What is my Type?

[Nexus]

What are you talking about? Given your definition of balanced between sensing and intuition, then a Ni-subtype or Si-subtype EJ will not be balanced in them, preferring instead a balance between Thiking and Feeling. This shows how meaningless the definition of "balanced" is, because it carries a value judgement.

By the way, if types are equally distributed, those I spoke about are 50 percent of the socion, so you are wrong about this too, lol!

I don't know where you got my definition of balanced, but I certainly never implicated any specific functions. Let me show you some math:

Xi = 100% b/c everyone has an introverted function
Xi d = 50% b/c half of Xi functions are dynamic
Xe = 100% b/c everyone has an extroverted function
Xe s = 50% b/c half of Xe functions are static

for Xi d and Xe s, 50% x 50% = 25%
if you would have said Xi d or Xe s,
and you did not, the probability would equal 75%
unfortunately these calculations are irrelevant
because you don't know what my definitions are!
But nowhere do I see 50%

And I can't trust a statistic concerning type distributions in the general population until I can verify that all parties were accurately typed.

[Nexus]

I did a search among the Reinin traits, and among the ones with which I could definitely identify I was 100% LSI and only 20% LII:

obstinate
+LSI +LII
interests/resourceful

declaring
+LSI -LII
monologues/assertive

tactical
+LSI -LII
methods/flexible

decisive
+LSI -LII
incentives/mobile

aristocratic
+LSI -LII
generalization/impersonal

However, that is less than half of the dichotomies, so I could still be wrong.

[Nexus]

I updated my traits based on the more detailed definitions
at: oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=8991

Obstinate
+LSI +LII +ILI
interest/resourceful

Strategic
-LSI +LII -ILI
goal/inflexible

Decisive
+LSI -LII +ILI
incentive/active

Carefree
+LSI -LII -ILI
improvisation/contextual

Involutory
-LSI +LII -ILI
multiplicity/detached

Dynamic
-LSI -LII +ILI
causality/specific

Declatim
+LSI -LII +ILI
affirmation/assertive

Negativist
-LSI +LII +ILI
insufficiency/untrusting

Subjectivist
+LSI +LII -ILI
consideration/open

Constructivist
-LSI -LII +ILI
automation/uninvolved

Democratic
-LSI +LII +ILI
idiosyncracy/independent

ISTj => 5/11
INTj => 6/11
INTp => 7/11

I am evolutory when I require lots of concentration and static when I am defining a hypothetical construct. I am tactical, farsighted, or compliant when I'm otherwise uninspired, and judicious when time is not an element. I am never objectivist. I am only emotivist or autocratic when it suits me, which is very rare, and I am questim when I dislike the interlocutor. I am positivist when I cannot be negativist and pragmatic simultaneously.

[XoX]

Reinin dichotomies are cool because they explain many things well but they are hard to apply for typing purposes. If most of them point to same direction then it does suggest something but if they are messed up like yours then they should probably be dismissed completely. Also subtypes affect the dichotomies. Smilex actually had some charts about what dichotomies get blurred because of subtypes and what dichotomies can be used more accurately. E.g. Ti-LII and Ti-LSI have some dichotomies completely blurred and should be dismissed but some dichotomies should show more difference.

[Nexus]

Reinin dichotomies are cool because they explain many things well but they are hard to apply for typing purposes. If most of them point to same direction then it does suggest something but if they are messed up like yours then they should probably be dismissed completely. Also subtypes affect the dichotomies. Smilex actually had some charts about what dichotomies get blurred because of subtypes and what dichotomies can be used more accurately. E.g. Ti-LII and Ti-LSI have some dichotomies completely blurred and should be dismissed but some dichotomies should show more difference.

Hey thanks! Do you know where I can find these charts? According to my own conclusions I don't belong in a quadrant...apparently being decisive, democratic, and merry simultaneously eliminates all four possibilities.

[Nexus]

I was officially welcomed into ISPE yesterday.

Hooray!

[Nexus]

There is no perfect fit, but those preferences make Delta the least likely.

I noticed that too...unfortunately, Delta was never a quadrant that I was considering...

I am decisive because it is easier for me to mobilize and I am usually impatient to begin the task to give me more time to absorb its requirements and possible solutions, and to capitalize on temporary advantages. I remember my decisions because they help me to navigate my past reasoning and remember the criteria that led me to each one; they also serve as a guide for the future, and allow me to impose a consistency of purpose on my thought patterns. To me judiciousness, not surprisingly, can lead to being indecisive or otherwise deter me, which is something I try to avoid. I am merry because I tend to notice the emotional atmosphere so that I don't waste my efforts where receptivity is lacking, I also respect that others may have conflicting interests and I try to accommodate the distinction; I am also very subjectivist. I am democratic because I try to isolate individuals by their unique characteristics, I am more likely not to classify the members of a group in an objective way, or to form cliques. To me common interests are much more important than common values for encouraging a positive interaction, and I try to remain independent of social associations. Hopefully, if I picked one in error this description might help to elucidate which.

[Nexus]

Why do you think that might be? Only 2 of the 3 quadra-dependant dichotomies correlate with the favorability of intertype relationships.

It's just that none of the types suggested for me (which include LSI and all of the NTs) occurred in the Delta Quadrant...also, I don't share many Delta values. If I give up decisiveness that would put me in Alpha. My decisiveness is the main reason I am predominantly INTJ in MBTT instead of INTP; I hate leaving my conclusions ambiguous. If I do, I suffer for it later when I am trying to use a previous find in a dependent reference.

[Ezra]

Just by the way you speak, LII makes more sense.

Best advice I can offer: speak to PotatoSpirit (LSI) at length, and then do the same with thehotelambush or Logos (both LIIs), and decide which you feel more affinity with.

[Nexus]

Just by the way you speak, LII makes more sense.

Best advice I can offer: speak to PotatoSpirit (LSI) at length, and then do the same with thehotelambush or Logos (both LIIs), and decide which you feel more affinity with.

Where can I find PotatoSpirit?

[Ezra]

Where can I find PotatoSpirit?

PM him. I dunno if he's posted for a while; I haven't been posting for a while myself.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Sorry, I knew that would happen. I will stop discussing philosophy, chess, or any other matter on this thread unless it directly exposes my socionics type.

*weeps* Thank you.

So, did you ever decide for sure what your type is?

[Phaedrus]

*weeps* Thank you.

So, did you ever decide for sure what your type is?

It is a proven fact that he is an INTj.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

It is a proven fact that he is an INTj.

Hello to you, too. I actually asked him.

[Nexus]

*weeps* Thank you.

So, did you ever decide for sure what your type is?

From what I gather, stereotypical INTps like Phaedrus believe me to be INTj, and stereotypical INTjs like RSV3 believe me to be INTp. I am definitely IxTx, and after conferring with Smilingeyes [ESTj] I have reason to believe that I could be a -dominant type fluctuating between LII and LSI, which has been partially confirmed by Expat [ENTj] - this is why I use it in my signature. However, Sergei Ganin, another INTj, believes strongly that I am INTp, as do many others. I believe that the typical concesus at the16types.info is that I am LII while at socionics.com I am generally considered ILI (they even started a thread about it). I have also been typed by many as LIE (even within this thread). In MBTT I consistently test as 100% INT, 83% J, and 17% P. But with absolute certainty I cannot say...I know that I said that I would stop discussing philosophy, but I have composed a thread using epistemology to explain the ambiguity associated with rationality that might ultimately account for my 'untypability' @ The Epistemology of the ILI/LII Divide.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

From what I gather, stereotypical INTps like Phaedrus believe me to be INTj, and stereotypical INTjs like RSV3 believe me to be INTp. I am definitely IxTx, and after conferring with Smilingeyes [ESTj] I have reason to believe that I could be a -dominant type fluctuating between LII and LSI, which has been partially confirmed by Expat [ENTj] - this is why I use it in my signature. However, Sergei Ganin, another INTj, believes strongly that I am INTp, as do many others. I believe that the typical concesus at the16types.info is that I am LII while at socionics.com I am generally considered ILI (they even started a thread about it). I have also been typed by many as LIE (even within this thread). In MBTT I consistently test as 100% INT, 83% J, and 17% P. But with absolute certainty I cannot say...I know that I said that I would stop discussing philosophy, but I have composed a thread using epistemology to explain the ambiguity associated with rationality that explains my position and may account for my 'untypability' @ The Epistemology of the ILI/LII Divide.

So all that to say you don't know, with a clear line of reasoning as to why you've come to that conclusion. Sounds like me.

Is there any chance that you are L_I with a Logical subtype?

[Nexus]

So all that to say you don't know, with a clear line of reasoning as to why you've come to that conclusion. Sounds like me.

Is there any chance that you are L_I with a Logical subtype?

Ah yes, the mark of the true skeptic...I suppose that L_I- is possible.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Ah yes, the mark of the true skeptic...I suppose that L_I- is possible.

Skeptic? Just trying to be helpful.

[Nexus]

Skeptic? Just trying to be helpful.

No I meant that you identify with using reason to justify the lack of a conclusive decision...this behavior is actually pretty typical of XXXp, so maybe we are actually just p-types hesitating to accept the very fact of our own irrationality.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

No I meant that you identify with using reason to justify the lack of a conclusive decision...this behavior is actually pretty typical of XXXp, so maybe we are actually just p-types hesitating to accept the very fact of our own irrationality.

Oh. OK, I get it. Well, the more you explain beforehand, the less people assume, and the less offense can be taken at the thought that people would assume you haven't pondered things. If that makes any sense.

Hey, I've accepted my irrationality. In both senses.

[Nexus]

Well, I am officially ISTj-Ti: I have Ne PoLR, typical LSI intertype relations, and all 15 LSI Reinin traits.

I would like to thank everyone for helping to type me; I appreciate all of your efforts very much.

Thanks again, Huitzilopochtli

[Phaedrus]

Well, I am officially ISTj-Ti: I have Ne PoLR, typical LSI intertype relations, and all 15 LSI Reinin traits.

I would like to thank everyone for helping to type me; I appreciate all of your efforts very much.

Thanks again, Huitzilopochtli

I'm sorry but first you have to explain why you consistently have got the wrong test result on just about every test you have taken. And you have to explain why you didn't understand the difference between S and N and believed yourself to be an N type. If you can do that to satisfaction, then maybe it's possible to accept you as ISTj, but it is very unlikely at the moment.

You have no right to call yourself ISTj unless you can explain those anomalies. And you have to realize that if you really are an ISTj, then you are also an ISTJ in MBTT, and you are a Guardian Inspector in Keirsey's theory, and you are a Pragmatist and not a Researcher in the socionic Clubs. Do you identify with all those things?

[Nexus]

I'm sorry but first you have to explain why you consistently have got the wrong test result on just about every test you have taken. And you have to explain why you didn't understand the difference between S and N and believed yourself to be an N type. If you can do that to satisfaction, then maybe it's possible to accept you as ISTj, but it is very unlikely at the moment.

You have no right to call yourself ISTj unless you can explain those anomalies. And you have to realize that if you really are an ISTj, then you are also an ISTJ in MBTT, and you are a Guardian Inspector in Keirsey's theory, and you are a Pragmatist and not a Researcher in the socionic Clubs. Do you identify with all those things?

Yes, I can identify with those temperaments Phaedrus. I believe that I have been confusing intuiting with thinking all of this time. I am very practical and I tend to experience things in the here and now, rather than being imaginative or planning for the future, which I do as an afterthought if at all. When I try to be intuitive, like by imagining, brain-storming, or free-associating, most of what I get is just random noise, and when I am not trying to use it it becomes a distraction from what is actually important to me. Recently I have tested very consistently as ISTJ in MBTT, and I believe that I had previously tested as N-type due to a misunderstanding regarding S/N. S-types can be very intuitive, and N-types can be very conscious of their surroundings, but I overall I tend to exhibit the behavior of a sensor, which is all too clear when I watch my videos now. However, b/c I have a very pronounced logical subtype, my perceiving functions will be balanced and I might at times act more LII than LSI. However overall I believe myself to be a sensor.

[Nexus]

lol you were conflictors all along ahahahahah

Actually, I have had a lot of less-than-ideal interactions with ENFps lately.

[Phaedrus]

Yes, I can identify with those temperaments Phaedrus. I believe that I have been confusing intuiting with thinking all of this time.

Maybe that's possible.

I am very practical and I tend to experience things in the here and now, rather than being imaginative or planning for the future, which I do as an afterthought if at all.

Both INTjs and ISTjs tend to be practical and like to work with their hands. Most INTjs are somewhat unsure whether they are S or N types. But what do you mean when you say that you don't plan for the future? ISTjs don't always have the kind of long term strategic goals that are typical for ENTjs for example, but both ISTjs and INTjs schedule their time and plan their days -- and they tend to follow those "mini-plans".

When I try to be intuitive, like by imagining, brain-storming, or free-associating, most of what I get is just random noise, and when I am not trying to use it it becomes a distraction from what is actually important to me.

I haven't heard of that phenomenon before, so I don't know how to evaluate it.

Recently I have tested very consistently as ISTJ in MBTT, and I believe that I had previously tested as N-type due to a misunderstanding regarding S/N.

What misunderstanding exactly? How do you know that you understand that dichotomy correctly now?

S-types can be very intuitive, and N-types can be very conscious of their surroundings, but I overall I tend to exhibit the behavior of a sensor, which is all too clear when I watch my videos now.]S-types can be very intuitive, and N-types can be very conscious of their surroundings, but I overall I tend to exhibit the behavior of a sensor, which is all too clear when I watch my videos now.

What behaviour of a sensor? And what do you mean when you say that S-types can be very intuitive?

However, b/c I have a very pronounced logical subtype, my perceiving functions will be balanced and I might at times act more LII than LSI.

Here you rely too much on Smilingeyes's theory. You are still only one type, even though Smilex has believed (or even still do believe) that you can change type in the same temperament group (so an LSI can turn into an LII or even an EII or an ESI). But clearly that is most likely not possible. There is no empirical evidence to support such speculative hypotheses.

However overall I believe myself to be a sensor.

Yes, you believe so at the moment, but you didn't believe it before. And the S/N dichotomy is still the dichotomy where you test most closely to 50/50. My INTj father scored as ESTJ (or rather XSTJ because there was a more or less a tie between E and I) on his first test. Then he tested ISTJ. But he didn't fit the type descriptions very well, and he was clearly not a Guardian in Keirsey's sense, which you always are if you are an ISTj. When I started to analyze his type more thoroughly it soon became apparent that he was an INTJ and an LII. One of the strongest arguments against your current ISTj hypothesis is your interest in philosophy. ISTjs are never interested in philosophy. They are extremely practical minded, extremely focused on utility, and they have practically no sense of esthetics at all. I don't exclude the possibility that your sense of esthetics is rather poor (since there are some indications of that when it comes to music) but I can't explain your interest in philosophy if you are an ISTj.

[FDG]

ISTjs are never interested in philosophy. They are extremely practical minded, extremely focused on utility, and they have practically no sense of esthetics at all. I don't exclude the possibility that your sense of esthetics is rather poor (since there are some indications of that when it comes to music) but I can't explain your interest in philosophy if you are an ISTj.

Absolutely incorrect.

[Expat]

Absolutely incorrect.

Yeah, and what a surprise.

To use a very primitive kind of argumentation, I have been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore's excellent Young Stalin. Stalin has been universally typed by socionists as ISTj, and the biography confirms it. Yet, he was also pretty much into writing poetry. He also truly believed in Marxism and read tons about it. ISTjs may be inclined to being practical in their daily lives, but they also have a longing for a higher meaning that easily gets them interested in religion, philosophy, poetry, etc. And that is to be expected of the ENFj's dual.

[Phaedrus]

Absolutely incorrect.

Name one famous ISTj that doesn't fit what I said.

[Phaedrus]

To use a very primitive kind of argumentation, I have been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore's excellent Young Stalin. Stalin has been universally typed by socionists as ISTj, and the biography confirms it. Yet, he was also pretty much into writing poetry. He also truly believed in Marxism and read tons about it. ISTjs may be inclined to being practical in their daily lives, but they also have a longing for a higher meaning that easily gets them interested in religion, philosophy, poetry, etc. And that is to be expected of the ENFj's dual.

I have never said that ISTjs are not inclined to implement an already invented philosophy or theoretical system and turn it into practical use. They do that a lot unfortunately, and they are good at it. That's why they are so dangerous when they come into power. But ISTjs don't understand philosophy, they don't think philosophically, they don't ask philosophical questions, and they are not interested in trying to solve philosophical problems. In just about every way ISTjs are extremely bad philosophers.

[Nexus]

Maybe that's possible.

Both INTjs and ISTjs tend to be practical and like to work with their hands. Most INTjs are somewhat unsure whether they are S or N types. But what do you mean when you say that you don't plan for the future? ISTjs don't always have the kind of long term strategic goals that are typical for ENTjs for example, but both ISTjs and INTjs schedule their time and plan their days -- and they tend to follow those "mini-plans".

I haven't heard of that phenomenon before, so I don't know how to evaluate it.

What misunderstanding exactly? How do you know that you understand that dichotomy correctly now?

What behaviour of a sensor? And what do you mean when you say that S-types can be very intuitive?

Here you rely too much on Smilingeyes's theory. You are still only one type, even though Smilex has believed (or even still do believe) that you can change type in the same temperament group (so an LSI can turn into an LII or even an EII or an ESI). But clearly that is most likely not possible. There is no empirical evidence to support such speculative hypotheses.

Yes, you believe so at the moment, but you didn't believe it before. And the S/N dichotomy is still the dichotomy where you test most closely to 50/50. My INTj father scored as ESTJ (or rather XSTJ because there was a more or less a tie between E and I) on his first test. Then he tested ISTJ. But he didn't fit the type descriptions very well, and he was clearly not a Guardian in Keirsey's sense, which you always are if you are an ISTj. When I started to analyze his type more thoroughly it soon became apparent that he was an INTJ and an LII. One of the strongest arguments against your current ISTj hypothesis is your interest in philosophy. ISTjs are never interested in philosophy. They are extremely practical minded, extremely focused on utility, and they have practically no sense of esthetics at all. I don't exclude the possibility that your sense of esthetics is rather poor (since there are some indications of that when it comes to music) but I can't explain your interest in philosophy if you are an ISTj.

Phaedrus you probably don't understand those activities b/c Ni is your base function, so they doesn't happen in discrete instances but as a continuous flow for you. Also, I tend to always be dealing with things in the present; why put things off until tomorrow if by then I could be brain-dead? RSV3 says that LSI is a perfect fit for me, and he was the first to object to my being LII. I am starting to understand where the strengths and weakness of N-types and S-types would result from the preferentially selective use of their functions, as opposed to by a 2-dimensional stereotype which is much harder to apply to real people. S-types do have intuitive functions, which they are free to use extrovertedly or introvertedly; they just don't use them as much, and lack capacities that more intuitive people ultimately gain with use. In the past I had never been sure that I was either LII or ILI but I expected to be NT b/c those types are usually portrayed as deep thinkers. Now I know that it is not the case, and STs can be just as profound but be less reliant on their intuition b/c there is so much in the environment which requires tending and so little in the mind which necessitates immediate attention. I am more sure of being LSI than I ever was of any NT type, and that my S/N dichotomy is less pronounced is completely in line with my having a rational type and subtype. When I was young I tended to be more focused on my personal space, personal possessions, and the order inherent in my interaction with the world, to the point of being obsessive-compulsive. Though I was different, I never let anyone take my attention away from what I thought was important, and I never let my intuition get in the way of watching people suspiciously. This probably contributed at an early age to my introversion and stubborness, but I do not regret it. Whether I am experiencing type change as has been documented per Smilingeyes I cannot say for sure because I am only now becoming confident of my type, but it is certainly a possibility that I have in the past, especially since the functions themselves previously had less individual significance for me (other than a preference for thinking over feeling). Phaedrus, I believe that your arguments for philosophy are incorrect. Every type has their own 'philosophy', but T types tend to excel at reason/logic rather than ethics/aesthetics, etc. That practical matters may involve and ultimately lead to problems of philosophy is in complete agreement with this idea. NTs might be more susceptible to abstract trends with no discernible or literal basis, and perhaps STs might derive their logic from actual experience in solving real problems and ordering things in the environment, but every type is free to speculate on the ultimate questions, and everyone does to some extent. Such activity is practically implied by the language used to describe it, and everyone can speak. Musical taste is also variable, even within a type, as there are far more genres than types and each one has its own fanatics/proponents.

[Nexus]

Yeah, and what a surprise.

To use a very primitive kind of argumentation, I have been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore's excellent Young Stalin. Stalin has been universally typed by socionists as ISTj, and the biography confirms it. Yet, he was also pretty much into writing poetry. He also truly believed in Marxism and read tons about it. ISTjs may be inclined to being practical in their daily lives, but they also have a longing for a higher meaning that easily gets them interested in religion, philosophy, poetry, etc. And that is to be expected of the ENFj's dual.

I have suspected that as well - he even has the LSI mustache. Unfortunately, I am not a Marxist. That the time of a laborer is ultimately worth more then the compensation received from a capitalist is rather idealistic with regard to the economy of industry and mass-production. It was simply not practical at the time; agricultural goods were in excessive supply and any demand for other products did require many unskilled workers to satisfy. Real Marxism has proven to be too cumbersome to implement; even Stalin eventually succumbed to capitalism in the form of 5-year plans.

[Phaedrus]

RSV3 says that LSI is a perfect fit for me, and he was the first to object to my being LII.

But you can't be sure that RSV3 really is the type he thinks he is. If you don't know your own type, you can't determine whether he is trustworthy or not. He might be an LII, like he says, but there have been some indications to the contrary, and seen from your perspective, and seen from my perspective, we none of us can be sure unless everything fits. I know for sure that some things he has said are incorrect.

I am starting to understand where the strengths and weakness of N-types and S-types would result from the preferentially selective use of their functions, as opposed to by a 2-dimensional stereotype which is much harder to apply to real people. S-types do have intuitive functions, which they are free to use extrovertedly or introvertedly; they just don't use them as much, and lack capacities that more intuitive people ultimately gain with use. In the past I had never been sure that I was either LII or ILI but I expected to be NT b/c those types are usually portrayed as deep thinkers. Now I know that it is not the case, and STs can be just as profound but be less reliant on their intuition b/c there is so much in the environment which requires tending and so little in the mind which necessitates immediate attention.

That's just nonsense. You have no facts to support your claims here. All profound thinkers have been NTs, probably without exceptions.

I am more sure of being LSI than I ever was of any NT type, and that my S/N dichotomy is less pronounced is completely in line with my having a rational type and subtype. When I was young I tended to be more focused on my personal space, personal possessions, and the order inherent in my interaction with the world, to the point of being obsessive-compulsive.

For a comparison, you could read what Nancy McWilliams has written on the personality structures that are the basis of psychoanalytical diagnoses. Psychoanalysis is a false theory of the mind, but the psychological "types" or structures that are described in a psychoanalytical framework correspond to specific socionic types.

Every ILI has a schizoid personality structure, and every LSI has a compulsive personality stucture, as those "structures" (types) are described by McWilliams. The problem here is of course that LIIs also have a lot in common with a compulsive personality, but according to my real life observations I think that LIIs are closer to the paranoid personility than LSIs. That hypothesis also seems to be consistent with socionic type descriptions and the lives of real life LIIs.

Though I was different, I never let anyone take my attention away from what I thought was important, and I never let my intuition get in the way of watching people suspiciously. This probably contributed at an early age to my introversion and stubborness, but I do not regret it. Whether I am experiencing type change as has been documented per Smilingeyes I cannot say for sure because I am only now becoming confident of my type, but it is certainly a possibility that I have in the past, especially since the functions themselves previously had less individual significance for me (other than a preference for thinking over feeling).

I suggest that you ponder about whether this suspicion of yours has anything in common with the paranoid personality structure or not. LIIs are much more inclined to believe in conspiracy theories than LSIs -- that is also something to think about.

Prom, I believe that your arguments for philosophy are incorrect.

Your personal opinion here is irrelevant unless you can provide concrete facts that contradict what I am saying.

Every type has their own 'philosophy', but T types tend to excel at reason/logic rather than ethics/aesthetics, etc.

"Philosophy" in that sense is not what I refer to when I use the word "philosophy". So your comment is irrelevant.

That practical matters may involve and ultimately lead to problems of philosophy is in complete agreement with this idea.

Nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.

NTs might be more susceptible to abstract trends with no discernible or literal basis, and perhaps STs might derive their logic from actual experience in solving real problems and ordering things in the environment, but every type is free to speculate on the ultimate questions, and everyone does to some extent.

No.

Such activity is practically implied by the language used to describe it, and everyone can speak. Musical taste is also variable, even within a type, as there are far more genres than types and each one has its own fanatics/proponents.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with esthetic sense. Some types are naturally better at spotting objective quality than others, generally speaking. Some types -- and here the LSI is a perfect example -- are almost blind to objective quality. They tend to be rather indifferent and/or unable to discriminate what is good from what is bad.

[Nexus]

But you can't be sure that RSV3 really is the type he thinks he is. If you don't know your own type, you can't determine whether he is trustworthy or not. He might be an LII, like he says, but there have been some indications to the contrary, and seen from your perspective, and seen from my perspective, we none of us can be sure unless everything fits. I know for sure that some things he has said are incorrect.

That's just nonsense. You have no facts to support your claims here. All profound thinkers have been NTs, probably without exceptions.

For a comparison, you could read what Nancy McWilliams has written on the personality structures that are the basis of psychoanalytical diagnoses. Psychoanalysis is a false theory of the mind, but the psychological "types" or structures that are described in a psychoanalytical framework correspond to specific socionic types.

Every ILI has a schizoid personality structure, and every LSI has a compulsive personality stucture, as those "structures" (types) are described by McWilliams. The problem here is of course that LIIs also have a lot in common with a compulsive personality, but according to my real life observations I think that LIIs are closer to the paranoid personility than LSIs. That hypothesis also seems to be consistent with socionic type descriptions and the lives of real life LIIs.

I suggest that you ponder about whether this suspicion of yours has anything in common with the paranoid personality structure or not. LIIs are much more inclined to believe in conspiracy theories than LSIs -- that is also something to think about.

Your personal opinion here is irrelevant unless you can provide concrete facts that contradict what I am saying.

"Philosophy" in that sense is not what I refer to when I use the word "philosophy". So your comment is irrelevant.

Nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.

No.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with esthetic sense. Some types are naturally better at spotting objective quality than others, generally speaking. Some types -- and here the LSI is a perfect example -- are almost blind to objective quality. They tend to be rather indifferent and/or unable to discriminate what is good from what is bad.

I am very obsessive-compulsive, so perhaps that much is accurate. I am not schizoid, and I don't believe in conspiracies. To believe in a conspiracy I would first have to find two people who truly agree on what happened. Then I would have to assess if what they say is even significant enough to warrant a monopoly on the final explanation. However, in all likelihood the subject of the conspiracy will not even interest me. In my opinion RSV3 is far more likely to be LII than many others that have been typed as LII. I could not think of a more fitting type for him, and I am also absolutely sure that I am LSI. I think that you are very short-sighted with regard to profound thought. What about great SF artists? Are they devoid of profound thoughts? LSIs also enjoy philosophy and prefer high quality things:

In private life ISTjs love beautiful, expensive and practical things. They will not bear it when others take or even simply touch their things without permission. They do not require much variety in their food and can eat the same thing for several days without any problem as long as it's of a high quality...they believe that everything should be prepared carefully and accurately. Their clothes are often clean, ironed and tidy. They follow strict styles, never being too flashy or extravagant. ISTjs like posters, placards, bills and the other printed propaganda. When they in informal surroundings they are often inclined to talk about subjects related to philosophy or morality. They may show an interest in religion, mysticism and predictions. ISTjs are always ready to share their knowledge with others and readily give advice based on experiences.

[Phaedrus]

In my opinion RSV3 is far more likely to be LII than many others that have been typed as LII. I could not think of a more fitting type for him, and I am also absolutely sure that I am LSI.

But you haven't answered the questions yet. I know that you are sure that you are an LSI, but you haven't said on what grounds, except from the Reinin dichotomies, which most people misinterpret. You don't express yourself as an LSI, and your interests are not typical for an LSI. Your test results taken as a whole indicate LII as a much more likely type than LSI, and you haven't explained how you could misunderstand the S/N dichotomy so badly and neither have you explained how your understanding of it has changed and how you understand it now.

I think that you are very short-sighted with regard to profound thought. What about great SF artists? Are they devoid of profound thoughts?

Yes, at least when it comes to philosophy. S types are not philosophers. They haven't produced anything of substantial worth in that field, and they are not particularly interested in it either.

LSIs also enjoy philosophy and prefer high quality things:

In private life ISTjs love beautiful, expensive and practical things. They will not bear it when others take or even simply touch their things without permission. They do not require much variety in their food and can eat the same thing for several days without any problem as long as it's of a high quality...they believe that everything should be prepared carefully and accurately. Their clothes are often clean, ironed and tidy. They follow strict styles, never being too flashy or extravagant. ISTjs like posters, placards, bills and the other printed propaganda. When they in informal surroundings they are often inclined to talk about subjects related to philosophy or morality. They may show an interest in religion, mysticism and predictions. ISTjs are always ready to share their knowledge with others and readily give advice based on experiences.

It's just a fact that ISTjs don't understand philosophy. Of course anyone can be "interested" in such things as religion and philosophy in a trivial sense, but that is not what I am talking about here. And it is definitely true that ISTjs don't understand esthetics. Maby you are a very smart ISTj, whose understanding of philosophy and esthetics is much more limited and primitive than one's first impression would indicate. Perhaps that could explain it.

[crazedrat]

i have had 2 close relationships with ISTjs... one with my uncle, who i have lived with for a while, and the other with my ex girlfriends father. They fit the description very well, and i do usually default into discussing religion, philosophy, and other related topics with them. they have a well rounded, but very surface understanding of these topics, and often times i feel as if they have understood key points without understanding the underlying frame work of how everything fits together. they are also too absolutist - either one way or the other . their thoughts lack a certain flexibility & on the fly creativity which suggests deeper, underlying understanding. usually they are either re-iterating something which has been read and discovered by someone else, or listening to me talk and judging whether or not what i have to say is 'sound'. often times i will hit a snag where what they consider to be 'sound' is from an inferior, and underdeveloped perspective. when this happens it is difficult to bring them into understanding . they will avoid the conversation and / or state their opinion in an aggressive, closed minded fashion which lets you know not to pursue the issue or try to convince them further.

[Nexus]

i have had 2 close relationships with ISTjs... one with my uncle, who i have lived with for a while, and the other with my ex girlfriends father. They fit the description very well, and i do usually default into discussing religion, philosophy, and other related topics with them. they have a well rounded, but very surface understanding of these topics, and often times i feel as if they have understood key points without understanding the underlying frame work of how everything fits together. they are also too absolutist - either one way or the other . their thoughts lack a certain flexibility & on the fly creativity which suggests deeper, underlying understanding. usually they are either re-iterating something which has been read and discovered by someone else, or listening to me talk and judging whether or not what i have to say is 'sound'. often times i will hit a snag where what they consider to be 'sound' is from an inferior, and underdeveloped perspective. when this happens it is difficult to bring them into understanding . they will avoid the conversation and / or state their opinion in an aggressive, closed minded fashion which lets you know not to pursue the issue or try to convince them further.

That behavior seems typical of some self-typed SLIs I have met. Absolutism is a trait that described subjectivist types, which are either Gamma or Delta by definition, so it is possible your friends were LSE...while they prefer practical, proven concepts, LSIs themselves are actually very detail-oriented are not likely to miss anything in a theory they have already accepted as true, especially not the logical structure in which everything fits:

Very polite and attentive to details in conversation, likes that all specify and explain their opinions, but sometimes is prone to get stuck up on nonessential details. When they ask questions they want answers to provide exhaustively detailed information. Works thoroughly and brings everything to its end without missing a detail.

[kensi]

That seems typical of some self-typed SLIs I have met.

Wow...i cant believe you think you are ISTj. You are a beta now....Socionics TiSe and MBTI TiSe both constitute Beta in my eyes.

Wow 'n i was helping you out all along on the other site there....we're opposites then.

if you are ISTj, you are by far the most talkative ISTj i have ever tried to type almost to the point where it doesn't make sense ...kind of like what Phaedrus said in that regard.

....but congradulations on your milestone in understanding.

[Phaedrus]

Wow...i cant believe you think you are ISTj. You are a beta now....Socionics TiSe and MBTI TiSe both constitute Beta in my eyes.

Stop spreading this nonsense of yours. I can't stand such idiocy and ignorance. You should know better than having such totally false ideas. Why can't you learn the theory correctly? Why can't you learn the types correctly? ISTP = SLI => Delta. ISTJ = LSI => Beta.

....but congradulations on your milestone in understanding.

If he has reached a milestone or if he has become stone-blind is still too early to say with any certainty.

[Nexus]

Wow...i cant believe you think you are ISTj. You are a beta now....Socionics TiSe and MBTI TiSe both constitute Beta in my eyes.

Wow 'n i was helping you out all along on the other site there....we're opposites then.

if you are ISTj, you are by far the most talkative ISTj i have ever tried to type almost to the point where it doesn't make sense ...kind of like what Phaedrus said in that regard.

....but congradulations on your milestone in understanding.

Thanks man, I was wondering where you went...LSIs are actually pretty talkative; they are declaring rather than asking and they are known to talk a lot:

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]

But you haven't answered the questions yet. I know that you are sure that you are an LSI, but you haven't said on what grounds, except from the Reinin dichotomies, which most people misinterpret. You don't express yourself as an LSI, and your interests are not typical for an LSI. Your test results taken as a whole indicate LII as a much more likely type than LSI, and you haven't explained how you could misunderstand the S/N dichotomy so badly and neither have you explained how your understanding of it has changed and how you understand it now.

Yes, at least when it comes to philosophy. S types are not philosophers. They haven't produced anything of substantial worth in that field, and they are not particularly interested in it either.

It's just a fact that ISTjs don't understand philosophy. Of course anyone can be "interested" in such things as religion and philosophy in a trivial sense, but that is not what I am talking about here. And it is definitely true that ISTjs don't understand esthetics. Maby you are a very smart ISTj, whose understanding of philosophy and esthetics is much more limited and primitive than one's first impression would indicate. Perhaps that could explain it.

I do not believe that I have misinterpreted the Reinin dichotomies. How does an LSI express himself in your opinion? To answer your question, I may have tested badly b/c I thought I was intuition-valuing, but in actuality I hate Ne as it often changes while I am using it and can lead me to unintentionally deceive myself. Se never changes. I also never lose my physical presence of mind, which is common in S-types rather than N-types. Intuitives are more likely to zone out or daydream, all the while losing contact with reality or getting lost in the moment, such that the image they present may become compromised. I try to be ready at any moment unless there is a pressing demand that requires active intuition. I also have a habit of assuming the worst-case scenario instead of predicting possibilities in a way that an intuitive type would, because I am otherwise distracted from my primary objectives and my time is subject to waste. As a final point, Chris Langan is likely to be LSI and he is very intelligent (IQ ~ 195):

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/0...st-man-in.html

LSIs tend to logically analyze just about everything — even close relationships. They like to collect reference material, encyclopaedias and dictionaries. They will never admit that they do not know something within the field of their activity. They pay great attention to facts, figures and technical information. They try to work everything out in depth and down to the last detail. ISTjs are very realistic people. The individual views reality through the lens of logic, immediately recognizing the correctness and appropriateness of things and their proper place in reality and in his system of views and behavior. He freely makes logical assertions (often exaggerated) about new information and experience. Most rational logical type. Very constructive. Works thoroughly and brings everything to its end without missing a detail. Not very dynamic and does not transfer confusion. At times seems haughty but is moderately kind and imperturbable. Dislikes uncertainty and is internally quite collected. They never lose their presence of mind and try to encourage those that require their support.

I also realized that my Ne usually plays the role of what someone else might do, but is always separate from me; it never plays the role of me so that it can allow me to consider many ideas simultaneously for extended periods of time without having to internalize or accept them; it is where I keep half-baked ideas or things of which I am not certain, and for this reason it allows me to imagine and compare different scenarios and to simulate a deception, intuiting fictional circumstances that imply its truth while avoiding information that would imply contradiction, while my beliefs are independent and I am myself free to act otherwise. I never consider how others think or act in order to 'fit in' as that kind of external control is unbearable to me, but I will feel appropriately or intuit what might be of relevance to others when I am trying to make conversation. Thus, I believe Ne to be a part of my superego rather than my ego.