That's usually how I feel about posting here so I keep it really simple.Originally Posted by force my hand
Ugh, explaining that sounds like a lot of work with very little reward. Forget what I said.
That's usually how I feel about posting here so I keep it really simple.Ugh, explaining that sounds like a lot of work with very little reward. Forget what I said.
That is a mistaken, and unfortunately popular belief on this forum. The Enneagram cannot change the properties of a type, which are part of its definition. I'm not arguing that this characteristic we talk about is necessarily part of this type (though I believe so), SLI, though if it is and you agree with it, you are committing a fallacy. Please be careful of what I'm writing here:
- type A has properties X, Y and Z
- type B has property W, X and ~Z (not Z)
- "c is of type A and B" is a contradiction
So if that detachment is part of the definition of SLI, though it is excluded by type E6, it is contradictory to claim that someone can be both types. However, there is no problem in redefine the former type, SLI, when you are sure of both typings, while being more sure of the properties of the E6, that they are correct. You are therefore temped to dismiss this characteristic as not belonging to this type because it doesn't fit your case, although you wouldn't have a problem with it otherwise. This thing happens very often here, to such extent that people strayed too far from the original type descriptions of Socionics, and not in the sense of refining them (which is actually desired), but in replacing them with new and incompatible ones based on methods such as the above.
If that is what emerged to you from my description, then it is a misunderstanding. I do not relate in the least to this view, nor I think the type descriptions I generally used necessarily imply it. I explained in another post how IMO people misunderstandg the descriptions of this type (females, in particular), based on my experience:
Literally neither do I, and the same with other SLI women I can think of. Nevertheless, if I read the descriptions I can see how they apply to these persons. I think the problem is our interpretation, we often mystify, make equivocations and take that meaning literally, extrapolate, refer to specific experience, etc - and in fact do it inappropriately, since the authors certainly make them, but not necessarily in the places we expect, IMO. The type I overthought was SEI, when I was looking for my dual years ago and I can tel that I created an extreme image (like artsy and super-elegant people) in my mind that wasn't exactly corresponding to the reality until I could actually identify a few.
---
Talking of SLI females, I actually have experience with this, an ex of mine - 4 years together - was SLI (my typing), and if you asked me at the time, it would not cross my mind that she was "cold" or "unemotional", she was just a normal person. I recall she was sometimes crying in difficult periods of our relationships, she was cary with people and animals (could not stand seeing them in distress) and so on. In discussions that were regarding her, or defending someone else, she would indeed become somehow assertive, but nevertheless she was detached and often ironical/joking, and would rarely take things too personally. Not going extreme to the point of breaking relationships with people even when they clearly wronged her, had no enemies and could easily talk to people she was criticizing in absentia as if they were friends.
[...]
And I could also say she was not sufficiently concerned about her safety, because of the same thing: something bad that had not happened to you yet does not exist, unless it is totally obvious, like jumping off a tall building. I was concerned about that, trying to teach her to avoid questionable persons or dangerous situations, but she liked to defy my advices on purpose, in order to prove me I was wrong. The "Rémi Gaillard" kind of attitude, just not that crazy.
Perhaps from this story you can see how, although my ex was a normal girl, I can see how the SLI "skeptical", "unemotional" also "fearless" applies to her.
[...].
You are! Will you marry me?
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I should mention that the context the descriptions are made in is very important and taking it lightly is a big mistake, even if not evident. For example when I say "something thay had performed before" is extremely important. Take for example force-landing an aircraft whose pilot passed-out. I don't think a clueless but sane person, regardless of type, would be able to do that without a bit of funk. Fear is an emotion that is felt independently of the type. However, some types are perceived less fearful than others because of the characteristics of their cognition. Simply put, what could cause you fear but you can't see is totally harmless. It is therefore extremely easy to understand why Te (but also Se) Creative types, especially double-external (ST), often lack fear in situations where others experience it, simply because their Creative function filters out anything that is not empirical (Bodies) and concretely justified (External) - aka anything that is not facts, real and concrete things.
Strictly speaking of Se and Te, there is no "what if", "I feel that", "probably", "to me it means" or "I consider that", but ony "what is" or "what I know". Whoever understands this will never again confuse these two IEs for something else.
Now in the aforementioned example, I'm convinced that anyone with no experience in driving a plane would be concerned, including a SLI. Now what about a person who actually knows what to do - even if he or she is wrong about that, just not knowing. While someone with a perception for exclusively concrete parts of the data (which means only what you actually know) has absolutely no reason for concern (ideal isolated ST Ego) unless something goes wrong, we can't say the same thing about someone with fully (NF) or partially (N or F) subjective Ego block, Strong and Valued Ne or Fe with a predilection - empirical and subjective. Even that question regarding "maybe I'm wrong" is totally not applicable to an ST block [1]. This is a necessary conclusion from the information aspects that make it, necessity that emerges from the correct understanding of the External aspect of the IEs. You may say that typically to an ST wouldn't cross his or her mind that he might be wrong, or that something could go wrong, and anything hypothertical in general, unless having a factual or logical reason to believe so.
---
[1] - note that I'm not talking about a person, but in principle, when that block is used.
Yes.
Ineffable, no offense but can you please dumb it down and condense what you were trying to say?
Unfortunately, I have reasons not to do it. They would be bare assertions with no value, unless you consider the arguments in favor of these statements. For example, the two most important points I made could have been reduced to:
1. It is fallacious to consider that the Enneagram typing can affect the Sociotype.
2. I think your understanding from the descriptions that SLIs are robotic is mistaken.
In default of the supporting arguments, the truth value of these simplifications can be determined ony through a free interpretation, I will therefore abstain from facilitating the drawing of conclusions which I never meant.
I agree with this ^Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.
-- A. Einstein
Makes sense.
That's kind of an overgeneralization, but you're on the right track. Speculating, presuming, guessing, drawing subjective conclusions, etc. are things I hate and avoid doing in general.
This is true for me up until the point where heavy emotions come into play, and it's not the inability to predict them that unsettles me, but not knowing how to handle them.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I've concluded that this guy is SEI (with an outside chance he might be IEI). There's no way he's not Fe creative for real.
IEI-Fe 4w3
Maybe you could sneakily take a picture of him and post it here for V.I.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
It surely is.I am strictly speaking about those two IEs, ideally, of course there is no person not using as well the others - let alone blocks.
I know! Maybe I will! the pics I do have of him make him look SLI. I've shown like three people from this forum and they all agreed that he VIs SLI but he's not even smiling in them. I think I need to try to get some more naturally looking shots.Maybe you could sneakily take a picture of him and post it here for V.I.
IEI-Fe 4w3
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote