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.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm always cautious about asserting other people's types, Jason, but you say you are intuitive and on that basis I think I can draw a conclusion. You're EII, and here's why. You mention what you like a lot -- that's something Fi people do. Ti ego types don't ask whether or not they like something unless their logic can't completely fill in for the problem first. (and even then, they will want a mathematical rationale for their liking, a la socionics itself (remember Augusta was an ENTp with Fi PoLR)). Your use of Ti, like you said, is strictly mathematical. This is the position one would expect of a Ti superego type person, because the superego lends to abstract formalizations and is primarily mathematical in nature.

If you would tell me more about your experience with logic, then I could explain the situation further.

[jason_m]

I'm always cautious about asserting other people's types, Jason, but you say you are intuitive and on that basis I think I can draw a conclusion. You're EII, and here's why. You mention what you like a lot -- that's something Fi people do. Ti ego types don't ask whether or not they like something unless their logic can't completely fill in for the problem first. (and even then, they will want a mathematical rationale for their liking, a la socionics itself (remember Augusta was an ENTp with Fi PoLR)). Your use of Ti, like you said, is strictly mathematical. This is the position one would expect of a Ti superego type person, because the superego lends to abstract formalizations and is primarily mathematical in nature.

As I said, I could be an INFj, but, to me, that's a problem. It means that Socionics only manages to talk about the things about myself that I don't like. For instance, INFjs often have a hard time asserting themselves in order to maintain "harmony." I do this, but it's something I find frustrating, as opposed to wise. An example of this was when I was driving my friend somewhere a few weeks ago. I was listening to a song that I liked, when he turned the radio station without asking me. This really made me mad. "Who does he think he is to change the radio station in my car without asking"? I was so angry, that I just said nothing. I don't think I would have been able to tell him how I felt without offending him. Now, this is a source of frustration for me (as opposed to pleasure), because trying not to offend him stops me from being able to express myself, and that's very annoying. Wanting to be in harmony is typical of the type of characteristic found in INFj descriptions. As a result, when I look at myself in terms of the INFj descriptions, I feel very annoyed as opposed to satisfied.

Another problem with the descriptions is that I see myself as a kind of theorist, and I've never read anything about INFjs having theoretical tendencies. Don't get me wrong; I like a lot of the INFjs that I've met. The problem is when it's applied to my behaviour. As I said, it talks about a lot of things that are a source of frustration for me.

If you would tell me more about your experience with logic, then I could explain the situation further.

I studied computer science, and there was a lot of logic involved. I probably had a deeper, more precise understanding of a lot of the concepts than many of the so-called Researchers in my class. Assuming I'm an INFj, what a crock that is...

Jason

[JuJu]

For instance, INFjs often have a hard time asserting themselves in order to maintain "harmony." I do this, but it's something I find frustrating, as opposed to wise. An example of this was when I was driving my friend somewhere a few weeks ago. I was listening to a song that I liked, when he turned the radio station without asking me. This really made me mad. "Who does he think he is to change the radio station in my car without asking"? I was so angry, that I just said nothing. I don't think I would have been able to tell him how I felt without offending him. Now, this is a source of frustration for me (as opposed to pleasure), because trying not to offend him stops me from being able to express myself, and that's very annoying

To be honest with you, I had the exact same conversation with my little brother awhile back... I changed the radio station--he fumed silently about it for hours, but eventually it came out how badly it pissed him off.

I know that this might come across as weird--but to be honest, almost everything you write reminds me of my brother... INXx is the most obvious feature of his personality, with INFp being a long-shot--INTp, INFj, and INTj are the three types under serious consideration.

I know that I've written to you re: this resemblance before--it's just when I read stories like this, it becomes more and more uncanny... It's cool though... I hope you're doing well, Jason

[Ritella]

As I said, I could be an INFj, but, to me, that's a problem. It means that Socionics only manages to talk about the things about myself that I don't like. For instance, INFjs often have a hard time asserting themselves in order to maintain "harmony." I do this, but it's something I find frustrating, as opposed to wise. An example of this was when I was driving my friend somewhere a few weeks ago. I was listening to a song that I liked, when he turned the radio station without asking me. This really made me mad. "Who does he think he is to change the radio station in my car without asking"? I was so angry, that I just said nothing. I don't think I would have been able to tell him how I felt without offending him. Now, this is a source of frustration for me (as opposed to pleasure), because trying not to offend him stops me from being able to express myself, and that's very annoying. Wanting to be in harmony is typical of the type of characteristic found in INFj descriptions. As a result, when I look at myself in terms of the INFj descriptions, I feel very annoyed as opposed to satisfied.

I do the same thing. The description is saying that INFJs have a hard time being forceful. That doesn't mean they don't want to be. I get really mad at myself for not saying things like "shut the fuck up" or asserting myself more when I need to. It's just, ummm, hard for me to do...

Another problem with the descriptions is that I see myself as a kind of theorist, and I've never read anything about INFjs having theoretical tendencies. Don't get me wrong; I like a lot of the INFjs that I've met. The problem is when it's applied to my behaviour. As I said, it talks about a lot of things that are a source of frustration for me.

INFJs do have theoretical tendencies. They have creative Ne. I agree that some of the descriptions make them sound wishy-washy. However, a lot are very intellectual and philosophical.

I studied computer science, and there was a lot of logic involved. I probably had a deeper, more precise understanding of a lot of the concepts than many of the so-called Researchers in my class. Assuming I'm an INFj, what a crock that is...

I majored in Math in College and worked as a Computer Programmer. The description's not saying that you can't do that.

[jason_m]

INFJs do have theoretical tendencies. They have creative Ne. I agree that some of the descriptions make them sound wishy-washy. However, a lot are very intellectual and philosophical.

I have not read one description in which the INFj is described in an intellectual light. Not one. In fact, I dare you to find one that does.

I majored in Math in College and worked as a Computer Programmer. The description's not saying that you can't do that.

They don't. What they do do is describe all of the NT types as theoretically brilliant. They are analysts, inventors, researchers, etc., and they are always described in an intellectual light. I guess the rest of us just aren't up to snuff. That must be right, though. Most intellectuals must lack emotion. I don't know why, but, of course, it makes perfect sense!

Jason

EDIT: I should also add to this: all logical types have weak ethics. Really, you don't want to leave an Fi-PoLR type in your bathroom alone; those buggers will steal anything. Now, come on, does any of this really make sense? Why does having strong logic automatically make you the opposite of someone who has strong morals?

I should also say that there was a book on IQ testing that I discovered. It was called "The Mismeasure of Man." I disagree with that title. With an IQ test, you get out what you put into it. If you didn't answer many of the questions correctly, you get a low score. If you do the opposite, you get a high score. IQ tests are also clearly measuring something that involves intelligence, so it is somewhat hard to argue that they are unfair. Personality systems like Socionics, on the other hand, take characteristics such as how impersonal you are, whether you have strong feelings, and whether you are intuitive, and automatically imply (indirectly) things like how intelligent you are, how well you deal with people, and how moral you are. You do not get out what you put into it. And anyone who does not think that some types are, for example, portrayed in a more intellectual or more moral light than others is deceiving themselves.

[hellothere]

I think you're building a bit of a straw man argument. I don't think socionics really says that stuff. Why can't an ethical type simply be someone who is more adept at ethics (by that I mean Fe/Fi) than logic (Ti/Te)? That statement doesn't imply they are bad at Ti/Te.

All other things equal, an Fe or Fi type will be worse than a Ti/Te type at Ti/Te stuff (and vice versa). But all other things are never equal. Do you think every single person who is best categorised as a logical type will be better at Ti/Te things than every single person who is best categorised as an ethical type? It seems pretty obvious to me that the answer is no, but perhaps I am wrong.

[hellothere]

I have not read one description in which the INFj is described in an intellectual light. Not one. In fact, I dare you to find one that does.

I don't put too much stock in specific descriptions (but rather try to get a feel for the image that comes across over numerous descriptions), but I couldn't resist :

Young DOSTOYEVSKY is modest, tactful and delicate, a large amateur of reading and generally intellectual.

from http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ale_and_female

[munenori2]

I think you're building a bit of a straw man argument. I don't think socionics really says that stuff. Why can't an ethical type simply be someone who is more adept at ethics (by that I mean Fe/Fi) than logic (Ti/Te)? That statement doesn't imply they are bad at Ti/Te.

All other things equal, an Fe or Fi type will be worse than a Ti/Te type at Ti/Te stuff (and vice versa). But all other things are never equal. Do you think every single person who is best categorised as a logical type will be better at Ti/Te things than every single person who is best categorised as an ethical type? It seems pretty obvious to me that the answer is no, but perhaps I am wrong.

+1

I think the problem you might be having, jason, has to do a tiny bit with the way you view the relationships between the functions in model A, more to do with how those functions are to be understood in a person, and mostly emanating from a generally overstrict categorization of the parts of the theory. Now that last isn't a bad thing, especially if you're trying to come to some sort of conclusion about that theory, but, unless I'm supposed to take what you say in this last post as frustrated and sarcastic, it seems to me like you're overdoing it. I'll leave the stuff about the functions and how they fit together aside for now, since there are people here who are much more capable of explaining that, plus it might be a neverending derail.

I won't particularly draw much in the way of your socionics type from this as I really haven't read much of your other postings. However, your problems with and criticisms of the theory appear to overwhelmingly be about the structural relationship of the parts and the implications of that than the parts themselves. Perhaps that's a signal towards Ti ego or merely Ti-valuing, but no worries at this point.

On the other hand we have a comparison between IQ and Personality tests at the end of your post which kind of brings to light something interesting. It doesn't sound like you have much of a problem with something which measures as aspect you think is objective in nature (number of correctly answered questions relying on facts, logic, etc), but are a lot more disturbed by the way in which judgements about a person's character or capabilities are derived in a way you fail to find a justification for, perhaps do not believe exists, or even the very core of you finds that practive repulsive.

If you focus on the descriptions of types with this kind of approach, naturally you'll be disappointed. As a summary of the generally shared and more prominent features of a type's personality, it sort of has to gloss over possible points found in any of the sixteen to get at the core perspective. The descriptions can't talk about all the ramifications of that view of the world, everywhere it could lead or wind up in the end.

However, this doesn't mean that these paths are not open, much less even all that uncommon amongst members of this or that type, nor can it define secondary characteristics which arise in a person that are more incidental and evoked by the myriad ways in which a type responds healthily, unhealthily, or is more neutrally influenced by that thing called life. A person might resonate with some or all of these environmental parts of themselves, even when there is some tension, conflict, or subversion of who they are at the core, which is yet another reason that typing oneself and others can be complicated.

[Slacker]

It is a strawman argument. If your Fi is weak and unvalued, that doesn't mean you are "unethical" and will steal things. That's ridiculous.

I think you're more likely INTj than INFj because you seem more focused on logic than ethics. Your posts seem to be written by someone not too concerned about their effects on others. They aren't mean or anything, just very cold and they sound carefully put together.

Not the strongest argument and you're the best judge IMO. But my suggestion is to not read the descriptions so closely because they're just suggesting ways that the functional use could show up in behavior. Actually look at the functions and see which ones feel like you. Also, read up on potential weak functions. You've already said that you understand that Se is weak for you, which fits with both types, so read up on Fi and Ti, and don't assume Ti = smart and Fi = not smart. There are stupid Ti people and smart Fi people. And don't assume Fi = ethical and Ti = unethical either. It's more about considering how what you do affects others, but it's entirely possible to see how it will affect others and purposely do what will hurt them. The bad side of Fi is using that knowledge and manipulating people, sometimes passive-aggressively with weak Se added in. There is good and bad potential in every type and function. Someone weak in Fi might not be aware or might not care about how what they do will affect others as much and might instead consider whether something makes sense logically and base decisions on that. You can't really do both at the same time. Either you make a decision based on what will happen to other people regardless of logic, or you look at the logic without as much concern for how it affects other people.

(And if you are now deconstructing that and wanting to reply that my statement is self-contradictory - which it might be, I couldn't decide - you are probably a Ti type instead of an Fi type.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[implied]

It is a strawman argument. If your Fi is weak and unvalued, that doesn't mean you are "unethical" and will steal things. That's ridiculous.

I think you're more likely INTj than INFj because you seem more focused on logic than ethics. Your posts seem to be written by someone not too concerned about their effects on others. They aren't mean or anything, just very cold and they sound carefully put together.

Not the strongest argument and you're the best judge IMO. But my suggestion is to not read the descriptions so closely because they're just suggesting ways that the functional use could show up in behavior. Actually look at the functions and see which ones feel like you. Also, read up on potential weak functions. You've already said that you understand that Se is weak for you, which fits with both types, so read up on Fi and Ti, and don't assume Ti = smart and Fi = not smart. There are stupid Ti people and smart Fi people. And don't assume Fi = ethical and Ti = unethical either. It's more about considering how what you do affects others, but it's entirely possible to see how it will affect others and purposely do what will hurt them. The bad side of Fi is using that knowledge and manipulating people, sometimes passive-aggressively with weak Se added in. There is good and bad potential in every type and function. Someone weak in Fi might not be aware or might not care about how what they do will affect others as much and might instead consider whether something makes sense logically and base decisions on that. You can't really do both at the same time. Either you make a decision based on what will happen to other people regardless of logic, or you look at the logic without as much concern for how it affects other people.

(And if you are now deconstructing that and wanting to reply that my statement is self-contradictory - which it might be, I couldn't decide - you are probably a Ti type instead of an Fi type.)

your post seems more like getting rid of stereotypes or cautioning us to not rely too heavily on them. i also can't believe that a Si type is the only person who can cook a steak. (;