EII/INFj Subtypes

[Slacker]

I've always thought of you as either an ENTp or ENFp. Do you figure you have more of an Ij temperment? I'm wondering why you're going with INFj>ENFp. Or, for that matter, INTj>ENTp.

[Minde]

Ne's probably a given. At least valuing it if not in the ego. But, could somebody point me to examples of Sub's Fi?

[munenori2]

Uh oh, sounds like Expat might be on to something.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=12379

[Lobo]

Based on this description which Eunice put in her sig, then I am definitely not the intuitive subtype:

"One type of INFj would be considered rather outgoing, braver, and could lead some sort of active social life, often working as translators, psychotherapists, teachers, or any other type of job that would allow them to improvise their ready-made skills. These are the ethical subtypes.

Another type of INFj follows a different path, appearing more reserved and immersed in an imaginary world; often chasing after fantasy tales, scattered, selfish, and dreamy. These are the intuitive subtypes."

Though the ethical sub careers do not appeal to me really, except maybe teaching later on.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Based on this description which Eunice put in her sig, then I am definitely not the intuitive subtype:

"One type of INFj would be considered rather outgoing, braver, and could lead some sort of active social life, often working as translators, psychotherapists, teachers, or any other type of job that would allow them to improvise their ready-made skills. These are the ethical subtypes.

Another type of INFj follows a different path, appearing more reserved and immersed in an imaginary world; often chasing after fantasy tales, scattered, selfish, and dreamy. These are the intuitive subtypes."

Though the ethical sub careers do not appeal to me really, except maybe teaching later on.

I would definitely be Ne subtype by that, though 'self-absorbed' would be better than selfish . And I'm a strange kind of reserved - there are times when I can be incredibly shy in a new group, and yet there are times when I can be the only person actually initiating. I feel like the first description could fit me if I was emboldened by teh duality...but I still have issues seeing myself as a Delta type or a INFj.

[Christy B]

Based on this description which Eunice put in her sig, then I am definitely not the intuitive subtype:

"One type of INFj would be considered rather outgoing, braver, and could lead some sort of active social life, often working as translators, psychotherapists, teachers, or any other type of job that would allow them to improvise their ready-made skills. These are the ethical subtypes.

Another type of INFj follows a different path, appearing more reserved and immersed in an imaginary world; often chasing after fantasy tales, scattered, selfish, and dreamy. These are the intuitive subtypes."

??? Is anyone able to explain Ne further ??? If this is an acurate description of Ne I do not think I have come across this type IRL. . .

[eunice]

??? Is anyone able to explain Ne further ??? If this is an acurate description of Ne I do not think I have come across this type IRL. . .

Neither do I. Except for myself, that is. Ne-EIIs are probably easily mistaken as Ni-IEIs imo, mainly because a majority of them are Enneagream type 4w5. The intuitive subtype description is a relatively accurate one, but I have to admit that it makes us look bad as compared to the ethical subtype. LOL. I don't agree with the "selfish" part. I feel that they probably seem "selfish" because they can be self-absorbed and do not usually take the initiative. No offense to other Ne-EIIs here: whenever I read the descriptions of both subtypes, I wonder what do LSE like Ne-EII for (in comparision with Fi-EII) since LSEs are generally very practical and down-to-earth beings.

[Lobo]

Neither do I. Except for myself, that is. Ne-EIIs are probably easily mistaken as Ni-IEIs imo, mainly because a majority of them are Enneagream type 4w5. The intuitive subtype description is a relatively accurate one, but I have to admit that it makes us look bad as compared to the ethical subtype. LOL. I don't agree with the "selfish" part. I feel that they probably seem "selfish" because they can be self-absorbed and do not usually take the initiative. No offense to other Ne-EIIs here: whenever I read the descriptions of both subtypes, I wonder what do LSE like Ne-EII for (in comparision with Fi-EII) since LSEs are generally very practical and down-to-earth beings.

I think I have met EII-Ne before, based on the description. The difference I feel between the two is in terms of what each finds personally fulfilling. What I have seen from EII-Ne (assuming the first line) is that they are more interested in finding a sort of "mystical" understanding of life, and having more time to meditate on things by themselves, which might be what is referred to as selfishness in the description. The word "selfish" is not a negative word in itself though. The LSE-Si are more concerned towards themselves than the LSE-Te, which is why I find it hard to get along with them. They are more concerned towards having fun and being less serious. When I have tried "balancing" the dynamic out between us, if that makes sense, I find that I need to come out as more rebellious and intuitive, which is something I can do but it's not really what I want. Also, I consider myself to be more protective and giving towards the people I care about, and it just doesn't come back with the LSE-Si. (Actually, on a side note, I do think that I have a significant amount of caregiving.)

[Expat]

Subterranean,

"back to basics" -- have you seen this INFj-Ne description?

Intuitive subtype is with restraint emotional, strict. To those, to whom it sympathizes with, manifests cordiality, benevolence and affability. Sometimes it loves to joke. He tries not to tell people unpleasant things, but always it cannot be held in order not to express its disagreement or disturbance, about which then greatly it will regret. It is serious and punctilious. Converging with the man, he tries to be to it anything useful. It is acted unsure of itself, it is touchy even we wound, although it attempts to hide this. Has a good descriptive thinking and creative abilities. It knows how to interpret different symbols, dreams, mystical means. It loves to advise, to bring up, to add, but only in the narrow to circle. It is held modestly and unnoticeably. It dresses simply, adhering to classical style, is frequently conservative. Mimicry and gesticulation is not very expressed. Speech is emotional, but not flattened, tone it frequently edifying. It has frequently disproportionate figure, are somewhat thickset or with the tendency toward the completeness. Gait is a little clumsy, only waddle.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Subterranean,

"back to basics" -- have you seen this INFj-Ne description?

I really cannot decipher that at all - I take life very seriously, because it only happens once, but on the otherhand I am able to make light out of events that other people take very seriously (i.e. important things). If someone has a problem, there must be a solution (or at least an attempt to find a solution) - I usually offer two extreme strategies because this makes the person's problem seem of a lesser magnitude, and makes it seem an universal problem shared by everybody else. When I do this, it means I don't have to talk about myself (which would be boring and ordinary and possibly too personal) - people usually know me as the one who makes mountains out of molehills and molehills out of mountains. I really do think I focus on the gloomy side of things rather than the happier side - I always try to cheer people up by saying things like 'there are loads of people in other countries who are getting blown up, and not a single of them is you...isn't that fantastic?!' So, I do kind of mention unpleasant things - possibly a lot more often than a normal person would. I'm not sure if that description really applies to me but it's not completely impossible.

[UDP]

I think I have met EII-Ne before, based on the description. The difference I feel between the two is in terms of what each finds personally fulfilling. What I have seen from EII-Ne (assuming the first line) is that they are more interested in finding a sort of "mystical" understanding of life, and having more time to meditate on things by themselves, which might be what is referred to as selfishness in the description. The word "selfish" is not a negative word in itself though. The LSE-Si are more concerned towards themselves than the LSE-Te, which is why I find it hard to get along with them. They are more concerned towards having fun and being less serious. When I have tried "balancing" the dynamic out between us, if that makes sense, I find that I need to come out as more rebellious and intuitive, which is something I can do but it's not really what I want. Also, I consider myself to be more protective and giving towards the people I care about, and it just doesn't come back with the LSE-Si. (Actually, on a side note, I do think that I have a significant amount of caregiving.)

Interesting.

[Expat]

I really do think I focus on the gloomy side of things rather than the happier side - I always try to cheer people up by saying things like 'there are loads of people in other countries who are getting blown up, and not a single of them is you...isn't that fantastic?!' So, I do kind of mention unpleasant things - possibly a lot more often than a normal person would. I'm not sure if that description really applies to me but it's not completely impossible.

I'm not sure but somehow I think this might be an example of as 8th function.

[Christy B]

I think I have met EII-Ne before, based on the description. The difference I feel between the two is in terms of what each finds personally fulfilling. What I have seen from EII-Ne (assuming the first line) is that they are more interested in finding a sort of "mystical" understanding of life, and having more time to meditate on things by themselves, which might be what is referred to as selfishness in the description. The word "selfish" is not a negative word in itself though.

I find this fulfilling. Do Fi subtypes usually not find this fulfilling? If not then what do they find fulfilling???

The LSE-Si are more concerned towards themselves than the LSE-Te, which is why I find it hard to get along with them. They are more concerned towards having fun and being less serious. When I have tried "balancing" the dynamic out between us, if that makes sense, I find that I need to come out as more rebellious and intuitive, which is something I can do but it's not really what I want. Also, I consider myself to be more protective and giving towards the people I care about, and it just doesn't come back with the LSE-Si. (Actually, on a side note, I do think that I have a significant amount of caregiving.)

Agree. Also, sometimes I think LSE-Si can be pretty funny, but then it may go too far and I get offended, which they seem to enjoy. Weird.

[Lobo]

I find this fulfilling. Do Fi subtypes usually not find this fulfilling? If not then what do they find fulfilling???

Well, this subtype thing is confusing... I might just be talking about things that are not really true, but it's just a feeling a get between what could be considered two groups of INFjs. I also find what I mentioned to be fulfilling, but that's not really what I want to focus on, and it makes me uneasy. I want to do things that are concrete, as in doing things that affect my environment or myself. It comes naturally to me to have the patience to understand complex ideas and even people, but I try to avoid things like that since they impede me from actually doing something that I can perceive later. It really bothers me when I overthink something, and then see that it was all a waste of time and that I haven't done anything really concrete. Like I can be thinking of someone or something for what I perceive is an extended amount of time, and then try to snap out of it, since I feel it disconnecting me from my surroundings. In short, it's that I constantly try to reduce the depth of my thinking (especially the useless type) and increase the amount of things that I can do to affect my environment.

Based on the above, I need to go from the idea to the action. I consider useless thinking, or an idea, to be something that can't ultimately be applied to something in real life. (Though, there are things I might think about that can affect my mood positively without actually having an application, that are not useless to me.)

Here is a vague example: I'm not good at basketball, though I don't "completely" suck at it. Anyway, I was playing with an ISTp and ISFp, and against some other guys I never met. The slap I felt that day was huge... My friends were making fun of how I played, and how I completely overshot the basket, etc. Actually, the whole thing was really funny and we had a good time, but the aftermath of that day made me feel like complete shit for some reason. I was thinking about how I looked like a fool getting blocked by a 4 foot tall guy... It was very embarassing. The point is that after the "incident" I had to go practice for the next encounter, which led some time later to start going to the gym again... I felt like I had to do those things, and if I didn't do it I would feel worthless, which obviously is not true but I guess PoLR hits make you forget important things.

[munenori2]

Well, this subtype thing is confusing... I might just be talking about things that are not really true, but it's just a feeling a get between what could be considered two groups of INFjs. I also find what I mentioned to be fulfilling, but that's not really what I want to focus on, and it makes me uneasy. I want to do things that are concrete, as in doing things that affect my environment or myself. It comes naturally to me to have the patience to understand complex ideas and even people, but I try to avoid things like that since they impede me from actually doing something that I can perceive later. It really bothers me when I overthink something, and then see that it was all a waste of time and that I haven't done anything really concrete. Like I can be thinking of someone or something for what I perceive is an extended amount of time, and then try to snap out of it, since I feel it disconnecting me from my surroundings. In short, it's that I constantly try to reduce the depth of my thinking (especially the useless type) and increase the amount of things that I can do to affect my environment.

Here is a vague example: I'm not good at basketball, though I don't "completely" suck at it. Anyway, I was playing with an ISTp and ISFp, and against some other guys I never met. The slap I felt that day was huge... My friends were making fun of how I played, and how I completely overshot the basket, etc. Actually, the whole thing was really funny and we had a good time, but the aftermath of that day made me feel like complete shit for some reason. I was thinking about how I looked like a fool getting blocked by a 4 foot tall guy... It was very embarassing. The point is that after the "incident" I had to go practice for the next encounter, which led some time later to start going to the gym again... I felt like I had to do those things, and if I didn't do it I would feel worthless, which obviously is not true but I guess PoLR hits make you forget important things.

lol, I think you've got something approaching a good description here. In the first paragraph, I have pretty much the opposite tendencies that you do. I definitely do overthink things and wish I did it less, but it's almost automatic. Sure it helps me in the more abstract elements of my thinking (like the search of an over-arching meaning to my life, etc), but I certainly miss out on opportunities to do concrete things with it. Maybe it's because I perceive it to be so useful in many areas of my life that I have such a hard time cutting it out or not carrying it to the extreme.

Also, as different as we seem to be from the first paragraph, the second one sounds like a page right out of my book.

[helvetica]

I'm new to socionics. I don't quite understand how subtypes work. Are there really only two like wikisocion says? Neither seem too fitting, though I'm quite sure I'm EII.

Feel free to direct me elsewhere or explain yourself. However, I am trying to figure out which one I am, so if you'd like to do so for me that works also (I'd like reasoning behind it though). I can give any self-descriptions needed.

[golden]

Uhr, I can't explain the subtypes to you, but I'll open a can of worms by saying you might go here:

http://gallery.socionix.com/Delta/

and compare the two INFj subtypes. Which group do you think you might fit with visually?

I find those galleries awesome and yet I can't make them match up with the socionics subtype descriptions I've read. However, the subtype descriptions are often a dead end for me, so even though I have the sense that the subtypes exist, I'm still not entirely clear on my own.

Some of the other subtype systems are even more confusing to me.

[stray]

I find those galleries awesome and yet I can't make them match up with the socionics subtype descriptions I've read.

Some kind of convinced me (like Mia Wasikowska and Olga Kurylenko..their expressions seem like it at least. Not necessarily all of the characters, of course). I'm not sure about Tiger Woods and Jodie Foster. It's close, but they almost seem like LII to me.

[EyeSeeCold]

I would say find your base type first. I don't think subtypes are really reliable.

[Marie84]

I'm new to socionics. I don't quite understand how subtypes work. Are there really only two like wikisocion says? Neither seem too fitting, though I'm quite sure I'm EII.

Feel free to direct me elsewhere or explain yourself. However, I am trying to figure out which one I am, so if you'd like to do so for me that works also (I'd like reasoning behind it though). I can give any self-descriptions needed.

In the original subtype theory there are two subtypes (I'm guessing these are the ones you read?)

Than there's the DCHN system which has four subtypes, but there aren't specific descriptions for how each type fits into them like the two-type system above

Some kind of convinced me (like Mia Wasikowska and Olga Kurylenko..their expressions seem like it at least. Not necessarily all of the characters, of course). I'm not sure about Tiger Woods and Jodie Foster. It's close, but they almost seem like LII to me.

That site is rubbish IMO, I wouldn't take it seriously

[stray]

That site is rubbish IMO, I wouldn't take it seriously

I'm not taking it seriously myself. I'm puzzled on some of the choices, but I can see how they lined up some of them , VI-wise. Mia Wasikowska is a good guess, looks and personality wise (not that we can really know her personality from what's available..but she seems like it).

[helvetica]

Well I might be further confusing myself.
I highly doubt I could be anything other than EII, but the subtypes confuse the hell out of me. I'm not terribly worried about them, just interested.

Yes, I did initially read the ones on wikisoicion. Neither seemed terribly fitting, despite how accurate the other descriptions of EII were on that site.

DCNH: I read the general descriptions, and the Gulenko ones (these) and the Harmonizing one seemed to fit best. I don't really understand the overall concept though.

[stray]

Well I might be further confusing myself.
I highly doubt I could be anything other than EII, but the subtypes confuse the hell out of me. I'm not terribly worried about them, just interested.

Yes, I did initially read the ones on wikisoicion. Neither seemed terribly fitting, despite how accurate the other descriptions of EII were on that site.

DCNH: I read the general descriptions, and the Gulenko ones (these) and the Harmonizing one seemed to fit best. I don't really understand the overall concept though.

There are 4 subtypes? I thought there were just two. I would be closer to "Harmonizer" as well (I've read that description somewhere, but I thought it was part of the Ne subtype description. Why does harmonizer have a symbol next to it?).

[helvetica]

There are 4 subtypes? I thought there were just two. I would be closer to "Harmonizer" as well (I've read that description somewhere, but I thought it was part of the Ne subtype description. Why does harmonizer have a symbol next to it?).

Well it seems like there are according to those DCNH descriptions, but I really understand the concept.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Depends on the subtype system.

Accepting/Producing - 2
DCNH - 4-8

Those are the only ones I've looked at, but I believe one has 16.

[ashlesha]

There are 4 subtypes? I thought there were just two. I would be closer to "Harmonizer" as well (I've read that description somewhere, but I thought it was part of the Ne subtype description. Why does harmonizer have a symbol next to it?).

the DCNH descriptions on the wiki are provisional descriptions which were taken from the two-subtype descriptions written earlier. so the "harmonizing" description is taken directly from the Ne subtype description. (as is the "creative" description.)

harmonizing means more of an Ip-ish temperament and enhanced Ni and Si. i'm not sure why the symbol is there; perhaps harmonizing EIIs are thought to have strengthened Ni in particular because it is id and not superid? that would be my guess, but i'm not sure and can't really help there. i'm not very well-read on DCNH.

if you've already read the wiki descriptions of the two (Ne and Fi) subtypes of EII, then i'm not really sure what else to say because i think they are pretty distinct - the Fi subs being more serious and strictly principled, the Ne subtypes being more silly and dreamy. it was pretty apparent to me which suptype i was. i think the descriptions of EII overall without subtype delineation tend to heavily favor the Fi subtypes, so if you identify very strongly with them and can't decide your subtype, Fi sub would be my hunch.

[Marie84]

harmonizing means more of an Ip-ish temperament and enhanced Ni and Si. i'm not sure why the symbol is there; perhaps harmonizing EIIs are thought to have strengthened Ni in particular because it is id and not superid? that would be my guess, but i'm not sure and can't really help there. i'm not very well-read on DCNH.

Yeah, the DCNH is evaluating enhanced temperaments. Being an EII-C, for instance, doesn't mean you value Se so much as you produce certain qualities and energy productions associated with the Ep temperament. I'm guessing an EII-C might appear as if they're skilled at Se, but it's all just a projection (I could be wrong about this, of course)

[helvetica]

Okay, that does help quite a bit. Thank you.
laghlagh, you're probably right about Fi. That would make the most sense.

[DirectorAbbie]

EII-Ne guys are more quirky and entertaining. EII-Fi guys are sweeter.

[helvetica]

EII-Ne guys are more quirky and entertaining. EII-Fi guys are sweeter.

Well I think I'll just go ahead and say I have to be EII-Fi then because I'm not too entertaining. I'm also not a guy. Hahaha.

[pianosinger]

Just in case, take a look at IEE descriptions, too. I thought I was EII for a while, too, but-- like you-- neither of the subtypes really fit at all. Then I started reading about IEE's, and I am very clearly IEE-Fi.

[777]

Hi, everybody. Yesterday I took a test, with the result being that of EII- 2Ne. What does the subtype 2Ne mean? I really want to learn more about this as I'm new to socionics. I'll post a link to my test result. www.sociotype.com/tests/result/est/37477

[Pa3s]

It means you lean a lot towards the Ne-subtype of EII. This is also the reason why IEE (as an Ne-dominant type) is rated #1 in your list of alternative types.

[Pa3s]

It's a notation which is exclusive to this specific test. It simply indicates the strength of the subtype.

[OldPathWhiteClouds]

The intuitive subtype definitely sounds more like me than the ethical.. although we're talking nuances. .

[Olimpia]

"Real life" example of an INFj-Ne.

This video mentions the MBTI type INFP, but this person is INFj-Ne nevertheless, and the focus of the video is not necessarily the description of INFP in MBTI.

[silke]

EII-Ne examples
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=EII_subtypes

Holliday Grainger


Cate Blanchett


John Green


John Oliver



Oliver Sacks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AnuxDdg2II

[silke]

EII-Fi examples

Stoya


Amy Ryan


Kate Moss


Adrien Brody



Loreena McKennitt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qfq7EjjYO8

[brothamanben]

I definitely have the Fi subtype, although I disagree with the thing about deadlines lol, I'm not too conscientious

Intuitive subtype Ne-INFj (Ne-EII)

Description by V. Meged and A. Ovcharov

Ne-EII Appearance:
The intuitive subtype is emotional, composed, and firm. Shows cordiality, goodwill, and friendliness toward people who are in his favor. Closing distance with a person tries to be somehow useful and of service. Likes to advise, to mentor, to educate others but only within his circle. Possesses figurative and imaginative thinking and creative abilities, can discuss various imagery, symbols, dreams. Sensitive, vulnerable, uncertain and erratic. Prone to taking offense despite his best attempts to hide this. Sometimes he likes to joke around in conversation. Tries not to say unpleasant things to people, but cannot always restrain himself and may burst out in disagreement or indignation, but comes to regret it later. Serious and fastidious, prefers to hold himself with some reserve and subtlety. Dresses simply, adhering to classical styles, often conservatively. His mimicry and gestures are weakly expressed. Speech is emotional and slightly inhibited; its tone is often didactic. Frequently has a disproportionate figure, often squat in physique and prone to corpulence. Gait may be a bit clumsy and waddling.

Ne-EII Character:
Seeks to understand the essence of various subjects and phenomena. Possesses strong associative and figurative thinking and the talent of foresight. Perceptive and insightful regarding the potential of various projects and people, aware of other's talents and abilities. Often displays an interest in problems that lie at the intersection of ethics and philosophy. Very curious, loves to read and to contemplate. He is constantly evaluating everything. Feels unsatisfied and frustrated with work that is monotonous and routine. Strives for self-cultivation. Defends his views on emotional basis, but tries to support his statements with facts. Distrustful, requires sufficient evidence to become convinced of the verity of his partner's statements.

Poorly tolerates loneliness, needs attention of people who are close with him. Appreciates sincerity, attention to his person, and tact; condemns discordant and abusive behavior. Quite principled; he believes that all-forgiveness corrupts those who deserve to be punished. May sometimes deliver a harsh rebuke for a person whom he thinks to be guilty, but usually wavers before doing so because he is afraid of spoiling his relations with other people and being unfair. Loves his family; he is ready for any sacrifices for them. Very fond of small children; though sometimes for educational purposes he is strict and uncompromising in their treatment. At times advocates for harsh measures and punishments.

Impressionable and emotionally sensitive. Feels truly satisfied with himself only if he could contribute by a deed. Tries to please others by performing a variety of services for them or giving presents, by being generous and unselfish. Helps people not sparing his time and efforts, meanwhile may forget about himself. Does not forgive betrayal and treachery; in such cases may irreversibly put an end to the relationship. Easily takes offense. Painfully and sensitively perceives the lack of volitional, push-through qualities in himself.
Takes on many tasks barely completing them on time, thus may postpone unpleasant or uninteresting work until later. Shows an interest in the objective side of affairs if he has a desire to become competent in pragmatic activities, in which case makes himself learn about procedures and regulations. Can be happy if he finds a proper application of his abilities.

A person of firm convictions - an idealist and a maximalist. Dreams of being in ideal harmony with his partner in tastes, beliefs, and passions, and becomes upset when this doesn't happen and disagreements arise. Due to his tendency to take everything close to heart, feels worried and agitated by slighted occasions. Prone to doubt, somewhat indecisive and diffident. Needs an optimistically oriented partner who can dispel his worries and uncertainties, be able to provide an evaluation of his work and actions, shield him from unnecessary tasks and people, and improve his mood. Has a keen sense of responsibility for others. Demanding of himself; educates others by his personal example. Tries to instill in other people consideration for human values. May have an interest in occult or religious and teach himself various divination techniques and interpretations of teachings.

His appearance is often very modest, dresses so as not to stand out. Attempts to look tidy and well-groomed, but investing effort and time into looking after his appearance feels like a burden for him. Often doesn't have much interest in jewelry. Critically evaluates his looks; negative remarks on this topic can deeply wound him. Receives compliments in the presence of others with confusion and distrust. Afraid of falling sick and becoming dependent on others, for this reason tries to improve his lifestyle.

Ne-EII Description by Victor Gulenko: Feels people very well. Immediately feels who has similar views and opinions to him and who doesn't. Enjoys spending time in a small circle of like-minded people, discussing novelties in art and human sciences. Frequently appears somewhat unsure in himself and scattered. Gravitates towards social and humanitarian work, but can also work in service jobs. Realizes himself well in medicine and teaching. Able to reconcile those in a dispute and to mitigate intense situations. Creates a pleasant atmosphere in conversation and in his home. Dresses with taste, not seldom follows fashion.


Sexual behavior of subtypes: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...pes#Subtypes_4


Ethical subtype Fi-INFj (Fi-EII)

Description by V. Meged and A. Ovcharov

Fi-EII Appearance:
The ethical subtype appears polite, restrained, and impassive. Usually keeps some distance in communication, at times seems cold, firm, and unemotional. In the process of dialogue, however, this impression gradually dissipates as he begins to sympathize and shows his desire to help and assist. Serious, calm, and well-wishing person. Quite insightful but reserved and rarely shares his observations. Fastidious and tactful. Doesn't know how to joke, feels afraid of saying something in excess. During arguments prefers to leave silently without resorting to diplomacy. Very hardworking, meticulous, patient, and diligent. Intolerant of violence and injustice. Consistent and firm in his principles. Able to create comfort, decorates his home with hand-made items. Knows how to work with his hands. Pays attention to his health and appearance; in appearance is usually neat and prim. Rarely smiles. His gaze seems guarded. Dresses modestly but with taste, in presence of sufficient funds even in exquisite manner. His movements are smooth, yet constrained. His gait is quick and light, somewhat restrained, at times pattering. Sits straight and seldom gesticulates in conversation.

Fi-EII Character:
This individual is very interested in relations between people. Values understanding, tolerance, capacity for compromise for the sake of harmony in relations. Attempts to be helpful, responsive, and attentive towards everyone. Accepts people as they are; forgives their weaknesses and does not seek to change them by force. Tries to adhere to the principles of fairness and compassion. Predisposes others towards trust. Can patiently listen out his conversation partner. Relates with understanding to manifestations of turbulent emotions in others; tries to calm the person down, give some useful advice. If this does not help, knows how to wait patiently until the person calms down on his or her own. Does not need verbal confirmation of feelings himself - he understands everything without words. Stable and persistent in his sympathies and affections. Cherishes soulful harmony, his own and that of others. If his partner does not fully satisfy him, he departs without much commotion and sorting out the relationship.

Achieves the goal he set before himself adamantly, sequentially and persistently, overcoming many difficulties in the process. While defending his interests he demonstrates principality and stubbornness. In extreme situations, acts logically and calmly, focusing his attention on the main aspects. Dislikes hurry and haste. Knows how to properly distribute events and work in time and manages to finish everything by the deadlines. Feels annoyed when having one unfinished job he is assigned another. Tries to prepare in advance to not disappoint others. Does not want to burden others with himself. Likes thoroughness and solidity in everything. Getting bogged down by details can over-exhaust himself. Operative and conscientious. Invests his soul into any job, performs it beautifully and skillfully.

Shows little interest in anything that does not concern him and his interests. Has developed sense of skepticism, due to which there is certain inertness in his behavior. By nature he is cautious and distrusting; shares his experiences only with people who are close to him. Self-controlled in behavior, laconic, and unimposing in providing advice. Tries to objectively understand any argument and explain to each contestant where he or she is wrong. Laments his failures in solitude. Finds it difficult to tolerate conflict and misunderstandings. Restrained in showing his emotions, shows them only in a close circle of friends. Modest and bashful; rarely voices negative comments regarding others, instead waits for the person to feel his own fault.

Observant of the aesthetics of appearance and interior, tries to instill aesthetic taste in others. Intolerant of slovenliness. Dislikes discomfort and poor taste; eagerly listens to the advice of others on such subjects. Poorly assesses the quality of his own work and time expended on it. Responsible; disapproves of lack of punctuality and conscientiousness in others. Often finds his calling working as a psychologist or physician, or taking up social work of humanitarian nature.

Fi-EII Description by Victor Gulenko: Unobtrusive, controlled, may be ascetic and strict towards himself and others when it comes to ethical principles. Not given to take initiative or display and interest in that which isn't connected to his interests, views, and convictions. At work is scrupulous and delayed. With him it is possible to have a talk, to pour out one's soul, to receive simple yet good and useful advice. May be spiritual or religious, or keep to some ethical system. Outward appearance - immersed info self, ascetic, tense inner life is visible in his outward look.

[noaydi]

Strangely enough, I'm Fi EII at distance then Ne EII at close contact