Do super-ego types have identical social missions but opposing methods of achieving them?

[Muddy]

One thing I find interesting about super-ego relations is how both types are trying to achieve the same goal, but go about doing it in completely opposite ways. I'll make a list so you can see what I mean.

Both EIE and LSE live their lives with a sense of altruism towards society. EIE does it by inspiring grand change vs LSE taking responsibility for all the little things that need to be done.

Both LII and ESI fight a battle against against corruption and injustice. LII does it by the search and spread of knowledge, truth, wisdom vs ESI enforcing existing ethical principles.

Both ILE and SEE seek to live life to the fullest. ILE does it by constantly searching for things that may give him pleasure vs SEE working towards a position of power and success.

Both LSI and EII desire order and stability in their surroundings. LSI does it by creating and imposing a strict set of rules for others to follow vs EII appealing to other's conscious and sense of right and wrong.

Both ESE and LIE fill their lives with activities that give themselves a sense of worth. ESE does it creating and organizing events for other people vs LIE engaging in activities that advance their own position.

Both IEI and SLI want to fill life with a sense of romanticism. IEI does it through the development of their mental world vs SLI harmonizing with their physical surroundings.

Both SLE and IEE seek to overcome obstacles that inhibit themselves and others. SLE does it by honing in on their own strengths and forcing themselves through vs IEE creating a social circle that will do it for them.

SEI and ILI... idk I'm all out someone else please do this one for me.

[Jarno]

ILI and SEI both are easygoing, that's what I like about them, they also like to have a harmony in social settings, just fun. Just my opinion...

[uncivilized]

SEI and ILI might both be content to see and understand the world as it is more than other types. Other types might feel a strong need to impose on it in some way.

[Sol]

social mission is among valued functions, mostly strong ones

[ClownsandEntropy]

social mission is among valued functions, mostly strong ones

To build on this, I reckon that the type of social mission is always the same. E.g. ESI and LII will both want to remove injustice and corruption.

However, what they select as their battle is different and that depends on valued functions.

E.g. An ESI I know is a more interested in "SJW-stuff": She has strong empathy and concern for certain groups of people and wants to help defend them. That's Fi. She's not afraid to stand up for what must be done and easily disregards or looks down on people who are not willing to take the line that she does*. That's Se and Ne-Polr. Strong Gamma values.

I would consider myself more theoretical. I want to create a system which is fair for everyone and gives everyone equal opportunity. That's Ti with a bit of "you have the potential!" Ne. I also don't know what the answer is (maybe because my question is more complex), and I'm still interested in what new research and ideas are suggesting. That's Ne. Strong Alpha values. Also, perhaps my weakness is that, although I want to help people generally, there are many groups which I am not good at feeling empathy for, which I think is a sign of bad Fi.

But both want to make the world a better place for people.

*She isn't careless in this, though. She's thought through her position a lot and I would not call it extreme or illogical. It's like vegetarianism for social justice: It's logical and a bit out of the mainstream, but it's probably the most logical action based on pretty ordinary assumptions and moral sentiments.

[Jeremy8419]

Goal? Yes. Manifestations are different, though. EII focus on Relationships, Fi, as a whole, independent of the self, and may or may not have typical relationships. LSI has normal, average relationships due to normative Fi. Almost all married and have kids in life. Most logical systems and uses of EII will be pretty dang standard. LSI on the other hand may or may not have logical systems that are just plain weird compared to most people, and their rules and regulations may seem ridiculous compared to normal people.

[Pookie]

Man i'd say that's more akin to Quasi-identical relations.

Super-Ego, in my experience, understand each other really well but tend to disagree pretty hardcore about it.

[Jeremy8419]

Take EII and LSI again... Both Fi+ and Ti+ are concerned with equalizing and normalizing. Fi+ with energy, and Ti+ with matter. Particle-wave duality. It's the same but with different focus.

[ClownsandEntropy]

Like I feel like they have respect for each other's approach to life but then they get to talk to them and know them better and they realise they have completely different views on what that actually means. They're like the same archetypal character in a story, but in a different movie where not only are their goals different, but the world they inhabit and how it operates is also different.

[Jeremy8419]

That sounds about right, clown.
Have you read Clocks of the Socion? Super-ego's always have the same position within the Quadra progression in it.

[Rebelondeck]

Muddytextures,

I think super-ego relations are potentially second strongest next to duals because goals and thought patterns can be very similar, which would facilitate familiarity and trust. Each partner would have to fully understand and accept the aspects that the other partner would consider important, which will frequently be opposite. Even though one partner thinks a home should be structurally sound while the other thinks it needs to be well decorated, differences aren't necessarily bad; on the contrary, super-ego differences are complementary. Major concerns would be Ijs failing to notice or communicate, Ejs competing too much or trying to be boss, Ips sniping from behind walls or getting defensive, and Eps losing interest or not committing, but such potential weaknesses are not insurmountable - even duals have hurdles to overcome.

a.k.a. I/O

[Bertrand]

Yes, I think this is the case, and I think it goes to PoLR being the differing "method" we tend to disregard. I think in the case of ILI is goes something like, "if everyone operated in a sufficiently complex and integrated Ni/Te/Fi way, Fe (and what it aims at: utopia, basically) would take care of itself." Whereas, in the case of SEI its something like "if everyone payed sufficient attention to Si/Fe/Ti, Te would likewise take care of itself and be rendered superfluous." Each personality on the whole seems to represent a kind of approach to the world that is sufficient to get by and contribute something meaningful but also has a concomitant blind spot (PoLR). PoLR seems to be at the root of personality in some way because it entails a deep seated judgement about preference-towards-the-world that is embodied in the entire (expressed) personality. The super ego seems to be the kind of inner voice of balance that tries to moderate that inner prejudice so it doesn't become too one sided, but its ultimately a reflection of the same goal-but differing approach. In other words, the voice of the super ego is likewise informed by a common ideal endstate, hence the common ground whereby which it has meaning to the ego. If it were not the case that super ego and ego did not in some sense share identical goals then they would have no grounds to mediate one another.

I'm probably biased, but it has always struck me how SEI and ILI both implicitly seem to be working towards an incredibly high minded ideal--SEI through more piecemeal means and ILI more explicitly and theoretically grand, but still. I feel like the shared conviction that more is at stake than some of these other "pair goals" is what unites us (some of those other ones, and I don't mean this in a bad way, but just as a sincere expression--seem kind of self centered, small minded, or otherwise trivial... and I think SEI would agree (although maybe not in the presence of the other)).

[Singu]

Well, a lot of Reinin dichotomies converge among Super-Egos.

static/dynamic
aristocratic/democratic
positivist/negativist
process/result
asking/declaring

IEIs often think that SLIs are really fuckin' cool, and SLIs probably think the same way about IEIs. From a distance, at least.

[Chae]

Both SLE and IEE seek to overcome obstacles that inhibit themselves and others. SLE does it by honing in on their own strengths and forcing themselves through vs IEE creating a social circle that will do it for them.

OP: Great idea!

I see it like this. IEE's social mission: recruitment of talent. IEEs maximize and point out what's already there to achieve 100% potential release while the SLE would push the person as they want it. IEEs /make/ the person want to develop themselves through showing them their strengths. SLE would be the substitute engine for the person, strength transfer is probably the word.

[Tigerfadder]

Also the super-ego are of the same stress type. And in model G for example IEI have a Ni+ Fe+ (introverted preciving + and extroverted judging +) and SLI Si+ Te+. Also there might be some similarities in how they VI.

[chrys]

I've wondered if Super-Ego relations are just very neutral "meh" relations because you don't care about what they are saying but at the same time it doesn't conflict with you and you don't really care to correct them. It's just like you can accept them as they are but there's not much you can learn from each other. But at the same time, they might be more receptive on the surface level than say Activator relations because with Activators you share same Inert/Contact functions which to me says that you're more likely to either agree or disagree with the other person but you won't take their ideas into consideration because you've already thought it through anyways... I imagine these relations just being two people sharing their own conclusions but not really caring to process the other person's thoughts... and since they share contact functions there wouldn't be anyone to take charge, like with two Contact Fe functions (LII-SEI activation) there's no one to really to take lead and manipulate the emotional exchange of the relationship so with an LII and SEI they would over time just completely stop using their Contact functions and will end up being emotionally dry by the time they get old, and they'll be stuck in their old ways without any desire to search for new possibilities. That's why the Inert function needs to be connected to the Contact function IMO. So is Super-Ego better than Activator for this reason?

Basically what I see is that Super-Ego relations = "You can do it your way and it doesn't hurt me since I don't pay attention to such things, but you really should be focusing on this!"
And Activator relations = "Wow I can't believe someone actually agrees with me on this! No I don't believe that... that's not right. *monologue about why they're right, then proceeds to curtail the conversation and order their favourite food in hopes of not having to go back to the conversation*" Just either you agree and stick with it or you just can't get beneath the other person's thinking and end up feeling ignored or alone, and the relationship lacks energy and movement so you end up being an unhappy depressed couple with little ability to have a conversation that benefits the both of you. Idk what I'm talking about this is just what I imagine with LIIs and SEis, that's how my grandma and grandpa turned out anyways...

[Exodus]

One thing I find interesting about super-ego relations is how both types are trying to achieve the same goal, but go about doing it in completely opposite ways. I'll make a list so you can see what I mean.

Both EIE and LSE live their lives with a sense of altruism towards society. EIE does it by inspiring grand change vs LSE taking responsibility for all the little things that need to be done.

Both LII and ESI fight a battle against against corruption and injustice. LII does it by the search and spread of knowledge, truth, wisdom vs ESI enforcing existing ethical principles.

Both ILE and SEE seek to live life to the fullest. ILE does it by constantly searching for things that may give him pleasure vs SEE working towards a position of power and success.

Both LSI and EII desire order and stability in their surroundings. LSI does it by creating and imposing a strict set of rules for others to follow vs EII appealing to other's conscious and sense of right and wrong.

Both ESE and LIE fill their lives with activities that give themselves a sense of worth. ESE does it creating and organizing events for other people vs LIE engaging in activities that advance their own position.

Both IEI and SLI want to fill life with a sense of romanticism. IEI does it through the development of their mental world vs SLI harmonizing with their physical surroundings.

Both SLE and IEE seek to overcome obstacles that inhibit themselves and others. SLE does it by honing in on their own strengths and forcing themselves through vs IEE creating a social circle that will do it for them.

SEI and ILI... idk I'm all out someone else please do this one for me.

Not bad, there is something to this. I think I would rephrase the SLI/IEI as just harmony though.

Also - IEEs seek to improve themselves and their qualities (molding oneself) like SLE seeks to mold and control the outside world.

[Rebelondeck]

.......end up feeling ignored or alone, and the relationship lacks energy and movement so you end up being an unhappy depressed couple with little ability to have a conversation that benefits the both of you. Idk what I'm talking about this is just what I imagine with LIIs and SEis, that's how my grandma and grandpa turned out anyways...

Many times I have had various types say to me: "You really should be focusing on this!" However, it required concrete action on my part to benefit from the advice. I find that Ijs are the worst at listening to advice so need lots of practice - but it's doable. Feeling alone, unhappy and depressed are functions of personal choices and or medical conditions; intertype relations are insignificant when compared with the baggage (the black hole) that accumulates over the years. Baggage isolates not type differences.
a.k.a. I/O

[The Reality Denialist]

Both ILE and SEE seek to live life to the fullest. ILE does it by constantly searching for things that may give him pleasure vs SEE working towards a position of power and success.

Just to compare my sister and me. No, she is not power hungry person in terms of getting to the top. She is pretty pissed off at people's way of doing things ie not really honing on socially fair ways. She want's things here and now. I want to be also OK here and now. We both try to achieve it in our own ways. She works with older people to satisfy their daily needs. Maybe she just wants to place for retirement. I actually might have something similar in mind. For me it's actually pretty satisfying to make people interested in stuff they find too dull and make it roll forwards.

[Bethanyclaire]

At their best:
SLE IEE altruistic
IEI SLI caring
SEE ILE idealistic
SEI ILI philosophical
EIE LSE supportive
LSI EII principled
ESE LIE insightful
LII ESI dutiful

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

LSE taking responsibility for all the little things that need to be done.

no they assign them to others then yell and micromanage them constantly while thinking they are helping.

[Adam Strange]

At their best:
SLE IEE altruistic
IEI SLI caring
SEE ILE idealistic
SEI ILI philosophical
EIE LSE supportive
LSI EII principled
ESE LIE insightful
LII ESI dutiful

I would add:
ESE: Not wasting your money, and the money of everyone you know, far beyond the point that you thought possible.
LIE: Not destroying society in some way that no one could see coming.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I kinda hate being the "caring" one because of how society patronizes that thing. I hate 4D Te & Se narcs who much later on get in trouble with the real-world authorities for being criminals and/or psychopaths going 'Nobody else cares- but you care. <3' as if I'm supposed to be placated by that. No bitch I will rant and ravage and make you care too and if you don't, I will just backstab you and get you killed off (even if it's just in my own mind, unlike your dumb ass I avoided the Law) and you'll be dead to me. You're not going to play that game with me and get away with it.

nah you're objectively right tho- I'm just being bitchy and trying to say something I think @VewyScawwyNawcissist might like.

just change mine to 'the gay one' and its cool.

LGBT song for the occasion:

[Bethanyclaire]

@Shazaam yh your way of thinking doesn’t feel unfamiliar to me

also, our greatest strength can be our greatest weakness I guess. I probably seem like I don’t care about stuff but I care about caring and I do it as well as I can!

[maresnest]

I’d like to revive this thread because this is something I’ve been thinking about for a while. I’m not talking about the super-ego types as a relation, but the two types individually.
I have to note this in advance because I’ve have people completely miss the point the last time I talked about this: Yes, I know that they value different elements and interact with the world through those elements, but what I’m saying (and what OP is saying) is that their approach in their own respective elements is almost identical. It’s like two artists using the same tools and techniques to paint different subject matter.

I know that, for myself, as a LII I feel drawn into the way ESE communicates. But I’ve also noticed that I feel charmed by the way LIEs communicate as well, like it scratches the same spots that ESE does (but delivering by ). Even if I don’t have the same relationship to that information as I do with ESE’s ego , the overall approach to processing their own valued information elements is similar. Even so, LIE will have the same “brand” of Fe as ESE (Fe-), not like EIE’s Fe. Just as LII will have the same “brand” of Fi as ESI (Fi-), not like EII’s Fi.

Sort of off-topic but I want to address it just to be clear since there’s a lot of confusion about this:
For left/result types, the accepting functions are - and the producing functions are +; for right/process types, the accepting functions are + and the producing functions are -. Unvalued elements in a quadra use the same sign polarity as the elements in the opposite quadra.
Here’s a handy chart. P means perceiving/irrational element and J means judging/rational element.

	Result/Left	Process/Right
Irrational (Exxp, Ixxp)	P- (Accepting) J+ (Producing)	P+ (Accepting) J- (Producing)
Rational (Exxj, Ixxj)	J- (Accepting) P+ (Producing)	+J (Accepting) -P (Producing)

Superego type overlap in multiple dichotomies, most of them I’d consider vital to the structure of the socion.
- Extraversion / Introversion
- Rationality / Irrationality
- Static / Dynamic
- Elements stay on the respective mental / vital track (e.g. LIE and ESE both have in their mental track and in their vital track)
- Democratic / Aristocratic
- Positivist / Negativist
- Process (Right/Evolution) / Result (Left/Involution) — one I personally consider quite vital (you can also probably begin to tell how important they are from the content under the spoiler)

As well as small groups:
- Temperament (#3)
- Mobilization Groups / Forms of Will (#4)
- Rings of Benefit (#7)
- Stress Resistance / Blocking (#21) (this one is interesting since it consists of the opposite/superego dyads of their respective social progress ring, e.g. LII-ESE-ESI-LIE)
- Club Displacement / Worldview (#22)
- Personality Image “Quest Diminutive Function” (#30)
- Cognitive Styles (#31) (say what you want about Gulenko but he popped off for this one and it feels particularly substantial to understand where I’m coming from with my interest in the symmetries of the super-ego types)

I’d consider the superego types to be the most symmetrical pair in the socion. How similar they are in thought/cognition, communication, and mission.

Even though the super-ego block is sensitive and self-conscious to that type of information, when your super-ego type uses it won’t feel as “wrong” as when your conflictor does it; it feels worthy of respect. This is because with super-ego types the information flows in the same direction and it feels ‘natural’ to you.

Consider conflictor types LII and SEE, starting from the role function:

LII: Fi → Se → Ti → Ne → Fi …

SEE: Ne → Ti → Se → Fi → Ne …

SEE’s flow is reversed! But with the super-ego type:

ESI: Ti → Ne → Fi → Se → Ti …

Shares the same information flow direction as the LII.

Superego types don’t only reflect each other once, but twice, on opposite ends of both the rings of benefit and supervision. This, in addition to all the dichotomies they share, pretty much solidifies how how serve the same function (in the sense of a mission within a greater structure) for their own IME niche.

My mom is ESI, so she is my superego. In terms of interests and where we exhibit out ego, we fill our own niches in that regard and don’t really overlap, although we do respect each other for being really good at that kinda stuff we mutually feel cringefail at. It’s sort of this feeling of like, “Wow, that’s me if I actually valued my super-ego functions”. But when it comes to, I don’t know, commentating on something it’s like our minds are on the same channel of communication and we understand exactly where the others’ thoughts are coming from.

All of that said, I want to talk about people’s subjective perception of super-ego types. Not your super-ego type per se, but if other people have noticed similarities in how they subjectively perceive information from two types that, in relation to each other, are super-egos.

Personal qualities such as kindness, being a good person, etc. are entirely separate from how the information people give and receive are intersubjectively processed (which is ultimately what socionics is about: the subjective metabolization of information between a source and a subject.) You can be the nicest person in the world and I still might just not like the way you communicate, “come off”, I find it hard to understand or sympathize with your thought process, I don’t like the way you present your information or what I feel you implicitly expect.

Let me put it this way: I think that if one doesn’t like the way a type processes and conveys information, chances are they’re not going to like how that type’s superego does it either.
Take a SLE, and say you don’t like the way they “come off”. SLEs are irrational (the properties of objects inform their attitude towards it), static (specialized in discrete states), compact, rough around the edges, they size things up, pierce to the center by negating things around it, not inclined to follow a deterministic sequence of thought (they think by reframing perspectives—placing known objects into new contexts) and thus their thoughts or actions may seem void of determinate links to an outsider, which can make them come off as loose-handed.
Literally all of this is the same as IEE. I wrote this about a month ago explaining how these qualities can manifest in real life for IEE:

I’m doing some online courses for my volunteering at a shelter, I’m on a feline matchmaking lesson and this is making me realize how well-suited IEE would be for that and how its such a natural expression of what they’re inclined to do.
- Base Ne makes them able to see the potential in the cats and the potential adopters, and with creative Fi it helps them see the prospects of the relationships of the cats with those individuals
- They are negativist, static, and result which makes them holographic-panoramic types and allows them to ‘pierce into’ complicated circumstances and cut away what is unnecessary. They are energized by taking on convoluted issues with no obvious answer because of this and good at ‘sizing something up’ quickly. (Matchmakers need to limit the amount of choices to reduce consumer anxiety, and based on the adopter’s personality, home life, etc are able to size up which couple of cats in the facility would be suited for them.)
- Demonstrative Fe gives them an attractive amicability for interacting with potential adoptors and making the cats more interesting, especially sparking interest in long-stay cats or ones with health issues that still need loving homes because there is potential in them
They’re like SLEs but instead of for territory/space and logical relationships, for innate potential and energetic relationships. They’re seemingly coarse from the outside and seem to lack immediate determinate links in how they choose things but their thoughts are densely packed like a zip file and quickly deployed, turned around to another angle, whatever.

Alpha SFs are the Gamma NTs of Alpha Quadra values.
Alpha NTs are the Gamma SFs of Alpha Quadra values.
Beta NFs are the Delta STs of Beta Quadra values.
Beta STs are the Delta NFs of Beta Quadra values.
Gamma NTs are the Alpha SFs of Gamma Quadra values.
Gamma SFs are the Alpha NTs of Gamma Quadra values.
Delta STs are the Beta NFs of Delta Quadra values.
Delta NFs are the Beta STs of Delta Quadra values.

That is, they serve the same purpose/mission within their quadra with those quadra’s valued elements as their superegos.

The other day I noticed this is why EIIs always felt “off” to me. They’re more similar to LSI than either LII or ESI.
No offense to any LSIs and EIIs here. As I said earlier, you can be the nicest person in the world and I still might just not like the way you “come off” with your information, finding it confusing or irritating or counterintuitive. This is exactly what socionics was made to uncover.
I know that with LSI this is because of our opposing cognitive styles and a sort of bewilderment over how the other uses their base Ti. Causal-Deterministic is opposed to Holographic-Panoramic. They understand logical relationships very linearly inside of a process, using determinative chains of reasoning in their logic while I’m like, completely outside of the process. I piece together my understanding of logical relationships from multiple frames of reference and sort of “beam” them into one. I constantly shift known things to a new context to understand the thing more fundamentally (what of that “thing” fundamentally remains between those shifts in context)?
To me, their method of cognizing the world feels very… artificial? Artificial in socionics literature essentially means “society-created”. However, my mind just naturally has an aversion to that kind of reasoning. It feels very limiting and too formal to me, especially jarring to me on the Ixxjs who use it, LSI and EII. To them, this procedural thinking is probably and easy to follow, while the beef they might have with my way of cognizing is that it is rough around the edges and the details are too compressed. However, I find this beneficial because it is very flexible and that detail compression makes it “lighter” in weight so I can turn something around to size something up from different angles, cut everything unnecessary away, and derive the skeleton. With their way of thinking they have to keep it very narrow or else it becomes chaotic because they’re hyper-in-the-process, they’re at the risk of becoming lost in the sauce. For some reason this cognitive style is not as damning to me with the irrationals (ILE and SEE), however they’re both democratic types so there are more differences than just irrationality.

But about EII, I found myself quite bewildered by the way they “come off” and communicate, to me at least their ego can seem self-satisfied very similar to LSI and it makes me feel like I’m walking on eggshells... Both come off like they have a duty to teach the whole world their notion of what is logical or good. EIIs do it more passively, LSIs do it more actively.
And I realize now that this disagreeable feeling is my super-ego reacting. There’s a little primitive ESI in me that is bewildered by their ego’s use of Fi and Ne, similar to the way my ego is bewildered by LSI. The little ESI is saying, “If you consider me a bad person for wanting to see some scumbag get the lights punched out them, then so be it. None of this ‘everyone deserves forgiveness’ crap.” The only reason I don’t want to use Se is because I’m afraid of the outcomes of volitional force.
(My approach to ethics, like any democratic type, is blocked with sensing. Ethics in conjunction with external conditions, not internal ones. I don’t care about the goodness of someone’s “internal” properties. To me quality of someone’s energy relates to what they actually do, their effect on the actual world. However, I am the opposite way about logic; I care about logical relations “internal” properties. And to aristocratic types, they do not care about logic in an “internal” disembodied way; they understand logic in a working, embodied way, its effects on the actual world.)

I still understand that their intentions are good, and I don’t like to judge them as people according to just a personal peeve. I’m not saying they suck, but that just from where I’m standing I unfortunately have a hard time dealing with the linearity in how they think. It makes me feel claustrophobic in a sense? I just struggle to reconcile our differences of cognition … I often leave feeling guilty in some way even if they didn’t say anything accusatory. It’s just an impression I get from EIIs and LSIs. They come off as so upstanding that I feel guilty in their presence..but at close communication distance they’re less warm and less put together as they initially appear. Yet, I don’t feel this around ESIs, the types most famed for their resting bitch face, being cold, and hard to get to know. Apparently ESIs and LIIs are colder at a distance but warmer in closer communication, and LSI and EII are the opposite.
These communication discrepancies are known to occur between left and right types. And I don’t have to struggle to reconcile our cognition and where we’re coming from because there is nothing to reconcile: it is the same.

Of course, socionics is all about the subjective processing of information metabolism. Someone else might feel completely different to me about this and that’s legitimately valid because your position in relation to that type is different than mine. Information and how it is conveyed that is dissonant for me might be resonant for you. Information and how it is conveyed that is dissonant for you might be resonant for me. This is everything that socionics is about.