LSE cp6w5 so/sx
the essence of e6:
6w5 > 6w7:Somewhat cautious and am aware of their ability to harm me or my family. Somewhat suspicious and am inquisitive regarding their intentions.
Never really hold conversations with strangers because I don't want to and I don't really care to want to know them.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 06-02-2015 at 05:26 AM.
100% p type
-
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
You seem to be sensory perceptual I would guess Sli.. what are your thoughts on that? Ne could be overcompinsation (?)
Dual type
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
You seem like a caregiver type I say SLI
Dual type
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
369 humanity triad + 261 father triad resembles caregiver energy.Originally Posted by Maritsa
I don't see J
Dual type
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
....What do you think of daily chores?
I abhor them. I hate routine and monotonous actions. I do them though. I don't really care about my surroundings as much as most - as long as it's not invasive to my feelings or thoughts. I like it when all the chores are done and that is my only motivation - I like things organized and neat but sometimes do other things instead of cleaning when I should.
Te-ego still. I thought you were LIE>LSE based on other posts of yours, but you indeed seem LSE from this.
Dynamic :
Logical --> gamma NT or delta STI was generally a nightmare to contend with on topics involving spirituality/theism/immaterialism and have been the cause of many faithful believers to renounce their belief in God (I actually regret that).
Extraversion based on everything being described objectively (as if seen from outside), you even describes yourself that way. --> LXE
Si > Ni because of the focus on what is near/life paths/emotional wellbeing (Si) rather than mental development/distant connections (Ni) --> LSE
Ne over Se or Te base ... OP finds more spark in stuff that energizes on a cerebral level rather than purely physical or practical. The interconnectedness is a "meta" kind of perception that I usually find in Ni or Ne people.
What do you think of daily chores?
I abhor them. I hate routine and monotonous actions. I do them though. I don't really care about my surroundings as much as most - as long as it's not invasive to my feelings or thoughts. I like it when all the chores are done and that is my only motivation - I like things organized and neat but sometimes do other things instead of cleaning when I should.
Where do you feel: at one with the environment/a sense of belonging?Hard question. I feel like I'm one with humanity - a meta-consciousness connection... The interconnectedness and interrelatedness of all of us sharing this holographic reality - perceiving and impacting each other continuously. I don't feel at home or I belong in any "place" or "group".
---------------
In what areas of your life would you like help?The ability to slow down. To appreciate little things. To just be present in time without qualification. To be a better husband. To be able to let others lead or guide me. To be able to trust easier. To be able to see people for who they are prior to judgment.
sounds like Si-seeking over Ni (OP is not looking for perspective, meaning, or a holistic understanding). the rest can be freakish Fi (trust issues...).
Power: the ability to influence with wisdom over strength, to wield the tools to rally others in a noble pursuit, to have courage, to have excellence in craft, to be able to cause change simply through will.
still Ne overall
OP is very assertive and determined ...but it doesn't come across as a gusty kinda of aggressiveness or forcefulness >> which is often the case with Se egos. There's something smooth and more diplomatic instead of direct or over-the-top combativeness or bitchiness.
Hey, I'm not an expert but you seem to be a very intense person and you do remind me of one SLE-Ti I used to be close to. To be honest I have hard time seeing you Ne ego. You may be occassionally using it if it's your demonstrative o course. No way you are introverted which rules out SLI in my view. Also, I don't see any Fi valuing in your posts. Good luck with finding your type. Regarding your other thread, are you sure of your wife's type?
example of Ne ego > Se base (the person is not as attuned as possible to unmediated sensory data to be "managed" on the spot).
Honestly, it just sucked having to "learn" a new person's sexual idiosyncrasies. It's so taxing to an ILE. "Ok if I do this she wants that..." Made it too mental for me. On the other hand, a beautiful, nurturing woman I've been with sexually for 15 years made me appreciate how good sex can be between people.
The person you're talking about is sx-last. Having to learn a new person for him turned into a tedious mental task. An ILE sx-first ex of mine was the exact opposite of this. He would attempt to psychoanalyze the women he was with through physical and emotional intimacy instead of being perturbed and rejecting of it a la that dude. What he isn't attuned with is emotional data which is why he tried to fix his cheating escapades with playing a good husband and then was at a loss for why that didn't work.
Last edited by silke; 06-03-2015 at 09:10 AM.
I don't see ILE, LIE is a better bet. Too control freak about your performance, Se HA sounds just fine.
You are taking a small part of a complex story and drawing premature inferences. The reason it was stressful wasn't because of the performance, it was because of how specific this woman was regarding how and what she liked. That, coupled with the life implications on the line made it mental - nothing about being attuned to emotional data or being perturbed or rejecting it.
I have absolutely no interest in determining who "wants" me as their dual. For pics, click on the profile picture of this link and there'll be about a dozen in there. http://plus.google.com/+RyanEvans05
i've read through your google blog, and will try to articulate some of my impressions. at this point i think you arevaluing. that's what seems to shine through a bit, although your type is obscured to me. (please note: really nothing i think is set in stone... it's usually just evolving... so this is more that this is what water is passing by your feet at this point.)
simple things i noticed that i think may point to
you often speak in a motivational way using command verbs, reducing paths down to one. things such as, live this way, don't waste time on these pursuits, strive to do [x], don't get too comfortable with [x], don't get complacent (<--i think may be implied), the only meaning of life is..., etc.. you also emphasize growth through struggle (and possibly also pain). you value constant self progress, presumably through action, and are concerned with the future as seen as more of a single destination when used (as in you are interested in preventing unfortunate future outcomes).
actual examples of your motivational way of writing using command tense (suggests
During the struggle, I could not see an escape - I could not see anything beyond the gravity of the situation. it was overwhelming.The type of realization that happens when you realize there's no progress without struggle.Do not get too comfortable in one side of the situation or another; strive to become better -Don't let time pass by while you spend time on meaningless pursuits.Grow your characterThe weak indulge in resolutions, but the strong act.I emphatically and wholeheartedly support the message of this 3 minute video.The only goal in life, IMO:Without challenge there's no growth. Without growth there's no progress.all of this is consistent with how you talk in your posts... similar emphasis on this sort of motivational, persuasive, direct way of communicating that implies more focus on singular outcomes (a path to move forward and progress through action)...Content? Most likely you'll have missed the growth through struggles and pain.
--
things you've said that i interpret as suggestingvaluing:
this is motivational once again, but for the purpose of motivating action to prevent a wasted life.You have one mortal life...: What will you do with it? What mark will you leave? Who will say you were important to them? How will you be remembered? When will you stop being afraid? Where will you allow yourself to grow? Who will you become?
although this may appear contradictory from what i've been pointing out, it reflects more spiritually/philosophically focused realizations regarding wasting one's life in striving after achievement... as in you may look back and find you missed everything that really mattered, and even if you did reach your goals, by the time you get there you may no longer want them, or they may be empty after all you've had to endure to reach them. it's once again focused on preventing an unfortunate future.Whatever you've been seeking inevitably passes away with the time you've wasted pursuing it. Whatever dream you've been striving for will look different through your weary eyes when you've finally arrived where you had planned to be.
(see above)Have you ever talked with the elderly? What do you hear them saying as they reflect on their lives? I'm so happy I achieved a goal or I regret so much of what I missed?
"nothing is ever truly new" and seeing life as repeating patterns, is kind of the opposite of whatWhat do people get for all their hard work under the sun? Generations come and generations go, but the earth never changes. The sun rises and the sun sets, then hurries around to rise again. The wind blows south, and then turns north. Around and around it goes, blowing in circles. Rivers run into the sea, but the sea is never full. Then the water returns again to the rivers and flows out again to the sea. Everything is wearisome beyond description. No matter how much we see, we are never satisfied. No matter how much we hear, we are not content. History merely repeats itself. It has all been done before. Nothing under the sun is truly new. Sometimes people say, “Here is something new!” But actually it is old; nothing is ever truly new. We don’t remember what happened in the past, and in future generations, no one will remember what we are doing now.
your example of why it's pointless to speculate about what's it's like to be god is another rather anti-
--
you seem to have strong logic and are able to see the logical possibilities and implications. naturally it's important to you to not discount possibilities that may actually be "true" or the case. you are also able to see subtle distinctions, perhaps as stemming from logic and intellect... for example, why would creationism and the theory of evolution *have to be* contradictory? i think this is what's causing you to focus on ILE so much and
you're also intellectually curious and seeking higher pursuits in life > "mundane facts," routine, etc. in mbti this means you must be intuitive (one of the reasons i dislike mbti). in socionics, not so. as in you can be this way, and be a sensor in socionics.
you do have some focus on wanting to experience the beauty in the present or what not, but i don't think that necessarily means you're
i also think that the subject of disliking chores is one that is really unimportant in typing people for the simple reason that almost everyone dislikes chores considerably. sometimes i think there's this pervasive view that sensors like chores or something on account of being these strange creatures who know only a physical life. i think this is nonsense.
--
if you ask me to remove all of these quotes, i will. i was trying to give examples, and i know quoting from your blog may not have been the best thing to do. in your shoes, i would not have liked someone doing that, although i wouldn't have offered my blog in the first place for that reason (and so... i thought possibly you wouldn't mind).
--
disclaimer: i still don't know what type you are, but these are the sorts of things that cause me to go to
i think you can consider LSE as a good possibility.
imo, a lot of what you write indicates valued/strong Te, i.e. - you consistently talk of "improving" things, gaining and working with information and acting according to it, focusing on procedure, taking appropriate/useful/correct action according to the situation, being critical of "meaningless" pursuits, working, being "objective", etc.
i would discount a type like ILE because everything you write is very concrete and factual, you don't really present your own ideas/theories or signs of introspection or analysis or anything like that. you seem like a type that is very "in the here and now", focusing on the reality (this is what i do, this is the way it is, etc), which is more ST-like.
all the types you are considering that have been mentioned in this thread are "business-like" types (ILE, SLE, LIE, LSE). these are the types with the strongestand the weakest
. a lot of what you write reflects these characteristics (such as in this post of yours), and is applicable to the businesslike types. so it might explain the confusion in deciding between these types.
i see signs of Sensing, Negativism, and Asking. also Ej temperament (you're proactive, controlling, organized, dynamic, more purposeful than flexible). these things bring me to say LSE. though LIE is a not a bad option either.
since you are still new to socionics, i would try reading other aspects of the theory and perhaps other descriptions before trying to fully analyze yourself from a functional perspective. it takes time and experience with people to really gain an understanding of how functions/Model A manifests in people's behavior and what it means for their type. i don't say this to patronize you, it's just the way this theory is. you can read a lot in a few weeks, but it doesn't mean you'll be able to type yourself or others correctly yet. some links for you:
Male LSE description (see how you relate to this):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...STj-by-Beskova
Communication styles (read about the "Business" types):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ication-Styles
Reinin dichotomies (11 dichotomies for you to consider):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...in-Dichotomies
Thanks. The LSE (to me) sounds reasonable but not as accurate as any of the other 3 business types. I'm a goofball and a prankster around people I know and the LSE description gives the appearance of a perpetually serious and resolute man.i think you can consider LSE as a good possibility.
imo, a lot of what you write indicates valued/strong Te, i.e. - you consistently talk of "improving" things, gaining and working with information and acting according to it, focusing on procedure, taking appropriate/useful/correct action according to the situation, being critical of "meaningless" pursuits, working, being "objective", etc.
i would discount a type like ILE because everything you write is very concrete and factual, you don't really present your own ideas/theories or signs of introspection or analysis or anything like that. you seem like a type that is very "in the here and now", focusing on the reality (this is what i do, this is the way it is, etc), which is more ST-like.
all the types you are considering that have been mentioned in this thread are "business-like" types (ILE, SLE, LIE, LSE). these are the types with the strongest
i see signs of Sensing, Negativism, and Asking. also Ej temperament (you're proactive, controlling, organized, dynamic, more purposeful than flexible). these things bring me to say LSE. though LIE is a not a bad option either.
since you are still new to socionics, i would try reading other aspects of the theory and perhaps other descriptions before trying to fully analyze yourself from a functional perspective. it takes time and experience with people to really gain an understanding of how functions/Model A manifests in people's behavior and what it means for their type. i don't say this to patronize you, it's just the way this theory is. you can read a lot in a few weeks, but it doesn't mean you'll be able to type yourself or others correctly yet. some links for you:
Male LSE description (see how you relate to this):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...STj-by-Beskova
Communication styles (read about the "Business" types):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ication-Styles
Reinin dichotomies (11 dichotomies for you to consider):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...in-Dichotomies
I doubt that you or anyone else has really dug into my writings on my G+ page so I don't believe you (no offense) have a legitimate opinion regarding "everything I write". Also, on my G+ profile, those are just the posts where "I have something to say" and aren't inclusive of more Ni or Ne based posts in G+ communities that I have disabled from showing up on my public profile.
So at this point, honestly, I could see either one of those 4 types for me. To make it worse, I can identify within myself associated traits for many of the dichotomies.
LSEs are pretty serious and resolute people, but that doesn't mean they can't be a goofballs or pranksters like you say you are. actually all the LSEs i've known definitely had a goofy side. afaik you haven't yet shown this side of yourself here, and you do come across as very serious.
anyway, i don't have access to everything you've ever written, i can only comment what i can see, which is your posts here and skimming thru what's available on your G+ profile. so if you want to dismiss my opinion as not legitimate that's fine, i'm just offering input (which you requested by posting this thread). people reveal a lot about themselves in how they communicate, and you have revealed a lot about yourself just from what you've shared here, maybe more than you realize. and that's kinda the point about socionics, is that people use and value certain kinds of information, and this inevitably comes out in their behavior, communication, and relationships with others.
Lse can be that way only if it's a tool to make money as in acting a role otherwise they are serious like he said
Dual type
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 had a quick look at the G+ but it doesn't really tell me much about the strength of intuition for you, if you do have a specific writing you can point out that you think is indicative of high dimensionality Ne/Ni, do let me know, I'm curious.
Don't go by stereotypes or concrete traits like "serious" vs "goofy" when typing.
What? That sounds like a silly stereotypical generalization
Please don't think I was dismissing your opinion, I'm very thankful you took the time to express it. I realize I'm being very serious herein - I just really want to figure it out and I'm trying to be as "clear" as possible; perhaps coming across too dry but not wanting subtle humor to infringe upon meaning.
So here are a few posts where I think exhibit either Ne or Ni. Also, read the "about me" section of my G+ profile for my brand of humor
https://plus.google.com/+RyanEvans05/posts/Cday1HacAQn
https://plus.google.com/+RyanEvans05/posts/goJegiMMHax
https://plus.google.com/+RyanEvans05/posts/3eZEcR6292m
https://plus.google.com/+RyanEvans05/posts/REUHxu6SGwo
why (or what)? i see a lot of fairly intense logic in these... defining terms... and then going to logical implications of those terms. questions about god seem to be broken down in an entirely logical fashion as well, into fundamental parts, where questions about god and belief seem almost to be down to logical arguments. i don't know if this is how you think about everything, or if this is more of a formal philosophy style you're using. i do think that it seems evident that you spend a lot of time getting deeper into the logic of topics like god.
Clear dialectical imo type, probably rational Ej
These may be antithetical in nature but they're not necessarily indicative of how I think or perceive reality. I wrote this list as a humorous way to describe myself to others - because in reality it describes nothing and yet it describes everything while purposefully contradicting every descriptor. If one is familiar with the definitions of each term then the audacity of such descriptions should be self evident.
And? Humor is certainly one of the most cognitive based things people do. If you think it's funny, it's likely cognition based and can be indicative of cognitive preferences.
Here you're clearly negativist. You're not really telling us anything about who you are, just what you are not.
I'd hope that people can see who I am through my mocking of standardized introductory remarks. It says more to me a about who I am than "I am ____".
So, since I'm getting nowhere with the identification, I looked over all the Renin dichotomies and conclude that I'm:
Carefree
Yielding
Static
Aristocratic
Strategic
Constructivist
Negativistic
Decisive
Serious
Declaring
Result
From what I can tell, the SLE contains the most of those characteristics, excepting carefree and serious.
So clear negativist?
[2 cents]
1) You may want to spend some time on the difference between Rational and Irrational types. It'd halve your options.
In my experience, the difference is in whether you allocate a feeling (affect, a reaction on your part) or a value (good/bad, accurate/inaccurate) to input ie: it gets classified by definition as a consequence of your manner of perception, or process the input as a state that you are in (eg: comfortable/not, interested/not, etc.)
(If anyone has an archive of the beige webpage (socionics.us?) with lists of semantics for each function, specifically the page with a table on rational vs irrational, please do post it - website's gone.)
I recommend it because it was a big tie-breaker for me and I think it is a very fundamental difference in perception, a grasp of which contributes to understanding how functions are organised inside a type.
Finally, what makes a functional preference is not in what you do use but in what you do first: the most often and unconsciously, and which did not have to be trained into consciousness but only refined over time. How you were as a child, assuming a non-traumatic childhood, could give you a better indication of type than your current polished self, if only because weaknesses and biases would shine brighter.
2) It could help to consider which function descriptions you initially had most trouble grasping. For example, for myself Ni (Creative) was instantly grasped and considered pretty logical (colloquial sense), Fe (Base) was only recognised as necessary (I first went to Gamma quadra and left pretty fast), and Si's description (PoLR) generated numb confusion and I kind of forgot about it.
You seem to have T-ego pretty sorted, and more confusion about valued perceiving functions. Along this line, maybe consider which (perceiving?) functions you prefer to see in other people ie: which functions are most comfortable instinctively-speaking (technically: which create the least discomfort in your manner of doing things, which supplement you best).
I find @anndelise 's blogs about functions helpful, she endeavours to describe them in more visceral terms than usual - recommended - MCV series, good starting point: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...spects?bt=2338
Also check: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...e-egos-welcome (note post nb 7: contrast to Ne - both Se and Ne need something to string their data together, but they need different kinds of interrelations. LIE would already have the interrelations.)
Sorting out T-ego first could hint at Rational temperament. Then again, I did the classic mistake of identifying my creative function first.
As a last resort: In the depths of a deep dark cave, look up the more humorous Ethical type profiles and duality descriptions and see which ones make you go "Awwwww <33". Kill all witnesses.
Reason is a whore.
socionics.us got moved to a different URL, but it still exists. i only recently found it again:
Rational vs Irrational:
http://rickdelong.com/socionics/theory/rat_irr.shtml
Information element semantics:
http://rickdelong.com/socionics/works/semantics.shtml
OK will check later more in depth.
Forget Reinin... just check static/dynamic and some of the quadra dichotomies, how did you decide on static?
Haha that's a good trick actuallyworks on me for sure
Ahahah where's those descriptions?As a last resort: In the depths of a deep dark cave, look up the more humorous Ethical type profiles and duality descriptions and see which ones make you go "Awwwww <33". Kill all witnesses.
Not ILE.
Seems EJ > EP.
Likely Te subtype.
*writes in notebook* "Myst can be tricked." *mumble*Haha that's a good trick actually
Those aren't bad: http://www.socionics.com/prof/uncovered.htmlAhahah where's those descriptions?
Some of the shorter duality descriptions?
Trawling russian socionics forums.
If you look up "socionics"/"socionika" and various type names on DeviantArt, you find a few funny cartoons.
eg: http://zitaar.deviantart.com/art/MxGm-sketch2-269770828
http://zitaar.deviantart.com/art/BlGmltMx-301745626
Reason is a whore.
You remind guy who is very much alike.
Bit of mystery. Goofy, energetic, very strong in sensing department. Logical Robin Williams which probably means LSE. One LSE I know is constantly seeking inane connections (I don't say that you are doing that) in plans and redirecting them to...
It is a bit painful process to have bit deeper conversation around them as they are very good at hijacking attention with their unconscious Se and showing off HA Ne (not that bad). Nice people all in all but a bit overbearing as they can actually be brainstorming stoppers.
LSE-C (DCHN)/-ADHD.
I have seen the same thing in ESE-C who is now getting ADHD medication.
Not saying that you have ADHD.
Theres no J. I' M GOING TO LOSE MY HEAD I BETTER QUIT BEFORE MY I BOIL OVER.But LSE get into the routine of things anyway because it just helps things run smoothly. He doesn't like to get into the routine of things
Dual type
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
Funny!Theres no J. I' M GOING TO LOSE MY HEAD I BETTER QUIT BEFORE MY I BOIL OVER.
Maritsa fighting a losing battle vs Fe. Oh god how idiotic must I look when I fly off the handle...scary more like it.
]Theres no J. I' M GOING TO LOSE MY HEAD I BETTER QUIT BEFORE MY I BOIL OVER. Sorry, but LOL!
I don't understand. Do you think that EII are emotionless and sedate?Funny!
Maritsa fighting a losing battle vs Fe. Oh god how idiotic must I look when I fly off the handle...scary more like it
]Theres no J. I' M GOING TO LOSE MY HEAD I BETTER QUIT BEFORE MY I BOIL OVER. Sorry, but LOL!
Dual type
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
Course you do! It's the 7th function! And you reacted just as people react when 7th is in play.
And EII are far from emotionless, but they are more relational than "yippie!". You have to agree with that.
Posting Permissions
