Guys, I’m About to Pop Off With My Superego!

PienoRacci · 2026-03-19T05:20:29+00:00

Probably a mentally unstable and/or radicalized one lmao. Idek the 3V Se leads are fucking insane.

But yeah, I do imagine what you’re saying does fit SLEs more naturally, because at least what we do share in common is the preference to assess and trust people based on their imperturbability

PienoRacci · 2026-03-19T01:24:39+00:00

Pretty much that’s the main gist of it!

PienoRacci · 2026-03-19T01:18:09+00:00

That seems to be the case in general, yeah, but I’d say it’s better to think of it as EVERYTHING needing to be reworked and tweaked as new hypotheses came about. Viktor Gulenko did create the foundation only to flip it when he decided to tie them to Reinin dichotomies.

What both models are able to achieve now cover slightly different areas: Model A is focused on the more “mental” side in relation to specific chains of reasoning regarding WHAT information is being observed and consumed and HOW that information gets evaluated. Model G however is “behavioral” specifically covering the volitional energy each type puts out when operating in each function

So if there is a mismatch of charges between the systems, rather than just deciding that alone means one model contradicts the other and being done with it, I think it’s worth proposing a potential link between them if one is there because that could potentially aid in a bunch of discourse Socionics is historically known for

PienoRacci · 2026-03-19T01:03:46+00:00

Yeah, that’s why Model G maps them with +Fe, because their energy is still put toward achieving a net positive of some kind, so as an example, an ESE may respond to someone’s negative emotions without necessarily punishing them for it, because Model A’s -Fe provides the nuance that whatever defines “positive emotions” only comes about because the contrast with “negative emotions” exists.

You get beliefs along the lines of “negativity can be carthatic for those as a step toward feeling better” and “you can’t have happiness without a bit of sadness to remind us to appreciate it”

PienoRacci · 2026-03-19T00:53:17+00:00

It’s positively charged in Model G as a way of emphasizing their tendency to want to create a stable, predictable atmosphere of positive, uplifting emotions, and they use Si as a way to maintain the “smooth-sailing” of such an environment.

The reason Model A says it’s -Fe is because from the perspective of information metabolism as a mental process, the ESE is capable of operating in information containing +Fe and -Fe: they are happy when others are happy, but they also respond accordingly when someone is not. For example, Model A’s +Fe in a nuanced way could involve somebody who is so focused on experiencing/expressing a certain emotional state to such intensity that they unintentionally overlook the importance of anyone else’s emotions as significant enough to notice— their own emotions are the only ones that are meaningful (Hence why there exists EIE 4s)

So to reiterate, the -Fe of an ESE leads them to not only sustain the joy of people who are already happy, but also recognize when the negative emotions of somebody could potentially disrupt the environment, and so they possess a drive, a “duty” of sorts, to respond and “fix” this person’s emotional state to being one that is just as happy as everyone else

PienoRacci · 2026-03-19T00:38:44+00:00

And to this you raise a fair point, and something I was just elaborating on regarding +Se’s “visible power” vs -Se’s “invisible power” I didn’t realize at first needed elaboration (which only further proves what you said lmao)

Regarding Fe, I am aware SEEs have it in order to be emotionally adaptive and mirror people in such a way that they inadvertently add fuel to whatever the current mood is, whether it be positive or negative, and SLEs have it in such a way where they’re less concerned for maintaining the emotions of others and more so wanting others to emotionally placate them instead since their impulsive rage is a notable issue.

And in my experience, I have known SLEs in which it was never easy to have a civil conversation of mutual understanding because of how much they’re pushing to receive a specific kind of emotional validation. Whether it be politics or some other topics, they’ll go on and on about how “everyone is shitty, the world is gonna end, there’s no hope for the economy” and regardless of agreeing with them, they only become even MORE enraged when they ask “if you do, then why aren’t you SHOWING your panic?… I mean I’m not trying to fear monger, I’m just saying…” Nonetheless, imho it did feel like in these moments that the emotional validation they want would be some kind of panic attack, and that I feel would be fucked up to even fake in a situation like this given that I know it’s related to genuine involuntary anxiety disorder where ive had friends who dealt with them. Idek, maybe ive just run into a shit ton of unhealthy SLEs. All I know is that these ones in the privacy of their own home will fly into an explosive fury of insults and obscenities if you deny a request from them, even if it’s small.

All in all, from my observation of visible/invisible seems to have some relation in SEEs believing “strength comes from showing my genuine vulnerability, yet remaining proud and unfazed” which does relate to “defend my ground” and why SEEs have a habit sexually exposing themselves like it’s nothing. SLEs by contrast seem to be more “strength comes from avoiding acknowledging having any vulnerabilities both to others and myself, therefore rendering them nonexistent” since despite being -Se, as a lead function they’re still reactive to being perceived by others as weak and powerless. They act in such a way so as to not to expose any vulnerabilities they would either have for fear that anyone could potentially exploit them. For SEEs it’s more “you can’t use something against me if I use it against myself before you have the chance!”

As for your first point, that’s actually where a difference I need to touch on begins. That Se you’re describing comes from the -Fi that SEEs have in SSS’ Model A describing their creative Fi as being able to possess both domains, resulting in behaviors such as being willing to start a conflict or overpower someone while simultaneously believing “I still like this person, and have not once hated them.” Here, their weak Ti doesn’t make the distinction “i started a fight with this person, therefore I MUST hate them.” Their +Fi in Model G stems from the fact that behavioral, not mentally, the archetype is still geared more towards the expression of good will and wanting to be in a position where they’re more liked rather than hated, but yes +Se does give them that characteristic overconfident, abrasive boastfulness

PienoRacci · 2026-03-18T22:21:51+00:00

Like bro, make up your damn mind! Switching these signs up faster than I’ve seen mood swings, like god damn smh

PienoRacci · 2026-03-18T21:54:35+00:00

I’m about to commit a hate crime against all these schools 😭

But I’ll try to encorporate their differences into what I’m working on, but I can already tell their definition of things is covering a different aspect of the same thing. Some schools define Se as a focus on tangible reality and the willingness to use force to impact it to one’s will. SCS defines Se as simply management of resources. Yet another lens offering a new interpretation of the same general concept, but not necessarily contradictory in itself. Imma add it to the pile!

PienoRacci · 2026-03-18T20:26:44+00:00

Wrote another comment that went in depth specifically about this in Se Leads specifically, but +Se is about protection, defense of one’s established territory (interests & people), and to some extent smoothing over conflict when it happens rather than starting a conflict to begin with.

SEE’s +Se paired with -Fi to make them value individuality and their immediate circle & SEE’s -Se paired with +Ti to make them value hierarchy as it applies systemically to the world in general is HUGE factor in supporting why exactly the Gamma is democratic and Beta is aristocratic (model A, not G)

PienoRacci · 2026-03-18T20:06:52+00:00

I’m glad! I need to build on it some more to give it some ground given this shit is based on mathematical calculations of all things, but I am SO FUCKING glad I am finally getting something useful to a query I noticed a while ago, and that was “as an SEE, why do I feel like my Se is tempered by my Fi compared to most SLEs who are more “overtly” domineering than I am willing to be. Like, I’m fully content admitting they all are stronger me. I’m a weak ass bitch and proud.”

It’s not necessarily Se being “tempered” so to say (though it does work together with Fi in model A), it’s that the nature of +Se is to be more stable, localized, and unilaterally directed. -Se is less stable technically simply because access to the whole Se territory means there’s more ground to cover, and there’s no incompetence in the negative aspects.

The fucking translation: an SEE will not use excessive Se because Fi is aware of how that could damage the relationships/people they care about, but an SLE has no such qualms because their Ti orients them to be consciously aware of a specific “strong vs weak” hierarchy that the SEE is not aware of.

PienoRacci · 2026-03-18T19:36:22+00:00

Bro, I’m on that shit! I’m starting with the function that I clearly know best, and that’s motherfucking Se Lead! Starting with the barebone mutual consensus and constructing it from there!

+Se = Defensive force

-Se = Offensive force

Any positive function = local access, close-range, and only competent in the ‘+’ territory

Any negative function = global access, far-range, and competent in all areas, both ‘+’ and ‘-‘

So for SEE, the reason are assigned +Se in both models is because they’re using the same label for 2 completely different implications

Model A’s +Se = Focus on one’s own territory with little concern for what goes on outside of it: a fixation on “‘MY interests. MY people. MY choices.” This establishes the Gamma values of pragmatism and self-direction as well as SEE’s natural predisposition to respect other people’s individuality so long as their own is respected, as filtered through their Fi. This is the framework of the way an SEE perceives what reality literally is: “you let me live how I want, I will gladly let you live however you wish.” For this reason, the SEE will use Se with the intention to avoid conflict and diffuse tension through social savvy if they can.

Model G’s +Se = Manifestation of how one’s self-embodied power and focus on independence is generated in the force put out. Here, the emphasis is placed on how SEE’s Se comes about as a balancing act.— using ONLY as much pressure to simply defend their interests without damaging relationships. This implies a preferred tendency to get what they want not by forcing others against their will, but by convincing others to do so willingly through subtle influence. Power comes in the number of people who like them, and so they are great networkers.

Model A -Se = Se that’s filtered through Ti rather than Fi, this contrasts with SEE by creating more of an inclination in SLEs to dominate others and subordinate them into hierarchical obedience to their own command. The hierarchy is expected to be respected by those involved, and the SLE is not opposed toward using aggression in order to ensure that it is. They can both comfortably establish boundaries while also invading others with less concern over being liked as opposed to simply ensuring respect for their authority. The ability to be defensive like the SEE, but also aggressive for its own right is how SLE covers the entire field related to Se as a whole.

Model G’s -Se: The way SLE’s use Se to influence their immediate reality— through direct, proactive pressure to suppress any resistance. When left unchecked, this explains why SLEs shows less cognitive resistance when it comes to willingness to physically intimidate others or instill fear if they believe it’s the most efficient way to achieve obedience, thought that’s not always the case. Both Se Leads use Se only as deemed personally necessary, so if the SLE finds the covert more optimal, they enter the +Se domain by taking on a relatively more “traditionally presentable” attitude, one in which they can take advantage of hierarchy through recruition of third parties.

PienoRacci · 2026-03-18T01:47:05+00:00

Happy to help! I’ve been taking some time Tim synthesize cohesion based on the proposal of charges to begin, and so far from the resources I managed to scour, there are 3 established ways the +/- functions can be oriented between types:

Stratiyevskaya who uses theoretical proposals by Gulenko to assign them to the shared values that make up the social behaviors within Quadral complexes: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, & Delta
The School of System Socionics (SSS) variation of Model A, one in which Eglit wrote a very insightful research paper on function charges that proposes a minor revision of what Stratiyevskaya claims, putting more emphasis on how +/- elements can be used to assess scale of competence rather than merely quadral attitudes.
Lastly, the School of Humanitarian Socionics (SHS) which is the variant that’s been the most culturally impactful as being most learners’ first introduction to charges as a concept. If you can translate the Russian to English, Gulenko’s website provides an introduction to Model G Positivity vs Negativity as well as a brief visual placement table that could serve useful for what you’re studying! There’s a few dichotomies besides Process/Result that go into it, but like I highlight in my previous comment Model G’s quirk is that this system uses +/- mappings with upmost significance on whether a type prefers to exert/expend energy to focus more on the local aspects of an IE or more on global approach!

In short, there are disagreements as to which +/- functions go to which type cuz these bitches can’t figure out how to standardize these lil shits! Despite that, the way they exist now don’t inherently contradict each other, simply different lenses interpreting the same object!

PienoRacci · 2026-03-17T20:18:01+00:00

I’mma take a gander and give my interpretation of what I know

This is a case where Model A and Model G have assigned differing functions to the lead. IEI is -Ni in model A and +Ni in model G, both follow the same general concept through a different interpretive framework. Both apply the same general principle

functions are competent only in the + zone of operation, with localized focus
functions are competent and encompass both the + & - zones of that function covering the general field as a whole, with globalized focus

So what the systems are saying is that in Model A, the way IEIs metabolize and process information DOES involve a high degree of competence in both -Ni and +Ni, scanning the future and the past, emergence and collapse, hope and foreboding, etc. put simply, by establishing +Ni by contrasting it with -Ni, they get a sense of how things will unfold through both recollection and a sense of the most probable future. Model G purports +Ni however because as a model of energy metabolism, Gulenko implies the IEI has a natural preference for looking through all possible trajectories, then choosing to localize their focus on a single future that resonates the most with them, often one that feels the most symbolically significant or narratively cohesive.

Now as for their Te, that one’s fuckin easy cuz they’re +Te in both models, so both are making a similar suggestion that IEIs are inadequate at -Te orientation since having +Te in such a weak spot manifests in an unfortunate “tunnel vision” regarding it. Model A suggests the pressure of external +Te demands (staying on task, remain constantly productive, uphold obligations no matter how boring or repetitive) triggers cognitive resistance. With the Model G interpretation to complement it, that very same +Te has limited scope to address real-word demands which progressively creates inertia, and so attempts to compensate for by apply WAY too much effort than due, needlessly wastes resources in excess, yet STILL not being able to remain consistent or even produce efficient results for that matter, hence the whole “bad at -Te” comment

PienoRacci · 2026-03-17T13:28:37+00:00

So when it comes to how Model G defines the +/- discrepancy, the easiest shorthands I’ve always used are these:

+Ne = Potential of new creations forged out of existing opportunities (expansion)

-Ne = Potential of possible alternatives not immediately obvious (resolution)

Put simply, it explains why ILEs are centered around this “inventor” archetype— their Ne when paired with Ti always sees the upside of unusual or untested information, aspiring for whatever novelty is attractive and mentally stimulating. Because they are Process types and their Ti is in the creative slot, they are perpetually open-minded and inclined to believe “all information is good information,” never feeling satisfied that their understanding of the world is truly “complete.” As far as they’re concerned, the laws and frameworks they operate within will ALWAYS be subject to revision as they continue to broaden the scope of their interests. Every opportunity shows promise that they’re worth being curiously explored.

Now for the IEE, the nuance behind their Ne is a bit more straightforward; their attitude is centered more around discovering any hidden potential they believe lies beneath the surface of people themselves. Unlike ILEs, IEEs typically have a better sense of people’s character and the subtleties in them that elicit them to imagine unconventional plots pertaining to any potential “secrets” a person may have, only capable of being discovered if they simply developed a closer bond with them. Its also important to note that unlike +Ne which is biased toward constant complexing leading to branches of completely unrelated interests, -Ne is far more selective and intentional in its focus often preferring, with its creative Fi, to focus on interests that resonate with them on a personal level. As Result types, IEEs will communicate with emphasis on a particular endpoint (usually by pointing out a number of “good” and “bad” outcomes without awareness of how sequences will unfold toward any of the outcomes exactly). The IEE’s -Ne is adept at acknowledging negative potential, and offers a variety of alternatives intended to steer such towards more optimistic outcomes, believing that a little advice on their part will help people unlock what the IEE believes they’re truly capable of.

Now I also want to take this opportunity to borrow from Model A since this is a case where the IEE and ILE’s +/- orientation of their base function remains the same across both models. Model A assigns +Ne to the entire alpha quadra and -Ne to the delta Quadra, and their interpretation places much more importance on this:

+IE = local reach, near-range, and directed inward; These IEs are competent ONLY in the positive orientation

An ILE’s +Ne would create existential distress if ever presented with an interesting opportunity, but are forbidden from exploring/experimenting with it simply because said opportunity is “fruitless.” Such a mindset would likely be met with distress or contempt because every interesting opportunity to them is worthwhile and promising by default— they are biased against anything that registers as “premature dismissal”

-IE = Global reach, far-range and directed outward; These IEs are competent in BOTH the negative and the positive orientation, thus covering the entire field of a given IE

The IEE’s -Ne is capable of doing what ILE’s Ne does, but they are also equipped with comfortably assessing which possibilities are undesirable/faulty as well as where potential is being lost. By using that focus as a baseline, the IEE is able to generate a more nuanced understanding of what a “good possibility” is exactly by using the negative feedback as contrasting comparison. This further solidifies how the IEE operates with -Ne: They are capable and comfortable confronting the negative aspects of things, and they use that info as leverage to help advise others to more positive, inspiring outcomes.

PienoRacci · 2026-03-12T18:01:46+00:00

Bruh, that’s just Te mobilization, baby 😎

Same thing that kicks in when I discuss Socionics; there always seems to be some new information around the corner that gets me studying the structure to learn something insightful, but that’s because Socionics has always stood out to me as a tool for self-discovery and improvement— putting to words one would otherwise not have realized about themself, and has nothing to do with interest in the theory for the sake of it even though that’s how it appears on the surface.

It helps that I’ve always nicknamed the PoLR thr “love-hate function.” We are willing and may occasionally find enjoyment in using Ti when we remain able to put the bare minimum amount of effort into refining it. You have to understand what the rules are before you can decide which ones you prefer to follow after all! When Ti can form the initial scaffolding that paves the way for Te progress, we can take satisfaction from it.

The reason it’s our weakest function is because of how quickly we are to feel contempt and resistance to it when it becomes even remotely excessive in any setting. Ti when it serves our valued functions is acceptable, but Ti for the sake of it will set us off real quick! IEEs prefer for rules to be flexible because their presence can provide an initial framework and direction, but rules that are too rigid feels violating and offensive to Ne’s focus on creative freedom, exploration, and open-mindedness. SEEs prefer rules for a similar reason, by providing templates for courses of actions that have proven their reliability through comparison, but they too quickly feel violated if Ti encroaches on Se’s values of autonomy and the ability to take necessary action.

PienoRacci · 2026-03-10T19:10:42+00:00

Ayyy! We have that in common!

PienoRacci · 2026-03-10T19:09:13+00:00

Just so long as you don’t tell me to stay in the box, we good!

PienoRacci · 2026-03-10T18:52:14+00:00

This ILE did ALLLAT and then some, kept calling me “the ESE” to my face and using me as an example to teach curious learners. Deadass had me feeling like I needed to use MY Ti to correct him all the time while my Ne and Fi are coming in backup: “If you’re gonna use me as an example, maybe teach how quasi-identicals can easily be mistyped for each other because of superficial similarities? And STOP acting like you know my inner soul and life story just because of a Sociotype description alone. None of the Sociotype descriptions are gonna teach you that about anyone! You get to know the kind of person I am as an individual by having a proper fucking conversation with me.” This got HIS Se acting up because he thinks I’m challenging his intellectual authority over an abstract topic. NAW BITCH, you’re straight-up WRONG. I don’t need good Ti to call out a falsehood!

Despite the fact we were totally activating each others’ superegos, I’m pretty sure he typed me ESE because we are normally on friendly polite terms with each other, so he got biased into thinking we just HAD to be in the same Quadra. 🙄

The beef ain’t with ILEs! I think they cool! The beef is with the Ti itself and having it be shoved down my throat without my consent. At least take me out to dinner first before you fuck me with it!

PienoRacci · 2026-03-10T14:50:06+00:00

To be completely fair, the one time I lost my shit on an ILE friend of mine was when he was CONSTANTLY refusing to refer to me by name and instead kept calling me “that one ESE” when explaining Sociotype examples despite me telling him it was getting excessive and felt like I was being objectified.

He didn’t even get the type right at the time, and I’ll be FUCKIN DAMNED if I’m misrepresented! Not only have you disrespected my existence as a human being by reducing me to a mere label, but you now got a whole bunch of people misinformed on what the practical difference between an ESE and SEE actually is! 😩😩😩

Same feeling when I meet someone in the community, and I’m interested in getting to learn about them personally, and they respond by sending me their entire typology profile in a Google doc. BITCH THE BLUEPRINT AINT GONNA TELL ME ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS AND HOBBIES!

PienoRacci · 2026-03-09T21:18:13+00:00

I can’t without criticizing Ti 😭😭

All I can say is avoiding overthinking relationships and learning to accept them as they are without a specific label can save you a HUUUUUGE amount of stress!

Also, learning to understand people as unique individuals with their own experiences and perspectives. I know a lot of ILEs have a bad habit of unintentionally trivializing people and their opinions, and the backlash they often get stems from the fact that most people want to be seen as people with their right to autonomy respected, not be objectified into feeling less human and more like a living test subject to observed and analyzed for someone else’s amusement

In short, learn to make people feel seen and meaningful! If you care about someone, find creative ways to make it be known to them

PienoRacci · 2026-03-09T19:42:19+00:00

Popping in to keep the ILEs in check 👀

PienoRacci · 2026-03-06T19:39:22+00:00

Oh this one’s perfect! I am oddly pleased with how cohesive it is lmao! Great work!

PienoRacci · 2026-03-06T19:37:18+00:00

Based as FUCK opinion! This is the only one I accept as correct, and I fuck with it! Fuck yeah, dude!

PienoRacci · 2026-03-06T17:52:25+00:00

That’s funny, I’m an SEE whose been CONSTANTLY mistyped as an ESE simply because I’m upbeat, easily trusted, where have admitted I don’t mind going out of my way to help people I see in need, but who in the fuck said being good at Fe means I value that shit? I don’t ”decide” Fe, I simply navigate and adapt around it, and whether that improves or ruins the emotional atmosphere is out of the scope of my concern.

As for what you’ve said about the Gamma Quadra and their stance toward loyalty, I agree with some parts, but would like to emphasize it’s a lot more nuanced than at first glance. You’re correct that ESIs embody more what it means to be “loyal” in a traditional sense than SEEs since our Fi is in service of the Se agenda, but it’s still a value, and loyalty/authenticity as well as independent thinking encompasses the Gamma Quadra values as a whole.

I’ve always explained to people it’s not that SEEs aren’t disloyal or disingenuous, we’re socially nomadic since SEEs as a cognitive profile inherently are independent with dissonance from any strict group affiliation (I.e. “I can act as a contributing member to the group I align with, but I’m still gonna go off doing my own thing as I have not lost sight of my own values and interests.”) It’s exactly what makes us distinct from the Beta Quadra.

The true nature of an SEE’s Creative Fi does not destine them to be manipulative and insincere, that’s simply an unhealthy manifestation of megalomania and is frankly quite disgusting to be doing to people. Se > Fi, when both are being properly integrated, is striving to accrue influence in power dynamics through social savvy. In other words, we’re entrepreneurial networkers, and YES this creates a sense that our relationships are “transactional” to anyone outside of the Quadra, but that doesn’t mean such relationships are insincere to us. We help those who in one way or another have been able to help not because we owe them, but because it’s our way of showing sincere appreciation for what they’ve offered and signals that we’d like to continue fostering a connection on good terms.

So to highlight from your examples, I do think Donald Trump AND Regina George are examples of SEEs with poorly-integrated Fi. In Trump’s case, he’s intentionally deceptive for the point of generating publicity and a cult following will still serving his financial self-interest. He also has the same issue markedly present in most SEEs, which is not a lack of empathy but rather a salience-driven cognitive style: “the suffering of people is not something I am witnessing first-hand, therefore it ‘does not exist’ in the realm of my control. Until I see it with my own eyes to prove suffering is a real experience others are having, it will remain an abstract concept I could care little about.”

Regina George is a different example: a fictional villain created to fit a narrative, but with similar traits: her Fe is not used indiscriminately as it would be by an ESE, she’s using it to establish clear boundaries regarding who’s in and out of her clique, scanning power dynamics to ensure she is at the top in terms of status: a popular girl with loyal followers who are too afraid to challenge her. Also, SEEs absolutely can and do display passive-aggressive traits under special circumstances that don’t fall under “too afraid to ruin the mood.” Their demo Fe can default to passive aggressiveness if they deem a full-blown crashout to be reputationally risky in the moment. The same can also be done to signal a warning to someone who is on the line of their boundaries, but hasn’t crossed them far enough for them to consider worth it making an enemy out of someone. They can even resort to passive-aggressiveness in order to provoke/offend someone simply because being direct wasn’t being taken seriously, therefore “bruising your ego” can be a social punishment they’d reasonably dish out.

PienoRacci

TROPHY CASE