| Questions & Answers |
| Question #1306139876 | Monday, 23-May-2011 |
|
|
| I am an EIE and my boyfriend of three years is LSI, we are duals. We fight a lot, but I think it's because we are not in happy places in our lives. I can be a bit of a drama queen and cause problems because I'm not where I would like to be in life- we are recent college graduates that don't have the jobs we want, yet. However, we are now breaking up because he plans to move so that he can find a better job and when I suggested that we can still be together he says that it's not possible since I would just concentrate all my efforts on him and the long distance relationship and get hurt over unmet expectations, meaning that both of us would not be improving our current situations. I see his point and he supports this claim by pointing out that since graduating a year and a half ago, I have still yet to even begin looking for a better job. He agrees that if anything, after we have established our own lives and reach some level of career satisfaction, we can try again if we still have this feeling. I know LSIs place career satisfaction at an even higher level than most EIEs and other betas and I understand why he must do this for himself and why he is pushing me to do the same for my future, but what are other LSI/EIE experiences? I hear that some dual LSI/EIE can spend much time apart to do what they need to do and then come back together, but I've never met any real life EIE/LSI, or any dual couple that can share that they have had a similar experience. I also don't know why our fights are still so explosive. I thought EIE/LSI couples are only that way in the beginning stages of their relationship because it's like "breaking in an engine". Are there any EIE/LSI couples that can share their insights? -- Anonymous |
|
| A1 I wish I were here with better news, you and your boyfriend are not duals. The type EIE (1.Fe, 2.Ni) is ENFJ in MBTI. The type LSI (1.Ti, 2.Se) is ISTP (Craftsman / Artisan ) accordingly. The relationship between ENFJ and ISTP is Conflicting. Read the the following description carefully. http://www.socionics.com/rel/cnf.htm Does it describe your current situation? Your dual partner would be the MBTI: ISTJ (Inspector / Pragmatist) (1.Si, 2.Te) SLI. -- jgbr |
| A2 A1 I have unfortunately to totally disagree with you. In order to get the intertype relation you have to use Socionics types and only Socionics types. For instance LSI (Socionics TiSe)is the type which is similar with Keirsey's "inspector" and so a "guardian". MBTI "inspector" is ISTJ (MBTI SiTe). Would it mean that TiSe = SiTe? No! it's only a consequence of the fact that MBTI-functions and Socionics-functions DON'T have the same definition! Socionics-EIE or ENFj is almost similar with MBTI-ENFJ but NOT IDENTICAL! Socionics-LSI or ISTj is almost similar with MBTI-ISTJ but NOT IDENTICAL! The intertype relation between ENFj and ISTj is DUAL. It's a relation between "TYPES". However dual won't say "conflict-free". Many other factors come into a relationship between two "PERSONS", as education, age, interests, or if you want to stay in "personality-types" the "Enneagram-type". (Enneagram is a system which is TOTALLY independant from "jungian-systems" as MBTI or Socionics). BTW SLI or ISTp (Socionics SiTe) is similar with Keirsey's "crafter" an "artisan" as MBTI-ISTP (MBTI-TiSe). EIE or ENFj (appoximatively ENFJ) (Socionics and MBTI FeNi) and SLI or ISTp (approximatively ISTP)(Socionics SiTe, MBTI TiSe) are conflicting. As a conclusion, DON'T try to deduce an intertype relation from MBTI types. -- piccolo_michel |
| A3 If you are interested in the way how dual pairs work you may read this site: http://socionicsdemystified.wordpress.com/dyads/ It's not always conflict-free but each member of the pair can help the other one even if he/she often thinks "why is my partner still not able in this or that domain after I did show how to do"! -- piccolo_michel |
| A4 jgbr, considering the fact that she didn't at any point in her post even mention MBTI and the fact that she is probably 1,000 times more aware of what type she and her boyfriend are than you, I would say that's a terrible/borderline silly reply. I've seen you post stuff on different people's questions recently (Frusciante, INTps, INFps, Celeberties, etc.) and you for some reason have a nag for bringing in MBTI into socionics when the two should be viewed as separately. As for the actual question, I'm sorry I can't help much specifically, but I think this is a perfect time to talk about a bigger topic I think a lot of people on here (including yourself possibly? ) might have. Just because you are duals, doesn't mean you’re perfect for each other contrary to what many people on here believe...it just means you might have a better understanding from where the other is coming from (hence comfort level)...but if you have fundamentally different principles, belief systems, ideas of what is good, etc. and don't get along, maybe you aren't perfect for each other at all... you might even come to love a type that isn't even near the same "comfort" level as you are with him simply because it actually isn't perfect...imperfection can be really interesting, I think...no one mentions that here but...yeah. Heard of "Bad Romance" by Lady Gaga? lol. The point being, love knows no boundaries (as cheesy as that sounds) and that you have the ability to share your love with anyone and anything, so you shouldn't let socionics sway you too much...I think a lot of people who get into this stuff forget that man is by nature imperfect and that imperfection can actually be incredibly beautiful...just my 2 cents. -- CF |
| A5 I wish I was here with better grammar skills to defend my opinions. Take a look at the following chart. I convert or refuse any material that deviates from it. https://www.wuala.com/type/public/the16types.jpg/?key=the16types -- jgbr |
| A6 A) That chart is incorrect in many of the four letter names of the types. (example: IEI does NOT mean INFj, it means INFp) B) The chart is also incorrect. Just because someone is ISFP in MBTI does not necessarily mean they will be ISFp or even ISFj for that matter in socionics. (although it is likely) The two are different systems with different definitions for different things. (Example: I am INFP in MBTI AND INFp (IEI) in socionics. How is this possible? Well, the functions describe different things altogether, so they don't NECESSARILY conflict) Also, haven't you seen people post NUMEROUS times that it isn't as simple as switching the j/p? -- CF |
| A7 To A5. This site was built by someone who didn't understand anything about Socionics! -- piccolo_michel |
| A8 Here is an example for ENFJ/EIE and ISTJ/SLI relationship. Four Weddings and a Funeral Trailer: -- jgbr |
| A9 If you are really an ENFJ/EIE here is the right man for you ISTJ/SLI. Clint Eastwood 1967 UK TV interview -- jgbr |
| A10 to jgbr: ISTj is LSI (TiSe) and ISTp is SLI (SiTe)!!!!! http://www.socionics.us/types.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics#The_16_types LSI and EIE are dual (both beta quadra), SLI (delta quadra) and EIE (beta quadra) are conflicting! -- piccolo_michel |
| A11 Both websites are incorrect in case of introverts. What is the reason for this? The craftsman is ISTP, LSI (Logical-sensoric introverts), (1.Ti 2.Se) ,(Gabin). The inspector is ISTJ, SLI (Sensoric-logical introverts), (1.Si 2.Te), (Gorky). -- jgbr |
| A12 jgbr - Dude! The small caps and large caps notation (ex. ISTJ vs ISTj) is hugely important on this site! The two mean ENTIRELY different things. Thus, you must look past the simple 4-letter abbreviation and see the functions beneath if you want to a) understand what people are talking about and b) communicate effectively. -- Anonymous |
| A13 The first function of introverted perceivers (IP-s) is a judging function (Ti or Fi). IP-s are in fact quasi-judgers. This judging behavior can be observed at underdeveloped IP-s (INTPs, ISTPs, ISFPs and INFPs). The first function of introverted judgers (IJ-s) is a perceiving function (Si or Ni). IJ-s are quasi-perceivers. The perceiving behavior can be observed at underdeveloped IJ-s (ISTJs INTJs, ISFJs and INFJs). The 4 letter Myers-Briggs code does not explain this phenomena. I still think the lower case - uppercase differentiation (p, j, P, J) does not add much value. -- jgbr |
| A14 Socionics IS NOT MBTI. Before asserting things study and learn a little! If you can't understand it then stay away! http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Wikisocion_home -- piccolo_michel |
| A15 piccolo_michel, You must respect the opinions of others and you must not send anybody away from here! Socionics and MBTI have many common roots. Deal with it! -- jgbr |
| A16 jgbr, I respect OPINIONS but here it's not a problem of opinions. It's the fact that one of the MAIN DIFFERENCES between MBTI and Socionics is the functions sequences for introverted types. Socionics INTROVERTED JUDGING types have a DOMINANT INTROVERTED JUDGING function, Socionics INTROVERTED PERCEIVING types have a DOMINANT INTROVERTED PERCEIVING function. IT'S ONE a the fundaments of Socionics. So, while MBTI ISTJ (with UPPER CASE) is SiTe, Socionics ISTj (with lower case) or LSI is TiSe and while MBTI ISTP (with UPPER CASE) is TiSe, Socionics ISTp (with lower case) or SLI is SiTe. However, because of the different meanings of functions in both systems, someone can be and usually is simultaneously ISTJ AND ISTj (LSI), and someone else can be and usually is ISTP AND ISTp (SLI). There ARE NO CONTRADICTION. The UPPER CASE vs. lower case notation is primordial as it allows the distinction between MBTI types and Socionics types! It's not AN OPINION, it's a DEFINITION. But you were still stubbornly asserting wrong things and so could induce the original poster of the question in error, although several messages already tried to explain the correct theory, proving so you didn't understand some rudiments of Socionics. Usually when someone doesn't know or doesn't understand s/he doesn't stubbornly assert things telling that the fundamental documentation is wrong. You have to admit this fact. -- piccolo_michel |
| A17 A15 - the common roots of Socionics and MBTI are not in dispute, as indeed both arise from the original writings of Jung. Nonetheless their application, particularly in the form if notational language, differ. Thus, it is important to also acknowledge their differences for the sake of communicating effectively. In the end, neither theory (MBTI or Socionics) is "right"... they're simply different ways of saying the same thing. -- Anonymous |
| A18 A13 - For "introverted perceivers" (IP + Ip) the first function is indeed a judging function in the case of MBTI(IP), and in the case of Socionics(Ip), it is a perceiving function. Notice the difference? This understanding is very important as it changes the context of your main message(and I assume you're here to have a point shared). -- Anonymous |
|
|
| A19 A17 is addressing jgbr in A14. Pardon the confusing error. -- Anonymous |
| *Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of socionics.com* |
|
| Would you like to add anything? |
(
