Misconceptions About Type You'd Like to Clear Up

[Eliza Thomason]

What do you disagree with in common type literature about your own type?

For me, it is the notion that Si is lazy. Si is not lazy. It is very diligent. The detailed nature of Si work may skew the perspective of how much effort is put into tasks. For example, if an Si type and a non-Si type each painted a painting of the same size, it would probably take the Si type at least 10x longer but it would be 100x more detailed in high quality.

They are definitely not lazy even though they often can appear to be.

It's a reason why a Si type benefits from their dual. I think of my SEI friend whose longtime ILE husband would never rush her to get more done, or faster, but instead lets her be herself, and she can take the time with the detail she delights in (and in the end she gets a lot done!). She worked as a nurse early in her marriage but sometime after the first one or two were born (they had four) she worked as mom and homemaker extraordinaire, and truly did a wonderful job taking care of her home and family. Everyone in that family was supported, which just made it a nice family life, and also her ENTp husband was into all manner of things, and working many hours - and he was able to be himself this way, exploring so many interests and juggling many responsibilities - particularly because she was running things so well at home, which she could do with real freedom and self-expression, since he wasn't trying to run her.

Also I would not rush my SLI husband, who does take his time with things and also seems to be doing nothing for certain stretches. But I know what looks like laziness to some is the fact that there is a lot happening inside. He thinks a lot, and he needs to in order to be him. For example we are often working on the house, some big project that has been all thought out and talked out between us as we design it, and then he "begins" the build or construction, at least he said he was beginning, and he seems to be doing nothing. But I always know, he is walking around thinking. When he does get to work, at his own pace, so much has been thought out!

[Eliza Thomason]

I still maintain that Si is innately diligent. I think laziness is a personal vice which has no correspondence to type. In fact, in all my jobs I tended to be the most diligent. One NT remarked that one must work smarter, not harder but working in challenges never paid off for me. Schmoozers earned more.

I would attribute my diligent ethic to my LSE father except my mother is IEI and neither of my EIE and ESI sisters are like me. My resume of tasks achieved is extremely long. Doing heavy detailed work can bring on fatigue but I lived my 20s doing everything for everybody else, constantly too busy type Aish. I had to teach myself that it is ok to slow down and take a breather and work at the pace of my associates instead of always trying and being the fastest to get things done. But part of my SP nature likes the rush and thrill of that. It doesn't necessarily work in one's favor if money is time though because then being fast and efficient as I have often been told on the job I am ends up shortchanging you or carrying the load too often for the group.

Being SEI, I inherently put more trust in real measurable experience than only some Te about someone's theory. Everyone has theories and not all concepts are correct unless validated by observation. Oy, science!

You definitely sound SEI to me... what you are saying is reminding me very much of the SEI's I know, in this way and that. Not one of them is lazy! They all accomplish a lot, though an outsider might look at them in this situation or not and make a wrong judgment about that. My SEi friend here sometimes says she is "competitive" like her IEI daughter... I haven't seen this in action but she says it so I believe her. I do think she does too much sometimes, especially when it comes to caregiving, supporting her husband type of things. He is LSE and does so much. So compared to LSE you might think she is lazier but pretty much most people are next to LSE.

Your family type line-up is interesting, and seems like it must have been challenging at times with a Supervisor Dad. Your Mom was probably a help about those times. However being married to her conflictor could not have been a cakewalk! I have never seen a SEI supervising an EIE so I can't imagine how that plays out. Quasi is not bad, though (with ISFj). Then again, I have not had a strong Quasi relationship in my life.

I like these thoughts on Quasi: "Each partner sees the other as less capable than themselves, hence less talented." LOL, good for the ego I guess. Sort of like, "I'll pat my back and you pat yours." And this, "However, Quasi-Identicals mistakenly believe that their partner is achieving more than they are. This is perceived by both partners as injustice and may hinder the ambitions of both." Hmm, that could be a problem in a race to impress Dad, the big achiever in this bunch. But I think ESI has unfair advantage here, being that Dad is her Semidual, while Dad is SEI's Supervisor....

[Eliza Thomason]

I am afraid that you are not an INFJ, but an extrovert.

No.

[vesstheastralsilky]

You definitely sound SEI to me... what you are saying is reminding me very much of the SEI's I know, in this way and that. Not one of them is lazy! They all accomplish a lot, though an outsider might look at them in this situation or not and make a wrong judgment about that. My SEi friend here sometimes says she is "competitive" like her IEI daughter... I haven't seen this in action but she says it so I believe her. I do think she does too much sometimes, especially when it comes to caregiving, supporting her husband type of things. He is LSE and does so much. So compared to LSE you might think she is lazier but pretty much most people are next to LSE.

Your family type line-up is interesting, and seems like it must have been challenging at times with a Supervisor Dad. Your Mom was probably a help about those times. However being married to her conflictor could not have been a cakewalk! I have never seen a SEI supervising an EIE so I can't imagine how that plays out. Quasi is not bad, though (with ISFj). Then again, I have not had a strong Quasi relationship in my life.

I like these thoughts on Quasi: "Each partner sees the other as less capable than themselves, hence less talented." LOL, good for the ego I guess. Sort of like, "I'll pat my back and you pat yours." And this, "However, Quasi-Identicals mistakenly believe that their partner is achieving more than they are. This is perceived by both partners as injustice and may hinder the ambitions of both." Hmm, that could be a problem in a race to impress Dad, the big achiever in this bunch. But I think ESI has unfair advantage here, being that Dad is her Semidual, while Dad is SEI's Supervisor....

Yes the ESI clearly has the advantage when it comes to being given respect. She's also been the spoiled one by both parents.

[Eliza Thomason]

Personally, I would like to get rid of the whole "duality is the best relationship" concept.

... personal experience tells me it absolutely is not. Lol.

But, it really truly is awesome. I can attest to that in my going on 5-year marriage. My first marriage was long and difficult with my Benefactor, but the big problem was not Sociotype-ic, but sociopathic. If one is not mentally healthy, even duality won't fix that. However Duality is the most psychologically healing of relationships, so if a sociopath must partner-up (or can), better with a dual dual than a supervisor! (my ex was the sociopath, not me! ).

(My ex is a Narcissist, and he left to be with, and is still with, an Invert-Narcissist - which is the only ideal relationship partner for a Narcissist. Socionically, he went from his Benefactee to his Contrary partner, which is probably maybe better... I don't know, having not had the personal experience to imagine it, having not had strong or long term relationship experience with my Benefactee or my Contrary...)

So I tell that, Nocturne, because I am thinking that possibly your bad experience with a past dual partner(s) had more to do with the fact he was afflicted with some sort of psychological impairment to relationship happiness. My youngest brother, LSI, has long been very happily married to his dual, EIE, and it really is a very happy marriage for them both, and rather ideal to all who witness it. He stabilizes, and serves, and she blossoms... She expresses the fullness of her personality and potentials, and he adores...

[Eliza Thomason]

Yes the ESI clearly has the advantage when it comes to being given respect. She's also been the spoiled one by both parents.

I can see how. I know the LSE/ESI works well together - it certainly did for my LSE brother and my ESI mom. Then ESI also gets the better position with Mom, as her Benefactor. As one of 3 sisters, this dynamic "When partners are together, the Beneficiary involuntarily starts to ingratiate themselves with the Benefactor, trying to please them without any obvious reason" must have been tiresome to witness.

[vesstheastralsilky]

I can see how. I know the LSE/ESI works well together - it certainly did for my LSE brother and my ESI mom. Then ESI also gets the better position with Mom, as her Benefactor. As one of 3 sisters, this dynamic "When partners are together, the Beneficiary involuntarily starts to ingratiate themselves with the Benefactor, trying to please them without any obvious reason" must have been tiresome to witness.

Definitely so. The ESI took advantage of her and later hurt her.

[Eliza Thomason]

Definitely so. The ESI took advantage of her and later hurt her.

[Beautiful sky]

No I am actually not like her at all.

.

[Skepsis]

That we aren't types, but individuals that get grouped by certain traits. A type is just an overgeneralized concept. While individuals can be a type, a person's individuality doesn't rely on the type. Speaking about individuals as a collection of traits can become dehumanizing in the way speaking about others as "white", "black", "American", "Jew", "gay", etc can be. It is useful to communicate commonalities, but it is a logical error to make conclusions of individuals based on group similarities. It also discriminating. This is something people who value "logic" should already understand from basic logic in high school. This is made even more ridiculous by the fact that types aren't easily identifiable in the same way other groups are. Many people who frequent these forums seem like sick people who would probably like to question whether someone is really gay, black, etc, and take great pleasure from doing so. V.I. is super prejudicial and there is conflicting empirical links between cognitive types and individuals, at best. There is a lot of hate and bigotry masquerading as "facts" about people. It is just another layer of manipulation. Understand yourself and others, but realize typology is a very, very limited way to do so. Respect each other.

[Singu]

That we aren't types, but individuals that get grouped by certain traits. A type is just an overgeneralized concept. While individuals can be a type, a person's individuality doesn't rely on the type. Speaking about individuals as a collection of traits can become dehumanizing in the way speaking about others as "white", "black", "American", "Jew", "gay", etc can be. It is useful to communicate commonalities, but it is a logical error to make conclusions of individuals based on group similarities. It also discriminating. This is something people who value "logic" should already understand from basic logic in high school. This is made even more ridiculous by the fact that types aren't easily identifiable in the same way other groups are. Many people who frequent these forums seem like sick people who would probably like to question whether someone is really gay, black, etc, and take great pleasure from doing so. V.I. is super prejudicial and there is conflicting empirical links between cognitive types and individuals, at best. There is a lot of hate and bigotry masquerading as "facts" about people. It is just another layer of manipulation. Understand yourself and others, but realize typology is a very, very limited way to do so. Respect each other.

I think some people may lack X quality or Y quality, but I don't think that necessarily makes one a "type". I think that at best, things like F and T and S and N are tools, and you may have or lack those tools. And you may become irritated if others don't have the tools that you have, because it's easy for you to see something with it but difficult for others. Or you may try to become more understanding, and it can be taught or explained exactly what it is that you're seeing.

So if you could magically transfer or acquire those tools, then would that change who you are? Probably, but the same could be said for pretty much any kind of tools that you acquire or experiences that you have.