What is my Type?

[Nexus]

how can it be tested though. in any case, i indeed can see LSI working. my understanding of ILE is very poor, but you seem to be one or the other really. not LII imo, LIE is more likely, but still too distant imo.

Is there a reason for implicating intuition in my ego block? ILE is my supervisor, I have known quite a few of them in my time and they make great company; they are very pleasant, sociable, and idea-oriented people. I often might come off as extroverted and LSIs are typically known to do that, however I am usually taxed for it and my rate of fatigue increases exponentially with the amount of people that interact with me: Many ISTjs find it quite easy to interact with strangers and considering that they are introverts can feel quite close to someone even after a relatively short amount of contact. They often have a large compendium of jokes and anecdotes. Males often use this arsenal to charm females, usually behaving very gallantly, successfully playing role of the gentleman. They are often the life and soul of the party. They enjoy singing with little more than a guitar for accompaniment and often in a romantic style.

[Nexus]

whatever really. it'll hopefully clarify to me later if ever. you are identical to some people i've seen though. all i can say about them is that they are T and possibly I and N<S, also P>J. judging by one of them: T, foresight, obstinate, so LII or ILI. imo ILI>>LII. don't take this analysis too seriously please.

Very well.

[Nexus]

nah

I have reconsidered what you said, and although I do consider myself to be much closer to ENTp than to either INTp or INTj and though I do fit much of the description (probably more so when I was younger), i.e. finding new solutions, checking variables for interdependence, examining synergistic phenomena, etc, I am much more focused on efficiently generating, optimizing, and regulating internal structure; it gives my life a meaning that does not get lost in idle perception-filtration or the otherwise quite subjective and often self-contradicting realm of arbitrary relative value, which is consistent only its own inconsistency: I consider creative extensions to be independently worthless without an already-optimized basis requiring novel support. I do however have a pretty good use of Ne, which I use to envision experiments that would allow me to optimally test my theories, but I excel in the actual Se of experimentation, making sure that the details of every process are primed to exacting standards while reaping the greatest rewards in real-time using actual sensory feedback. When I catch a lighter, I calculate not just the velocity and angle, but also the angular momentum so that I know whether I should forcefully engage the lighter or simply allow it to drop into my hand (without making it bounce back out). When I see a bike descending a hill I imagine exactly where and how strongly I would have to apply pressure on the front tire to either make the vehicle either stop completely or even flip forward. I tend to value Ni more than Ne, b/c I solemnly believe that everything has some degree of interconnecting Ne value in practically every imaginable application anyway and so I am sometimes slow to recognize the exact individual imbalance in any particular thing. However, my Ni concept of time is always experientially confirmed and also self-organizing, so I am very inclined to trust it and I find it much more familiar and less risky than a Bayesian taxonomy of novel phenomena. I have always personally been quite astonished to find that such a large repertoire of unique and useful chemical properties has been documented, and I am even more amazed that these properties have been individually distinguished and characterized in so many substances, prior even to the age of modern science. I will usually prefer to understand a limited, fundamental set of actions and processes that can be traced to the actions of spatio-temporal displacements and their subsequent developments in time; this is why I find modern physics disconcerting though the concepts of classical physics are so agreeable to me. I prefer to discover the complexity that manifests from the combination of a few simplistic elements rather than catalog the simple properties spontaneously emerging from a jumble of ill-defined interactions. Though I do like to reflect, I prefer to try to apply what I have learned at all times, otherwise I must consider it a waste. This includes assimilating the rest of my knowledge to make it internally consistent and less anomalous. I also love to understand what is happening whenever I learn a new heuristic; I ultimately need to derive my own holistic formulation every time rather than memorize a formula, so that I can adapt to every unique circumstance. For this reason I also love logical proofs.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Nexus]

...and you say you're sensing! how do you valuate Ne and Ni as an ISTJ again? with your powerful Super-Ego block or the strong Super-Id? i think so much speculations on these forums (and some other sources) about how the weak functions come from behind and beat the sh** out the Ego functions brought you into error and you forgot the basics of Socionics: those blocks are weaknesses.

me too, welcome into the NT boat.

There are as many ST experimentalists as NT theorists; intuition is concerned with having many possibilities, some of which might contradict sensory reality in the local present. It is a mistake to think that only NTs like derivations; I don't value N very much at all, I only use it to check the implications of my assumptions (which I formulate with Ti). I cannot help that I do not own physical resources that are as useful to my thought as my own abstract concepts, but this hardly makes me intuitive by nature. I actually prefer to contact and examine the object of consideration while I contemplate its significance, such that I am not misled by my own initial perceptions. Even when I must think in isolation I do not stray from the actual properties of the objects of contemplation and I do not rely on intuitive expectations or hunches unless they are in line with my memory of personal experience or sensory data. I abhor the use of intuition for its own sake, which only serves to distract me by aggregating irrelevant nonsense when I am trying to consolidate my ideas at some later time.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Phaedrus]

I have reconsidered what you said, and although I do consider myself to be much closer to ENTp than to either INTp or INTj and though I do fit much of the description (probably more so when I was younger), i.e. finding new solutions, checking variables for interdependence, examining synergistic phenomena, etc, I am much more focused on efficiently generating, optimizing, and regulating internal structure; it gives my life a meaning that does not get lost in idle perception-filtration or the otherwise quite subjective and often self-contradicting realm of arbitrary relative value, which is consistent only its own inconsistency: I consider creative extensions to be independently worthless without an already-optimized basis requiring novel support.

That's just totally ridiculous. If you are an ISTj, you are about as far away from ENTp as you possibly can. You fit nothing of the ENTp descriptions if you are an ISTj. This means, of course, that there's something seriously wrong with your understanding of the types involved here. Which also means that your claim that you are an ISTj cannot be taken seriously. Your judgment on which your correct type is is definitely not trustworthy at this point. That conclusion is inevitable from what you say here.

I do however have a pretty good use of Ne, which I use to envision experiments that would allow me to optimally test my theories, but I excel in the actual Se of experimentation, making sure that the details of every process are primed to exacting standards while reaping the greatest rewards in real-time using actual sensory feedback. When I catch a lighter, I calculate not just the velocity and angle, but also the angular momentum so that I know whether I should forcefully engage the lighter or simply allow it to drop into my hand (without making it bounce back out). When I see a bike descending a hill I imagine exactly where and how strongly I would have to apply pressure on the front tire to either make the vehicle either stop completely or even flip forward. I tend to value Ni more than Ne, b/c I solemnly believe that everything has some degree of interconnecting Ne value in practically every imaginable application anyway and so I am sometimes slow to recognize the exact individual imbalance in any particular thing. However, my Ni concept of time is always experientially confirmed and also self-organizing, so I am very inclined to trust it and I find it much more familiar and less risky than a Bayesian taxonomy of novel phenomena. I have always personally been quite astonished to find that such a large repertoire of unique and useful chemical properties has been documented, and I am even more amazed that these properties have been individually distinguished and characterized in so many substances, prior even to the age of modern science. I will usually prefer to understand a limited, fundamental set of actions and processes that can be traced to the actions of spatio-temporal displacements and their subsequent developments in time; this is why I find modern physics disconcerting though the concepts of classical physics are so agreeable to me. I prefer to discover the complexity that manifests from the combination of a few simplistic elements rather than catalog the simple properties spontaneously emerging from a jumble of ill-defined interactions. Though I do like to reflect, I prefer to try to apply what I have learned at all times, otherwise I must consider it a waste. This includes assimilating the rest of my knowledge to make it internally consistent and less anomalous. I also love to understand what is happening whenever I learn a new heuristic; I ultimately need to derive my own holistic formulation every time rather than memorize a formula, so that I can adapt to every unique circumstance. For this reason I also love logical proofs.

All of this suggests that you are not an ISTj and suggests that you are an INTj as I have said all along. We are back where we started. All of your arguments for ISTj must be viewed with the utmost skepticism, and you have to restart your typing process. You just have to accept that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to which type you really are.

[Nexus]

i agree but they use them far more often than the sensing types.

Not necessarily; sensors tend to be more hands-on and rigorous with regard to specific projects rather than general applications, but that doesn't mean that they can get by without understanding what they are doing and the procedures that they use.

right now you're overusing your intuition, the exact opposite of what you say! it is excusable now because typing is not something touchable, and i don't blame you (as i don't blame any mistyper) but i'm trying to open your eyes. intuition means usually making connections between objects qualities, they are not prejudgments at all. expectations maybe, but in connection with previous experiences. the way you described the intuitives create the impression they are far too disconnected from reality and by this you make me think you are now a bit disconnected (a strong clue for me) and, lost in ideas, you forgot most people can make the difference between the smell of roses and the smell of hyacinths, sensing or not .

I myself am not an inventor, and most of the patent ideas I have had are usually at least 2 years behind. The description that you quoted was an extreme example that shows that if necessary I will try to use intuition to jog my memory or produce ideas, but I am less likely to rely on them unless I am absolutely sure that they are correct. That everyone senses and makes connections is not relevant. Is an ISFp who becomes deaf and blind supposed to be considered suddenly intuitive? Ultimately how you respond and manipulate S and N will determine which type you are, not whether you have the function.

ISTJs are not idea-oriented people and in my experience i never saw one appreciating a pioneer for this (only when the ideas were praised by the regulators and put into practice). actually the ISTJs are suspicious about the new ideas and consider them dangerous, they are especially skeptic about ENTPs and ENFPs who usually become notorious for the most unexpected solutions and they never accept those solutions without further reassurances.
this, of course, doesn't apply in the Supervision relationship (meaning when the ENTP is the idea-guy) ONLY when the Supervisor is put in charge. in this case the ISTJ Supervisee is discharged by default of the responsibility and actively participates in implementing these solutions.

I can see merit in generating ideas, but I am very skeptical of implementing them unless there is a conspicuous need for a new idea to be implemented. If I do implement it, I will have to first obtain such a detailed analysis of the new idea and its implications that by the time I am finished it will no longer seem new and there will be little left to doubt.

[Nexus]

That's just totally ridiculous. If you are an ISTj, you are about as far away from ENTp as you possibly can. You fit nothing of the ENTp descriptions if you are an ISTj. This means, of course, that there's something seriously wrong with your understanding of the types involved here. Which also means that your claim that you are an ISTj cannot be taken seriously. Your judgment on which your correct type is is definitely not trustworthy at this point. That conclusion is inevitable from what you say here.

All of this suggests that you are not an ISTj and suggests that you are an INTj as I have said all along. We are back where we started. All of your arguments for ISTj must be viewed with the utmost skepticism, and you have to restart your typing process. You just have to accept that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to which type you really are.

You misunderstand -

the point of that post was to explain why I am not ENTp to someone who thought that I was.

[Phaedrus]

You misunderstand -

the point of that post was to explain why I am not ENTp to someone who thought that I was.

No, I don't think that I misunderstood. If you claim that you "consider myself to be much closer to ENTp than to either INTp or INTj", then you are either lying or wrong about your type. Since I don't believe that you are lying, I have to assume that you have misunderstood the types. Either way you are misrepresenting the truth.

If you really are more like an ENTp than like an INTj or an INTp, then that proves that you are not an ISTj. If you are an ISTj you are of course much more like an INTj than like an ENTp. And basically, ephemeros's objections are valid and sound. So you can't escape the fact that your arguments for ISTj have fallen apart.

[Nexus]

No, I don't think that I misunderstood. If you claim that you "consider myself to be much closer to ENTp than to either INTp or INTj", then you are either lying or wrong about your type. Since I don't believe that you are lying, I have to assume that you have misunderstood the types. Either way you are misrepresenting the truth.

If you really are more like an ENTp than like an INTj or an INTp, then that proves that you are not an ISTj. If you are an ISTj you are of course much more like an INTj than like an ENTp. And basically, ephemeros's objections are valid and sound. So you can't escape the fact that your arguments for ISTj have fallen apart.

I think that you have both misinterpreted what I said. When I am experimenting, I put Ne before Ti b/c the point of the experiment is to discover where and how my Ti is lacking. That's it.

*Large-scale experimentation and theorization is a relatively new development for me...I was not even interested in science until late in high school. I am far more comfortable organizing and implementing what I understand than characterizing and discovering what I don't, but as I have matured I have found the discrepancies and anomalies to be far more intriguing and inspiring.

[Phaedrus]

I think that you have both misinterpreted what I said. When I am experimenting, I put Ne before Ti b/c the point of the experiment is to discover where and how my Ti is lacking. That's it.

No. You have misunderstood the nature of your type.

[Ezra]

If you would like to know my personal opinions about any of the socionics concepts (which, to be honest, I really doubt you do), just ask.

LSI Premise #1: I fit all 15 LSI Reinin traits

Where did you learn about them?

[...] all of my intertype relations make sense from the perspective of LSI.

How many relations and of what kind are we looking at here? How well do you know these people?

The logical subtype of ISTj describes me more accurately than any other type or subtype in socionics.

What is it about the LSI-Ti description that you identify with? What are your sources?

I am also more comfortable with LSI functions - I never abandon my Se but I only use it when I know that Ti is not contextually valuable.

LSIs tend to use Se as much as they do Ti. As I stated in another thread, I read that creative functions are more consciously evident to the type, as they use their base function so automatically that they rarely if ever question their nature. In your case (if you are an LSI), Se will be more evident to you than Ti.

I hate that Gammas and Deltas take their relationships as black-and-white and so personally as to be egotistical, and do not value their acquaintances or community as much as Beta. Alpha relations seem too idealistic and often less real than dream-like in my opinion, so they depress me somewhat.

As a general comment, these are very charged, biased statements, and I'm sure the other quadras would have something to say about them.

Ni as my mobilizing function totally explains why most of the people who were absolutely certain that I was ILI are also no longer in any significant contact with me.

How?

And while I try to be resourceful, I am often totally oblivious to the value of things around me as per Ne because I am almost always absorbed in some type of abstract structure for which they have no use.

This sounds to me like more of a case against Se creative. LSIs aren't interested in abstractions; they are interested in practical benefit.

However, I am curious as to what you mean by "the value of things around" you.

I won't say anything else except the fact that I think a lot of what you say isn't exclusive to LSI.

[FDG]

LSIs tend to use Se as much as they do Ti.

That's generally false. An LSI is still a Ti dominant type.

[Nexus]

If you would like to know my personal opinions about any of the socionics concepts (which, to be honest, I really doubt you do), just ask.

Where did you learn about them?

How many relations and of what kind are we looking at here? How well do you know these people?

What is it about the LSI-Ti description that you identify with? What are your sources?

LSIs tend to use Se as much as they do Ti. As I stated in another thread, I read that creative functions are more consciously evident to the type, as they use their base function so automatically that they rarely if ever question their nature. In your case (if you are an LSI), Se will be more evident to you than Ti.

As a general comment, these are very charged, biased statements, and I'm sure the other quadras would have something to say about them.

How?

This sounds to me like more of a case against Se creative. LSIs aren't interested in abstractions; they are interested in practical benefit.

However, I am curious as to what you mean by "the value of things around" you.

I won't say anything else except the fact that I think a lot of what you say isn't exclusive to LSI.

Thank you for going through the trouble of reading that. I studied the Reinin traits myself for a very long time, even before I registered at the16types.info; the relations to which I refer include all of the NTs, of which I know many, as well as my Quadra relations: mirror, identical, activity, and dual, and the others to a smaller extent. I had come into immediate conflicts most often with my quasi and conflictor, even before I knew my type, which is arguably justified. Everything about the LSI-Ti description fits me, it is as though it was written for me - I am my own source but I am sure that others would vouch for me. I consider intuition a pure delusion until it is realized, and even then it is only an inspiration and not actual foresight. Se is very evident to me, I am always aware of what I am doing b/c the execution of my plans is as important as any other element. That the quadra values seem biased may be the case, but it is something that I have observed myself and it agrees directly with the 'official' quadra descriptions. When I use my Ni, I often come off as somewhat of a quack, and I become somewhat oblivious to the true nature of things surrounding me. For this reason I have been associated with an absent-minded ILI and Fe PoLR, especially while exploring the functions under the impression that I was indeed an NT type; however, I do not identify with INTp specifically or IP generally. Abstract does not mean impractical, it means not necessarily present independently of the mind; thinking of a substance as propellant when its quantity is being measured is an abstract concept in itself because it is the substance that is immediately sensed and not its properties, but it is not considered impractical to understand the significance of the fuel level. By the statement 'I am often totally oblivious to the value of things around me as per Ne' I mean non-traditional, creatively inspired value. I realize that a television is good for watching when I see it, but I do not immediately notice that I can dissemble it and use the pieces to monitor electromagnetic disturbances from an approaching thunderstorm.

[Phaedrus]

When I use my Ni, I often come off as somewhat of a quack, and I become somewhat oblivious to the true nature of things surrounding me. For this reason I have been associated with an absent-minded ILI and Fe PoLR, especially while exploring the functions under the impression that I was indeed an NT type; however, I do not identify with INTp specifically or IP generally.

An LSI can never ever be perceived as absent-minded.

[Nexus]

An LSI can never ever be perceived as absent-minded.

He can if he is under the impression that he is an intuitive type.

[Phaedrus]

He can if he is under the impression that he is an intuitive type.

No, he can't. You don't know what you are talking about, and that's very, very irritating. I thought you had made some serious progress in understanding the types, but you haven't. You are still a beginner with a rudimentary and insufficient understanding of Socionics and the types. You really have to study the types more and not jump to conclusions as fast as you have done so far.

[Nexus]

No, he can't. You don't know what you are talking about, and that's very, very irritating. I thought you had made some serious progress in understanding the types, but you haven't. You are still a beginner with a rudimentary and insufficient understanding of Socionics and the types. You really have to study the types more and not jump to conclusions as fast as you have done so far.

Well I am not absent-minded if that is your point. I was merely suggesting that I may have given that impression, reinforcing the ILI disposition in the minds of those who were already confident that I was Ni-leading. However, I nearly always make lists of things that I have to do, which is perfectly in line with my mobilizing function (and I have mentioned this before; sometimes I try to memorize the list with a mnemonic if paper isn't available):
6. Introverted Intuition

LSIs often keep dense notes to remind them of their future engagements, as well as directions as to how to do complex tasks. Lateness and incorrectness are almost taboo for the LSI, and to err in these ways can make the LSI unhappy with whoever has transgressed, even with themselves.

[Phaedrus]

Well I am not absent-minded if that is your point. I was merely suggesting that I may have given that impression, reinforcing the ILI disposition in the minds of those who were already confident that I was Ni-leading.

If you are referring to people on these forums, they have no say in the matter -- unless they have met you in person in real life. It is of course totally impossible to determine whether a person is absent-minded or not over the Internet.

However, I nearly always make lists of things that I have to do, which is perfectly in line with my mobilizing function (and I have mentioned this before; sometimes I try to memorize the list with a mnemonic if paper isn't available):
6. Introverted Intuition

LSIs often keep dense notes to remind them of their future engagements, as well as directions as to how to do complex tasks. Lateness and incorrectness are almost taboo for the LSI, and to err in these ways can make the LSI unhappy with whoever has transgressed, even with themselves.

As I hope you know, making lists of things to do is a general J trait that indicates rationality. Making lists is a phenomenon that may occasionally be seen in some irrational types as well, but it comes much more natural to rational types. However, it is not an argument for ISTj any more than it is an argument for INTj. Both these two types are prone to make lists of things to do.

[Nexus]

If you are referring to people on these forums, they have no say in the matter -- unless they have met you in person in real life. It is of course totally impossible to determine whether a person is absent-minded or not over the Internet.

As I hope you know, making lists of things to do is a general J trait that indicates rationality. Making lists is a phenomenon that may occasionally be seen in some irrational types as well, but it comes much more natural to rational types. However, it is not an argument for ISTj any more than it is an argument for INTj. Both these two types are prone to make lists of things to do.

If I was absent-mined, I would eventually know b/c I would have forgotten to do important things and this rarely happens to me. Sensing always makes me emotionally much more content than intuiting because I have suffered so many liabilities due to to the influence and cost of primarily using intuition in the past (like predisposition and oblivion, etc). To me my intuition represents an idealized version of myself, which I know I cannot trust nor satisfy when something important is happening (perhaps N-types have better luck); that is why I choose to depend on my more stable and consistent functions when I am awake, S and T, which are less ambiguous than F and N. I know that success requires grabbing the right opportunity when it comes, and that is why I am always either contemplating rationally or actively searching. Though I may seem intuitive, I do not rely so much on associated probabilities as much as logical absolutes, the latter being rather typical of all thinking types. If there is something indeterminable rather than using trial and error I prefer to exert as much control over it as I can without perturbing it in order to accumulate data; this method works very well in cases where the implications of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle are negligible.

I also fit LSI perfectly with regard to Quadras, Clubs, Temperaments, Stimuli, Argumentation, Gulenko’s Erotic Attitudes, Gulenko’s Communication Skills, Stern’s Learning Skills, and Kretschmer’s Special Dispositions as demystified @ http://socionicsdemystified.wordpress.com/small-groups/

[Phaedrus]

If I was absent-mined, I would eventually know b/c I would have forgotten to do important things and this rarely happens to me.

Because you are a rational type. Only some irrational types can correctly be described as absent-minded. For example, an LII is not absent-minded either.

Sensing always makes me emotionally much more content than intuiting because I have suffered so many liabilities due to to the influence and cost of primarily using intuition in the past (like predisposition and oblivion, etc).

This argument is far from convincing. An LSI would not have tried to use intuition in the first place.

To me my intuition represents an idealized version of myself, which I know I cannot trust nor satisfy when something important is happening (perhaps N-types have better luck); that is why I choose to depend on my more stable and consistent functions when I am awake, S and T, which are less ambiguous than F and N.

If intuition represents an idealized version of yourself, then you are not an LSI.

Though I may seem intuitive, I do not rely so much on associated probabilities as much as logical absolutes, the latter being rather typical of all thinking types.

If you may seem intuitive, then you are not an LSI. And LSIs don't rely on "logical absolutes". Certainly not. It is obvious that you have an incorrect understanding of the LSI type.

If there is something indeterminable rather than using trial and error I prefer to exert as much control over it as I can without perturbing it in order to accumulate data; this method works very well in cases where the implications of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle are negligible.

The way you express your thoughts strongly suggests that you are not an LSI.

I also fit LSI perfectly with regard to Quadras, Clubs, Temperaments, Stimuli, Argumentation, Gulenko’s Erotic Attitudes, Gulenko’s Communication Skills, Stern’s Learning Skills, and Kretschmer’s Special Dispositions as demystified @ http://socionicsdemystified.wordpress.com/small-groups/

The "temperaments" mentioned on that site are just bullshit, because the types grouped together have nothing important in common.

[Nexus]

Because you are a rational type. Only some irrational types can correctly be described as absent-minded. For example, an LII is not absent-minded either.

So we agree at least on my temperament. My perceiving function is of little consequence b/c of the strength of my subtype, but I do identify more with sensors.

This argument is far from convincing. An LSI would not have tried to use intuition in the first place.

Everyone uses their weak functions a little. Surely you have your reasons for valuing Ni over Si, even if in the form of some conditioned experiential response.

If intuition represents an idealized version of yourself, then you are not an LSI.

Maybe I didn't convey that correctly; value is unattainable to me from intuition; I am self-actualized without it. When I try to surpass this state of idiosyncratic supremacy by developing intuition, I fail to satisfy even my most basic standards. This supposedly implied potential for idealization involves simultaneously some superhuman usage of intuition, but is actually only a fantasy with no practical personal worth and I realize that now. It is a struggle long past, but I remember it vividly.

If you may seem intuitive, then you are not an LSI. And LSIs don't rely on "logical absolutes". Certainly not. It is obvious that you have an incorrect understanding of the LSI type.

How so?

The way you express your thoughts strongly suggests that you are not an LSI.

I actually see this as a preference for Se.

The "temperaments" mentioned on that site are just bullshit, because the types grouped together have nothing important in common.

Perhaps, perhaps not. At least four of them are quite common in classical socionics.

[Phaedrus]

So we agree at least on my temperament.

I have been sure from the start that you are IJ. You, on the other hand, have thought that you were IP for a while, which of course is ridiculous. If you by the four "temperaments" mean EJ, IJ, EP, and IP, then of course we agree that you have an IJ temperament. But I am not yet convinced that you are a Guardian and thus have an SJ temperament in Keirsey's model. I am clearly a Rational NT myself, and that would be your temperament as well if you were an INTj.

My perceiving function is of little consequence b/c of the strength of my subtype, but I do identify more with sensors.

Your perceiving function is of the utmost importance here. Don't fool yourself into believing anything else.

How so?

The LSI is probably the least intuitive of all types.

I actually see this as a preference for Se.

But it is not. The way you express yourself is definitely not a preference for Se. It is a preference for Ti.

Perhaps, perhaps not. At least four of them are quite common in classical socionics.

No. The groupings on that site called "temperaments" are not commonly called that in classical Socionics, and we should never group the types that way. That grouping has nothing to do with real temperaments.

[Nexus]

The LSI is probably the least intuitive of all types.

I identify strongly with Ne PoLR.

[Nexus]

don't stress yourself out, Huitz, Phaedrus is as obstinate in reasoning/facts as, well, use your imagination.

I wish I had one. I find it hard to imagine what that would be like.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

don't stress yourself out, Huitz, Phaedrus is as obstinate in reasoning/facts as, well, use your imagination.

Dee....think about that for a minute.

[Nexus]

I'm going to go with very, very obstinate! A little dry, but direct and to-the-point.

[Phaedrus]

I identify strongly with Ne PoLR.

And what exactly is Ne PoLR according to you and how does it manifest itself in your behaviour, or what description of Ne PoLR have you read and identified with?

[Logos]

For example, an LII is not absent-minded either.

A dubious claim.

[Brilliand]

don't stress yourself out, Huitz, Phaedrus is as obstinate in reasoning/facts as, well, use your imagination.

Try "as an infinite-energy force field strung between two titanium elephants." It's a bit extreme, perhaps, but it has some life to it...

I am clearly a Rational NT myself

Wait, isn't ILI an Irrational NT type?

An LSI can never ever be perceived as absent-minded.

No. An idiot can perceive anything at all. You must stop trying to dictate the actions of idiots.

The idiot being a purely hypothetical person who perceived an LSI as absent-minded, in case anyone was insulted...

[shakealittle]

Phaedrus, are *you* the try hard LSI?

[Phaedrus]

A dubious claim.

No, it is not dubious. But I can understand why it might seem so from your erroneous perspective.

[Phaedrus]

Wait, isn't ILI an Irrational NT type?

No. The ILI is an irrational NT type that belongs to the group of NT Rationals in David Keirsey's temperament theory. That's why I spelled it with a capital "R". (So many silly misunderstandings due to people's lack of knowledge of the types ...)

No. An idiot can perceive anything at all. You must stop trying to dictate the actions of idiots.

Yes, my mistake of course. I forgot how many idiots there are out there, and you are right that an idiot can perceive anything to be true, even the most insane ideas, like for example the theory of intelligent design, that there is a God, etc ...

The idiot being a purely hypothetical person who perceived an LSI as absent-minded, in case anyone was insulted...

No. The idiots are very real existing persons, some of them even members of this forum, although that might come as a surprise to some people.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, are *you* the try hard LSI?

Are you the very common idiot?

[Ezra]

Oh, Jesus. Just when you think he's gone, Phaedrus pops his head in.

[Nexus]

And what exactly is Ne PoLR according to you and how does it manifest itself in your behaviour, or what description of Ne PoLR have you read and identified with?

I am anal, stubborn, and a perfectionist. I know how to deal with people that come out of the blue and think that they can get the better of me, probably more so than anything else. People have often described me as wanting to fight, but this is merely an impression that I might give and it is not always true. If I do want to fight it is a matter of honor and nothing more. I would be quite vengeful if maintaining order and protecting my family was not so important to me. I am not afraid to use force if necessary to accomplish my goals. I am a behaviorist, and I will use conditioning to reform someone's behavior if that is what is necessary, but I will try to reason with them first. I am very strongly principled and cannot be bought, though I can be reasoned with. I strongly believe in my own opinions; while I am open-minded with regard to interpretations I am not with regard to my own opinions (which I would not retain if I thought that they were ultimately inferior), and I am usually quick to lose interest if something anomalous does not fit into my own Ti. I am rarely interested in new things unless they correspond to something I have already wanted. I can be very inconsiderate if I think I am correct anyway, which I usually do (but I have been trying to be more friendly). I am very regulated and I excercise excessive self-control. My tastes do not shift - I take great care to preserve my self-image and I rarely change; this is the opposite of N-leading types. I do not have phases of any sort except learning phases, which is necessary to research exhaustively the structure of each academic subject. I cut up large tasks systematically into smaller pieces, and I am never distracted by irrelevant things outside of the system. I do not like to rearrange the order I impose unless I have a reason, I do not look for better solutions and combinations if the one I have is suitable, nor do I accept order from the system of another person without an independent reason. I am politically conservative; I dislike change or untried programs. While I don't like to admit it, I also identify with the LSI socioscope: 'everything must be in the system', 'order - through force', 'to each his due', and 'everything that is not authorized is forbidden'. This last principle, though seeming inconvenient, harsh, and unnecessary, actually helps to reduce waste and reinforce order and social harmony among small children, and in some environments is very helpful to restrict dangerous interactions for adults as well. If I could I would enforce it myself all the time, but it would accomplish little and few would appreciate it. I do not like interference from others in my domain of authority, I like to implement my systems exactly and without ambiguity. I do not like attention, and I am incredibly defensive when I am cornered or watched. When I am bored I prefer to stare at my surroundings than to imagine or anticipate things. Incoming content from my intuition, even when it is important and trustworthy, has a habit of disrupting my thoughts and attaching emotional significance to ideas that have just been established and so do not yet fit into my internal order, which upsets the entire system of thought until the new ideas are fully assimilated and integrated. Though sometimes I can logically deduce creative solutions to things, I am extremely jealous when I learn of a new branch of mathematics that I did not anticipate myself.

[Nexus]

This is especially true of me:

Thinking Maxim is very systematized. Entire proceeding attempts to explain only from a logical point of view. (in questions of logic it not easy to reconvince and it cannot be confused.) Maxim knows how to estimate the intellectual potential of collocutor, although his estimations frequently have critical tendency. In the debates he tries to take initiative - last argument it must be without fail after it. (Sensorik!) It magnificently develops procedures, calculates tables, drawings, is textbooks and t; d. Good speaker; material presents step by step, so that entire logical chain of his conclusion would be outlined. Maxims are not considered themselves trusting people and greatly they be surprised so that in spite of all efforts to be foresighted and farsighted, they from all possible versions for some reason select quite proigryshnyy. Many troubles reaches to Maxim his habit to speak out maximally concretely, constantly explaining its thought if in the official report to him sometimes it is possible to be finished by general phrases, then in the particular conversation it sometimes blabs too much excess. He tends to profound analysis of narrow problems, establishes fastidiously their correlation to what he has previously learnt. He knows how to listen, sometimes he can listen simultaneously to two interlocutors. His norm of loneliness is high. He always elaborates the accumulated body of knowledge for practical implementation. To those who do not understand the problem in so many details as he does, his actions may appear paradoxical and unpredictable. Often he finds a solution where others are too shy to find it. It is necessary to give credit, Maxim before punishing, has a habit to explain, for which it punishes and why (necessary to bring up consciousness in the member of society), but if "misdeed" is repeated too frequently, Maxim punishes also without the warning. System "encouragement and punishment" Maxim actually it is constructed on a drop in the sensory sensations, and sensations it, as any sensorik, magnificently examines - knows and what is present pain, and that such present is enjoyment (but if he does not know, then it can want from the purely cognitive considerations to test this on itself or on others). By the index of quality and viability of any system, just as by the guarantee of its stability, Maxim counts the interchangeability of all its parts. Man, as the part of the social system, also must be interchanged: with such conditions each will be able to find its place in the already existing social system. And system itself will be already that good, which will ensure full employment to each person. If Maxim calculates, that too he overdid it in the measures for its action, compulsorily will find the method by any good act to smooth out its fault. If Maxim calculates, that too he overdid it in the measures for its action, compulsorily will find the method by any good act to smooth out its fault. Maxims try to avoid the societies of people, capable to unpredictable behavior, extravagant tricks, eccentric jokes, familiarity, tactless drawings, in a word, all those, who are capable to cause inconveniences, to create additional problems, or it is simple to place him in the foolish and indecent position. Maxims do not sympathize with to people, which prefer to achieve success lightly, Maxims do not love aggressive upstarts. Disposed to flatness in relations and reacts negatively to quarrels. Themselves they do not believe in the easy success. They consider that talent - this first of all labor. He is tactful, sympathetic to people; however, he treats them rather like instruments. He is very reclusive and secretive. He does not like to be the center of attention. In communication, especially at a distance, he is sympathetic and not bothersome. At the same time, he needs listeners. He captivates people by his purposefulness in implementation of his own system. If he understands something and other people do not, he may fall into aggression. He is also stubborn and uncompromising, as a manager he tends to put the screws on. The individual may tend to forcefully restrict other people's activities in areas he thinks they have no natural talent in. At the same time, he or she is prone to make errors when judging whether or not a person is capable of doing something. ISTjs are unconfident in relationships. They are aware of this inability and as a result are very suspicious of other people, especially ones that do not interact openly with them. This may often cause an excessive paranoia. LSI often seems harsh, sometimes even cruel. But this is often due to the fact that it badly sees the experiences of other people and their feelings. LSI cannot compromise its educational policy, because they are motivated by genuine concern for others. Moreover the nearer the distance in their interrelations, the stricter measure for action it will use. ISTjs are unconfident in relationships. They are aware of this inability and as a result are very suspicious of other people, especially ones that do not interact openly with them. This may often cause an excessive paranoia. House and family occupy very important place in the life of LSI and have unquestionable value for it. Many forces and concerns return to its relatives, their health and prosperity disturb it much more than their own. He feels very uncomfortable in the society of people whose behavior and judgments prove to be unpredictable for him. As a rule, it does not step back from its principles and habits. Any manifestation of nonstandard behavior or individualism is unacceptable for it. In his opinion, this generates inequality in the interrelations as well as uncertainty and thus loosens its system. It is especially unbearable for LSI if this occurs in its family. It reacts to the break of family relations extremely painfully. It fears that others will learn about its failure in the construction of the system “family” and will condemn it. This situation is extremely heavy for it, up to the fact that it can even cease to control its behavior at some moment. He does not always succeed at understanding the psychology or motives of another when they present themselves. In all these matters LSI acts with care. Badly taking into account the specific features of others he is prone to generalize and stereotype. It is difficult for him to recognize human beings, as individuals for individuals cannot all be classified and incorporated within a system. Thus such a concept eludes him when he conducts his programs in life, he does not make conjectures for they would only provide him a world where his straight logic does not work. The individual generally does not try hard to understand multiple viewpoints, but concentrates on developing only his own. He is not very good at intriguing others with his ideas, even when they have significant merit. The individual dislikes it when people evaluate others' potential to engage in activities or develop skills in which they haven't had experience yet; above all he is uncomfortable with such discussions by other people regarding himself. He is inclined to be either over-skeptical of his own potential or going to the other extreme and overestimate his possibilities in specific areas on occasion. The individual is highly skeptical about ideas and opportunities that appear not to lead anywhere specific, and seeks assurance that new innovations will definitely bring material benefits. He prefers the kind of ideas and innovations that offer solutions to existing problems rather than the kind that have uncertain consequences and are likely to bring upheaval and unnecessary change. LSIs do not tolerate ambiguity, and so dislike abstract ideals that are not directly based on their experience. They almost invariably focus on the worst-case scenario whenever they are forced to be in an ambiguous situation. If the situation is in the future, they will expend much effort to be 100% prepared. They also tend to be very suspicious of others' intentions, being highly aware that every person is ultimately motivated by self-interest.

[FDG]

I am anal, stubborn, and a perfectionist. I know how to deal with people that come out of the blue and think that they can get the better of me, probably more so than anything else. People have often described me as wanting to fight, but this is merely an impression that I might give and it is not always true. If I do want to fight it is a matter of honor and nothing more. I would be quite vengeful if maintaining order and protecting my family was not so important to me. I am not afraid to use force if necessary to accomplish my goals. I am a behaviorist, and I will use conditioning to reform someone's behavior if that is what is necessary, but I will try to reason with them first. I am very strongly principled and cannot be bought, though I can be reasoned with. I strongly believe in my own opinions; while I am open-minded with regard to interpretations I am not with regard to my own opinions (which I would not retain if I thought that they were ultimately inferior), and I am usually quick to lose interest if something anomalous does not fit into my own Ti. I am rarely interested in new things unless they correspond to something I have already wanted. I can be very inconsiderate if I think I am correct anyway, which I usually do (but I have been trying to be more friendly). I am very regulated and I excercise excessive self-control. My tastes do not shift - I take great care to preserve my self-image and I rarely change; this is the opposite of N-leading types. I do not have phases of any sort except learning phases, which is necessary to research exhaustively the structure of each academic subject. I cut up large tasks systematically into smaller pieces, and I am never distracted by irrelevant things outside of the system. I do not like to rearrange the order I impose unless I have a reason, I do not look for better solutions and combinations if the one I have is suitable, nor do I accept order from the system of another person without an independent reason. I am politically conservative; I dislike change or untried programs. While I don't like to admit it, I also identify with the LSI socioscope: 'everything must be in the system', 'order - through force', 'to each his due', and 'everything that is not authorized is forbidden'. This last principle, though seeming inconvenient, harsh, and unnecessary, actually helps to reduce waste and reinforce order and social harmony among small children, and in some environments is very helpful to restrict dangerous interactions for adults as well. If I could I would enforce it myself all the time, but it would accomplish little and few would appreciate it. I do not like interference from others in my domain of authority, I like to implement my systems exactly and without ambiguity. I do not like attention, and I am incredibly defensive when I am cornered or watched. When I am bored I prefer to stare at my surroundings than to imagine or anticipate things. Incoming content from my intuition, even when it is important and trustworthy, has a habit of disrupting my thoughts and attaching emotional significance to ideas that have just been established and so do not yet fit into my internal order, which upsets the entire system of thought until the new ideas are fully assimilated and integrated. Though sometimes I can logically deduce creative solutions to things, I am extremely jealous when I learn of a new branch of mathematics that I did not anticipate myself.

You sound like a real pain in the ass. Thank god my LSI friends aren't like that.