Overly nice people

[jughead]

As what I presume to be a INFp Beta I have problems with overly nice people because it is disarming to potential threats or problems. More PC ways of speaking disarm me and manipulate me! See the George Carlin take on PC language, I basically agree....
I have developed a strategy to be a bit of a dick and mess with people to challenge and weed them out because if I don't take an immediate assertive or aggressive position they worm their way in and it backfires....

In my experience the types that I have this issue with tend to be anything but Beta and most typically Delta. Makes sense right? And the closer the temperament matches the more problems I have. For example I have problems with ENFp's/IEE. The EP temperament combined with being too nice and lack of Ti leads to future disaster for me. EII/INFj I have a easier time in keeping at bay due to boring/stable temperament mismatch and more structured views that I see our differences in. Whereas EP IEE gets me interested and rushes into things and leaves me holding the check metaphorically. This is typically magnified with them being an attractive woman (and if they are stupid) because it makes me as a man to be dumber in the early stages. I typically go on 2-4 dates with these types before I realize the glaring problems. Other INFp are usually nice but they also have a harsher judgement side than ENFp's and we get on the same page easier. ENFp's avoid negativity too much and thus don't actually clarify where they stand, leading to later misunderstandings when things actually happen.

Types I see doing this and types I have problems with in my history.
1. ENFp (super nice and the temperament match makes them more of a potential disaster, a seductive poison)
2. INFj (the most nice but also the easier to reject, they like doing unsolicited favors and want to be repaid in kind IME which rubs me the wrong way)
3. ESFj (can be nice but also a complete ass, annoying temperament triggers my "fake/danger" warning quicker)
4. ESFp (like ENFp but their more direct way of interacting triggers my natural Ni more into action, less disaster and more deeper values mismatch)

[ooo]

it's funny because I was reading how EIIs hate to do and get favours because of the "do ut des" Se nature of it, basically if you do smth nice is to get smth nice back and this sort of commerce hits their Se polr. basically it's like saying that being nice entails Se and Fe, aka beta.

[Marep]

Stop dating deltas. Problem solved.

[Mila]

Yes, this is very true, I'm married to an IEE and I've observed the same phenomenon.

Some IEIs are prone to use their emotions as weapons to get some Se and Ti (like teenagers who subconsciously yearn for discipline and structure in their lives), but when they face Delta NF who have no Ti/Te and low Se and usually don't let others to manipulate their emotions, IEIs seem disarmed or forced to enter in this IEE "politeness game".

My husband literally says that he always tries to keep this polite and nice attitude with ppl because it makes hard for them to act like dicks with him. Also they basically can get away with saying bunch of offensive things and throw accusations in polite and calm tone which seem to circumvent people's offendedness radar, lol

[Exodus]

This is certainly type-related. But in my experience it's mainly the Si-valuing ethical types that do this (less so EII due to Ni-8).

[Singu]

Only on MBTI and Jungian-based places where you have people whining about "overly nice people" and "fake Fe pplz"...

Honestly, get over yourselves. There's no real such thing as "fake emotions". Be grateful that people are at least trying to be nice to you. It's not such a huge deal.

If you think that people are deliberately manipulating you or something in an overly malicious way, then I can only say that you're being overly paranoid.

This whole idiocy is created by the assumption that there's a such thing as "real emotion" (Fi) and "fake emotion" (Fe). In reality, there's no such distinction.

Some IEIs are prone to use their emotions as weapons to get some Se and Ti (like teenagers who subconsciously yearn for discipline and structure in their life's), but when they face Delta NF who have no Ti/Te and low Se and usually don't let others to manipulate their emotions, IEIs seem disarmed or forced to enter in this IEE " polite game".

My husband literally says that he always tries to keep this polite and nice attitude with ppl because it makes hard for them to act like dicks with him. Also they basically can get away with saying bunch of offensive things and throw accusations in polite and calm tone which seem to circumvent people's offendedness radar, lol

Must be true because it says so on Socionics.

[ouronis]

https://news.psu.edu/story/566408/20...ing-after-work

[Mila]

Must be true because it says so on Socionics.

must be true because Sigu thinks so.

[xerx]

I really hate the North American "customer first" mentality. When you buy something, please try not to be a dick to the employees. I've seriously thought about going back to my teen job at Walmart just to tell customers to fuck off -- it's not like I even need the reference letter anymore.

[jughead]

Stop dating deltas. Problem solved.

Done. It's hard enough to get people to take a test though but if they can't be bothered to do so I shouldn't expect good things from anyone.

[The Reality Denialist]

Some IEIs are prone to use their emotions as weapons to get some Se and Ti (like teenagers who subconsciously yearn for discipline and structure in their life's), but when they face Delta NF who have no Ti/Te and low Se and usually don't let others to manipulate their emotions, IEIs seem disarmed or forced to enter in this IEE " polite game".

Thanks... now I see why one SLE woman got overly excited over my pranks [which included good deal of fake Ni themes I happened to know]. I just tested the overall limits of the people because I'm curios for the "science".

[Mila]

Hi, that's interesting, I wonder if it is an IEE thing only? I personally don't try to elicit anything out of being kind towards someone, i consider being kind (when possible, not always obv) an end in itself. Do you find EIIs are different in this respect?

Yes. I think creative function is used as a tool more than a mean or goal by itself. Ime EIIs want to be appreciated or loved as they focus primarily on relations, while IEEs enjoy the process of motivate or inspire ppl (get them to do things) to get their potential, since its part of what they naturally do: getting potential possibilities and exploring them. For them ethical relations are important, so they also try to behave ethically and preserve what's important for them.

[Aramas]

it's funny because I was reading how EIIs hate to do and get favours because of the "do ut des" Se nature of it, basically if you do smth nice is to get smth nice back and this sort of commerce hits their Se polr. basically it's like saying that being nice entails Se and Fe, aka beta.

Lol. I think you got it perfectly right. I've been around Betas a lot, and they seem to have this "quid pro quo" (Hannibal Lecter?) or "tit for tat" mentality. I can't really act in this mentality, because I don't have a strong memory for what I do for others or for what others do for me. Not having that checkbook record in my mind makes it hard for me to play the beta game. It might be terrible to say it, but for me, my mindset is more like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Lol! I don't consider myself a communist but that seems closer to how I act than any other short statement.

There's just something about that mindset that has always been off for me. I don't like feeling bound by it, so I often just try to avoid the game, stay away from people, etc. The area I live in appears to be heavily Se, so... :/

From my perspective, this kind of thing diminishes the reality of a relationship between two people. If it's just trading favors, I scratch your back and you mine, it's really utilitarian isn't it? You're just sort of... using people. Of course Betas think the opposite is true.

[Number 9 large]

generally ''niceness'' is attributed to Fe.

[jughead]

generally ''niceness'' is attributed to Fe.

I'd say its more tied to both; it's in the description of Fi as maintaining relationships. Certainly Fe is about an atmosphere but Fi types don't want to mess with relations so they don't rock the boat on that level. Alpha SF is pretty likely to be nice to more people, whereas Delta is more likely to be nice to people they are trying to have a continuing relation with. My basic point is that Fi types and Fe types start to clash when they realize what under the surface more. And EXFP have 4d Fe so they use Fe to inspire or manipulate.

[Exodus]

generally ''niceness'' is attributed to Fe.

...in MBTI.

[Number 9 large]

...in MBTI.

And socionics and jung.

[Exodus]

And socionics and jung.

In what socionics sources?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

dunno it is weird to me to confound being nice with being 'overly PC' because there is genuine sweetness and compassion which I value and the other pc/inhumane/governmental/obnoxiously official way of talking isn't nice at all, it's a very authoritative way of being. You obviously want power over others when you talk like that. There is nothing nice about it. So I'm not really sure what your issue is, people being 'too nice' (which seems silly to be offended by) or PC language which yes, can be very strict and overly authoritative in nature. It is the language ppl in power or ppl in illuminati use to be higher than others obviously, it is about power. Celebs on twitter like talking like this sometimes too cuz they love feeling 'on top.'

I'm not even sure if this is type related in and of itself, but if the PC language is hidden behind Te crap that you don't like (and you are in fact INFp), it would make sense why you don't like it and it gets under your skin. There is also the Fe version way that you prolly might not mind as much, but is just as authoritative.

[golden]

dunno it is weird to me to confound being nice with being 'overly PC' because there is genuine sweetness and compassion which I value and the other pc/inhumane/governmental/obnoxiously official way of talking isn't nice at all, it's a very authoritative way of being. You obviously want power over others when you talk like that. There is nothing nice about it. So I'm not really sure what your issue is, people being 'too nice' (which seems silly to be offended by) or PC language which yes, can be very strict and overly authoritative in nature. It is the language ppl in power or ppl in illuminati use to be higher than others obviously, it is about power. Celebs on twitter like talking like this sometimes too cuz they love feeling 'on top.'

I'm not even sure if this is type related in and of itself, but if the PC language is hidden behind Te crap that you don't like (and you are in fact INFp), it would make sense why you don't like it and it gets under your skin. There is also the Fe version way that you prolly might not mind as much, but is just as authoritative.

Some of the most unpleasant people I’ve ever dealt with were extremely PC. Anytime someone is coming from an ideology-first perspective, they risk becoming unrelatable on the mild end, dehumanizing on the extreme end. Doesn’t matter what the ideology is. But I also think the majority of people aren’t obnoxious about their beliefs—they just don’t get much attention because that isn’t inherently interesting.

[jughead]

You nailed it. It's when I feel like I'm talking to a customer representative reading a script, but they've bought into it too. So they use some Te facts from one area that are just a creation to make them sound better when there are plenty more Te facts to make an opposite idea or a more compete Ti understanding. Like when drug companies use only the positive studies and throw out the rest.

[Revelations]

I'm a super nice person I'll admit but I'd never be anything but real to an IEI (they are also being real/nice to you??)

[Connoisseur]

There are some genuinely nice people, though. The ones that don't do it to create an appearance of being nice, just because their inner morals force them to. Sometimes that inner voice compels me to be nice and it upsets me when people assume I'm just acting (they rarely do though, because I appear as a jerk and they don't notice anyway).
But I agree that the fake "nice" people are trash, and it just takes a good trololol "social experiment" for their mask to fall of.

[Myst]

Only on MBTI and Jungian-based places where you have people whining about "overly nice people" and "fake Fe pplz"...

Honestly, get over yourselves. There's no real such thing as "fake emotions". Be grateful that people are at least trying to be nice to you. It's not such a huge deal.

If you think that people are deliberately manipulating you or something in an overly malicious way, then I can only say that you're being overly paranoid.

This whole idiocy is created by the assumption that there's a such thing as "real emotion" (Fi) and "fake emotion" (Fe). In reality, there's no such distinction.

Actually yeah there ARE fake emotions. I'm sorry but yeah....some people do fake emotional expressions big time.

I mean I don't call this or anything else "Fe", it's just a fact regardless of socionics.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I think Singu and Myst... you both are right really, it depends on the context and circumstance if its manipulative or not. A celebrity or therapist/social worker or somebody with a high power job being nice to you is often just being manipulative, but somebody on your level that has no drive or ambition or reason to step on you to get ahead... is probably not being all that manipulative and remember that genuine emotions can also be exaggerated for comedic effect, or because its part of that person's personality. I don't think they necessarily lose their genuine-ness when this is the case. And anyway, everybody is a *little* manipulative, if you weren't you would be dead lmao. I've seen even Fe polrs be manipulative with certain Te/Fi valuing ppl they look up to and respect. It is manipulation, even though they would never see it that way. Being Machiavellian is like anything else, the dosage dictates the poison.

[Rebelondeck]

Many Ips seem to develop siege-mentalities; they often get suspicious of everything and everybody that don't measure up to their own sets of standards - fault finders and critics. They tend to not allow people to get close if they pose even the slightest hint of what they believe is improper behaviour or outside their established norms (which often rule their lives). This is a sort of safety-first approach and can have huge benefits, but tends to stifle overall progress and some potentially beneficial relationships. Now, every type can develop tunnel-vision but not normally to the extent that this temperament can; an Ip's ability to hyper-focus on certain aspects while disregarding irrelevancies (even operate in absolute chaos) is a gift as well as a curse......

a.k.a. I/O

[Myst]

I think Singu and Myst... you both are right really, it depends on the context and circumstance if its manipulative or not. A celebrity or therapist/social worker or somebody with a high power job being nice to you is often just being manipulative, but somebody on your level that has no drive or ambition or reason to step on you to get ahead... is probably not being all that manipulative and remember that genuine emotions can also be exaggerated for comedic effect, or because its part of that person's personality. I don't think they necessarily lose their genuine-ness when this is the case. And anyway, everybody is a *little* manipulative, if you weren't you would be dead lmao. I've seen even Fe polrs be manipulative with certain Te/Fi valuing ppl they look up to and respect. It is manipulation, even though they would never see it that way. Being Machiavellian is like anything else, the dosage dictates the poison.

Actually, I doubt this has all that much to do with drive or ambition or position. I've known people who were not in any position of power, in fact they probably saw themselves as victims (not socionics victim), but they tried to get money and other services from others by being manipulative, playing nice and all that. I don't see therapists or social workers any more manipulative than anyone else, weird idea to highlight them as examples of that.

And yeah, I wouldn't call exaggeration for comedic effect fake. Wanting to do a comedic effect can be a pretty valid reason in some situations. I think overall I don't link emotions (or whatever you call "Fe") and manipulation tightly together: there are many ways to manipulate, not just by emotional expression.

[Finaplex]

Types I see doing this and types I have problems with in my history.
1. ENFp (super nice and the temperament match makes them more of a potential disaster, a seductive poison)
2. INFj (the most nice but also the easier to reject, they like doing unsolicited favors and want to be repaid in kind IME which rubs me the wrong way)
3. ESFj (can be nice but also a complete ass, annoying temperament triggers my "fake/danger" warning quicker)
4. ESFp (like ENFp but their more direct way of interacting triggers my natural Ni more into action, less disaster and more deeper values mismatch)

[Finaplex]

Actually yeah there ARE fake emotions. I'm sorry but yeah....some people do fake emotional expressions big time.

I mean I don't call this or anything else "Fe", it's just a fact regardless of socionics.

When you are faking expression you are still doing a type of Fe, a more fake version that won't hold up under scrutiny. Method acting is better.

In socionics context when you are interacting with a Role Fe type person, you can see that they fake expression in certain situations because you just know that they feel they should be nice and smiling and friendly with a coworker, or an employee in a socially contrived situation, ie: good morning how are you, how was your weekend? oh good thank-you mine was great as well, good

You can tell they don't really give a shit, but the socially contrived situation has a need for a display of objective ethics.

Key words "should" and "need". These shoulds and needs are cues for super-ego: internalized societal expectations. Fit in the moment requires some overt display of Fe emotional ethics so as to command the proper objective etiquette for said moment.

These moments are the right kind of reactions yet are clearly faked and if you know their sociotype you can begin to explain why they are relating to you in this way as I have just described.

[Myst]

When you are faking expression you are still doing a type of Fe, a more fake version that won't hold up under scrutiny. Method acting is better.

Let's get things clarified then. Please, for the sake of a clear discussion, replace the encoded "Fe" "term" with normal everyday language - or ofc technical language is fine too but please not socionics shorthands.

So like. Do you just mean "emotional expression" by "Fe". If so, let's stick to saying "emotional expression" for the rest of the discussion. If you mean "objective etiquette", I'd expect a bit more on the framework for what is meant by "objective" but preferably I'd like a simple enough phrasing to convey all of it instead of circumstantial and vague paraphrasing. If it can be made simple enough, then it's got a greater chance that it aligns with actual reality. Unless of course it's a term from a theory way more complex and detailed than the socionics model ever was. But even then... should still strive for a simple enough term to translate the idea instead of vague paraphrasing out of touch with reality. Even with some complex physics ideas, it is possible to do so.

In socionics context when you are interacting with a Role Fe type person, you can see that they fake expression in certain situations because you just know that they feel they should be nice and smiling and friendly with a coworker, or an employee in a socially contrived situation, ie: good morning how are you, how was your weekend? oh good thank-you mine was great as well, good

You can tell they don't really give a shit, but the socially contrived situation has a need for a display of objective ethics.

Key words "should" and "need". These shoulds and needs are cues for super-ego: internalized societal expectations. Fit in the moment requires some overt display of Fe emotional ethics so as to command the proper objective etiquette for said moment.

Well what you just said about "role Fe", this fits perfectly well also people who declared themselves "Fe HA/Fe mobilising", and then who complained that they go home and it all feels like they've done a lot of fake acting (Herzy, etc - not just Herzy but she specifically had a post once describing exactly this).

So I don't really think this is about "role Fe", it's simply... a well-known social expectation to put on expressions in certain situations. Of course it's going to feel like super-ego then or similar. But it really is just adjusting to social norms where it's deemed necessary and is possible to do so.

Also I've known people who are supposedly "role Fe" in socionics, who are doing the nice etc stuff and I feel - when tuning into such people, to the degree that I can and will do so, which degree differs based on situation etc - that these people actually can have real interest in the situation, depending on the situation.

So, it's not necessarily all fake.

The same for people who are supposedly "Fe mobilising", btw. They can also seem like they do have real interest in the situation while doing this.

And the same for many other people who are supposedly not "2D Fe" even.

And then some people who are supposedly "Fe ego", say "Fe creative" or "Fe base" even, they can be totally fake with this, more than "role Fe" as described by you is supposed to be fake. Or they can also be genuine with real interest.

And then, on the whole... I've seen "Fe devaluers" plenty of times display real emotion and express pretty strongly and enjoy the emotional state in the moment, and I've seen "Fe valuers" do the same too.

Going further, I would also say it makes no sense to say that "Fe valuers" enjoy emotional expression more, since I find it makes more sense that some expressions are just by their nature enjoyable in the right situation, while it also makes no sense to say that "Fe devaluers" desire deep feelings more for the glue of a relationship, since everyone who's not a psychopath will desire this glue. Differences in emphasis for these aspects seem determined a lot by the specific culture and yes by personality too, but not in the manner Socionics would try to predict it from sociotype and ITR. Since Socionics and its IE definitions and model all neglect many sophisticated psychological factors that determine emotional expressions and relationship glue and so on.

These moments are the right kind of reactions yet are clearly faked and if you know their sociotype you can begin to explain why they are relating to you in this way as I have just described.

I would say it's only truly fake if the person has zero interest in the situation emotionally or ethically and they just have self-serving goals. Otherwise, it's just a normal social expectation, where you need to do this to contribute to society's well-being (if we want to get very general), to oil the workings of some of it. Much like with other social expectations (that have nothing to do with whatever you meant by "Fe").

So overall, I would respectfully disagree that sociotype helps explain how or why they are relating to you in this way. It does fuck all to explain it. Common sense knowledge on people and more sophisticated psychological knowledge all explain better and in a way more refined or more realistic - and actually *usable* way than sociotype.

Just because you may see some valid ideas in socionics, it does not mean the socionics model is a good framework for them at all.

Personally, I find socionics barely gives anything to *really* understand relationships or other interactions while it is supposed to do just that with the ITR etc... and same for the internal workings of the mind, cognition, emotion, behaviour of yourself or other people's outside interactions/relationships.

This, while I find that other frameworks DO give way more to understand all that but ofc these other frameworks in psychology do not promise magic like Socionics does. They do not promise that it will all magically be as simple as one single model doing all that. Sure. It doesn't mean though that you have to drop hope for having things work out like apparently some people investing into Socionics need that hope (I was told this by more than one person so far). It's just not simple magic for that hope, but instead - actual reality.

Socionics may look like it *really* explained it, until you find it did not.


Finally, tidbit from research (from a writing of Damasio): you can have either real or "acted" expressions, and these are done by two different neural pathways in the brain. The real ones are accomplished through the basal ganglia - a very deep basic brain part - automatically controlling the facial etc movements required for the expression. The acted ones are done through another neural pathway and are done consciously, by consciously controlling facial etc muscles. Actors (for movies etc) apparently can attempt to do either way: really really live the emotions and states required for the acting, and display true emotion that way; or they can painstakingly learn the conscious control and act the expressions that way by controlling the face in really refined ways and so on. Neither is a trivial method to be really good at acting.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I've known people who were not in any position of power, in fact they probably saw themselves as victims (not socionics victim), but they tried to get money and other services from others by being manipulative, playing nice and all that.

Well even still, I don't know why they should be blamed for that. If that is the thing of value they have to trade for something else, I don't see what's so wrong with that. You may wish they were more logical and traded in more realistic skills for those things, but that might not objectively be their best asset to sell. I don't even think they necessarily saw themselves as victims, I think more that's just how you perceived them. If they were really in victim mode, they wouldn't try to do anything at all to get ahead- not even be nice.

Therapists and social workers are often incredibly manipulative, lol- it is naive to think otherwise. With this tho it allows them to do their job and give it the air of authority it needs.

[Myst]

Well even still, I don't know why they should be blamed for that. If that is the thing of value they have to trade for something else, I don't see what's so wrong with that. You may wish they were more logical and traded in more realistic skills for those things, but that might not objectively be their best asset to sell. I don't even think they necessarily saw themselves as victims, I think more that's just how you perceived them. If they were really in victim mode, they wouldn't try to do anything at all to get ahead- not even be nice.

Oh, some of these people did try to play it off as them being victims.

And "thing of value": I don't imagine you'd expect too high a value in exchange for a little niceness.

Or if you mean, piling on more niceness, pretending a real relationship, which is the only thing where you would get a thing of real value in exchange, that's just truly wrong.

If I need to explain how that's wrong, I don't think we have anything to discuss about.

But in short: it's wrong to manipulate people into developing emotional attachment for the relationship just so the manipulator can get enough material value back in exchange.

Therapists and social workers are often incredibly manipulative, lol- it is naive to think otherwise. With this tho it allows them to do their job and give it the air of authority it needs.

No, they are not often "incredibly manipulative" to get "the air of authority". This is not required for them to do the job either. It's not alright in a professional sense and ethically either, at all.

I mean sure maybe some of them are manipulative but this is not to do their job in any professional way. It's wrong. Again.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yes it is manipulative Myst, they will often twist your own words to suit their own institutional agenda while having the veneer that they are "helping" you and society all at the same time. I mean what you said just proves to me you probably don't have much experience in dealing with those people in real life like I do. Sorry if that comes off condescending but...

As for your other point I think you are correct in the sense that males don't have to deal with that crap like women do. Somebody being nice and trying to use friendliness as a tool to get what they want. I'm a man, unlike you. People in society don't really deal with me like that... as much as they just have a kill or be killed attitude when dealing with me. Which is annoying to me for different reasons.

They leave me alone more because they know I can squash them into bits. They won't be nice to me like they would a woman at all its more like either run away from me or instantly squash me themselves. In society's eyes, men are like assassin DPS classes even the cute IEI ones. We are expendable nobodies. It's just very different as a guy... and that is part of the reason men are more accepting of 'niceness' compared to a lot women I think, and women stereotypically want power & protection in romantic relationships and men stereotypically just want kindness and peace. As its balancing and healing for both.

But still not all niceness is like some selfish manipulative game like we keep trying to tell you. It is sometimes just genuine and not manipulative. How do you ever know? Well Time/Ni will tell, I think.

[Myst]

Yes it is manipulative Myst, they will often twist your own words to suit their own institutional agenda while having the veneer that they are "helping" you and society all at the same time. I mean what you said just proves to me you probably don't have much experience in dealing with those people in real life like I do. Sorry if that comes off condescending but...

Maybe I just got lucky with the ones I've known then

Bc they definitely didn't twist words for institutional agendas lol

As for your other point I think you are correct in the sense that males don't have to deal with that crap like women do. Somebody being nice and trying to use friendliness as a tool to get what they want. I'm a man, unlike you. People in society don't really deal with me like that... as much as they just have a kill or be killed attitude when dealing with me. Which is annoying to me for different reasons.

Actually women supposedly use it on hetero men
But yeah its a lot of crap lol.

They leave me alone more because they know I can squash them into bits. They won't be nice to me like they would a woman at all its more like either run away from me or instantly squash me themselves. In society's eyes, men are like assassin DPS classes even the cute IEI ones. We are expendable nobodies. It's just very different as a guy... and that is part of the reason men are more accepting of 'niceness' compared to a lot women I think, and women stereotypically want power & protection in romantic relationships and men stereotypically just want kindness and peace. As its balancing and healing for both.

It would be a weird new experience for me to be a man for sure lol. I'm pretty sure it's hard to fully imagine it as an outsider (not being male).

What do you mean by women not being accepting of niceness btw? Like in what context?

But still not all niceness is like some selfish manipulative game like we keep trying to tell you. It is sometimes just genuine and not manipulative. How do you ever know? Well Time/Ni will tell, I think.

Yeah, as long as it's genuine. You're so right time will tell lol. Also I guess other subtle cues in behaviour.

[DELL]

Interesting topic...

So if you have two equally nice FI & FE egos...
FI will seem nicer in a one on one situation (facilitate relation)
FE will seem nicer in a group situation (facilitate atmosphere)

And so the FE can get wary of the FI in a one on one, because it's not what they expect, and not how they roll....

Good to know!

But....knowing socionics then, you should understand that they are not nescessarily being anymore manipulative in a one on one, than you are in a group...they are (probably) just doing it (naturally) to keep the vibes good...

But yes, it would make sense that you would want to see if this person is actually decent or not (we all do) but it makes sense that FE is more wary in this situation than FI...

*edit* ignore sunglasses dude at the top....i'm typing on a phone from the bronze age, and i didnt put it there and cant get it off....(no manipulatoon intended!)

[Myst]

and i didnt put it there and cant get it off....(no manipulatoon intended!)

lol ...

[The Reality Denialist]

I don't really put same labels on niceness as other people. Like someone who is too sacred to gather intel about the person by not giving them any sort challenge and follows with rigid routine. What I notice is that she is generally by the standards the nice person while being totally tormenting many with settled conformity (like the officers in concentration camp). Those people are mainly Fi bases.

[BaruchJorgell]

I'm guilty of being overly nice. But that's just to be on the safe side. Also, it doesn't cost much. I don't believe there are many situations in which you can't be nice.

[Myst]

I'm guilty of being overly nice. But that's just to be on the safe side. Also, it doesn't cost much. I don't believe there are many situations in which you can't be nice.

In a "close" or "closer" relationship apparently the longer the relationship is, the more it costs to be nice tho', for many people

You know, that's when divorce happens

[flames]

They have the worst rage.