I like this thread...I like the empathy/sympathy part.
I like this thread...I like the empathy/sympathy part.
-
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
In original post you stated that you see the world is "lacking in sympathy" which is the kind of judgement Fi would make rather than Fe of the IEI (I was wrong in my other posts too as this isn't Fe).Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Providing empathy would be Fe and LIIs will attempt to do on an occasion when they are acting out of their super-ID. What I don't understand is why do you consider this to be a consequence of your EM type rather than your socionics type? How do you make this distinction?
EM type = cause
IM type = effect
IM type = (up here)
EM type = (out there)
EM type = what's happening
IM type = your little contribution to understanding the consequences of what's happening
Alright, this is much more clear.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Right. You see in the sphere of every EM-DCNH combination (and hence every field of interest), you have representatives of each IM type pointing out how the activity of the field is affecting their respective base elements. Just as you have, 16 type-based perspectives on sports. Then you look a little further, at the political level, and you find another 16 for every type, or even 32 if you care to look that close.
Everyone is doing their part for our collective psychological wholeness and wellness; i.e. the metanarrative phrase created by our technology, culture, and environment. The more variation you have, the more balanced the mentality of the culture is likely to be. (not counting uncontrollable external pressures which can turn power towards one personality or another, which is how dictators arise in democratic environments).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote