Aggressive IEE's

[Kim]

You know, you could invent all the false rationale bullshit in the world, but the fact of the matter remains that firmness and directness have nothing to do with violence and physical aggression; and this was most definitely not implied in the context of the quoted excerpt, either.

And so what if that is the case? Why are you so freaking bothered by it? She is throwing out ideas, there might be a mental leap, but it opens the door for conversation. IEEs are not primarily concerned with consistency or things logically following. They think of things and potentials and make connections that are sometimes useful and sometimes not. SLIs latch onto what can be useful and infuse Te. You make judgement calls based on logical consistency and hit PoLRs left and right.

Another fact is that you're no more nicer than you decide to be.

I have just come to the realization that sometimes I'm just too fucking nice for my own good. It is that simple.

[Park]

And so what if that is the case?

Well, for one it means that you admit that you're inventing and consciously saying stuff that isn't true. It also means that ascribing things like ignorance and misinterpretation of concepts/ideas to Extroverted Intuition is bullshit. "Throwing out" ideas is one thing, misinterpreting them is another. Sure enough, they both open the door for conversation, as it has been the case here.

[Park]

SLIs latch onto what can be useful and infuse Te.

Describe these lovely (or as you like to say, "precious") imaginary friends of yours in more detail, please. I want to learn more about them.

[Kim]

Well, for one it means that you admit that you're inventing stuff that isn't true. Then it also means that prescribing ignorance and misinterpretation of certain concepts and ideas to Extroverted Intuition is bullshit. Throwing out ideas is one thing, misinterpreting them is another. And sure enough, they both open the door for conversation.

I am not inventing anything. I can see the thought process behind the OP. She did not misinterpret, she made mental leaps (correct me if I am wrong @Geminatronix). I can relate to thinking about one thing (Se, firmness, etc.) and jumping to another one (aggression) that might be loosely related (at least to me). Furthermore I can relate to throwing it all into a conversation without worrying too much about whether or not I have thought it through, especially when I am with people who I know will get what I am trying to do (Delta Quadra). In my experience, SLIs are perfectly fine with hearing it out, ignoring what is irrelevant, correcting what needs to be corrected, and generally being pretty forgiving of the occasional inconsistency and perhaps illogicality of the thought process or idea.

I still do not understand why you are bothered by it enough to get so freaking angry.

[Kim]

Describe these lovely imaginary friends of yours in more detail, please. I want to learn more about them.

SLI friends, relatives, and one partner of six years, all long-term real life affiliations.

[Kim]

Describe these lovely (or as you like to say, "precious") imaginary friends of yours in more detail, please. I want to learn more about them.

Edits can be so precious.

[Park]

I am not inventing anything.

You just admitted you did, like a minute ago. Contradicting yourself makes you look kinda ridiculous.

I still do not understand why you are bothered by it enough to get so freaking angry.

At this point, I don't even think I'm the one who appears to be angry. I mean, just read your own posts.

[Kim]

You just admitted you did, like a minute ago. Contradicting yourself makes you look kinda ridiculous.

You said that firmness and directness have nothing to do with violence and physical aggression. I said so what if that is the case (I should have said so what if that were the case, my bad). Is it not obvious that there can be a progression of thought that goes from firmness to aggression? Even if they are not as directly related as Gem's phrasing suggests, the connection is clear (to me). So my point was so what if they don't appear to be directly related in the post? The general thought process is still clear. And again you are pointlessly nit-picking. So what if I look ridiculous? What is your objective in this thread? Torture PoLRs?

At this point, I don't even think I'm the one who appears to be angry. I mean, just read your own posts.

I am not particularly angry, just annoyed with you suggesting that Gem is dumb because you interpret a gap in her thought process as her inventing things and being inconsistent. This is especially irritating because that gap appears perfectly easy to fill in (not to mention your overall nit-picking of irrelevant details in this thread). I just don't get the annoyance or the need for absolute accuracy and flawless outlining of thought processes when the overall objective of the OP is clear.

[SyrupDeGem]

I am not inventing anything. I can see the thought process behind the OP. She did not misinterpret, she made mental leaps (correct me if I am wrong @Geminatronix). I can relate to thinking about one thing (Se, firmness, etc.) and jumping to another one (aggression) that might be loosely related (at least to me). Furthermore I can relate to throwing it all into a conversation without worrying too much about whether or not I have thought it through, especially when I am with people who I know will get what I am trying to do (Delta Quadra). In my experience, SLIs are perfectly fine with hearing it out, ignoring what is irrelevant, correcting what needs to be corrected, and generally being pretty forgiving of the occasional inconsistency and perhaps illogicality of the thought process or idea.

I still do not understand why you are bothered by it enough to get so freaking angry.

Yep, I was making assossiations. The question i posed was weather IEE's are prone to aggression as other types and i used some data to indicate this could be possible and asked for input. I did not suggest said data categorically stated this it was merely indication.

Park's clearly been really upset by a rl IEE, I'm letting him run outta steam.

[Park]

You said that firmness and directness have nothing to do with violence and physical aggression. I said so what if that is the case (I should have said so what if that were the case, my bad).

I began the sentence by saying that you were inventing rationalizations to justify the logical inconsistency in the OP, which was my main point. If you were replying selectively you should have only quoted the part that you were directing your "so what if that is the case" response to.

Is it not obvious that there can be a progression of thought that goes from firmness to aggression?

No, it's not obvious. They mean two completely different things.

Even if they are not as directly related as Gem's phrasing suggests, the connection is clear (to me).

I can only wonder what that connection might be. But I don't really care, as there's no reason for the connection that you're seeing to be identical to the one Gem was making, if she made one in the first place.

So my point was so what if they don't appear to be directly related in the post? The general thought process is still clear.

No, it's not. But you're free to promote your telepathic abilities. Anything goes in this looneyville.

And again you are pointlessly nit-picking.

I think I make my points very clear.

What is your objective in this thread? Torture PoLRs?

Yes, I'm LSI. Everything makes sense now.

I am not particularly angry, just annoyed with you suggesting that Gem is dumb because you interpret a gap in her thought process as her inventing things and being inconsistent. This is especially irritating because that gap appears perfectly easy to fill in (not to mention your overall nit-picking of irrelevant details in this thread). I just don't get the annoyance or the need for absolute accuracy and flawless outlining of thought processes when the overall objective of the OP is clear.

I should care?

[Park]

Yep, I was making associations. The question i posed was weather IEE's are prone to aggression as other types and i used some data to indicate this could be possible and asked for input. I did not suggest said data categorically stated this it was merely indication.

Well, I'm afraid the "data" that you used doesn't indicate that possibility at all, but it's completely unrelated to it. And you never told us what associations you made to it.

Park's clearly been really upset by a rl IEE, I'm letting him run outta steam.

None of that has happened, Gem. And I'm not letting of steam, if that's how it appears to you. I'm just naturally opposed to bullshiters getting their way.

[SyrupDeGem]

Well, I'm afraid the "data" that you used doesn't indicate that possibility at all, but it's completely unrelated to it. And you never told us what associations you made to it.



None of that has happened, Gem. And I'm not letting of steam, if that's how it really appears to you.

Oh Park, you are clearly spoiling for a fight, I don't want to rise to the bait. I know you have had some issues with IEE, you have hinted towards such. I have not had a problem with you until recently and now you are attacking every IEE you see. It's not rocket science. Conjecture yes. Like the op.

[Park]

Oh Park, you are clearly spoiling for a fight, I don't want to rise to the bait. I know you have had some issues with IEE, you have hinted towards such. I have not had a problem with you until recently and now you are attacking every IEE you see. It's not rocket science. Conjecture yes. Like the op.

Yes, it's exactly like the OP—it's completely incorrect.

But I'm curious to hear about this problem that you have with me as of recently.

[SyrupDeGem]

Yes, it's exactly like the OP—it's completely incorrect.

But I'm curious to hear about this problem that you have with me as of recently.

Well it'l like saying opinion is wrong, rather than different or bias. Two people who like different styles of music, without saying what the style is each insist that their music is better and the others is bad. It's not wrong Park.



Edit: @Park, I will edit the op and put a clause under the quote so it is clearer.

[Eliza Thomason]

Yes, I'm LSI. Everything makes sense now.

Park found himself!

[Park]

Well it'l like saying opinion is wrong, rather than different or bias. Two people who like different styles of music, without saying what the style is each insist that their music is better and the others is bad. It's not wrong Park.

I fail to see the connection. What is not wrong?

And no, I'm not playing dumb just to be a dick, I just don't get what you're saying.

Edit: @Park, I will edit the op and put a clause under the quote so it is clearer.

I appreciate the effort, but the addendum isn't saying anything about HOW you arrived at the correlations, i.e. how you "made the jump." So that's still a mystery to me.

And to answer Ann...

If you have different definitions in mind, feel free to post them to help make your point clearer.

Actually, I find the definitions contained in the excerpt sufficient.

"IEEs have the capability and ability to be direct and firm with others in such activities as giving direct commands or making categorical statements about things perceived. However, the period of time when this occurs in an IEE is generally short-lived. As soon as the IEE starts to think about and starts to seriously consider the negative connotations of their directness or firmness ( ), for example, fear of instilling fear in another person in such a way that it would cause the person to be timid to or even scared to approach the IEE thereby distorting the personal bonds the IEE has with the person ( ), the IEE will back away from making such statements. Therefore these direct and categorical statements are quite difficult for an IEE to make, even if the IEE understands the benefits of being direct or firm with others, such as the benefits of being firm or direct with children in parenthood"

giving direct commands - e.g. saying things like "Clean your room", "Pass the wrench", "Move aside", "Buy some milk before you get home", "Don't touch my desk", etc. as opposed to beating around the bush or thinking how to phrase the requests so that the other person isn't offended, hurt, or afraid of the IEE's authority.

making categorical statements about things perceived - "That guy is an idiot", "I don't like your attitude", "I think she's lying to you", "Your public-speaking skills are pretty bad", "I asked for a drink with some ice, not ice with some drink", etc. (these examples probably sound stupid, but they only serve to illustrate the point)

The excerpt says that the IEE is aware of the possible negative connotations and different ways these things can be perceived, so they are careful, and ultimately reluctant to employ them in their closer relationships.


Now, how the above has anything to do with harassing or attacking someone physically, developing violent tendencies towards the opposite sex, or being prone to madness, is beyond my comprehension. Are we supposed to assume that one leads to another somehow? If so, then what's the reasoning behind that?

[Park]

Park found himself!

Yes, I found Jesus. Praise the lord, for I have sinned.

[Satan]

Yes, I found Jesus. Praise the lord, for I have sinned.

[applejacks]

I'm just naturally opposed to bullshiters getting their way.

Park, if you think this is all B.S and if you can't see the genuine interest in a friendly discussion about this topic, then you probably don't belong in Delta. At the very minimum, we'd appreciate if you let us Deltas have a peaceful conversation.

[Park]

Perhaps you should mind your own business, apples.

[applejacks]

Perhaps you should mind your own business, apples.

I am. This is Delta Quadra, which is my business.

You don't need to be in this section of the forum. Please take your debates elsewhere.

[Park]

LOL!

[Raver]

Looks like there's some IEE role in this very thread. Anyways, compared to the past I now use a lot more than I used to in the past largely as a result of being a part of environments that have forced me to use it and develop it further. It's not that I like using it, but I realize that's it's necessary.

Your quote about the IEE's role function can take two forms: a temporary form which acts to counter Se-attacks (thus sets boundaries), and a pathological one, in which case the Role function becomes somewhat sociopathic. I wrote about it in a blog:

http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...ole%20Function

Very good summation and thanks for the link. Sounds about right from my experience.

[Kim]

Could it be that different people (different types even) have different ways of processing information, making connections, and reaching conclusions?

[Eliza Thomason]

Could it be that different people (different types even) have different ways of processing information, making connections, and reaching conclusions?

[Aylen]

[anndelise]

And to answer Ann...



Actually, I find the definitions contained in the excerpt sufficient.

"IEEs have the capability and ability to be direct and firm with others in such activities as giving direct commands or making categorical statements about things perceived. However, the period of time when this occurs in an IEE is generally short-lived. As soon as the IEE starts to think about and starts to seriously consider the negative connotations of their directness or firmness ( ), for example, fear of instilling fear in another person in such a way that it would cause the person to be timid to or even scared to approach the IEE thereby distorting the personal bonds the IEE has with the person ( ), the IEE will back away from making such statements. Therefore these direct and categorical statements are quite difficult for an IEE to make, even if the IEE understands the benefits of being direct or firm with others, such as the benefits of being firm or direct with children in parenthood"

Now, how the above has anything to do with harassing or attacking someone physically, developing violent tendencies towards the opposite sex, or being prone to madness, is beyond my comprehension. Are we supposed to assume that one leads to another somehow? If so, then what's the reasoning behind that?

Se role requires switching from Ne's "active search for and development of invisible potential and emerging situations" into Se's "active acquisition, control, and organization of visible territory and objects". So let's see how this applies to the examples you gave..

giving direct commands - e.g. saying things like "Clean your room", "Pass the wrench", "Move aside", "Buy some milk before you get home", "Don't touch my desk", etc. as opposed to beating around the bush or thinking how to phrase the requests so that the other person isn't offended, hurt, or afraid of the IEE's authority.

Pass the wrench is more of a request than a command.
Buy some milk before you get home is also more of a request than a command.
Both of them are informative, they are saying I/we need the wrench for this, or I/we need some more milk.

It is easier for IEE to provide information that might influence a person's pov/actions than it is to tell them to have that pov or do that action.

Why is cleaning your room important? Dirty clothes strewn across the floor create a smell. Food packets encourage insects and rodents. Garbage can create homes for them, plus spiders. The potential of stepping on items might break them, tripping over items is a health hazard, etc etc.

An IEE is more likely to pass on that information and projection of possible consequences, than to tell a person what to do.

I don't like it when people move my desk items. It distracts me from my work because it forces me to look for the item I need instead.

I am trying to get to the book shelf behind, or there is a book behind you which I would like to get.

How do these get turned into "aggression"?
Think about when you're say, rushing down a hall and the cat is slowly walking right in front of you, taking the path you have to take, but you can't jump over them or go around them because of the tight space. Some pressure is causing you to rush down that path, but something is blocking you. You can't inform the cat that you are in a hurry, no matter what you say, it doesn't understand your need and so doesn't adjust for it. Because it is incapable of understanding what you are trying to do, it,s easier to tell it to move. But if you just say move, it doesn't feel that urgency and pressure you are feeling, so you have to use more force, "Move It!" And now it moved, yes, but it's scared of you and your command created a momentary breach in the relationship which is up to you to smooth, since you were the one that caused it.

Now, the cat was easier to deal with, becuase of the non-human reasoning abilities. What happens when you are dealing with someone who you have provided information to? They might take it into consideration. They might try to reduce the given potential consequences. They might help you obtain what you need. And, they might completely ignore you. So you provide more compelling reasons for cleaning the room. They continue to ignore you. So you shut the door so that its messiness doesn't disturb your peacefulness. And then since their room is such a mess, they start bringing their stuff into the living area where its nice and neat. But they won't put it away when they are done, and now your living area is a mess too. You pick up after them, but they just keep making these messes over and over. You're finally aggravated enough by the mess and their inconsideration to tell them to clean up their stuff in the living room. Finally, they do...while mumbling about what a bitch you are. Their actions and your commands created a relational conflict. And the messy cycle in the living room goes on and on and on, they make a mess, you pass on information and potential consequences to consider, they ignore those potentials, they don,t care that the mess makes you feel icky, you reach a point where you finally explode out a command, they call you a control freak, the relationship is deteriorating. You feel like they keep taking and pushing their own agenda onto you, you keep feeling forced into setting boundaries, and finally, as your adrenaline has risen enough AND they are bitching about how fucking controlling and bitchy you are, in this hightened adrenaline state you happen to see their room which is now piled high with crap, food, roaches crawling on the floor, broken cd's and broken hangers, you finally explode and tell them to CLEAN THAT ROOM NOW!!!

Role functions are used in times of social pressure. You are weak in their use, ineffective, uncouth, course while using it. You are pushed to a point that you don't want to be in, because it runs counter to your base function. And it runs counter to your dual seeking function. For IEE, You provided information Te, you requested caregiving comfort Si, and the other person doesn't care about your needs, nor the information that could help them prevent unwanted consequences...and they keep pushing into your own boundaries, and the relationship keeps getting barbs that the slightest nudge causes pain, and the stress keeps building up until it explodes.

Noone here is really saying that Se itself is aggression. Just that Se in the role position is more likely to come out as aggressive due to how much pressure is required to push Ne base into Se role, and how unexperienced the Ne base person is when dealing with Se information. Hence why it was easy for the other IEE to recognize the "jump" and associations between "Se role" and "aggression".

making categorical statements about things perceived - "That guy is an idiot", "I don't like your attitude", "I think she's lying to you", "Your public-speaking skills are pretty bad", "I asked for a drink with some ice, not ice with some drink", etc. (these examples probably sound stupid, but they only serve to illustrate the point)

The excerpt says that the IEE is aware of the possible negative connotations and different ways these things can be perceived, so they are careful, and ultimately reluctant to employ them in their closer relationships.

Categorical statements is another area that requires a bit of push. If I say that guy is an idiot,
I have to bypass the idea that maybe I'm just not understanding him, or maybe there is something more to his words/actions than I am aware of. But also, if he is your friend, then it creates a conflict between you and I regarding him. It breaks trust between you and I.

I don't like your attitude is a great way to disrupt a relationship. And if there wasn't one before, there likely won't be one now. And how much of your attitude is being influenced by other forces? Is this always your attitude? Or are you particularly stressed at the moment? I may tell you I didn't care for a couple of your actions, or I may even offer a couple of alternative actions for those types of situations. But until I know for sure that that particular attitude is typical of you and disruptive to the relationship, then I likely won't say something...until I finally have given up on the relationship.

I see nothing wrong with saying "I think she's lying to you" other than initially checking first to see if there might be other factors involved. This falls under providing you with information (Te) which you can use to help guide your interactions with her.

As for your public speaking skills, I might joke about it with you..but only if I am fairly confident that you will laugh about it. If it,s something meaningful to you, like if you wanted to do a public speech so badly, I might instead offer to help you, or offer ways you can practice towards less risk of flopping in public where people aren't as considerate.

The drink one was very passive-aggressive. I'm not saying that IEE don't use sarcasm, and I might say something like that, jokingly, to my friend sitting with me, but the drink one is more aggressive than passive when said to the waiter.


Even the Original Quote covers the difficulties and implies the pressures IEE would be under to reach the point of suppressing their valued Ne and dual-seeking Si in order to do the Se role.

As soon as the IEE starts to think about and starts to seriously consider the negative connotations of their directness or firmness (Ne of Se), for example, fear of instilling fear in another person in such a way that it would cause the person to be timid to or even scared to approach the IEE thereby distorting the personal bonds the IEE has with the person (Fi), the IEE will back away from making such statements. Therefore these direct and categorical statements are quite difficult for an IEE to make, even if the IEE understands the benefits of being direct or firm with others,

Before the IEE has even reached the point of being firm and directing, they have considered the possible negative consequences to the relationship. They have already become a bit neurotic, knowing that they need to be more firm, but worrying and fearing about what that will cost to the relationship. They will have taken effort to find other methods of approach than firmness and directedness. These other approaches come in the form of Si dual seeking and Te mobilizing. And if that doesn't work, basically the relationship is already in a bit of a bind. And the barbs that are hooked into the mind/emotions are being prushed against, building up tension, until finally there's the explosion of aggressive directedness.

Each individual IEE will have their limit, but there is a reason IEE on this forum, in the past too, refer to it as The Se Switch. If you want more info on that, look up in Delta I think for those conversations of the Se button/switch. (Hopefully they weren't deleted during that mass deletion.)

Hoped the above helped you understand why Se Role might be considered aggressive, though Se itself isn't.

[SyrupDeGem]

I fail to see the connection. What is not wrong?

And no, I'm not playing dumb just to be a dick, I just don't get what you're saying.

Park, you realise you are getting upset here by a whole heap of IEE Ne doms not explaining something using Ti? You are being frustrated with butterflies because fluttery.


I shall still attempt to explain again though.


I do not usually associate the IEE with assertiveness or aggression but I have witnessed it in some circumstances/occaisionally. I looked for evidence/pointers of this is the socionics descriptions of IEE and the closest I came to it was the explanation of how an IEE uses Se. Se can be assertive/aggressive ...<----- this is the leap. This is also why I asked for opinion and experience because it is NOT something that is in descriptions of an IEE, I have not suggested this. I have asked for information.


Does that work for you Park?

Also I would naturally associate confronting with assertion, not sure if you see that as a leap also.

[InvisibleJim]

@Park



It's okay to criticise and dislike whatever you want. People are inconsistent and it takes a very long time and significant experience for them to be open to how their perception will change in the future.

To answer the OP,

Yes, every IEE is aggressive, but they do not view their behaviour as being aggressive because they don't understand the impact it has on other people in terms of their time and liberties. Unfortunately because they are very idealistic it can be very difficult to rationally explain why their behaviour is aggressive without creating that very aggressive behaviour which you are pointing to. They usually respond better to an emotional response of distress rather than an explanation and a request to back down.

[Satan]

omg ann you can talk a lot

[Park]

You are being frustrated with butterflies because fluttery.

<3

Does that work for you Park?

Only because butterfly.

edit: butterfly with sexy british accent

[mikemex]

I am simply questioning you are SLI because my SLI would NEVER be offensive like this.

That kind of thinking is flawed: you're merely stating that people aren't like your partner, which proves nothing about your partner's type or other's. You seem to think that if you keep applying the same kind of reasoning over and over, it'll suddenly begin to make sense. But it won't.

If you want to understand why it is flawed, spend a bit of time researching about an aspect to argumentation called causality, which is the relationship between an statement and what it tries to prove. Your statement sounds in the line of:

"this car gives me more milleage than the other, then it must be a VW".

An then I wonder: are all fuel efficient cars VW? I don't think so.

[consentingadult]

Hoped the above helped you understand why Se Role might be considered aggressive, though Se itself isn't.

The key to understanding why Se-role might manifest itself as aggressive, is because all 8 varieties of the role function often manifest themselves in aggressive forms to recipients and onlookers.

[anndelise]

The key to understanding why Se-role might manifest itself as aggressive, is because all 8 varieties of the role function often manifest themselves in aggressive forms to recipients and onlookers.

Yeah, that is what i was trying to get across. He didn't accept that in our earlier discussion. So I tried a more in depth approach.

[Eliza Thomason]

That kind of thinking is flawed: you're merely stating that people aren't like your partner, which proves nothing about your partner's type or other's. You seem to think that if you keep applying the same kind of reasoning over and over, it'll suddenly begin to make sense. But it won't....

Thanks Mikemex. Yes, my reasoning is certainly flawed and does not make a case. But I am not trying to make a case. I am just saying that I question he is SLI, because this doesn't match my SLI experience. Just tossing my opinion and my reason for it out there, not saying its impressive enough to make any kind of case. Just the reason enough for me, FWIW.

Another bit of reasoning you might not appreciate (but I do! Because its how I think) is that I notice that @applejacks, who I feel confident is IEE, seems a bit annoyed with Park in this thread (this page). I found that interesting not only because I have never seen cheerful Apples annoyed, but because its the same reaction I have of Park, too, a lot - like he takes my peace. When I witness someone be rude to another it tends to take my peace. So in this thread when he was rude to Kim, and others, it made me uncomfortable. Maybe others get this type of "humor" but I don't. Its beyond me. And its not peaceful, which contrasts to the fact that I find Delta's to be peaceful and comfortable. Applejacks implies here that he doesn't seem Delta, and I realize that he doesn't seem Delta to me, either.

In keeping with @Geminatronix 's original topic in this thread, I notice the following. To me it seems like IEE-Apples is annoyed because Park has been rude, and she is assertive saying so. I notice that this is the very kind of thing that I get assertive at, too. Its because I know that being rude can cause people psychological distress*** and I hate that. So I feel motivated to be assertive and say "You're rude. Stop." when someone has been rude to someone else. Its a time I, also IEE, get assertive. Which makes me wonder it this particular reason for getting assertive fits the IEE profile, according socionists. @silke?


*** Invisible Jim wrote:

...
To answer the OP,

Yes, every IEE is aggressive, but they do not view their behaviour as being aggressive because they don't understand the impact it has on other people in terms of their time and liberties. Unfortunately because they are very idealistic it can be very difficult to rationally explain why their behaviour is aggressive without creating that very aggressive behaviour which you are pointing to. They usually respond better to an emotional response of distress rather than an explanation and a request to back down.

Interesting. I wonder if you have a specific example? Its certainly possible I have made someone uncomfortable, taking their time and liberties, though I feel I am always careful not to infringe on that in others. But you are absolutely right, if I was talking to someone and not realizing I was being overly assertive and they acted in anyway distressed or made any mention they were distressed, that would definitely shut me up right away. And furthermore I would take note and be careful on the topic with them in the future, no matter how near and dear to my heart the topic was.

So I totally agree, Invisible Jim - to get an assertive IEE off your back, either act distressed or say you are distressed. That would work best.

[SyrupDeGem]

Please don't turn this into a 'retyping a la eliza' thread. Maybe we need a thread split here?

[Suz]

Looks like there's some IEE role in this very thread. Anyways, compared to the past I now use a lot more than I used to in the past largely as a result of being a part of environments that have forced me to use it and develop it further. It's not that I like using it, but I realize that's it's necessary.

Very good summation and thanks for the link. Sounds about right from my experience.

I relate. In fact i realized i was doing so at times, when the director of my program (who i think is EII) was getting defensive and on guard about me, saying things like "DON'T PRESS SO AND SO ABOUT THIS. HE IS VERY BUSY." She didn't know me well back then, and now that we are working a lot more closely (and i'm also a lot more relaxed now having established myself in the program), we get along like peas and carrots.

I suspect what was probably happening was she was sensing that my resorting to my Se-role function in that stressful time for me (when I was nervous about what my new program expected of me and whether i was meeting expectations). Her out-of[-proportion reaction kind of made me realize both that she's probably Se-POLR, and that i probably offended that Se-POLR.

[Suz]

In a open ended social setting wherein the need to be the acting authority on a topic like that of a technical nature, they seem to doubt themselves. An IEE I know is a chiropractor and she was having a difficult time in the beginning about speaking with her clients and having the professional "authority" to come across as though she really does know what she is doing. An LSE helped her out in this regard, by counseling her to trust herself and to speak with authority and assertiveness, "you know what you are talking about, you have been trained with horse chiropractics for two years, don't doubt yourself, people will notice if you doubt yourself". By the time I met this women, she was very assertive and yet very personable at the same time. You guys ever met people like that?
.

In fact, this is a constant criticism i've been getting from my superiors for years, and has been a work in progress for me. I am slowly getting better at this.

[Suz]

I was more antsy than angry, for personal reasons.

I kind of figured this was the case...

Sometimes i'm in an irritable mood and feel like snapping at everyone too. And then people are like "wtf WA this is not like you!" or "WA, why are you being so mean all of a sudden?", "WA, I usually agree with you, but this is unacceptable". "WA, I'd always thought well of you, but this has made me change my mind". LOL.

A mood swing does not a type change make.

[Aylen]

Thanks Mikemex. Yes, my reasoning is certainly flawed and does not make a case. But I am not trying to make a case. I am just saying that I question he is SLI, because this doesn't match my SLI experience. Just tossing my opinion and my reason for it out there, not saying its impressive enough to make any kind of case. Just the reason enough for me, FWIW.

Another bit of reasoning you might not appreciate (but I do! Because its how I think) is that I notice that @applejacks, who I feel confident is IEE, seems a bit annoyed with Park in this thread (this page). I found that interesting not only because I have never seen cheerful Apples annoyed, but because its the same reaction I have of Park, too, a lot - like he takes my peace. When I witness someone be rude to another it tends to take my peace. So in this thread when he was rude to Kim, and others, it made me uncomfortable. Maybe others get this type of "humor" but I don't. Its beyond me. And its not peaceful, which contrasts to the fact that I find Delta's to be peaceful and comfortable. Applejacks implies here that he doesn't seem Delta, and I realize that he doesn't seem Delta to me, either.

In keeping with @Geminatronix 's original topic in this thread, I notice the following. To me it seems like IEE-Apples is annoyed because Park has been rude, and she is assertive saying so. I notice that this is the very kind of thing that I get assertive at, too. Its because I know that being rude can cause people psychological distress*** and I hate that. So I feel motivated to be assertive and say "You're rude. Stop." when someone has been rude to someone else. Its a time I, also IEE, get assertive. Which makes me wonder it this particular reason for getting assertive fits the IEE profile, according socionists. @silke?

Correct me if I took you wrong but are you saying that, in your perspective, Delta are not rude?