Experiments

[myresearch]

Which IEs and types are more into the social psychology or behavioral experiments?

Such as:
Milgram experiment
Stanford prison experiment..

[EUDAEMONIUM]

I honestly think its an alpha NT thing, and possibly a beta ST.

I don't think beta NFs would care to justify their theories through rigorous scientific analysis, but it could happen.

I think the Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments are more beta. Betas like to talk about power and authority a lot.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Psychology (and the humanities in general) is very much a NF sphere.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

Psychology (and the humanities in general) is very much a NF sphere.

Why?

[Tallmo]

Psychology (and the humanities in general) is very much a NF sphere.

Why?

I agree with the "why?", because Feeling is ultimately about a personal judgement about things, and not finding out real facts. I'd say NF is often about ideology for that reason. But I agree NFs are often drawn to humanities and psychology, but so are many NTs.

[The Reality Denialist]

Which IEs and types are more into the social psychology or behavioral experiments?

Such as:
Milgram experiment
Stanford prison experiment..

I find that Fi ego types would shy away from this. It usually looks like "they feel it" without rigorously checking it. Thus I would label Fi sympathetic.

[serenaeva]

I find that Fi ego types would shy away from this. It usually looks like "they feel it" without rigorously checking it. Thus I would label Fi sympathetic.

That's a stupid opinion. I'm Fi base and i've always been heavily interested in psychology in general (incl. behavioral experiments and all). I can consciously explore how i feel about something but still have the ability to analyze the situation or information at hand without bias, exactly so that i can get to the root of what it is in of itself, emotionally assimilate it and then infer how i feel about it.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

That's a stupid opinion. I'm Fi base and i've always been heavily interested in psychology in general (incl. behavioral experiments and all). I can consciously explore how i feel about something but still have the ability to analyze the situation or information at hand without bias, exactly so that i can get to the root of what it is in of itself, emotionally assimilate it and then infer how i feel about it.

I think this is an important distinction. Ethical types like Fi doms are capable of analyzing things scientifically and impersonally. However, F types will be less likely to feel the need to justify their opinions through objective scientific means.

For example, the way you describe your feelings:

I can consciously explore how i feel about something but still have the ability to analyze the situation or information at hand without bias, exactly so that i can get to the root of what it is in of itself, emotionally assimilate it and then infer how i feel about it.

Your feelings are evaluated first, then you assimilate information, then you turn away from the information to evaluate your feelings. This is ethics being subservient to logic.

You don't turn to data to give you judgements or predictions about human behavior do you?

Ethical types are less likely to turn to scientific analysis to justify their opinions about human behavior but could turn to analysis to confirm these prior judgments.

[The Reality Denialist]

That's a stupid opinion. I'm Fi base and i've always been heavily interested in psychology in general (incl. behavioral experiments and all). I can consciously explore how i feel about something but still have the ability to analyze the situation or information at hand without bias, exactly so that i can get to the root of what it is in of itself, emotionally assimilate it and then infer how i feel about it.

So you are into coming these things up? Like toying with people's feelings? Anyway, I have always seen Fi types as knowing these things out. If they conduct these things is another matter like being violent or not. There are so called ethical guidelines put in place, may I remind you. Let me think who have thought those up... yup. The gatekeeper position is probably in a way same as being interested, true. On the other hand it keeps the brakes on.

But anyway Zimbardo is likely EIE. He seemed to be ready to forge things for the sake of amping up power dynamics.

[myresearch]

In social environments, people generally seem to follow a standard behavior. When input is X, then you know that output is going to be Y. When someone says hi, you say hi, hello back and this is pretty normal, nothing bad or good. When people ask how are you, they don't really ask how are you and everyone knows this and act according to this knowledge.

When everything starts to look standard, predictable as if we are in some kind of an autopilot, it starts to get boring and disturbing. I may purposefully say something unexpected or apply another standard behavior to eliminate the standard behavior that is expected of me.

Example:

When sales person approaching me to sell something I don't want to buy, I look like angry pissed problematic person so he would leave me alone.
If I have a friend with me, I may start to whisper to my friend as if we are talking about something private and I am so into it, I can't see him atm.
If I am there to wait someone else and if I am bored, I may make him question does he really want to sell me, what is he is doing with his life.

The examples above happens fast, I don't even think it through. I just know that I don't want to buy. So instead of following that person's script, I just use what comes to my mind first in order to shut it off or just play with it instead of him playing me.

[myresearch]

When u approach a person like a homeless man begging for money, people will feel that

If u approach a person with a million dollar lottery ticket to give away, people will also feel the subtle difference

Same outer technique (walking to the person), but different inner intention/energy (taking value vs giving value)

I agree. This works when you are on the other side, when you are the sales person.

Same thing also works on job interviews etc.

Don't sell the product.

Sell the feeling it brings

The need it satisfies

I just don't get why are you on HIS side..

[myresearch]

Just IMAGINE, little girl, how you'd feel inside when you can go to that party and show off to your friends.

How DIFFERENT your social life would look like on the weekends.

The POSSIBILITIES of finding that SOUL MATE you've been looking for your ENTIRE LIFE.

Sounds good?

K. Follow me this way to the land of unlimited dreams and fantasies...

Just step into my white van, right here in this back-alley

[Aster]

Seems NF & maybe even NF with Social instinct first or second….social psychology is one of my favorite subjects, personally. And how about aristocratic>democratic

mmm and more beta, yes. agree with @D E M O N there

[myresearch]

I sometimes read these kind of articles or I observe these standard behaviors and sometimes when I am in a situation that I can benefit from it, I just recall and apply.

If I am under seperate similar situations, I sometimes give different answers to see which one works better.

Example:

Same type of people asked similar questions to me, I suspected I was being tested. So I intentionally gave different answers to them. In order to understand what is the answer they are looking and why.

I sometimes apply an article or theory in order to see if it works or not or how does it actually works in real life.

Example:

Some time ago, I noticed some people use mirroring too much, I wanted to understand why people act like that. I come across to an article about how mirroring and anti-mirroring affects people and groups. In that article, it was suggested that anti mirroring works better when you were an outsider. I tried that in work situation.

Anybody does similar things?

[Aster]

I sometimes read these kind of articles or I observe these standard behaviors and sometimes when I am in a situation that I can benefit from it, I just recall and apply.

If I am under seperate similar situations, I sometimes give different answers to see if which one works better.

Example:

Same type of people asked similar questions to me, I suspected I was being tested. So I intentionally gave different answers to them. In order to understand what is the answer they are looking and why.

I sometimes apply an article or theory in order to see if it works or not or how does it actually works in real life.

Example:

Some time ago, I noticed some people use mirroring too much, I wanted to understand why people act like that. I come across to an article about how mirroring and anti-mirroring affects people and groups. In that article, it was suggested that anti mirroring works better when you were an outsider. I tried that in work situation.

Anybody does similar things?

I don’t experiment in the way I will give people different answers no, but maybe that is very Ne

I mainly people watch and watch their interactions… think of why something is happening and if I’ve seen it before. I also sometimes do weird shit to get a reaction out of people, for fun and just to see if I am right about how they would respond lol. My EIE friend and I once tied the hoods of our hoodies real tight over our heads in the hallways with only our eyes showing, and walked around like that for a while lol. People generally just ignored us , but it was fun ha. And the fact that they were automatically ignoring weirdness def says something

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Why?

Probably because it involves theory and people.

[serenaeva]

I think this is an important distinction. Ethical types like Fi doms are capable of analyzing things scientifically and impersonally. However, F types will be less likely to feel the need to justify their opinions through objective scientific means.

For example, the way you describe your feelings:



Your feelings are evaluated first, then you assimilate information, then you turn away from the information to evaluate your feelings. This is ethics being subservient to logic.

You don't turn to data to give you judgements or predictions about human behavior do you?

Ethical types are less likely to turn to scientific analysis to justify their opinions about human behavior but could turn to analysis to confirm these prior judgments.

Yes, the "less likely to turn to scientific analysis to justify their opinion about human behavior but could turn to analysis to confirm these prior judgements" part. I feel how i feel, but i'm also aware of scientific consensus and such.. i'm not senseless merely because i'm a feeling type. And i don't like being patronized or having to explain personal judgement but if someone is acting really smart i have no issues at all with breaking down scientifically how something related to human behavior conceptually works, which is usually (the well-established fact) conjuncted with my personal feeling about it. I often argue with thinking types when it comes to sociology-related topics and i more than often prove them wrong with "observable data/empiricism" to back it up with. Having strong feelings about something isn't mutually exclusive with being able to cerebrally explore it and make rational inferences about it.

For example:
me: I feel like unstoppably sleeping around is a stupid slash bad idea, especially as a woman.
someone else: That is stupid, you're being so condescending/judgemental/mean!
me: No, not really, Have you looked at the correlation between pair bonding and promiscuity in women? Human mating behavior is highly constrained by biological differences between males and females and there are more than enough studies out there to prove that.

et cetera

I do turn to data when it comes to a decent amount of prognostication re: human behavior but reasonably often it seems to be already congruent with personal judgements i have made, which also makes sense. Because as a feeling type, i am more naturally and habitually attuned to relational matters and feeling can be analytical in its own way. There are patterns combined with sentimental nuances that could easily be observed by feelers that thinkers will often be more actively oblivious to, even if they "know" *insert certain habitual human behaviour* [that]'s the case/usually happens. It's why xxFx types are disproportionately better at potentially manipulating people/pulling someone's emotional strings (Fe users especially) or at least execute it all with more of a natural ease, as well as why thinkers contrastingly more often turn to science and form more of a detached mental model in their heads when it comes to anything human.

But a relatively large amount of people in the field of Psychology and Psychiatry are feelers too.. you can be left-brained about it, it just will be less exempt from the often passional personal opinion that comes with having a high feeling fxn up your fxn stack, And people seem to have the bad postmodern habit of disregarding any information that's presented in a manner that's sentimental/laced with personal judgement (that's not ironical/satirical) and isn't notably dispassionate, remote and devoid of emotion as "false". They subconsciously perceive it as less potentially accurate since it's less clinical, hence less archetypally intellectual even if said opinion isn't not intellectual or scientifically accurate in of it self. Instead of asking how you've inferred judgement you've made, many will automatically accuse you of being quote-in-quote dumb and/or up your ass. Which is actually a quite dumb and up your ass thing to do anyhow..

Jung re: Fi
"The primordial images are, of course, just as much ideas as feelings. Fundamental ideas, ideas like God, freedom, and immortality, are just as much feeling-values as they are significant ideas. Everything, therefore, that we have said about introverted thinking is equally true of introverted feeling, only here everything is felt while there it was thought."

[myresearch]

In simplistic way, this may seem like an NF thing. Cult leaders are generally typed EIE (NF). NFs have their approach to lure and move people in different ways.

However, these things generally require some analysis, objectivity, a detached understanding without any feelings getting involved.

F and T way of understanding is different.

Both F and T can like to read these kind of things for different or maybe same reasons.

In order to built some fundamentals and make these experiments, T kind of understanding is required.

If you are F and you made your own experiments, just share it.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

Probably because it involves theory and people.

Economics involves theory and people, would that be an NF dominated field as well?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Economics involves theory and people, would that be an NF dominated field as well?

That isn't what the data indicates. Economics has more of a focus on data - people are more of a secondary focus, if at all, and in a more detached, general way.

[myresearch]

That isn't what the data indicates. Economics has more of a focus on data - people are more of a secondary focus, if at all, and in a more detached, general way.

However, in these experiments, people are observed and treated as systems, one can find these experiments immoral.

This is not exactly the approach of a psychologist but a scientist.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

However, in these experiments, people are observed and treated as systems, one can find these experiments immoral.

This is not exactly the approach of a psychologist but a scientist.

OK. But to become a psychology professor, you presumably have a natural interest in the subject.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

That isn't what the data indicates. Economics has more of a focus on data - people are more of a secondary focus, if at all, and in a more detached, general way.

This is what I was getting at, there is an assumption that in sociology and psychology you just have these hunches and opinions and they don't need to be studied or statistically justified. While there is that, it is an academic field that requires a certain intellectual rigor that I don't think many NFs would have the patience to complete. Of course there can be NFs in social sciences as a whole, I see no reason in believing the assumption that since it's people oriented NFs must be doing it.

Economics does not consider people of secondary importance since people drive market forces.

The Gamestop situation is a good example.

Economics is a social science just as psychology and sociology and they borrow and exchange concepts from one another.

There are sections I think both NF and SF types would be more inclined toward. Therapy and counseling, social work, that sort of thing.

Of course I'm talking about massive groups of people, your sociotype does not guarantee success or failure in any career field. I'm only talking about the likelihood that these careers would be pursued.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

This is what I was getting at, there is an assumption that in sociology and psychology you just have these hunches and opinions and they don't need to be studied or statistically justified. While there is that, it is an academic field that requires a certain intellectual rigor that I don't think many NFs would have the patience to complete. Of course there can be NFs in social sciences as a whole, I see no reason in believing the assumption that since it's people oriented NFs must be doing it.

Economics does not consider people of secondary importance since people drive market forces.

The Gamestop situation is a good example.

Economics is a social science just as psychology and sociology and they borrow and exchange concepts from one another.

There are sections I think both NF and SF types would be more inclined toward. Therapy and counseling, social work, that sort of thing.

Of course I'm talking about massive groups of people, your sociotype does not guarantee success or failure in any career field. I'm only talking about the likelihood that these careers would be pursued.

I suggest you read some economics papers and books.

The most common "type" in Psychology as far as I recall is NF.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

During the past decades, a number of studies have explored personality group differences in the Big Five personality traits among students in different academic majors. To date, though, this research has not been reviewed systematically. This was the aim of the present review. A systematic literature search identified twelve eligible studies yielding an aggregated sample size of 13,389. Eleven studies reported significant group differences in one or multiple Big Five personality traits. Consistent findings across studies were that students of arts/humanities and psychology scored high on Neuroticism and Openness; students of political sc. scored high on Openness; students of economics, law, political sc., and medicine scored high on Extraversion; students of medicine, psychology, arts/humanities, and sciences scored high on Agreeableness; and students of arts/humanities scored low on Conscientiousness. Effect sizes were calculated to estimate the magnitude of the personality group differences. These effect sizes were consistent across studies comparing similar pairs of academic majors. For all Big Five personality traits medium effect sizes were found frequently, and for Openness even large effect sizes were found regularly. The results from the present review indicate that substantial personality group differences across academic majors exist. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...91886915300921

.

[myresearch]

OK. But to become a psychology professor, you presumably have a natural interest in the subject.

T people can get into people and F people can get into making money.

Otherwise, typology and psychology forums would be filled with NF only.

The distinction between T and F can be detected by understanding their approach to it.

Not every strategy in economics have been made by T types.

These kind of experiments clearly must have been made by T types.

You can find data that says NF types are into psychology. However, there are different branches of it, you cannot find NF domination in every branch.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

If you read economics books and papers on the history of economics, they tend to be about national iron ingot production per year, speculation on the utility etc.. If people are discussed at all, it is a secondary subject - and at least until recently, they are assumed to be rational automatons who desire optimal utility. It is only comparatively recently that economics has been informed by psychology and moved away from concepts like the efficient market hypothesis.

In the humanities, they only refer to utility when they have absolutely no idea what the purpose of something was (there's a joke in archaeology that if you have no idea why it was done, then it must be "ritual").

[EUDAEMONIUM]

I suggest you read some economics papers and books.

The most common "type" in Psychology as far as I recall is NF.

I think that's excellent advice, I have read many actually. But I did start by looking up the definition of economics on investopedia.

What Is Economics?

Economics is a social science concerned with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. It studies how individuals, businesses, governments, and nations make choices about how to allocate resources. Economics focuses on the actions of human beings, based on assumptions that humans act with rational behavior, seeking the most optimal level of benefit or utility. The building blocks of economics are the studies of labor and trade. Since there are many possible applications of human labor and many different ways to acquire resources, it is the task of economics to determine which methods yield the best results.

feel free to check it out. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economics.asp

.During the past decades, a number of studies have explored personality group differences in the Big Five personality traits among students in different academic majors. To date, though, this research has not been reviewed systematically. This was the aim of the present review. A systematic literature search identified twelve eligible studies yielding an aggregated sample size of 13,389. Eleven studies reported significant group differences in one or multiple Big Five personality traits. Consistent findings across studies were that students of arts/humanities and psychology scored high on Neuroticism and Openness; students of political sc. scored high on Openness; students of economics, law, political sc., and medicine scored high on Extraversion; students of medicine, psychology, arts/humanities, and sciences scored high on Agreeableness; and students of arts/humanities scored low on Conscientiousness. Effect sizes were calculated to estimate the magnitude of the personality group differences. These effect sizes were consistent across studies comparing similar pairs of academic majors. For all Big Five personality traits medium effect sizes were found frequently, and for Openness even large effect sizes were found regularly. The results from the present review indicate that substantial personality group differences across academic majors exist. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

I assume this was supposed to be evidence toward your point. Big Five ≠ Socionics.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

T people can get into people and F people can get into making money.

Otherwise, typology and psychology forums would be filled with NF only.

The distinction between T and F can be detected by understanding their approach to it.

Not every strategy in economics have been made by T types.

These kind of experiments clearly must have been made by T types.

You can find data that says NF types are into psychology. However, there are different branches of it, you cannot find NF domination in every branch.

I'm not saying that psychology is exclusive a NF sphere - only that it is a NF sphere. I don't know what types these researchers had in these specific experiments, but I still think they are most likely NF types. I think it is only after the fact that they were considered questionable - the researchers could not have predicted that things could have ended up that way, although they could have handled them better. Variants of the experiments are still done today.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I think that's excellent advice, I have read many actually. But I did start by looking up the definition of economics on investopedia.



feel free to check it out. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economics.asp



I assume this was supposed to be evidence toward your point. Big Five ≠ Socionics.

Your reply only shows you have no evidence at all.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I think that's excellent advice, I have read many actually. But I did start by looking up the definition of economics on investopedia.



feel free to check it out. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economics.asp

The definitions on Wikitionary say that:

Etymology
From economy, from Latin oeconomia, from Ancient Greek οἰκονομία (oikonomía, “management of a household, administration”), from οἶκος (oîkos, “house”) + νόμος (nómos, “management”).

Noun

economics (uncountable)

(social sciences) The study of resource allocation, distribution and consumption; of capital and investment; and of management of the factors of production.

But I don't think your specific choice of definition contradicts what I said ("Economics has more of a focus on data - people are more of a secondary focus, if at all, and in a more detached, general way.") - it's just that you placed emphasis on the third sentence that was not in the original.

[myresearch]

@Subteigh @D E M O N

If you people do these kind of things or know someone who do these kind of things, can you share your or their experience?

Otherwise, this is meaningless. Now you are talking about economy.

We can all claim something and stict to it.

I am more interested about first hand real life examples.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

The definitions on Wikitionary say that:


But I don't think your specific choice of definition contradicts what I said ("Economics has more of a focus on data - people are more of a secondary focus, if at all, and in a more detached, general way.") - it's just that you placed emphasis on the third sentence that was not in the original.

What is the data that you are analyzing if you were an economist? What is producing this data?

[EUDAEMONIUM]

@Subteigh @D E M O N

If you people do these kind of things or know someone who do these kind of things, can you share your or their experience?

Otherwise, this is meaningless. Now you are talking about economy.

We can all claim something and stict to it.

I am more interested about first hand real life examples.

Actually you're right, the issue isn't even about economics. I'm not participating in this anymore, this is ruining the thread the OP made.

[Metaphor]

Sounds like what a Researcher type usually does, especially Alpha NT.
Though, I could see LSI be involved in such kind of matters.

[aixelsyd]

Which IEs and types are more into the social psychology or behavioral experiments?

Such as:
Milgram experiment
Stanford prison experiment..

I think intuition plays a key role in social psych and behavioral experiments because it takes quite a bit of intuition to design such experiments in a way that tests a hypothesis in a manner that is not obvious to its participants in order to generate quality data.
I think intuitives tend to be more drawn to these disciplines but I wouldn't discount sensors from being interested or from being capable of designing such experiments, especially if they are highly intelligent and/or have a bit of experience in experimental design in psychology.

After all, many variables come into play as to why people take an interest in any subject. Jungian typology is about how people process information. Interests and the processing of information probably have marginal correlation at best.

This is coming from someone who has observed a broad spectrum of types in various disciplines.

[myresearch]

This is about how different types approaches to these kind of things, if you think these are not type related, let me know:

One IEI friend of mine had a huge crush on a coworker. He is a person who is prone to exploit and establish a dominance over any person if they gave him any kind of humanely opening, on the other hand, he is very submissive to those who are assertive, he is even more respectful to people who disrespects him.


My friend and him start to have sex and he treated her disrespectfully in every kind of sense. When I tried to talk her out of it, she shuted herself down, started hide things from me. According to her, he would be like that with everyone, I knew that he would be super clingy if he was into her since I saw how he treats people differently. He later had a crush on someone else and acted like that by the way.


So I told her to say something spesific to him and I told her that he is going to respond in a spesific way. She tried and he exactly responded as expected. I just saw him interacting with people and I worked with him, I already observed and explored what works on him. I took how he responds on a work setting and apply it to him in terms of romance.


However, she couldn't keep approaching him that way because I assume, in the heat of the moments, she is more prone to believe that everything is going to be allright and she doesn't want to risk to lose the relationship. My suggested approach was a bit harsh, braggy and mean because he responds to those better. However, because of her beliefs and feelings, she just did what he wanted without showing any kind of line. However, when they were messaging, then she was able to respond as I suggested.


In that period, we went to some concert and her feet seem so small to me, I made a guess, she said her shoe was bigger than that, so we bet on a dare, I won. I wanted her to get involved with someone else so I picked a cute guy and told her to go and start a converstation. She shyed away, asked me if I can dare her to do something on a workplace, I assumed she wanted me to dare her about that guy, but ofcourse I would never do that. So we went to work, we were talking, EII coworker joined the conversation. After we explained the situation, I told IEI that I would chose someone random on skype, she will talk to him for 5 min. My purpose was to match her up with an another person, however, I haven't said it out loud. EII said that other person may feel joked around, we felt judged.

[Adam Strange]

@myresearch, I think that the behavior you describe is type-related, but not Sociotype-related.You are describing an Authoritarian. They tend to kiss up and piss down.

So, depending on whether they think you are above them or below them, they will either be nice or mean to you.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxx...lhJdnFck4tTIyA

[myresearch]

the more you try to take ur IEI friend away from the dude, the more the opposite will happen lol. especially since they've been intimate and have a bond established.

and now you're subconsciously "the obstacle" between their love. making things *more exciting* for her actually. kinda like the romeo and juliet dynamic.

right now the guy has leverage, and there's nothing u can say/do to stop it. logic especially won't work in this situation.

he can be an LSE for all we know and u could explain to her why he's not a good fit blah blah.

doesn't matter.

u can try as an experiment tho. gluck lol

I wish there was a bond, mutual one, then I wouldn't have to be an obstacle.

Their dynamic was more like juliet and the asshole.

Although, I don't like the guy, I haven't said something initially, it is her life, her choice at the end. However, then she started to tell me what he says to her etc. There is no reason for him to behave like that. So because of her illusions, I wanted to tell her that it is all bad to her face. However, I know that this generally doesn't work for most people. Yet I did it, because I think sometimes people have to hear things that they don't want to.

In order to cut her chains, I tried to match her up with somebody else by hiding my intention.

Thankfully, he ended it and she moved on, happy ending happened without my experiements.

He is now having a relationship with that EII, though he treats her better compared to the way he treated IEI. The way he treats is still bad, he has deep issues, I don't think he is capable of love.

Everyone we know talks about how EII can date him, how she is making a mistake. They don't know that IEI had a thing with him.

One saved, one lost.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

I wish there was a bond, mutual one, then I wouldn't have to be an obstacle.

Their dynamic was more like juliet and the asshole.

Although, I don't like the guy, I haven't said something initially, it is her life, her choice at the end. However, then she started to tell me what he says to her etc. There is no reason for him to behave like that. So because of her illusions, I wanted to tell her that it is all bad to her face. However, I know that this generally doesn't work for most people. Yet I did it, because I think sometimes people have to hear things that they don't want to.

In order to cut her chains, I tried to match her up with somebody else by hiding my intention.

Thankfully, he ended it and she moved on, happy ending happened without my experiements.

He is now having a relationship with that EII, though he treats her better compared to the way he treated IEI. The way he treats is still bad, he has deep issues, I don't think he is capable of love.

Everyone we know talks about how EII can date him, how she is making a mistake. They don't know that IEI had a thing with him.

One saved, one lost.

My uninformed unsolicited opinion is that if you are interested in this IEI you should make your interest clear as quickly as possible.

Even is she says no, or rejects you she may need some time to consider you as a potential romantic partner.

If she acts weird around you after, remain friendly with her and stick around. Its better she knows the truth.

When she breaks up with this other guy, you can move in. But she needs to see you as a potential romantic interest not just a friend.

Why did you match her up with someone else? Maybe I misunderstood the situation. told you I was misinformed lol