Figure out my type...if you can >:P

[Sol]

> You won't figure it out if you stereotype.

In case of factors which significantly change types related behavior, to understand your type correctly needs more of data.
A video is obligate to identify the type correctly, generally.

> Nice to meet you fellow label lovers

To use general categories is a part of rationality. You may dislike what is thought about you, but not when people think.
In the approach in your typing, you sabotage your correct understanding. So you are affraid when people understand the truth about you. This reminds Se types fears.

[nifl]

This reminds Se types fears.

maybe EIE

[Sol]

maybe EIE

Exists a possibility of introverted type as the needed data in typing theme was not given completely.
EIE tend to have higher interest to tell about them.
The face on the avatar which was recently has reminded introverted type.

and here seems terms picky approach of Ti, from the signature:
""Most" means "not all, but the majority," "unlikely" means "improbable, but not impossible.""

[nifl]

EIE tend to have higher interest to tell about them.

you can check the rate and content of messages in some of the off-topic threads like 'random thought'. it's very high for the average introvert, and much too personally oriented for logicals, especially introverted ones. also she has an unafraid attitude towards conflict, dramatic ones at that. her laborious writing style seems to point to rationality.
recently i talked with her where she didn't seem to understand what she herself wrote. besides her emotional highness and aggression, comprehension issues with what is written seems more of an F-ish deficiency.

The face on the avatar which was recently has reminded introverted type.

i didn't notice. she changes this and her profile often. explains this with liking self-expression a lot (Fe).

[Sol]

you can check the rate and content of messages in some of the off-topic threads like 'random thought'. it's very high for the average introvert

In case of contradictions in common for types behavior the importance of nonverbal is higher. This needs a video.

> recently i talked with her where she didn't seem to understand what she herself wrote

If this problem was significant, then could be from other than Jung type.
When exist psyche anomalies or meds/substances the expression of weak functions may arise close to opposite trait types, in some situations.

[Beautiful sky]

http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta_turbo.html

[Beautiful sky]

I have no idea what you're implying by saying this, but ESI's are stereotypically morally self-righteous and highly judgmental, neither of which are applicable to me. I'm probably also more logical reasoning-centric than ethics stereotypes in general, despite being human/relationship focused overall. It seems as though there is some sort of stereotype floating around that Fi base types revolve around subjective values that make no logical sense and are often unfair expectations, which would also be untrue of me. Whatever “values” I uphold are founded upon logical reasoning, cause and effect, etc. It's difficult to even imagine myself as a value-oriented person because to me, it just seems like doing math with human behaviors/psychological components rather than numbers.

Maybe not ESI then
Maybe LSI
Or LSE?

[Alonzo]

Maybe not ESI then
Maybe LSI
Or LSE?

Absolutely the fuck not. Her "logic" is very weak/almost non-existent. She prioritizes her self-serving Fi subjective sentiments/personal beliefs over any in-depth, Ti systemic/structural understanding or the Te logic of actions within a system. It's why she alleges to hate typology so much, because she has a reduced capacity for actually understanding how and why it works and therefore projects her own confusion onto the systems and those who find utility in the systems. She can't be reasoned with because she's too committed to her own narrow ass, misguided and mistaken belief system.

[Beautiful sky]

Absolutely the fuck not. Her "logic" is very weak/almost non-existent. She prioritizes her self-serving Fi subjective sentiments/personal beliefs over any in-depth, Ti systemic/structural understanding or the Te logic of actions within a system. It's why she alleges to hate typology so much, because she has a reduced capacity for actually understanding how and why it works and therefore projects her own confusion onto the systems and those who find utility in the systems. She can't be reasoned with because she's too committed to her own narrow ass, misguided and mistaken belief system.

I get the lack of Ti which would make sense being Te lead who as described are more about the self

To Ti leads things have to make sense for them not that the system exists

[Beautiful sky]

Let’s not take these things too seriously

[Beautiful sky]

Anyone up for a challenge? I know my type but I'm a rather complex person. I won't fill out any questionnaires, so type me based on what you see from me on the forums. If it seems too hard for people in general I'll add a questionnaire.

Hint: You won't figure it out if you stereotype.

So...what type am I?

I agree that stereotypes are bad

Do you plan?
Do you have good time management?
Are you moralistic? You said no so scratch ESI
You like to defend but not force?
So maybe you care about others but not necessarily use Se . I care about and will take the defender position but don’t use Se

[Beautiful sky]

I thought it'd be the other way around...but I do relate to seeing it more externally.
Talk like a therapist?
Interesting

[Beautiful sky]

ALSO, forgot to respond to this part. I used to type as a Logic type still before being treated for bipolar. Emotions =/= Ethics. I will downright drop shows for the unethical characters, though. I dropped Vikings and my bf laughs at me because any time he mentions Ragnar the smile disappears from my face and I get all "grrrrrr." I hate him because he is morally reprehensible imo after doing certain things in the show. I thought almost all of the characters were shit ethically, to the point where I disliked the show because I felt like I was watching a bunch of assholes. The characters I liked didn't get enough screen time to hold my interest. There was no one to "root for" in the show because I didn't care enough about the main characters. Most were not terrible, but Ragnar...Ragnar is a complete piece of shit IMO. IDK how I was supposed to be into the show with him as the main character. I hated him.

Show spoiler:

Mostly, his attitude after cheating. Entitled. Like just, "so what?" He did not show guilt, nor care for the way his family was affected. He was selfish and only cared for himself, his desires. He had ONE miscarriage, ONE, then got eyes for someone else so he could have more sons. His guilt/regret in the show was over what he lost, not what his family felt. Just pure selfishness.

So no, I type as Ethical for Ethical reasons.

What is FFT?

“ Mostly, his attitude after cheating. Entitled. Like just, "so what?" He did not show guilt, nor care for the way his family was affected. He was selfish and only cared for himself, his desires. He had ONE miscarriage, ONE, then got eyes for someone else so he could have more sons. His guilt/regret in the show was over what he lost, not what his family felt. Just pure selfishness.”

Such moral judgements

[Beautiful sky]

You said you choose your words wisely and asked others to pay attention so I have and I read your words in another thread
You said “us Fi dom” so if you are not ESI guess what you are EII

[necrosebud]

@Midnight Maverick

i did not like the main characters either in Vikings but the reason I was able to continue is because it provided something novel for my Ne, I did not anything about Vikings and the adventure and their overall story was really interesting and kept me hooked. But generally speaking I can’t watch these kinds of shows either

and yeah the cheating part was weird to me, it seemed as if Ragnar was insensitive/callous but my brother provided a slightly diff perspective - he thought it would just work out (sort of Fi naivete there), that his “wives” would reconcile (but ofc from Fi dom perspective that whole situation is weird and I would have left too, just like his wife did) which I guess I would not have seen myself.

[Beautiful sky]

@Midnight Maverick

i did not like the main characters either in Vikings but the reason I was able to continue is because it provided something novel for my Ne, I did not anything about Vikings and the adventure and their overall story was really interesting and kept me hooked. But generally speaking I can’t watch these kinds of shows either

and yeah the cheating part was weird to me, it seemed as if Ragnar was insensitive/callous but my brother provided a slightly diff perspective - he thought it would just work out (sort of Fi naivete there), that his “wives” would reconcile (but ofc from Fi dom perspective that whole situation is weird and I would have left too, just like his wife did) which I guess I would not have seen myself.

You two more be more or less affected by the show based on your tolerance level to ethics and external actions towards others maybe stemming from your own childhood experiences and views growing up

[Alonzo]

@Midnight Maverick

i did not like the main characters either in Vikings but the reason I was able to continue is because it provided something novel for my Ne, I did not anything about Vikings and the adventure and their overall story was really interesting and kept me hooked. But generally speaking I can’t watch these kinds of shows either

and yeah the cheating part was weird to me, it seemed as if Ragnar was insensitive/callous but my brother provided a slightly diff perspective - he thought it would just work out (sort of Fi naivete there), that his “wives” would reconcile (but ofc from Fi dom perspective that whole situation is weird and I would have left too, just like his wife did) which I guess I would not have seen myself.

"Vikings" is one of my favorite shows of all time. lol I happen to really like most of the characters because they are "morally grey," as is often the case with most people, IMO; moreover, they lived during a time and within an environment where a harsh, brutal pragmatism ensured their survival. "Psychopathic" and/or "sociopathic" behaviors are evolved for; these instincts constitute an evolutionary advantage in very specific contexts. During times of war or resource scarcity, the "non-confrontational/harmonizing" persona is not as useful. Is this an ideal way to live/exist? No, but it's a naturally occurring aspect of what it means to be human. I get and am relieved by the fact that not everyone has a stomach for this type of existence, tho. I just also think it's rather narrow-minded and unrealistic to bring subjective notions of morality into situations where it has little place.

Viking society was an extremely patriarchal, warlike BETA environment where having many sons was an important way to be immortalized and create an ever-lasting legacy. Because 1.) child birth was a very dangerous ordeal for women, 2.) there was a high infant mortality rate, and 3.) sons were often likely to die in battle, it made more sense (within the laws and rules that formed their societal structure) for Viking men to "spread the seed" and not confine themselves to one mate. For them, the Fe "objectively moral" thing to do was ensure survival of the patrilineal line, at all costs. It's very easy to look at their laws, in hindsight and from the purview of a very different living/societal conditions, and cast aspersions.

Also, Lagertha and Ragnar were identical types (SLE) but Aslaug was his dual (IEI)...and so there was a pull and draw towards her that was additionally difficult to resist.

[Amoeba]

Anyone up for a challenge? I know my type but I'm a rather complex person. I won't fill out any questionnaires, so type me based on what you see from me on the forums. If it seems too hard for people in general I'll add a questionnaire.

Hint: You won't figure it out if you stereotype.

So...what type am I?

I dont know you so post a video talking and maybe we can get somewhere productive.

[Beautiful sky]

"Vikings" is one of my favorite shows of all time. lol I happen to really like most of the characters because they are "morally grey," as is often the case with most people, IMO; moreover, they lived during a time and within an environment where a harsh, brutal pragmatism ensured their survival. "Psychopathic" and/or "sociopathic" behaviors are evolved for; these instincts constitute an evolutionary advantage in very specific contexts. During times of war or resource scarcity, the "non-confrontational/harmonizing" persona is not as useful. Is this an ideal way to live/exist? No, but it's a naturally occurring aspect of what it means to be human. I get and am relieved by the fact that not everyone has a stomach for this type of existence, tho. I just also think it's rather narrow-minded and unrealistic to bring subjective notions of morality into situations where it has little place.

Viking society was an extremely patriarchal, warlike BETA environment where having many sons was an important way to be immortalized and create an ever-lasting legacy. Because 1.) child birth was a very dangerous ordeal for women, 2.) there was a high infant mortality rate, and 3.) sons were often likely to die in battle, it made more sense (within the laws and rules that formed their societal structure) for Viking men to "spread the seed" and not confine themselves to one mate. For them, the Fe "objectively moral" thing to do was ensure survival of the patrilineal line, at all costs. It's very easy to look at their laws, in hindsight and from the purview of a very different living/societal conditions, and cast aspersions.

Also, Lagertha and Ragnar were identical types (SLE) but Aslaug was his dual (IEI)...and so there was a pull and draw towards her that was additionally difficult to resist.

Lucky that you guys have a life and you can watch shows
Chasing a toddler lol

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

"Vikings" is one of my favorite shows of all time. lol I happen to really like most of the characters because they are "morally grey," as is often the case with most people, IMO; moreover, they lived during a time and within an environment where a harsh, brutal pragmatism ensured their survival. "Psychopathic" and/or "sociopathic" behaviors are evolved for; these instincts constitute an evolutionary advantage in very specific contexts. During times of war or resource scarcity, the "non-confrontational/harmonizing" persona is not as useful. Is this an ideal way to live/exist? No, but it's a naturally occurring aspect of what it means to be human. I get and am relieved by the fact that not everyone has a stomach for this type of existence, tho. I just also think it's rather narrow-minded and unrealistic to bring subjective notions of morality into situations where it has little place.

Viking society was an extremely patriarchal, warlike BETA environment where having many sons was an important way to be immortalized and create an ever-lasting legacy. Because 1.) child birth was a very dangerous ordeal for women, 2.) there was a high infant mortality rate, and 3.) sons were often likely to die in battle, it made more sense (within the laws and rules that formed their societal structure) for Viking men to "spread the seed" and not confine themselves to one mate. For them, the Fe "objectively moral" thing to do was ensure survival of the patrilineal line, at all costs. It's very easy to look at their laws, in hindsight and from the purview of a very different living/societal conditions, and cast aspersions.

Also, Lagertha and Ragnar were identical types (SLE) but Aslaug was his dual (IEI)...and so there was a pull and draw towards her that was additionally difficult to resist.

The hell? Get off my thread. How you go from throwing every insult in the dictionary and DSM at me (which, DSM shouldn't even be used as insults), to thinking you can participate in a normal conversation on my personal thread, is fucking insane.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I dont know you so post a video talking and maybe we can get somewhere productive.

That'll never happen. I prefer anonymity and don't care about my type enough to bother. This thread is old. Thanks anyway.

[Beautiful sky]

The hell? Get off my thread. How you go from throwing every insult in the book at me, to thinking you can participate in a normal conversation on my personal thread, is fucking insane.

Let’s calm down

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

You said you choose your words wisely and asked others to pay attention so I have and I read your words in another thread
You said “us Fi dom” so if you are not ESI guess what you are EII

I've settled on ESI-Se as my best match, but I firmly believe that types can't fully encapsulate peoples' personalities. The more specific/less generalized they are, the more true that is. Yet, the more generalized they are, the closer they get to Barnum Effect. Anyway...sometimes I think I relate more to Se than Fi, tbh. I don't think I relate as much to SEE as I do to ESI, though.

Thanks for paying attention, btw!

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Let’s calm down

I'm calm, but I'm making it clear he is not welcome in my space. This is why:
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...13#post1558713

[Beautiful sky]

I'm calm, but I'm making it clear he is not welcome in my space. This is why:
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...13#post1558713

I agree with you that type is not all encapsulating of people because no two people even twins who grow up in the same environment may have the same emotional connection to the things around them because one may be offended and forever sensitive to the offense while the other cannot understand why that small and insignificant thing changed the other as an example.
But your Fi comes shining through in how you take others actions as morality reprehensible in your own view of what is morally right and wrong

[Beautiful sky]

I'm calm, but I'm making it clear he is not welcome in my space. This is why:
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...13#post1558713

Yes I read some of the comments in the exchange between you two.
What do I have to say about it?
Be calm with one another

[Beautiful sky]

"Vikings" is one of my favorite shows of all time. lol I happen to really like most of the characters because they are "morally grey," as is often the case with most people, IMO; moreover, they lived during a time and within an environment where a harsh, brutal pragmatism ensured their survival. "Psychopathic" and/or "sociopathic" behaviors are evolved for; these instincts constitute an evolutionary advantage in very specific contexts. During times of war or resource scarcity, the "non-confrontational/harmonizing" persona is not as useful. Is this an ideal way to live/exist? No, but it's a naturally occurring aspect of what it means to be human. I get and am relieved by the fact that not everyone has a stomach for this type of existence, tho. I just also think it's rather narrow-minded and unrealistic to bring subjective notions of morality into situations where it has little place.

Viking society was an extremely patriarchal, warlike BETA environment where having many sons was an important way to be immortalized and create an ever-lasting legacy. Because 1.) child birth was a very dangerous ordeal for women, 2.) there was a high infant mortality rate, and 3.) sons were often likely to die in battle, it made more sense (within the laws and rules that formed their societal structure) for Viking men to "spread the seed" and not confine themselves to one mate. For them, the Fe "objectively moral" thing to do was ensure survival of the patrilineal line, at all costs. It's very easy to look at their laws, in hindsight and from the purview of a very different living/societal conditions, and cast aspersions.

Also, Lagertha and Ragnar were identical types (SLE) but Aslaug was his dual (IEI)...and so there was a pull and draw towards her that was additionally difficult to resist.

You do make a great point about aspects of society that are very Beta
Would you say the same about the Roman Empire as well?

On that point being EII I would likely not survive in such a society. About the babies thing I know many EII who have a lot of babies out of religious reasons more than the bloodline reasons. Still not sure if they would survive that
Just hang me lol

[Alonzo]

The hell? Get off my thread. How you go from throwing every insult in the dictionary and DSM at me (which, DSM shouldn't even be used as insults), to thinking you can participate in a normal conversation on my personal thread, is fucking insane.

1.) I go where the fuck I please.

2.) WHY ARE YOU SO INVESTED IN SOMETHING YOU CLAIM YOU DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN? If you don't want to discuss type, then take your bargain bin Lizbeth Salander cosplaying ass somewhere else. You have a habit of making things far more complex than they need to be.

3.) Also, you're an extremely disappointing ESI-Se E6 sx/sp--a type that, on anyone else, should be pretty fucking cool.

[Beautiful sky]

1.) I go where the fuck I please.

2.) WHY ARE YOU SO INVESTED IN SOMETHING YOU CLAIM YOU DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN? If you don't want to discuss type, then take your bargain bin Lizbeth Salander cosplaying ass somewhere else. You have a habit of making things far more complex than they need to be.

3.) Also, you're an extremely disappointing ESI-Se E6 sx/sp--a type that, on anyone else, should be pretty fucking cool.

More insults lol
Ok
Well maybe there are aspects that she likes or maybe she likes being around a relatively safe crowd
Many reasons?

[Alonzo]

You do make a great point about aspects of society that are very Beta
Would you say the same about the Roman Empire as well?

On that point being EII I would likely not survive in such a society. About the babies thing I know many EII who have a lot of babies out of religious reasons more than the bloodline reasons. Still not sure if they would survive that
Just hang me lol

lmao I like you, Maritsa! And I think you sell yourself short. I'm telling you, there is a bad ass inside of you! I CAN TELL! And yes, I'd say that ancient Rome is a good example of Beta/Early Gamma society. To be more specific, Spartan (ancient Greece) society is a great example of BETA values taken to the extreme.

[Beautiful sky]

lmao I like you, Maritsa! And I think you sell yourself short. I'm telling you, there is a bad ass inside of you! I CAN TELL! And yes, I'd say that ancient Rome is a good example of Beta/Early Gamma society. To be more specific, Spartan (ancient Greece) society is a great example of BETA values taken to the extreme.

I probably do sell myself short
Lack of Se?

[Beautiful sky]

lmao I like you, Maritsa! And I think you sell yourself short. I'm telling you, there is a bad ass inside of you! I CAN TELL! And yes, I'd say that ancient Rome is a good example of Beta/Early Gamma society. To be more specific, Spartan (ancient Greece) society is a great example of BETA values taken to the extreme.

I have high self worth and self esteem but very little drive like most IEI I need to be kicked in the butt. But not by insults but rather by painting a picture of the future that works is useful and feasible. Where are my cute LSE lol

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I have high self worth and self esteem but very little drive like most IEI I need to be kicked in the butt. But not by insults but rather by painting a picture of the future that works is useful and feasible. Where are my cute LSE lol

I'm actually the opposite in the kicked in the butt department. I find it condescending and I end up kicking back, lol.

EDIT: I'm self-motivated as hell, have so much grit/determination/willpower that it actually winds up unhealthy for me (especially physically), but when my mother or someone tries to motivate me, it's the most DEmotivating thing ever.

[Beautiful sky]

I'm actually the opposite in the kicked in the butt department. I find it condescending and I end up kicking back, lol.

Yes I agree with that ESI sentiments (my cousin and aunt are both ESI). Try not to take his insults to heart and don’t remember them. Shake them off. Let them slide and melt away lol like it does to me

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

EDIT: I'm self-motivated as hell, have so much grit/determination/willpower that it actually winds up unhealthy for me (especially physically), but when my mother or someone tries to motivate me, it's the most DEmotivating thing ever.

Any strength (that I can think of, anyway) taken too far into the extremes becomes a weakness.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Yes I agree with that ESI sentiments (my cousin and aunt are both ESI). Try not to take his insults to heart and don’t remember them. Shake them off. Let them slide and melt away lol like it does to me

I'm honestly far gentler in most of my interactions than I usually am on the forum. I was actually thinking about that last night while I was deciding to turn over a new leaf. My interactions on here haven't entirely been aligned with my own values, and I've gotten into a lot of unnecessary conflict that I don't deal with in other places I go to interact. What I'm trying to say is, despite my forum behaviors, I honestly don't insult people in the ways you've described. The closer people are, the gentler I am. That's just me, personally. On the other hand, I prefer hot-headed types over cold-headed ones, and I'm generally understanding when things heat up, when there is an established loving relationship. I easily dismiss it and forget it ever was said, as long as it doesn't go too far. The most I tend to say to those I love in the heat of the moment is shit like "you're an ass." I should probably work on that, though. There are better/healthier ways to express how I feel.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Good lord. I go from writing the quoted post, to viewing another post from my friend list feed, where @Beautiful sky posted Strati's description of ESI's. I click on the link, and the very first thing I read is the same thing as the very last thing I had just posted. I forget sometimes, how well I do relate to it.

I've noticed that has become more common ever since social media, but I've also observed that it's connected to certain other personality traits most of the time, too. I also value this, so I've paid attention to it more than some other qualities, I suppose.

I'm speaking generally here, so please don't interpret it as though I'm saying it's an absolute, but the kinds of people who do this also tend to be conflict-avoidant and cool-headed. Hot-headedness, the tendency to confront things head on, and being up front about things/not ghosting, are traits that will usually occur together. (There is also hot-headed and conflict-avoidant, but those people tend to do some kind of "withdraw and implode" pattern, and you'll see passive-aggressiveness linked to it.)

I'm generally wary of people who are conflict-avoidant and non-communicative. It's not compatible with what I value.

Representatives of this type early on realize their natural advantage (and do not allow anyone else to dispute it) – their talent to see in any person his or her latent ethical qualities and potential predisposition to harmful and malicious behaviors. Using this talent his natural shield, ESI builds relations with people very carefully and observantly. He is very perceptive of how others relate to him and always feels other people's disposition towards himself. He readily notices lies, falsity, hypocrisy, both in respect to himself and in respect to others. With characteristic of him maximalism, which reflects his firm ethical stances, Dreiser prefers to maintain relations only with those who completely correspond to his personal criteria. Even if this creates an impression that he places very high demands on people in his environment, ESI is not capable of lowering them, regardless or who and how asks him for it.




The "shielding against harm by using their talent to see in any person his or her latent ethical qualities and potential predisposition to harmful and malicious behaviors" etc.....in my quoted section, that is one of my ways of shielding myself from abandonment/loss without closure. I can quell a person's anger, and I can work with them to resolve relationship issues, but I can't do anything with someone who is silent or disappears without notice. I tend to interpret the latter as not valuing our relationship, so it hurts much worse than something said or done in anger (when it's normal, I don't mean abusive anger). I value perseverance in relationships. Not even bothering to have a discussion to resolve things tells me that I valued them more than they valued me, because if it was me in those shoes, I would've tried to fix it instead of just throwing them away. In my mind, if you care about something/someone, you will fight to keep it/them.

[necrosebud]

Good lord. I go from writing the quoted post, to viewing another post from my friend list feed, where @Beautiful sky posted Strati's description of ESI's. I click on the link, and the very first thing I read is the same thing as the very last thing I had just posted. I forget sometimes, how well I do relate to it.


Representatives of this type early on realize their natural advantage (and do not allow anyone else to dispute it) – their talent to see in any person his or her latent ethical qualities and potential predisposition to harmful and malicious behaviors. Using this talent his natural shield, ESI builds relations with people very carefully and observantly. He is very perceptive of how others relate to him and always feels other people's disposition towards himself. He readily notices lies, falsity, hypocrisy, both in respect to himself and in respect to others. With characteristic of him maximalism, which reflects his firm ethical stances, Dreiser prefers to maintain relations only with those who completely correspond to his personal criteria. Even if this creates an impression that he places very high demands on people in his environment, ESI is not capable of lowering them, regardless or who and how asks him for it.




The "shielding against harm by using perception about ethical qualities" etc.....in my quoted section, that is one of my ways of shielding myself from abandonment/loss without closure.

it more or less seems to fit me too, minus the (perceptiveness regarding) potential predisposition to malicious or harmful behavior (probably)

also not necessarily the bit about not being able to “lowering the criteria” (I don’t look at it as lowering anyway, it’s understanding that people are coming from diff situations/perspectives and are shaped by them)

but anyway minor stuff, generally I can relate

[Beautiful sky]

Good lord. I go from writing the quoted post, to viewing another post from my friend list feed, where @Beautiful sky posted Strati's description of ESI's. I click on the link, and the very first thing I read is the same thing as the very last thing I had just posted. I forget sometimes, how well I do relate to it.


Representatives of this type early on realize their natural advantage (and do not allow anyone else to dispute it) – their talent to see in any person his or her latent ethical qualities and potential predisposition to harmful and malicious behaviors. Using this talent his natural shield, ESI builds relations with people very carefully and observantly. He is very perceptive of how others relate to him and always feels other people's disposition towards himself. He readily notices lies, falsity, hypocrisy, both in respect to himself and in respect to others. With characteristic of him maximalism, which reflects his firm ethical stances, Dreiser prefers to maintain relations only with those who completely correspond to his personal criteria. Even if this creates an impression that he places very high demands on people in his environment, ESI is not capable of lowering them, regardless or who and how asks him for it.




The "shielding against harm by using their talent to see in any person his or her latent ethical qualities and potential predisposition to harmful and malicious behaviors" etc.....in my quoted section, that is one of my ways of shielding myself from abandonment/loss without closure. I can quell a person's anger, and I can work with them to resolve relationship issues, but I can't do anything with someone who is silent or disappears without notice. I tend to interpret the latter as not valuing our relationship, so it hurts much worse than something said or done in anger (when it's normal, I don't mean abusive anger). I value perseverance in relationships. Not even bothering to have a discussion to resolve things tells me that I valued them more than they valued me, because if it was me in those shoes, I would've tried to fix it instead of just throwing them away. In my mind, if you care about something/someone, you will fight to keep it/them.

Yes!
Strati has me down too: “poor peace is better than a good quarrel.”

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

it more or less seems to fit me too, minus the (perceptiveness regarding) potential predisposition to malicious or harmful behavior (probably)

also not necessarily the bit about not being able to “lowering the criteria” (I don’t look at it as lowering anyway, it’s understanding that people are coming from diff situations/perspectives and are shaped by them)

but anyway minor stuff, generally I can relate

Out of curiosity, what Socionics type do you identify with the most?

I definitely relate to not "lowering the criteria" also. "These are my values, and this is what I search for in those I form intimate relationships with." I understand that people are different, but I'm able to just admire the diversity from a distance. I enjoy listening to, and learning about, the variances in others; I'm intellectually curious in that way, but as for forming a personal relationship? That's a big no-no for me, unless they work on changing those things about themselves. I'm willing to guide them into those changes, as well, if that's what they actually want themselves. If I can work with them, I'll give things a chance. I'm insightful and accurate when it comes to developing recovery or change strategies, and I use active listening to place myself in their shoes and then come up with working solutions for that development. I've felt, seen, heard, and experienced, so much throughout my life, that I almost always am able to relate enough to understand in-depth. If they won't "come to my level," though, I won't go to theirs. I know myself, and I know what I'm compatible with. Writing it out, it sounds somewhat selfish, but it's not because I refuse to push someone into making changes they don't desire on their own. I believe that this would result in "losing yourself in someone else," and the person would inevitably begin to feel disconnected from their genuine selves later on down the road, so I don't believe in "changing for others." Therefore, it's not selfish, as I am only guiding them into their own goals. I do provide this kind of help for things I don't want, also, but if it conflicts with what I personally am compatible with, I consider those to be "therapy relationships" and I keep them at an arm's length without allowing feelings to grow into something more intimate than that. I maintain several relationships like this, I see "lost souls" and counsel them into where they want to go inside themselves. Those are the relationships I have to take regular breaks from so I can avoid my own emotional burnout.