92 replies to this topic

[Ashton]

Diana, on Sep 28 2007, 10:13 AM, said:

I wasn't stating that all views are equal. It should be obvious that dividing people by eye color for instance would be completely useless. It'd be bizarre to suggest that is the same as other better-reasoned models. Wasn't my point. But you can make different models that each work according to the terms you use. The A model in socionics has been tested a lot, used quite often, and does hold to reality well enough to be used as a model.

For a model to "work" - that is, to work in a meaningful way - it must accurately correspond to reality and be usable to give real information about the aspect of reality it encompasses, in a reliable fashion. And follow some basic criteria that I listed about good model-building like all the actual sciences do. Yes, any model can "work" if you opt to jettison this condition, but only in an epistemic vacuum. Which of course relegates that particular view to a void of complete arbitrariness... and if all views are arbitrary, then all views must also be equal, no one can be better or worse than the other. So this is actually what you are advocating here, whether you know it or not. Which undermines and destroys the whole idea of modeling in the first place... the idea being, that a model is an abstraction of a structure or a process that exists in the real world, and is a convenient vehicle for (accurately) understanding how something works and for making (reliable) predictions about that something.

Which, gee, incidentally this is what Socionics purports itself to be... yet Model A is not accurate, nor is it reliable, and it is unnecessarily convoluted and could stand a major streamlining overhaul. Not that you would know that, since by your own admission, you never even use it so you're not really in good standing to say how realistic it is or not, are you?

Quote

Can there be other models that work as well or better through a reorganization of where the functions lie, and how a person is divided into type and quadra? Possibly/Probably? But they all work by choosing parts to focus on, and two models using the same functions but with different focus can come up with a different organization, and both "work" as intended, as a representation of reality, though each is limited.

The failings of a model actually *do* become evident when you apply it, things don't just automatically "work" according to whatever willy-nilly criteria you define, even in this. Not everyone is as unaware as you seem to estimate. For a time, a bad assumption might seem to work out okay, but after awhile of repeated testing and reality clashes, most intelligent people will begin to notice a discrepancy that something isn't operating as stated. The interactions of cause+effect tend to distill a lot of clarity... this refines focus and limits possible representations, because one gleans an increasingly proximate understanding of what's really going on. What also ought to be considered is something I mentioned earlier, consilience, which is how well the view/model integrates with and can be substantiated by other knowledge. This condition further constricts the range of possible representations that can be deemed "workable." Model A Socionics is often at odds with and trumped by modern psychology in some aspects, which is unacceptable IMO. Yet another indice that it does not work.

Quote

Anyway, because everything is hazy and so subject to personal interpretation the models get stretched and changed and entirely new sets of data than were intended to be used are used, so that through tweaking and tampering it seems it can fit whatever you want it to fit. For example some give over-emphasis to the polr, as though it is an extreme handicap rendering you completely helpless in a given area, and build a system of various phobias and mental deficiencies to back this up -- if you have social anxiety and this and that you have a Fe polr, etc. Granted, this isn't a fault of the original model, but rather a misuse and new model claiming to be the original.

Yeah, a lot of it is hazy and yes it is a problem. Another hugely facilitating factor for exactly why it doesn't work and why Model A is junk. Everyone who's into Socionics has their own permutation of it that they see all of this typology stuff through. Resultantly, many people talk straight past each other without even knowing it, or if they're lucky they'll bicker endlessly over semantic issues that at this point should just be axiomatic trivialities. It's all unnecessarily confusing. If the things in Socionics were actually clearly and immutably defined, there would be less of all of this. The paradigms between each person involved would be commensurable to one another. Yeah, you might have a few competitor models out there. But by and large, everyone would be able to at least agree on the fundamentals. Any serious of field of study possesses this sort of consensus, so should Socionics. The fact that it doesn't should be yet another prime indicator that something is not working here. And apart from issues of clarity even, that it was probably a bad framework to begin with.

Anyway, now I'm going to back up and say that Model A/Socionics is not all wrong... I think the gist of Socionics is certainly valid - there is something real about it. If there wasn't, I wouldn't be here. It's the implementation that's atrocious. At a broad level there's something to the functions themselves, types, quadras, and intertype relations. Start getting more particular and detailed than that, then it all starts getting very imprecise and hence inaccuracies proliferate epidemically.

Quote

You know, I'm not even reading what I wrote, or your earlier responses right now - so if I've meandered off of what the original issue was hmm, that'd be why. Anyway, I agree largely with what you've written here, except I'm not confused about the difference between arbitrary and subjective, as I know what both mean. I'd have to read what I wrote to find out if I somehow misused the terms or they were misinterpreted and not now, I don't want to reread all of that.

Lol, ok.

Quote

I don't have any problem with or disagreements with what you've said here. However, I'm sure you could agree that a different person listening to the couple could potentially also predict accurately their marriage's chance of success but using a different angle.

Sure, I imagine the possibility exists that someone could also accurately predict the chance of marital success using some other angle. That wasn't the point of that example though - it was simply demonstrative of what I was saying about how subjective impressions can be trustworthy as a means of discerning and understanding what is otherwise a very real and objective reality. That you don't always need objective/empirical measurements to infer knowing that something exists or is true. It's nice when you can get it though, and of course in some things I would consider it an absolute requisite. It just depends on what's being studied, how it's being studied, for what ends, etc.

Quote

Observations of one thing from the points of view of two separate systems could in fact though looking at different things and categorizing in a different manner, still come to the same kind of result. They could also by measuring different things come to different answers to different questions. One system might be asking one set of questions and able to predict the answers to those, while another is asking a different set of questions. That's why for instance I might fit into one category under standard socionics, and quite easily not under Ashtonian socionics . Which is a better measure of reality? Depends on which aspects you want to look at and what explains things better from your vantagepoint.

Sure, all these variations and more are possible. Is x causing the change in y? Or is it a hidden variable z? Are we even seeing what we think is x? Or y? Do either of them even exist? Etc. etc.

But what I'm trying to make clear is that it doesn't JUST depend on vantage point here for deciding what's the better measure. There is only one reality, a model either reflects that reality or it does not. As I said, over time as a model is tested over many different instances and across different conditions... flaws, misassumptions, and misattributions inherent to that model tend to be exposed eventually. A good model is a durable model that holistically survives the tension of testing and experience. It isn't just dependent on vantage point here, and that's only one of many reasons. And besides, if you have to keep tweaking the model all the time and modify the criteria constantly when something goes contrary to it... a good rule of thumb for intelligent thinking would be to consider that a major component or even the entire thing, might be wrong and you should consider abandoning it. If attaining a good measure of reality is your goal, that would be a justifiable position to take. So obviously there are other things outside of one's mere vantage point that converge when we decide what is a better measure of reality. Scientists use all sorts of principles that are very useful heuristics for deciding what is a better measure of reality and what isn't, even with very fuzzy things that are hard to quantify. We all do... to varying degrees and differing contexts. Consilience is another such heuristic. So is parsimony, coherence, orthogonality, and the others I mentioned. All of these aid us in helping to decide what is the better measure of reality, not just vantage point alone.

Left up to mere vantage point, w/o these sorts of heuristics and the aid of experiential insight to pare the range of possibilities down to those that are actually realistic/sensible, then... yeah, all sorts of absurdities can appear logical and even rational, even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I mean hey, Marxism is still going stronger than ever.

Quote

When I say I have no use for socionics - I don't. In real life the functions and types and interrelationships are highly unlikely to even cross my mind. I'm much better off thinking less and taking things as they come than whatever it is people do with socionics. It does help explain what it is that has caused certain clashes between me and others irl though. I can't use it, but it has helped me understand somewhat better, though I'm still more likely to just think someone is wrong for thinking how they do, lol, so ehh, maybe it hasn't done me any good.

Why do you argue any of this then? I don't get why, if someone doesn't feel strongly about something and/or it's not something they're invested in, why they would bother arguing it. Reminds me of why I hate people who do the devil's advocacy shit, especially ones that think it's some kind of merit badge to pride themselves on. Disgusting. Not saying you are one, I'm just rambling now because I felt like getting enraged about something.

Quote

Yes, but not all things are unmeasurable, which is where my emphasis was. However, you make some good points above. What I was trying to get at, is one person can say, "Wow, that guy is Fe, very much so!" and the next person will come along and say, "Fe? Where do you see Fe? All I get is Si, which you're interpreting as Fe." or whatever, you know how the arguments go. While there is something to all of it, to the functions and quadras and etc. it's very difficult to get something universally reproducible. There are too many different interpretations to get at something that is meaningful across-the-board currently. That's where defining the information elements more clearly, etc. can be a big help, to get everyone on somewhat the same page.

Cool, I agree.

Quote

Sigh. It wasn't anti-Ni. And yes, Ne polr makes much more sense than Se polr.

Ne Creative makes wayyy more sense for you lol. Te is clear. Fi is obvious to me, since Fe always makes me go blank/dumbfounded. And that doesn't happen w/ you.

[Diana]

Ashton, on Oct 3 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

The failings of a model actually *do* become evident when you apply it, things don't just automatically "work" according to whatever willy-nilly criteria you define, even in this. Not everyone is as unaware as you seem to estimate. For a time, a bad assumption might seem to work out okay, but after awhile of repeated testing and reality clashes, most intelligent people will begin to notice a discrepancy that something isn't operating as stated. The interactions of cause+effect tend to distill a lot of clarity... this refines focus and limits possible representations, because one gleans an increasingly proximate understanding of what's really going on.

Yes, you're right.

Ashton said:

What also ought to be considered is something I mentioned earlier, consilience, which is how well the view/model integrates with and can be substantiated by other knowledge. This condition further constricts the range of possible representations that can be deemed "workable." Model A Socionics is often at odds with and trumped by modern psychology in some aspects, which is unacceptable IMO. Yet another indice that it does not work.
Yeah, a lot of it is hazy and yes it is a problem. Another hugely facilitating factor for exactly why it doesn't work and why Model A is junk.

Why not drop it altogether then? Whenever you talk about someone's hidden agenda, or polr or creative function - all of that is a reference to Model A. Why keep some pieces if you think all of it is junk?

Ashton said:

Everyone who's into Socionics has their own permutation of it that they see all of this typology stuff through. Resultantly, many people talk straight past each other without even knowing it, or if they're lucky they'll bicker endlessly over semantic issues that at this point should just be axiomatic trivialities. It's all unnecessarily confusing. If the things in Socionics were actually clearly and immutably defined, there would be less of all of this. The paradigms between each person involved would be commensurable to one another. Yeah, you might have a few competitor models out there. But by and large, everyone would be able to at least agree on the fundamentals. Any serious of field of study possesses this sort of consensus, so should Socionics. The fact that it doesn't should be yet another prime indicator that something is not working here. And apart from issues of clarity even, that it was probably a bad framework to begin with.

I agree though I can't say much about whether the framework was bad to begin with or not, as it does seem to work to some degree or another.

Ashton said:

Anyway, now I'm going to back up and say that Model A/Socionics is not all wrong... I think the gist of Socionics is certainly valid - there is something real about it. If there wasn't, I wouldn't be here. It's the implementation that's atrocious. At a broad level there's something to the functions themselves, types, quadras, and intertype relations. Start getting more particular and detailed than that, then it all starts getting very imprecise and hence inaccuracies proliferate epidemically.

Yes.

Ashton said:

Sure, I imagine the possibility exists that someone could also accurately predict the chance of marital success using some other angle. That wasn't the point of that example though - it was simply demonstrative of what I was saying about how subjective impressions can be trustworthy as a means of discerning and understanding what is otherwise a very real and objective reality. That you don't always need objective/empirical measurements to infer knowing that something exists or is true. It's nice when you can get it though, and of course in some things I would consider it an absolute requisite. It just depends on what's being studied, how it's being studied, for what ends, etc.

Sure, all these variations and more are possible. Is x causing the change in y? Or is it a hidden variable z? Are we even seeing what we think is x? Or y? Do either of them even exist? Etc. etc.

But what I'm trying to make clear is that it doesn't JUST depend on vantage point here for deciding what's the better measure. There is only one reality, a model either reflects that reality or it does not. As I said, over time as a model is tested over many different instances and across different conditions... flaws, misassumptions, and misattributions inherent to that model tend to be exposed eventually. A good model is a durable model that holistically survives the tension of testing and experience. It isn't just dependent on vantage point here, and that's only one of many reasons. And besides, if you have to keep tweaking the model all the time and modify the criteria constantly when something goes contrary to it... a good rule of thumb for intelligent thinking would be to consider that a major component or even the entire thing, might be wrong and you should consider abandoning it. If attaining a good measure of reality is your goal, that would be a justifiable position to take. So obviously there are other things outside of one's mere vantage point that converge when we decide what is a better measure of reality. Scientists use all sorts of principles that are very useful heuristics for deciding what is a better measure of reality and what isn't, even with very fuzzy things that are hard to quantify. We all do... to varying degrees and differing contexts. Consilience is another such heuristic. So is parsimony, coherence, orthogonality, and the others I mentioned. All of these aid us in helping to decide what is the better measure of reality, not just vantage point alone.

Left up to mere vantage point, w/o these sorts of heuristics and the aid of experiential insight... yeah, all sorts of absurdities can appear logical and even rational, even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I mean hey, Marxism is still going stronger than ever.

That's the thing though - people do keep tweaking it, and people do keep making their own new thing out of the basic model, and every one of them claims they have it right and says it works for them. It seems to me that a lot of people are just seeing what they want to see, and ignoring what doesn't fit. It doesn't mean they all have good models - far from it, and it doesn't mean that any of what they see is reproducible in any form. So they're making it fit whatever they want it to fit, and that's what I was getting at when I said that depending on what they want to use and their own subjective interpretation they can make just about anything "work".

Ashton said:

Why do you argue any of this then? I don't get why, if someone doesn't feel strongly about something and/or it's not something they're invested in, why they would bother arguing it. Reminds me of why I hate people who do the devil's advocacy shit, especially ones that think it's some kind of merit badge to pride themselves on. Disgusting. Not saying you are one, I'm just rambling now because I felt like getting enraged about something.

Because I started. I can't leave things unsettled. The most annoying thing in the world to me is when someone says, "Let's agree to disagree," and drops things prematurely. If things can be worked to a conclusion then that's what I want to do. I can't stand devil's advocacy stuff myself, and I always hated whenever it was required in a class to argue both sides of an issue. Just neglected to do an assignment this past week that was asking for that, not because I can't, but because I hate it so much. I argue because I think I'm right. If I can be proven wrong, I'll take it. You can't simultaneously think two opposing views are both right, but you can convince and be convinced. And once I start in on something it's very very hard to just walk away - I have to see it through.

Ashton said:

Ne Creative makes wayyy more sense for you lol. Te is clear. Fi is obvious to me, since Fe always makes me go blank/dumbfounded. And that doesn't happen w/ you.

Te/Fi quadra is almost always clear to everyone - with disagreements on which IxFj it is. There's just too much that doesn't fit for INFj. It's not me.

[Diana]

Jadae, on Oct 3 2007, 08:48 PM, said:

I think the solution would be either to drop the curiosity of your type (which I feel you want to know tho), offer yourself up for identification the official way or expand your knowledge of the range of types. The latter requires one to just intake and drop discernment. It takes a while. I think a combination of three choices would be best, but it's your life and your time, so whatever works...works.

Huh? I'm not confused about my type.

[Ashton]

Diana, on Oct 3 2007, 08:51 PM, said:

Why not drop it altogether then? Whenever you talk about someone's hidden agenda, or polr or creative function - all of that is a reference to Model A. Why keep some pieces if you think all of it is junk?

I already have. But when I'm talking to others who know Socionics, I still use some of the same terms, if they are applicable, because it's allows for a common reference frame in which to speak. Without that, you're talking two wholly different languages, which renders communication pointless.

Quote

I agree though I can't say much about whether the framework was bad to begin with or not, as it does seem to work to some degree or another.

It does work to some degree. And I import parts that do work. In it's entirety though, it just could have and should have been a lot better.

Quote

That's the thing though - people do keep tweaking it, and people do keep making their own new thing out of the basic model, and every one of them claims they have it right and says it works for them. It seems to me that a lot of people are just seeing what they want to see, and ignoring what doesn't fit. It doesn't mean they all have good models - far from it, and it doesn't mean that any of what they see is reproducible in any form. So they're making it fit whatever they want it to fit, and that's what I was getting at when I said that depending on what they want to use and their own subjective interpretation they can make just about anything "work".

Right, they are doing all of that... that's an obvious given. But my point in the preceding posts was that there are rational limits to this sort of activity. That good sense, when employed, will severely restrict the range of possibilities that a person can reasonably entertain as being plausible. And constrict the degrees of freedom a person has to spin and contort a viewpoint to make it fit whatever they want it to.

Quote

Because I started. I can't leave things unsettled. The most annoying thing in the world to me is when someone says, "Let's agree to disagree," and drops things prematurely. If things can be worked to a conclusion then that's what I want to do. I can't stand devil's advocacy stuff myself, and I always hated whenever it was required in a class to argue both sides of an issue. Just neglected to do an assignment this past week that was asking for that, not because I can't, but because I hate it so much. I argue because I think I'm right. If I can be proven wrong, I'll take it. You can't simultaneously think two opposing views are both right, but you can convince and be convinced. And once I start in on something it's very very hard to just walk away - I have to see it through.

Yeah, one of the worst things somebody can say to me is the "let's agree to disagree" thing. Agghhh! Drives me nuts to leave something like that hanging there abitrary and open-ended like.

Quote

Te/Fi quadra is almost always clear to everyone - with disagreements on which IxFj it is. There's just too much that doesn't fit for INFj. It's not me.

You typed yourself with type descriptions though, I don't see how that's reliable. Beyond the fact that they're all poor translations from Russian, they only speak of broad character traits and quirks that are generalizable enough to apply to a lot of different people. And the authors themselves may have made misattributions about the type, not described something correctly, or mixed it up with other types. Not to mention that the authors contradict eachother in their interpretations.

[Diana]

Not just the descriptions - my understanding of the functions, quadras, and reinin dichotomies I took into account to determine my type. I've started looking at enneagram stuff recently - and it makes me wonder how much influence a person's enneagram type has on perception of their socionics type as well as perhaps intertype relationships. I'm a 1w9 - with a pretty strong perfectionistic streak in there, which might make a difference. Also, I'm trying to teach myself to overcome a tendency I've had to care too much about appearances, how I'll look to others - and instead just start to let people see me how I actually am. That's about it.

[Ashton]

Diana, on Oct 8 2007, 08:18 PM, said:

Not just the descriptions - my understanding of the functions, quadras, and reinin dichotomies I took into account to determine my type.

Still not sure what I think about Reinin dichotomies, I have a hard time seeing their manifestations clearly and it all seems incredibly trivial to me. As far as your understanding of the functions go... I dunno, that's why earlier in this thread I wanted you to describe what (and/or , that'd be nice too) is like for you, as a person... how you experience it, what that sort of awareness is like to you. I wasn't, nor would I ask for anything that's personal or intimate, I perfectly understand and relate to a reluctance to share anything like that.

Quote

I've started looking at enneagram stuff recently - and it makes me wonder how much influence a person's enneagram type has on perception of their socionics type as well as perhaps intertype relationships. I'm a 1w9 - with a pretty strong perfectionistic streak in there, which might make a difference.

Yeah, enneagram types can make huge differences. Glad to hear you're looking into it... I've started to do more of the same as I've begun to see how crucially important it is. It seems to have some sort of influence on the degree to which the different functions are emphasized in the type or something of that nature. Socionics types as a whole become a lot clearer when enneagram differences are taken into account.

1w9 seems like a good fit for you. If you haven't already, check out this site: http://www.fitzel.ca...m/patterns.html

Quote

Also, I'm trying to teach myself to overcome a tendency I've had to care too much about appearances, how I'll look to others - and instead just start to let people see me how I actually am. That's about it.

Why do you think you do that?

[Diana]

Ashton, on Oct 8 2007, 07:39 PM, said:

Still not sure what I think about Reinin dichotomies, I have a hard time seeing their manifestations clearly and it all seems incredibly trivial to me. As far as your understanding of the functions go... I dunno, that's why earlier in this thread I wanted you to describe what (and/or , that'd be nice too) is like for you, as a person... how you experience it, what that sort of awareness is like to you. I wasn't, nor would I ask for anything that's personal or intimate, I perfectly understand and relate to a reluctance to share anything like that.

Hmm, functions. Well, if I think about flying. I really feel at home, like I'm where I belong at the controls of the airplane. I'm taking an object (the airplane) and putting it where I want it to go through the controls (Se), while keeping an eye out for other aircraft etc., -- and honestly I like that there are checklists and specific procedures to follow in case of emergency, etc (Te) -- because too many options muddies the water, makes it hard to see what to choose (Ne polr) - and know which path will lead to the best results (Ni HA). That's from my understanding of what each of the functions are about.
I see Ne as branching along the surface - lots of ways going outward from any point, and do believe that "possibilities" is a good way to describe Ne. I lived with an ENTp for 10 years, and if you spend much time at all listening to the ENxps on the forum too -- it's a common theme. Indiscriminate choices all directions, not settling on any one.
and Ni as a path - what's the most likely outcome? or alternatively - where are things heading?

I didn't fly for 2 years, and just started up again at the beginning of this semester - going through the local college this time. I had no problem picking up where I left off, and flying almost like I hadn't been gone. I'm getting close to taking my checkride (2-3 weeks away depending on weather and such), and none of the flying tasks - the actual handling of the airplane am I at all concerned about - I can do all of those well within standards. Radio communication, talking to ATC doesn't bother me any either - I do that every time I fly. The parts I'm nervous about are the cross-country planning, the questions I'm going to have to answer, things like that.

It makes me sound simple-minded, but really I don't like the whole deciding and planning and choosing and working things out part of things - I'd rather have something to do, and then do it. I loved when we went on my first cross-country we just took a look at the map, said, okay Buffalo is 89 miles away, it'll take about an hour, and if we stay between the Big Horn Mountains and the highway, we'll be fine. Simple, easy. And when I planned my long solo cross-country, I just drew lines on the map, and circled a few things to look for, and wrote down radio/nav frequencies I would need, and then flew it. But for testing, I'm going to have to show that I can figure headings, calculate exact times to checkpoints along a route, and what wind-correction heading I need to fly and sigh, stuff like that bleh.

Ashton said:

Yeah, enneagram types can make huge differences. Glad to hear you're looking into it... I've started to do more of the same as I've begun to see how crucially important it is. It seems to have some sort of influence on the degree to which the different functions are emphasized in the type or something of that nature. Socionics types as a whole become a lot clearer when enneagram differences are taken into account.

1w9 seems like a good fit for you. If you haven't already, check out this site: http://www.fitzel.ca...m/patterns.html

I did look at that site, found the patterns for 1s fit me well.

Ashton said:

Why do you think you do that?

I don't know. Any reasons I can think of just sound like excuses.

[esper]

I'm posting so I can read more later. ^^ I think I just understood who is my ESTj conflictor, and what I'm reading here makes alot of sense about her. I feel like *I* don't have a problem with her though, but she views me as insincere and that in itself is frustrating. I view her as a wee bit insane, but she's probably viewed a bit that way by everyone, haha.

[Ajax]

esper, on Mar 24 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

I'm posting so I can read more later. ^^ I think I just understood who is my ESTj conflictor, and what I'm reading here makes alot of sense about her. I feel like *I* don't have a problem with her though, but she views me as insincere and that in itself is frustrating. I view her as a wee bit insane, but she's probably viewed a bit that way by everyone, haha.

Sadly, I think ESTjs are mostly terrified of me. Too bad because I prefer them and ENFps to the other deltas.

[esper]

Ajax, on Apr 3 2008, 02:01 AM, said:

Sadly, I think ESTjs are mostly terrified of me. Too bad because I prefer them and ENFps to the other deltas.

Why would they be afraid? o.0

[Ajax]

esper, on Apr 4 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

Why would they be afraid? o.0

I'm bad... really, really bad!

[Tom]

Well, I'm Si LSE... I find I relate more to Ne IEEs than Fi IEEs, and I do seem to like Ne IEEs more. I think an Si mode goes well with an Si agenda, though. My gf is Ni ENFj; we get along rather well, enjoy most of the same movies, music, etc.

An important thing to remember about delta is that culture is (unfortunately) a big deal. Type can transcend some of those boundaries (or all, given time), but delta, as a whole, is very sedentary in their particular sects. A good example of this (and an easy way to spot delta-dominant groups) is a large sub-culture society filled with cliques. The Society for Creative Anachronism is a great example, if you you what that is. But two deltas with similar Fi patterns will get on splendidly. Either way, sexual 6s (Fi IEEs seem to architypically present this enneatype) do a "latching on" to 8s as a mode of anchoring themselves.

This may not be the case all of the time, but its actually the case with me atm. I'm Si LSE 8w9 so/sp and she's Fi IEE 6w7 sx/sp; she very much relies on me, and, it seems, will absorb my ideas about things as her own. I think it's most like a mirage relationship, but it works out well.

Also, Ashton's description is great here.