Results 1 to 40 of 66

Thread: EIIs-INFjs and falling into relations with the wrong people

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1,208
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zero View Post
    I hope I don't offend anyone by my question, it's merely out of curiosity for how this can be explained in terms of Socioincs. I wonder why if a combination of Fi and Ne is supposed to give someone the ability to assess what others are made of, EIIs usually fall into relations with toxic and unhealthy people, and take no advice on this either. When they want to help a troubled person because they see potential in this person getting better and finding the right direction in life, if you point out the unhealthy traits of this new person and judge him/her, the EII will become defensive and mad at you, not realizing that you mean good and want to save them. Funny part is they often change their minds about that person after a while, and at each point have a very strong and sure opinion about others, not accepting others to change their opinion even by providing facts.

    LSEs are supposed to be able to grab EIIs out of such relations, however seems the LIE looks judgmental and selfish in the EIIs eyes when doing the same.
    EII is also one of the types most likely to be drawn to their conflictor SLE, admiring their strength and protective behavior (Stratiyevskaya), why can't they see what the SLE is made of in the beginning?

    How is the LSE able to grab them out of these relations? They also seem to listen to tips related to health coming from LSE but not the LIE. For example if I remind them to drink water because they're going to be dehydrated or to take their vitamins, take a coat cause it's cold out, they'll just shrug their shoulders, but the LSE has more influence on them in this area.
    It's the LIE's Ni. It feels like too strong and narrow an assessment of a person. It seems to jump to a conclusion about a person too quickly and the EII's Ne is like "Nooo look at all these other possibilties of why this person can be this or that, you don't know for sure why they are the way they are." EII might defend the person and say "He's just going through a hard time and dealing with past traumas." LIE would jump to the conclusion and say "He's a psychopath." I guess it simply just feels unfair and judgmental to make a call on what a person IS based off one or two traits or incidences when you barely know them. Ni egos tend to make that leap about people very quickly when they first meet them, Ne egos do not like that.
    But yea over time with the EII themselves see more and more evidence they will come to their own conclusion, perhaps the LIE just gets there faster while the EII holds out, innocent till proven guilty I guess.

    I also recognize my own draw to SLEs, even knowing what they are made of. The feeling tends to override the logic there, and you want to hope it will be better than what you think I guess. But EIIs who don't know socionics might feel like "Oh my god I never felt this way about anyone." and get with an SLE despite knowing they are wrong for them, I think it's a matter of just yielding to that strong feeling.

    Not exactly sure why EIIs might shrug off that advice you said, but I do know that some LIE advice tends to encourage one to do hard inconvenient work for long amounts of time lol, probably advice based in Te, Ni and Se, and that can feel inconvenient to an EII. LSE advice tends to sound more convenient like "All you have to do is take this pill once a week.", there advice usually sounds super easy to implement. Also the advice you said sounds like you are super sure the person will get dehydrated, and an EII might think " I did this before and I haven't gotten dehydrated, you don't know fore sure that i will." Like that super sureness (even if you are right and EII learns later on) seems restricting to EII, and they prefer to have a benefit of the doubt, in this case the benefit would be not having to remember to drink water, it's not a big deal but it's simply just easier(but I am also speaking as an EII with e9 in my tritype). LSE might word this more in a way to be prepared, like, drink water so you don't get dehydrated, making dehydration seem more like a possibility and not a promised outcome, like "Do this just in case." That appeals to Ne, to be prepared for a possible outcome, than to worry about the inevitable outcome which seems more Ni based and isn't valued by EII, hence the shrugging the shoulders. Minor difference in wording when saying do this because else X will happen (implying X is what happens 100% of the time, Ne usually resists being 100% sure about most things) vs do this so X doesn't happen( implying X might happen but isn't sure to happen, very Ne based and well received when presented as a possibility) . Ni usually makes me scream 'YOU DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE!" Even if the person is inevitably right, I just naturally react that way until I see it for myself. I imagine LSE's just incase approach might not work on an ESI who wants to know what's the mostly likely outcome and less concerned about unlikely possibilities.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    710
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Pixel View Post
    It's the LIE's Ni. It feels like too strong and narrow an assessment of a person. It seems to jump to a conclusion about a person too quickly and the EII's Ne is like "Nooo look at all these other possibilties of why this person can be this or that, you don't know for sure why they are the way they are." EII might defend the person and say "He's just going through a hard time and dealing with past traumas." LIE would jump to the conclusion and say "He's a psychopath." I guess it simply just feels unfair and judgmental to make a call on what a person IS based off one or two traits or incidences when you barely know them. Ni egos tend to make that leap about people very quickly when they first meet them, Ne egos do not like that.
    But yea over time with the EII themselves see more and more evidence they will come to their own conclusion, perhaps the LIE just gets there faster while the EII holds out, innocent till proven guilty I guess.

    I also recognize my own draw to SLEs, even knowing what they are made of. The feeling tends to override the logic there, and you want to hope it will be better than what you think I guess. But EIIs who don't know socionics might feel like "Oh my god I never felt this way about anyone." and get with an SLE despite knowing they are wrong for them, I think it's a matter of just yielding to that strong feeling.

    Not exactly sure why EIIs might shrug off that advice you said, but I do know that some LIE advice tends to encourage one to do hard inconvenient work for long amounts of time lol, probably advice based in Te, Ni and Se, and that can feel inconvenient to an EII. LSE advice tends to sound more convenient like "All you have to do is take this pill once a week.", there advice usually sounds super easy to implement. Also the advice you said sounds like you are super sure the person will get dehydrated, and an EII might think " I did this before and I haven't gotten dehydrated, you don't know fore sure that i will." Like that super sureness (even if you are right and EII learns later on) seems restricting to EII, and they prefer to have a benefit of the doubt, in this case the benefit would be not having to remember to drink water, it's not a big deal but it's simply just easier(but I am also speaking as an EII with e9 in my tritype). LSE might word this more in a way to be prepared, like, drink water so you don't get dehydrated, making dehydration seem more like a possibility and not a promised outcome, like "Do this just in case." That appeals to Ne, to be prepared for a possible outcome, than to worry about the inevitable outcome which seems more Ni based and isn't valued by EII, hence the shrugging the shoulders. Minor difference in wording when saying do this because else X will happen (implying X is what happens 100% of the time, Ne usually resists being 100% sure about most things) vs do this so X doesn't happen( implying X might happen but isn't sure to happen, very Ne based and well received when presented as a possibility) . Ni usually makes me scream 'YOU DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE!" Even if the person is inevitably right, I just naturally react that way until I see it for myself. I imagine LSE's just incase approach might not work on an ESI who wants to know what's the mostly likely outcome and less concerned about unlikely possibilities.
    Great and very helpful answer thank you. Why isn't there a like button on your post?

    Well the problem is most of the time I see Ne can be a waste of time. the thought process is: well if we already have evidence that X is the most likely outcome of the current situation, then why should we waste our time choosing other options? But if everyone thought like this world would be chaotic, so types have to balance eachother in a way right?

    I will use your advice on rephrasing my sentences and let you know if it worked better with the EIIs (:

Posting Permissions

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