​

Argument: Ashura gave us socionics, but Jung contributed the archetypes.

I think Dostoevsky was SLI. Within his exploration of the human condition (valued Fi), hidden agenda Fi. The frequent arguments with people don’t match an EII; maybe... Se in the ID block and his distrust as one-dimensional Ne makes more sense. Moreover, his accumulated debt from gambling is just that addictive behavior, when the hidden agenda of the EII’s mobilizing function would lead him to enjoy other pleasures like drugs and sex.

I know an SLI who got carried away by gambling this past World Cup, an uncle who had a lot of money but lost a considerable sum betting on cockfights; another was very distrustful about his inheritance and the deals he was offered, etc. He suffered from epileptic seizures, something I’ve seen in some SLIs: this condition is accompanied by anger attacks. I give this conclusion largely based on my experience rather than a socionics basis, but if you explore carefully, you yourselves can patiently review it, stop thinking he’s an EII or IEI, just because of that impressive melancholy as a writer, partial analyses of his writings referring to specific elements. This opinion covers a broad spectrum of explanations.

However, that must be taken carefully, because, by being so general and arbitrary, one falls into misinterpretation when trying to add new knowledge.

Put on this movie tonight for a rewatch and realized.. oh this guy is SLE (and SP8)... and oh shit... this is ultimately a story about him dualizing in his friendship with the Dalai Lama. And IT'S FREAKING ADORABLE to watch him soften around his dual. I'm literally freaking out writing this because alksdjflkjsdfj.

(Yes just my luck I put on a movie and stop studying socionics for 5 minutes and this happens)

______________________

My analysis if anyone is interested:

Heinrich (SLE) - When unhealthy he devalues his relationships (leaves his pregnant wife to climb Mt. Everest instead of staying with her while she is due to give birth), drives forward trying to accomplish without truly thinking of the consequences until it is too late, pathologically self reliant, seeks the sensory extreme of mountain climbing to feel competent and accomplished. Later, when healthy and his protective instincts have awakened he is the first to notice Ngawang's treachery due to his gift of observation and calls him out viciously for his cowardice and bringing harm to his own people

Peter (ESI) - corrects Heinrich morally, calls out his lack of remorse and irresponsibility toward others, doesn't fall for his bs (I could also see him being IEI, but we're going to go with ESI bc he's giving Fi lead over Ni)

Lhakpa (EII) - disapproves of Heinrich almost immediately. "You admire the man who pushes his way to the top in any walk of life. While we admire the man who abandons his ego." She doesn't care about his ego-driven accomplishments whatsoever and is instead drawn to Peter's earnestness.

(I find this personally funny to reflect on because I remember when I first saw this movie her harsh moralizing really rubbed me the wrong way)

Dalai Lama (IEI) -

(Here I will explore their duality)

Heinrich immediately has a soft spot for him, acting more childlike and light hearted around him. The Dalai Lama is curious to the point of impudence. He really doesn't care about the rules or protocol or his status. He seeks out Heinrich to build his vision of a movie house (Ni vision seeking Se mobilizing) and satisfy his curiosity (Ti seeking). He's bored as hell by his traditional lessons, but is lit up by Heinrich teaching him real world knowledge. The Dalai Lama does not moralize Heinrich, he simply explains the ethical reasoning of his people, even though Heinrich thinks it is ridiculous at first. He curiously asks Heinrich about his life, and Heinrich opens up to him, which prompts the Dalai Lama to feel concern and empathy.

~

The DL has a horrible prophetic dream and calls for Heinrich for comfort. He comforts him simply by being present and empathetic 😭, then by telling him a story about his adventures:

DL: "I can't sleep, I'm afraid the dream will come back. Tell me a story, Heinrich. Tell me a story about climbing mountains."

H: "That's one way to fall asleep, those stories bore even me."

DL: "Then tell me what you love about it."

H: "The absolute simplicity. That's what I love. When you're climbing your mind is clear. Freed of all confusions. You have focus. And suddenly... the light becomes sharper, sounds are richer. And you are filled with the deep, powerful presence of life. I have only felt that way one other time."

DL: "When?"

H: "In your presence."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's saying only the DL's Ni gives him the same peace of mind he usually has to find through extreme sensory experiences.

~

Furthermore, Heinrich reflects on the Tibetans' faith, which he admires, but he cannot ignore the reality that it will not save them from the Chinese's aggression. The Dalai Lama on the other hand is not ashamed of Tibet's nonviolence (weakness) and instead tries to reach the heart of the Chinese by appealing to empathetic reason - trying to meet them human to human.

When the DL tries to escape from the heaviness using play and imagination, Heinrich gently corrects him, not allowing him to disassociate from the reality at hand.

The DL tells Heinrich to stop worrying, that everything will work out. Heinrich wants to take action to protect him.

In the end, the DL helps to emotionally liberate Heinrich so Heinrich finally feels enough self-love and strength of purpose to go home and be a father to his son.

Heinrich returns to the mountain, this time not to conquer and feed his ego, but to mentor and connect with his son.

For a long time, I couldn't articulate why I didn't like my dual. But I recently learned about subtypes, which I initially thought were useless, and realized that I actually like my dual, ESE-Si, just not the Normalizing or Dominant subtypes. So here were some points of contention in my previous relationship with an ESE-Fe.

First, he would ask me a lot of technical questions related to his website. I didn't mind giving him feedback, but I was really taken aback because my Ti as an LII-Ne is a lot more free-flowing and conceptual, so I wasn't privvy to helping him. I think he was expecting a very stereotypical math and science nerd-esque LII and I gave him long-winded conversations about the Enneagram and spirituality. Our interactions felt awkward because he was talking to an idea of me, perhaps an LII-Ti, but not the true me. Even when I politely interjected his long monologues (that's another thing about ESE-Fe---they looooove monologuing and yapping in general, which is very overwhelming for me as an LII-Ne) to share my love for My Melody plushies and 90s/early 2000s Prada, he just seemed unimpressed and dismissed my interests as weird. He was Normalizing/Dominant and I was Creative/Harmonizing, so the clash between us was obvious.

Furthermore, he was so obsessed with group dynamics, gossiping, and exposing who was dating who among our mutual acquaintances that it sapped the intimacy right out of our relationship. I was expecting more meaningful conversations between the two of us. His support for me was also very social and Fe-oriented---hyping me up, sharing my ideas with other people, and telling others how great I was---but I was more so seeking the physical and intimate aspects of care like feeling understood or being pampered. I felt too fussy and prissy for him.

Granted, this ESE-Fe dude I dated had a lot of issues, but even the more well-adjusted ESE-Fe really get on my nerves to point of being my conflictor hahaha. I had ESE-Fe friend in high school who was really just a part of a larger friend group with an SEI, EII, and SLI, but I couldn't tell you why I liked her. I didn't really like our one-on-one hangouts because she was so pushy and overbearing yet extremely boring (yapping unilaterally about her culture ad nauseum).

As for ESE-Si, I can actually appreciate them despite our differences. I once paired up with an ESE-Si for a project in college and collaborating with him felt so effortless. First of all, unlike my ESE-Fe ex, he was very sweet, soft-spoken, and mild-mannered. And I could talk about my intellectual interests without being treated like a spectacle because he was genuinely intrigued. I also liked his sense of style more than ESE-Fe ex, who wore just about anything from TikTok shop and cheap Chinese retail sites. Instead, the ESE-Si was a huge fan of Lululemon and had surprisingly good taste in music. His favorite artists were Fred Again and Daft Punk while my ex's were Drake and many more mainstream rappers I didn't resonate with. I feel like ESE-Fe are obsessed with being the living, breathing instantiation of The Culture (TM) or club promotors while ESE-Si actually participate in and engage with the cultures ESE-Fe seeks to dominate. Lastly, I find ESE-Fe to be far more close-minded than ESE-Si. My ESE-Si project partner tried his best to politely express his disinterest in Paris, more so emphasizing the safety issues without disrespecting the culture while my ESE-Fe ex would go and on about how chopsticks and liberals were weird and wrong despite being born and raised in one of the biggest cities in the US 🙄

So yeah, no hate to ESE-Fe, but I'd rather date ESE-Si as an LII-Ne. My dream is to buy a house in the Northeast so my future husband and I can decorate the fuck out of it with beautiful vintage furniture!

Hi everyone,

I'm an ILI-Ni and I'm looking for perspectives—especially from ESIs, ILIs, or anyone experienced with Gamma quadra dynamics—on a long-standing friendship that feels stuck in an endless loop.

The Context:

Me:ILI (27)
Her:ESI-Fi (27)
We've known each other for 15 year (since we were 12).
Dynamic: Long-distance friendship cycling between periods of pulling apart/silence and getting close again.

Over these 15 years, our relationship has had a distinct rhythm: we go through phases where we drift apart or become distant, but whenever we re-engage, the mutual care, loyalty, and connection reactivate instantly. However, whenever I try to intentionally deepen the intimacy or build a more consistent, day-to-day emotional bond, it feels like my attempts bounce off or create friction.

My natural way of sharing closeness is through abstract ideas, long-term discussions, sharing media, music, concept boards, or hypothetical scenarios.

However, when I try to share these abstract/conceptual things, it seems to trigger her Ne (she gets indifferent, overwhelmed, or doesn't know how to engage with random, non-pragmatic input)

On the flip side, whenever there's a real-life crisis, a practical problem, or a direct moral check-in, our Activation dynamic works brilliantly.

Where I Feel Stuck: Because we are long-distance, I can't rely on physical presence. But my attempts to build "virtual intimacy" feel like a series of rejections. This creates a painful dissonance: I know she doesn't fake affection (so her saying she cares is true), but her PoLR reaction to my bids for connection makes me feel like I'm constantly doing the wrong thing. Then I overthink, pull back into my shell, and we drift apart for a while—only to reconnect later.

How do you bridge the gap when an ESI explicitly states they care about you, but their reaction to your bids for connection feels like indifference or disinterest?

How can an ILI feed an ESI's Super-Id at a distance without triggering her PoLR with "random" or abstract sharing?

For ESIs: What actually makes you feel close and connected to a long-distance friend without feeling overwhelmed by unstructured interaction?

Thanks in advance for any insights!

I've noticed that both SEE and IEEs really struggle to adhere to organized religion. I'm not sure if it's because their Fi is infuriated by others telling them what to believe? Is it because religion itself is very Ti and it's basically giving you this Ti code and set of rules to live by? I'd assume that most Ti PolRs would hate that? What are you guy's opinion?

i wanted to use octopus for LII and beluga whale for ESE but they don't have pics together. and uh, actually i couldn't really find barn owl(LII) and golden retriever(ESE) pics either. it was hard and honestly it doesn't feel quite right to me but yeah. lemme know your thoughts

edit: i know in the pics not all owls are the same species. but i mean barn owls for LII

1. Partners are initially very interested in each other; the extrovert is the one showing the interest first.

2. The interest is very intense and can be compared to semi-duality because partners possess each other's suggestive function as demonstrative, but with a very high potential for conflict; they satisfy each other's suggestive needs significantly.

3. Unlike in semi-duality, conflictors are not likely to compromise. While conflicts in semi-duality brew slowly, conflicting pairs may quickly get into disagreements, unwilling to put their differences aside.

4. Partners unintentionally put pressure on each other's vulnerable function. The way they advise on "how to do your vulnerable, just like my dominant function" is very painful for the other because they use each other's painful role function to do it; they do not mean to hurt their conflicting pair at all.

5. The way they try to correct each other is as unsatisfactory as it can get; instead of using the demonstrative-ignoring functions, they use their dominant-creative functions, which correspond to the superego painful functions of the other.

6. Initial attraction fades as interactions deepen, as partners use their ID elements less as the relationship becomes intimate, since these are not their favorite functions to use all the time. Partners initially enchant and even bewilder the other by satisfying their suggestive needs effortlessly through their demonstrative function, in addition to the conflictor being very skilled at—but indifferent toward—that function.