All advice greatly appreciated by this new lurker

[grumpyvic81]

Hey all, after some lurking I decided to post a type me thread. I would like to post more on the forum in general too. So, I'm between the two STj types for myself, it could go either way as it is now. I can relate to several information elements and quadra values for both, etc. Any other suggestions welcome too, but these are the types I'm considering now. I would be interested in subtypes as well. In Enneagram I typed myself as an E1 of the more openly angry and forceful variant. Again, all suggestions are welcome for Enneagram too.

The 81 in my nick is not to do with my age/birth year but I'm in my 30s, female.

I'd rather not post a photo/video for now (not yet), but I'll make up for it by a description about how I am... & Going to post answers to some of the questionnaire I've seen.




Firstoff what I look like & how I come off. What I'm usually told by others: I look present, I make other people feel present too. I've been told I can have a calming effect too. I've also been told that I sometimes make real sudden very energetic movements, I walk crazy fast even tho' I'm not flexible or light at all, and that I look stiff. I agree with all this yeah. (Not light: I don't mean weight-wise. I mean my way of walking and movements.) I'm also often told I dress really well or even extravagantly and yeah that's true too. (The extravagant stuff is not the default but I love to get into that too.) The one other thing I've been told that I found interesting and strange was that I look like I have something kind of "weird" about me, something that the average person doesn't have to them. The person couldn't really tell me what they meant by it, it was an impression but it uh, does fit my life pretty well.

Socially I come off either observant but detached, aloof or I may even look really closed and entirely disinterested - I am NOT disinterested, it just looks like it but I'll be the first to help or take action if needed - or instead I'll be really engaged, enthusiastic, opinionated and sometimes charming; alternatively when a goal or task is the focus with people instead of socialising, I come off impatient, decisive, easily forceful and outright commanding. I am overall definitely ambiverted however: I do small talk easily and enjoy it with people in social interaction. I also find it easy to discuss business or to get others to do things by using simple enough language. No need to think deeply much for those so it's all easy. However, when I speak about a more complex topic, I will be seen pausing for short times and thinking frequently but I'm actually uncomfortable doing so. The problem with this one is, I seem to come off to some people like I need to be made to talk more and then they make me talk about all these deeper topics needing more thinking, sigh. I just go along with it out of social conscientiousness really. I really just don't like to speak while thinking. I'm way more about action, tasks and goals than talking in general. Yes socially too I enjoy action more, i.e. doing things together instead of talking too long. But I'm willing to talk about "deep topics" if I'm close with someone or the topic is really interesting. And I am completely fine with thinking in detail and thoroughly about tasks when I work on things alone. Just not when speaking in a social setting ...



My main values: always keep moving forward, meeting challenges, achievement, goals, never being aimless, focus, logic, control, forcefulness, moving fast, persistence&perseverance, independence, effort, commitment, consistency, objectivity&truth, competitiveness, excelling, adaptability, adventure, physical and mental strength, toughness, discipline, decisiveness, directness&straightforwardness, never backing down from conflict, hard work&always working on something, doing things fast and efficiently, not wasting time, doing things well&thoroughness, finishing tasks and projects, high expertise&knowledge, very deep detailed understanding, scientific knowledge and scientific progress, intelligence, material things, social success&achievement, prestige, social conscientiousness, social helpfulness, societal progress and contribution to that, respect, self-respect, being right but also openness, fairness, impartial analysis, logical deduction, principles, justice, integrity, willingness to revenge&punish when justified&necessary, reliability, accountability, self-education, attentiveness, connection&meaningful deep long-term relationships, intimacy, devotion, intensity, patience, emotional&empathetic assertiveness, meaning&purpose, empowerment, subjective truth, spirituality, continual improvement&self-actualising.

(If I didn't forget something above... this is roughly my list tho'.)

I tried to sum it all up as: Live a full life because that is more challenge than what the average person does with their life. Have enough real purpose in this full life or it's not going to be a full life. Be useful to society, that's part of the purpose. Have a good status in society, be happy with people, find your people and find your place even if that actually means wandering instead of a set place. Keep improving yourself intellectually, psychologically and spiritually. Overall, never give up on your goals that include the above; set lofty visions and realise them long term. And don't ever shy away from finding and seeing the truth, keep objective, and well, fair.

But more on values.

In practice I get really angry & so clearly my values are violated if someone's unreliable, irresponsible, lazy, unfair, selfish, has a lack of basic conscience, disloyal, has "commitment issues", emotionally manipulative, takes advantage of or fucks with others by shitting on their hard work or lives as an outright parasite. Additionally, I don't tolerate passive aggressiveness and silent treatment.

Moral issues I'm extremely intolerant about: the person automatically blames others for their own shit instead of taking responsibility and yes, willingness to bear guilt, when they have actually done something truly wrong and are called out on that. Another main example that makes me see red is if someone lives like a parasite instead of actually DOING something, doing hard enough work even if not for a high pay - yes I value people who don't do "productive" work, e.g. artists etc - just DO and actually produce something for a real life goal and not just sit on your lazy ass complaining all day. I used to deal in a really rough way with such people. Just in general lack of reliability is also a big trigger, if you promise shit, and repeatedly break your promise. Lack of basic social conscientiousness is the other big trigger. If someone plain doesn't give a shit to contribute socially in any way whatsoever. I see those people as real weak losers and stupid. Also if the person plain does not keep basic moral and emotional limits or especially, acting fake doing emotional manipulation to get what they want. People who lean towards polyamory, or have an inability to understand attachment and deep love also make my stomach turn or worse. The biggest sin is if you are emotionally unreliable.



Here's a few more answers to the questionnaire.

"6. Interested in health/medicine as a conversation topic? Are you focused on your body?"

Yes, I always loved the topic of medicine even as a kid. Never worried about the horrible diseases, lol. I'm focused on my body enough to take care of it, I like my comforts. I find health important, that's a no-brainer. Physical, mental and emotional health&hygiene alike. Yes, there's such a thing as mental or emotional hygiene, too. Normally I'm also highly focused on my body for sports training (I am competitive).


"7. What do you think of daily chores?"

A normal part of life. I find cooking a waste of time, I only cook basic foods. I'm fine with washing up/taking care of the dishwasher, doing the laundry, vacuuming etc. I'm fine with running errands. Nothing exciting ofc.


"10. Where do you feel: at one with the environment/a sense of belonging?"

Anywhere, especially if I'm navigating, especially in a new area.


"11. What have people seen as your weaknesses? What do you dislike about yourself?"

I don't recall anyone specifically mentioning weaknesses about me. They usually criticise my being too aggressive, too pushy, too choleric/temperamental, my disagreeableness, being "dogmatic" (what bullshit), my lack of sensitivity, my being too rigid, too cold, too distant, lack of empathy, lack of "proper behaviour", whatever.

I don't really care about all those criticisms tbh. Some of the criticism is subjective too i.e. not everyone sees it that way, or it's seen in an exaggerated black and white way, or the person plain failed to understand that e.g. pushiness or rigidity was needed in the given situation. Etc. Overall everyone has their negative side. I've accepted mine. I only dislike that I got too angry even for my liking lately. Emotionally I'd been a mess lately. I'll work on that tho' to fix it completely, am getting back emotional control already.

One more note. I sometimes was previously told that I'm very sensitive, too. It wasn't called a weakness but I would see it as that for myself. It never made sense when I'd get called that, lol. I'm not sensitive in the same way most people are, it's different for me due to my strong independence. Emotional dependence would frankly be the thing I would dislike the most about myself if I fell into that. Yes I mean dependence in the wrong way. Being vulnerable in a way that leads nowhere and blah blah.


"12. What have people seen as your strengths? What do you like about yourself?"

Well just take the positive side of all those traits above. Being forceful when that's helpful, being (very) logical, decisiveness, knowing when to take action, ability to keep calm and collected, and supportive of those who feel lost. Ohh and overall lack of "proper behaviour", when it gives extra advantages to get to a goal, ofc then it's suddenly good too, ha ha.


"13. In what areas of your life would you like help?"

I used to think I'd need help in the area of feelings and relationships. Wrong. No. I can do all that myself. Do not rely on others to spoonfeed you anything, you go and improve on your own issues instead of waiting for the magical help.

So yeah, I can deal with all those soft feelz just fine, and if cannot with some of them yet, I will be able to find a way in future. I have no fears here. I also used to have an issue not dealing with some intense emotions but just withdrawing from them, same category now.

It really is freeing to experience having gone through hell and then learning you can keep your independence after all and that you do not actually need the input from others even in the seemingly most hopeless issues. No one could have helped me anyway in those issues. Even if some people tried to convince me otherwise, they were wrong on this.

Then apart from that, I sometimes would (almost) like help with planning things better, but heck, I manage OK on my own. Like, I can improve on how to make the most efficient plans without being too rigid about them. That's a doable thing. I do get too rigid if I'm not careful. Like extremely rigid. Until I figure out how to be flexible again while keeping the plan. Or I forget about planning in something but that's usually not a real bad issue. I've learnt so much in this area too.

I mean, the worst part would be planning issues when it involved others in very close relationships. That, that would always backfire really bad for me eventually. Majorly bit me in the ass several times. But yeah, I've learnt a lot.

And then. I'll add this here. That I used to believe I can and should help a lot with getting people to do things and achieving their goals. Nah. They can learn to motivate themselves. I'm done spoonfeeding anyone. Not gonna overstep sensible boundaries with this, no matter how close a relationship may be. The exact same approach as for myself above.

Yeah, yeah, I enjoyed helping people like that - secretly it was also giving me a good excuse to kick people's asses hard when feelin' like it - but nah. It does not benefit anyone in the long run to depend on others too much. So just fuck that, I say. I don't like overly dependent people anyway, even if they gave the best excuse to dole out some rough kicks, it was too easy and if they were too accepting of that treatment, then it would get boring being able to utterly control such people overall. : p


"14. Ever feel stuck in a rut? If yes, describe the causes and your reaction to it."

No uh. I keep moving forward. I don't believe in ruts. It is all up to your resilience. And your belief in meaning and purpose. Keep yourself empowered.


"15. What qualities do you most like and dislike in other people? What types do you get along with?"

Ah, for dislikes see the values section above. But a recap: lack of reliability, major irresponsibility and "commitment issues", emotional manipulativeness, selfishness, unfairness, passive aggressiveness, silent treatment, laziness, aimlessness&lack of drive, parasitic lifestyle, lack of remorse&guilt.

For likes, eh, the opposite of the above. Reliability, taking commitments seriously, keeping promises, empathy, ability for devotion, fairness, enough assertiveness to not be passive aggro (!!!!), a drive and sense of purpose, and actually DOING things.

Emotionally, I'm repeating myself but I like emotionally reliable and consistent people. Consistency in the basic attitudes. That's a must for any kind of close relationship that includes commitment. Close enough friendship, romantic relationship. Sure it sounds like a basic requirement but I expect this more than many people.

& Bonus, I'm particularly attracted to elegance in general: in looks, in social behaviour, in terms of emotionality and in terms of intelligence etc. I do like also people who can make things interesting in general, again it's socially, emotionally, intellectually and so on. A sense of adventure also never hurts.


I don't know what types I get along with. The generalities are, I like logical people because they are drama-free, and I like emotional people because they are interesting, lol sometimes drama is interesting too. Overall I also like practical enough people who still have a sense&ability to "see beyond face value", since I hardly can so this is useful and interesting as well. It can also be enchanting but I frankly don't know which type of Intuition that is.


"16. How do you feel about romance/sex? What qualities do you want in a partner?"

Yeah, romance/sex are needed in what I've just called a romantic relationship.

Qualities as above, just in a romantic context. Emotionally, I used to be more relaxed, and I don't mind nonserious flirting and the like, but if it gets more serious, I'm a nazi about reliability and the rest I mentioned. Good character and them actually loving me is important overall.

I plan to get more relaxed again, as much as possible anyhow, atm kinda experimenting still overall about what kind of partner I'd want to really commit to. Like, yeah, I haven't done that final commitment myself either. Just dating and living together is what I've had commitment about. That sortof thing.


"17. If you were to raise a child, what would be your main concerns, what measures would you take, and why?"

Ensure their development in every major area and their success in life - they would be allowed to choose their own purpose, direction, life path etc of course.

***


Thanks again for any answers!!

[Northstar]

Most of that was like looking into a mirror for me, LSI. And not as in mirror type in socionics, like an identical.

[grumpyvic81]

Most of that was like looking into a mirror for me, LSI. And not as in mirror type in socionics, like an identical.

Thanks for your quick feedback. Mind elaborating a bit on what you see as LSI/what you related to etc.?

[Northstar]

I'll avoid quoting major portions of the first post, but the two first chapters of how you look like/come off as, as well as the values part could've been written by me. Although, maybe not the dressing well part (in my own opinion, I've got comments sometimes on the contrary though).
Ambiverted and very focused fit very well. Detached observation but being ready to jump in at any time with sharp opinions is also typical of me in group situations.

The questionnaire parts also fit well, but I feel more of a need of "help" in terms of relationships, more the ethical part and help in deciding on a common vision that both parties can focus on. Being stuck in a rut, I agree with your way of resolving it and although I sometimes can have this feeling it doesn't last for days, instead passes relatively quickly as I decide that action is better than wallowing in it.

Basically it's much easier to find parts that don't fit 100% than the other way around.

[grumpyvic81]

I'll avoid quoting major portions of the first post, but the two first chapters of how you look like/come off as, as well as the values part could've been written by me. Although, maybe not the dressing well part (in my own opinion, I've got comments sometimes on the contrary though).
Ambiverted and very focused fit very well. Detached observation but being ready to jump in at any time with sharp opinions is also typical of me in group situations.

The questionnaire parts also fit well, but I feel more of a need of "help" in terms of relationships, more the ethical part and help in deciding on a common vision that both parties can focus on. Being stuck in a rut, I agree with your way of resolving it and although I sometimes can have this feeling it doesn't last for days, instead passes relatively quickly as I decide that action is better than wallowing in it.

Basically it's much easier to find parts that don't fit 100% than the other way around.

That's interesting, the way you describe things here I totally relate yeah, reading your thread now BTW.

With feeling the need of the "help" thing, I felt that more before too.

For the ethical part mainly, as for the issue with finding a vision I don't feel I ever really had a problem there, I just always had confidence about setting such longer term goals. I got some sorted, then some of them I'm still working on reaching ofc.

A common vision would be really good ofc, I had that before with a partner but not now.

[Northstar]

That's interesting, the way you describe things here I totally relate yeah, reading your thread now BTW.

With feeling the need of the "help" thing, I felt that more before too.

For the ethical part mainly, as for the issue with finding a vision I don't feel I ever really had a problem there, I just always had confidence about setting such longer term goals. I got some sorted, then some of them I'm still working on reaching ofc.

A common vision would be really good ofc, I had that before with a partner but not now.

I have long term goals that are pretty concrete but when it comes to the ethical goals (family, relationships, etc) I don't feel comfortable unless I can share and receive reinforcement from someone that I trust to be competent in these matters, as I feel like those goals are somewhat naive and reflect my low development in ethics.
Goals that are related to career-building and acquisition of things are not a problem, I keep reaching them and then set new, loftier goals.

[grumpyvic81]

I have long term goals that are pretty concrete but when it comes to the ethical goals (family, relationships, etc) I don't feel comfortable unless I can share and receive reinforcement from someone that I trust to be competent in these matters, as I feel like those goals are somewhat naive and reflect my low development in ethics.
Goals that are related to career-building and acquisition of things are not a problem, I keep reaching them and then set new, loftier goals.

Yeah I meant those goals too lol, the latter is easy enough. For ethical goals I went through hell like I implied above, but now I have more confidence there too, but it's all the start really. How/why do you feel these goals of yours are naive?

[Northstar]

Yeah I meant those goals too lol, the latter is easy enough. For ethical goals I went through hell like I implied above, but now I have more confidence there too, but it's all the start really. How/why do you feel these goals of yours are naive?

I think the ideals might be too perfect, almost like I'm not considering at all what goals they would have for themselves and how it might compromise mine, that they are real persons with their own, possibly partially conflicting wishes.
A hope for perfect alignment of goals and distribution of tasks so that there is no need to compromise.

[grumpyvic81]

I think the ideals might be too perfect, almost like I'm not considering at all what goals they would have for themselves and how it might compromise mine, that they are real persons with their own, possibly partially conflicting wishes.
A hope for perfect alignment of goals and distribution of tasks so that there is no need to compromise.

Hmm OK I don't entirely relate at that point, because I'm always very aware of trying to see what goal the other person has, but I've made the mistake of assuming from some data that they had the same goal. It seemed really a no-brainer but I failed to take into account their character. And that was one of those cases where my planning in the relationship really bit my ass in the end. lol ...

If you mean you are trying to see it too but make the conclusion too fast on what their goal is, then my experience above is the same thing you are talking of, yeah.

[Northstar]

Yes, I jump to conclusions too quickly, especially when it comes to relationships. And often into negative conclusions too, being very afraid of all kinds of betrayal. Reading some Ne PoLR descriptions here on the forum was very clarifying for me.

[grumpyvic81]

Yes, I jump to conclusions too quickly, especially when it comes to relationships. And often into negative conclusions too, being very afraid of all kinds of betrayal. Reading some Ne PoLR descriptions here on the forum was very clarifying for me.

Ah I see. Do you have these links by any chance? Lol thanks for your patience btw.

[Northstar]

Ah I see. Do you have these links by any chance? Lol thanks for your patience btw.

There were some good posts there among the noise, I'm sure you'll find them yourself: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...Fjs-and-ISTjs/

[grumpyvic81]

@Alonzo


I thought this post by you in another thread was interesting on Fe/Fi if you don't mind me referring to it:


"First, answer this > can you physically feel/take on/mirror the emotions of others and whatever environment you're apart of, as if their feelings and moods are contagious? Valuing Fe involves being dynamically aware of the "continuous excitations in people's emotional" states, which I interpret as affective/emotional empathy, where brain cells called mirror neurons fire when we sense another’s emotional state, creating an echo of that state inside our own minds.

To differing extents and degrees, all Fe valuers (E*Es, the most and L*Is, the least) are aware of and in tune with the ambient emotional vibes in others and the environment, though they may have differing facility and competency when it comes to utilizing and responding to this brand of "feedback." If you relate to this, then Alpha and Beta quadra are likely.

If not, that leaves Delta and Gamma, who prefer Fi cognitive empathy or perspective taking, which concerns one's ability to identify and understand other people’s emotions by way of placing oneself in another's shoes. Those with strong, high D Fi can almost automatically and spontaneously take on another’s perspective while those with low D Fi struggle to do so as quickly and easily.

The scientific community acknowledges that people access empathy channels differently and that there are those who are great at cognitive empathy but have trouble accessing affective empathy, namely because these two types of empathy are working completely different processing systems.

In my anecdotal experience/research/investigations, I have found that Gamma and Delta types don't do affective empathy, which is part of the reason why they are often (negatively) perceived as selfish or self focused and refuse to fake or alter their emotional state to appease others, contrasted with Fe valuers who can have their feelings more easily moved and swayed by others and the environment. It's just that some people may be more genetically hardwired to physically feel the emotions of others.

So which form of empathy do you cognitively prefer? It can make all the difference in the world when it comes to narrowing down your type options."

***

So I'll answer this for myself. What I'm finding is

1) I have really weak affective empathy. Most of the time I barely feel it or at least not too strongly when others express emotions, but I can automatically mirror them in some cases - without noticing. I find it useful that I do not feel it strongly i.e. my internal state* remains neutral or almost fully neutral, this way I can keep my independence and be able to evaluate things objectively without being overly affected by others. So I'm like, I may feel a little emotion, but I just feel it on top of my default calmness/neutrality, i.e. that calmness stays just fine. If others are upset or there's a crisis I'm able to stay calm and collected thanks to this too. ... I find anger I absolutely do not take up at all, for some reason. I may get angry myself but it's a fully conscious decision whether I want to respond with anger to an angry person or not.

2) Perspective taking of feelings is also weak. I find perspective taking an interesting task sometimes, but then I get frustrated that there's too many possible interpretations and I feel it's then impossible to pick the right one. When I was more into this, I made the mistake easily that I picked the first one I thought of and be enthusiastic about having found it, and then it turned out to be completely wrong. So yeah, I decided I can't be bothered with this. People either tell me what they feel, or not. ... I do find it useful when they tell me, because then I can take that into account for more smooth negotiations or discussions instead of conflict of the bad kind that leads nowhere. And when they told me, I'm able to use my knowledge of cognitive empathy to do something with it. As I spent a lot of time on learning about that type of empathy. I find it very useful in some cases for sure.



So, whenever I think of empathy, I think of perspective taking of feelings or just cognitive empathy (I first was originally focused on affective empathy but that just didn't work), but again, I usually do need to be told by people about their feelings to be able to make use of that. I have found that the only time I can read their feelings/emotions is reading their anger, if they are angry. Strangely enough, I have some ability to read that emotion in a really nuanced way. (And like I said I can decide CONSCIOUSLY if I want to use anger. I cannot use other emotions, cannot call them up at all, anger I can at will.) Other ones... eh, no. Simple basic obvious expressions I will read tho' sure. The rest no, they are an encrypted language that I never pay attention to but can enjoy sometimes.

As for the affective side of empathy, I thought for a short time that affective empathy is useful, but then I found out that when I'm very upset, some people WILL misread that the wrong way. I am not sure if they are even doing affective empathy and it overloads them leading to bad results, or they are doing perspective taking because they don't want to feel with me, and then that's what goes wrong, I don't know.

This is an interesting issue actually, I should ask some of these people which type of empathy they were doing. But I assume affective empathy, because things go most wrong if I cannot express my upset directly enough and I just ask verbally for things that would help with feeling less upset. Some people feel they are being "told what to do", then, because not enough emotional expression accompanies the request, I figure. Things also do go wrong when someone reads my emotion of upset, exaggerates its importance (when I'm very upset, it does look very bad emotionally), and then they may be using some additional perspective taking to assume my needs but they assume wrong...? They overthink it and think that I have a load of needs that I don't in actuality. These people are unable to read my direct straightforwardness and must look between the lines and read my expression too much.

But I find some people do not need to use affective empathy at all to be able to fulfill my concrete requests at such times. For example an ESI friend of mine, he failed to read my upset right with whatever empathy he may have used, but he was able to take away the message from my request later and he did comply and then we were able to solve the whole issue. As a contrast, I talked to someone else who said, if someone asks them x thing to do, that to them is emotional, and the person does not add the matching emotional expression, she feels horrible about it and definitely will NOT do the request. That person may have been an IEI, I don't know for sure but it's likely (the alternative would be EII). With such people I figure it would obviously all turn into a disaster - them feeling like they are being told to do x, but without emotional info added from nonverbal or verbal expressions or whatever.



*: Frankly I don't even want any emotional state internally 99% of the time. I do not want to be "filled" with emotions. If they come up it's OK for a second or two, but then I want them pushed out of my system fast. Need them released or removed in some way ASAP. It's rare that I'd want them to stay longer. Anger/rage is where I have the most tolerance for having it internally but it's still not for very long - a few minutes, at most half an hour - before it feels draining or like it's been an eternity and then I don't feel fully in control anymore, if it feels like the emotion's been there for an eternity. Also with anger/rage I must release it as soon as I can (by action, or maybe by swearing and the like, depending). Feeling in control of the emotions is very important for me, for sure. All in all I do SOMETIMES enjoy emotions moving through me or whatever, but they MUST go away fast or be released fast. Beyond irritation/anger/rage, I don't often need an actual release - or I don't notice? - the exception is if I'm very upset about a personal issue, then yes it will help eventually. In all other cases, I just turn the emotion into action, instead of focusing on feeling it, I'll take action and that way I can enjoy some emotions stuff. ... Or I can turn them into analysis when it's negative emotions and need problem solving.


Well does that say anything?

[Adam Strange]

Grumpyvic81, I think you are LSE, if the choice is between ISTj and ESTj.

Your entire self-description was about personal achievement. An LSI would be talking more about how she could help others, serve some organization, and find a way to get the credentials to fit in. Fe/Ti vs Fi/Te.

Additionally, the things you value are the characteristics of EII’s. Loyalty, etc. An LSI would value someone who helped a stranger and could tell great, exciting stories, not someone who was loyal and obedient.

[grumpyvic81]

Grumpyvic81, I think you are LSE, if the choice is between ISTj and ESTj.

Your entire self-description was about personal achievement. An LSI would be talking more about how she could help others, serve some organization, and find a way to get the credentials to fit in. Fe/Ti vs Fi/Te.

Additionally, the things you value are the characteristics of EII’s. Loyalty, etc. An LSI would value someone who helped a stranger and could tell great, exciting stories, not someone who was loyal and obedient.

Thanks for the input.

Hmm. Yes achievement is one of my main values, if I had to pick three it would be in those three for sure. I'm not about fitting in, that's true. Or have a servile enough nature to just serve an organisation. I do find helpfulness important and it's a way I can build connections actually, but I don't find talking about it in detail important at all. Oh yeah loyalty and reliability, and yeah even some obedience (not overdone) along with a good character is needed is what I've learned the hard way. Very hard way lol. ... Anyway yeah, so that's why this stuff is important. I don't need to be told great exciting stories, or at least I don't attach any importance to this. Helpfulness does look good for sure tho'.

@kingslayer if you remember us talking about this, then, whenever you have got the time I'm curious about your input.

[Alonzo]

@grumpyvic81

"So I'll answer this for myself. What I'm finding is

1) I have really weak affective empathy. Most of the time I barely feel it or at least not too strongly when others express emotions, but I can automatically mirror them in some cases - without noticing. I find it useful that I do not feel it strongly i.e. my internal state* remains neutral or almost fully neutral, this way I can keep my independence and be able to evaluate things objectively without being overly affected by others. So I'm like, I may feel a little emotion, but I just feel it on top of my default calmness/neutrality, i.e. that calmness stays just fine. If others are upset or there's a crisis I'm able to stay calm and collected thanks to this too. ... I find anger I absolutely do not take up at all, for some reason. I may get angry myself but it's a fully conscious decision whether I want to respond with anger to an angry person or not."

This was an excellent description of how low D Fe valuers tend to experience and process affective empathy. But the very fact that you experience this cancels out being a Delta ST, because Deltas and Gammas don't do affective empathy--we don't have those physiological capabilities. Only Alphas and Betas have access to both forms of empathy.

"2) Perspective taking of feelings is also weak. I find perspective taking an interesting task sometimes, but then I get frustrated that there's too many possible interpretations and I feel it's then impossible to pick the right one. When I was more into this, I made the mistake easily that I picked the first one I thought of and be enthusiastic about having found it, and then it turned out to be completely wrong. So yeah, I decided I can't be bothered with this. People either tell me what they feel, or not. ... I do find it useful when they tell me, because then I can take that into account for more smooth negotiations or discussions instead of conflict of the bad kind that leads nowhere. And when they told me, I'm able to use my knowledge of cognitive empathy to do something with it. As I spent a lot of time on learning about that type of empathy. I find it very useful in some cases for sure."

This sounds like 2D role Fi > 1D Fi PoLR:

It is typical for people to periodically work on their role function in order to correct imbalances in their life and improve their weak areas. However, these attempts are generally sporadic and are forgotten as soon as the perceived problem begins to go away and the person once again becomes carried away with their usual lifestyle which is dominated by their base function. Thus, development of the role function is more like patching up leaks than building a complete, self-sufficient structure. Often individuals wish they could build up their role function and become "supermen", but an excessive focus on this unreachable goal brings disappointment, because the base function always wins anyways.

When people are criticized for their lack of attentiveness to their role function, they are often irritated because they are already well aware of the deficiency and have already tried and failed to correct it. When problems arise with the role function, energy flows away from the base function, the individual brings his usual activities to a halt, and tries to pick up all the tasks he had been neglecting. Directing energy through the base function is effortless; working with the role function requires effort and concentration. Thus, people's concept of self-development is often centered on development of the role function and the Super-Ego block in general.

Compared to the vulnerable function, role function criticism is easier for a person to respond to or dismiss, since they believe that it has some value, in theory. The role function is triggered situationally, when individuals are met with situations that oppose their base aspect of reality. The base function only accepts information relating to its information aspect, and other information cannot be produced into new data with the creative function.

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Functions


"So, whenever I think of empathy, I think of perspective taking of feelings or just cognitive empathy, but again, I usually do need to be told by people about their feelings to be able to make use of that. I have found that the only time I can read their feelings/emotions is reading their anger, if they are angry. Strangely enough, I have some ability to read that emotion in a really nuanced way. (And like I said I can decide CONSCIOUSLY if I want to use anger. I cannot use other emotions, cannot call them up at all, anger I can at will.) Other ones... eh, no. Simple basic obvious expressions I will read tho' sure. The rest no, they are an encrypted language that I never pay attention to but can enjoy sometimes."

This brings to mind an aspect of strong Se valuing. Gulenko describes Se as "function of the psyche responsible for excitability and release of the accumulated aggression":

The type of people with pronounced (Se) force sensation is characterized by periodically discharging irritation with aggressive reactions. At such moments, it's best not to interfere. Therefore, we call this type enforcers or assertors.

In everyday life, assertors can be calm and even relaxed people who are happy for extended periods due to neither being hungry nor provoked, though the transition to an excited state can be quite spontaneous when hungry or experiencing any jolt triggering a role switch. In other words, if their mind short fuses, it automatically triggers natural instincts. This triggered impulse immediately excites assertors. Their breathing and pulse increases, and the body is mobilized and enters a state of combat readiness. Such provoking factors for enforcers is often dramatic shouting or coarse language, but also the demonstration of fear.

What's rather interesting to me is the link between anger, aggression and the "excitability" Gulenko describes. Excitability is another way of saying high reactivity to stimulation, which is oftentimes related to having a short fuse, or the capacity for accelerated anger. Anger is an emotion that motivates and energizes one to act. Aggression is the act, the instrumentation of forceful behavior, and is often a byproduct of anger. I interpret your ability to "read" anger in all of its nuances and manifestations as gauging another person's degree of "excitability (read: reactivity)," the kinetic energy field surrounding someone and the degree to which they can mobilize/make use of it.

As someone who has unconscious, weak 2D Se and was forced to partake in Anger management because I don't have natural control of my anger, or more precisely, my reactivity, I'm envious of those who know how to wield it effectively, and with greater precision, intention and purpose.

"As for the affective side of empathy, I thought for a short time that affective empathy is useful, but then I found out that when I'm very upset, some people WILL misread that the wrong way. I am not sure if they are even doing affective empathy and it overloads them leading to bad results, or they are doing perspective taking because they don't want to feel with me, and then that's what goes wrong, I don't know.

This is an interesting issue actually, I should ask some of these people which type of empathy they were doing. But I assume affective empathy, because things go most wrong if I cannot express my upset directly enough and I just ask verbally for things that would help with feeling less upset. Some people feel they are being "told what to do", then, because not enough emotional expression accompanies the request, I figure. Things also do go wrong when someone reads my emotion of upset, exaggerates its importance (when I'm very upset, it does look very bad emotionally), and then they may be using some additional perspective taking to assume my needs but they assume wrong...? They overthink it and think that I have a load of needs that I don't in actuality. These people are unable to read my direct straightforwardness and must look between the lines and read my expression too much."

1.) The thing is, those with 1D Fe (IXTp and IXTj), by default, tend to have the least mobile, least expressive faces and discernible emotionality; therefore, it makes sense that they are cognitively paired with 4D Fe types (EXFp and EXFj), who tend to be the most outwardly emotive/expressive types.

However, Fe valuers "communicate" by way of making emotional provocations, saying or doing something to illicit visible and direct emotional feedback (by way of affective empathy)--it's useful because it's a form of immediate, actionable information. Fe valuers need to "see to believe" and so they may feel unsure, insecure and thrown off when they can't visibly discern what someone is feeling, which seemingly creates a problem when it comes to properly reading Fe suggestive types due to their general lack of Fe expressiveness. But Fe leads counter that by spreading their own infectious, high expressiveness, kind of like a fishing lure with tasty and tantalizing bait.

Oftentimes, Fe leads can use this to goad others (especially those with suggestive Fe) into mirroring their emotional state, like if LSI is feeling bad or in a nasty mood and EIE wants you to feel better (ultimately, so that they feel better as well, because they can intensely feel another person's "funky vibes"). Whereas you can also pick up others' "vibes" but not enough for them to claim your "independence," Fe leads don't have that luxury--they can be overridden (to their detriment) with someone else's bad mojo, like a raw, exposed nerve sensitive to the touch. It's very possible for "things to go wrong" in that case because an inability to change your bad mood will mean they must also endure a bad mood, themselves--and that can feel particularly awful for them.

2.) What is the nature of your "needs" that have been misread? I ask because it's possible that an ethical type didn't make the "wrong guess" concerning your needs because of the particular brand of empathy they employed, but because of the preference and strength of their perceptive functions (sensation vs intuition).

For example, ESEs and EIEs cognitively expect and anticipate the subconscious SF and NF "needs" of LIIs and LSIs. ESE and LSI is a common pairing, for example, and so it's not difficult to imagine ESE trying to cater to sensory based needs that LSI is more than capable of handling on their own, which could cause some friction. ESE can use Fe to pick up that LSI is feeling bad, but to cheer LSI up, ESE is more likely to resort to concrete acts of service, rather than engaging the abstracted Ne "possibilities" and overarching Ni "essence" behind whatever problem LSI might be experiencing. Furthermore, ESEs have powerful 4D Se working alongside their 4D Fe, and so they damn sure wouldn't want to be "told what to do"; they work better with Se PoLR types like LIIs because they don't put up as much resistance.

"But I find some people do not need to use affective empathy at all to be able to fulfill my concrete requests at such times. For example an ESI friend of mine, he failed to read my upset right with whatever empathy he may have used, but he was able to take away the message from my request later and he did comply and then we were able to solve the whole issue. As a contrast, I talked to someone else who said, if someone asks them x thing to do, that to them is emotional, and the person does not add the matching emotional expression, she feels horrible about it and definitely will NOT do the request. That person may have been an IEI, I don't know for sure but it's likely (the alternative would be EII). With such people I figure it would obviously all turn into a disaster - them feeling like they are being told to do x, but without emotional info added from nonverbal or verbal expressions or whatever."

Yup.

"*: Frankly I don't even want any emotional state internally 99% of the time. I do not want to be "filled" with emotions. If they come up it's OK for a second or two, but then I want them pushed out of my system fast. Need them released or removed in some way ASAP. It's rare that I'd want them to stay longer. Anger/rage is where I have the most tolerance for having it internally but it's still not for very long - a few minutes, at most half an hour - before it feels draining or like it's been an eternity and then I don't feel fully in control anymore, if it feels like the emotion's been there for an eternity. Also with anger/rage I must release it as soon as I can (by action, or maybe by swearing and the like, depending). Feeling in control of the emotions is very important for me, for sure. All in all I do SOMETIMES enjoy emotions moving through me or whatever, but they MUST go away fast or be released fast. Beyond irritation/anger/rage, I don't often need an actual release - or I don't notice? - the exception is if I'm very upset about a personal issue, then yes it will help eventually. In all other cases, I just turn the emotion into action, instead of focusing on feeling it, I'll take action and that way I can enjoy some emotions stuff. ... Or I can turn them into analysis when it's negative emotions and need problem solving."

A lot of this is very relatable content; this reads like a fear of disorientation, of our already shoddy ass emotional processing units (as logical types) being short circuited by too many emotions we're unable to efficiently process, which I have personally experienced as a "madness" of sorts. If ethical types can hold about a gallon, we're good for a shot glass of pure, raw emotion--and that can be enough to have us "flying high." lol Like you, the only emotion I feel comfortable indulging is anger, but even that has a limit.


"Well does that say anything?"

Yes, that @Northstar is probably correct; LSI seems like a great fit. Holistically speaking, you "vibe" very LSI to me, based on my ITR/experience with LSIs.

[grumpyvic81]

@Alonzo

Thanks for your input too. I'll respond to some of the points.

It is typical for people to periodically work on their role function in order to correct imbalances in their life and improve their weak areas. However, these attempts are generally sporadic and are forgotten as soon as the perceived problem begins to go away and the person once again becomes carried away with their usual lifestyle which is dominated by their base function. Thus, development of the role function is more like patching up leaks than building a complete, self-sufficient structure. Often individuals wish they could build up their role function and become "supermen", but an excessive focus on this unreachable goal brings disappointment, because the base function always wins anyways.

When people are criticized for their lack of attentiveness to their role function, they are often irritated because they are already well aware of the deficiency and have already tried and failed to correct it. When problems arise with the role function, energy flows away from the base function, the individual brings his usual activities to a halt, and tries to pick up all the tasks he had been neglecting. Directing energy through the base function is effortless; working with the role function requires effort and concentration. Thus, people's concept of self-development is often centered on development of the role function and the Super-Ego block in general.

Compared to the vulnerable function, role function criticism is easier for a person to respond to or dismiss, since they believe that it has some value, in theory. The role function is triggered situationally, when individuals are met with situations that oppose their base aspect of reality. The base function only accepts information relating to its information aspect, and other information cannot be produced into new data with the creative function.

What I underlined is pretty familiar, yeah.

"So, whenever I think of empathy, I think of perspective taking of feelings or just cognitive empathy, but again, I usually do need to be told by people about their feelings to be able to make use of that. I have found that the only time I can read their feelings/emotions is reading their anger, if they are angry. Strangely enough, I have some ability to read that emotion in a really nuanced way. (And like I said I can decide CONSCIOUSLY if I want to use anger. I cannot use other emotions, cannot call them up at all, anger I can at will.) Other ones... eh, no. Simple basic obvious expressions I will read tho' sure. The rest no, they are an encrypted language that I never pay attention to but can enjoy sometimes."

This brings to mind an aspect of strong Se valuing. Gulenko describes Se as "function of the psyche responsible for excitability and release of the accumulated aggression":

The type of people with pronounced (Se) force sensation is characterized by periodically discharging irritation with aggressive reactions. At such moments, it's best not to interfere. Therefore, we call this type enforcers or assertors.

In everyday life, assertors can be calm and even relaxed people who are happy for extended periods due to neither being hungry nor provoked, though the transition to an excited state can be quite spontaneous when hungry or experiencing any jolt triggering a role switch. In other words, if their mind short fuses, it automatically triggers natural instincts. This triggered impulse immediately excites assertors. Their breathing and pulse increases, and the body is mobilized and enters a state of combat readiness. Such provoking factors for enforcers is often dramatic shouting or coarse language, but also the demonstration of fear.

What's rather interesting to me is the link between anger, aggression and the "excitability" Gulenko describes. Excitability is another way of saying high reactivity to stimulation, which is oftentimes related to having a short fuse, or the capacity for accelerated anger. Anger is an emotion that motivates and energizes one to act. Aggression is the act, the instrumentation of forceful behavior, and is often a byproduct of anger. I interpret your ability to "read" anger in all of its nuances and manifestations as gauging another person's degree of "excitability (read: reactivity)," the kinetic energy field surrounding someone and the degree to which they can mobilize/make use of it.

As someone who has unconscious, weak 2D Se and was forced to partake in Anger management because I don't have natural control of my anger, or more precisely, my reactivity, I'm envious of those who know how to wield it effectively, and with greater precision, intention and purpose.

Interesting. I would say yes I'm excitable. But with stimulation by default I have a high stimulation threshold, hard to overload me (not even really possible ). Also I would say that the excitability is not just anger but if you want to really generalise the concept of aggression then yeah it works. I got a default readiness and you could link it to that just fine even when it's not like with my heart rate increased etc etc.

And yes I read the degree of anger/energy in people too and other nuances about it.

As for "periodically discharging irritation with aggressive reactions. At such moments, it's best not to interfere", that fits, except it depends because if it does have a target and goal then obviously I don't need everyone to stay out of it. It's not just me raging to myself then. Not sure tho' if you meant that originally.

BTW I would say, (instrumental) aggression doesn't require strong emotional anger. I read about a categorisation once, impulsive aggression is what you were talking about when you said it's a byproduct of anger. The other type of aggression is instrumental aggression, ofc. That's the one that allows precision, intention and purpose, yeah.

Also, Se demonstrative doesn't do any of this?

1.) The thing is, those with 1D Fe (IXTp and IXTj), by default, tend to have the least mobile, least expressive faces and discernible emotionality; therefore, it makes sense that they are cognitively paired with 4D Fe types (EXFp and EXFj), who tend to be the most outwardly emotive/expressive types.

However, Fe valuers "communicate" by way of making emotional provocations, saying or doing something to illicit visible and direct emotional feedback (by way of affective empathy)--it's useful because it's a form of immediate, actionable information. Fe valuers need to "see to believe" and so they may feel unsure, insecure and thrown off when they can't visibly discern what someone is feeling, which seemingly creates a problem when it comes to properly reading Fe suggestive types due to their general lack of Fe expressiveness. But Fe leads counter that by spreading their own infectious, high expressiveness, kind of like a fishing lure with tasty and tantalizing bait.

As for the underlined, I'm not sure if this is Fe or other extraversion of some sort, I noticed that in some situations when it's informal enough and it's not like me being fully focused on tasks, or a completely official situation, I feel better when there's interaction and when there's interaction there's ofcourse usually always some emotional information too but I don't think I consciously focus on that. Maybe subconsciously, tho' yeah. Consciously I focus more on the interaction itself and that's what relaxes me. I don't know if it's the emotional part that relaxes me too additionally, or that doesn't play a part. I noticed also if there's interaction but then it stops for some reason (don't think of any bad reason here tho') then it's really hard for me to feel at ease around the person/people again until I can get away physically. Unless idk, if I can stay engaged enough to continue it, then it's OK again. But otherwise I'll just be real tense, more tense than usual and really NOT at ease. I just in general don't feel good if nothing is going on anyway. Like sometimes it can be as basic as, say if I travel with public transport and say I get on a bus and it's not left the station yet I can be "anxious" there too, until it does get moving. Unless Ican get myself busy with something ofc.. So I don't sit and think to myself alone, I'm not reflective like almost not at all. If I really need to kill the time somewhere then I can think about my goals tho'.

As for emotional provocations, I don't think I do that. Or I don't recognise it if I do.

Oftentimes, Fe leads can use this to goad others (especially those with suggestive Fe) into mirroring their emotional state, like if LSI is feeling bad or in a nasty mood and EIE wants you to feel better (ultimately, so that they feel better as well, because they can intensely feel another person's "funky vibes"). Whereas you can also pick up others' "vibes" but not enough for them to claim your "independence," Fe leads don't have that luxury--they can be overridden (to their detriment) with someone else's bad mojo, like a raw, exposed nerve sensitive to the touch. It's very possible for "things to go wrong" in that case because an inability to change your bad mood will mean they must also endure a bad mood, themselves--and that can feel particularly awful for them.

Lol I don't need to be goaded into mirroring anyone. I mean yeah if I get to mirror someone I don't notice it happens so it def doesn't feel like goading. I don't actually like to notice consciously, I can feel like it's too "submissive" if I overdo it. But then if I try to stop and not do it I get to feel I'm having a too hostile attitude. So that's a problem lol.

I once even cut off someone fully because I could not think of another way to ensure they won't appease me. Like I didn't feel good with the idea of just acting cold with them. So it's a problem yeah but I've been learning to accept that acting cold like that can be okay if the other person really did some major moral wrong shit. Frankly that sortof insight has helped me alot. I did read EIE helps LSI with definite ethical judgments ...

Also interesting about EIE feeling the bad vibes that intensely. That would be really intrusive to me if I had such strong affective empathy. Mine works more like I want to just help the person (if I think that fits the situation). It all just becomes part of the interaction again, just like I described above too about interactions.

2.) What is the nature of your "needs" that have been misread? I ask because it's possible that an ethical type didn't make the "wrong guess" concerning your needs because of the particular brand of empathy they employed, but because of the preference and strength of their perceptive functions (sensation vs intuition).

For example, ESEs and EIEs cognitively expect and anticipate the subconscious SF and NF "needs" of LIIs and LSIs. ESE and LSI is a common pairing, for example, and so it's not difficult to imagine ESE trying to cater to sensory based needs that LSI is more than capable of handling on their own, which could cause some friction. ESE can use Fe to pick up that LSI is feeling bad, but to cheer LSI up, ESE is more likely to resort to concrete acts of service, rather than engaging the abstracted Ne "possibilities" and overarching Ni "essence" behind whatever problem LSI might be experiencing. Furthermore, ESEs have powerful 4D Se working alongside their 4D Fe, and so they damn sure wouldn't want to be "told what to do"; they work better with Se PoLR types like LIIs because they don't put up as much resistance.

DAMN. Good point in a way. They thought I'd need sensitive caretaking. Or consolation or idk. I don't know, bc I never asked. I don't need these things tho'. No they weren't even ESEs though lol. I said DAMN because that part about wanting the "abstracted Ne "possibilities" and overarching Ni "essence" behind whatever problem LSI might be experiencing" fits so well. They don't get it that I sometimes just want some help in reframing and making sense of what's going on and stuff like that. I think I've had the most issues with IEIs in this area but I used to not have the issue with them actually, then something just changed and things got worse like this. So they would think I need some feely shit that I never wanted. My "emotional needs" are simpler than that, nothing crazy complex. I'm nothing like an Enneagram 4 or whatever they thought me to be. They just probably used perspective taking based on how they themselves work, lol. : p

"But I find some people do not need to use affective empathy at all to be able to fulfill my concrete requests at such times. For example an ESI friend of mine, he failed to read my upset right with whatever empathy he may have used, but he was able to take away the message from my request later and he did comply and then we were able to solve the whole issue. As a contrast, I talked to someone else who said, if someone asks them x thing to do, that to them is emotional, and the person does not add the matching emotional expression, she feels horrible about it and definitely will NOT do the request. That person may have been an IEI, I don't know for sure but it's likely (the alternative would be EII). With such people I figure it would obviously all turn into a disaster - them feeling like they are being told to do x, but without emotional info added from nonverbal or verbal expressions or whatever."

Yup.

Oh yeah let me add that with this specific example with the ESI, as soon as the ESI showed kindness I calmed down and I was able to just discuss the issue in a normal way. Some really minimal kindness tbh. I did not need more of it than one second of it, along with the fact of him being willing to be submissive so to speak.

BTW. To be more fair to IEIs, I would say I also know an IEI who actually is more able to work with me than other people when if comes to these more personal topics. She makes jokes out of shit, and helps not make it all too deep. I'm sometimes of two minds with that, sometimes I think it's a bit overkill to make it that jokey shallow to cheer me up, it's almost shocking lol, but then sometimes it really helps get me moving forward again emotionally or something. Like she gets me unstuck from too deep shit. She's IEI-Fe, if that matters. She likes in general to change between serious and jokey and that's fine by me by default, but for some of it, I've taken some time getting used to that but it's a funny challenge too to get to read her right in those cases. It's all confusing typology-wise because, I used to know another Beta NF (I don't know if IEI or EIE), with whom I didn't need to try and get to read her right, it just plain worked. Or I thought it worked, until it didn't.

Again. In general too I noticed I do better if I don't go too deep with feelz, especially not for longer than a second, because that's just really unhealthy for me, I can't and won't deal with it, I'm better off forever denying that sortof shit lol. I deal better with intense emotion than deep feelz. Even tho' intense emotion is hard too sometimes. But when I understand what the emotion is I can control it really well physically. I don't know if that makes sense (the physical control --> it does need some rational understanding too but nothing too complex).

Is this related to Fe > Fi, and would you say you as a Fi valuer, you need the deep feelings?

"*: Frankly I don't even want any emotional state internally 99% of the time. I do not want to be "filled" with emotions. If they come up it's OK for a second or two, but then I want them pushed out of my system fast. Need them released or removed in some way ASAP. It's rare that I'd want them to stay longer. Anger/rage is where I have the most tolerance for having it internally but it's still not for very long - a few minutes, at most half an hour - before it feels draining or like it's been an eternity and then I don't feel fully in control anymore, if it feels like the emotion's been there for an eternity. Also with anger/rage I must release it as soon as I can (by action, or maybe by swearing and the like, depending). Feeling in control of the emotions is very important for me, for sure. All in all I do SOMETIMES enjoy emotions moving through me or whatever, but they MUST go away fast or be released fast. Beyond irritation/anger/rage, I don't often need an actual release - or I don't notice? - the exception is if I'm very upset about a personal issue, then yes it will help eventually. In all other cases, I just turn the emotion into action, instead of focusing on feeling it, I'll take action and that way I can enjoy some emotions stuff. ... Or I can turn them into analysis when it's negative emotions and need problem solving."

A lot of this is very relatable content; this reads like a fear of disorientation, of our already shoddy ass emotional processing units (as logical types) being short circuited by too many emotions we're unable to efficiently process, which I have personally experienced as a "madness" of sorts. If ethical types can hold about a gallon, we're good for a shot glass of pure, raw emotion--and that can be enough to have us "flying high." lol Like you, the only emotion I feel comfortable indulging is anger, but even that has a limit.

Lol yeah what you said it makes complete 100% sense. Except the "fear of disorientation" phrase. I don't fear being disoriented like ever. I'm always oriented. It's just, my emotional server crashes if there's too many complex emotions at once. Or too many negative feelz shit. : p I'm otherwise fine with intense emotions by using that physical control. I just do not want it to go on too long as it gets taxing/feels like an eternity, and also because it's unpleasant to focus inside for long being filled with emotion or whatever it is. Same for deep feelz, being filled with them is not really better, it's again not pleasant after a few seconds anymore.

OK, if any of that made no sense, feel free to let me know tho. I'm just adding these as like, datapoints or something. I don't really have specific questions beyond the couple of things I asked about with regard to the theory, but if you got further thoughts or comments, I'm interested ofc.

[Alonzo]

@grumpyvic81

"Thanks for your input too. I'll respond to some of the points."

No problem. It's interesting to read your thoughts/your own creative understanding of how things work; when conversing with Ti leads, it's as if they are giving me a sneak peak inside of their head, where there is a "language" of their own. LSIs are Te ignoring, and I'm amused by your truncating, correcting, sorting, refitting, and re-articulation of my Te bullshit into your own personal, subjective Ti framework/categorizing system. lol I see you trying to be as true and as accurate as possible, which is why you will categorically refute something that doesn't gel, but still question your presumptions. It's kinda cool because it's like you're constantly building and renovating your understanding in real time, with the structure becoming ever more stable and secure.

Whichever parts of your response that I do not address, take that as your Ti conclusions and S* experiences coinciding with my own Ti understanding in addition to the objective Te criteria (and N* realm of possibility and probability), which basically means I agree and/or can see the plausibility of your argument.

"Also, Se demonstrative doesn't do any of this?"

Yes, but what stood out to me was your usage and emphasis of the word "consciously," and because your Se seems to be strong, that suggests it's an aspect of your ego block; the demonstrative function is strong but unconscious.

I noticed that in some situations when it's informal enough and it's not like me being fully focused on tasks, or a completely official situation, I feel better when there's interaction and when there's interaction there's ofcourse usually always some emotional information too but I don't think I consciously focus on that. Maybe subconsciously, tho' yeah. Consciously I focus more on the interaction itself and that's what relaxes me. I don't know if it's the emotional part that relaxes me too additionally, or that doesn't play a part.

This calls to mind the Merry/Subjectivist [Reinin] dichotomy or being Fe/Ti valuing, where the emotional atmosphere/mood of the environment (and the people involved) is vital in dictating the type of activity/engagement/interaction undertaken.

• Subjectivists are good at noticing the general emotional background that accompanies contact with people (For example: enthusiasm, fun, stress and so on). Fun (as, probably, every other emotional experience) for them is allocated into a separate aspects of activity (to a question "what were you doing" they can answer "we were having fun"—they perceive emotional engagement as a separate type of activity)
• Subjectivist types do not perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity, in contrast to Serious types, for whom it is a kind of a ritual. They know very well why they are getting acquainted (the purpose of this acquaintance is interest, business, travel, and so on). In contrast to the Objectivist types, they do not divide the process of getting acquainted into consecutive stages. They immediately establish the necessary emotional distance in contact and can regulate it as needed. To bridge the gap between poorly acquainted people in a group they amp up the emotional tone—this can be mutually experienced happiness or misfortune. The "name" of the person is of secondary relevance for them. Interest towards the person and relations is primary here, thus Merry types do not consider formality as a necessary part of becoming acquainted with someone.

https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...-Merry-Serious

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...le=Beta_Quadra


"As for emotional provocations, I don't think I do that. Or I don't recognise it if I do."

Is that post even legit or a troll post?

Sry not trying to offend anyone I just seriously thought that while reading this

Anyway I think you were given good advice and it's been a while ago but I just had to say this lol sorry


EDIT: Sorry I do have to say more after reading more. I'm not the OP but I really think this needs to be said.



I mean I think if this isn't a troll post then you really seriously have to learn to care for yourself. Get in touch with your own wants and pay attention to your own well-being too, not just other people's. You can't try and accommodate people while seriously disadvantaging yourself and ignoring your own feelings like this.

Using this post as an example of what I mean, the only reason to apologize about possibly offending someone is if you think your words might hurt their feelings; so that means you knowingly said something emotionally provocative (as in it stirs an emotional reaction), and then countered it with another emotional provocation (saying 'sorry') meant to keep negative feelings at bay and/or imbue a feeling of forgiveness. And I don't say this to make you feel bad (because clearly you have good intentions), but what's interesting to me is that from my vantage point, it seemed like YOUR questioning of FreelancePoliceman's sincerity was a troll attempt due to the blunt, slightly insensitive phrasing and even the very act of questioning some's truthfulness in what is ostensibly a moment of vulnerability. Strong Ti, Weak Fe types can be notorious trolls, if so inclined, because they have a coarser, less refined manner of eliciting an emotional response (perhaps in trying to raise someone's mood). Again, it's obvious that you meant well (especially seeing as how you apologized) and were trying to be empowering (another instance of trying to provoke a feeling).

"Again. In general too I noticed I do better if I don't go too deep with feelz, especially not for longer than a second, because that's just really unhealthy for me, I can't and won't deal with it, I'm better off forever denying that sortof shit lol. I deal better with intense emotion than deep feelz. Even tho' intense emotion is hard too sometimes. But when I understand what the emotion is I can control it really well physically. I don't know if that makes sense (the physical control --> it does need some rational understanding too but nothing too complex).

Is this related to Fe > Fi, and would you say you as a Fi valuer, you need the deep feelings?"

1.) Yes, high D Fe valuers like SEIs and IEIs are two of the most empathic sociotypes, because not only are they physiologically sensitive to ambient emotion (affective empathy), but can also easily place themselves into the shoes of others (cognitive empathy)–and that’s not an easy burden to bear (possibly losing one’s sense of self, being subject to the moods and attitudes of others willy nilly), though they’re built to handle it. Because Low D Fe valuers are more easily overloaded, it makes sense that while you don’t mind the more shallow, albeit intense emotions you may pick up from others or the environment you're in, the additional layer of “deep feelz” that come with Fi would be too much, and so it's like "thanks, but no thanks, I'll just be having the Fe to go." lol Fe valuers, in general, prefer the visceral immediacy of Fe feedback, even if they're also capable of cognitive empathy, as well.

2.) Contrasted with me, who, without those "deep feelings," is emotionally dead. lol I'm not privy to Fe/affective empathy and so Fi/cognitive empathy is the only way I get my "fix."

I have very few stable, deep convictions and ethical principles. And that’s because having 1D Fi means that I’m generally unsure of, out of touch with and disconnected from what it is I truly feel, like/dislike, love/hate, am attracted to/repulsed by, etc... which is why it’s easy to ignore and dismiss all of those concerns when necessary or convenient for me to do so (particularly in the past, being unprincipled landed me in some dicey situations); it can be difficult to unpack and understand why I feel or believe the way I do with any nuance and complexity.

The Terrence quote “I am human, and I think noting human is alien to me” perfectly describes high D Fi’s penchant for cognitive empathy/perspective taking–but vital to being able to “see” and “know” someone else’s perspective is the ability to first deeply know one’s self, one’s own point of view, one’s categorically placed sentiments through and through (so as to transpose that psychological blueprint onto others). Because I may barely know where I “stand,” it’s difficult for me to accurately gleam that for others, which means I’m naturally prone to possessing less [cognitive] empathy and that directly impacts how I relate to people and their subjective beliefs and feelings.

Essentially, strong Fi valuers help me know what to feel, why I should feel that way, and/or clarify why I feel the way I already do about something, which provides a jumping off point that can then be used to better understand and empathize with others (which builds more stable interpersonal bonds, another hallmark of Fi); they help to make my personal feelings stronger and more real by giving them meaning, clarity and purpose. And my dual is the most alluring because their static, deep, well fleshed out ethical convictions make them a reliable compass that’ll always steer me in the “right” direction, up until I begin to build and rely on my own compass–1D Fi learns by way of experience and exposure. I wouldn’t possess 3/4 of the deep convictions and views I have today if it weren’t for ESIs, EIIs, IEEs, and SEEs guiding, distilling and refining my beliefs, subsequently strengthening my sense of conviction, which makes me feel more fired up and engaged, more alive.

[jonBC]

papa u gotta get better at this dude.

[kingslayer]

Lsi like everyone else said

[grumpyvic81]

No problem. It's interesting to read your thoughts/your own creative understanding of how things work; when conversing with Ti leads, it's as if they are giving me a sneak peak inside of their head, where there is a "language" of their own. LSIs are Te ignoring, and I'm amused by your truncating, correcting, sorting, refitting, and re-articulation of my Te bullshit into your own personal, subjective Ti framework/categorizing system. lol I see you trying to be as true and as accurate as possible, which is why you will categorically refute something that doesn't gel, but still question your presumptions. It's kinda cool because it's like you're constantly building and renovating your understanding in real time, with the structure becoming ever more stable and secure.

lol, I wouldn't go as far as calling your stuff bullshit. I found some of the associations interesting and worth considering. I would say the underlined fits well. As for the structure (rest of your sentence) it can be updated over time to a new level so then it's a new structure really but there is stability too yeah.

I noticed that in some situations when it's informal enough and it's not like me being fully focused on tasks, or a completely official situation, I feel better when there's interaction and when there's interaction there's ofcourse usually always some emotional information too but I don't think I consciously focus on that. Maybe subconsciously, tho' yeah. Consciously I focus more on the interaction itself and that's what relaxes me. I don't know if it's the emotional part that relaxes me too additionally, or that doesn't play a part.

This calls to mind the Merry/Subjectivist [Reinin] dichotomy or being Fe/Ti valuing, where the emotional atmosphere/mood of the environment (and the people involved) is vital in dictating the type of activity/engagement/interaction undertaken.

Yeah I really don't like mixing the formal and informal. Once for example I saw how a well-known company here started using emojis for some publicly displayed messages... and I was like shocked, "you don't do that in this environment". Umm yeah I wanted to keep that impersonal (and, so to speak, official). The emojis were just too personal for me. Really jarring. Ah well I got used to it after a while.

"As for emotional provocations, I don't think I do that. Or I don't recognise it if I do."

Is that post even legit or a troll post?

Sry not trying to offend anyone I just seriously thought that while reading this

Anyway I think you were given good advice and it's been a while ago but I just had to say this lol sorry


EDIT: Sorry I do have to say more after reading more. I'm not the OP but I really think this needs to be said.

I mean I think if this isn't a troll post then you really seriously have to learn to care for yourself. Get in touch with your own wants and pay attention to your own well-being too, not just other people's. You can't try and accommodate people while seriously disadvantaging yourself and ignoring your own feelings like this.

Using this post as an example of what I mean

OH lol... you caught that one quickly.

the only reason to apologize about possibly offending someone is if you think your words might hurt their feelings; so that means you knowingly said something emotionally provocative (as in it stirs an emotional reaction), and then countered it with another emotional provocation (saying 'sorry') meant to keep negative feelings at bay and/or imbue a feeling of forgiveness.

Hmm uhh I can't say I was that conscious about any of that, lol. I just felt that that thing needed to be said. I would have had to think more deeply (i.e. try to deeply reflect, which I'm bad at) to be able to say why. Like... I felt it had some kind of importance bc of how contradictory the original post I saw as. Like, the person who posted would benefit from that being pointed out. I was apologising because I wasn't sure if it would offend anyone yeah, like I was aware that I wasn't acting too politely. That's what I was aware of, not about being emotionally provocative, per se. Edit: rethinking this, I was also (vaguely) aware of how I was gonna sound controversial or stirring shit up too much. But no, I didn't see it as trolling. Trolling to me means you completely don't have any sensible intentions.

And I don't say this to make you feel bad (because clearly you have good intentions), but what's interesting to me is that from my vantage point, it seemed like YOUR questioning of FreelancePoliceman's sincerity was a troll attempt due to the blunt, slightly insensitive phrasing and even the very act of questioning some's truthfulness in what is ostensibly a moment of vulnerability. Strong Ti, Weak Fe types can be notorious trolls, if so inclined, because they have a coarser, less refined manner of eliciting an emotional response (perhaps in trying to raise someone's mood). Again, it's obvious that you meant well (especially seeing as how you apologized) and were trying to be empowering (another instance of trying to provoke a feeling).

O_o I really see no point in trolling whatsoever. I was also not focusing on them having a moment of vulnerability, TBH. The person was speaking so impersonally and factually, to me. While leaving out some really vital things... Like, so vital that it would lead to really bad things later. Which is why I wanted to point out that post. I wasn't intentionally trying to raise the mood BTW or not consciously. Where I was trying to be empowering, I again wasn't consciously trying to provoke feelings. But YES I was trying to have an empowering effect, that was my intention. Not provoking feelings or emotions. If that's supposed to be an emotional state then I was/am not focusing on that part of it at all.

"Again. In general too I noticed I do better if I don't go too deep with feelz, especially not for longer than a second, because that's just really unhealthy for me, I can't and won't deal with it, I'm better off forever denying that sortof shit lol. I deal better with intense emotion than deep feelz. Even tho' intense emotion is hard too sometimes. But when I understand what the emotion is I can control it really well physically. I don't know if that makes sense (the physical control --> it does need some rational understanding too but nothing too complex).

Is this related to Fe > Fi, and would you say you as a Fi valuer, you need the deep feelings?"

1.) Yes, high D Fe valuers like SEIs and IEIs are two of the most empathic sociotypes, because not only are they physiologically sensitive to ambient emotion (affective empathy), but can also easily place themselves into the shoes of others (cognitive empathy)–and that’s not an easy burden to bear (possibly losing one’s sense of self, being subject to the moods and attitudes of others willy nilly), though they’re built to handle it.

Yeah, that's so NOT me. I'd die if I had to be like that.

Because Low D Fe valuers are more easily overloaded, it makes sense that while you don’t mind the more shallow, albeit intense emotions you may pick up from others or the environment you're in, the additional layer of “deep feelz” that come with Fi would be too much, and so it's like "thanks, but no thanks, I'll just be having the Fe to go." lol Fe valuers, in general, prefer the visceral immediacy of Fe feedback, even if they're also capable of cognitive empathy, as well.

I may prefer the Fe feedback (or not, but let's assume this now yeah) but I like how I can handle cognitive empathy consciously. More stable grounding (when it works, lol). Actually thinking more here, if I can express the cognitive empathy in rules for interaction and logic then I feel pretty good and stable, securely grounded and like my normal self with it.

But YEAH, transforming all the emotion being picked up into deep feelz NO yeah that's EXACTLY what would be too much. It would make me stop being functional totally. Like no mental focus anymore or ability to focus on details or especially anything that requires heavy logic with the details (like law, statistics, science, shit like that, I deal with those alot).

OK again as for preferring that visceral immediacy of Fe feedback, I liked your wording there. And here's a very important issue for me. I used to really, uh, really work well with that I think. React to that unthinking in a sense, or my logical evaluations were not deep at all. I would mostly evaluate "risky or not risky?", "stupid or not stupid?", whatever, basic things like that. But in many cases I did not at all use the cognitive empathy I speak of above. So then I would get manipulated emotionally in some cases with the "Fe stuff".

(Fe stuff = that visceral immediate emotional sync that's also more shallow yeah)

And I started being bothered by not actually really understanding the "Fe stuff" immediately in some cases. I knew that before, but I just would not be bothered that much originally. I would originally be like I usually am with situations where I don't have time to stop and understand it all. I.e. just wing it and keep going. I am no longer like that anymore with this stuff though, no winging it the same way anymore.

And that is one additional reason why I like the stable grounding from the cognitive empathy. It also provides moral security and moral confidence. And I want to say I would not give that up for anything. I want that before any "Fe". I don't care about any "Fe" stuff without this. No matter if it's enjoyable even.

So I've pretty much stopped liking or trusting much of the "Fe" stuff on its own. That is where I am currently. With the IEI I mentioned earlier, I eventually realised I was finding her really not just shallow even if entertaining in some cases, but like untolerably silly light sometimes. Like I can't take her seriously. Like this would almost turn into contempt tho not that bad really. Just really can't take it seriously. (I think previously I didn't really have an explicit opinion on IEIs being silly)

I did not mind the silly light stuff before really, it could entertain me before and I never had an issue of mistrust with it or see it as too shallow or any of that. (I could see some Fe types as a bit shallow sure, but I didn't care too much as long as they would also show a deep side too. Maybe the Ni, lol)

How does all this make sense in terms of Socionics if it does?

I did read repeatedly that for SLE the emotional manipulation is their Achilles heel or some such. Figure the same for all Ti egos to some extent?

But I just feel like it no longer is for me. It was, I think ... but no longer. Because of how much time I spent on the cognitive empathy stuff and on orienting myself internally (see below more). But yes a result is I trust Fe less. It's almost like almost toxic to me now if overdone. This is complex to explain ... Like if it is "Fe stuff" without any anchoring in Fi morality then it IS toxic to me. No question of that. My instincts learned this deep.

2.) Contrasted with me, who, without those "deep feelings," is emotionally dead. lol I'm not privy to Fe/affective empathy and so Fi/cognitive empathy is the only way I get my "fix."

Ah, emotionally dead, hm. Do you mean you feel empty without the Fi?

I don't feel empty BTW. I'm at my best if I'm just emotionally neutral inside, this maybe others would call empty but I do not. For me it's normal. Like I said I do want to remove all internal emotional states really fast because of this. Like, this way I feel comfy, normal, natural, and I have a neat amount of cognitive space for my logical processing.

I have very few stable, deep convictions and ethical principles. And that’s because having 1D Fi means that I’m generally unsure of, out of touch with and disconnected from what it is I truly feel, like/dislike, love/hate, am attracted to/repulsed by, etc... which is why it’s easy to ignore and dismiss all of those concerns when necessary or convenient for me to do so (particularly in the past, being unprincipled landed me in some dicey situations); it can be difficult to unpack and understand why I feel or believe the way I do with any nuance and complexity.

I relate to all this actually. Very much, lol. Maybe less to the part about being unprincipled having bad effects. Or more like. If my being low in these feely-things/ignoring these things led to anything bad it would be internally bad more than externally dicey situations. (Re: emotional manipulation as above, that too.) If that makes sense....

The Terrence quote “I am human, and I think noting human is alien to me” perfectly describes high D Fi’s penchant for cognitive empathy/perspective taking–but vital to being able to “see” and “know” someone else’s perspective is the ability to first deeply know one’s self, one’s own point of view, one’s categorically placed sentiments through and through (so as to transpose that psychological blueprint onto others). Because I may barely know where I “stand,” it’s difficult for me to accurately gleam that for others, which means I’m naturally prone to possessing less [cognitive] empathy and that directly impacts how I relate to people and their subjective beliefs and feelings.

Yes, relate a lot. Part of why I considered the one-dimensional Fi too.

Essentially, strong Fi valuers help me know what to feel, why I should feel that way, and/or clarify why I feel the way I already do about something, which provides a jumping off point that can then be used to better understand and empathize with others (which builds more stable interpersonal bonds, another hallmark of Fi); they help to make my personal feelings stronger and more real by giving them meaning, clarity and purpose. And my dual is the most alluring because their static, deep, well fleshed out ethical convictions make them a reliable compass that’ll always steer me in the “right” direction, up until I begin to build and rely on my own compass–1D Fi learns by way of experience and exposure. I wouldn’t possess 3/4 of the deep convictions and views I have today if it weren’t for ESIs, EIIs, IEEs, and SEEs guiding, distilling and refining my beliefs, subsequently strengthening my sense of conviction, which makes me feel more fired up and engaged, more alive.

The IEIs/SEIs have not helped you figure out all this for yourself? What do the Fi valuers do for you that xEIs can't in this area?

Because I think I learned alot from IEI stuff. In this area you describe. I also learned some from ESI, I find ESI is more to the point with this stuff than IEI, without me having to overcomplicate analysis before I get it, IEI however has the ability to also tell me what's going on, the intuitive dynamics, Ni-Fi, not just Fi like with ESI. So IEI has had more useful input overall and in terms of quantity of info, etc.

And again I relate a lot to what you said here. I mean I had the ability to have deep convictions before too but then kinda lost touch with that for a while. So focusing on Fi-ish stuff has helped me with that too. And it's useful, I must say.

I would say, where I do NOT relate to you is allowing others to do "guiding, distilling and refining my beliefs". No no I figure those out for myself. It would be really intrusive if I let others do that like that.

IEI did try to guide in terms of telling me what's going on or that I'll be fine etc. That sortof stuff I'm more okay with tho I don't immediately just agree or say "yes" but I noticed that I do get affected by it with a little delay, lol.

And then the other part where I do not entirely relate to you is the last part: "subsequently strengthening my sense of conviction, which makes me feel more fired up and engaged, more alive".

I don't think my sense of conviction is what helps me feel more engaged and more alive. I get that more from interactions. The "Fe stuff" sorta though the other person does not have to even value Fe as long as the interaction itself is quality enough like we are doing something that I do enjoy and then there is some emotional "Fe" interaction a little if the other person/people are being social enough along with the activity we are focusing on, and that's usually enough for me.

But yeah, as for my sense of conviction I don't need to get heated about that more beyond a point. It would be somehow uncomfy and too fanatic and too heated and too "internal" - maybe that's the Fi part yes, because again, I need internal emotions removed and/or released (externally).

[grumpyvic81]

Lsi like everyone else said

Ah you considering LSI for yourself too now?

papa u gotta get better at this dude.

who, what?

[Quez]

Throwing out SLE for now, haven't read thread beyond intro and first few sentences of "what i look like" part - but will be back later.

@Aramas lol. Remember what I said about HA being used as a guilt trip tool? https://i.imgur.com/b6Umt3x.png Fe(social decorum) ... SLE HA = Fe.



I was tempted to say EIE before opening this thread because it seems you care a shit ton about reputation and are eager to fight for its defense, but then I remembered the Aramas thing which in conjuction with the 'im always/come off as 'present', that's not N-type but is S and blahblahblahSedomstuffblahblah.


p.s. OP PM me 4+ pics or post them.

[Aramas]

Throwing out SLE for now, haven't read thread beyond intro and first few sentences of "what i look like" part - but will be back later.

@Aramas lol. Remember what I said about HA being used as a guilt trip tool? https://i.imgur.com/b6Umt3x.png Fe(social decorum) ... SLE HA = Fe.



I was tempted to say EIE before opening this thread because it seems you care a shit ton about reputation and are eager to fight for its defense, but then I remembered the Aramas thing which in conjuction with the 'im always/come off as 'present', that's not N-type but is S and blahblahblahSedomstuffblahblah.


p.s. OP PM me 4+ pics or post them.

I don't really know what's going on here, because I haven't read this thread at all.... So is the highlighted part an Fe HA-related thing? I'm guessing that's what you mean. Can you explain why the highlighted part falls under that category?

[grumpyvic81]

Throwing out SLE for now, haven't read thread beyond intro and first few sentences of "what i look like" part - but will be back later.

@Aramas lol. Remember what I said about HA being used as a guilt trip tool? https://i.imgur.com/b6Umt3x.png Fe(social decorum) ... SLE HA = Fe.



I was tempted to say EIE before opening this thread because it seems you care a shit ton about reputation and are eager to fight for its defense, but then I remembered the Aramas thing which in conjuction with the 'im always/come off as 'present', that's not N-type but is S and blahblahblahSedomstuffblahblah.


p.s. OP PM me 4+ pics or post them.

Hey thanks for your input. Ha ha, nice compliment to be seen as EIE. I'll consider pics later but atm not comfortable with posting any, sorry. If you have any more thoughts later, feel free to post, sure. I'm also interested in this Fe HA explanation like Aramas asked too

[Quez]

I don't really know what's going on here, because I haven't read this thread at all.... So is the highlighted part an Fe HA-related thing? I'm guessing that's what you mean. Can you explain why the highlighted part falls under that category?

The highlight was vic [trying to] guilt-trip(HA) over Social Rules/Order/Appropriateness(Fe). 'dont you share this view?!' ("this view" being Fe domain/matters here - S_R/O/A bit)

[Quez]

My confident opinion is SLE.

I haven't fully read the OP nor replies at all, but things fitting SLE kept coming and coming and coming hardcore-ly, so my perspective is unlikely to change. If you think you're absolutely not SLE +/ some other, that's fine - you know yourself more than me.

I do want to quickly point out 2 things:
1. LSE is... not lazy, but they do lavish peace&relaxation. Check your word cloud thing, the beginning, it's Se x100000 (Se = activity, progress, conquering, etc).

2.

"7. What do you think of daily chores?"

A normal part of life. I find cooking a waste of time, I only cook basic foods.

Food, taste, etc is Si. SLE has "Limiting" Si - meaning they'd rather de-prioritize it, Ignore(another term for the function) it for other function domains.

[grumpyvic81]

My confident opinion is SLE.

I haven't fully read the OP nor replies at all, but things fitting SLE kept coming and coming and coming hardcore-ly, so my perspective is unlikely to change. If you think you're absolutely not SLE +/ some other, that's fine - you know yourself more than me.

I do want to quickly point out 2 things:
1. LSE is... not lazy, but they do lavish peace&relaxation. Check your word cloud thing, the beginning, it's Se x100000 (Se = activity, progress, conquering, etc).

2. Food, taste, etc is Si. SLE has "Limiting" Si - meaning they'd rather de-prioritize it, Ignore(another term for the function) it for other function domains.

Thanks again for the info/thoughts. I agree lol that there's a lot of Se there, and that I'm not very "j"/rational. My lifestyle isn't crazy predictable, I fall into some routines but they change, the "j" stuff is just my decisiveness and how I'm pretty stiff. Also, I get actually inflexible when I set a direction and then I have tunnel vision af. Yes I said "when",.... so yes I'm also adaptable until I set that direction. I like both modes TBH. Like yeah I'm variable between adaptability and inflexibility and that is just fine for me. I went for Rational because I don't like to be aimless tho.

The Fe stuff you mention, really interesting analysis & gonna think about it. The thing about "Social Rules/Order/Appropriateness" yes I get stuck on that alot and I actually thought that was part of "j" for me. This stuff definitely is an important thing to me tho yes. And sure I'm ok with the idea of Fe valuing, and alot of people said LSI over LSE and it's made more sense than LSE overall yeah, so I dropped LSE pretty much already. @Adam Strange is who still said LSE after some talking, but I don't know his current opinion.



But for an SLE typing, I just don't think I'm good enough at Fe for Fe HA, lol. I mean it's a nice compliment to be told I am but I just don't think so lol. Feel free to convince me tho' if you see it differently. I'm open to hearing you on this. But next to the LSI-Ti guy I know, while yes I'm more expressive and impulsive and more aware of the environment than he is, I just don't feel I can give him enough Fe. It's actually really uncomfy to me because I know I'm expected to make it all fun and all that Fe stuff for him but I know I can't beyond a point, lol. ... I don't know any SLEs closely but the ones I've seen in social situations, they have stronger emotions expressed than me. Idk if they express so well around an LSI-Ti though lol or only if they are already socially involved by other people. I actually can do it around IxIs better than around the LSI-Ti. ... The LSI-Ti does otherwise think that I'm not consistent enough and jump into things too easily. And that opinion of his about me always annoys the fuck out of me lol.

Anyway yeah sure I'm expressive when I'm in the mood for it but I think I have lighter expressions than those SLEs I've seen. I'm able to have initiative with Fe actually yes but only for a really short time if someone else doesn't help keep it going, and yeah I know that actually fits Fe HA on the surface but to keep it going the other person/people are still going to have more emotional initiative than me. And I still think my emotional expressions are just not as strong and expansive as for the SLEs I've seen. Also I'm more quickly responsive in a social situation than they are, and in my understanding that is Fe dual seeking rather than Fe mobilising. I don't know, if anyone wants to comment on this one, I'm fine with it.

[grumpyvic81]

Put SLE in my profile bc if what's being continually described on this site by various Logical types as Fi PoLR then I have Fi PoLR.

lol



edit: @Adam Strange feel free to present your argument why I would be N subtype. If I am N subtype then I'm SLE-N. LSI-N is too restricted for me

[grumpyvic81]

@Kernel

You said here "you kinda seem more extroverted than LSIs, in the way that you are not as dry as them. SLE? But it could be a subtype thing", if you have any further comments feel free to post them here. It's funny btw that you'd say I don't seem as dry as that, I'd have to think about that.

[grumpyvic81]

Alright kept SLE bc I relate to alot of it fine & checkin' out IEIs again lol

Thanks again to everyone who gave me their input!!