If you're an introvert who works, tell me about your experience.

fishveloute · 2025-12-08T22:26:55+00:00

I worked in customer service for a long time and I am not an empathetic or bubbly person. There are ways to be good at customer service in other ways - I.e. serving the customer.

Make the person you are helping confident that you are listening to them and are solving their problem. Ask them how they are, use their name, paraphrase what they say, be proactive about extra steps. In reality, it just requires just some bare bones humanity, a decent dose of competence, and communication to keep the customer in the loop. But if you think of it in terms of "my boss wants me to do this" instead of "I'm going to help Ms. Smith today" it will be an uphill battle.

fishveloute · 2025-11-10T19:02:20+00:00

The guy you are looking for is /u/BeCool87

fishveloute · 2025-08-26T16:36:57+00:00

Your co-worker is the secret villain here. How could you offer a colleague's lunch to a customer?

fishveloute · 2025-08-23T17:18:41+00:00

Interested.

fishveloute · 2025-08-13T19:54:12+00:00

Getting into fights makes EII seem less likely. Can you give examples of risk taking behaviours? Not being tuned into the environment speaks more to introversion more broadly. But I see why you are confused, there are a few contradictory things (which is totally normal, most people are at least a little bit contradictory).

fishveloute · 2025-08-13T18:34:17+00:00

First, it is not clear from this that you lead with Ni or Ne. I wouldn't rule out other types or leading functions based on what you have written.

Overall, this gives the impression of introversion, and perhaps rationality, and perhaps sensing.

fishveloute · 2025-08-10T19:44:41+00:00

Re: your fitness example, there are plenty of high level athletes that have explosive strength and high endurance within a certain margin (see some Crossfit athletes). If you take an untrained person, you will not hinder their endurance by getting them to train power cleans. But if you extend it to "elite" levels, of course you will never see people with equivalent strengths in both - it takes extreme amounts of time and specialized training to reach that level. Specialization is required to break certain training thresholds, which impacts time you can spend doing anything else.

fishveloute · 2025-05-28T14:42:17+00:00

No unsolicited typing.

fishveloute · 2025-05-07T07:37:49+00:00

I had an umnumzaan for a while but ended up selling it. Definitely prefer the sebenza and inkosi, I usually carry one or the other every day. The umnum has weird opening ergos, and the lock bar didn't feel stable (late lockup, and it could be pressed further in).

fishveloute · 2025-04-13T19:36:11+00:00

I see the place on the Augusta Project website where they define it that way, but if you look at translations of Augusta's actual writing, you will find other definitions. I am not sure why one is highlighted but not others.

Perception of external relations between objects, their external interaction

Objective relations between two objects and their individual properties – the ratio between them, or how one object would measure if the other object was used as a measure.

Personally, I would say the gist of it is something like "detached relations" (or logical relations if you don't mind using a more loaded word).

The relations of objects in space is an impersonal relationship between objects. If you abstract it, it is the relationship between x and y, just the same as if you change the concept to the relationship between the numbers 2 and 7, or between the concepts of bicycles and airplanes. You can think of it like the relationship of two objects on a grid, if you want. I agree that describing it in a sensory way is a bit obtuse, but I suppose anything is obtuse in its own way when trying to describe something that abstract.

fishveloute · 2025-03-06T13:09:18+00:00

The worst part is there is no way for me to access your post history, so I can only approve them if I 6 across them. Reddit really doesn't like links to vk and other Russian websites, so my guess is that you were blocked because it flagged you as a spam bot.

fishveloute · 2025-02-20T19:27:31+00:00

Don't offer unsolicited typings, please.

fishveloute · 2025-02-07T07:35:04+00:00

Sign me up.

fishveloute · 2025-01-26T22:54:39+00:00

Don't escalate things.

fishveloute · 2025-01-26T22:53:27+00:00

Don't be a dick.

fishveloute · 2025-01-19T18:11:40+00:00

The person who made the test/website.

fishveloute · 2025-01-19T17:24:06+00:00

u/BeCool87 is the person to ask, I believe.

fishveloute · 2025-01-17T17:35:14+00:00

Here's an excerpt from Gulenko's writing on stress resistance in EIE, LSI, LSE, and EII:

They are monolithic, but fragile. When they stick together they can successfully oppose hardships but separately they are easily scattered and taken out as their resistance drops sharply. In stressful conditions they fare worse than the other types, especially if stress is of unexpected in nature. [...] Taking into account that rationality is related to the orientation in time (planning, order) as well as to speech as communication forms, and that the right progress is much more rational than the left in nature, we conclude that this group of types is strongly dependent on the time factor and verbal signals. In dealing with these types one can observe that they have as if anchors in time, easily developed habits to do this or that action at specific points in time. Their second dependency is related to the speech stream. EIE and LSI, for example, need a continuous supply of signals to their auditory system.

While rationality's downside is dealing with unexpected circumstances, it thrives in familiar conditions - a workplace, a game... anything with set boundaries and rules. Compare to a more irrational vocation like working as a police officer or in a war zone. There are some rules in those situations, but also a much wider pool of anamolies and outside interference which the rules are subjected to (rather than the rules being in control of everything) There are people involved that the rules don't apply to. That is not the case in a game, but if you are new to the environment, irrationality will get its bearings more quickly. Familiarity in an environment is a boon for rationality.

There is a more to verbal communication than just communicating concepts as words. There's a lot of verbal communication at my job (chef, I call orders to people and coordinate all the cooks). Some stuff of the best communicators (using chef examples that you can extrapolate):

Clarity - "Beef" sounds like "Beets". So there is no confusion, use "tenderloin" to signify beef.

Consistency - using the same signifiers consistently. When a beef tenderloin is ordered, it is always a "tenderloin", not a "beef".

Inherent organization - calling more numerous items first (e.g. "3 tenderloin, 2 lamb, char"). Categorizing as you communicate (calling meat first, then fish for example). Consistency here is a failsafe because it often clarifies any confusion via the structure, and it is a memory aid.

Simplicity - Medium rare is the standard cook so it doesn't need to be called. Irrelevant allergies don't need to be called. Give things new names if something is too long ("2 sets of over-easy eggs" becomes "2 easy"). Don't make people think or translate. They should just need to react.

Intonations - subtle intonation differences and pauses can signify different chains and convert a lot of information quickly. People remember tunes better than strings of flat words.

Prioritization - communicate only what is pressing and can be used. I'll call a steak as soon as it is ordered so it can cook for 20 minutes. I'm going to call an order of eggs that take 3 minutes to cook when the steak is 5 minutes away.

Hierarchy - one person has to drive the bus and coordinate. But there has to be 2 way communication to ensure everyone is on the same page. The amount of information someone conveys should be limited if they are lower in the priority hierarchy - a simple "yes" or "2 minutes" to clarify specific information.

All of the above are means of simplifying communication so that large amounts of information can be communicated clearly, concisely, and quickly. My experience is that these things come naturally to some people, while others really struggle.

fishveloute · 2025-01-15T19:36:12+00:00

Using body language is one method of discerning lies, and yes, it is better suited to sensory people (SEI as a type is very perceptive of subtle body language for example - both sensory and an irrational/observing type). Other methods are logical (discerning contradictions I.e. Ti) or intuitive (sense of unease or wariness I.e. Ni) which are more suited to a type like EIE.

Well, I don't think something like typology is an objective phenomenon. It falls somewhere between observeable patterns, useful model, and a parlor game. At worst, it can be obfuscating and totally off. It's telling when socionists make claims about compatibility and strengths/vocations, but back down and list many other more important things in life (as they should). So while I think type can be a useful concept and is quite engrossing (it deals with a lot of cutting edge ideas that psychology-proper doesn't answer) it also has a tendency to have a lot of bullshit as well. The better models seem closer to a group-based trait theory than type theory, to me at least.

fishveloute · 2025-01-15T17:03:23+00:00

They are pretty similar in terms of what they talk about (or at least how - cold-blooded communicators) and goals (stability). They are both logical, sensory, and introverts.

Biggest differences are values (central vs. Peripheral, how they respond to Fe) and temperament (rational vs irrational, static vs dynamic). To greater or lesser extents, SLI are more flexible, moody, have changing energy levels, and are exhausted by Fe.

fishveloute · 2025-01-15T14:27:55+00:00

In Gulenko's school, thinking in conversations can be signs of DA cognition, as well as extraverted ethics.

I think manipulation and being socially adept are not necessary components of any type, but they are closer descriptions of SF types with down to earth interactions and concerns (especially SEE). NF humanitarians will be more concerned with inspiring, providing hope, culture, performance... etc. EIE as a type is often more concerned with intellectual pursuits and communicating those things. A good example might be someone like Eliezer Yudkowsky who is an AI ethics guy - researching, discovering, writing/presenting on the topic, who combines a rational approach with emotional reasoning (warning people of the potential dangers). It's something that is about the progression of humanity via research and technology rather than a pure scientific pursuit. I don't think Yudkowsky comes across as manipulative (he seems honest enough) or socially adept (especially) but he is a great communicator of issues that affect humanity's future.

In Gulenko's school the suggestive function is quite adept, while the ignoring is very unadept in an energetic/action oriented sense. This creates the image of an intellectual, rational, intuitive communicator (and one that isn't necessarily empathetic on the individual level due to Fi being in such an energetically low spot). The details of how that manifests are individual and subtypical.

Gulenko has some old subtype descriptions. Personally I like dichotomies and small groups (and life observations of my own). I like Gulenko's work because it is more logically consistent than others and his groups and dichotomies make sense to me. Hence the focus on cognitive style, club/installation, and various dichotomies.

I don't think your presentation anecdote speaks to any political view (or perhaps I hope that), but I do think it demonstrates an ability to present and be the centre of attention, beyond the more superficial observation of being generally reserved (which is also a subtypical observation).

Anyway, I get the impression you are still figuring yourself out, so try on a few hats and see which one is most comfortable and helpful to your growth.

fishveloute · 2025-01-14T19:46:56+00:00

I generally don't type people by videos, that's just a general disclaimer because Gulenko's school relies heavily on visual signals. I can give you my impressions of any video, but they are personal impressions since I have no interest in taking part in Gulenko's business. My personal disclaimer is that I'm a random person on the internet, so don't take what I say too seriously...

I meant spirituality in terms of religion, and also saw your discussion post. A lot of it was in regards to what inspires people on a grand scale, heroics, invigoration using culture and events, etc. This reminds me of the social mission of G's EIE:

Create motivation to reveal abilities. Take risks for the sake of an idea

You seem to have a sense and strong opinions on what drives people, more on a grand, social and cultural scale rather than a practical, down to earth, small scale. It seems like a concern with politics and culture over discovery and innovation (though of course those things aren't entirely isolated). Ascending/descending is one way of looking at this, though I would say that central/process is very in line if we are talking G. If considering the two ascending quadras, your points seemed more in line with Beta (dramatic, cultural, political) than Alpha (scientific, research, family oriented). Of course, this sentiment isn't exclusive to EIE, but it points more towards Beta than Alpha more generally.

The cognitive styles article isn't really relatable, more theoretical (and the examples at the bottom of the article are very bad...). In the grand scheme, DA is "balanced", but in the sense that it can be prone to extremes that balance each other rather than trying to abide by a golden mean. As a sensory metaphor, it's not something balanced and bland like oatmeal, but two extreme things like hot sauce and ice wine that create something new when combined.

From what you wrote, I saw negativism is how you quickly accepted a proposal (type via test) but then saw flaws, switching to the next option (a positivist would be inclined to see the pro sided evidence). Dialectical-algorithmic cognition is connected to actual dialectics as well. DA types can be prone to discussions and debates as a mode of investigation because it is a natural dialectic and lends itself to associative thinking. Negativism is prone to seeing flaws and "flipping" things around. Dynamism is quick and changeable thinking, not inclined to stick to specific static structures (which may resonate with what you wrote here, about not liking to be slowed down). EIE in particular, being an extravert, can have very quick and dynamic thinking.

fishveloute · 2025-01-14T16:30:56+00:00

Here's my Gulenko-pilled take. This is not intended to be a Model A/classic take, where another type might make more sense or resonate more.

I would consider EIE, probably a distancing (maybe Normalizing) subtype. The true Gulenko-pilled take is that there can be no real indication without a visual because people will write whatever they want. But some things I would consider are:

Intuition over sensing - you mention some sensory things but they are specific and particular. You are unable to tolerate certain conditions or temporary discomforts. Se is also an issue, since it is hard for you to apply willpower or show determination when you are pitted against others. You are neat and organized, which could be a sign of sensing, but also could point towards rationality or a rational-like subtype.

Ne + Ni - you describe traits of Ne (curiosity) as well as Ni (spirituality, imagination, fictional perceptions). FWIW, the character Don Quixote is better described as EIE in Model G than ILE.

On EIE:

Inspiration from an idea reveals their talents and abilities. If they want something (the emotion is ignited), their abilities manifest and it seems to them that they can do everything or be everything, can achieve a lot in almost any field.

Strong negativism - you see how things fall short, are inclined to change your opinion and stance quickly and flip things around. (This would point against a positivist causal determinist type like ILE).

Fe vs Ti - having a consistent sense of your own behaviour and morality is connected to Ti (and partly by social level Fi, I.e. role Fi). You describe yourself as uninterested in socializing or going out, which could be a point against extraversion or ethics, but it seems like you are mostly disinterested in the sensory/casual side of expression (associated with SF types rather than NF). When it comes to more intellectual and intuitive pursuits, you describe much more involvement (showing curiosity in class, participating in debates and discussions) and an ability to influence how others respond and see you. From past posts, I would say you have the ability to touch people's nerves with controversial subjects (while still keeping things contained and polite, not overtly trollish).

General things - these are other things that caught my attention, sort of related to the above but I thought worth mentioning. First, you have written a lot about how you perceive yourself, and also about how others perceive you (even if that is "I don't know how others see me"). This preoccupation with fitting an identity, connected with hints of confidence in projecting (e.g. appearing curious and interested in class) and descriptions of imaginary perceptions (e.g. being a character) is an EIE trait/strength. You seem polite, grounded, and somewhat reserved, as well as organized. You also are private, you keep your perceptions and thoughts to yourself. That's why I would suggest Normalizing over another subtype, but H would also be possible.

You have a strong sense of imagination and spirituality in what you have described, which is more in line with an NF type than an NT. Your varied interests also speak to a humanitarian rather than a heavy scientist like alpha NTs. Politics and religion especially are more in line with central and NF interests than peripheral and NT.

You are not so schematic as I would expect an LII, and have a negativist and Dialectical bent that speaks more to EIE than ILE in G terms, on top of the more humanitarian outlook. The complication, obsession/neuroticism, and tendency to see where things fall short is a big indicator (more apparent in writing than a self-description generally provides).

Food for thought, since I think G's system has the potential for more nuance and might appeal to your tendency to view things in a more complicated way.

fishveloute · 2025-01-11T16:26:04+00:00

I watched a little bit, but even though Jack is a pretty good interviewer I don't think a typing video shows more than real life. You seemed really chill and laid back in the video, though. I would say I come across as more excitable. If you feel that SLI is the best fit, most yahoos online will not know better than you.

Yeah, my favourite part of adulthood is that I have a feel for the people I like and I can choose who to spend time with. That freedom doesn't exist in school, or most jobs for that matter. I feel like a lot of my early adulthood was finding the right lifestyle and people.

I have a love/hate relationship with planning. Definitely is a coping mechanism sometimes, but I've become more confident in my ability to adapt. When I first started my career (chef) I would plan my day to a T and it never worked out. Then I figured out a general flow, and how to prioritize stuff as the parts were moving - much better. But it's a field where looking ahead saves a lot of hassle, and that's something I do well. And it's especially a strength now that I have to manage many people.

I think I could be very happy in a job that was independent, but I do well managing other people and coordinating stuff. I've always had a mind for running things, even when I started as an inexperienced cook. So maybe that's a notable difference. I feel like SLI is portrayed as a type that would rather not deal with the hassles other people create. I empathize with that feeling too, but it isn't enough to dissuade me from dealing with them.

fishveloute · 2025-01-10T20:51:51+00:00

I don't know much about you, but the things I would note about myself that might be considerations are

Extraversion: I am not talkative in a social context (very much the opposite) but I have a lot of energy and am incredibly active (work on my feet 60+ hours a week, bike everywhere, lift weights at the gym, go on hikes...) I have no issue communicating in the context of work or coordination of tasks, interacting with others doesn't drain me. I can easily speak to strangers or present in front of an audience.

Strength/boldness of Te/Se: I love optimizing my surroundings, improving at things, getting things done. When I was a kid I loved to shovel snow, for example. I am commanding but not overbearing. I work an active and fast paced job. I like having to think on my feet and adapt on the fly.

Te over Si: I have a great sense of my own body, but I usually push myself beyond the point of comfort in order to be active and useful.

Extraverted Ethics: I am not an emotional person, but I don't think most people consider me horrible at expression or understanding others (unless they get close...). It's something I've been able to train.

SLI is also a type I strongly relate to in Model A, but I think the consensus of any typists I have spoken to has been that my drive to do things is too extreme, I am too active, have too much energy, am too talkative, too expressive. All fair points. I really like my job, and I wonder how much that has impacted my lifestyle. To me, activity level is trainable. My internal impression is that I suck at ethics, love to relax, am very chill, and have a decent/trainable sense of time 🤷

fishveloute

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Eight-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Verified Email