LSI-IEE Conflict Relations (ISTj and ENFp)

[Park]

I read in Strat's description of IEE that Huxley prefers to give the impression of attracting as many people as possible. While it would never occur to me to do something like this, this is how SLIs pick up on a "worthwhile" person potential-wise, according to this description. With EIEs I know they want me, if that's the case; with IEEs, I'm just another possibility. IME.

I don't think I'm necessarily attracted to people who maximize their likability and want to attract as many people as possible. Even less so if giving "an impression" of likeability/amicability is what matters to them. I also don't like feeling like a disposable option in any form of a serious relationship.

[EIE H]

I don't think I'm necessarily attracted to people who maximize their likability and want to attract as many people as possible. Even less so if giving "an impression" of likeability/amicability is what matters to them. I also don't like feeling like a disposable option in any form of a serious relationship.

Yes I can imagine that would actually come off “fake” to most SLIs. Also, IEEs seem to emphasize “authenticity” so forcing an impression of “likeability/amicability” would probably go against the goal, right?

[Park]

Yes I can imagine that would actually come off “fake” to most SLIs. Also, IEEs seem to emphasize “authenticity” so forcing an impression of “likeability/amicability” would probably go against the goal, right?

I don't know. Most of these things are very broad and generic. I don't think authenticity is type related, but different types would probably go about it in different ways. As for presenting yourself in certain ways and being image-conscious or image-oriented, I guess would correlate better with certain enneagram types, such as 3s, and certain pathologies like narcissism, etc.

[Ave]

I don't know. Most of these things are very broad and generic. I don't think authenticity is type related, but different types would probably go about it in different ways. As for presenting yourself in certain ways and being image-conscious or image-oriented, I guess would correlate better with certain enneagram types, such as 3s, and certain pathologies like narcissism, etc.

Yeah I agree. I'll add more.

Some authors, like Niffweed, or those from the WSS crowd, really made this idea popular: that somehow seeking authenticity in oneself or others was connected to valuing Fi. I just don't see it.

The term "authenticity" might mean different things to different people. But even if one does value authenticity in oneself, and defines it as "being true to one's values", this doesn't mean the person is Fi valuing. This is really primitive socionics. That just because a person says "I have my own set of values" people jump up and down saying "Fi". What a load of shit.

First of all, people can say what they want, it doesn't say anything about where their energy is focused. Self-reported information is pretty useless if taken at face value.

Second, having a set of values one adheres to could very well be something related to Ti or Fe.

Hell, rationality in general makes one define oneself in a certain way, and the stronger the rationality, the more a person defines themselves in a rigid way, which usually is the way they want to see themselves at that moment and not the way they actually are in a deeper sense.

[Park]

Yeah I agree. I'll add more.

Some authors, like Niffweed, or those from the WSS crowd, really made this idea popular: that somehow seeking authenticity in oneself or others was connected to valuing Fi. I just don't see it.

The term "authenticity" might mean different things to different people. But even if one does value authenticity in oneself, and defines it as "being true to one's values", this doesn't mean the person is Fi valuing. This is really primitive socionics. That just because a person says "I have my own set of values" people jump up and down saying "Fi". What a load of shit.

First of all, people can say what they want, it doesn't say anything about where their energy is focused. Self-reported information is pretty useless if taken at face value.

Second, having a set of values one adheres to could very well be something related to Ti or Fe.

Hell, rationality in general makes one define oneself in a certain way, and the stronger the rationality, the more a person defines themselves in a rigid way, which usually is the way they want to see themselves at that moment and not the way they actually are in a deeper sense.

I think that having a set of well-defined values/principles and being relatively non-compromising about them is closely related to both Fi and Ti. It's just that one is primarily concerned about people and relationships, whereas the other is concerned about logical structure and inanimate systems. Both deal with people and both include "thinking" and "feeling" (to borrow MBTI terminology), it's just that the focus and priorities are different. A Ti type would optimize for logical/objective consistency of actions and how they fit into larger frameworks and concepts (including interpersonal relationships), while an Fi type would optimize for personal/subjective consistency, seek and utilize opportunities for collaboration, and develop an acute awareness of how strong interpersonal bonds can influence, improve, and/or extend larger systems/organizations/institutions/etc. And perhaps a point of contrast with Ti would be that Fi types would regard developing intimate interpersonal bonds as an end-goal by itself, but I'm not really sure, as in theory, they should also be the masters of making use of these bonds to make other/greater things happen.

I agree that rational types, especially Ti and Fi ones, have the most rigid self-image and behaviors in general.