Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 156

Thread: LSE/ESTj Subtypes - discussion and examples

  1. #81

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    854
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Minde View Post


    I wonder what idolatrie would say about that... From what I can tell, she doesn't seem to have many of these "normal" traits. I could be wrong, though, of course.
    I think this may be a major difference between Si subtype and Te subtype. Specifically the "grilling" and pushing for information has come more from the Te subtype. I think from my experience the Si will back down, but might end up inferring some kind of bad thing, instead of just thinking maybe it is neutral and just cannot be talked about, or maybe it is not the right time to talk about it or something.

    If information is not disclosed, or refused, to me it feels like Si are hurt and they kind of back down, while it feels like the Te is angry and they shut down (feels more hostile).
    EII 4w5

    so/sx (?)

  2. #82
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sereno View Post
    When I ask someone about something, and they don't want to talk about it, I simply say that "if you want you can tell me when you are ready, because I would really like to know." Or if it's something that they don't want to talk about ever, so long as it's something that doesn't affect me, then I have to respect that. LSEs and ESEs don't work that way, and I do think they have to be "trained" to be patient and actually trust. This is how it could workout at the beginning level:
    1) "Do you trust me?" -> "Yes"
    2) "I'm going somewhere today and I will be back in (time frame), and I won't tell you what I did until I get back" -> "..."
    3) When you get back, you say what it was.
    4) Increase the time frame and go back to (1).

    This might drive them a little crazy, pay no mind to the complaining. It's for their own good. Another thing is to always, always, "grill back." I don't believe in vengeance, but you sometimes have to treat people as they treat you so they can realize what they are doing if it's going too far. Also, a good thing would be to never disclose things that are uncomfortable for you to talk about, unless they disclose something as well, and THEY have to do it first. I'm serious in that there has to be some sort of training involved, and things that you just have to impose in order for things to work out. The paranoia things has to be worked out in some way or another.
    Yeah, that makes sense.
    Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
    If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.

    ~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
    ~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.

  3. #83
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Minde View Post
    But Se is supposed to be an unconscious function. Which means you shouldn't be thinking consciously about it, right?
    Well what does that mean?

    Also I don't think you answered two of my questions. The first was - What if the person you're asking questions of just doesn't want to talk about it?
    I missed that. But I sort of answered it anyways. It depends entirely on what "it" is. If it isn't that big of a deal than I don't care. Obviously people aren't going to tell me everything. And, I don't want to know a lot of things anyways. If it is not pertinent to whatever business, then I don't really care.

    But when I get "paranoid", or am in an unhealthy state, then things can seem more suspicious, and people's reticence will seem more threatening. Sometimes even so much as to create problems that are not there.

    The second was - What "negative behaviors" were you seeing in me, the ones that will push away my dual?
    I wasn't talking about "you", Minde. I was talking about everyone in general. Every person has negative qualities that will drive their dual away - that will drive everyone away.


    I wonder what idolatrie would say about that... From what I can tell, she doesn't seem to have many of these "normal" traits. I could be wrong, though, of course.
    Normal?

    Minde, you still seem to be interpreting unhealthy behavior as "normal". Why did you put normal in quotes?
    Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
    If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.

    ~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
    ~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    854
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I should say something here about the LSE and asking lots of questions. In several situations this has actually helped me, a lot. By asking questions, hard questions, that maybe at times I didn't want to talk about, they have been able to help me.

    If they take the information I give them and then offer some advice about what I should or could DO with that information, I really appreciate this.
    EII 4w5

    so/sx (?)

  5. #85
    Minde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Amongst the stars
    TIM
    EII/INFj E9w1sp
    Posts
    4,451
    Mentioned
    148 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    UDP, I don't think we're on the same wavelength. Maybe I'll try again later.
    Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.

  6. #86
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, we don't seem to be connecting at the moment. That sounds like a good idea.
    Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
    If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.

    ~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
    ~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.

  7. #87
    idolatrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    413
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Guys. Whoa. There's a heap of things I want to respond to here, so instead of quoting people I'm just going to structure it my way.

    On Questioning People
    I have to admit I didn't think I did this that much. I mean, that's just not part of my self image, that I'm this interrogative individual. But I thought about a close LSE friend I have, and I guess one could interpret his behaviour as interrogative. I can see how he uses lots of questions to suss people out upon meeting them. to work out what sort of positions they have. He usually takes a more active approach with regards to that than I do, but they are all questions I would ask myself. I have noticed that sometimes people are slightly taken aback by the number of questions he lobs at them, and usually don't ask him stuff back - so it ends up seeming really one-sided. But I don't think he realises that.

    Which led me to the realisation that I too do it. I just don't think about it at all. I find it very difficult to just 'sense' what people think - about me or situations or whatever, so I need to ask them to find out. And there's also this bizarre need for balance and equality in a conversation - if someone asks me a question, then I'll reply as fully as I can and then I'll add a question of my own on. Just so the conversation feels equal. It's like an imperative cannot break unless I consciously decide I want to signal to the other person I don't want to continue the conversation/interaction.

    So yeah, LSEs probably do ask a lot of questions. But I don't think it is Se driven. It's more about getting information in a means that I can understand and slot into my data bank. I need to build up little profiles of everyone in my head, because that is what I use to determine how to interact with them. It's like using Te and Si to make up for Fi. (I think. Someone more socionically inclined feel free to advise.)

    I don't think the purpose is to test people per se. I see testing people emotionally as screwing around with them to force them to give you some kind of emotional response that they particularly want. I think someone did this to me and it fucked me over pretty badly, so I can say with 100% sincerity that I never want to intentionally do that to someone else.

    Trying to determine the power dynamics in a situation and using questions to try to nudge them into revealing their position in the power hierarchy in the situation is something else entirely though. Though I prefer to not be overt about working that out! Again, I think it is using other functions to cope with needing Fi help.

    On Asking Inappropriate Questions
    So as a corollary of asking lots of questions in order to work out how to relate to people, I guess it is inevitable that sometimes those questions will be Inappropriate and possibly even Annoying As Fuck. Um...oops? I know I've done this and I've totally cringed about it afterwards. But I don't always learn from my mistakes and I'll no doubt do this again. It happens. If I was perfect, I'd be a damn robot. And that would be sad. Because I've heard that all the mechanics are SLIs, and then I'll never find my dual!

    Seriously though. If something's inappropriate, tell me!

    On Badgering the Witness
    What about constantly asking the same question? Well, the LSE in question could just be a dumbass, and have the people-skills of a rock. I'm the first to admit that LSEs need all the Fi help they can get, but um, I do think we're you know, socially functional. We're not SLIs, after all. (Sorry SLIs, I totally <3 you!)

    But trying to think of when I might do this. It could be as a kind of barometer for changes in attitude to some internal benchmark I have. Like I have a friend who I used to have a crush on someone I know, but she wouldn't tell me who at the time. So I'd ask her whenever I saw her 'so are you going to tell me who he is now??' to kind of work out where she was at regarding her feelings towards him. And she'd blush and stuff, and I'd get a reaction. And I'd file that all away in my little mental folder for their relationship. Did this annoy her? I have no idea. I mean, eventually she told me everything that went on, and we're both really open about the trouble with boys we both have, so I don't think it hurt our relationship at all. But um, hai thar, I'm fi-dual-seeking, I'm not the best judge of that!!

    On What A Failure To Answer Means
    Instinctively: you're hiding something. If there's no good reason for not answering a question - and being told it is because doing so would break a confidence to someone else is a perfectly valid reason which I wouldn't want to trespass - then I'm sorry, but I'm going to presume that it is to hide something. Think about why LSEs ask questions (I'm generalising here based on my self knowledge, and what I've seen in this thread so far, particularly from UDP). We ask to find out things in order to better understand people. So fundamentally, when someone blocks that investigation, it creates this blind spot that the LSE just cannot fathom and will automatically think the worst of.

    I'm not saying that I need every single question I ask answered immediately, with complete candour (I mean, the whole world isn't made of other LSEs after all!). But if someone seems to sidestep a question that I believe is not inappropriate (if it is, see above section), then all the information available to me is that they don't want to allow me to properly construct their profile in my brain, and that's just dangerous, yo.

    This attitude probably isn't fair or even healthy. But, like, LSEs are really frickin' needy. Seriously. We're like these giant dolls controlled by a tiny fragile child inside.

    What If the LSE In My Life Isn't Asking Me Questions?
    Congratulations, you're in the inner zone! I've noticed this with my LSE friend too - after our initial phase of basically interacting through asking each other lots of questions, we graduated to a stage of just volunteering information to each other. Bypassing asking the questions. Maybe it was recognising in each other the need to collect information in order to access people. So we'd see each other and be all 'omg, I've done this, this, this. This happened, then that. Then this other thing happened.' And like, that works perfectly for us.

    Questions are a means of accessing people. So if you're not getting any, then you're at one of the two extremes: either the LSE doesn't need questions any more to access you (you're in!) or the LSE doesn't care about you enough to want to access you.


    Aaaand, I think this has gotten long enough. Haha. Obviously I haven't covered everything that's gone down in the discussion in this thread, so if there's something glaring that I've missed, point it out to me.
    allez cuisine!

  8. #88
    unefille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    841
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Observations about Idolatrie - Generalisable to LSE-Si?

    This is a bit strange, but this questioning-question has exploded. I haven't read ALL of your respons, but I wanted to add that:

    Although Idolatrie has now conceded that the general ESTj way of behaviour does involve a degree of interrogation, I actually don't think this is necessary always true in all circumstances.

    When Idolatrie questions: This usually happens when I'm telling her something, usually an idea. She's good at pulling apart what is going on. But otherwise I really don't notice a lot of questioning fro her. Her main mode of communication is usually quite reflective and dialogue-based or, if she's excited, what I call a 'Te dump' where she blurts out a lot of information, usually in the form of observations about concrete facts - 'I did this, this happened, he wore this, it smelt like this, this, that etc'.

    Maybe the Te Dump happens when LSEs are more comfortable, I'm not sure. I've never felt interrogated by idolatrie and I've never felt that she's pressed me to reveal information that I'm tentative about revealing. It might be that I preface what I'm saying with 'I would love to tell you. But I can't. Just take my word for it.' She's never questioned me beyond that. She might raise an eyebrow. But nothing more. Even our other male LSE friend has never done so. He's always respected people's rights to keep their own counsel.

    When Idolatrie doesn't question: More annoying for me is that I often think idolatrie should ask MORE questions. There have been more than one situation when idolatrie didn't ask me any questions about what I was referencing/talking about/meaning, and simply proceeded to form a bizarre assumption and acted on that. Later when I asked, exasperated, why didn't you just me to clarify, she would respond: I didn't think it was any of my business to ask. I just assumed this was the case - she tried to use what she knew to piece together some understanding and deliberately REFRAINED from asking me to explain myself.

    I've always observed that she tends to see interrogative behaviour as rude and an affront. Where we are heavily questioned (or I am by the many ISTjs we encounter), she usually tells me how rude she found the questioner. And whilst sometimes I tell her that what her self-image is differs from who she actually is, I don't think that she's necessarily mistaken about the degree of interrogativeness of her behaviour. She asks questions, as do we all, but it is never becomes an interrogation or a hunt for the TRUTH without regard to my (or anyone's) right to choose not to disclose.

    I'm just adding my two sense to this.
    ()
    3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp

  9. #89
    Minde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Amongst the stars
    TIM
    EII/INFj E9w1sp
    Posts
    4,451
    Mentioned
    148 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Asking questions (usually) doesn't bother me. In fact, it's probably a good thing with regard to me. While I do my best never to lie, I'm not the most obvious person in the world. People who don't ask me questions about myself can gain a lot just by closely watching me, making inferences from their observations. But even that way there will likely be a lot that they won't know. So asking me questions would be the only way to find out. I actually appreciate most questioning because it means somebody notices and has an interest in me.

    The thing that I don't like, which is mostly what I was talking about in this thread, is when those questions cross personal boundaries into something that I just don't want to share for whatever personal reason I have.

    Idolatrie, from what I can tell, you don't have problems with that. You respect boundaries, even too much sometimes from what Unefille says. You are so far what I'd expect from an LSE and you sound very nice to be around. UDP, on the other hand, seemed to be saying that not only does he push at those boundaries, but he enjoys it - he enjoys breaking down those walls and dragging forth the information. (If I'm wrong I appreciate correction.)

    I should also say that asking tough questions to get me thinking isn't normally the same as crossing boundaries. I appreciate those questions, too, even if I don't answer them aloud all the time.
    Last edited by Minde; 05-12-2008 at 06:57 PM.
    Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.

  10. #90
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by esper View Post
    I agree that, in the English nature of the word, because of Fe PoLR LSE copes by being generally wary of "power" distribution. From my experience, their understanding of it has more to do with seeking an understanding and manipulation of Fi
    That was a good post, and I very much agree with your understanding in the above quote.
    Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
    If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.

    ~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
    ~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.

  11. #91
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idolatrie View Post
    Guys. Whoa. There's a heap of things I want to respond to here, so instead of quoting people I'm just going to structure it my way.

    On Questioning People
    I have to admit I didn't think I did this that much. I mean, that's just not part of my self image, that I'm this interrogative individual. But I thought about a close LSE friend I have, and I guess one could interpret his behaviour as interrogative. I can see how he uses lots of questions to suss people out upon meeting them. to work out what sort of positions they have. He usually takes a more active approach with regards to that than I do, but they are all questions I would ask myself. I have noticed that sometimes people are slightly taken aback by the number of questions he lobs at them, and usually don't ask him stuff back - so it ends up seeming really one-sided. But I don't think he realises that.

    Which led me to the realisation that I too do it. I just don't think about it at all. I find it very difficult to just 'sense' what people think - about me or situations or whatever, so I need to ask them to find out. And there's also this bizarre need for balance and equality in a conversation - if someone asks me a question, then I'll reply as fully as I can and then I'll add a question of my own on. Just so the conversation feels equal. It's like an imperative cannot break unless I consciously decide I want to signal to the other person I don't want to continue the conversation/interaction.

    So yeah, LSEs probably do ask a lot of questions. But I don't think it is Se driven. It's more about getting information in a means that I can understand and slot into my data bank. I need to build up little profiles of everyone in my head, because that is what I use to determine how to interact with them. It's like using Te and Si to make up for Fi. (I think. Someone more socionically inclined feel free to advise.)
    Yes, I agree with all of that.

    I don't think the purpose is to test people per se. I see testing people emotionally as screwing around with them to force them to give you some kind of emotional response that they particularly want. I think someone did this to me and it fucked me over pretty badly, so I can say with 100% sincerity that I never want to intentionally do that to someone else.
    Aha, that is why you guys are getting your feathers ruffled over, the "Test" word. (I have already seen Minde's post where she feels I am enthralled by pushing people's boundaries). Obviously there is a blatant negative connotation to "testing". I should have spent more time with that, but I didn't realize it would get everyone so up in arms. When I said testing, I didn't mean "challenging" or "fucking with" someone, and I CERTAINLY didn't mean trying to get some sort of emotional response. I hate that too. When I said testing, (to put it in more connotation-pleasant terms), I was referring to what Idolatrie just said:

    "It's more about getting information in a means that I can understand and slot into my data bank. I need to build up little profiles of everyone in my head, because that is what I use to determine how to interact with them."


    Trying to determine the power dynamics in a situation and using questions to try to nudge them into revealing their position in the power hierarchy in the situation is something else entirely though. Though I prefer to not be overt about working that out! Again, I think it is using other functions to cope with needing Fi help.
    Yeah, asking other people you trust about what is going on in their situation to get another viewpoint helps here - not just in "power dynamics", but in terms of most things, especially interpersonal stuff.


    On Asking Inappropriate Questions
    So as a corollary of asking lots of questions in order to work out how to relate to people, I guess it is inevitable that sometimes those questions will be Inappropriate and possibly even Annoying As Fuck. Um...oops? I know I've done this and I've totally cringed about it afterwards. But I don't always learn from my mistakes and I'll no doubt do this again. It happens. If I was perfect, I'd be a damn robot. And that would be sad. Because I've heard that all the mechanics are SLIs, and then I'll never find my dual!

    Seriously though. If something's inappropriate, tell me!
    I tell that to everyone I think I might be verging on inappropriate territory.

    On Badgering the Witness
    What about constantly asking the same question? Well, the LSE in question could just be a dumbass, and have the people-skills of a rock. I'm the first to admit that LSEs need all the Fi help they can get, but um, I do think we're you know, socially functional. We're not SLIs, after all. (Sorry SLIs, I totally <3 you!)

    But trying to think of when I might do this. It could be as a kind of barometer for changes in attitude to some internal benchmark I have. Like I have a friend who I used to have a crush on someone I know, but she wouldn't tell me who at the time. So I'd ask her whenever I saw her 'so are you going to tell me who he is now??' to kind of work out where she was at regarding her feelings towards him. And she'd blush and stuff, and I'd get a reaction. And I'd file that all away in my little mental folder for their relationship. Did this annoy her? I have no idea. I mean, eventually she told me everything that went on, and we're both really open about the trouble with boys we both have, so I don't think it hurt our relationship at all. But um, hai thar, I'm fi-dual-seeking, I'm not the best judge of that!!
    Yeah. The bold part is related to "testing" - as I used the word.

    On What A Failure To Answer Means
    Instinctively: you're hiding something. If there's no good reason for not answering a question - and being told it is because doing so would break a confidence to someone else is a perfectly valid reason which I wouldn't want to trespass - then I'm sorry, but I'm going to presume that it is to hide something. Think about why LSEs ask questions (I'm generalising here based on my self knowledge, and what I've seen in this thread so far, particularly from UDP). We ask to find out things in order to better understand people. So fundamentally, when someone blocks that investigation, it creates this blind spot that the LSE just cannot fathom and will automatically think the worst of.
    Yes, I agree.

    I'm not saying that I need every single question I ask answered immediately, with complete candour (I mean, the whole world isn't made of other LSEs after all!). But if someone seems to sidestep a question that I believe is not inappropriate (if it is, see above section), then all the information available to me is that they don't want to allow me to properly construct their profile in my brain, and that's just dangerous, yo.
    Bingo

    This attitude probably isn't fair or even healthy. But, like, LSEs are really frickin' needy. Seriously. We're like these giant dolls controlled by a tiny fragile child inside.
    I think that's a bit much. But given the nature of your response, I get it.

    What If the LSE In My Life Isn't Asking Me Questions?
    Congratulations, you're in the inner zone! I've noticed this with my LSE friend too - after our initial phase of basically interacting through asking each other lots of questions, we graduated to a stage of just volunteering information to each other. Bypassing asking the questions. Maybe it was recognising in each other the need to collect information in order to access people. So we'd see each other and be all 'omg, I've done this, this, this. This happened, then that. Then this other thing happened.' And like, that works perfectly for us.

    Questions are a means of accessing people. So if you're not getting any, then you're at one of the two extremes: either the LSE doesn't need questions any more to access you (you're in!) or the LSE doesn't care about you enough to want to access you.
    Going back to Idolatrie's analogy of a little mental folder, if I actually get to the point where I understand you well enough and "the folder" has enough relevant information so I can understand how you function, then the questions stop, (somewhat at least). If I really understand you on a deep level, I don't need to ask so many questions, I can start aligning things towards how you like them, and be more focused on having more meaningful interaction.

    Here, it's like this: the analogy of going to class. (It could be a meeting or anything else). But let's say a class room. If I go to class, and we are discussing a topic, and I DIDN'T have any reading done, or study things before hand, or have much background to know what is going on, then I will spend the class not interacting much, more trying to understand what is going on. Maybe asking questions to clarify, but in that situation, I am in "taking in information" mode. Now, if I DID do the required reading, or I have studied my notes, or it has just been a few classes of the first situation and I actually have a grasp of what is going on, then my dialogue and interaction in the class is more substantial.

    This isn't the best analogy, but, I hope it makes sense. After I'm in class for a while or am well prepared and well informed about what is going on, I can address the deeper, more significant stuff of what is going on. I don't have to keep asking surface level question to keep "acquainting myself" with the situation.

    So basically when you get to the level where I feel close enough to not ask you that many questions, then it's more just fluid interaction. Does that make sense? It is not a perfect analogy.
    Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
    If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.

    ~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
    ~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.

  12. #92
    tereg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    EII/INFj
    Posts
    4,680
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I want to lay out what I see in this thread. Just as a summary... (which includes some overlap of what other people are quoting).

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    If something changes, tell the LSE. If things are the same, even consider telling the LSE.

    What makes me trust people the most is when they consistently tell me things, and those things are consistently true. I don't particularly care whether I want to "hear" those things or not, it doesn't matter if things are pleasant or not. In fact, I, personally, will appreciate someone even more if they do tell me those things that are difficult to hear.

    So basically, a positive example of trust would be:
    - tells me the truth about things, whether it is "favoruable sounding" or not
    - consistently let's me know what is going on
    - doesn't change plans on a whim, or at least if this happens, I am informed
    - if you believe in something, living it in your everyday actions.

    a negative example would be:
    - doesn't tell me truth in general
    - particularly avoids telling me the truth if it sounds "unfavourable sounding"
    - doesn't care to let me know what's going on (doesn't return texts or phone calls)
    - changes plans on a whim, and often forgets to tell me
    - professes beliefs, or considers them, and then frequently acts out of alignment with those beliefs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Christy B View Post
    As for the negative examples what if you ask a question and because the person doesn't want to lie, but cannot tell you exactly what has happened or what has gone on, just doesn't say anything. Like they sincerely cannot tell you. . .
    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    Depends on how important the matter is. The more important, the more pressure will be applied. Pressure forces people to tell the truth, to lie (and thus compromise themselves), or to make you know that the person really isn't going to back down (read some E8 descriptions...).

    If it is a minor detail and clearly none of my business, then so be it. But personally I always remember who doesn't want to tell me what. People hide things for a reason, whether it is real significance, fear, or whatever, there's something telling about what people hide.
    ^ This message I think in particular is key. This does not demonstrate some sort of unhealthy/healthy difference, in my opinion. Thus far, what I've laid out so far looks like a preference of yours to gain information, not necessarily what a healthy/unhealthy person does to try to gain information. And how do you gain information? Either people willingly telling you, or you asking for information. Yes?

    You even said so yourself: The more important a matter is to you, the more pressure will be applied -- pressure will either bring out the truth or a lie. And if they still refuse to tell you, then you make a mental note of that. But there's more to it than this.

    Continuing on...

    Quote Originally Posted by Christy B View Post
    Yeah I know the E8 well. . . but. . .
    What if it is too messed up to talk about? Ever. To anyone. Or what if someone asked you not to say anything? Sometimes people ask me not to talk about what they have told me, and you can also tell what is OK to talk about and what should not be told. I won't tell if someone has asked me not to.
    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    Oh. Well if it is something "someone else" said to you, that's different I guess. I can understand and respect that sort of trust. My initial reaction to what I bolded is "that doesn't exist".
    This is my interpretation of what you said here: If someone doesn't want to tell you something, fine, you respect that to some degree, but it sounds like you think that such pieces of information really don't exist. I.e. "I think that whether or not you think you want to tell me, you should."

    Continuing...

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    There is a two-fold answer to that - one, personally, I don't think anything is ultimately so significant that cannot be mentioned. I am not afraid of anything, and I've heard a ton of shit, and I've interrogated a ton of shit out of people, and I've found answers to questions that you probably aren't suppose to find, so to me "too messed up to talk about" just doesn't exist. That comes across as something you are unable to deal with, or an excuse to not talk about something or face a situation, which I have always and will always adamantly oppose. Two, hmm, I forgot, but I'll get around to it. I think it is related to the nature that being able to talk about something allows you to overcome it.
    And you confirm this interpretation with the above quote. Nothing is so significant that it cannot be hidden or mentioned. You're not afraid of information, so why should others be afraid?

    You even said so yourself that "I am not afraid of anything, and I've heard a ton of shit, and I've interrogated a ton of shit out of people, and I've found answers to questions that you probably aren't suppose to find, so to me "too messed up to talk about" just doesn't exist. That comes across as something you are unable to deal with, or an excuse to not talk about something or face a situation, which I have always and will always adamantly oppose."

    This again mentions nothing, NOTHING about your possible healthy/unhealthy state. This is a preference of yours.

    Continuing on...

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    Oh wait, I remember - how much you can disclose stuff to someone is directly related to how much you trust them, sort of. You can always filter what you disclose. But how much of those "hard things" you talk to someone, or let them know, is directly proportional to your level of involvement, significance, and so on - in the pragmatic terms. (and again, based on my preferences I suppose).
    Here is the first mention of a possibility of pointing to a semblance of a health level: that being the health level of trust between two people. And what this sounds like to me is that, even if the level of trust between you and another person is unhealthy, it shouldn't be that way, because, my impression is is that in your mind, healthy levels between two people comes as a result (in part) of full disclosure.


    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    So the more you don't talk about things or don't want to address issues, I sort of see that as the level of closeness we have.

    --- Ideally, with my closest person or SO, I'd want to be able to talk about everything. I would not enjoy holding back, or, being told that things aren't to be spoken of (generally).


    .....? What does that mean? What sort of thing can't you talk about? And why can't you talk about it? Because it is too difficult for you to speak about? That whole thing doesn't really register. Because, imo, the whole idea that "I want to but I really can't" is sort of an excuse to yourself. If you wanted to tell him you would, but you're choosing not to. That's fine - just be upfront about it, and don't fool yourself or play the cop out.
    And again, this is showing me that the notion of not being open with disclosure is unacceptable to you. This still is linked back to how YOU, how you want to extract that information -- pressure. You want the information from the other person, regardless if it makes them uncomfortable, because, in my opinion, you see it as a growing experience that they go through the pressure. In your mind, they NEED to do it because information should be freely disclosed.

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    Yes
    Heh heh heh... part of the problem is that it has to do with insecurity about information - we want IT ALL.
    "we" as I see it, you are talking about LSE's. YOU (collective) want it all.

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    Everything. Secondly, it can be somewhat enjoyable to force stuff out of people. Thirdly, it lets you know where the other person stands, as I described above, in relation to you. It is somewhat of a physical way to measure things, although it is unpleasant, and often leaves people uneasy. Again, I see this as a very E8 thing, because it is very instinctual, and very much just getting down to the core of who you are as a person and how you relate to me. In some ways, it doesn't matter what you say or what the subject matter is, it is testing you, always, to see where you stand on things. Testing you, and testing the situation, to understand the power dynamics that are at play.

    It is somewhat of a constant analysis of your character, ideology, trust levels, what you think is important or not, who is important to you.... it is very probing.
    This probing process is really, if you look at it, a form of applying pressure. It varies in levels, but it's a definite lean. You want that information from people.

    Again, the basis for these explanations does not hinge on how healthy or unhealthy you are. This is, again, to reiterate -- A. Preference. Of. Yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    It is interesting to find these things out, and, it's a bit like shaking something buried in sand - you want to see what is really there, and get past the little bits of fleeting material that covers up who you really are.

    Yes. No one said LSEs or E8s are very "fair". Making an appeal to this might get you something or at least cease the relentlessness for a while - if it seems legitimate, maybe.
    Again, it's not important (again, my opinion and observation) to you that people see LSE's or E8's as unfair. What is important is the level of disclosure that a person provides to you.

    This is akin to the saying "No pressure, no diamonds." In your mind, if it's something that is difficult to do that is valuable to do, then it should be done for the betterment of the other person. Doesn't matter if it's hard, they should go through with it.

    That's what I hear.

    continued in next post...
    INFj

    9w1 sp/sx

  13. #93
    tereg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    EII/INFj
    Posts
    4,680
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Continuing on...

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    I don't like lying, but I know a lot of people who don't care about that. And yes, I try to keep information relevant to what is being discussed. And absolutely there is some holding back - which is again related to what I said above, about trust. It goes for me too - I won't say much if I don't think you're really worth talking to.

    Information is a valuable and scarce resource. Not just information, but accurate, relevant, and high-influence information. It is something to be noted.

    You're talking about me whether you realize it or not; no, we've not had much interaction along these lines thus far, but it applies to me very much.

    UDP, the reason why I'm doing this is to demonstrate that I'm not just cherry picking and isolating a line or two of your quotes. This is a consistent theme in what you express. This is an independent issue, apart from what level of mental health you currently have. This is a core value and desire of yours.

    I think a relevant question to ask in this case is, ok, if what you're saying is relevant to an LSE, that means that theoretically, in a socionics sense that in the long run, this full disclosure of information will be useful to an EII, even though they might resist the idea. The question is: How many EII's come around to this idea of growth under pressure and are comfortable with it? Seriously. And I don't mean like, you demonstrate these methods of getting people to a point where they start to disclose more and more information to you, you see it as a challenge for them but it's building them up, so, that's what matters -- no. I mean, like at the core, how many EII's do you think really are comfortable over an extended period of time to provide what you need from them? Maybe they can in short bursts, I'm not saying that EII's are incapable of this. That's not really my point, my point is -- Are you really providing what an EII desires?

    In my opinion, I don't think many EII's would like the idea of someone needing... NEEDING that level of disclosure of their deepest thoughts, their deepest pieces of information to satisfy what you would like to see from the people you interact with.


    I'm sorry man, and I know this is a bit of an aside, but in my opinion, I don't think that you really are an LSE. It's your consistent tone in thread after thread after thread, in threads just like this one. If you disagree with me, fine, but I'm really having a hard time seeing LSE at this point.
    INFj

    9w1 sp/sx

  14. #94
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not sure if this post will lead to clarity based on what tereg wrote. if people still want to see it that already have, then, ask me - its saved. I'm taking it down because I think it will further misinterpretations of things.
    Last edited by UDP; 05-12-2008 at 08:31 PM.
    Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
    If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.

    ~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
    ~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.

  15. #95
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Do you want me to go through tereg's posts and respond to each individual thing?

    I'll just say I disagree with some of his interpretations of things. But I'm not going to "argue him" if that's what he sees. I'll go over the two posts it if someone is particularly interested in what I have to say about them.


    (note: I started writing the response to minde long before I saw tereg's posts)
    Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
    If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.

    ~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
    ~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.

  16. #96
    Minde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Amongst the stars
    TIM
    EII/INFj E9w1sp
    Posts
    4,451
    Mentioned
    148 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Words fail me atm, except to say that Tereg seems to perfectly share my observations and perspective. He seems to have seen just what I did/am and has reached similar, if not the same, conclusions. (Rather, he's reached them while I just pointed at them.) I even thought about doing a similar recap, but decided not to last night because I was too tired. What Tereg is saying is pretty much exactly what I was thinking, more or less, but put a little better perhaps.

    It's nice knowing someone sees what I do. It means I'm not insane. Or, if I am, at least I have friendly company.
    Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.

  17. #97
    tereg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    EII/INFj
    Posts
    4,680
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Minde View Post
    Words fail me atm, except to say that Tereg seems to perfectly share my observations and perspective. He seems to have seen just what I did/am and has reached similar, if not the same, conclusions. (Rather, he's reached them while I just pointed at them.) I even thought about doing a similar recap, but decided not to last night because I was too tired. What Tereg is saying is pretty much exactly what I was thinking, more or less, but put a little better perhaps.

    It's nice knowing someone sees what I do. It means I'm not insane. Or, if I am, at least I have friendly company.
    I'm glad that I could provide that for you.

    It also helps me when people give me that security as well, so, I understand that feeling.
    INFj

    9w1 sp/sx

  18. #98
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tereg View Post
    UDP, the reason why I'm doing this is to demonstrate that I'm not just cherry picking and isolating a line or two of your quotes. This is a consistent theme in what you express. This is an independent issue, apart from what level of mental health you currently have. This is a core value and desire of yours.
    Yes, it is a value, but you seem to be applying it with a very wide brush. You seem to be generalizing it a lot.

    I think a relevant question to ask in this case is, ok, if what you're saying is relevant to an LSE, that means that theoretically, in a socionics sense that in the long run, this full disclosure of information will be useful to an EII, even though they might resist the idea. The question is: How many EII's come around to this idea of growth under pressure and are comfortable with it? Seriously.
    Yeah, that makes perfect sense. (see * below)

    And I don't mean like, you demonstrate these methods of getting people to a point where they start to disclose more and more information to you, you see it as a challenge for them but it's building them up, so, that's what matters -- no. I mean, like at the core, how many EII's do you think really are comfortable over an extended period of time to provide what you need from them? Maybe they can in short bursts, I'm not saying that EII's are incapable of this. That's not really my point, my point is -- Are you really providing what an EII desires?
    To be brief, I very much disagree with your interpretation of what "i need".

    Secondly, I feel like much of what I said, and why I said what I said, has not been understood.

    * Let me ask Tereg and Minde why they think I wrote this post. Or anyone else really.
    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    Don't you realize that I knew all of that well before I started writing that post?

    I was not writing a post on "how to get along best with EIIs"
    Yes, your polr ought to feel properly burned after reading that.
    Consider it an expose of the dark side of things.
    Why do you think I wrote that?



    In my opinion, I don't think many EII's would like the idea of someone needing... NEEDING that level of disclosure of their deepest thoughts, their deepest pieces of information to satisfy what you would like to see from the people you interact with.
    I understand what you are getting at, and the concept makes sense. I don't think You are applying it to me accurately.


    I'm sorry man, and I know this is a bit of an aside, but in my opinion, I don't think that you really are an LSE. It's your consistent tone in thread after thread after thread, in threads just like this one. If you disagree with me, fine, but I'm really having a hard time seeing LSE at this point.
    That's fine. It should be noted that throughout this thread, I am not "defending my type" as LSE.

    Tereg's concerns are legitimate. His understanding of my needs are what I disagree with. But so be it.
    Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
    If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.

    ~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
    ~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.

  19. #99
    tereg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    EII/INFj
    Posts
    4,680
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    Yes, it is a value, but you seem to be applying it with a very wide brush. You seem to be generalizing it a lot.

    Yeah, that makes perfect sense. (see * below)

    To be brief, I very much disagree with your interpretation of what "i need".
    Ok, I can understand why you're saying this. There is a line that has to be drawn between what you need and what you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    --- Ideally, with my closest person or SO, I'd want to be able to talk about everything. I would not enjoy holding back, or, being told that things aren't to be spoken of (generally).
    I mean, clearly, you are saying here that you WANT them to have disclosure of information. I understand what you're pointing out. It's an important distinction that needs to be made.

    What I see consistently in your posts is it's such a strong... hmm... desire of yours to have that level of openness that I can't help but think that it's extremely important to you. And I (again, just my opinion) consider that closer to a need, even though you are saying here that you really want that from other people.

    And the reason why I say that is because... well, let's just go over the example of someone not being transparent enough with you. The way that I see a need is, it's such a strong requirement that it's kind of unacceptable for it not to be that way. Sure, you do accept it on some levels, but for full completeness, it's a core desire for you to receive that information, especially if it's something you feel you really need to hear.

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    Secondly, I feel like much of what I said, and why I said what I said, has not been understood.

    * Let me ask Tereg and Minde why they think I wrote this post. Or anyone else really.

    Why do you think I wrote that?
    My opinion of why you wrote that was either

    1) You got caught emphasizing something that really emotionally affects an EII in a negative way and you needed to find a way to demonstrate that you did consider this beforehand, and conveniently deflecting attention to the fact that this thread isn't about how to get along with EII's, but still attempting to demonstrate that you already know that it makes EII's uncomfortable, yet not really addressing the fact that these methods that you use to extract information you WANT from an EII really makes them uncomfortable, even though you see it as a necessary method of growth

    and/or

    2) You are attempting to allude to a reason (an unhealthy state of mind) as to why an LSE would apply pressure in a way that would emotionally affect an EII to make them feel uncomfortable, understanding full well that it makes an EII extremely uncomfortable, yet you do it anyway because they should do it.


    Just my opinion though.
    INFj

    9w1 sp/sx

  20. #100
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tereg View Post
    My opinion of why you wrote that was either

    1) You got caught emphasizing something that really emotionally affects an EII in a negative way and you needed to find a way to demonstrate that you did consider this beforehand,
    No, I did not "Get caught". Why is that so hard to understand? Is it that odd that I would say of this intentionally, on purpose, deliberately? That seems to be critical factor here.
    and conveniently deflecting attention to the fact that this thread isn't about how to get along with EII's, but still attempting to demonstrate that you already know that it makes EII's uncomfortable, yet not really addressing the fact that these methods that you use to extract information you WANT from an EII really makes them uncomfortable, even though you see it as a necessary method of growth
    That's not true.
    It's kind of funny, because you see -- or rather, apparently I wrote things -- in such a way that implies a general maliciousness. That is what is striking me as so odd, that this is now being viewed as the norm. I don't think anybody would really appreciate that quality. Something so blatantly negative that is now being associated with me, and how I go about things, and apparently something that I want to force on to a EII even though it makes them feel uncomfortable.

    If that's really what you think then yes, I would be quite upset and alarmed as well. But that is not "what I want". So I'm a bit confused as to why it is being interpreted in that way. To me it seems like this is coming from some sort of misunderstanding as to why brought all of this up in the first place. But I really don't know.

    and/or

    2) You are attempting to allude to a reason (an unhealthy state of mind) as to why an LSE would apply pressure in a way that would emotionally affect an EII to make them feel uncomfortable, understanding full well that it makes an EII extremely uncomfortable, yet you do it anyway because they should do it.


    Just my opinion though.
    I don't really understand what your point here is. I wasn't talking, ever, about how an LSE acts with an EII. I was talking about an LSE, in isolation. I was never addressing "how an LSE should act with an EII". I was actually intentionally presenting things that would be problems to establishing trust, things that no one would get along with. I was illustrating, intentionally, things that would not seem appealing. Not appealing to anyone at ally, and yes, including an EII, although that was not why I said what I said. Which is why I made this remark* (see below). I disagree with your entire interpretation of what is going on, as presented in what you said above.

    LSE would apply pressure in a way that would emotionally affect an EII to make them feel uncomfortable, understanding full well that it makes an EII extremely uncomfortable, yet you do it anyway because they should do it.

    The context presented in your words is not applicable. In that post I made no mention whatsoever of how an LSE acts with an EII. You are bringing th EII component into it on your own means, it is not there in my post or in my thought process.

    ...which is thy I wrote *
    Don't you realize that I knew all of that well before I started writing that post?

    I was not writing a post on "how to get along best with EIIs"
    Yes, your polr ought to feel properly burned after reading that.
    Consider it an expose of the dark side of things.
    That's 'my' take on things.
    Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
    If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.

    ~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
    ~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.

  21. #101
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    PS to my post:

    Being an outright insensitive, interrogative asshole is something that NO ONE likes.
    But I thought that was obvious?

    If you think (what apparently is represented by tereg as) "my approach" is better suited for some other type, like a beta NF, it is not. Look at what esper wrote, among other things. And my personal experience with some beta NFs is that they are actually can be quite forward in pointing out when someone is being too interrogative and just as senstive to it as delta NFs.
    Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
    If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.

    ~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
    ~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.

  22. #102
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christy B View Post
    What I find interesting is that some LSE will try and get the information, and think they have a right to it, but only give you the information they want to give you. I am sure it would not have been ok for me to go through his stuff, and would have made him feel really uncomfortable and unable to trust me. This is a major contradiction in values!
    Yes, it is. And it is not something I believe is as appealing to EIIs, or anyone else. But just because it is not appealing doesn't mean it never happens. That is why I brought up so much stuff. I wanted to discuss things that were not appealing.
    Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
    If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.

    ~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
    ~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.

  23. #103
    Minde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Amongst the stars
    TIM
    EII/INFj E9w1sp
    Posts
    4,451
    Mentioned
    148 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    PS to my post:

    Being an outright insensitive, interrogative asshole is something that NO ONE likes.
    But I thought that was obvious?

    If you think (what apparently is represented by tereg as) "my approach" is better suited for some other type, like a beta NF, it is not. Look at what esper wrote, among other things. And my personal experience with some beta NFs is that they are actually can be quite forward in pointing out when someone is being too interrogative and just as senstive to it as delta NFs.
    Yeah, IEIs seem to be better at slapping you across the hand and telling you to cut it out. EII's take it for awhile until they break. That should tell you something.

    From what I understand, according to socionics the way one type naturally acts and what they naturally expect and desire from others corresponds with what their dual naturally wants and how they naturally act. So it makes sense that the person you are hypothetically dealing with, especially when you're talking about your SO, is an EII.

    What Tereg and I are saying is that forcefully pushing for information doesn't jive well with how an EII does things. I think we're all agreeing on that. But, further, that pushing for information from people, in the manner that you have described, is the way you tend to do it, your natural inclinations. Which means that it should naturally fit with your dual. And your natural inclinations don't fit with what an EII wants/expects. Which leads to some logical and socionical confusion.
    Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.

  24. #104
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    "Come with me if you want to live"
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,907
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Minde View Post
    What Tereg and I are saying is that forcefully pushing for information doesn't jive well with how an EII does things. I think we're all agreeing on that. But, further, that pushing for information from people, in the manner that you have described, is the way you tend to do it, your natural inclinations. Which means that it should naturally fit with your dual. And your natural inclinations don't fit with what an EII wants/expects. Which leads to some logical and socionical confusion.
    But what dual would appreciate it? I don't think there is one. Because it is not an inherently positive quality.

    Let's make this an extreme example.

    Let's say that I like stomp on babies. EIIs don't really like it when people stomp on babies, or at least lets assume that. Do you think that because I stomp on babies this means that EIIs are not my dual? Are we going to suspect, then, that perhaps IEIs like it when stomp on babies?

    I doubt it. Why? Because stomping on babies, and being an asshole are not desirable qualities, full stop.
    Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
    If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.

    ~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
    ~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.

  25. #105
    tereg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    EII/INFj
    Posts
    4,680
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The point that I'm making is simply that, what you were describing (in isolation) of the desire to have a level of disclosure that an LSE seeks (this part being independent of any type, it's just simply something that an LSE seeks) the response from EIIs in this thread is that it makes them uncomfortable. And that (at least to me) implies the question "If an LSE wants to achieve that level of disclosure (that you have described here and I have laid out in multiple blocks of quotes of yours) is it really something that an EII is comfortable receiving/experiencing/should receive/should experience?"

    Edit: In other words, what if, hypothetically speaking, another type actually better prefers and is more comfortable with handling the kind of information that you're seeking to gain? Or conversely, what if, hypothetically speaking, the kind of information that an EII wants to divulge is different than what you want to gain from them?

    What the rest of the discussion entailed was describing this sense of... what you were describing isn't intended as malicious, but it clearly created an atmosphere of discomfort. It could be just the way that some of us are interpreting it, but breaking it down very clearly bit by bit concisely, this is what I see:


    - Describing an LSE point-of-view you started off by explaining that you want the people you interact with to be able to disclose ANY piece of information, even if it's something difficult to explain, you still would like it if they explained it to you, because information should not be withheld and information is not sacred. Depending on how important something is to an LSE, an LSE will "pressure" them to either choose to tell the truth or choose to lie about it. That is what you said.

    - EII says "I don't want to feel like I have to give information, I will give information as I choose. I feel uncomfortable with the notion that you will pressure me if you want a piece of information that you consider important."

    - You then say (paraphrasing) "Well, you have to remember that there is a dark side to the LSE and actually, I had already considered that before you said it. Pressuring is not the 'norm' for an LSE."

    And I'll wrap up with this. Maybe pressuring isn't the "norm" state-of-mind. But I think it's clear in this thread that you have expressed a fundamental frame of mind, a desire to achieve, again, a level of disclosure that does not leave pieces of information hidden. That's what your personal point of view says. How do you get pieces of information that people withhold? Asking them. Prodding them. Pressuring them (time frame can vary). "We want IT ALL."

    Again, please note that I'm not describing a "norm" here. I'm describing something more... it's something that you specifically have described that I have laid out that shows a very strong lean towards achieving, at the very least, a desire of yours to reach that level of disclosure. It's even more basic than a "norm". "Norm" would be a generalization over a span of people, whereas what I'm trying to convey is a very specific point of view that you have clearly laid out in this thread -- that being that you'd like it if people were just open with ALL of their thoughts, and how you go about trying to achieve that.
    Last edited by tereg; 05-13-2008 at 12:58 AM.
    INFj

    9w1 sp/sx

  26. #106
    tereg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    EII/INFj
    Posts
    4,680
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP View Post
    But what dual would appreciate it? I don't think there is one. Because it is not an inherently positive quality.

    Let's make this an extreme example.

    Let's say that I like stomp on babies. EIIs don't really like it when people stomp on babies, or at least lets assume that. Do you think that because I stomp on babies this means that EIIs are not my dual? Are we going to suspect, then, that perhaps IEIs like it when stomp on babies?

    I doubt it. Why? Because stomping on babies, and being an asshole are not desirable qualities, full stop.
    I understand you're just illustrating an extreme example here.

    But, I think it's important to keep in mind that seeking to gain information is a rather normal, natural human thing. That's what the basis of this dialogue is about.

    How we approach that will vary. (And I know you already know this, but it needs to be said.) And in your particular case, the way that you would like to approach information exchange is a more open method -- information is not sacred. That is a fundamental value that you have and have expressed clearly.

    Now, with that fundamental value being said, I think it's important to keep in mind how an EII might react when faced with this fundamental value. It seems that what is implied by your fundamental value is a level of disclosure that makes EIIs uncomfortable, to the point of suffocation.

    Now, this is only one aspect of how an EII takes in information, but I think it's important to flesh out these points of ... for lack of a better word, pressure. To try to understand why it is that an EII would be so uncomfortable when they feel pressured to disclose information they don't want to disclose even if it's something that you would like to have.

    I think these aspects are quite involved and act as an important piece of a person's type. After all, we're talking about information metabolism in a very bare sense here, devoid of using information elements and socionics terms at the moment.

    All I'm asking is that you consider the possibility that maybe there are other types that are more receptive and accepting of the kind of information you seek to gain from people.
    INFj

    9w1 sp/sx

  27. #107

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    854
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have seen one LSE-Te needing or wanting information to a point that they have gone beyond their own values/ boundaries to gain that information. I think LSEs do this a lot actually.

    In one example of this the LSE-TE went through my purse and wallet without asking first and thought nothing of it because he wanted to make sure I was who I said I was, to check my age, where I was from and other stuff. I think he took (basically stole because I never got it back) my phone actually in order to get me to hang out with him again or maybe so he could get information. . . I don't know.

    I think people F-with him a lot and it is hard for him to trust, so when he did start to trust me he needed to back it up with hard evidence.

    It was really hard for him to be comfortable around me without making sure he had asked me enough information and checked it and re-checked it to know it was "ok" to relax.
    I totally understood this, which is why I wasn't mad when he went through my shit, or asked me things repeatedly, but it did make me think, why is it ok for you to do this?

    What I find interesting is that some LSE will try and get the information, and think they have a right to it, but only give you the information they want to give you. I am sure it would not have been ok for me to go through his stuff, and would have made him feel really uncomfortable and unable to trust me. This is a major contradiction in values!

    Anyway, I know this guy is LSE-Te, and Idon't think that applying pressure by asking things repeatedly or even applying pressure by going through my things, doesn't make them LSE-Te.

    I think it shows that without Fi to let them know what they are doing isn't right, because just because they want that information doesn't mean they get to have it, even by using force, which I don't see as Se but as unchecked Te really. They are just using Se to get what they want I guess for their Te. If they didn't thin they needed to use Se to get the information they needed they probably wouldn't because it is not as pragmatic and doesn't go along well with Si creative.

    I have no idea if any of that makes any sense at all because I am really tired.
    EII 4w5

    so/sx (?)

  28. #108
    Lobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    TIM
    EII 6w5
    Posts
    2,080
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christy B View Post
    I have seen one LSE-Te needing or wanting information to a point that they have gone beyond their own values/ boundaries to gain that information. I think LSEs do this a lot actually.

    In one example of this the LSE-TE went through my purse and wallet without asking first and thought nothing of it because he wanted to make sure I was who I said I was, to check my age, where I was from and other stuff. I think he took (basically stole because I never got it back) my phone actually in order to get me to hang out with him again or maybe so he could get information. . . I don't know.

    I think people F-with him a lot and it is hard for him to trust, so when he did start to trust me he needed to back it up with hard evidence.

    It was really hard for him to be comfortable around me without making sure he had asked me enough information and checked it and re-checked it to know it was "ok" to relax.
    I totally understood this, which is why I wasn't mad when he went through my shit, or asked me things repeatedly, but it did make me think, why is it ok for you to do this?

    What I find interesting is that some LSE will try and get the information, and think they have a right to it, but only give you the information they want to give you. I am sure it would not have been ok for me to go through his stuff, and would have made him feel really uncomfortable and unable to trust me. This is a major contradiction in values!

    Anyway, I know this guy is LSE-Te, and Idon't think that applying pressure by asking things repeatedly or even applying pressure by going through my things, doesn't make them LSE-Te.

    I think it shows that without Fi to let them know what they are doing isn't right, because just because they want that information doesn't mean they get to have it, even by using force, which I don't see as Se but as unchecked Te really. They are just using Se to get what they want I guess for their Te. If they didn't thin they needed to use Se to get the information they needed they probably wouldn't because it is not as pragmatic and doesn't go along well with Si creative.

    I have no idea if any of that makes any sense at all because I am really tired.
    That's messed up... what did you do?

  29. #109

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    854
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sereno View Post
    That's messed up... what did you do?
    I basically said. . . "What are you doing?" and gave him a stern look like "this is not OK", and he didn't care and was looking at my ID and then looking at me and finally I got my stuff back by kind of trying to pull it away. Never got my phone back though, which he took later on (a different day) after the other incident. I didn't talk to him after that though because he went away and then I went away and canceled that phone with Cingular. I had the same # but I didn't get a new cell for almost 6 months. I have no idea if he ever tried to find me again after that. I didn't try to find him, even though I actually liked him inspite of that whole thing.
    EII 4w5

    so/sx (?)

  30. #110
    idolatrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    413
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christy B View Post
    I basically said. . . "What are you doing?" and gave him a stern look like "this is not OK", and he didn't care and was looking at my ID and then looking at me and finally I got my stuff back by kind of trying to pull it away. Never got my phone back though, which he took later on (a different day) after the other incident. I didn't talk to him after that though because he went away and then I went away and canceled that phone with Cingular. I had the same # but I didn't get a new cell for almost 6 months. I have no idea if he ever tried to find me again after that. I didn't try to find him, even though I actually liked him inspite of that whole thing.
    Christy, darling, I know I shouldn't be passing judgement nor are you asking anyone to, but that is seriously fucked up. What he did, I mean. It's just not alright to violate someone's personal space/belongings like that.

    I know I'm dragging a rather controversial thread back up with this, but I do feel I need to defend LSEs to an extent here. So I'm not trying to start anything up again with this (which is a fairly futile statement to make since I am, by definition of writing on it, starting things up again...um, nevermind.)

    When UDP wrote: "we want it all" I think I understand what he means. As an LSE, I do want to know everything. Have access to all information. But I know that just because I want it doesn't mean I'll get it. I have an ESE friend who is very comfortable always blurting out whatever question comes to mind, but even if I'm thinking the same thing, I won't ask because I feel it is socially inappropriate to do so. I always contrain myself based on whether I think it is appropriate to do something in the situation. And I'm used to not getting what I want - I really don't mean that in an emo woe is me kind of way, but just that hey, wants are unlimited. You are never going to always get what you want. And it's character-building to not get spoilt. So. *shrugs*

    Going back to an earlier point:
    Quote Originally Posted by Sereno View Post
    When I ask someone about something, and they don't want to talk about it, I simply say that "if you want you can tell me when you are ready, because I would really like to know." Or if it's something that they don't want to talk about ever, so long as it's something that doesn't affect me, then I have to respect that. LSEs and ESEs don't work that way, and I do think they have to be "trained" to be patient and actually trust. This is how it could workout at the beginning level:
    1) "Do you trust me?" -> "Yes"
    2) "I'm going somewhere today and I will be back in (time frame), and I won't tell you what I did until I get back" -> "..."
    3) When you get back, you say what it was.
    4) Increase the time frame and go back to (1).
    I've got to say if someone did that to me, I would feel manipulated, and in a bad way. Really bad.

    I know I've made this point before, but if someone told me they couldn't explain something for whatever reason that I thought was valid, then hell yeah I'd respect that. And leave it. I know I've said pretty much exactly what Sereno said he'd say as well - give the other person time and let them know there is a friendly ear available.

    I'm trying to work out why I felt upset at the 'training regime' that Sereno talked of. I think it might be that if I honestly answered the first question with 'yes' then we're talking about one of my closest friends there. People I can name on one hand. And if I trust them, then that's IT. I trust them completely. So if they went and did something somewhere else without wanting to tell me what they were doing, why would that be a problem? I already trust them. I can't imagine why it'd be any of my business anyway. If they were doing something that directly affected me, but didn't want to tell me about it, I would find that weird and disquieting, but ultimately I TRUST them not to fuck around with me. If they broke that trust, then well, that's also it for the friendship. The end. And outside my close friends, well, I don't really give a toss what they do in their own time, it's not my business.

    I don't know. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what's being referred to. But I think I'd find it hurtful if someone did that to me. It sounds like you're training a dog. Sit, boy, stay. Fetch. Roll over.

    Sorry guys, I'm ranting. Been marking essays for the last couple of days straight, and it's driven me insane. I'm about ready to scratch my eyes out to escape it.
    allez cuisine!

  31. #111

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    854
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idolatrie View Post
    Sorry guys, I'm ranting. Been marking essays for the last couple of days straight, and it's driven me insane. I'm about ready to scratch my eyes out to escape it.
    No you are fine. Doesn't come off as ranting. Are you a teacher?

    PS Thanks for your posts. They are helpful.
    EII 4w5

    so/sx (?)

  32. #112
    idolatrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    413
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christy B View Post
    No you are fine. Doesn't come off as ranting. Are you a teacher?

    PS Thanks for your posts. They are helpful.
    Not exactly - I'm a tutor at uni whilst I'm doing honours in my first degree. So right now I'm running seminars on a subject I did three years ago. I have kids in my classes who are older/taller/bigger than me! And like, a veritable mountain of essays to mark.

    I'm glad they're useful.
    allez cuisine!

  33. #113

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    854
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idolatrie View Post
    Not exactly - I'm a tutor at uni whilst I'm doing honours in my first degree. So right now I'm running seminars on a subject I did three years ago. I have kids in my classes who are older/taller/bigger than me! And like, a veritable mountain of essays to mark.

    I'm glad they're useful.
    Oh man . . . good luck with those essays. Are you in the UK?
    EII 4w5

    so/sx (?)

  34. #114
    idolatrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    413
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christy B View Post
    Oh man . . . good luck with those essays. Are you in the UK?
    Australia. I've noticed there's quite an Australian presence on these boards! *makes some complicated gang-pride-looking gesture with hands*
    allez cuisine!

  35. #115

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    854
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idolatrie View Post
    Australia. I've noticed there's quite an Australian presence on these boards! *makes some complicated gang-pride-looking gesture with hands*
    hahaha

    Yeah there are a lot of you guys here! Australians are cool.
    EII 4w5

    so/sx (?)

  36. #116
    Lobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    TIM
    EII 6w5
    Posts
    2,080
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idolatrie View Post
    I've got to say if someone did that to me, I would feel manipulated, and in a bad way. Really bad.

    I know I've made this point before, but if someone told me they couldn't explain something for whatever reason that I thought was valid, then hell yeah I'd respect that. And leave it. I know I've said pretty much exactly what Sereno said he'd say as well - give the other person time and let them know there is a friendly ear available.

    I'm trying to work out why I felt upset at the 'training regime' that Sereno talked of. I think it might be that if I honestly answered the first question with 'yes' then we're talking about one of my closest friends there. People I can name on one hand. And if I trust them, then that's IT. I trust them completely. So if they went and did something somewhere else without wanting to tell me what they were doing, why would that be a problem? I already trust them. I can't imagine why it'd be any of my business anyway. If they were doing something that directly affected me, but didn't want to tell me about it, I would find that weird and disquieting, but ultimately I TRUST them not to fuck around with me. If they broke that trust, then well, that's also it for the friendship. The end. And outside my close friends, well, I don't really give a toss what they do in their own time, it's not my business.

    I don't know. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what's being referred to. But I think I'd find it hurtful if someone did that to me. It sounds like you're training a dog. Sit, boy, stay. Fetch. Roll over.

    Sorry guys, I'm ranting. Been marking essays for the last couple of days straight, and it's driven me insane. I'm about ready to scratch my eyes out to escape it.

    I agree with what you are saying, it does seem like some sort of dog training. But I really didn't mean it in a "controlling" way, rather, as a favor to ease possible anxiety out of not knowing what an SO is doing. Though I made it seem that it applies to everybody, I was applying that to those that just HAVE to know everything the person does to the point that it might be sort of paranoid. There's a difference between asking out of curiosity and asking out of some kind of anxiety or fear. That's why I thought about those steps, to help remove the possible anxiety or fear caused by not knowing. Maybe what I wrote is a very bad idea, but at the time it seemed to make sense. Yeah, I'm definitely not some kind of psychologist.

    And Christy, you should have called the authorities, that was stealing.

  37. #117

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    854
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sereno View Post
    I agree with what you are saying, it does seem like some sort of dog training. But I really didn't mean it in a "controlling" way, rather, as a favor to ease possible anxiety out of not knowing what an SO is doing. Though I made it seem that it applies to everybody, I was applying that to those that just HAVE to know everything the person does to the point that it might be sort of paranoid. There's a difference between asking out of curiosity and asking out of some kind of anxiety or fear. That's why I thought about those steps, to help remove the possible anxiety or fear caused by not knowing. Maybe what I wrote is a very bad idea, but at the time it seemed to make sense. Yeah, I'm definitely not some kind of psychologist.

    And Christy, you should have called the authorities, that was stealing.
    Thanks. maybe you are right, but I think he thought he would see me again and would give it back. I don't think he counted on me disapearing and turning off my phone. Anyway that would have caused a scandal and would messed up his life a little and mine, so I just let it go.
    EII 4w5

    so/sx (?)

  38. #118
    idolatrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    413
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sereno View Post
    I agree with what you are saying, it does seem like some sort of dog training. But I really didn't mean it in a "controlling" way, rather, as a favor to ease possible anxiety out of not knowing what an SO is doing. Though I made it seem that it applies to everybody, I was applying that to those that just HAVE to know everything the person does to the point that it might be sort of paranoid. There's a difference between asking out of curiosity and asking out of some kind of anxiety or fear. That's why I thought about those steps, to help remove the possible anxiety or fear caused by not knowing. Maybe what I wrote is a very bad idea, but at the time it seemed to make sense. Yeah, I'm definitely not some kind of psychologist.

    And Christy, you should have called the authorities, that was stealing.
    I possibly overreacted. I don't know. I mean, trust is a pretty significant thing for me, and I know I have trouble trusting people, but once I do, it would hurt to have that trust questioned. So maybe you were just talking about a very different situation. I mean, UDP didn't seem to have a problem with what you suggested. And we're probably different sub-types, which may account for at least part of that.

    I do get paranoid and anxious. But I think my mode of responding to that is to shut down and stop asking any questions. To protect myself from appearing vulnerable. If I'm scared about something, I will definitely not indicate to anyone that fact, until I can go find out about that thing, arm myself with knowledge and hopefully some tactical advantage. And then I'd play it off as not ever having been scared. Asking questions is one way of getting that knowledge, but it is a method that involves opening yourself up to appearing vulnerable, so that would only happen if I felt so secure in the relationship that I could actually be vulnerable. And that is kind of terrifying to think about in and of itself.

    I don't think I'd need to know where my SO is every moment of the day. I have...a fairly lax attitude towards um, the physical aspect of monogamy (it's not an issue), but emotional faithfulness is something completely different, and fear there could potentially make me react in an ugly way.
    allez cuisine!

  39. #119

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    854
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idolatrie View Post

    I don't think I'd need to know where my SO is every moment of the day. I have...a fairly lax attitude towards um, the physical aspect of monogamy (it's not an issue), but emotional faithfulness is something completely different, and fear there could potentially make me react in an ugly way.
    This is so interesting! Thanks! I think this may be related to subtype.
    EII 4w5

    so/sx (?)

  40. #120

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idolatrie View Post
    I don't think I'd need to know where my SO is every moment of the day. I have...a fairly lax attitude towards um, the physical aspect of monogamy (it's not an issue), but emotional faithfulness is something completely different, and fear there could potentially make me react in an ugly way.
    I read a study once which found that women were more likely to be hurt/worried about (can't remember what is was exactly), their partner cheating on them emotionally whereas men were more concerned about physical infidelity

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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