Your type, your mother's type

[silverchris9]

I'm IEI. My mom is ENFx. I can't make up my mind which quasi she is. Fe demonstrative makes sense, but so does Fe ego. Can't make up my mind about it. The biggest strike against ENFj is that my dad is very likely ISTj (and without a doubt Ti ego), and they had quite the rocky marriage and both are quite glad to be divorced. It would make much more sense for them to be conflictors or supervisor/supervisee. But on the other hand, my mom is way emotional, and I have trouble seeing semi-constant outward expression of emotion as "unnatural" (i.e., not an ego function) for her.

[Aiss]

none of this sounds like an Si dominant+Ni devaluer IMU...

She can get very stressed and will then yell at us kids for the smallest thing; one of my siblings bangs the door behind them accidentally because the wind caught it. . .

She considers goals, schedules, a clean house, and a moral life as probably the most important stuff ever.

She is ALWAYS thinking about the future.

The first isn't type related, IMO. Sure some type can be more likely to fall into the pattern easily than others, but it's more about life situation and being stressed in the first place. If anything, it's probably rationality-related, or stress quadrant related, if you consider that theory. Which actually makes SLI unlikely as well.

The second sounds like weak Ni rational to me, but it's rather vague, so let's write it down as unrelated for now.

The third is where the oversimplistic let's-play-with-stereotypes attitude of this forum comes into light. Future = Gamma NT, plain and simple, why should we bother to actually think.

Thinking about the future itself says nothing compared to the how of it. For example, any E6 will have this fixation and appear pessimistic, yet it can manifest in many different ways, although probably depending on strong or weak Ni most. Strong Ni is more likely to be focused on certain pointlessness, uselessness of struggle against the inevitable, assuming things will end up badly anyway, though in no specific way (a game you can't win - every way is full of dangers), as they're more aware of the degree of future's predictability. Weak Ni is more about unshakeable belief about either future's unpredictability (we can't know what will happen and we can't prepare for it and we'll be unprepared and it'll end badly), or a specific worst-case scenario (it's going to happen like this and this, I KNOW it), depending on the situation, not a person - usually both approaches are visible in the same person.

Anyway, it's tentative S-creative from me, LSx > ESI. Not sure about Enneagram, but if it's 6, consider the above before settling on type.

[Marie84]

The first isn't type related, IMO. Sure some type can be more likely to fall into the pattern easily than others, but it's more about life situation and being stressed in the first place. If anything, it's probably rationality-related, or stress quadrant related, if you consider that theory. Which actually makes SLI unlikely as well.

Anyone can experience stress, I agree, but the way Yellow is describing it is a constant projecting of stress onto others, and this isn't particularly normal for Si dominance unless there's a occurrent reason for it; usually they're too in tuned to their physical environment to allow stress to surface.

The second sounds like weak Ni rational to me, but it's rather vague, so let's write it down as unrelated for now.

The third is where the oversimplistic let's-play-with-stereotypes attitude of this forum comes into light. Future = Gamma NT, plain and simple, why should we bother to actually think.

Thinking about the future itself says nothing compared to the how of it. For example, any E6 will have this fixation and appear pessimistic, yet it can manifest in many different ways, although probably depending on strong or weak Ni most. Strong Ni is more likely to be focused on certain pointlessness, uselessness of struggle against the inevitable, assuming things will end up badly anyway, though in no specific way (a game you can't win - every way is full of dangers), as they're more aware of the degree of future's predictability. Weak Ni is more about unshakeable belief about either future's unpredictability (we can't know what will happen and we can't prepare for it and we'll be unprepared and it'll end badly), or a specific worst-case scenario (it's going to happen like this and this, I KNOW it), depending on the situation, not a person - usually both approaches are visible in the same person.

Anyway, it's tentative S-creative from me, LSx > ESI. Not sure about Enneagram, but if it's 6, consider the above before settling on type.

I don't think Gamma's are anymore concerned about Ni than Beta's are, if it sounded like I was suggesting so I apologize. And ftr I agree with this ^
I just through ILI out there as a possibility. But yes, I'm more inclined to think the strictness/pushiness she's describing is more characteristic with LSI than Ni dominants

[Saoshyant]

ILI w/ EIE mother.

[Nowisthetime]

The poll now stands at 23% ESE. So that means that The Caregivers are overrepresented as mothers. Nomen est omen.

[Blaze]

The poll now stands at 23% ESE. So that means that The Caregivers are overrepresented as mothers. Nomen est omen.

either that or we stereotype ESE's as mothers and vice versa. i find it hard to believe that the majority of mothers are ESE. however, it do find it plausible that the majority of ESE's make decisions and become mothers.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

either that or we stereotype ESE's as mothers and vice versa. i find it hard to believe that the majority of mothers are ESE. however, it do find it plausible that the majority of ESE's make decisions and become mothers.

I could see this. I have a sister who's probably either ST or SF. She loves kids and is very maternal, and she plans to have some.

[Nowisthetime]

either that or we stereotype ESE's as mothers and vice versa. i find it hard to believe that the majority of mothers are ESE. however, it do find it plausible that the majority of ESE's make decisions and become mothers.

well, I was actually joking, but maybe ESEs really are a little overrepresented. Tend to marry and have kinds more often than other types. But maybe not as much as the poll indicates

[1981slater]

ILE, EIE

[Mediator Kam]

SEI with ESE mom.

[inumbra]

I actually am pretty sure my mom really is ESE and I don't think other people thinking they have ESE moms somehow means that I'm wrong about this. Also, it's not because of "caregiver stereotypes" that I think my mom is ESE. I can see her being a "caregiver" if I had to put her in one of the four categories, sure, but the main point is that she is rather clearly to me Fe leading and Si creative. The whole picture fits no matter which way I turn it around in my head and I can't come up with sustaining doubt about it because something is always wrong (for instance if I consider SEE, it doesn't work because she obviously values Ne/Si; if I consider EIE it doesn't work because she has no Ni and does have Si; so on). I still do try to doubt it when I think I'm utterly insane with Socionics in general, but still I just always come back to ESE or no type at all.

I would also add that my mom isn't exactly the stereotypical "caregiver" even though I would say she is one. For instance I don't see her as an E2, but probably as something like an sp 6w7.

I would additionally add that not all mothers feel it important to see themselves as "nurturing". I am pretty darn sure that I wouldn't regard that as important to my self-concept or identity at all (as I don't care in the least about it now and although I don't think I'd ever want kids, I just doubt that I would suddenly transform into such a person if I had them). I don't actually think it's a byproduct of being a mother necessarily, so it could actually be significant if it is important to someone. Although obviously generation and gender roles would play a part (being that kind of "woman" just isn't so much a part of my generation... it's more distant and non-personal). Though I mean we choose in a way which of these "images" are important to us.

[Aiss]

Honestly, do any of you even realize how few people are here? Unless you have an adequate sample, it's delusional to expect results reflective of actual distribution in the population. The effect is probably even bigger than a bias caused by overrepresentation of NTs. This is also the case with most polls on the forums, by the way.

[Trevor]

Honestly, do any of you even realize how few people are here? Unless you have an adequate sample, it's delusional to expect results reflective of actual distribution in the population. The effect is probably even bigger than a bias caused by overrepresentation of NTs. This is also the case with most polls on the forums, by the way.

Yes. Public pools are good, though. You can see the individual votes. Pools where you cannot see who voted for what are basically useless, unless we're typing someone.

[Aiss]

I actually am pretty sure my mom really is ESE and I don't think other people thinking they have ESE moms somehow means that I'm wrong about this. Also, it's not because of "caregiver stereotypes" that I think my mom is ESE. I can see her being a "caregiver" if I had to put her in one of the four categories, sure, but the main point is that she is rather clearly to me Fe leading and Si creative. The whole picture fits no matter which way I turn it around in my head and I can't come up with sustaining doubt about it because something is always wrong (for instance if I consider SEE, it doesn't work because she obviously values Ne/Si; if I consider EIE it doesn't work because she has no Ni and does have Si; so on). I still do try to doubt it when I think I'm utterly insane with Socionics in general, but still I just always come back to ESE or no type at all.

This.

I would also add that my mom isn't exactly the stereotypical "caregiver" even though I would say she is one. For instance I don't see her as an E2, but probably as something like an sp 6w7.

Same, coincidentally.

[xerx]

I'm IEI. My mom is ENFx. I can't make up my mind which quasi she is. Fe demonstrative makes sense, but so does Fe ego. Can't make up my mind about it. The biggest strike against ENFj is that my dad is very likely ISTj (and without a doubt Ti ego), and they had quite the rocky marriage and both are quite glad to be divorced. It would make much more sense for them to be conflictors or supervisor/supervisee. But on the other hand, my mom is way emotional, and I have trouble seeing semi-constant outward expression of emotion as "unnatural" (i.e., not an ego function) for her.

I think EIE - LSI duals tend to fight a lot, more often than not.

[Nowisthetime]

Honestly, do any of you even realize how few people are here? Unless you have an adequate sample, it's delusional to expect results reflective of actual distribution in the population. The effect is probably even bigger than a bias caused by overrepresentation of NTs. This is also the case with most polls on the forums, by the way.

Of course, but don't you agree that it was a pretty funny poll! "Is your mother ESE?"

[silverchris9]

I think EIE - LSI duals tend to fight a lot, more often than not.

Eh. This is true. But geez, why would you break up with your dual? I don't know of any overwhelming social/political/religious/lifestyle differences between them... but whatever. People have lots of reasons for breaking up, and I suppose a break up (even after marriage) doesn't imply non-duality. And they were a bit odd-couple-y in the first place as duals often are (like, how did he end up with her/how did she end up with him).

[redbaron]

IEI-Ni - IEE-Ne

same here exactly.

[xerx]

Eh. This is true. But geez, why would you break up with your dual? I don't know of any overwhelming social/political/religious/lifestyle differences between them... but whatever. People have lots of reasons for breaking up, and I suppose a break up (even after marriage) doesn't imply non-duality. And they were a bit odd-couple-y in the first place as duals often are (like, how did he end up with her/how did she end up with him).

hm perhaps, my EIE mother and LSI father are always threatening divorce but never go through with it.

[The Exception]

I thought my mom was ESE for awhile until I realized EII was a better fit.

[Blaze]

well, indeed, based on this small survey, ESE's are over-represented. they should mathmatically only represent 6.25% of all mothers and in the survey they represent much more.

i bet a majority of ESE females become mothers.

[Aleksei]

well, indeed, based on this small survey, ESE's are over-represented. they should mathmatically only represent 6.25% of all mothers and in the survey they represent much more.

What makes you think ESEs are 1/16th of the population? In MBTI surveys the population is significantly skewed towards Sensing and Judging -- I presume Socionics types are likewise unevenly distributed.

[Blaze]

What makes you think ESEs are 1/16th of the population? In MBTI surveys the population is significantly skewed towards Sensing and Judging -- I presume Socionics types are likewise unevenly distributed.

socionics theory says that the types are evenly distributed across the socion. i believe it. makes much more sense, esp when you think about duality. in order for the theory to work you need an equal number of types so that everyone can find their dual.

[Aleksei]

socionics theory says that the types are evenly distributed across the socion.

Has that been empirically demonstrated?

If not, it's just DarkAngelFireWolf69 or whoever talking out of their ass.

makes much more sense, esp when you think about duality. in order for the theory to work you need an equal number of types so that everyone can find their dual.

Why would that be necessary for the theory to work? It's not ideal for types to be unevenly distributed across the socion, but human personality is far from ideal regardless. Besides, loads of people never find their dual, and can be perfectly happy in relationships with their idents, mirrors, activators and kindreds.

[Blaze]

Has that been empirically demonstrated?

If not, it's just DarkAngelFireWolf69 or whoever talking out of their ass.

i can't remember. it could be it came up some years ago and they showed some russian data. i tend to believe it though.

there is one piece of anecdotal data which stands out in my mind which points to the contrary: some people on this forum have observed that there are more ethicals than logicals. i have thought this could be right.

[Blaze]

Why would that be necessary for the theory to work? It's not ideal for types to be unevenly distributed across the socion, but human personality is far from ideal regardless. Besides, loads of people never find their dual, and can be perfectly happy in relationships with their idents, mirrors, activators and kindreds.

you'd have to say that if the goal is perfection then everyone would have a dual to find. i don't think other relations are anywhere near as fulfilling. but i am interested in your point of view. what is the larger meaning of the idea that not everyone gets to have their dual?

[Aleksei]

i can't remember. it could be it came up some years ago and they showed some russian data. i tend to believe it though.

there is one piece of anecdotal data which stands out in my mind which points to the contrary: some people on this forum have observed that there are more ethicals than logicals. i have thought this could be right.

I think that could be right as well. MBTI statistical data points to F/T being about balanced, and doing MBTI/Socionics conversions I've found MBTI thinkers are more likely to be Socionics Ethicals than vice-versa.

you'd have to say that if the goal is perfection then everyone would have a dual to find. i don't think other relations are anywhere near as fulfilling. but i am interested in your point of view. what is the larger meaning of the idea that not everyone gets to have their dual?

The purpose of Socionics theory is to understand and be able to successfully predict human personality and human interaction. If the goal is perfection then Socionics is looking in the wrong place -- the way to achieve perfection is to outright modify human personality rather than simply analyze it.

[Creepy-male]

Besides, loads of people never find their dual, and can be perfectly happy in relationships with their idents, mirrors, activators and kindreds.

Don't forget Supervision, that's a depressingly common one.

These people are likely the people who get heavily involved with someone who is not their dual, and either stick it out, or become disillusioned and stop looking, or continue looking but never bump into a dual (and this can be either due to true misfortune thanks to only roughly 1/16 people even being a dual to begin with, naturally not running into them due to lifestyle (Introvert and Extravert for instance), or anything else...)

So you can see, the human element throws a spanner in the works somewhat, despite types being approximately evenly distributed. And no, not a DarkAngelFireWolf69 asspull. I remember seeing perhaps the same text as Blaze where a tally was done of type distribution in a sample.

In of itself "most couples, married or otherwise are not duals" isn't really good evidence in support of type distribution being uneven (and I'm also not even sure that's true, it was either that the majority of couples are duals, or more couples are duals than any other intertype).

P.S. sorry if I missed your point, brain still waking up this morning.

[Aleksei]

My point is simply that it doesn't appear to me that type distribution must necessarily be even. I was asking for statistical evidence to that effect.

[Aleksei]

Anyway, do you know where I can find that statistical sample?

EDIT: The only Socionics statistical sample I found was the Socionics.com sample, which is far from even.

[Blaze]

I think that could be right as well. MBTI statistical data points to F/T being about balanced, and doing MBTI/Socionics conversions I've found MBTI thinkers are more likely to be Socionics Ethicals than vice-versa.

i could see that. MBTI is not great though to begin with. but if there are more ethicals, what is the larger reason for that?

The purpose of Socionics theory is to understand and be able to successfully predict human personality and human interaction. If the goal is perfection then Socionics is looking in the wrong place -- the way to achieve perfection is to outright modify human personality rather than simply analyze it.

yes that is the purpose of having the theory for us to talk about. the purpose of the socion itself, though, assuming that socionics theory is true, is what? the socion in and of itself is close to perfection... i imagine that God has all IM's in the leading position in additional to everything else his all knowing mind, esp if it is true that we are made in his image. i assume that socionics is true and that we are here to do something larger. the question is ...... WHAT?

[Aleksei]

yes that is the purpose of having the theory for us to talk about. the purpose of the socion itself, though, assuming that socionics theory is true, is what? the socion in and of itself is close to perfection... i imagine that God has all IM's in the leading position in additional to everything else his all knowing mind, esp if it is true that we are made in his image. i assume that socionics is true and that we are here to do something larger. the question is ...... WHAT?

Do the dance.

[Blaze]

[HERO]

IEI (INFp) with EIE (ENFj) Mom. Once when my aunt visited a few years ago, she observed that we're "mirrors of each other." Of course she wasn't referring to socionics (intertype relations), yet ultimately I think it's true.

[Exodus]

socionics theory says that the types are evenly distributed across the socion.

mmm, not really.

i believe it. makes much more sense, esp when you think about duality. in order for the theory to work you need an equal number of types so that everyone can find their dual.

And yet, it moves.

[Trevor]

According to this very thread, and http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=25411 this one too, it appears that around 30% people voted having ESE mom. Discuss.

[bionic]

My mother is EII. She has a ridiculous answer for everything.

[silke]

...around 30% people voted having ESE mom. Discuss.

It shows that good predictor of whether you'll start studying Jungian typology and eventually end up on some obscure Socionics website looking for answers to unlock the mysteries of existence seems to be having an ESE mother.

On a more serious note, according to MBTI type stats 17% of female population are ESEs making it the second most common type for women. Based on ESE stereotypes I'd say this is also the type that is more likely to place starting a family and having children high on their priority list.

[Trevor]

I stand corrected; around 23%. Not 30.

[Trevor]

...around 30% people voted having ESE mom. Discuss.

It shows that good predictor of whether you'll start studying Jungian typology and eventually end up on some obscure Socionics website looking for answers to unlock the mysteries of existence seems to be having an ESE mother.

On a more serious note, according to MBTI type stats 17% of female population are ESEs making it the second most common type for women. Based on ESE stereotypes I'd say this is also the type that is more likely to place starting a family and having children high on their priority list.

ESE what? You mean ESFJ?