For Those Of You Who Are Tired Of The Game

[Ezra]

All right, here it is, my definitive answer. I've looked over the functions long enough. Do not question or try to figure out the logic of what functions I give. This is what I recognise myself as, and this is what I am. I don't want to hear "you express ENFj sentiments" or "you're most like ESTp so you can't be that" or "well that's funny because nothing at all has implied that so far" - what I say is the honest truth. This is the type I am.

I am...



Followed by...



It makes perfect sense to me, more to me than any other type does. It clicks. Since Socionics is developed from Jung's theory (and thus carries most - if not all - of its principles), I know I'm not Sensing. I can explain to you why not if you are burning to know, but - to be honest - I think it's unnecessary. And I'm definitely Extroverted Thinking. Hence, Rationality follows naturally.

Thank you to all those who persuaded me to persist in broadening the depth of my knowledge of Socionics, whether in a cold, insulting manner, or in good faith.

[UDP]

Do not question or try to figure out the logic of what functions I give.

[Slacker]

I just want to be on the record, that on page 7 of The Other Thread about Ezra (you know the one) I posted this:

I predict you will mistype yourself, and then leave Socionics assuming that Socionics doesn't make sense, without ever considering that the problem is that you are mistyped.

[Expat]

It's very interesting and illuminating.

I mean, what is it about Se EPs (I'll settle on that for now) identifying with being ? It's not the first time, nor will it be the last, I guess.

[Phaedrus]

I am...



Followed by...

I will believe you if everything else also fits -- you identify ENTj type descriptions more than any other type description, you identify with EJ temperament, you are an Enneagram 8, you identify with E, N, T, and J, as those dichotomies are explained in Socionics, etc, etc. Otherwise I am not be convinced.

[FDG]

It's very interesting and illuminating.

I mean, what is it about Se EPs (I'll settle on that for now) identifying with being ? It's not the first time, nor will it be the last, I guess.

Or maybe vice versa

[FDG]

I am...



Followed by...

I will believe you if everything else also fits -- you identify ENTj type descriptions more than any other type description, you identify with EJ temperament, you are an Enneagram 8, you identify with E, N, T, and J, as those dichotomies are explained in Socionics, etc, etc. Otherwise I am not be convinced.

ENTjs can also be 3s or 1s

[Expat]

It's very interesting and illuminating.

I mean, what is it about Se EPs (I'll settle on that for now) identifying with being ? It's not the first time, nor will it be the last, I guess.

Or maybe vice versa

Do you know a vice versa example?

Anyway, I think one major reason (no idea if it was the case with Ezra, for all that he mentioned it) is people continuing to look at Jung's functions as if they were the "true" Socionics functions. Then most SLEs (regardless of Ezra's type) would indeed identify more with Extraverted Thinking than Extraverted Sensing.

[XoX]

It's very interesting and illuminating.

I mean, what is it about Se EPs (I'll settle on that for now) identifying with being ? It's not the first time, nor will it be the last, I guess.

It is easy. It is likely the same reason why I in my type thread analyzed my preferences and decided that if I had the option to choose I would be ENTj as if you misinterpret the dichotomies in sort of MBTI style then ENTj is the king of all types in my mind.

This is an example of a faulty interpretation
E > I: Well extroverts generally rule and introverts stay in the sidelines
T > F: Well thinkers know shit and get things done and feelers just "feel" which is nice and all but useless
N > S: Of course intuitives are intelligent and sensors are dumb
J > P: J types get things done and P types just smoke pot and fool around which suites for some people but not for me

This is how these dichotomies are presented in many MBTI tests imho. If you have the self perception of being someone who takes charge, can think, is intelligent, consistent and who can make shit happen you are going to falsely type yourself ENTj. Even if ENTjs often are a bit like that so are many other types especially ESTps.

However I have been working with an ENTj lately and I can clearly see how he is not me and how our strengths and weaknesses are different and how ENTj is just another type and nothing special. This ENTj is great in some things but horrible in some others. Even if he actually does get a lot of things done and his effectiveness is amazing and he kind of exemplifies the "perfect type" as described above his weaknesses are of the sort which I do not relate to and would not wish to have. The type descriptions can fool you and only interacting with a real life ENTj you can really see how those strengths and weaknesses come to play. Based on type descriptions I can say "I wish to be ENTj" but based on this particular ENTj I interact with I have to say "I do not wish to be ENTj". Some things which are difficult for him are easy for me and I do not wish to change that. So once you understand all types properly you probably wish to be your own type but until then many of us wish to be something they falsely figure society appreciates the most.

This all said I do not believe Ezra is ENTj but if that is what he wants to label himself then fine with me My guess is that if he did interact with a real life ENTj he would immediately see how they are different but who knows. Hard to type people based on forum texts especially if they are playing games.

[Ezra]

Ahhhh, since I love to discuss, we will discuss my motives for choosing the functions I did.

Firstly, let us consider Extraverted functions, as this would be the most reasonable course of action in this instance. I will us socionics.us as my source, as this seems to give the most full descriptions, and more trustworthy (as it draws from Augustina's original work). I will explain why I am not certain types, and thus discover my leading function through induction.



I read an article (http://www.socionics.us/theory/bi.shtml), and the first sentence showed me why I do not have as a leading function:

"Someone with as their leading function is very dependent on his/her feelings of interest and disinterest. Interest and boredom seem to be the driving forces in such a person's life — more so than for any other types."

This is unlike me. Of course I do things that are interesting to me, but it does not govern me. For example, what must be completed today is revision for my exams. I don't find this particularly interesting, but it must be done, because I want good grades. Many times during study, I'll feel like doing something else - eating, watching a film, playing on the Xbox, whatever - but will continue to work, because I realise that it will help me a lot in the future if I continue to work. There is also this sense of 'potential' underlying the first. Although I obviously experience this on occasion in my life, it's not nearly enough for it to be my leading function.



I have been confident from the beginning of Socionics that I do not have this as my leading function, and I trust my judgement. Alas, I cannot simply end on "I know I am not ". Let me show you why I am not .

Extraverted ethical types have the ability to "energize people with [their] emotions". Because they are "able to activate the psychological/spiritual lives of other people and their emotional readiness for action" they make good gurus. I, on the other hand, am quite inept at being able to do this. Often in the past I've tried, but I've realised it is not where my talents lie. It is a talent worth having, but I don't have it. Let me illustrate this. I was playing football with some friends. Their morale was extremely low. We were losing badly. I tried to energise them, and it would have given me great satisfaction if they had done so, but they didn't. Now, I don't think it was so much the fact that I was trying to do something which I know I could do but couldn't at this time. No, it was more to do with the method I was using. It was essentially taking charge, and losing their respect quicker than I had gained it. Swearing and fruitless enthusiasm clearly did not help. However, again - although not my leading function - is evident. I've been told my laugh is infectious. Remember though that this was by one person. Others find my laugh annoying. I think it is safe to say that on a general scale I lack the power to "infect others with [my] moods".


Now we come to the two functions which we hardest for me to discern between. Eventually, though, I succeeded in discovering my leading function.



The main way I made clear that I was not first was the fact that none of the Introverted functions fitted me better than did. And, since it is impossible to be , I had to scrap the idea that I was first.



Not only was I only left with after not being able to identify with any of the other Extroverted leading functions but, as coincidental as it might seem, it fitted me best. The overall vibe I got from it was one I could easily connect with. When looking at it in detail, certain points stood out as qualities I know I have:

"the individual has the ability to plan his and others' work"
"Perceives information about animate and inanimate objects' physical activity, deeds, and actions/activities."
"distinguish rational actions from irrational ones, and the ability or inability to direct others' work"

This:

"external activity of objects: events (what, how, where), activity, behavior, algorithms"

I also related to.

For this second part, I will omit (for self-explanatory reasons).



There was a problem I encountered with this, which the author of the article picked up on:

"[!! emphasis on 'aesthetics' here is inadequate]"

Nonetheless, there were bits here which I did not relate to, as with .

"the individual has the ability to change the qualities of the surrounding space and the sensations of people who are located within it. He is able to avoid physical discomfort and protect others from discomfort"
"the ability to set one's aesthetic and sensory needs in opposition to others' and demand their gratification, the ability to mould and perfect not only one's own aesthetic tastes and habits, but also those of other people. We might say that such individuals have the ability to impose their understanding of aesthetics and comfortable living on other people"



I related to slightly more than , but not enough for it to be my secondary function. Several significant statements I did not identify with:

"He always knows who wants what from whom"
"the ability to manipulate people's attachments, and the ability and desire to influence people's ethical feelings and bring these feelings closer to societal ideals"
"the ability to mould and perfect both his own and others' wishes. He possesses both the ability to provide himself with necessary relationships with others and confidence in his capacity to influence other people. His correct perception of human needs allows him to avoid risky collisions when satisfying his own needs"



Lastly is , the one I chose. Why? Quite simply because "such an individual perceives information from without as feelings about the future, past, and present". The examples given (a sense of hurriedness, calmness, or heatedness, a sense of timeliness or prematureness, a sense of proper or improper life rhythm, a sense of impending danger or safety, anticipation, fear of being late, a sense of seeing the future, anxiety about what lies ahead, and so forth") resonate with my way of life completely. For example, the area in which I live is infested with people looking for a fight. If one begins to talk to me, all is fine until the conversation turns sour, and my instinct kicks in: a sense of impending danger. My anxieties about the future aren't represented psychologically so much as shows physically. I anticipate naturally. I don't always use my head to do this, but feel it throughout my body, and know the reason I feel what I do is because I am anticipating something. For example, your response to this post.

As tenuous as this might sound, a good way to illustrate my "innate strategic abilities and [my ability] to choose the most optimal moments for different activities: when to give battle, if necessary, and when to avoid battle, when that would be more appropriate" is my strategy on Age of Empires; the way I used to wait for the best time to attack, and in doing so - nearly always - managed to wipe out the enemy.

I hope this clarifies why I chose the functions I did. I'll post a second post explaining why I chose E, N, T, j for Phaedrus in a few minutes.

[Ezra]

This all said I do not believe Ezra is ENTj but if that is what he wants to label himself then fine with me My guess is that if he did interact with a real life ENTj he would immediately see how they are different but who knows. Hard to type people based on forum texts especially if they are playing games.

I am good friends with an ENTj, and given our different social groups, it's surprising how much we share in common with each other.

[Darkstar]

Thank you, Ezra.

Have fun with life!

It is interesting how you all start argue about his type when he said he did not want any of that. Reversed psychology I believe it is called?

[Ezra]

E over I

I identify with pretty much every point on this page: http://www.socionics.us/theory/ext_int.shtml. If I began to explain why I am Extroverted not Introverted, I would be regurgitating what is recorded there, so I won't attempt to.

N over S

This is the function that I have had the most trouble with. As many of us know, the MBTI description of iNtuitives appears to be more flattering and thus more appealing. Not for this reason, I am an iNtuitive. Not only do I feel more affinity with ENTJ than ESTJ (I don't doubt my ExTJness) descriptions, but others very much doubt that I am ESTJ from all descriptions, and say that ENTJ is much more fitting. I also am much more future-orientated, and often have to be told to concentrate on the here and now by 3 S members of my family (who are also S in Socionics).

But this is Socionics. With this, I tend to find that these functions are equally as valuable as each other. Inevitably, though, MBTI and Socionics descriptions of S/N are not as far as one might like to believe. Ss in both systems are here/now focused, they are good tacticians, they see the trees not the forest. Ns are the opposite - they are future-orientated, strategists, and see the whole rather than the parts. There are differences in the intellectual and philosophical capacities of each however. While one could be an N in MBTI, they could well be an S in Socionics. On the other hand, it is unlikely that an S in MBTI would be an N in Socionics.

Still, I maintain that I am N in both in MBTI and Socionics. My MBTI is indubitable; I am a philosopher, I enjoy knowing things for the sake of knowledge, I am often hazy and hard to comprehend (although I am certainly logical), I am very future-orientated, and I am somewhat impractical - I don't work with my hands; I work with my head. As I've mentioned before (it could have been on EIDB), 8s have two ways of fighting - psychologically and physically. I can physically fight when the time calls for it, but it is not my area. I would get flattened in seconds. So I use my mental capacity to fight rationally. With Socionics, after reading http://www.socionics.us/theory/int_sen.shtml, I maintain that obviously, while I have elements of S, my type is N.

T over F

Again, I identify wholly with the logic side here: http://www.socionics.us/theory/log_eth.shtml. I would be reiterating what is on that page if I explained my decision.

j over p

I found this article on socionics.com: http://www.socionics.com/articles/howto.htm

At the bottom, I found this: "Unsure about being S or N -> you are Socionics XXXj"

That is not all. I have experience of two ps in the family, and they are unlike me.

I've tried to convince an MBTI ENFP that J is the best plan of action to achieve the most out of life. She would not listen. I do not see her reasoning.

I cannot simply "go with the flow" - it is not my line. People like this often infuriate me. Planning things is what I do, and I torture myself if I don't stick to the plans I make.

[Slacker]

Did you ever read this? Two Important Steps to Make

[Expat]

It is easy. It is likely the same reason why I in my type thread analyzed my preferences and decided that if I had the option to choose I would be ENTj as if you misinterpret the dichotomies in sort of MBTI style then ENTj is the king of all types in my mind.

Yes, I had already thought about that, and it's obviously a big mistake and it's one of the problems with MBTI. I think a lot of types would be - in fact, are - put off and even disgusted by real-life ENTjs. Especially ESTps - which makes some ESTps' identification with ENTjs even sillier - which would not want to have the ENTjs' pathetic hidden agenda, the whining dual-seeking and even less the PoLR. Others are disgusted with the ENTj's role.

I have been confident from the beginning of Socionics that I do not have this as my leading function, and I trust my judgement. Alas, I cannot simply end on "I know I am not ". Let me show you why I am not .

Extraverted ethical types have the ability to "energize people with [their] emotions". Because they are "able to activate the psychological/spiritual lives of other people and their emotional readiness for action" they make good gurus. I, on the other hand, am quite inept at being able to do this. Often in the past I've tried, but I've realised it is not where my talents lie. It is a talent worth having, but I don't have it. Let me illustrate this. I was playing football with some friends. Their morale was extremely low. We were losing badly. I tried to energise them, and it would have given me great satisfaction if they had done so, but they didn't. Now, I don't think it was so much the fact that I was trying to do something which I know I could do but couldn't at this time. No, it was more to do with the method I was using. It was essentially taking charge, and losing their respect quicker than I had gained it. Swearing and fruitless enthusiasm clearly did not help. However, again - although not my leading function - is evident. I've been told my laugh is infectious. Remember though that this was by one person. Others find my laugh annoying. I think it is safe to say that on a general scale I lack the power to "infect others with [my] moods".

Nobody's is perfect -- anyway, elsewhere you seemed pretty confident about it, so it's hard to take that too seriously.

The main way I made clear that I was not first was the fact that none of the Introverted functions fitted me better than did. And, since it is impossible to be , I had to scrap the idea that I was first.

That is sloppy theoretical thinking -- in point of fact, is a sort of axis, just like , and .

"the individual has the ability to plan his and others' work"
"Perceives information about animate and inanimate objects' physical activity, deeds, and actions/activities."
"distinguish rational actions from irrational ones, and the ability or inability to direct others' work"

This:

"external activity of objects: events (what, how, where), activity, behavior, algorithms"

That's not really a good way of looking at .

Anyway, never mind -- if you think you're ENTj, one problem for Socionics is that I very much doubt that an ISFj would see you as their dual, or an INFj as their semi-dual.

[Expat]

I found this article on socionics.com: http://www.socionics.com/articles/howto.htm

At the bottom, I found this: "Unsure about being S or N -> you are Socionics XXXj"

That's just silly.

[Creepy-bg]

I don't get why people are still giving this bozo the time of day

[Expat]

Something else --

Functional preferences are not "abilities" -- a PoLR person can be very good in mathematics (I've known a few), for instance. The real issue is which functions you use when you are at freedom to choose them, when you're not forced to use any particular one. And you can also make mistakes or be incompetent even in your base function.

[Expat]

I don't get why people are still giving this bozo the time of day

For the sake of the discussion itself -- it's not about him, as far as I am concerned.

[XoX]

I found this article on socionics.com: http://www.socionics.com/articles/howto.htm

At the bottom, I found this: "Unsure about being S or N -> you are Socionics XXXj"

That's just silly.

It is written by Ganin (INTj) and it seems he first writes about his idea and then simplifies it to two rules:

"So here it is all of the above simplified:

Unsure about being T or F -> you are Socionics XXXp
Unsure about being S or N -> you are Socionics XXXj"

That is a Ti way of simplifying information into clear and simple rules. Ezra you seem to react to Ti well Might suggest Quadra preference of Ti>Te.

[FDG]

Ganin has it wrong for perceiving subtypes of J types of course

[Expat]

Well, Ganin's -- logic -- is easy to follow, he's basically saying that you wouldn't mistake your base and role functions, but you might mistake your creative function and PoLR. That's the kind of blank simplistic rule of thumb that it's difficult to take seriously, not only due to subtypes as FDG said.

The truth is that, especially if you don't know the types and functions well enough, you may still get all sort of things wrong.

[Blaze]

It's very interesting and illuminating.

I mean, what is it about Se EPs (I'll settle on that for now) identifying with being ? It's not the first time, nor will it be the last, I guess.

i think there's something forceful about both Te and Se lead functions. they are both highly extraverted leader types.

[Expat]

i think there's something forceful about both Te and Se lead functions. they are both highly extraverted leader types.

Well yes, but I very much doubt that a Se leader would really want to be a TeNi leader (like Bill Gates).

I just want to be on the record, that on page 7 of The Other Thread about Ezra (you know the one) I posted this:

I predict you will mistype yourself, and then leave Socionics assuming that Socionics doesn't make sense, without ever considering that the problem is that you are mistyped.

Some ramblings on this --

That is one "problem" with Socionics, that it's only after intensively using it and discussing it and thinking about it for at least one year you really start to see the types around you and in yourself, so that you get to be even as "arrogant" as to dispute someone else's self-typing, even online. It's like learning a language; the problem is that others may think that they have mastered it when they haven't.

[discojoe]

It's very interesting and illuminating.

I mean, what is it about Se EPs (I'll settle on that for now) identifying with being ? It's not the first time, nor will it be the last, I guess.

Se is easily mistaken for Te by a lot of people, and vice versa, and the ESTp hidden agenda makes them think of themselves as being very intuitively perceptive. I think it really is that simple.

[discojoe]

Ganin has it wrong for perceiving subtypes of J types of course

Ganin had it wrong when he decided to interpret socionics.

[Ezra]

Did you ever read this? Two Important Steps to Make

Yes. Did you read my comment?

Yes, Expat directed me to this a week ago or so.

It's an interesting article. Pretty much clarifies the fundamental principle that any enthusiast of any personality system (be it Socionics, Enneagram, MBTI, Big 5 or any other one) should observe: we all use every function; there is simply an imbalance in our use of the functions, and the result is our type or personality.

I understand where you're coming from. In some ways it stands up more in the face of logic than my own argument does.

If you're wondering why I talk about dichotomies, it's because Phaedrus wanted me to clarify ENTj in terms of dichotomies as well as functions, which, as you'll see, I've talked about above that post. Essentially you should ask Phaedrus to read the article if you have a problem with thinking in terms of dichotomies.

[FDG]

Ganin has it wrong for perceiving subtypes of J types of course

Ganin had it wrong when he decided to interpret socionics.

[UDP]

How do we know what you are saying is true, Ezra?

I don't get why people are still giving this bozo the time of day

For the sake of the discussion itself -- it's not about him, as far as I am concerned.

Mhm... reminds me of a fortune cookie "Seek to answer unintelligent questions intelligently".

The only problem is that if Ezra is feeding you more hogwash, it will distort how socionics is interpreting the situation - what part are lies, what part is true, what part is inflated to present the desired image, and so on. Yet so long as you are clear about things in your head, it is just a matter of what evidence you are presented with, ultimately.

[Ezra]

Nobody's is perfect -- anyway, elsewhere you seemed pretty confident about it, so it's hard to take that too seriously.

Expat, show me some direct quotes of mine to prove this. Until you can do that, I see this statement as empty.

That is sloppy theoretical thinking -- in point of fact, is a sort of axis, just like , and .

Why? I have come to a logical conclusion. In what way is it "sloppy"?

That's not really a good way of looking at .

So now you're doubting the very foundations on which you stand? You claim to know Socionics, and yet I pulled this straight from Augusta's work - she is the founder of Socionics. Are you basing your ideas on her theory or not? Do you have a different theory? Please, explain to me Expat's theory of the functions.

Anyway, never mind -- if you think you're ENTj, one problem for Socionics is that I very much doubt that an ISFj would see you as their dual, or an INFj as their semi-dual.

Never mind what you doubt; it's what you know that counts when debating a point. You need to show concrete evidence for this, or, like the first point, I label your point bullshit.

[Ezra]

How do we know what you are saying is true, Ezra?

You don't. But why would I lie? If my objective is to know my type, anything that helps me reach this objective I cannot afford to shun. You help me reach it; through debate, analysis, and opinions. I was never lying to you. I don't lie.

[Expat]

Expat, show me some direct quotes of mine to prove this. Until you can do that, I see this statement as empty.

I pointed that out, in another thread, when you said that you can make people feel good etc - or something.

That's not really a good way of looking at .

So now you're doubting the very foundations on which you stand? You claim to know Socionics, and yet I pulled this straight from Augusta's work - she is the founder of Socionics. Are you basing your ideas on her theory or not? Do you have a different theory? Please, explain to me Expat's theory of the functions.

The thing is, someone with (never mind your type) could easily, very easily, identify with those wordings.

As for my own views (which are consistent with what Augusta said), if you want, take a look here:

oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=8984

Although some of them need upgrading, especially Si and Te.

Anyway, never mind -- if you think you're ENTj, one problem for Socionics is that I very much doubt that an ISFj would see you as their dual, or an INFj as their semi-dual.

Never mind what you doubt; it's what you know that counts when debating a point. You need to show concrete evidence for this, or, like the first point, I label your point bullshit.

Well, one piece of evidence is that Minde (INFj) could not see you as her dual, while ScarlettLux (INFp) could and she seems to be your biggest fan here. But all of that is indirect evidence.

And what I doubt is indeed important, and your labeling it bullshit, is not -- Ezra, what you don't seem to realize is that Socionics is indeed complicated, it's like learning a language. As most people here will confirm, it takes a year of intense thinking and discussion and reading to really start seeing the types around you and in yourself. Nobody is taking your comments seriously now, I should point this out to you, because it's clear that you think you understand things that you don't.

[Ezra]

Nobody is taking your comments seriously now, I should point this out to you, because it's clear that you think you understand things that you don't.

Try this: I am trying to understand things that I don't. Being told that I'm arrogant and that I speak bullshit is not going to help me understand. Rather, it just creates unnecessary obstacles that must be dealt with before I can move on to discovering my type.

Is it that hard to believe that someone can't grasp a system like Socionics in less than an intense year? Impossible? Perhaps you don't want to believe that someone could understand something so quickly. I've got a good grasp of the system already. And that's after a few weeks, like I said a few weeks ago: "I can grasp this in a few weeks". I am grasping it. I know I am, because I can work with it. Because I understand the functions. Of course my knowledge isn't as good as yours or any other Socionist's or Socionics enthusiast's is, but I am getting there, and I have confidence that I can learn more. Like the ESTp description goes:

"The end result. This is the only thing that interests him. All he needs to achieve the final result he considers to be his vested interests. He is a strong-willed, determined person."

[FDG]

You can grasp socionics but you can't recognize the types and relationships IRL simply because you don't have enough observations to match

[UDP]

How do we know what you are saying is true, Ezra?

You don't. But why would I lie? If my objective is to know my type, anything that helps me reach this objective I cannot afford to shun. You help me reach it; through debate, analysis, and opinions. I was never lying to you. I don't lie.

Oh, the beauty of rhetoric.

How I manage to get you to believe one thing by the way I speak.

I'd be a fucking brilliant lawyer.

[Khamelion]

Solution: Ezra goes to the next few socionics conventions and has some real interactions.

[Expat]

Try this: I am trying to understand things that I don't. Being told that I'm arrogant and that I speak bullshit is not going to help me understand. Rather, it just creates unnecessary obstacles that must be dealt with before I can move on to discovering my type.

What makes the discussion difficult is that you too often try to "stonewall" by saying "I am ExTx, forget the rest" or just now, "I am , don't dispute that" etc when it's clear that you don't really understand it well enough to take such firm positions.

Is it that hard to believe that someone can't grasp a system like Socionics in less than an intense year? Impossible? Perhaps you don't want to believe that someone could understand something so quickly. I've got a good grasp of the system already. And that's after a few weeks, like I said a few weeks ago: "I can grasp this in a few weeks". I am grasping it. I know I am, because I can work with it. Because I understand the functions. Of course my knowledge isn't as good as yours or any other Socionist's or Socionics enthusiast's is, but I am getting there, and I have confidence that I can learn more. Like the ESTp description goes:

"The end result. This is the only thing that interests him. All he needs to achieve the final result he considers to be his vested interests. He is a strong-willed, determined person."

Didn't you say you were ? So why are you mentioning the ESTp description?

And as FDG said, you can grasp the basics, but not really type people correctly.

[Mea]

Ezra. Nothing against you. But I suggest you learn more about socionics.
Also before deciding your type. There's no hurry is there?

[Ezra]

Ah no, there's no hurry.

I take all advice.

I came in like a nuke. It's time I started contributing to the rebuilding of the world.

[cracka]

lol, as if one 30+ page thread wasn't enough...lol