What type am I?

[Celeste]

People should not type other people or themselves based on the quadra descriptions on wikisocion.

But people should type themselves based on the Reinin dichotomies? LMFAO



I've only skimmed this thread, but ENTj seems most likely at this point.

Celeste, in understanding a type, it's absolutely essential to understand it's relationship with it's dual. Check out this thread: http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13635

Thank you for posting that link, it was extremely helpful.

The INFj dual description did not sound like something I could do. The Administrator sounded a lot like an friend of mine. We got along really well in high school, but once we were adults we got an apartment together, and almost right away we started arguing a lot. She had a certain way she wanted things and wasn't shy about telling me that I should keep things the way she wanted them, and it really annoyed me. After we weren't living together anymore we got along well again, but I would never want to live with her again. Also, the Humanist sounded much too nice, soft, and sensitive to be me.

Conversely, the ENTj dual description sounded like me, and also my husband too. I laughed a few times when I read it because some of the things it says are so familiar to me.

It sounds like I'm ENTj, but I still need to look at the website that Thunder mentioned.

[Smilingeyes]

Based on some of this, I'd say that ENTj isn't as likely as the type you suggested, INFj, but it seems like you're misunderstanding some of what I'm saying. I fear I've made myself sound more introverted than I actually am.

Fair enough.

People who have known me for a long time would describe me as an extrovert, and I think I am overall, but there are certain situations or certain periods when I feel introverted. I used to be a lot more extroverted, especially when I was in college. People would joke about how loud, bold, and direct I was. I've tried to tone it down since then because when I act like that there are always people who get mad at me or have a strong dislike for me. Usually I wouldn't care about that minority of people, but since almost all of my interactions with others are now directly related to my profession and financial future, I have to avoid coming off so strong.

Again, fair enough. And here's the first stronger piece of evidence I see that is harder to correlate to INxj than to ENTj. So this does increase the possibility in my mind as well. Is there any possibility that you could go to the specifics in the seven points that I addressed? Also, the descriptions by Meged & Ovcharov are quite good (of course they assume a lot about your partner as well.) Anyway, could you check the LII-ESE dual-partnership as well. Check if the Analyst is a possible way to see you in your partnership? http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=250718#250718

I'm also making a note that if you are ENTj, the information here gives more indication to me towards the idea of Te than Ni subtype.

Specifically I'm interested in what kind of people think you're strange and for what reasons?

What exactly do you do in a situation in which you get really angry at something?

Can you give some examples on what your long-term goals are like and what you do to achieve them?

Those are attempts to find more information on particular points in your description that could be understood in multiple ways.

Also. If you could answer a few multiple choice questions? :

Which one would be closer to your way of seeing things:

1.
a: Accumulated, generally accepted knowledge is more trustworthy and more important than your perception of things
b: Your perception of things is more trustworthy and important than accumulated, generally accepted knowledge

2.
c: You are someone who finds ways to do things well for the benefit of self and others (your activity is to enable, to speed things up)
d: You have a long-term vision of how you want things to be and you select things that you keep nearby in your life based on how capable they are in helping in fulfilling it (your activity is to maintain, to conserve a long-term goal)

3.
e: When you get angry you become passive, frustrated and signal to others that you want help in dealing with the cause of your annoyance
f: When you get angry you become active, quickly move to remove the cause of your annoyance

4.
g: You are better in dealing with certain easily definable knowledge
h: You are better in dealing with uncertain hard-to-characterize knowledge

I tried to formulate several others but most of them were open to misinterpretation one way or another. Anyway, at this point, you comparing personality type descriptions of the types: ENTj, INFj, INTj might also solve the problem of your type easily enough. Meged's descriptions are excellent. Stratiyevskaya's are quite good as well.
These are reasonably good threads:
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9001
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9094
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10572
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8966

[Expat]

Does this mean that I could be ENTj in classical Socionics and INFj in Smilingeye's version of Socionics?

*shrug* why not?

[Smilingeyes]

Does this mean that I could be ENTj in classical Socionics and INFj in Smilingeye's version of Socionics?

*shrug* why not?

Sure. Though even the existence of classical socionics is a bit of an illusion. There's no single agreed upon version of socionics anywhere and there's no two socionist's that type all people the same way.

[Phaedrus]

Does this mean that I could be ENTj in classical Socionics and INFj in Smilingeye's version of Socionics?

*shrug* why not?

Definitely not. Out of the question. Unless one of these two "versions" of Socionics is a totally incorrect, a completely false, or more accurately put, an almost insanely screwed theory of the types. That possibility seems to be extremely unlikely since they seem to reach the same typing results and agree on how to describe the observable differences between the 16 types.

[discojoe]

What the shit is this "smilingeyes version of socionics" bullfuck?

[Joy]

What the shit is this "smilingeyes version of socionics" bullfuck?

He types using Reinin dichotomies instead of functions. And he defines types by their Reinin dichotomies.

[discojoe]

What the shit is this "smilingeyes version of socionics" bullfuck?

He types using Reinin dichotomies instead of functions. And he defines types by their Reinin dichotomies.

Why?

[Joy]

What the shit is this "smilingeyes version of socionics" bullfuck?

He types using Reinin dichotomies instead of functions. And he defines types by their Reinin dichotomies.

Why?

Because "classical" Socionics doesn't make sense to him. Hence my earlier comment about how it's obviously not going to make sense to anyone who hasn't figured out their type (or at least their quadra values).

[Joy]

Does this mean that I could be ENTj in classical Socionics and INFj in Smilingeye's version of Socionics?

*shrug* why not?

Definitely not. Out of the question. Unless one of these two "versions" of Socionics is a totally incorrect, a completely false, or more accurately put, an almost insanely screwed theory of the types. That possibility seems to be extremely unlikely since they seem to reach the same typing results and agree on how to describe the observable differences between the 16 types.

but they don't, as seen in this thread

[Celeste]

Also, the descriptions by Meged & Ovcharov are quite good (of course they assume a lot about your partner as well.) Anyway, could you check the LII-ESE dual-partnership as well. Check if the Analyst is a possible way to see you in your partnership? http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=250718#250718

The Bonvivant sounds extremely tiresome, especially in regards to the emotional things the description mentioned. The Analyst sounds more patient and apathetic than I am. I don't lack initiative or drive.

Specifically I'm interested in what kind of people think you're strange and for what reasons?

Normal or average people think I'm strange. Normal people are people who talk about sports, local festivals, the season finale of whatever show is popular, cars, and other things that I find very boring. I talk about science a lot, giving scientific explanations for things they comment on. They may say, "Did you ever notice that... " and I'll explain the scientific reason for what they're describing. I don't focus on science very much in my life, but when I hear or read scientific reasons for things everyday, it is interesting to me and I remember it.

People also say I'm strange when I tell them stories of things I've done, think out loud about something I'm wondering about, explain theories I have, have to have certain things done a certain way, or rant about my irritation with something that most people don't think about.

What exactly do you do in a situation in which you get really angry at something?

Usually I just yell and throw or slam things. I don't yell people unless I'm extremely frustrated. When I do yell at someone it's usually my kids or sometimes my husband, and most of the time I apologize a few minutes later. I've said some pretty mean things to friends and coworkers when I was angry in the past, but I'd feel horrible later if they got upset, so now I don't let them see me mad.

Can you give some examples on what your long-term goals are like and what you do to achieve them?

How much time do you have?

I could talk about my long term goals and plans endlessly if someone was willing to listen, but most people don't like to hear it. My goals are mostly financial, and I think much, much bigger than most people do. I think about the distant future more than most people do, too. I love thinking and talking about where I'll be in 10, 20, and 50 years.

1.
a: Accumulated, generally accepted knowledge is more trustworthy and more important than your perception of things
b: Your perception of things is more trustworthy and important than accumulated, generally accepted knowledge

I don't like to use the word "trustworthy" when talking about knowledge. Knowledge is very important in order to be successful, but the fact that I believe something or you believe something or the masses believe something does not make it true. The value of knowledge does not lie is whose knowledge it is. It lies in its accuracy. I use whatever information makes the most sense to me at the time, but I am always open to the possibility that the information may be incorrect. While I enjoy acquiring knowledge, I don't consider any of it to be irrefutable.

2.
c: You are someone who finds ways to do things well for the benefit of self and others (your activity is to enable, to speed things up)
d: You have a long-term vision of how you want things to be and you select things that you keep nearby in your life based on how capable they are in helping in fulfilling it (your activity is to maintain, to conserve a long-term goal)

I don't understand c. What does speeding things up have to do with doing things for the benefit of self and others? I like to speed things up whenever possible, but I'll pick d because my career choices, my lifestyle, my large purchases, and other decisions are all made with my long term goals in mind.

3.
e: When you get angry you become passive, frustrated and signal to others that you want help in dealing with the cause of your annoyance
f: When you get angry you become active, quickly move to remove the cause of your annoyance

I don't like either choice. The cause of my irritation is usually that I don't want to do something that needs to be done. I don't become passive, but sometimes when I'm very frustrated I can't deal with it and if my husband is there he usually helps me fix it. If he's not there, depending on what it is, I may ignore it if it's not something that needs to be addressed right away. If I see something that's making it harder or take more time to do something I do want to do, I'll usually take care of it right away.

4.
g: You are better in dealing with certain easily definable knowledge
h: You are better in dealing with uncertain hard-to-characterize knowledge

g, not because it's simpler, but because it's easier to make use of

I tried to formulate several others but most of them were open to misinterpretation one way or another. Anyway, at this point, you comparing personality type descriptions of the types: ENTj, INFj, INTj might also solve the problem of your type easily enough. Meged's descriptions are excellent. Stratiyevskaya's are quite good as well.
These are reasonably good threads:
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9001
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9094
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10572
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8966

Some of those are pretty long. I may read them, but based on the dual descriptions of ENTj, INFj, and INTj I can say with confidence that I'm not INFj or INTj, and the ENTj dual description was very appealing to me. If the dual descriptions are wrong I could be INFj or INTj, but they would have to be very far off base.

Eunice, do you find the INFj dual description appealing?

[Celeste]

People should not type other people or themselves based on the quadra descriptions on wikisocion.

Why not?

ENTjs stand out. They're quite capable of pushing their opinions into whatever conversation regardless of what knowledge they have or whatever their personal relation to the issue. Their whole behaviour model is about maintaining central position regarding the group so as to be able to make sure the parts of the group work as they're supposed to. ENTjs are also known for being very inappropriate in a group setting, rowdiness and generally disregarding social norms. When they talk, they talk as if they were addressing the whole of society, not an individual. ENTjs do NOT "try to smile and chuckle when people are telling stories" Such behaviour compromises their social standing, it's not their job to please people but to guide people. So if you are ENTj, there's something strange here and I'd like to find out what

3.
In a way that's correct. I don't mind approaching people and starting conversations with them, but in order for a person to become an actual friend, they usually have to invite me to do something with them. I rarely ask anyone, even someone who I get along with extremely well, do something outside of work or class.

ENTjs don't really have friends more than associates, people to network with. They act in generally correct ways independent of their personal relation with another. If there's a strong personal aspect to your relation with people, that's a definition of Fi. So again, here's a problem..

I answered this part in the other post with this quote.

4. Yes. I'm not lazy, but I do try not to waste my time or effort. There's a lot I aim to accomplish during my lifetime, so I prefer to put my time and energy into the things that have the maximum long term benefit. Direction is important. If I fussed over unnecessary things, it would take me much longer to accomplish my goals. I would probably wouldn't accomplish most of them at all. The saying "Don't work hard, work smart" summarizes my point of view very well.

This defines you as xNxJ. But your choice of words "Don't work hard" is basically the Si-Ne quadra way to state this. When I used Ni, I framed it "It's just smart to take advantage of the works of others." The difference is whether you have a specific idea you plan for (Ne) or whether you maximize your capability to make use of the works of others (Ni).

I do both. I don't see it as taking advantage of the work of others though. I believe that business interactions should be win-win.

5.

I don't really know. Sad Sometimes I just don't feel like talking. I'll still talk to my family, but I don't check my email, voice mail, or make business calls. I even try to avoid going places where I may run into someone I know, but chances are good if I don't feel like talking, I also won't want to go anywhere either, even if I won't have to talk to anyone.

I've tried to explain this to some people, but when I tell them that I sometimes try to avoid leaving the house, talking to people, or doing anything, sometimes they suggest that I might have depression, bipolar, or cyclothymia. I've looked them up, and I don't have any of those conditions.

This again to me makes more sense if you're IJ than if you're EJ but under specific circumstances I could see an EJ do this as well. Just... EJs tend to withdraw due to a specific insurmountable reason. IJs tend to withdraw for the accumulation of a wide variety of reasons.

When I'm like that, it's because I'm too tired to do the things I want to be doing. There are a lot of times when I get a lot done in much less time than it would take most people. Overall I'm doing well for my age, if you look at where I'm at with accomplishing my long term goals.

6. The description of Te in the Te views thread is pretty damn generic. You suggesting you like it is of course evidence towards the idea of you being ENTj, but very very weak.

Do you know of a better description of Te?

7. "most of the people who get to know me say that I'm unusual or strange or something like that. "
People who are in gamma do a lot of work to seem normal and acceptable in the general population. To be 'unusual' or 'strange' would be a significant drawback except when the words are used in an expressly positive context as in extraordinary. Deltas and Alphas tend to deviate from normalcy. So if you are strange and you're gamma, and more to the point if you can accept yourself as strange, there's something... odd ... in the situation.

I didn't get that impression from what I've read so far. When I read the descriptions of Gamma, Delta, Alpha, and Beta it seemed like Delta was the most "normal and acceptable" of any of them.

Of all the talk you've given of your group behaviour I get the idea that you are loud, "extrovert" and social with people with whom you have been able to form a personal connection and otherwise, with stranger, not loud at all, but quiet. If you feel this is accurate, you are more likely to be INFj.

If on the other hand you are generally social with whomever you meet and try to draw attention on yourself and withdraw when either everything is going along as you want it to or there's a specific problem you have to fix, you're more likely to be ENTj.

Neither of these describes me very well.

Okay... so if you find out at some point that you're ENTj I'd really appreciate it if you could clarify these points to me on how and why you said such things, because I'd like to understand it.

I do think I'm ENTj, so far. I could answer some of your questions with more specific details, but I would want to talk in private messages or email for that.

[Phaedrus]

People should not type other people or themselves based on the quadra descriptions on wikisocion.

Why not?

Because they too often lead to incorrect typings. The quadras makes sense when you have found your correct type, and they might add something to your understanding of your type, but they should never be used as an important typing method, because they are misleading, especially to newcomers.

[Smilingeyes]

Reviewing this...

The explanations you gave, Celeste. ... There's a lot more ENTj in them now. At this point I think that the evidence is strongest for ENTj-Te.

Now I have to stress the matter _at this point_. Since I can also perfectly well see why Eunice sees herself in you. Thank you for helping me with your answers. The case for ENTj is made by the wealth of circumstantial evidence, all rather weak in itself, but the collection of it, somewhat convincing. Also the clarifications you gave remove most of the problems I had with the idea.

If anyone is interested about why I find IJ-Ne still possible, pm me. I have no reason to talk more about it otherwise.

And Phaedrus is entirely correct with his previous post.

[eunice]

Eunice, do you find the INFj dual description appealing?

I will never know whether it is appealing until I try it out, but I once wrote a description of how I want my ideal partner be like, and everyone thinks that I'm describing an ESTj-Si:
[spoil:8707edcd57]

He must be intelligent, strategic, rational, confident, outgoing, athletic, idealistic, kind, compassionate, ambitious, driven, a good listener, decisive, hardworking, interesting, a good conversationalist, a loyal friend, have a love for fantasy and sci-fic movies and books and yet is a practical person at the same time. He must also be someone who has dreams and goals and lead a life full of purpose.

He has to be someone I can depend on to protect me and is a romantic person. When I mean romantic, I don't mean giving me flowers, saying sweet-for-nothings, and saying "I love you"s. I prefer him to show me love through gestures such as cooking my favorite dish, taking care of me when I'm not feeling well, buying a back cushion for me when I complain that my seat is too hard and be alert and attentive to my needs.

I don't like someone who smiles 24/7 for the sake of smiling, but someone who smiles only when the occasion calls for it. And when he does smile, it will be a sincere rather than awkward one. He must also have the ability to laugh at himself sometimes and not be too conscious about what ppl think or say about him. Moreover, he must be someone who is opinionated but tactful. He must also be someone who is not afraid of saying "no".

He must also like to play board games like Monopoly and Risk (I used to play it frequently when I was younger. Too bad I can't find others who know how to play this game these days. Kind of lost touch with it. ) and should not try to lose to me just to let me win. He must also be someone who has the ability to drag me to the gym whenever I feel lazy to work out and be there to motivate me when I'm slacking.

[/spoil:8707edcd57]

[Joy]

Ezra, this topic is about my type. Other than saying "husband" instead of "boyfriend" and "kids" instead of "kid", it's all true and is the most balanced and accurate description of me I could write. I had help with it from some people who know me irl, too. I had them read it and tell me if I was missing anything and if it was an accurate representation of who I am (I wanted to make sure my knowledge of Socionics hadn't skewed my judgment when writing a description of myself).

And no, I didn't post this thread because I was unsure of my type. I was curious as to whether the forum would type to me differently if they didn't know who I was. I also wanted to "test" the forum and its members to see what kind of responses they'd come up with. I think the most interesting and unexpected response was Eunice's.

[Ezra]

Joy, that's all very good, but I don't understand how you can possibly think you're an 8 based on any of this.

[Minde]

Hm. Interesting...

[Joy]

Joy, that's all very good, but I don't understand how you can possibly think you're an 8 based on any of this.

I didn't bump this thread and tell everyone that I was Celeste so we could debate my enneagram type. We've had a handful of very in depth conversations about my enneagram type in PMs, and each time you asked me a bunch of questions, I answered them, and you said at the end that you think I'm an 8.

I bumped this thread because you asked to be linked to a discussion about my Socionics type.

[Ezra]

I didn't bump this thread and tell everyone that I was Celeste so we could debate my enneagram type. We've had a handful of very in depth conversations about my enneagram type in PMs, and each time you asked me a bunch of questions, I answered them, and you said at the end that you think I'm an 8.

I bumped this thread because you asked to be linked to a discussion about my Socionics type.

But it seems like you can just pick and choose to be who you want to be on a whim. That's not something I deal with. It's something I feel a need to change.

[Joy]

I don't know what you're referring to.