IEE-Fi versus EII-Ne

[Pookie]

Of doing life. Both do life the same way, with consumer insights. This is arguing semantics.

P.S. When comparing types you want to compare them at their best, not at their worst or near worst. Teenager years is the worst, the beginning of a person getting competent. As they mature, EI+ and IE- are going to coverage and will be much more similar to each other than any other type.

Arguing semantics is arguing meaning. So yeah, obviously. The person asked a question, you answered in a way that makes the meaning they can draw from that answer misleading. You used the wrong word. They don't do life the same way. They see life the same way. The topic is about appearances. Modus Operandi is about actions. Who someone is on the inside is not visible to anyone. What you do is the only thing people can see. IEE-Fi & EII-Ne do not act similar enough to confuse with each other.

[domr]

Arguing semantics is arguing meaning. So yeah, obviously. The person asked a question, you answered in a way that makes the meaning they can draw from that answer misleading. You used the wrong word. They don't do life the same way. They see life the same way. The topic is about appearances. Modus Operandi is about actions. Who someone is on the inside is not visible to anyone. What you do is the only thing people can see. IEE-Fi & EII-Ne do not act similar enough to confuse with each other.

I don't think you have a good understanding of types. They aren't just what a person does on the inside. People communicate and enact their thinking in reality. As I said, both IE- and EI+ have the same MO which is consumer insights. Their primary decisions will be on -I+E.

With regards to IE+E and EI-I, they will be even closer to each other than IE+ and EI-. This is because of how we create the subtypes. Subtypes are defined to have stronger ODD functions (incl. creative) and weaker EVEN functions (incl. leading). IE+I = IE+ and EI-E = EI-. The two subtypes, IE+E and EI-I are basically hybrids of the two types.

Look at the chart below to see why.

                    -E+I
              -E4+I3, -E3+I4
-E4+I3, -E3.7+I3.3, -E3.3+I3.7, -E3+I4 

(-/+) Subjective/Objective
I/E = Intuition/Ethic
# = Differentiation (Dimension)

[Pookie]

I don't think you have a good understanding of types. They aren't just what a person does on the inside. People communicate and enact their thinking in reality. As I said, both IE- and EI+ have the same MO which is consumer insights. Their primary decisions will be on -I+E.

With regards to IE+E and EI-I, they will be even closer to each other than IE+ and EI-. This is because of how we create the subtypes. Subtypes are defined to have stronger ODD functions (incl. creative) and weaker EVEN functions (incl. leading). IE+I = IE+ and EI-E = EI-. The two subtypes, IE+E and EI-I are basically hybrids of the two types.

Look at the chart below to see why.

                    -E+I
              -E4+I3, -E3+I4
-E4+I3, -E3.7+I3.3, -E3.3+I3.7, -E3+I4 

(-/+) Subjective/Objective
I/E = Intuition/Ethic
# = Differentiation (Dimension)

I am honestly flabbergasted that you could write a sentence like "Types aren't just what a person does on the inside" and then follow it up with "both IE- and EI+ have the same MO which is consumer insights". And not detect the irony. Insight is entirely internal, isn't an MO, and Consumer Insight is about selling products.

"People communicate and enact their thinking in reality" Yes. And where the IEE and EII differ the greatest(This is intertype relations 101) is enacting that similar thinking into reality. Ref. Mirror. Theres a reason why people can confuse themselves with their mirror, and yet its rare for someone else to do so. While at the same time that person would never confuse themselves with their super-ego, and yet a stranger might. Or why Look-a-like is a term used for a type in the same temperament. This is because Temperament is the single biggest factor in the expression of ones IEs. You know, someone's M.O. Temperament is what stands out the most. This is the root of the argument. This is what they are asking about.

"With regards to IE+E and EI-I, they will be even closer to each other than IE+ and EI-. "
yes.
"Subtypes are defined to have stronger ODD functions (incl. creative) and weaker EVEN functions (incl. leading)"
No. Half are. Base subtypes are the reverse... and I think you're mix-matching odd and even.
"IE+E and EI-I are basically hybrids of the two types."
Sloppy. You are equating Strength with function. Weakening base & bolstering creative does not do anything about function order. Bolstering creative means youre also bolstering Role and weakening PolR. Because elements grow in strength with use, if it is bolstered, it is used more than typical for the type.
So, Imagine an IEE who uses Ne less than normal, and uses Se more than normal, all while the Fi is being used more than normal as a contact function. Unless you don't know what creative does, there's little chance you would mistake those behaviors for EII-Ne. An EII-Ne's control of Se is going to be atrocious. And IEE-Fi's control of Se is going to be surprisingly refined.
The closest match to this in the Socion is SEE-Fi, who uses Se less than normal, Ne more than normal and Fi is being used more than normal as a contact function.

[domr]

I am honestly flabbergasted that you could write a sentence like "Types aren't just what a person does on the inside" and then follow it up with "both IE- and EI+ have the same MO which is consumer insights". And not detect the irony. Insight is entirely internal, isn't an MO, and Consumer Insight is about selling products.

Semantics & Metaphor.

"People communicate and enact their thinking in reality" Yes. And where the IEE and EII differ the greatest(This is intertype relations 101) is enacting that similar thinking into reality. Ref. Mirror. Theres a reason why people can confuse themselves with their mirror, and yet its rare for someone else to do so. While at the same time that person would never confuse themselves with their super-ego, and yet a stranger might. Or why Look-a-like is a term used for a type in the same temperament. This is because Temperament is the single biggest factor in the expression of ones IEs. You know, someone's M.O. Temperament is what stands out the most. This is the root of the argument. This is what they are asking about.

You just contradicted yourself. 1 is blocks. 2 is temperament.

No. Half are. Base subtypes are the reverse... and I think you're mix-matching odd and even.

C4/C2/U4/U2 are even. Leading/Role/Demonstrative/Mobilizing

If half the functions were stronger creative subtypes would be stronger than leading subtypes. leading subtypes would have total function strength of 20 while creative would be more than 20. That doesn't work.

Sloppy. You are equating Strength with function.

That's exactly how Jung explained it. In Socionics, the strength of the functions comes from the dimensionally. So to bolster a function means to increase it's strength.

Weakening base & bolstering creative does not do anything about function order.

I never said it does. Like I said, it makes leading ~3.7D instead of 4D and all functions get scaled accordingly. Order is the same but strength changes.

Bolstering creative means youre also bolstering Role and weakening PolR. Because elements grow in strength with use, if it is bolstered, it is used more than typical for the type.

That doesn't make any sense. Role function opposes creative. +P vs -J. If you were to strength both, it would negate the changes in temperament.

Plus in reality, creative subtypes appear more balanced and have a better use of both suggestive and vulnerable functions.

So, Imagine an IEE who uses Ne less than normal, and uses Se more than normal, all while the Fi is being used more than normal as a contact function. Unless you don't know what creative does, there's little chance you would mistake those behaviors for EII-Ne. An EII-Ne's control of Se is going to be atrocious. And IEE-Fi's control of Se is going to be surprisingly refined.
The closest match to this in the Socion is SEE-Fi, who uses Se less than normal, Ne more than normal and Fi is being used more than normal as a contact function.

Again you don't seem to even understand basic Model A block theory. SE+ has completely different blocks than IE+ or EI-

[Pookie]

Semantics & Metaphor.




You just contradicted yourself. 1 is blocks. 2 is temperament.



C4/C2/U4/U2 are even. Leading/Role/Demonstrative/Mobilizing

If half the functions were stronger creative subtypes would be stronger than leading subtypes. leading subtypes would have total function strength of 20 while creative would be more than 20. That doesn't work.



That's exactly how Jung explained it. In Socionics, the strength of the functions comes from the dimensionally. So to bolster a function means to increase it's strength.



I never said it does. Like I said, it makes leading ~3.7D instead of 4D and all functions get scaled accordingly. Order is the same but strength changes.



That doesn't make any sense. Role function opposes creative. +P vs -J. If you were to strength both, it would negate the changes in temperament.

Plus in reality, creative subtypes appear more balanced and have a better use of both suggestive and vulnerable functions.



Again you don't seem to even understand basic Model A block theory. SE+ has completely different blocks than IE+ or EI-

Oh, you just don't know much, ok. You're not arguing my conclusions, your arguing structural axioms. Not going to make sense to you until you read it yourself.

Your reading comprehension might be why everyone who's been here for 5-10 years is disagreeing with you. The bolded doesn't contradict. Semantics doesn't mean meaningless it means meaning. Creative is an even numbered function, Base is odd. Creative and Base subtypes don't strengthen the same functions. Maybe you don't mean that, but your words say that. Which is why I said your being sloppy with your words.

[domr]

@Pookie

That's exactly correct. I am arguing axioms because your conclusions don't follow the axioms which means they are not real.

As I said, I define even as C4/C2/U4/C2. I'm not using the illogical geometric black/white figure model because it's not correct.

[Pookie]

@Pookie

That's exactly correct. I am arguing axioms because your conclusions don't follow the axioms which means they are not real.

As I said, I define even as C4/C2/U4/C2. I'm not using the illogical geometric black/white figure model because it's not correct.

Define C4.