I Can't Find my Type - Problems with Socionics?

[jason_m]

I cannot find my type. I can see flaws with every type I've considered:

INTj: When I first came here I said I liked logic, and so people automatically assumed that I'm an INTj. INTj fits to some extent; I am some type of intuitive, I have the hardest type with Se-dominant types, I very well could be Fe and Si-seeking, etc. The problem is that I had only been exposed to the Socionics.com descriptions, so the kind of logic I like is not really associated with Ti.

Here are the types of things I associate with logic: developing a clear and non-contradictory line of thought, solving problems, easily being able to solve math and logic problems, understanding formal logic, understanding the underlying logic of something (e.g., understanding the logic behind a component of an operating system, by reading a textbook description of it), etc.

Here are some of the things I've read that Socionics associates with introverted "logic": believing that the universe is entirely logical, liking to generate rules, immediately recognizing the correctness of things, building logical systems, having clearly defined views, etc.

Few of the things that relate to the Socionics version of Ti as a dominant function apply to me. My use of logic is used more to understand the world and solve problems, as opposed to structuring it, and having the rigid outlook that supposedly comes with being a Ti-dominant type.

INFj: I relate to Fi to some extent, and ESTps cause me to feel uncomfortable when I'm around them, so this could fit. The problem is that INFjs are supposedly bad at logic, and in no way am I Te-seeking; I don't care about how productive I am, and I don't need someone to tell me how accurate the information I'm looking at is.

INTp: The problem with this type is that I'm not a very good forecaster, I don't relate to Te, and I don't have a hard time with Fe types, nor can I have much of a harsh communication style.

INFp: Some of the same problems with the INTp, and I'm not good at altering people's moods. The whole idea of being lively and outgoing is foreign to me. Also, if I were this type, it wouldn't make sense that ESTps make me uncomfortable.

ENTp: This is probably a good fit. The problem is, how could I even be considering INFj, if I'm Fi PoLR? In no way am I tactless.

ENFp: From a functional perspective, this makes sense. However, I do not relate to any ENFp descriptions. Every ENFp description makes it seem like they really like people and are uber-extraverted. I'm the exact opposite. Also, the problems with being Ti-PoLR are similar to my problems with Ti and the INFj type. (However, even though I like logic, I'm not very rule-oriented, nor do I have many convictions.)

Really, these are the only types that could fit for me, and I can see problems with every one of them. This makes me wonder: is there something inaccurate about the Socionics function theory or with the descriptions of the functions? I think I know myself quite well; I know what I'm like and what I'm not like, so why are there problems with every type?

Jason

[Ritella]

Have you tried reading the "+ and -" descriptions on socionics.com?
Those might help you because they're more "big picture."

[hellothere]

hey jason, here are my thoughts on a few of your points (others may disagree):

INFj: I relate to Fi to some extent, and ESTps cause me to feel uncomfortable when I'm around them, so this could fit. The problem is that INFjs are supposedly bad at logic, and in no way am I Te-seeking;

In my opinion, "weak" and "strong" refers to (as I think Ritella put it once) comparative advantage rather than absolute advantage - "weak Ti" doesn't mean you are bad at Ti, just that you are better at Fi.

ENTp: This is probably a good fit. The problem is, how could I even be considering INFj, if I'm Fi PoLR? In no way am I tactless.

I don't think Fi has a monopoly on tact. One of my friends is (I think) an Ne-ILE and I wouldn't call him tactless.

I cannot find my type. I can see flaws with every type I've considered:

I consider typing (as imfd95 has said) to be an "art of best fit". Your type is the one that fits you best, but you are not your type. So I think it is more likely than not that someone will have problems with the specifics of their type (especially when those specifics are details in type descriptions that have kind of been extrapolated from the fundamental theory - different people may make different extrapolations). I don't think that each person is definitely of one type - I don't think 16 types "exist" in nature - it's simply a method of categorisation, and you pick the category which fits you best. You come before the category and not the other way around.

Really, these are the only types that could fit for me, and I can see problems with every one of them. This makes me wonder: is there something inaccurate about the Socionics function theory or with the descriptions of the functions? I think I know myself quite well; I know what I'm like and what I'm not like, so why are there problems with every type?

Maybe this is precisely why you're having problems typing yourself. You know yourself so well that you see that no category is perfect. Others who might not know themselves as well might be quicker to place themselves into a category, because they don't see the aspects of themselves that don't fit into the category and because the category allows them to extend their previously lacking sense of identity. And if I had to choose, I'd rather be more certain about myself than which category I fit best into.

[Ezra]

Typical of an NT: "if I can't find the answer using the model, the model is wrong".

They fail to understand that "if I can't find the answer using the model, the model is wrong".

You're at fault. Not socionics. Your fault is your questioning, doubting nature. Your fault is that you can't see how socionics works, because you're over-thinking it.

FTR, jason_m, you are LII. Your behaviour is perfectly compatible with all other LIIs. Whatever the reasons why you don't think you are LII, they are wrong, and I'm not interested in them.

Yes, I am a despot. Just try to assassinate me.

[implied]

Typical of an NT: "if I can't find the answer using the model, the model is wrong".

They fail to understand that "if I can't find the answer using the model, the model is wrong".

that's not necessarily "typical of an NT." how many NTs do you see that go around sticking to the same model regardless of its correctness, or sticking to some theory that might not work so well because it's scientifically beautiful? i think more than few.

[Ezra]

that's not necessarily "typical of an NT." how many NTs do you see that go around sticking to the same model regardless of its correctness, or sticking to some theory that might not work so well because it's scientifically beautiful? i think more than few.

Socionics works. Jason's basic premise is ridiculous. He's asserting that because he can't find his type, there is something wrong with the theory. There probably are things wrong with the theory, but not because Jason can't find his type.

[tcaudilllg]

Typical of an NT: "if I can't find the answer using the model, the model is wrong".

They fail to understand that "if I can't find the answer using the model, the model is wrong".

You're at fault. Not socionics. Your fault is your questioning, doubting nature. Your fault is that you can't see how socionics works, because you're over-thinking it.

FTR, jason_m, you are LII. Your behaviour is perfectly compatible with all other LIIs. Whatever the reasons why you don't think you are LII, they are wrong, and I'm not interested in them.

Yes, I am a despot. Just try to assassinate me.

Someone needs to quote that, too, because that statement was worthy of Phaedrus.

Or were you joking, Ezra? Model A does NOT offer all the answers a man may look for!

[tcaudilllg]

Threads like these are the reason I don't do typings on request. The person who does not have a good grasp of what socionics is, but thinks they do, will never cease to doubt your assessment of their type.

And that, ladies and gents, is worth a quote.

[consentingadult]

I cannot find my type. I can see flaws with every type I've considered

Perhaps you are a psychologically healthy individual who knows how to use strong and weak functions in a balanced way?

Also, don't take all these profiles too literally, as many of those describe attitudes and behaviors that are either highly neurotic or even in pathological in nature. Perhaps my blog on egosyntonicity helps to clarify this.

[crazedrat]

this is what happens when logic overwhelms intuition

[Jarno]

I cannot find my type. I can see flaws with every type I've considered:

Ever tried to find your type using socionics dichotomies?