1. Originally Posted by Pookie
Define C4.
Originally Posted by domr
Example: SE-
Code:
```     Subjective | Objective
S-4 | E-3 [Ego]
Conscious   I-2 | L-1 [Super-Ego]
----------------|-----------------
Unconscious E-4 | E-3 [Id]
L-2 | I-1 [Super Id]```
This is the psyche of the SE- type. If you want to create a subtype then you need to modify this diagram. That's the axiomatic way to create subtypes. With this system the only way to do that would be the change the function strength.

2. I'm impressed anyone got pookie to talk so much

3. more gulenko heresy

4. @Bertrand

Gulenko is totally clueless to intuitive ethics @1:40, also called maturity. People learn and grow and they develop other aspects to themselves besides the leading function. Does he not understand Model A has 8 functions and not 1?

Ambivert does not exist because a person would be indifferent between functions. It would freeze them. The entire reason we have function strengths is to get around this indifference problem.

5. I'm going to borrow "depth of interactions" because that's a good point

so I actually think there are more base similarities between IEE-Fi + EII-Fi and IEE-Ne + EII-Ne

tl;dr IEE-Fi is what would happen if you fed EII-Fi a bunch of MDMA, whereas EII-Ne is what would happen if you fed IEE-Ne a bunch of Xanax

IEE-Fi seeks depth in their interactions, but they do so while "planting seeds" across a wide spectrum (work, school, extracurriculars) in stereotypical Ep fashion, but they're still not Dostoevsky, so it doesn't magically become a matter of deepening emotional bonds between other people, it's just making friends on an individual basis across a wide spectrum, and they do so in almost a Dostoevsky way - think Huxley motivation (Ne) Dostoevsky method (Fi)

EII-Ne seeks depth in their interactions, and they might collect their friends from various places (work, school, extracurriculars), but eventually they'll want to bring those friends into a single place, so there's an attachment at play (and by that I mean static bonds, Fi) and their means of communication is less about kindness, even if it's still there, it's more about connecting through common interests - think Dostoevsky motivation (Fi) Huxley method (Ne)

I don't usually like using forumites as examples, but in this case, I remember I recognized more immediate similarities between Raver and Subteigh, than I did between Subteigh and myshkin, but after I spent more time on the forum, I began to see growing similarities between Subteigh and myshkin

6. I've read 2 EII-Ne subtype descriptions, one by Gulenko and the other one i can't recall who it was written by (Meged? rings a bell? ). Anyway, the differences weren't very clear to me. Are there any other subtype descriptions i am missing out on? Thanks

7. Originally Posted by Delilah
I've read 2 EII-Ne subtype descriptions, one by Gulenko and the other one i can't recall who it was written by (Meged? rings a bell? ). Anyway, the differences weren't very clear to me. Are there any other subtype descriptions i am missing out on? Thanks
Read the Fi-EII and Fi-IEE descriptions and see if any of them fit you:

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/t...INFj/subtypes/
http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/t...ENFp/subtypes/

Both are at the bottom.

8. Originally Posted by Raver
Read the Fi-EII and Fi-IEE descriptions and see if any of them fit you:

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/t...INFj/subtypes/
http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/t...ENFp/subtypes/

Both are at the bottom.
Hey Raver,
thanks for the links. I'll read them. However, I'm very intrigued by the EII-Ne subtype. Both, for seeing if it fits and for understanding that subtype better. Are there any other ones out there? I kinda vaguely recall having read something by Beskova (i think that was their name....?) a few years back and can't seem to locate it now. Thanks.

What problem are you trying to solve here? Are you perhaps trying to find out whether you are IEE or EII yourself?
@consentingadult: only partially my interest in this started as i was wavering between 3 Fi-ego types, and then continued to read as it was still intriguing and i made the thread after i realized that even having read the subtype articles i was having difficulties differentiating between EII -NE and IEE for instance. Thanks for your comment.

10. Originally Posted by Delilah
I see your point. I was wondering though for instance why IEE-Fi can't be more similar to ESI rather than SEE? If all what you're saying applies, then if you take into account the thinking style "hologrpahic" too, and, assuming that that is preserved as well, than wouldn't IEE-Fi be more similar to ESI? Just wondering
I'm Fi-IEE - sometimes I relate a lot to ESIs more than SEEs despite being us both being EPs. I read about a Fi-SEE who felt the same about EIIs.

11. Originally Posted by inabox
I'm Fi-IEE - sometimes I relate a lot to ESIs more than SEEs despite being us both being EPs. I read about a Fi-SEE who felt the same about EIIs.
Yeah. IEE's and ESI might both perceive offensive humor as very bad.. They are both "feel good" people. Like everyone should be OK with it. SEE's usually have much less problem with division and I might say that this even applies to EII's in some limits and these are not really so much "feel good" people.

12. Originally Posted by inabox
I'm Fi-IEE - sometimes I relate a lot to ESIs more than SEEs despite being us both being EPs. I read about a Fi-SEE who felt the same about EIIs.
I think it’s because IEE and ESI both share -Fi and SEE and EII both share +Fi. Being ethical types, their style of ethics is probably the most important thing that bridges their relationships with people - including the two Ep types who aren’t ethical base. IEE and ESI are both the type of people you’d expect at a protest, for example, because of the nature of -Fi. SEE and EII are more harmonic, I think, even if SEE is more bold than IEE (they still try to get along generally and aren’t as hostile as -Fi; I’ve noticed my IEE friend has a quick temper and there’s a line you can’t cross with her otherwise she’s ruthless and ESIs are famously the same way).

13. Anyways, I think the difference between IEE and EII is pretty big regardless of subtype. IEE is a lot more risqué and morally ambiguous; not that they don’t have morals but you’ll notice they do and justify things that an EII never would. Basically, differences in temperament which can be stark.

14. I’m quite, calm, not a lot of energy and I don’t show much excitement and enthrallment

15. Originally Posted by flames
Anyways, I think the difference between IEE and EII is pretty big regardless of subtype. IEE is a lot more risqué and morally ambiguous; not that they don’t have morals but you’ll notice they do and justify things that an EII never would. Basically, differences in temperament which can be stark.
I think Fi-subtype IEE (and Fi-SEEs I suppose) are less inclined to be morally ambiguous. At least I perceive that difference between myself and Ne-IEEs (with one of them I was like, the f-k? But then all types can have uhh moral ickiness). But still, immnot morally unambiguous as my Ne-EII sister whom I look up to.

Page 2 of 2 First 12

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•