You can view the page at http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Stratiyevskaya
You can view the page at http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Stratiyevskaya
Instead they focus on improving and perfecting that which already exists. They accept the conditions and circumstances that have already folded around them, they take on the "material" that is already present, and then develop and polish it and take it further to the next level that seems realistic, desirable, and necessary for them to achieve.
^amen
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Just when it was actually getting good and saying something of substance, bang! machine translated. Would love to read the rest of it in real English. Maybe a generous bi-lingual person could translate it? wink wink.
By this he can be very useful for Shtirlitz, who is not always also to stimulate financially beneficial production. In many cases he prefers not to do it at all – why waste material resources on that, which if handled ably, can be obtained for free? Thus he may for a long enough time drain people of their efforts and abuse their patience and enthusiasm. In this context, and the presence of someone who can persuade them to yield, to accept and endure a little longer, and even show a personal example of this endurance, is extremely valuable for the LSE.
^Freeloader LSE needs me to persuade people to give in a bit longer
(Dostoevsky may well break off relations with a man and "punish" his lack of attention and interest on their part. Example, one sweetest girl - Dostoevsky resented the lack of attention to boys - Jack: "Man has not called me, interest in me does not show , my health is not interested, the holidays have not congratulated - why should I consider him my friend? ")
^Yeah, not good to want a dual and show lack of attention in them
Would it be possible to point them out to me?
@silke
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
i was searching for this...."free cheese comes from mouse traps"
"8. EII. The need to dominate."
"Dominate" lol.. Clinginess much?
It's not what you think lol
Yeah those tendencies are "I see the logic and rational of this and what you are doing or going to do is wrong" Moral tendencies are "one should do this or that. Don't do this because it's not good" and example I dominated my bf by telling him that he can't spend a few hours with a certain person because it's wrong and I don't like it. If he wants us to be he'll need to stop that. I'm not going to mention who that person is and it's not what you might think. That's dominating in a sense but it's also out of what feelings they produce in me.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I never underdstood this. I mean I can understand expressing discontent with him hanging out with this certain person, but I could never demand that he not hang out with them. It would feel too much like a "I own you" situation. I havent worded this as well as I would have liked to so Ill probably edit it later...I dominated my bf by telling him that he can't spend a few hours with a certain person because it's wrong and I don't like it. If he wants us to be he'll need to stop that.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I actually know of several EII women "wearing the pants" in their relationships...
All of those EII women are with introverted men: fellow EII, SLI, or LSI.
I can see EII women wanting to dominate, aka "control" a relationship in terms of its emotional direction.
Having said that, I don't see EII women acting the same way with extroverted men, especially if they are lead.
I used to wear the pants when in a relationship with SLI. My LSE bf is authoritarian and he's assertive and stern. There's no way anyone can push him into action. Knowing this, how much of a caregiver he is because he cooks and cleans and fixed things, also hard worker and provider. I give him the pants. He has to plan things in order to move forward and that's the only way that he does things.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Did I mention dual sex is amazing and for his ability to please me he can have as many pants as he likes
Okay here's how I dominated. SLI can be externally passive as in letting their women do with the environment as they like and often don't place emphasis on domestic things or arranged things to suit their comfort as opposed to the general aesthetic of things which annoys EII because EII value relationships and are not loners or hermits like SLI. I love a pleasant environment and love having people over so I want my surrounding to be nice and comfortable for others too When I was living with my ex he had boxes everywhere just because he wanted that while I would bitch about the disorder. My bf doesn't do that. He has a place for things which is how I'm like so I don't need to be after him to clean up or organize. My bf does it for the both of us already. Also both my bf and I can manage our bills and finances. I'm particularly good at that being an accountant and into finance but I do have the tendency to be on budget and keep my eyes on the account of things so I can be..."That is going to break our bank" but LSE responds with "this is what I want, but I see what you mean maybe I'll get it when I get paid" he said "men get what they want and women compromise"
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
@Sol what do you think? Please try to read some of this article, it's actually quite good.
Especially this part " as the EII is very persistent in getting close to people, thus the LSE will have to find means and methods to counter EII's persistence (as well as many other EII's qualities)."
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 05-17-2016 at 04:23 AM.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I am upset by the considerable difference stratiyevskaya has shown in LIE-ESI duality VS. EII-SLE duality, she is biased and too unrealistic. She has explained ESI-LIE duality as if it is a flawed duality. ESI running away from the LIE until he finally catches her and then LIE hurts ESI by being adventurous and childish. This is bullshit. Utter authentic bullshit. And then we have the perfect EII-LSE bond as she explains as if they are angels in heaven.
What I am seeing here is not the idea that one duality is "better" than another, but just a clear difference in romance styles. LIE-ESI would find EII-LSE romance styles to be boring and lacking, and EII-LSE would find LIE-ESI style to be dangerous or tenuous. Because of duality, the dual teams are free to express themselves without treading carefully. They become clear representations of their romance styles, whereas if you are not in a duality relationship or not with the comparable romance partner, you arrive at your own particular "mixed" style for yourselves as a couple.
So in the Stratiyevskaya descriptions, ESI is putting LIE to the task of pursuing her, and LIE is getting a rise out of ESI. Its a kind of flirting with each other. Like, "Look at us. We are still good in the romance department. Still poking and pursuing each other!" The other romance style would feel threatened or put out by such behaviors, while the ESI-LIE are are stimulated by them. And EII-LSE seeming "angelic" could also be interpreted as being "mellow" vs. exciting. I like to get a rise out of my SLI, little playful "pokes" and posing (I don't know what other word to use for the little "wake up and notice me" things I might do), but its "milder" and not so much a game of chase and dodge like it can be for victim/aggressor playfulness.
I remember visiting my LSI brother and his EIE wife, a longtime very happy dual couple, who live far away and who I only get to see at intervals. While EIE, her good friend and I went out to eat, EIE gave a slightly flirtatious look or made some comment to some guy, which surprised me, and followed this up with a comment, which her friend laughed at, about not upsetting her dh. I am sure I am not telling this right because I am remembering my own impression rather than the exact event, but I remember looking at her in surprise - this married couple no doubt had a divinely happy marriage - why in the world would you want to undermine it by making your spouse think he had something to worry about? I remember being completely baffled, especially because, at the same time, I knew this was not a symptom of a problem in the pair. I just couldn't figure it out.
Then much later I learned about Socionics, and the romance styles ["erotic attitudes"], and remembering this instance, it now made sense to me. I realized that she was revealing a bit of their style of victim/aggressor playfulness. "I better be good! Or dh will get mad! Oh no!" was the gist of the comment, with just a bit of victim-excitement in it. And now that I understood their differing romance style, it all made sense.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
What the hell, everyone says something different about types. There are posts on this forum that claim EIE doesn't flirt, only IEE does. Then you come and claim that EIE does flirt.
All this is so painfully NOT type related.
But the strategies Stratiyevskaya is describing do seem to be strategies that actually exist. So I like her ITR descriptions even if I take the socionical analyses in her articles with quite a big bit of salt.
I already looked at it before
I will not deny that her descriptions of Se/Ni dualities are always kinda darker (not just LIE/ESI) ...but the Si/Ne ones are boring and annoying
She's been suggested ESE typing before. Is that what you are thinking of? Just curious.
A great story of how Dostoevsky met his wife, by Maria Popova:
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/a...=pocket-newtab