u/Feihuva

I feel like sometimes people forget that IEE is one of the most witty, ironic and sharp-tongued types due to -Ne and -Fi. According to Aushra, the Ego block always serves the Super-ego block, so IEE's need to activate one's Ne-Fi is always Ti-driven. That's why they highly value and place great emphasis on critical thinking as one of the most important human qualities. IEEs are not as lightheaded, easygoing and optimistic as they're sometimes portrayed as. This confusion is one of the main reasons why on PDB actual IEEs get typed as ILEs/EIEs while some SEIs get typed as IEEs only because they seem to fit the "careless, optimistic, childish and spontaneous ENFP" stereotype.

Aushra says this about IEEs:

>"With the IEE’s Superego it is impossible to live with two logical truths: either-or. In this case Huxley had to choose between the Church’s teachings and Darwin, who, by the standards of the time, closed the last issue in natural science.

>The Superego demands a very logical and very consistent conclusion rather than a creative one. Any creativity or “relativity” is perceived as a blatant lie. The Superego cannot make concessions. It needs to know for sure which relation, which “truth” is false based on the universally accepted point of view*: what the Bible offers, or what Darwin offers.

>* Here Augusta probably means that Huxley needed to know which of the two versions was not logically consistent with all other universally accepted scientific truths.

>But choosing the truth for themself is not enough for the IEE. They cannot live in an ambiguous society where they will be constantly confused and bothered by contradictory statements, so they zealously defend their truth. This is just a trait of the IEE type rather than some kind of exceptional honesty. For example, someone like Darwin* is also honest, but their honesty manifests in a different way. Darwin managed to discover a new pattern, but was unable to make others understand it unless they themselves wanted to understand. This is because, in Darwin’s view, everyone has a right to believe whatever they want. To each according to their mind: an intelligent person should be helped to move into the real world, and if someone needs fairytales – let them stay in a fairytale. One should not annoy and impose themself on others. This is different for Huxley. Huxley could not exist in a world where the connection between two objects is explained simultaneously in two different ways. After all, two objects cannot be connected by one logical relation for one person, and by another logical relation for another person. This is an unacceptable ambiguity and illogicality that must be fought. But the Superego is not a fighter, it just feels nervous. So the problem gets transferred to the creative Ego block, which tries to solve it in ways available to it."

>IEEs are persistent fighters for the objectivity in science. Like everything else in the world, this fact is neither good nor bad. It just is. IEEs may have a negative impact too, when, not understanding something new that emerges in science, they treat this new thing as subjective and fight against it. And one must admit that they do so skillfully. But once this new thing becomes stronger and enough evidence of its objectivity is gathered – in other words, once IEEs understand that it is objective, – then they start fighting against all the truths that were previously spread, but now are “unscientific”. It happens after the new manages to stand firm before IEEs without breaking. With their words IEEs burn down the old to make way for the new. We only know Huxley as a fighter for the new, but there surely must have been a time when this same Huxley could, and definitely did, sincerely say: if every priest* (which Darwin was by training) was allowed to spread their scribbles, we would run out of paper!

Aushra has typed Moliere (a satirist), Mark Twain (a satirist), Mikhail Zoshchenko (a satirist) and Mikhail Bulgakov (guess what? another satirist) as IEEs and people still have the nerve to view IEEs as these little peace-loving brainless mfs without any strong/controversial opinions whatsoever, always having an ear-to-ear smile while singing that life's so wonderful every single morning exactly at 6 a.m. THIS IS WHAT SEIS ARE LIKE, STOP CONFUSING THEM (jk(?)).

I'm not trying to say that IEEs can't be childish, optimistic, chill or lighthearted, they certainly can, but this doesn't mean they are incapable of confidently standing up for their convictions, displaying cynical skepticism, or showing a tendency toward critical thinking, nonconformity and sarcasm. IEEs (especially the mature ones) are 100% up there with ILEs and EIEs in this regard, please don't underestimate them.

Sometimes I feel like I'm insane for thinking that George Carlin was IEE because everyone else is so sure he was ILE.

Am I?

"Honestly, I have rather strange relationships with other people. In fact, very often I don’t even understand what kind of relationships I have with other people. I’ve never called anyone my friend first; it’s always been the other way around: they’d say, “You’re my friend,” and in my conformist manner, I’d simply obey, first and foremost, the person, and secondly, fate. I’m Batman’s Robin, roughly speaking, a hostage to relationships. However, there’s another catch: I’ve never been confident enough in relationships to commit to them completely. For me, the boundaries between acquaintance, buddy, friend, and best friend are so blurred that sometimes I don’t understand who I can trust and who can trust me. Who among this gray group of people could I confide in? Who should I be wary of? Are we close enough to communicate like this? I have no idea why I’m like this. Perhaps because it’s more convenient? It’s convenient not to have the responsibility of sacrificing yourself for another. It’s convenient not to associate yourself with anyone. It's convenient, after a breakup or betrayal, to convince yourself that you were never friends in the first place and that there's no need to be sad about it. "Apparently, he didn't consider me a friend, well then it's my fault for thinking that." I'm like a prostitute. On the one hand, this makes all my relationships seem insincere on my part, but on the other hand, it's actually easier since you don't feel any weight of responsibility on your shoulders. Sometimes I can do for a stranger what people normally do for their best friend. Sometimes, for a best friend, I don't even do what they would EASILY do for me, the bare minimum. I also have a really hard time breaking off relationships with other people. Even when I turn into an island fortress, I still don't have the strength within me to completely burn all bridges. It's all too complicated."

https://preview.redd.it/33npjck7mikh1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=614ee09559c300111807384f55dcfd8d16a6c791

I'm pretty sure that I'm a Fe-creative, but I feel like I'm not intuitive enough to be IEI and not sensing enough to be SEI, if such thing is even possible.

I am "head in the clouds" pretty often, but I have no serious imaginary wanderings happening in the backrooms of my mind in such moments, my head is just empty. I don't like planning/thinking about my future and I have a pretty "whatever happens, happens" attitude to life, but a lot of times I can become too self-aware about my situation and climb walls out of sheer desperation. Also I don't feel like a central type at all, although I'm fairly competitive and do enjoy trolling others, making them mad for no reason just to watch their reaction (it's not a central-exclusive thing, I know, but it's my most central traits). I do enjoy thinking about abstract stuff, but I hate learning about it, if it makes sense. I don't even bother to seek for meaning in anything if it's not subtle and easily understandable (for example, If I watch something very-very abstract and complex to understand I have little to no interest in trying to figure everything out, although I can sometimes get interested in such media). Usually when surrounded by people who are close to me, I automatically start acting like an ESE stereotype (optimistic, trying to make others laugh, doing dum stuff for fun, laughing at myself, sometimes playfully fighting others, etc.). I'm emotionally stable, forgiving and patient, like, to an unhealthy degree. I pay a fair amount of attention to the external world (a lot of times I notice objects in my surroundings that others don't). I have the ability to imagine things, but compared to how vividly other IEIs describe their daydreaming, I feel like I'm very underqualified, although I've been told that I'm creative many times (as if it has something to do with Ni). Never been interested in anything esoteric and spiritual, have a skeptical attitude towards omens, horoscopes, etc. I see no point in thinking about the possible what-ifs of my past/future, but sometimes I do unwillingly think about what kind of impression I leave on others, and sometimes in my head I can act out a scene of me meeting someone new or someone old just to see how I'd behave (I also don't do this consciously, it all happens very smoothly and I don't pay much attention to it, but after some time I'm like "wtf am I doing?" and snap back to reality). I also write songs in my free time and while my lyrics do contain a lot of associations, metaphors and the like, they don't seem very connected, it's more like a chaotic whirlpool of random thoughts rather than a coherent story with a main theme, it's like my lyrics are bits and pieces of me scattered everywhere. I don't actively create fictional worlds and OCs.

Firstly, does any of this contradict IEI? Secondly, how abstract can SEI be?

I'm sure that this question has been asked here at least once, but I couldn't find any similar posts, so, yeah, what's the reasoning behind E9 being strictly anti-intuitive (moreso socionics-wise than MBTI/Classic Jungian-wise)?

Very changeable and easily influenced taste. Often larp liking things to feel special. Сan pretend to love or hate something to the core, even though they actually don't really care nor are they bothered to do so. Often instead of forming their own opinion on something they subconsciously parrot the opinions of others, someone they consider experienced enough (e.g. liking a music album only because it's widely considered to be a 10/10). It's hard for them to have an opinion that doesn't align with the opinion of the public. Generally they don't acitively agitate for anything. If they like/dislike something, it can be hard for them to tell why. "new opinion just dropped🤖" personified, although they don't do this deliberately. They listen to music they don't even like just to feel different from others.

For example, when you're reading a book and the plot of the book reminds you of a movie that you've recently watched, so you draw comparisons between the characters in the book and their "counterparts" in the movie. Or when you think of some ordinary word and it reminds you of a name of someone random, like, for example, the guy who created the wings for Icarus in greek mythology. Which function is used when unconsciously creating these unnecessary associations, noticing similarities between two completely unrelated phenomena?

Another example I can think of is when you meet someone new and their character reminds you of a person from your remote past. Is Ne used in these cases or is it something else?

I've seen somewhere that PoLR funciton can manifest itself in two opposite ways: a person is either overcautious with it or he simply ignores it and dgaf about it at all, which seems to be true based on my experience with other types, but is it really true? If it is, then what does an overcatious manifestation of Te-PoLR look like? XEIs are often described as careless spenders, but is it possible for them to be on the other side of the spectrum, e.g. saving money even at times when it'd be objectively better to spend it?

And yeah, I know that Te != money, but I couldn't think of a better example, sorry.

I'm having such a hard time typing ISFP musical artists. There are artists who are obviously SEI (Nujabes, Post Malone, Slayrr, Pharrel Williams, Lil Yachty, Laufey, etc.) and there are artists who are obviously ESI (Kendrick Lamar, Eminem, Frank Ocean, XXXTentacion (maybe a little too EIE to be ESI)), but some of these ISFP typings just don't make sense man.

In general, ESI is described as a highly conservative (as in "against external influence") type with a tendency to moralize. They're not the kind of people to blindly follow the herd (Qi) and they can appear very negative and pessimistic, which fits the artists I typed as ESI. At the same time, SEI artists are very aesthetic-heavy, they enjoy describing physical processes and they have a positive aura about them, which also does fit the artists I typed as SEI, but there are some ISFP artists that have certain doubts about.

This "weird artists" group inclues Yung Lean, The Weekend, Billie Eilish, osquinn, Edward Skeletrix, Lil Peep, Lana Del Rey, alex g and Playboi Carti. My main concern is: is it really that common for SEIs to have a "sadboy/sadgirl" aesthetic?

Playboi Carti is a whole another story. I have no idea what's his type.

Also I wanna see how other people typed these and other ISFP artists, so you're more than welcome to say what you think.

P.S. I do understand that ISFP in MBTI doesn't necessarily equal SEI or ESI, i just need to learn how to type these people and what makes them SEI/ESI/EIE/whatever.

I'm really curious to hear what Ni-bases' daydreaming/contemplation feels like. Obviously I can't just get into your heads and watch it, so please try your best to put all of it in words. What do you usually daydream about? What can you compare your mental wanderings with? Is there an end result to your journey? How often do you daydream? Thank you in advance!

When it comes to me (still not sure that I'm a Ni-base, but I'll larp as one for now to explain the way I daydream), it's mostly an unconscious process that starts whenever it wants to, usually when nothing distracts me in the "real" world. I mostly daydream about abstract associations where one thing reminds me of another, and then that thing reminds me of something entirely different, and so on. Usually there is no end goal, but sometimes interesting thoughts and ideas can be found in these eternal rivers. It feels like there is no starting point, it just keeps going until I snap back to the "real" world. There is no time limit, so sometimes it can go for 5 seconds, other times it can take half an hour. I also enjoy talking with myself as if I'm on a podcast, where someone (me) asks me questions and I answer them. I enjoy thinking in dialogues more than in monologues. I don't usually think about the future that much, I'd rather avoid it. Also sometimes random moments from the past visit my brain for absolutely no reason. It's like a Family Guy episode istg. Sometimes I question why I did the things that I did in the past, what was my motif. I don't really think about hypothetical situations like "If I met this person that I haven't seen in years tomorrow, what would I say?", I don't really care about that. A lot of times it feels like there are thinking processes happening in the backrooms of my mind that I don't pay any attention to. Sooner or later, they come up with some result and show it to me, and then I wonder how on earth I arrived at that conclusion, as if I’m not creating ideas, but stumbling upon them by chance.

Usually I use my expressiveness to uplift others' moods and get a laugh from them. I'm not afraid of laughing at myself and can use self-irony for a joke (although I don't like it when others point out my imperfections and laugh at them). I'm not confident in radically changing the emotional atmosphere around me, usually I try to adapt to it. Sometimes I enjoy teasing others, trolling them and making fun of their self-confidence. Generally I don't like people who can't control their emotions, when their emotional response isn't justified at all. I've fake laughed at others' jokes more times than I can count. I don't like it when a person isn't emotionally responsive, when people don't pay attention to the emotional atmosphere around them and either try to push their agenda (mood) or don't participate in it at all (although I can understand the latter and I never try to forcefully make them "come out of their shells", sometimes I also act that way when I'm not in the mood). In a new company I appear quiet and calm and it takes some time for me to adapt to new people. Sometimes I can offend others in the group because of an inappropiate joke that I made without thinking, but my intent is never to hurt the other (unless they've hurt me before, then yeah, I try my best to get under their skin). Sometimes people don't take me seriously because of my jester image that I've created. It's hard for me to not be vulnerable to the emotions around me. My usual state is chill and easygoing, with ocassional "funny moments" here and there. Despite all of this, my social battery can run out of power pretty quickly and then I become all cynical, hateful and whiny. Sometimes it feels like "me around others" and "me when alone" are the exact opposites of each other. When I'm alone, I become so much more emotionally dead, pensive, self-aware and contemplative, but when I'm surrounded by others I automatically start to play my role of a clown. [insert the "i'm fine" meme]. Friends told me that I try to adapt to the person I’m talking to, which is why I behave differently with different people. I'm like a mirror in some sense. I unconsciously try to mold myself into the person they expect me to be (truly poetic), which is sort of the reason why I struggle with defining what my "true self" looks like.

I also wanted to talk about my Fi. I don't like it when my relationships are discussed in a group, when they become a topic for conversation, especially when other people try to give me advice on what should I do without me asking them in the first place. I don't like to brag about my connections (and it's certainly not related to the fact that I, in actuality, have none). I feel like relationships are something too, idk, personal and private to disclose simply like that? When I'm walking down the street and a person I know (not a friend, but not a stranger either) is walking towards me, I don't have the instinct to say hello to them, I expect them to take the initiative and greet me (which is pretty rude, but I've been like that since I was a kid). In general, usually I wait for the other to approach me, even if I really want to be friends with someone. I guess I'm allergic to taking the initiative in this regard? All my current relationships were passively constructed by the universe itself. I never was the one to call someone a friend of mine first. It's hard for me to cut ties with others as well. Despite all of this, I'm pretty skilled at harmonizing relationships, even between other people. I know how to give useful advice in this field and I'm understanding of others. I know how to put myself in someone else's shoes. Also I don't contribute to the already existent relationships with my friends as much as I possibly could (or, at the very least, I've been critisized for it). For a long time it was hard for me to pick a side in the argument, but now I'm more confident in my evaluations. My slogan for Fi is: "I will treat you the same way you treat me."

So, I haven't finished the series yet, but why in the world is he typed as LIE on PDB? Can somebody reason that please? I always thought of him as more of a Se-base. Maybe I have some stereotypes about LIEs in my head that need to be broken, but he doesn't strike me as a typical LIE guy.

https://preview.redd.it/zjcnq22739dh1.jpg?width=688&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=79ec500bb590e82e1babfefd1ea8e005827843ed

Idk why, but for some reason it's pretty hard for me to find examples of non-SO4 characters that would fit the IEI description to a tee. It's also kinda crazy how much IEIs differ from each other because of the enneagram subtypes. So, obviously, there is plenty of IEI SO4s, but I'm really tired of this "pessimistic suffering artist with various mental problems and a lot of emotional outbursts" kind of IEI.

One example that I'm pretty sure in is Luna Lovegood from Harry Potter. She is an example of a non-SO4 IEI. I need more of them.

So, I'm still on my self-seeking sociojourney and now I'm stuck between two types: IEE and IEI. What really obvious differences are there between those two? How introverted can an IEE be?

Even in general, is there a way to differentiate between an unhealthy version of one type whose behavior resembles other type a lot?

Took it from here: https://sociotoday-narod-ru.translate.goog/tabl.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl#%D0%98%D0%AD%D0%98

(It's more than 1000 people/characters typed by Talanov himself, you should check it out. A good half of them is mostly russian/soviet celebs and fictional characters, but still. He gives some good insight on what telltale traits do some of the sociotypes have).

"A fairly characteristic, though not always evident, external feature of this type is a face with a piercing, "radiant" gaze, sometimes with a frequent, seemingly apologetic smile, and also quite often with characteristic convex and rounded-soft nasolabial folds. Often, emotionally "scanned" speech is encountered, with emotionally meaningful pauses between words and "emotionally-stressful" emphasis on key words (note the pronunciation in speeches by Edward Radzinsky and Dmitry Medvedev, who is either an IEI or has at least a strong additional accent toward the IEI). IEIs are often good storytellers. IEIs are typically characterized by self-doubt, and a somewhat demonstrative inferiority complex is often found, developing around this insecurity, as if calling for a master-dual. IEIs feel more confident with children. Fantasy, urban legends, fairy tale characters, an interest in hallucinogens, and the sweet chatter of internet forums are the favorite elements of the "average" IEI. Because of this type's inherent internal "psychological mimicry," a peculiar ability to seemingly adopt an imposed or at least supposedly "desired" psychological form, this type is sometimes the most difficult to diagnose using psychological questionnaires—as IEI individuals can sometimes, from one typing to the next, ascribe completely different traits to themselves, which are in fact hardly their own. This doesn't mean the type is ultimately misdiagnosed by questionnaires—but the contrast and "quality" of the resulting peak is often reduced relative to the diagnostics of other sociotypes.

Unlike the other three "beta" types, IEIs are generally not aggressive, although, due to their instilled sense of Se, they often enjoy playing with the trappings of aggression—weapons, armies, parades, and tales of violence. In the second psychological quadra ("beta"), the IEI type is the most democratic and least retrograde element, and therefore a frequent "dissident" of this quadra's values, which are often associated with conservatism, anti-democratic tendencies, dictatorship, and genuine violence. Apparently, the main reason for this "dissidence" is a relatively lower average Se, compared to other "beta" types, and a relatively elevated Ne (especially in certain subtypes, such as writers E. Lukin and V. Pelevin). At the same time, the average IEI is the most psychologically unstable, vacillating, mimicking, and inconsistent sociotype, poorly adapted to independent and self-sufficient living. And yet, the IEI type, like any other elements of the second quadra, is well-adapted to life under dictatorship in its group tendency—it will always find an acceptable place for itself and relatively easily accept the rules of the imposed game.

IEI politicians only emerge when they are deliberately brought onto the political scene by more businesslike associates, driven by their own agendas. But even then, IEIs continue to seek protective guidance from Beta STs —for example, Alexander I sought it in Arakcheyev, and Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev (apparently somewhere between an IEI and an ESI) also persistently seeks it in a "senior partner." It should also be recalled that the reign of Russian Emperor Alexander I remains in historical memory as generally "brighter" than both the reigns that preceded and followed it—that is, the reigns of Paul I (SLE) and Nicholas I (LSI). It is also comparatively liberal and not averse to innovative reforms, albeit inconsistent, unfinished reforms that more often than not remained at the level of emotionally good intentions and empty talk in government commissions. At the same time, and this was his undoubted personal merit, Alexander the First was an excellent diplomat and often easily outplayed even the famous diplomatic scoundrel Talleyrand (an intermediate between SEI and SEE).

Typically, the IEI's governance has a generally permissive style and leads to stagnation, against which, from the elite's mentality, mutually competing shoots of both obvious rabid reaction (from the even more pronounced Beta conservatives) and liberalism - from the intelligentsia and the Gamma "businessmen" thirsting for greater freedom for their own hands - gradually begin to sprout.

Among the IEI, highly talented writers are often found, typically writing in the style of mainstream or estranged prose and mystical fantasy (often with elements of the grotesque, the more pronounced the more dark intuition the "Yesenin" possesses). The hallmark of the IEI's literary style, ensured by its programmatic function (Ni), is a smooth and viscous flow of thought, on the wave of which the author travels. Following his freely wandering thoughts, he leads the reader by the hand, noting along the way one "flashing" ethical-philosophical maxim after another; one comical human image after another. An endless journey along a river (Philip Farmer's "Riverworld"), a journey through the desert dunes bordering a strange, semi-mystical human civilization (Frank Herbert's "Dune"), the endless journey of the heroes in "The Lord of the Ring" (Tolkien), a journey through the estates of disparate provincial landowners (Nikolai Gogol's "Dead Souls")—these are the IEI's favorite devices for constructing a novel or a fairly long story. As a rule, this device replaces the actual plot of the book (for they are very weak in plot twists that require a dark, dynamic logic to build, and they are capable of maintaining a chain of logically following events only in a short story). They are not made for detective work; a thriller would be a great challenge for them. But IEIs, in their "average" writing style, are the best, unrivaled stylists among all writers and the most outstanding masters of the mainstream (if not the only ones—the only weak competitors in this regard are ILIs, but weak ones nonetheless). Nikolai Gogol, Andrei Platonov, Franz Kafka (an intermediate type between EII and IEI), Gabriel García Márquez, Viktor Pelevin, and Yevgeny Lukin have a well-deserved reputation as truly great writers of humanity (that is, people who create works of literary art, and certainly not authors of commercial literary pulp), and all of them are either IEIs or have a strong accent toward this type. "Yesenins" don't care about commerce when they haven't yet run out of money for food. But without any pragmatic goal, honing one's style, floating along an endless river of witty generalizations, elegant hints-associations and philosophical miniatures - this is a constant pleasure for smart "Yesenins"."

Saw a similar post made by an ILI guy, so I stole the idea since I got nothing to do.

* - means "I haven't met any person of this type or I have, but didn't get to know them well, so my opinion on this type isn't backed up by any real life deep encounters, expect either some bullshit or a very dull and stereotypical description".

ALPHA

ILE*: Very creative and versatile. They have some much passion for what they do. Sometimes it seems like life has never been boring for them, I respect and kinda envy that. Despite all of this, they can be selfish, pretty immature and overly competitive, to the point of losing friends because of an online ranked game. Eternal child is an eternal child in all senses.

LII*: They seem like very sweet and chill people untill you say something that doesn't make sense for them personally. You will get strangled to death with all the "actually"s of theirs. Relatable to an extent. Sometimes they're too afraid of the people in power and can turn into an easy target for bullies. I personally made a very inappropriate and disrespectful joke towards one acquaintance of mine who supposedly was LII. I expected some kind of similar joke in response, but instead he just got really uncomfortable and quiet and I felt so bad afterwards. I'm really sorry for that, sometimes I need to keep my mouth shut and keep my thoughts in the right place.

SEI: Very sweet. Sometimes can nag you with all the Si-care they have for you. They can get pretty irritated with someone if they intrude their "comfort space" with unnecessary advice or complains, but they don't say it to their face, they just get really passive-aggressive and avoidant. Most certainly have cookies at home in case someone pays a visit. Concerned with their appearance and beauty to an unhealthy degree (at least for me).

ESE: Sometimes they get so loud I want to kill them. Either very family-oriented and protective or a habitual cheater. For some reason all the ESEs I've encountered were abused by their parents when they were little. Attention-seeking, but will never demand it in a straightforward, impulsive way (as a SEE would, for example), require gentleness. Can be very judgemental of the way other people live, even though at first they don't strike you as that kind of people. Can get mad if you don't respect traditions/worldly matters, especially in the Si realm (I got critisized for not eating properly (???) and not caring about my future career (valid)). They absolutely despise people who feel entitled/better than everyone else, but sometimes they behave that way themselves without noticing. Enjoy a lighthearted atmosphere in the group, where everyone respect each other.

BETA

EIE: They really know how to get under your skin, like, really. They feed on negative emotions and drama. Narcissistic: if some new thing appears on their radar, their first thought is "How can I relate this to myself?". Will do anything not to lose, but they still do, and when they do, they get SO mad and red in the face. Can be even louder than ESE, never thought this could be possible. Another thing that unites EIE and ESE is that EIEs are also attention-seeking, but more in a "look at me bitch, I'm the best human being on earth, but secretely I'm pretty insecure and want to find true love" kind of way. Can get their ass whopped by some Se egos for their Fe-Se talk, can be very conflict-seeking. Despite this, they can't stand their ground in love relationships and idealize their partner a lot. Usually overestimate their intellect, larp as ILEs while not really having a clear Ti structure behind their (sometimes radical) views and opinions. "Views and opinions" is something they just can't live without. Can be into politics, sport and other competitive Se-related fields. They loooove "Detroit: Become Human". If they don't, they pretty much aren't EIEs (unless they're "Attack on Titan" fans, then their EIE card can be restored). Are big fans of media with "medival" attributes, such as pride, power, fate and honor. Very influenced by emotions, can do something on a whim and then regret it the same day. This is the third time I've described an EIE friend of mine, so, like, you get the gist.

IEI*: Used to type as one for a while, so my perception of this type could be fairly biased. Very passive in day-to-day life. Probably watch a lot of anime with psychological drama elements. Deep down they are unsatisfied with their life, but never actually do anything to change it, prefer to daydream instead. Sometimes they can get very capricious seemingly out of nowhere. Perform way better under pressure. Will turn into a ghost if not supervised (not in a socionics sense, in general). Have these random waves of nostalgia that always bring a smile to their face. Picking a side in a conflict is the same for them as being beheaded in public. Occasional philosophical thoughts here and there. Empathetic and sentimental, but not as altrustic and self-sacrificing as they potentially could be. Wouldn't go out of their way to help someone else, individualistic. Self-reflect a lot. They always know how to make others do their job for them, but sometimes they do it themselves to show how independent and mature they are (they're not). They might think that they're both special and just as ordinary as everyone else at the same time.

LSI(* but kinda not, this guy I met could be ESI): Pretty quiet and stoic in social settings. Superficially can appear friendly and lighthearted, but internally they are mobilized and very selective of who to spend time with. The term "respect" has a lot of value for them. Very secretive and elusive. Their anger usually isn't directed outwards, they always feel the need to keep composure in social settings, although sometimes they fail to do so. Those sudden bursts of anger is what proves that they're really human and not a robot. Would rather have fake friends who feed them white lies (i.e. "respect" them) than real friends who tell the truth to their face but in a rough way (don't think that it's a type thing, but eh, who knows?). Very disciplined. Too stand-offish.

SLE: The guy who "tells the truth to the face but in a rough way". They have this need to lead others, they can't live without it. Every stick has two ends: sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes not. Believe that everyone should be treated equally, on the same terms with everyone (although sometimes they can have special attitude towards some specific people, but they deny it). Not even half as sadistic as portrayed in the descriptions (perhaps I got lucky to meet the healthy SLEs?). Questionable takes on politics from an NF standpoint (not so liberal and democratic, but usually not in a power-hungry, selfish or far-right way). Very family-oriented, which may be a surpirise to some. Hold themselves with dignity. What I don't like about SLEs is how much they're afraid to seem weak, to ask for help from others. They try to sustain all the hardships in the world independently, without any support, even verbal. Also they have no idea how not to be straightforward. They can't smooth things over, they sharpen them. Usually see all the negative sides and forget about the positive ones. See apology as a sign of weakness. See a lot of things as a sign of weakness which honestly shouldn't be seen that way. If someone's behavior can't be explained with logic, they get very lost with no idea how to deal with it. Can be real assholes sometimes (a lot of times tbh) since they consider sugarcoating pointless and dumb, but they still will help you with an advice or stand up for you if you get bullied. That's their way of being a friend.

GAMMA

SEE: One of the most manipulative types there is, not neccessarily in a bad way. I also envy how passionate this type can be. They really want to get recognition in society, usually in a materialistic way: to get a well-paid and high-status job, to buy a nice house in a wealthy neighborhood, to have a car better than their colleague's, etc. Possibly the most naturally funny type there is. Can be very charming, but sometimes they can ruin the vibe with these really impulsive and high-energy emotional outbursts if something annoys them even slightly. It was tough growing up with an older sibling of this type because their Se-Fi is something I was never able to withstand, but with time I learned how to stand up for myself and take resposibility only if I really was responsible for something. Adrenaline is one of their best friends, so they indulge in hobbies which can provide it (extreme sports, driving cars at high speed, fighting, etc.). Can be very self-centered and irresponsible, but they also can make great leaders if they really wanted to. Oh, also a lot of gossip.

ESI: Very sustainable type in a mental sense. Usually appears friendly but you should never in yo life ask them about their views on anything. They get so judgemental it's like they were replaced in the middle of the convo (jk). One thing I like about them compared to EIEs is that they don't impose their views, principles and opinions on you. While they don't entirely accept your opinion, they don't try to make you change your mind, they just quietly make conclusions about what kind of person you are. Never got on their "people I hate" list and I hope I never will because I know that grudges will be held for at least a century. Their worldview reeks of pessimism. They'll call it realism, but trust me, it's not. It's like they've never believed in a bright future ever in their life. Very hardworking for this reason: they need to prepare for whatever pitfalls there can be in the future. Pretty tragic people that certainly deserve happiness for how much they've sacrificed. As well as LSI, they can have random anger outbursts once in a while. Se-creatives, am I right guys? Also they either think about their past in a heartwarming, nostalgic way or hate it with their guts, no inbetween. Oh, and they hate it when you don't keep your promise, so be careful.

ILI*: In my head, they're either the people with the most sophisticated and complex view on the world or basement dwellers who rot away in their room until they die. Probably both. Everything they say sounds like "WOW, you didn't know THIS? How dumb are you?". Can be very competitive in intellectual sense. Higly individualistic, pessimistic too. One ILX friend of mine had a t-shirt saying "I like music, not people" and I mean yeah, it's kinda corny, but I think it perfectly captures what kind of vibe ILIs bring to the table. They most certainly have a niche interest/piece of media that they think others would never have the mental capacity to grasp. They'll gatekeep it from you and will probably take it to their grave only for you to never have a taste as refined as theirs.

LIE*: Fantastic Mr. Fox. I can appreciate how optimistic these guys are. Most likely have gambling problems. Honestly my perception of this type is so stereotypical I have no idea what else to say. I can gurantee you they have a crypto wallet with a gazillion coins with a total value of 1.41$. Have at least 5 schemes on how to quickly earn money, not neccessarily legally. The sociotype that's better than you at everything. I'm sorry, I genuinely don't know what else to say.

DELTA

LSE*: I've met plenty LSEs in my life, but our relationship never went beyond the bounds of "business" interaction. It always feels like they need everything to be perfect when it doesn't have to be. They use you as an instrument rather than a person. Their Fe is possibly the most fake Fe any sociotype can have. I can appreciate how hardworking they are, but there's still a lot of bias. I'm sorry, LSEs, I'm sure a lot of you are genuinely interesting people, but I've never been bothered to look beyound the professional facade you created.

SLI: Pretty chill people. What I love about them is that they let others live their life without any unwanted judgement and criticism (that's the kind of behavior they expect from others as well). They LOVE giving advice on something they consider their territory and they're exceptionally good at helping others with sensory stuff. Very patient, but there's always a limit to their patience. Once the limit has been reached, they put whoever got them mad in their place. I'm honestly amazed by how quickly they do it. Can overwork themselves, but they always know multiple ways how to make their job easier and slack off a little without getting caught. Can be hilarious at times. They really enjoy good rest and delicious food based on the way they talk about it. They treat all of those procedures as some kind of an important ritual and not just a tiring everyday routine. That's cool. Happiness is in the little things, or whatever they say.

IEE*: I want to meet one in real life so bad. I'm yearning for it. They seem like genuinely cool people that can be a pleasant company for literally anyone in the world. The kind of people who will get you out of your shell in a social setting. The kind of people who will say something diabolical and then act like nothing happened. The kind of people who will take you to places you would never go to even with a gun in your pocket. On the other hand, I know how immature and stubborn they can be. They can ridicule others for no apparent reason and be straight up disrespectful just because they feel like it. Sometimes they completely refuse to make compromises with others because of their own whims. If they're stuck in their ways, you can't do a lot to make them change their mind. One of the most cynical sociotypes - the quality of IEE that usually gets downplayed for some reason. They know how to make irony biting.

EII*: Never met one. I feel like this is the type that appears moralistic, equality-oriented and "live and let live", but secretly has so much bias towards some specific types of people, both positive and negative. Still, I can respect how much they can do for their close ones. One thing I love about Fi-bases is how deep their feelings seem to be. Usually I can always tell when someone is putting on an act, but with EXIs it's almost never like that. Their feelings are silent, but very persistent. When they love you, they LOVE you. When they hate you, they HATE you. EIIs in particular can be too good for their own sake. Sometimes you need to act like a jerk to remind others of your existence.

That's all. I tried my best to cover all the types and I'm sorry if my description didn't satisfy you (especially the * types).

Is it true that dynamics imagine stuff in motion (as a video) while statics imagine stuff in pictures?

I've seen this kind of information on this sub and I'm curious if it's true. My imagination is mostly static-like, with random abstract images popping up and quickly disappearing. It's pretty hard for me to imagine something actively moving for a long time. It looks more like comic panels or frames changing slowly as a slideshow, somewhere around 10 fps. Reminds me of cartoon sketches.

I've self-typed as IEI for the longest, but I never was sure enough in my type for me to calm down and stick with it. My latest serious self-type post only raised more doubts about my type for me. The problem with me in particular is that I've been having a special condition for, like, three years now and it's pretty hard for me to tell if I'm an intuitive or just a mentally ill sensor. Basically it feels like constant dissociation from the world and oneself, which does sound pretty Ni-base but really, how can I be sure? So in this post I'll try to describe myself in hopes that one of my traits will be related to only one specific type. At least 2 people have told me that I'm too young to type, but I don't think that's the case because I can recognize the types of my peers pretty well, so yeah, Idk how true is that.

I'm really sorry for yet another "type me" post, but please speed I need this.

My other posts that can give some info on my character:

1. https://www.reddit.com/r/Socionics/comments/1tibgrb/honey_its_time_for_another_type_me_post_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/Socionics/comments/1tt4czt/type_me_based_on_how_my_friends_see_me_for_fun/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

I also completed this questionnaire a while ago that only one person repsonded to: https://www.reddit.com/r/SocionicsTypeMe/comments/1oy7zar/type_me/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

As a kid, I used to associate myself and my friends with fictional characters in a pretty unhealthy way. For example, after I watched one episode of Teen Titans, I automatically assumed that one of my friends is Beast Boy because he's optimistic and goofy like him, and my other friend is quiet and low-key in a Raven-like manner. I used to do this a lot. Every day I nagged people around me with questions like "Who are you from X? I think I'm similar to Y (please say that I'm similar to Y)". Also as a kid I used to larp (literal meaning of the word) as superheros a lot, even asked myself questions like "What would this character do in this situation?". My great associative thiking skills helped me with this a lot and I guess I did all of this to fit myself and my friends into archetypes. You could say that I had my own version of socionics, but way less reliable and based on my vibe-typings only (so, socionics).

Every time I see one of my traits that I consider "special" and "me-only" in someone else I automatically assume that the person is faking it and actually isn't as authentic as I am. I assume that my personality is simply better than anyone else's, but usually it's nothing but a first-time reflex and I'm very self-aware of how negative this quality of mine is. It's like a fleeting impression that disappears in 5 seconds. The funny thing is a lot of times I feel like I have no personality at all. I'm very self-conscious in this regard and I often can be jelaous of people who have very strong and fleshed-out personalities, with a lot of passion, life goals and taste. The sense of self is a very fluid and unstable concept for me. This feeling of having no personality is actually what lead me to typology in the first place. After a long time of self-reflection I came to the conclusion that it's better to fit no archetype than to be one and I actually enjoy being myself, no matter what this "self" actually is. Sometimes I look at some of my friends and it feels like they are chained by their own personality, like they act a part. It feels like their character is an obstacle on their self-development journey. At those moments I become so glad that I'm not like that and I feel free from whatever restrictions my personality can impose on me.

I always enjoyed how different from anything else everything is. Here's something I wrote here a while ago:

"I am always fascinated by how contradictory and different from anything else everything in the world is, especially people. They can be the reason for starting an apocalypse, but at the same time world without them would be even more pointless and dark then it already is. They can be the most evil, gruesome, horrible thing that has ever happened to Mother Earth, but at the same time they can turn it into a paradise. They just are so contradictory, so paradoxical by nature, I believe that's what makes them beautiful. It is also beautiful how in this very universe two things radically different from each other, for example, a Spider-man movie and, I don't know, a game like Postal 2 can coexist and even interact freely with each other. In theory, YEAT could make a song with Radiohead, Ninja could play Fortnite with James Hatfield, Barack Obama could be a Warhammer fan. This is what makes life worth living. ‎I probably sound like a schizo, but like, damn"

Also I wrote this about people (pretty similar to the previous quote):

"Humans are very paradoxical creatures, completely unlike anything else, which is what makes them such a beautiful and special phenomenon of life. Sometimes I forget that I'm not the only thinking person on earth and that the people around me are people too. They think, feel, and experience too. They, too, were once children and dreamed. Their personalities are full of nuances and peculiarities, so complex and fluid in their structure that I can't feel anything but joy in such moments of reflection. Joy from how different and similar all of us are at the same time. Man can start a war, but at the same time, only he has the strength to end it. Man can destroy the world and burn everything to the ground, but at the same time, he is its only savior. Man can not only take life, but also create a new one. Man can do everything and nothing. Without man, there would be no world; without the world, there would be no man. Man is that multifaceted and amalgamic concept that unites each of us. Perhaps it is the only thing that unites us."

I don't write things like this a lot and I'm certainly not a philosopher (although I do believe that any person is a philosopher on their own). When I write texts like these two I feel so pretentious afterwards. Idk, it feels like I'm trying to act like I'm Nietzsche who has just revealed some kind of eternal truth while in reality it's a pretty obvious thought that anyone can think of if they think long enough.

As a child, I always wanted to be a leader, but everybody (including myself) always knew I wasn't one.

I have a hard time apologizing, I'm afraid of commitment. I've been told that I always try to look like a tough nut to crack so I distance myself from others in order for them to come after me. My father told me that I resemble a hedgehog in the sense that I'm scared when people come too close to me, so I show my quills to keep the distance (evangelion reference!!!1!) and I guess it's true.

Honestly, I have no idea what else to say, so if you could ask me some questions it would be much appreciated!