For me I've had 3 -
Curious about your what your guys' recurring dreams are and if they correlate to type
In my opinion, duals have a natural physical and mental attraction. I am an EII woman and when I see a LSE man, I automatically like his face. Chubby cheeks, wide shoulders, hawkeyes (especially those glances, they are sharp, direct and posessive) and I think LSE people has a tendency to EII women, even though they are obsessed with good-looking, they like our little face and dark circles under our eyes. They think we are little poor emotional yellow chicks, lol.
Also, I observed that IEIs have a big tendency to SLE's physical appearance. And SLE's like IEIs physical appearance, I don't know why.
However, this is just an assumption. Not %100 true.
This is a statement I see often but I'm confused about it. What might go wrong?
Was looking more carefully at my mouth and I realised most probably I'm not Fe valuing.
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?
I would put the link to the thread but idk
What happens to someone with Se in their Ego (let's say LSI as an example) if they're constantly put in a position of powerlessness and told to stay quiet when they grow up?
Do they keep their assertiveness regardless or become more quiet? Can such a person type as enneagram 9 after all that?
Give us your thoughts!
I feel like I have been SEE-N by Gulenko. Ha ha (not funny). Ok anyways I decided the ROI was worth and paid Dr G to type me. I used to believe I am LSI in model A but he says SEE-N. I then tried to squeeze more information out of him by asking a follow up question (marginal return x1), and he replied. I was then paywalled by a paid course, which my 13 dollars a month university student cash flow cannot support. Subsequently I read model G and thought the SEE + N accentuation makes a lot of sense.
Pls use me as a specimen guys. I love being categorised inside a box and labelling myself.
I want to know how much goes towards something more stereotypical and how much goes towards things that are totally out of the ordinary.
Well, I'm ILI. I'm currently graduating in applied arts but I'm thinking about doing another degree in occupational therapy and then pursuing a master's degree in neurofunctional rehabilitation linked to design.
I've seen from several conversations and resources that IEIs are supposedly a type that pretends to act friendly and accepting on the surface but is internally a bit opportunistic and sometimes amoral and even duplicitious. I heard in other places that that's a false stereotype though, so ultimately I'm not 100% sure who to believe.
What's y'all's perspectives on this?
Thanks in advance for the help!
u/Calibore asked me to make a separate post including all of the 16 types so here it is! Here’s a guide on things to say to each Sociotype to get them to instantly like you.
I’ve used each of these in real life and they’ve worked every single time. If these don’t work for you, there’s no one to blame but yourself and you should consider working on yourself as a person.
Without further ado, here are things to say to the 16 Socionics types to get them to instantly like you:
ILE - “Have you ever noticed how bad you are at reading the room? ‘Cause I definitely have.”
SEI - “I just sent you 30 pages of paperwork I need filled out and signed by end of day. You’re going to need to print them, fill them out by hand, and then fax them over to me.“
ESE - “How can you remain so positive amidst all of the horrible things happening in the world? Do you genuinely just not care?”
LII - “It’s really not that deep. Why are you always overthinking everything??“
EIE - “When was the last time you cleaned your room? (Wait for response) “Hahaha, ew gross! I bet it probably stinks pretty bad in there hahaha!”
LSI - “Are all LSI’s reactionary bigots, or is it just you?”
SLE - “You are incapable of ever truly being loved. Long before you were ever conscious destiny determined you would be a bad seed upon this Earth, and one day everything you’ve ever done wrong is going to come back to haunt you. 🥺”
IEI - “How’s the job search going? You’re an adult now, you should probably start taking finding employment a little more seriously. Other people your age certainly are.”
SEE - “You barely networked at all at last night’s event. Is everything okay? Because from where I’m sitting, it looks like you’re beginning to lose your touch.”
ILI - “Of course you think you’re smart. You never commit to anything, so you can reinterpret every outcome afterward and pretend you predicted it. A brave idiot is worth more than a clever coward who never does anything.”
LIE - “No offense, but why do you talk and act like that? You make everyone super uncomfortable, then put on this fake upbeat act as if nobody notices. Has it ever actually worked for you, or is this genuinely the best you can do?” (Wait for response) “Deeply unsettling. Okay, well I’ve gotta run, but it was bad talking to you!”
ESI - “You’re nowhere near as discerning about people as you think. Anyone can earn your loyalty by behaving correctly for five minutes, and once you’ve chosen a side, no amount of evidence can deter you.”
LSE - “No offense, but why did you list me as your emergency contact? I’m not mad, just a little confused because I wouldn’t consider the two of us close in any meaningful way. You seriously don’t have anyone else you can ask? I don’t mind doing it, but doesn’t it feel a bit dishonest to you?”
EII - “I’m going to punch you in the face. Not because I'm upset or anything, I’m just super bored and know you can’t and/or won’t do anything about it lol. Thoughts?”
IEE - “You don’t actually care about people, you just need attention and can’t get it without pretending you do. I’m just glad I noticed before you were able to deceive me.”
SLI - “Yes I created the problem, but the real issue is your terrible attitude. If you genuinely cared about anyone other than yourself, you would have fixed it by now.”
Is anyone else intuitive and you are very visually perceptive of aesthetics, smells and have a good sense of direction or mapped and detailed memory of city directions?
(Note: SLE should be in its own tier between A and B but it ruined the symmetry so I lumped it into A)
I ranked emotional expressiveness based on this point system:
More points = more emotional expressiveness. Using this system, you get:
7: LII, IEI
6: IEE
5: SLE
4: LIE, ESI, SLI
3: SEI, ESE, LSI, SEE
2: ILI, EII, LSE
1: ILE
−1: EIE
Most notably, LII is far from being the emotionally dead/unaware type that stereotypes often portray it as, while EIE is equally far from being the inherently dramatic type that stereotypes suggest
Explanation for this ranking scheme (it's according to Aushrinian Model A):
Emotivist types have contact Fe, which makes them inclined to make more emotional contacts with the world. Constructivist types have inert Fe, so they aim to conserve emotional states to themselves. This is a very important trait, so add 2 points.
Involutory types have Fe(+) charge; they are inclined to maximize and intensify emotions, compared to Fe(−) types, who seek to restrict the intensity of emotions. This is a very important trait, so add 2 points.
Static types have Vital Fe, so their emotional states are understood viscerally and through action. They experience emotions literally and aim to alter emotional states. This contrasts with Dynamic types, who consciously contemplate their emotions rather than actually experiencing them.
Cyclothymes have Producing Fe, so their emotional states are not calibrated toward the external world and are thus more stubborn and unrealistic. Augusta literally called irrational types "cyclothymes" for this reason; their emotions are uncalibrated.
Merry types have individualistic (verbal) Fe. They have peculiar ideas about emotions and impose/test emotions onto others. If they are Involutory, they impose an intensification of emotions, so add 1 point. If they are Evolutory, they impose a restriction of emotions, so subtract 1 point.
Introthymes are inclined to alter bodies (extrathymic IMEs) which includes Fe, so they are more likely to alter emotions. Extrathymes on the other hand conserve the current properties of bodies (includes Fe).
I'm going to keep making these posts; I really liked the quality of the arguments.
Indeed, Nietzsche is EIE; my first intuition was wrong.
The arguments from the comments:
It is popularly believed that this character uses the elements Ni and Fe; some type him as SLE, IEI, LII, or ILE.
There is a line that speaks about women as cows or spiders in Thus Spoke Zarathustra; this contrast points to an antithesis and a thesis, as do many of his other ideas, such as the metaphor of roots from hell and branches of heaven, revealing the dialectical-algorithmic cognitive style. It makes more sense that he has logic for the environment, which led me to explore ethics, evaluation across generations, and its consequences.
(Fe->Ni->Te->Si).
Anyway, the more you think about it, the more you can find arguments in favor of that type, because indeed he is EIE.