agee: SLE
Mother: Enneagram 2, most likely INFp

[Exodus]

Current statistics: 14 ESE, 73 total

Assuming equal type distribution and equal likelihood of each type to be a mother:

P(ESE > 8) = .038

and

P(ESE > 11) = .0018

Let's say we assume that ESEs are actually 10% of the population and 1.2 times as likely to be a mother as the average non-ESE. Then

P(ESE) = .1
P(M|ESE) = 1.2P(M|~ESE)

P(ESE|M) = P(ESE&M)/P(M) = (P(M|ESE)*P(ESE))/(1.2P(M|~ESE)*.1 + P(M|~ESE)*.9) = .1/(.1*1.2+.9) * P(M|ESE)/P(M|~ESE) = .1/(.1*1.2+.9) * 1.2 = .12

which gives

P(ESE>10) = .26

So even under very loose assumptions, probably at least a few people have mistyped their mothers as ESE.

[Francesca Rose]

My Type: INFP-Fe
Me Mums: INTP-Ni

Pity me. >.<

[Amber]

My type: EII (Delta NF)

My mother: SEI Si

[epheme]

My type: IEI
Mother: IEE

[Beautiful sky]

My type: EII (Delta NF)

My mother: SEI Si

Benefit relationship is right! And very common. What type is your dad? My mom is ILI dad is SLI

[The Exception]

Previously I thought my mother was ESE, then EII, now I'm not so sure. I'm thinking maybe IEE-Fi?