Subtype matching or not in duality and activity

[Armitage]

I would imagine that raising a lot of selfish, asocial kids would decrease the birth rate, since these kids have no experience with long-term commitment and few examples of healthy, committed relationships between two people.

You wish it did, but it's the contrary and the reason why so many kids are now from separated families. Divorcies have skyrocketed the past decades, because few people nowadays come from healthy, loving families. It's a known fact that the kids who received the most abusive and neglectful upbringing most frequently become teen parents later on, because the rare care of their own parents limited their development of self-inhibition. In addition, the only way in which they know how to parent is based on their own shitty upbringing, so they continue the cycle. There is hope, though, because parenting classes have proved effective in breaking this vicious cycle.

But I don't expect Washington to start providing free parenting classes around the country, because the only free handouts in the States are given to those already rich. Being poor sucks, because it's a death trap that keeps one down. Terry Prachett explains it best:
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."

The historians and social analysts agree that all evidence points to the States getting into a New Civil War in a few decades, due to this ever increasing separation between the have's and the have not's. It's apartheid v2.0 and there's no way to avert it, because the political system is completely corrupted with its gerrymandering, two party system, and electoral colleges.

[Adam Strange]

You wish it did, but it's the contrary and the reason why so many kids are now from separated families. Divorcies have skyrocketed the past decades, because few people nowadays come from healthy, loving families. It's a known fact that the kids who received the most abusive and neglectful upbringing most frequently become teen parents later on, because the rare care of their own parents limited their development of self-inhibition. In addition, the only way in which they know how to parent is based on their own shitty upbringing, so they continue the cycle. There is hope, though, because parenting classes have proved effective in breaking this vicious cycle.

But I don't expect Washington to start providing free parenting classes around the country, because the only free handouts in the States are given to those already rich. Being poor sucks, because it's a death trap that keeps one down. Terry Prachett explains it best:
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."

The historians and social analysts agree that all evidence points to the States getting into a New Civil War in a few decades, due to this ever increasing separation between the have's and the have not's. It's apartheid v2.0 and there's no way to avert it, because the political system is completely corrupted with its gerrymandering, two party system, and electoral colleges.

I read that passage from Pratchett's book, and I agree with it. Hell, I live it. I'm presently standing in a pair of $500 shoes which have comfortably lasted for at least five years, maybe longer, while still looking like new.

I have a hard time imagining a civil war in the States. A war suggests a contest between roughly equal powers, and the poor are being pushed ever lower.
Rather, I see something closer to the transition that the Roman empire experienced when they went from an Imperial Power to the Middle Ages.
Resource depletion eventually brought everyone down, but there were still kings, knights (the riot police), the church (the propaganda arm of the regime), and serfs.

[Karbonkel]

You wish it did, but it's the contrary and the reason why so many kids are now from separated families. Divorcies have skyrocketed the past decades, because few people nowadays come from healthy, loving families. It's a known fact that the kids who received the most abusive and neglectful upbringing most frequently become teen parents later on, because the rare care of their own parents limited their development of self-inhibition. In addition, the only way in which they know how to parent is based on their own shitty upbringing, so they continue the cycle. There is hope, though, because parenting classes have proved effective in breaking this vicious cycle.

I feel like the main reason for this is the fact that we all have it so good that we don't really have to depend on our partners anymore for stability and happiness. I think back in the day more people stayed together simply because of the fact that it brought stability. The male was the breadwinner working long hours and the woman raised the often 10+ children of the family, so you kinda needed each other to make things work (religion played a big role in this, with education and material wealth replacing this these days). Nowadays, with both parents working, resulting in fewer children and material wealth its no longer necessary to stay together, since you now have more (material) options to separate and to find someone better. I think Socionics itself is a result of this "luxury" to be able to find someone better. Sad to see it creates disrupted family situations.

[Stray Cat]

I would imagine that raising a lot of selfish, asocial kids would decrease the birth rate, since these kids have no experience with long-term commitment and few examples of healthy, committed relationships between two people.

I'd say selfish, asocial kids would increase divorce not birth rate. The only thing that really decreases birthrate is opportunity.

In the western world, the opportunity for financial prosperity decreases birthrate. In third world countries, the quality of water, for example, decreases the birthrate. In those countries, often times, children might die before puberty due to the fact that the parents will not raise them. I mean, if the population is 65% 12 years old and under while 20% are between 12-49, the youth will not be adequately supported because the working class (12-49) would be so small. If the farmable land in an area is congested, war could ensue to fight over those resources

[Adam Strange]

So I've had some few hours of experience with ESIs (my Duals) of both Se and Fi subtypes, and I feel like I can say something about their differences and how I (a Te-dom LIE) relate to each type.

Both types are very easy for me to get along with. Generally, the ESI-Se feels more "public and we'll get shit done" and the ESI-Fi feels more "private and comfortable, just relax and take it easy."

The ESI-Se is tending towards my Activity partner, the SEE, and I like to DO things with ESI-Ses. Activities of all sorts. However, they aren't much for discussing their feelings. They mostly focus on the external world and what they can do in it. Honestly, they don't even like to think that other people might have personalities. They seem to just take life as it comes, and they will drop people in a heartbeat if they think that they don't get along.

The ESI-Fi is tending towards my Semi-Dual, the EII. ESI-Fis are softer than ESI-Ses and more feely, but they might not be as good at manipulating people as the ESI-Se, probably because they are deeper into their own Fi viewpoint. So much so that, when an ESI-Fi tells you a story about their friends, it's really hard to tell who did what to whom, because the ESI-Fi already knows, herself, whom she is talking about and of course, you should know this too, because her Fe mirror neurons don't work very well.

I think that which sub-type you prefer depends on the kind of life you want to live.

In my case, I would be proud to show off either type to my friends and business partners, but I think that my friends and business partners would have very different reactions to the two types.

I think they'd be amazed that both types seem to know almost nothing about facts. Neither type seems to read a lot of books for information, and the gaps in their knowledge just amazes me sometimes. They aren't anti-Te like an IEI, but they for sure don't take to it naturally. Similarly, the gaps in my Fi probably astound them, frankly.

I think they'd be intimidated by both types, but in different ways. I think the ESI-Se would intimidate them through her energy and assertiveness. I think the ESI-Fi would intimidate them because they'd quickly feel judged. Lol.

If I wanted a comfortable life partner who would be easy to get along with during the long arctic nights, I'd choose the ESI-Fi.
If I wanted a partner who pushed me to do more stuff, but who went home with another person, I'd choose the ESI-Se.

[Stray Cat]

Dammit Stray Cat, you sure your duals are the ones with Ti HA and not the ones with Te DS?
Bethany's post was essentially poking for Ti in the way one unconsciously pokes for their HA.

A thing about SLEs and ILEs is that they don't make us feel stupid when we indulge with our Ti. They support and guide the half-baked speculations to a conclusion.

On the other hand, Te egos, except the kindest ones, have reactions like yours, and this is why my Ti has always been reflexively shy around them.

You're making the common mistake around here that the way a person behaves online is how he/she behaves in real life

I guess it's just that I've had many very pleasant and constructive conversations with him before, yet I could see myself saying exactly what you just said. Also, how I really hate hypocrisy, and you can just tell at a pretty quick glance that he quite prides himself on his constructiveness/decency/maturity/level-headedness. Which are such Fi things to take pride in, to such a degree, and just for the sake of it.
Also you're the nicest person ever =(

You obviously don't know what I take pride in. Contrary to what you might think you haven't figured me and just because a person writes an opinion doesn't mean its good. In fact, if it's uninformed than its a fucking stupid opinion.

What Bethany did was allow Rebel to plant a seed in her head which she then explored as a possibility. My actual issue was that her exploration was based on feels not a genuine desire to determine whether Rebel might be correct or not.

Perhaps what you're trying to explain is that this forum should be about enabling fantasy rather than trying to obtain actual wisdom

[Stray Cat]

Ok, I see we interpreted it differently. To me her reply read as a desire to explore the idea with others. But I mean, NFs and ethical types do tend to explore ideas based on nonconcrete methods such as vibes and feelings and IEIs in particular are very ramble-y, however frustrating it may be to the more logical and rigorous. It's not really intentional nor particularly a mark of lack of desire for the truth (especially for Ti HA types) IMO.

I hear ya. Tbh, my opinion is that Rebel was wrong moreso than Bethany being in the wrong. I disagree with his particular psychological assessment that Bethany decided to explore. Her exploration of Rebel's concept is relatively normal. If somebody theorizes that the sun is green, people can explore that idea if they wish.

My opinion is that Rebel wasn't working with the facts, making Bethany's exploration a bit silly. Would she have come to that conclusion on her own? I would hope she would. The way Rebel constructs his theories are not entirely factual in my opinion. If I had a theory to share, it would be my responsibility to share pertinent and, perhaps, practical facts so as to give others a better ideological basis to explore.