Originally Posted by
chemical
I think it's always good to be cautious and realize when something is a normal, ordinary expression of an information element that isn't too characteristic of a type, versus when it is really a central, distinguishing fact of how you see things.
If you like, you can try contrasting the general philosophy of how you think, based on +/-, static/dynamic, process/result dichotomies as in Gulenko's forms of cognition. ESI for instance is part of the -Fi, +Se, which could lead to the way you justified ethics, like for instance, wanting to minimize the possible negative relationships in the world based on basically imagining yourself in the shoes of the lgbt community.
Again though, this is the kind of justification almost anyone could give, so it has to show up overwhelmingly in a characteristic way in a lot of your life. You'd be able to see clear differences between your thinking style and others' if you really noted this much pervasiveness.
I think with ESI, to elaborate on how I think it should work, -Fi leads to the result orientation, and of course that Fi-Se is static leads to the static orientation. Notice that in a sense, +Se doesn't directly contribute here, except in so much as it marks the quadra as the gamma, rather than delta, where Fi would be +. So the real components to the ESI being the form it is are -Fi and static-ness of ego. The nature of how Fi is used of course will correspond to the Se. Essentially holographics with their result-negativist tendencies look at the back side of any coin, and their + element probably is used to "fill in" the missing links. So -Fi may both look to what is missing for a complete and coherent/consistent ethical system, and then seek out Se ways of observing and interacting with reality to fill in those answers definitively (I have several long-ish posts on Se in my thread "musings on Se" in the General Socionics Discussion forum if you're at all interested). Involutionary doesn't really build from the ground up, it's more likely to do the postulate a result that is known to be desired, and since negativist, more based on what is perceived to be missing.
However, I must ask, if this OP was considering IEI, there should be some real thought projects on why Se is going from a super-weak to a super-strong information element. If it was just one of those cases of "everyone is IEI" then fine, but if there were legitimate reasons for IEI, I'd say we need more. Both ESI and IEI should have Ti that is sort of strong. Te is more something ESI seeks out, than something they actively generate, I think. This just means their logical style is more about analysis for subjective understanding, sort of as an alternative to their Fi that they prefer not to overdo.
IEE interestingly is also holographic. -Ne and +Fi here, though. It's also a type with Ne-base versus Ne-polr which should be strikingly different!
I think the idea here is to not cut off the flow of alternative perspectives. +Ne tends to be more about emphasizing the promise of the intuitions (this doesn't mean they're more open-minded, actually this could very well lead to ignoring all but the most promising intuitions). It does take on a negativist tinge in say LII though, where the goal may be less to revel in positive ideas (especially in inert subtype perhaps) than to let the + of Ne go towards the - of Ti, extracting the most general laws (minimizing the number of principles so as to create holistic, general laws, thus en route eliminating contradiction both at present and future through this minimalism) as opposed to truly valuing the adding of structure possible through the pursuit of sufficiently promising intuitive perspectives.
+Fi/-Ne is more about establishing promising relations, maximizing the level of positive in them, and using the lack of ruling out alternate intuitive possibilities as a mechanism for this.
I do like them at times though, are you LII or something? And what is your opinion on her type?
