Could Delilah be IEE?

[Adam Strange]

I agree with Lluna. In this thread Delilah reminds me of myself a lot, especially in her response to Sol. I think people tend to forget that a 1D function doesn't mean you are unable to use it, just that you are not as attuned to how to use it masterfully. For EII, this means that we'll let people push us really far and then we'll suddenly snap, instead of somehow firmly asserting our boundaries earlier. This is a normal relationship between an EII and an LSE, in my experience. Sol, you'll never achieve dualization if you keep pissing off all your duals.

I thought pissing off duals is what LSE's do? Like, all the time. It's why EII's have the skill set they do, which enables them to be immune to assholes (myself included) and simultaneously defuse and correct social faux pas in others.

Let me just say that, as a Te-dom, I don't usually respond to Fi corrections unless they are pretty blatant. I just have my feeling sensors turned way, way down, so it takes a lot of signal to activate them.

[Saoirse]

I thought pissing off duals is what LSE's do? Like, all the time. It's why EII's have the skill set they do, which enables them to be immune to assholes (myself included) and simultaneously defuse and correct social faux pas in others.

Let me just say that, as a Te-dom, I don't usually respond to Fi corrections unless they are pretty blatant. I just have my feeling sensors turned way, way down, so it takes a lot of signal to activate them.

for sure it's normal (for LSEs to piss off EIIs) in my experience. but Sol doesn't seem to think so because he has an idealized, theoretical view of duality.

unfortunately the ability of EII to correct social faux pas in LSE depends not just on the EII's skills but also on the LSE's ability to recognize that they might not know everything, especially on ethical matters. EII's weak Se can't force the LSE to listen after all. it's absolutely infuriating when an LSE thinks they are morally superior to me or understands interpersonal relationships better than I do. if I can acknowledge that they are better on Te issues, they should defer to me on Fi issues.

[Chthonic Daydream]

@Saoirse

I saw "San Junipero" and, well.

Ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth?
Ooh, heaven is a place on earth.

[The Reality Denialist]

Mr Sol has confirmed his LSIness again, I was bit uncertain but when someone behaves like a wall towards ideas, is also a wall towards everything else he is usually a wall aka LSI. Good for keeping things separate but not so movable. Everything has a purpose so keep it coming or should I say still, dude [like I 'd listen or read]. Some day you shall stalk your EIE (which is EII in solsionics) into relationship.

[Saoirse]

@Saoirse

I saw "San Junipero" and, well.

Ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth?
Ooh, heaven is a place on earth.

EII party in this thread

solsionics

[Bertrand]

soairse is being manipulated into bandwagoning Sol, brilliant. Sol may be a hardhead on some stuff but Troll and feathers aren't any better. I'd be careful before trusting them since they exhibit clear ulterior motives to me, just as subversive to their own objectivity as Sol but only in a different way. if you think that's the "side" you want to end up on, you're going to wind up in the fake EII bin along with feathers, and its not because Sol has the wrong standard for EII (although he may), in other words, Sol having an overly idealistic picture of EII doesn't transform clear charlatans like feathers into one, nor you, soairse (they can all be wrong together). Troll is literally just being true to his name and interjecting himself mainly to see where this goes. You responded super readily to their little overture which had the effect of essentially scapegoating Sol in order to tell you what you wanted to hear. that says to me beta values all around, maybe some alpha. I would suggest you go back and read feather's type me threads and not take for granted his little self applied label

how you can tell strong valued Fi:

1) doesn't find the truth in group consensus or people pleasing in the aggregate
2) if it thinks someone is wrong, doesn't try to "send them out" by whipping up a crowd to facilitate that end
3) if it really thinks someone is wrong to the point it requires action, will directly tell the person they're a shithead (yes even Dostoy) to let them know where they stand as a matter of personal integrity
4) generally tries to reconcile people, not send them out, to achieve peace
5) will resist removing themselves even if they're "spoiling" the mood, in order to achieve 4, and as a matter of personal example
6) tries to understand people as individuals not depotentiated social units to be replaced willy nilly if the collective requires it, for whatever reasons the collective decides
7) it would be better for a group to be technically wrong, but respect the rights of individuals in a human not abstract capacity, than to be either technically correct OR perfectly efficient

I would agree with Sol that Fi base is kind of rare, especially around here. lots of people pay lip service to principles of the kind listed, but if you watch them very few people actually live it

personally, I think Delilah comports herself with my understanding of Fi ego (although I would not rule out the "shuttle diplomacy" of SEI completely. If shes got PM's going with a bunch of people like Soaise would lead me to believe, it could be an indication of trying to "please everyone" in the unprincipled fashion of SEI). Maxim loves those sorts of tactics, but its repugnant to LSE because it doesn't actually reconcile values, it just plays all sides in a social game

[The Reality Denialist]

How did you know? I won't talk about my secret plans in detail but this forum most certainly plays an integral part in my mission of world domination.

[Chthonic Daydream]

That's so kind of you, bert. I'm glad to be back too.
Don't worry, I don't plan on frequenting this place as much as I once used to.
Sticks and stones may break your bones, but the gaslighting in this forum can drive you nuts.

Times change. People change. I am a teenager, and I change too. More so than others.

[Chthonic Daydream]

EII party in this thread

EIIs assemble.
Quietly.
And respect each other's personal space.
Unless they really want to hug you.
In that case, you have a green light.

[Bertrand]

Don't worry, I don't plan on frequenting this place as much as I once used to.

the fact that you think I care how often you're here says to me complex of subservience. you assume I'm trying to oust you (Se) and think its a reassurance to me that you'll be around less. this is precisely the mindset I describe in my above post. you're like that rosy cheeked imp Erik thor or whatever, true I don't like IEI all that much, but saying you're not one doesn't help. I'm not asking you to not be one, because thats impossible, and being inauthentic is even worse. I understand you feel like you're between a rock and a hard place, but the way out is not more telling people what they want to hear, since that just annoys a different set of people. the best thing is to be true to yourself. in the final analysis this may be an impossible request too, because asking a Fe type to be authentic (in the way I understand it) is tantamount to asking them to not exist, so honestly I don't mind so much that you prefer to be known as EII. my main issue is actually soiarse being seemingly new (although with an old reg date) being mislead by your own issues and at her and Sol's expense. these sort of issues are why socionics goes much deeper than people realize. they think if we could all just self apply labels we could sort ourselves out, but what the labels themselves mean shift between rational and perceptual functions, and that is not likely to ever change, unless by some miracle they devise physical measurements corresponding to cognitive functions and develop an entire interpretive scheme that does justice to both sides and allows them to cross talk without misunderstanding and projections

you could devise an entire 8 type system where quasis are collapsed and its only their meaning and word usage that changes between them, that way you really could be EII/IEI in a way that satisfies both parties

[Saoirse]

@Bertrand do you even know what your own type is?

there's only one person's side I'm on, and it's @Delilah's.

I respectfully asked Sol for a clarification of his definitions of the functions in my own typing thread. in the meantime, I'll interact playfully however I want; don't take things too seriously. I haven't tried to be hurtful to Sol other than light teasing softened by emojis, even though he has said hurtful things without any hint of joking to Delilah. I am just saying my opinion on why he is wrong, just like he has been saying his opinion on why we are wrong. Bertrand, you have a divisive mindset of people on this forum being on teams against each other. can you not imagine that I can form my own opinion and it might sometimes overlap with others' but is free to change according to my individual beliefs?

I try to stay out of arguments on this forum because they go nowhere but I just wanted to publicly show my support for Delilah because I've found her to be a kind, caring person via our PMs and didn't want her to feel alone. we can disagree on socionics all day, I don't care, but it was unfounded for Sol to personally attack Delilah.

[Bertrand]

oh I see you think you're helping

@Bertrand do you even know what your own type is?

of course I know, but if you comprehended my post even a little you would realize that battle typing, which you seem so eager to engage in, is a consequence of people trying to foist their own understanding of the system onto one another either through definitions or by other means. the deal with quadral values is because people rarely pay direct attention to them they more easily bypass people's conscious attempts to be something they're not (super ego or whatever, prevailing fantasy image of themselves they have). the point here is if collective values are going to dictate the type of a person (i.e.: the victor in a battle royale over definitions, which the forums are so quick to descend into), we can just cut straight to the chase if we so please. quadral values are precisely how one can get past the game of definitions Ti types are so quick to engage in, so it is no surprise they were articulated by strat to great effect and why Ti types hate them, because it catches them on their weak side, being defined as the mindless group they seek to be and in doing so act out, but which they have no direct control over the image they produce via sophistry and other forms of language manipulation, in the face of individual-qua-individual judgement (Fi). in other words, both have their weaknesses but only one values humility (and even then only some of the time). this is the classic battle between rationality as all powerful and rationality as sin against God, which as an extramundane concept is the only thing that can elevate an individual out of a process that inevitably ends in state worship. people can say, "oh you don't have a place in the system--therefore you are invalid" but I would simply say your adherence to a label betrays your genuine values, and your willingness to fight seals the deal--LSI. I would further argue your general declarations of how important people are to you is a feature of Fi role throwing itself out there in a kind of super ego get to know you handshake. and should any of this come as a surprise? do people think they exhibit anything but their persona in such a get-to-know-you? do you think its so easy, that answering a questionnaire is the key to dropping the false trappings of the persona. ha! if Jung only knew! the questionnaire and that way of thinking is just a deepening of the problem he described, not the answer

[Saoirse]

honey I appreciate your concern for me but I'm not new, which you can see from my post history. I also have a job/life so cheers x

[Bertrand]

prophecy confirmed, Se ego wearing EII tag. feathers has a friend, if adam "big balls" strange were around we could get him to measure how hard your Se gets feathers and maybe we'd finally have the empirical basis for socionics we need

[squark]

@Bertrand

[Computer Loser]

Lol I remember typing you IEE one year ago on your 13 years thread. I’ll repost my post:

Delta NF

-Definitely not LSI/Ti-Valuing (Delta, Gamma > Alpha, beta)
-Strong N impression.
-After reading some posts, generally came off warm, bubbly and fuzzy, using emoticons and such etc (lol)... F > T

-Therefore Delta NF. (You also mentioned testing as INFJ in previous tests, so this is consistent)

IEE/ENFp

-Clearly comes off skeptical, (Te-valuing) and
-Open to possibilities/potential, etc (+Ne)
-Comes off slightly scatter-brained in describing life. (+Ne, -Ti)
-Unable to narrow down a type despite being a long time member, also suggesting (+Ne, -Ti)
-Emphasis on getting better/acquiring skills for your career and such. (Te-valuing)
-Seem mixed on whether you were introverted or extroverted. But, I feel like most INFjs would know this in themselves (E > I)
-You also tested/gave the impression that you were more spontaneous and free-spirited (P > J)


I'm gonna say ENFp > INFj

[Lluna]

Excuse me? Who are you, and what have you ever done, to think that you can judge my moral character? Back off already.

I believe Sol is full of shit, LSE or not (I kinda hope he's not).

Also, this tendency of saying that SEIs resemble EIIs (something I've seen before in some online places) is also bullshit. EIIs are the look-alikes of LIIs. If we resemble any alpha at all, it's going to be LIIs, not SEIs. We're not good at Si unless we have a person that acts as a Si stimulus close to us, and that Si we pick up has to be paired with Te. If it's paired with Fe, we're not going to care about it. By this silly benefactor-beneficiary similitude rule, why don't we say that ILIs resemble EIIs, that LSIs resemble ILIs or that EIEs resemble ILEs? It's something I've only seen people do with SEIs and EIIs so far (forgive me if I'm mistaken), and I again believe it's because of the stereotype of EIIs being gentle, soothing creatures. We're not. EIIs will resemble ESIs, LIIs, other NFs and maybe even LSIs since we share temperament (I've seen a self-typed EII being told he was LSI online, and I can understand why, even if this is probably unpopular opinion), but a SEI resemblance will be rare. We have nothing in common except 4D Fi and 3D Fe. Mistaking the supervisor (a relationship some say is worse than conflictivity) of ILEs for their dual should be hard and unlikely. That's my opinion on it.

[Lluna]

Lol I remember typing you IEE one year ago on your 13 years thread. I’ll repost my post:

Delta NF

-Definitely not LSI/Ti-Valuing (Delta, Gamma > Alpha, beta)
-Strong N impression.
-After reading some posts, generally came off warm, bubbly and fuzzy, using emoticons and such etc (lol)... F > T

-Therefore Delta NF. (You also mentioned testing as INFJ in previous tests, so this is consistent)

IEE/ENFp

-Clearly comes off skeptical, (Te-valuing) and
-Open to possibilities/potential, etc (+Ne)
-Comes off slightly scatter-brained in describing life. (+Ne, -Ti)
-Unable to narrow down a type despite being a long time member, also suggesting (+Ne, -Ti)
-Emphasis on getting better/acquiring skills for your career and such. (Te-valuing)
-Seem mixed on whether you were introverted or extroverted. But, I feel like most INFjs would know this in themselves (E > I)
-You also tested/gave the impression that you were more spontaneous and free-spirited (P > J)


I'm gonna say ENFp > INFj

IEE's and delta's Ne is supposed to be minus, not plus, but I personally don't believe the sign thing is accurate to reality.

[Lluna]

how you can tell strong valued Fi:

1) doesn't find the truth in group consensus or people pleasing in the aggregate
2) if it thinks someone is wrong, doesn't try to "send them out" by whipping up a crowd to facilitate that end
3) if it really thinks someone is wrong to the point it requires action, will directly tell the person they're a shithead (yes even Dostoy) to let them know where they stand as a matter of personal integrity
4) generally tries to reconcile people, not send them out, to achieve peace
5) will resist removing themselves even if they're "spoiling" the mood, in order to achieve 4, and as a matter of personal example
6) tries to understand people as individuals not depotentiated social units to be replaced willy nilly if the collective requires it, for whatever reasons the collective decides
7) it would be better for a group to be technically wrong, but respect the rights of individuals in a human not abstract capacity, than to be either technically correct OR perfectly efficiente

Number 1 is correct.
I think number 2 depends on the social influence of the person and their will more so than on their base.
Number 3 is correct.
Number 4 is false. Fi doesn't care about reconciling people if it sees a bad influence for someone else. "Peace-seeking" starts falling into the stereotype of EIIs being people-pleasers, and we're not.
5 is correct, but I wouldn't say to achieve 4. I think trying to give example may be true.
6 is false. A stronger focus on the individual or on the social group is purely cultural. It's even in the language. And I will add that for you to truly understand an individual, you have to understand it as a part of society and humanity. An individual on its own doesn't make sense: it's a part of something else, and I think delta NFs are perfectly able to understand this. It is true, though, that seeing people as replaceable is usually a painful perspective for an EII.
7 is confusing to me. The Fi base may not be very able to discern when is a group technically wrong, unless the person with Fi base is quite dualised or an expert on the subject. If "respecting the rights of individuals" means the Fi base will let pass anything without concerning themselves, then I think that's not true.

[Bertrand]

individualism as culture is shallow and not psychological, its social. how do cultures come to be individual if they don't originate somewhere..? true, cultures have an integral type that sets an anchoring point, but Fi valuing means they land on the individualism side whatever stage the culture itself may set. is it possible for a Fi type to advocate for collective values? yes, but it does so in a way that is inherently individualistic i.e.: they derived those values from themselves in an individual capacity and view others as being capable of the same: certainly not all others, but society's values must always take into account (for the Fi person) that they originate in people not groups... to say otherwise is like suggesting a Ti type can advocate a theory that doesn't even make sense to itself. it would be the definition of unhealth to say the least. true, people can be unhealthy...

I think the bottom line is you're interpreting my statements as absolutes when they're always judged relative to the social setting, since that will always set the point from which their survival depends. in other words, people aren't born hardcore individualists like a modern 21st century anarchist into every possible time and place. it is sufficient they are moreso on that side when judged against others. which is precisely what differentiates personalities is their relative standing within the socion. behavior is ultimately only behavior and these are not meant to be behavioral descriptions but statements of principles or attitudes weighed against other attitudes placed into the same or similar situations

to say someone "lives" or "acts out" a value is subtly different than what behavioral stereotypes in type descriptions are. to live a value is to go by a process that indicates the role such a function played was valued. you can infer this by watching people over time and seeing how the means they take always ends up shaping whatever ends they're after... behavioral descriptions are just ad hoc overlays of motor conduct people try to examine side by side and determine if they line up. its Ne v Se. if behavioral descriptions were totally reliable you could just substitute them for a psychological understanding of a person, which is what many posters try to do, but it ultimately fails to generate insight and is only a copy of a copy of what type really is. its like playing with type by using stencils or using a connect the dots rubrik or simply tracing when such methods are simply substitutes for actually knowing whats going on... these are not people in a position to meaningfully criticize, because they can only demand adherence to the postulates of their pre-existing system, they themselves take on faith, for lack of individual capacity to do better, although they would never admit that. that is a fine thing to do, because one cannot be the best at everything, but what is particularly lacking in socionics is self awareness that this is what people are doing, it would be like if I told my mechanic how my car works, and yet we live in a world where everyone feels perfectly capable of doing precisely that because they stayed at a holliday inn express or what have you. as if everyone were blessed with the same degree of psychological insight... on some level it is true: everyone's perspective is valid, but not everyone's perspective is psychological... when socionics and MBTI are degraded what happens is people simply "dress up" their own lack of insight via the system, try to launder it through terminology, applying the appropriate labels, without ever really comprehending what they're doing. its like a form of compulsion akin to "cleaning" ones room according to a geometrical formula.. its a category error of the most neurotic kind and yet so pervasive it has become the norm

[Spermatozoa]

@Delilah

[Guillaine]

LOL nonsence or nonsense?

[Lluna]

Did @Bertrand just suggest that @Saoirse is an LSI? I didn't realise that when I was writting that EIIs *can* resemble LSIs in my previous post.

[Spermatozoa]

LOL nonsence or nonsense?

noncensè

[Bertrand]

3 deep, its almost as if people put forward their persona. if you read my post, lluna, I address exactly that point. but thank you for demonstrating you didn't get that concept at the time you wrote your little dwight schrute esque rebuttal

[Spermatozoa]

3 deep, its almost as if people put forward their persona. if you read my post, lluna, I address exactly that point. but thank you for demonstrating you didn't get that concept when you wrote your little dwight schrute esque rebuttal

Do aardvarks shit out of their mouths?

[Bertrand]

have you ever considered that you're a SEE along with niffer (RIP), because of those kinds of "look at me!!" comments. free insight 4 u

[Lluna]

3 deep, its almost as if people put forward their persona. if you read my post, lluna, I address exactly that point. but thank you for demonstrating you didn't get that concept at the time you wrote your little dwight schrute esque rebuttal

You're very welcome.

[Spermatozoa]

have you ever considered that you're a SEE along with niffer (RIP), because of those kinds of "look at me!!" comments. free insight 4 u

I just imagined the beautiful picture of feces being expelled from your mouth and making a sound like failed academia.

And no, I'm not an SEE. You see, I prefer to be raped than rape someone myself. Less effort.

[Spermatozoa]

@niffer is a true Se-dom, imposing, exotic and spicy like a rich Thai curry, the combination of flavours is truly ingenious, only that just at the end you're left with some extra heat that lingers on the tongue, dancing with your passions. The pleasure comes as much from the journey as it may in the final destination.

So yeah, I would do her.

[Delilah]

the genius @Delilah

You have nothing reasonable to be sure in your Fi type. For me as Te type - you are emotionally and morally weird. Also you do not accept my Te thinking strongly. It's evident that our IR have no T/F complement.
Besides your communication, the nonverbal on photo gave the impressions to Fe type.

Type people near you by intuitive impressions from nonverbal and by other ways. Do not use only common behavior and your T - with lesser info you'll have higher chance to mistype, use also your N and F to type people. Check your impressions from them by IR theory. And you'll notice that Fe type fits you better. It's easy.
This may take several monthes of your regular efforts. Just use the typology on people near and check how it fits to IR.

After my critique you have assumed the possibilities to have Si value and E-type, - you have moved to SEI and EIE, which are 2 main possibilities of your type. With IR you'll understand that Fi is not your value and should come to your correct type.

Here is FlutteringShyxx - SEI which thought herself as EII. I said her she's SEI. The much close situation. It took lesser than a year she agreed that mb SEI. She explained this by changing of people near her. With those people she also analysed IR better and seems noticed the contradictions. IR are very useful to distinguish between values. Just use IR to understand yourself.

No, i won't take your advice on socionics, you have either understood very little of socionics or me or both.

My having narrowed down my type to Esi/IEE (remote possibility of EII-Ne) is solid and backed by my study of socionics, including use of IR.

I prefer that you don't address me again on this issue.

[Delilah]

@Bertrand - i don't engage in shuttle diplomacy.

Honestly, there is no one type that is objectively better than another, so i am not saying that i am a Fi-ego type because of that. Quite simply i have read about socionics on and off for several years now and had initially come to the conclusion that i was IEE, as i already explained. Then things in my life took place and i reconsidered to ESI. However, those circumstances have changed and i wonder whether it was a temporary occurrence (what seemed like Se behaviour to me). So, am now reconsidering back to IEE and while i was at it realized a few things clicked with EII-Ne.

I had wanted input to break this sort of tie that would help me see whether i lean one way or the other.

Now, if someone comes and says I'm EIE or SEI that is simply not helpful, because, as i say, i have given this real thought and analyzed myself and my behaviour and my relations with others so it is not offering anything to me to say you're a Fe type. I have actually done a lot of reading, even though i rarely engage others very theoretically here.

Basically, I am saying to the people on this board, i have come this far in my analysis and need some input to get a lock on it, that is, to decide *between these* types of which i just know i am one. @Raver helped exclude SEE for good, and i know he is right based on socionics theory and IR. Now i just need to take it a step further.

[Spermatozoa]

@Bertrand - i don't engage in shuttle diplomacy.

Honestly, there is no one type that is objectively better than another, so i am not saying that i am a Fi-ego type because of that. Quite simply i have read about socionics on and off for several years now and had initially come to the conclusion that i was IEE, as i already explained. Then things in my life took place and i reconsidered to ESI. However, those circumstances have changed and i wonder whether it was a temporary occurrence (what seemed like Se behaviour to me). So, am now reconsidering back to IEE and while i was at it realized a few things clicked with EII-Ne.

I had wanted input to break this sort of tie that would help me see whether i lean one way or the other.

Now, if someone comes and says I'm EIE or SEI that is simply not helpful, because, as i say, i have given this real thought and analyzed myself and my behaviour and my relations with others so it is not offering anything to me to say you're a Fe type. I have actually done a lot of reading, even though i rarely engage others very theoretically here.

Basically, I am saying to the people on this board, i have come this far in my analysis and need some input to get a lock on it, that is, to decide *between these* types of which i just know i am one. @Raver helped exclude SEE for good, and i know he is right based on socionics theory and IR. Now i just need to take it a step further.

Ne-lead and Ne-PoLR are oil and water, worlds apart, so you can't confuse IEEs for ESIs. So I think it's fair enough that people here might ask you to broaden your search, and consider other types.

A picture can paint a thousand words, as they say, and that is one of the reasons I linked those two cartoons, because they show just how stark the difference is between the two types.

I think we can rule out Ne-lead (IEE) for you. Your posting style is very reflective (you examine your emotions first) and concrete (it does not jump around from one idea to another quickly like a Ne-lead, you are more grounded than that).

I haven't seen enough to make me question ESI as a type for you, but if it helps, I do think you are an ethical introvert of some kind and that narrows your search down to four types.

[Bertrand]

I think it depends on how you distinguish the types. if you go by Ti or Se then physical appearance and theoretical distinctions are quite clear, but if you're trying to really in a deep sense understand one's place in the world relative to others on the level of meaning you can see this is a question common to ESI and IEE and they're going to struggle with it, if for no other reason than holographic cognition immediately invalidates other people's CD reasoning rooted in things like VI or theory, because Ne and but also Ne polr, in a Fi context, is trying to capture things in a much broader sense, which is the actual system of genuine human relations. the question would be, is one trying to capture it via concrete relations or abstract ones. if you talked to them conversationally they would have similar interests which is the basis for supervision, there is overlap in what they want but the difference is in how they go about it... that either Ne or Ti gets pushed out should then not surprise anyone that via socionics (an Ne Ti theory), there is confusion as to themselves

[Lluna]

My having narrowed down my type to Esi/IEE (remote possibility of EII-Ne) is solid and backed by my study of socionics, including use of IR.

So you're saying that you don't know if you have EP or IJ temperament and that you don't know if you're a Ne PoLR or a Ne lead.

Ne-lead and Ne-PoLR are oil and water, worlds apart, so you can't confuse IEEs for ESIs.

Pretty much.

[Sol]

@Delilah
One of factors for your S-F type (SEI) is that even after 1,5 years of the typology studing you may doubt for your own type between types differing on 3 dichotomies like a type and his revisor. You should to have weak N (Ne), not only T - to still misunderstood yourself so strongly.

[Delilah]

Lol I remember typing you IEE one year ago on your 13 years thread. I’ll repost my post:

Delta NF

-Definitely not LSI/Ti-Valuing (Delta, Gamma > Alpha, beta)
-Strong N impression.
-After reading some posts, generally came off warm, bubbly and fuzzy, using emoticons and such etc (lol)... F > T

-Therefore Delta NF. (You also mentioned testing as INFJ in previous tests, so this is consistent)

IEE/ENFp

-Clearly comes off skeptical, (Te-valuing) and
-Open to possibilities/potential, etc (+Ne)
-Comes off slightly scatter-brained in describing life. (+Ne, -Ti)
-Unable to narrow down a type despite being a long time member, also suggesting (+Ne, -Ti)
-Emphasis on getting better/acquiring skills for your career and such. (Te-valuing)
-Seem mixed on whether you were introverted or extroverted. But, I feel like most INFjs would know this in themselves (E > I)
-You also tested/gave the impression that you were more spontaneous and free-spirited (P > J)


I'm gonna say ENFp > INFj

I recall the test you gave me! Thank you. There was one last question there that i answered "incorrectly" because i thought it was obvious what the question was asking for, so i changed my answer lol because you were trying to do as unbiased a test as possible.

Thanks again for your contribution, very helpful :-)

[Delilah]

I agree with Lluna. In this thread Delilah reminds me of myself a lot, especially in her response to Sol. I think people tend to forget that a 1D function doesn't mean you are unable to use it, just that you are not as attuned to how to use it masterfully. For EII, this means that we'll let people push us really far and then we'll suddenly snap, instead of somehow firmly asserting our boundaries earlier. This is a normal relationship between an EII and an LSE, in my experience. Sol, you'll never achieve dualization if you keep pissing off all your duals.

@Saoirse, i'm glad to see you posted:-). I have actually given EII-Ne some real consideration.

One reason why that is is i never was able to identify with posts of IEEs on this forum, even way back when i posted as IEE. I thought the reason for that was maybe different life outlooks and other non-socionics factors. Yet, the difference was quite significant: example - i was never into posting the unicorns and displaying the irrational bursts of energy that the irrational temperament brings.

Another thing i've been noticing is my relation to SE-egos at work. I had a SE-ego bulldoze over me a couple of times recently in an attempt to get certain opportunities for themselves. I had a chat with them afterwords, and they agreed their action had been very aggressive and out of line, yet in the moment that it happened the weaker than i thought Se in me was very obvious.

I also have noticed that i do fade a little in the background in groups. I have this thing to where I think i'd like other people to verbalize their perspective and choices and do the talk, even though in a small group of my own friends I'd likely come out of my own self a little more. However, i don't socialize much in groups - when i see my friends it is one-to-one.

Soon enough I will be getting a lock on this, it's now more about taking a decision i guess.

[Delilah]

So you're saying that you don't know if you have EP or IJ temperament and that you don't know if you're a Ne PoLR or a Ne lead.



Pretty much.

Hi Lluna, so there are three types on the table, with EII-Ne a bit less remote (mostly because i don't consider myself as angelic as EII comes across in various descriptions, but maybe i'm too influenced by the bias in these descriptions which doesn't allow me to consider the type a bit more coldly and rationally? )

I think what it is i really identify very strongly with FI and think have a real lock on it, like i really understand how it works and have reflected on my behaviour and attitudes, with Fi really being a driving force there.

[Delilah]

Of all the type and subtype descriptions i've read, i relate to this the most:
(Ne-EII) Description by Victor Gulenko
Feels people very well. Immediately feels who has similar views and opinions to his 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 house. Dresses with taste, not seldom follows fashion."