Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 130

Thread: Why is it so Difficult to Find your Type?

  1. #1
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Why is it so Difficult to Find your Type?

    I've noticed a couple things:

    - 1) A large number of people on this website are unsure of their type.

    - 2) A large number of people have changed their type over time.

    I thought that this might have to do with the fact that, unlike the MBTI, socionics has no official way of determining one's type. However, neither does the Enneagram, and yet, from my experience, I haven't noticed the same degree of confusion amongst its users.

    My question is, why is it so difficult? Is it the fact that there are inconsistent interpretations of the types? Is it that the descriptions are not down-to-earth enough? Or is it something else?

    Answering these questions is useful, because it can improve how the descriptions are written. It would be especially useful if the people who fit one of the categories mentioned above would respond, so we have people who are actually experiencing this problem tell us why they are having (or have had) trouble.

    I will say that I had trouble, because a lot of the INTj descriptions described things that are difficult for me to see in myself. I think I do use Ti a lot in my thinking, but not in the way it's usually described.

    Jason
    LII

  2. #2
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    People change their own typing because in order to type yourself or anyone else, it's necessary to understand the theory. As your understanding of the theory increases, you may realize that your original typing was based on a flawed understanding. So it's best not to focus too much on getting it all right at once, give some time to understand the theory, and then see how it goes.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  3. #3
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I've noticed a couple things:

    - 1) A large number of people on this website are unsure of their type.

    - 2) A large number of people have changed their type over time.

    I thought that this might have to do with the fact that, unlike the MBTI, socionics has no official way of determining one's type. However, neither does the Enneagram, and yet, from my experience, I haven't noticed the same degree of confusion amongst its users.

    My question is, why is it so difficult? Is it the fact that there are inconsistent interpretations of the types? Is it that the descriptions are not down-to-earth enough? Or is it something else?

    Answering these questions is useful, because it can improve how the descriptions are written. It would be especially useful if the people who fit one of the categories mentioned above would respond, so we have people who are actually experiencing this problem tell us why they are having (or have had) trouble.

    I will say that I had trouble, because a lot of the INTj descriptions described things that are difficult for me to see in myself. I think I do use Ti a lot in my thinking, but not in the way it's usually described.

    Jason
    Here's something that contributes to it... I don't think you're INTj

  4. #4
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For me it was roughly what expat is saying. As my understanding grew I saw that there were some errors in my type assessment so I abandoned it. However with that understanding did not come clarity, certainty about my type, as in, I was wrong here, now I know it, now I can move on. Instead what happened was that I had more room to interpret, to mentally expand on things. I could see possibilities, alternatives more easily. Question what I hold to be true more easily. Right now I can see many things as being possible, in one way or another, and I can't discount any of them as they all make sense on their own.

  5. #5
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Here's something that contributes to it... I don't think you're INTj
    So why do you think this and what type am I?

    Jason
    LII

  6. #6
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    So why do you think this and what type am I?

    Jason
    I was half joking, to be honest i've had an INTp (definately INxp) impression from you, but end of day you know yourself better than me, who's just read a few of your posts. So if you say INTj then fair enough mate.

  7. #7
    jessica129's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,122
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ...and people who know nothing about you other than your online persona will surely throw at least 5 types out there, thus confusing you even more and possibly skewing your view of yourself which ultimately leads to another and another and another switch.

  8. #8
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jessica129 View Post
    ...and people who know nothing about you other than your online persona will surely throw at least 5 types out there, thus confusing you even more and possibly skewing your view of yourself which ultimately leads to another and another and another switch.
    yup

  9. #9
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    13,088
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    People change their own typing because in order to type yourself or anyone else, it's necessary to understand the theory. As your understanding of the theory increases, you may realize that your original typing was based on a flawed understanding. So it's best not to focus too much on getting it all right at once, give some time to understand the theory, and then see how it goes.
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by jessica129 View Post
    ...and people who know nothing about you other than your online persona will surely throw at least 5 types out there, thus confusing you even more and possibly skewing your view of yourself which ultimately leads to another and another and another switch.
    Word.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I've noticed a couple things:

    - 1) A large number of people on this website are unsure of their type.

    - 2) A large number of people have changed their type over time.

    I thought that this might have to do with the fact that, unlike the MBTI, socionics has no official way of determining one's type. However, neither does the Enneagram, and yet, from my experience, I haven't noticed the same degree of confusion amongst its users.

    My question is, why is it so difficult? Is it the fact that there are inconsistent interpretations of the types? Is it that the descriptions are not down-to-earth enough? Or is it something else?
    The explanation is rather simple, actually. People focus on the functions (which they don't understand) and dismiss the four dichotomies and the descriptions of type related behaviours and attitudes in the type profiles as irrelevant. Adding to that idiotic behaviour, they also dismiss their own test results as irrelevant. By favouring that typing "method" they are doomed to go astray and form totally incorrect views on what types they are.

  11. #11
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    People rarely understand at first what is meant by introversion and extroversion of functions...it was something I dismissed at first until I finally understood it and now I realize how important it is to socionics. It is also totally unambiguous and lends to a reliable typing methodology. Most people miss this and go by vague, subjective type descriptions and fall for the Forer effect.

    BTW, Cyclops also mistyped me as ILI, and I had the same problems you have. Also, nowhere in your post do I see the slightest semblance of . FWIW, if you have trouble fitting LII you might want to check LSI. It's like LII but with less ambiguity and noise. How do you feel about creative ?

  12. #12
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    13,088
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Here's something that contributes to it... I don't think you're INTj
    I don't think you're ISTp.

    Jason, from how you appear to me on the forum I think you're most likely Ne ego. Aside from that, I can't tell.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  13. #13
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Winterpark View Post
    I don't think you're ISTp.

    Jason, from how you appear to me on the forum I think you're most likely Ne ego. Aside from that, I can't tell.
    I think Cyclops is -leading, LSE>LIE

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    I think Cyclops is -leading, LSE>LIE
    Either you are joking or you have just fallen in the trap and made exactly the same kind of idiotic mistake that I described in my previous post. You focus on the functions instead of the four dichotomies, and that is a big, big mistake. You correctly recognize Cyclops's , but you dismiss what we know about his temperament, his test results, and his identification with the four dichotomies. That evidence demonstrates with the utmost clarity that Cyclops is definitely not an LSE.

    People make the exact same mistake when it comes to determining my type (which they shouldn't even try to do since that is a total waste of time in light of the fact that I have known my correct type for years now, and people should just accept what I say my type is, since I am immensely more capable than they are at determining it). People see my , because that is the function I almost always use in discussions and debates -- it is the only function they can see directly, unless they are more competent at spotting , which most of them are not, even though some members of this forum are exceptions. The problem, however, is that most people here doesn't understand the difference between creative and accepting , so many of them falsely believe that the I am showing in my posts is instead . All this typing circus, so popular among the members of this forum, contribute to the general mess and misunderstandings people have about the types.

  15. #15
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Either you are joking or you have just fallen in the trap and made exactly the same kind of idiotic mistake that I described in my previous post. You focus on the functions instead of the four dichotomies, and that is a big, big mistake. You correctly recognize Cyclops's , but you dismiss what we know about his temperament, his test results, and his identification with the four dichotomies. That evidence demonstrates with the utmost clarity that Cyclops is definitely not an LSE.

    People make the exact same mistake when it comes to determining my type (which they shouldn't even try to do since that is a total waste of time in light of the fact that I have known my correct type for years now, and people should just accept what I say my type is, since I am immensely more capable than they are at determining it). People see my , because that is the function I almost always use in discussions and debates -- it is the only function they can see directly, unless they are more competent at spotting , which most of them are not, even though some members of this forum are exceptions. The problem, however, is that most people here doesn't understand the difference between creative and accepting , so many of them falsely believe that the I am showing in my posts is instead . All this typing circus, so popular among the members of this forum, contribute to the general mess and misunderstandings people have about the types.
    You believe that Cyclops is introverted and perceiving? In my experience he likes to talk more than listen. How would you describe yourself as predominantly -leading rather than -leading? From what I have noticed, you are more ideologically self-assured than -leading types, which is something that I have noticed in most -leading types (such as strrrng, crazedrat, and to a lesser extent Niffweed17). -valuing is more common to those who want an open understanding of things, which is why I cannot identify with it. If I am not LSI, then I am more likely Gamma NT than Alpha or Delta (which I doubt).

  16. #16
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    13,088
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    You believe that Cyclops is introverted and perceiving? In my experience he likes to talk more than listen.
    +1.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    You believe that Cyclops is introverted and perceiving?
    What I believe is irrelevant. He tests as ISTp, and he identifies with introversion and perceiving.

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli
    In my experience he likes to talk more than listen.
    Irrelevant. Have you met him in real life, face to face? People could say the same thing of me, based on the fact that they think that my views are set in stone and that I always tell people what the objective truth is. Study Smilingeyes's material on how creative Te manifests itself and you might learn something here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli
    How would you describe yourself as predominantly -leading rather than -leading?
    I would describe myself in as very similar to how ILIs are described in the socionic literature. One of many, many reasons why I know that I am not leading is that I am a practical imbecile but a theoretical genius. I am constantly occupied with theoretical and abstract issues. If I am not analyzing theories and trying to predict the future, I write poems, song lyrics, play strategic games, or read. I have almost no practical interests whatsoever. And besides all of that, I fit everything said about the ILI in every dimension (including Reinin of course), whereas I don't fit a lot of things said about SLIs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli
    From what I have noticed, you are more ideologically self-assured than -leading types, which is something that I have noticed in most -leading types (such as strrrng, crazedrat, and to a lesser extent Niffweed17).
    One aspect of is trying to find the "correct" or "right" ideology to believe in. And of course we spend much more time thinking about these things than SLIs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli
    -valuing is more common to those who want an open understanding of things, which is why I cannot identify with it. If I am not LSI, then I am more likely Gamma NT than Alpha or Delta (which I doubt).
    You misunderstand the types because you focus on irrelevant aspects of them. Your attitude here is perfectly consistent with being an LII. If you believe that an LII is "open-minded" in the same sense that an ILE is open-minded, then you have totally misunderstood the types, and the reason you have done that in that case is because you have focused on the functions instead of the types.

  18. #18
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    What I believe is irrelevant. He tests as ISTp, and he identifies with introversion and perceiving.

    Irrelevant. Have you met him in real life, face to face? People could say the same thing of me, based on the fact that they think that my views are set in stone and that I always tell people what the objective truth is. Study Smilingeyes's material on how creative Te manifests itself and you might learn something here.

    I would describe myself in as very similar to how ILIs are described in the socionic literature. One of many, many reasons why I know that I am not leading is that I am a practical imbecile but a theoretical genius. I am constantly occupied with theoretical and abstract issues. If I am not analyzing theories and trying to predict the future, I write poems, song lyrics, play strategic games, or read. I have almost no practical interests whatsoever. And besides all of that, I fit everything said about the ILI in every dimension (including Reinin of course), whereas I don't fit a lot of things said about SLIs.

    One aspect of is trying to find the "correct" or "right" ideology to believe in. And of course we spend much more time thinking about these things than SLIs.

    You misunderstand the types because you focus on irrelevant aspects of them. Your attitude here is perfectly consistent with being an LII. If you believe that an LII is "open-minded" in the same sense that an ILE is open-minded, then you have totally misunderstood the types, and the reason you have done that in that case is because you have focused on the functions instead of the types.
    I have met him face to face on chatbox plenty of times; unless he is using an internet persona (which I doubt) I will assume that is how he really is. I can identify with ILE but it does not make me one. Personally, I think that takes on a dominant role in social interactions with Cyclops, and though I directly sense his when he is apathetic or indirectly as a conspicuous lack of Se, Ni, and Ne (except for when he talks about Si-related matters like his hair care, beer quality, and exercise habits), I doubt that it could compete with his . Certainly -ISTp is out-of-the-question. I also think that he seems pretty balanced with respect to the dynamic temperaments, so the introverted subtype of an introverted type is all the more unlikely. However, believe it or not I can see you as ILI. You don't make enough of an effort to truly reach out and change the other to be considered LIE by me though I know that you guard your very well. Furthermore, I cannot have an ego, as for itself is absolutely worthless to me and I would be ashamed to express it for lack of a more definite and consolidated assertion, though I certainly do not express my as much as you. This is what I said to Nick in regards to that:

    There is no way that I have extroverted intuition as an ego function. I would use every other extroverted function before I would use that one. People often tell me that I seem -valuing because I tend to focus on the detailed, branching implications of things. The truth is that I value , but under very predictable (and boring) circumstances I make more by sorting through the contents of the refracting prism (which I don't value) with the focusing lens of and wrecking what I don't like, incorporating everything else into myself. Usually I ignore both.

    LOL@YOU thinking that all details are . My position is totally consolidated every time and leaves no room for interpretation. Why don't you go find some mention of 'possibilities' before you start making this claim, in any one of my posts to which you keep referring. I would love to see 1 example of . I never leave anything open, and I always fortify my position. Even jxrtes noticed that I have no open ends, which any real ego could not stand. Amazing - even with my weak extroverted intuition, I finally realized what your problem is. You think that anyone who doesn't intuit the same things or the same way as you is . I really have to laugh at that.

    I also think that your weak attempts to demean my are absolutely pitiful considering that you have never met me.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    I have met him face to face on chatbox plenty of times;
    Have you heard his voice, have you seen his face, have you seen his body move?

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli
    I can identify with ILE but it does not make me one.
    If you can, even for a second, identify with ILE, then you cannot be an LSI. That is very simple. You absolutely cannot be an LSI if you can identify even the slightest with ILE. Think this over carefully, and reconsider your self-typing before I have to conclude that you are deluded. You must realize that it is insane for an LSI to say that he can identify with ILE. Don't brainwash yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli
    Personally, I think that takes on a dominant role in social interactions with Cyclops, and though I directly sense his when he is apathetic or indirectly as a conspicuous lack of Se, Ni, and Ne (except for when he talks about Si-related matters like his hair care, beer quality, and exercise habits), I doubt that it could compete with his . Certainly -ISTp is out-of-the-question.
    Don't you understand what I am saying? Why don't you start to use your intelligence in this context too? At the moment it is totally absent. You reason like a complete idiot here. Face the FACTS! Cyclops is not leading.

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli
    However, believe it or not I can see you as ILI.
    Then there is hope for you. If you wouldn't have been able to see me as an ILI, then you would have been totally incompetent at typing. Now, stop playing childish typing games and start to take typing seriously. That means basing your typings on facts, not your fantasies and creations.

  20. #20
    expired Lotus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    TIM
    Se/Ni sx/sp
    Posts
    4,494
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    People change their own typing because in order to type yourself or anyone else, it's necessary to understand the theory. As your understanding of the theory increases, you may realize that your original typing was based on a flawed understanding. So it's best not to focus too much on getting it all right at once, give some time to understand the theory, and then see how it goes.
    This is why I couldn't find my type. I still don't understand the theory with confidence but I haven't really tried [as much as I can, at least] either. I don't want to use a model or someone else's system of typing until I can observe the differences myself. I have a vague idea of what each type is like, but I'm not satisfied with my understanding yet. I'm pretty sure of my type based on this but I'm still open to other typings.
    maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
    maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
    go ask the frog what the scorpion knows

  21. #21
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    BTW, Cyclops also mistyped me as ILI, and I had the same problems you have. Also, nowhere in your post do I see the slightest semblance of . FWIW, if you have trouble fitting LII you might want to check LSI. It's like LII but with less ambiguity and noise. How do you feel about creative ?
    Actually, I identify with Ne more than any of the other functions. It's just that I have a hard time seeing it in a leading role, as in always looking for opportunities and seeing the potential in things.

    Jason
    LII

  22. #22
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Actually, I identify with Ne more than any of the other functions. It's just that I have a hard time seeing it in a leading role, as in always looking for opportunities and seeing the potential in things.

    Jason
    Interesting. I am always afraid that I will become distracted or misled by it; and for most matters it doesn't serve as a substitute for motor-sensory experience. I fear that if I let it run wild I will be inconsistent and redundant, and that I will lack purpose and direction. I am also hesitant to use it extravertedly, since I doubt that anyone would relate to it and even if they did they would not be relating to me because I don't relate to it when it is used on me (my intuition is about as extroverted as is Plato's trapped prisoner watching shadows alone in his cave, and is almost never involved in any social interaction). I use Ne for short periods of time, to supplement and develop my Ni in short, self-consistent spurts, which is what I mainly rely on.

  23. #23
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    People have trouble finding their type because either they don't understand themselves very well (or they have poor self-perception), or they they don't understand socionics well enough to type themselves properly. Note that their misunderstanding of socionics may not be entirely their fault; there's so much shit spread by those who also don't understand it that it's easy to get caught up in it and start believing (and, worse, preaching yourself) said shit.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Note that their misunderstanding of socionics may not be entirely their fault; there's so much shit spread by those who also don't understand it that it's easy to get caught up in it and start believing (and, worse, preaching yourself) said shit.
    To which you yourself have contributed a lot. The worst forms of shit people are spreading is the delusion that you can dismiss the four dichotomies and your own test results and believe that you can be one type in MBTT and another in Socionics.

  25. #25
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  26. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I've noticed a couple things:

    - 1) A large number of people on this website are unsure of their type.

    - 2) A large number of people have changed their type over time.

    I thought that this might have to do with the fact that, unlike the MBTI, socionics has no official way of determining one's type. However, neither does the Enneagram, and yet, from my experience, I haven't noticed the same degree of confusion amongst its users.

    My question is, why is it so difficult? Is it the fact that there are inconsistent interpretations of the types? Is it that the descriptions are not down-to-earth enough? Or is it something else?

    Answering these questions is useful, because it can improve how the descriptions are written. It would be especially useful if the people who fit one of the categories mentioned above would respond, so we have people who are actually experiencing this problem tell us why they are having (or have had) trouble.

    I will say that I had trouble, because a lot of the INTj descriptions described things that are difficult for me to see in myself. I think I do use Ti a lot in my thinking, but not in the way it's usually described.

    Jason
    Because hearing about something and getting to know it are two separate things.

  27. #27
    Haikus Sirena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    GAH, US
    TIM
    Mumpsimus
    Posts
    2,549
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    You believe that Cyclops is introverted and perceiving? In my experience he likes to talk more than listen. How would you describe yourself as predominantly -leading rather than -leading? From what I have noticed, you are more ideologically self-assured than -leading types, which is something that I have noticed in most -leading types (such as strrrng, crazedrat, and to a lesser extent Niffweed17). -valuing is more common to those who want an open understanding of things, which is why I cannot identify with it. If I am not LSI, then I am more likely Gamma NT than Alpha or Delta (which I doubt).
    LOL. Is this how we're typing people now? Based on how much they talk vs. how much they listen?

    Why do you even think that anyway? Because that was the case while you two were arguing? I can only assume this is what you're basing this statement on since it is pretty clear that aside from that that's not the case. So you seem to think he's Te leading because he uses Te creatively to engage in discussions on here and since you don't know him personally, you assume that what you see (Te) is what he is primarily. This is the problem in making conclusions based on such limited practical information. If anything, it's clear that Cyclops uses Te "creatively", rather than it being his leading function. And again, based on my personal experience with him (which you don't have) it is ridiculous to suggest that he has EJ temperament (lol).

    I do think there's a possibility he might be ISTp-Te though, based on my personal knowledge/interaction with him, which maybe explains some of what you're noticing and misinterpreting.
    Last edited by Sirena; 09-29-2008 at 05:46 PM.

  28. #28
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana
    the P-J thing is crap, and not something anyone should use, totally shallow superficial traits that are very easy to confuse.
    Exactly. Very good. Thank you.

  29. #29
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirena View Post
    LOL. Is this how we're typing people now? Based on how much they talk vs. how much they listen?

    Why do you even think that anyway? Because that was the case while you two were arguing? I can only assume this is what you're basing this statement on since it is pretty clear that aside from that that's not the case.
    Why do you ask questions? So that you can answer them yourself?


    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Exactly. Very good. Thank you.
    Everyone both perceives and judges, but whether the hierarchy of ego functions (accepting vs producing) favors perceiving or judging will determine whether the social interaction will take on elements of perception or judgment, because it is the ego that primarily responds to social interactions.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    To a point the dichotomies can be used Phaedrus, because all the NTs have strong Ni and Ne, strong Ti and Te, and so on, but when you come down to distinguishing which NT type it is, the P-J thing is crap, and not something anyone should use, totally shallow superficial traits that are very easy to confuse.
    Now you are spreading complete bullshit again. The P-J thing is essential and necessary because it defines each type's temperament. Every LII has an IJ temperament and must thus identify with and test as J, every ILI has an IP temperament and must thus identify with and test as P, and so on.

    You can never ever have any other temperament than the temperament you are supposed to have according to the four dichotomies, which in themselves DEFINE every single one of the 16 types. If you don't undertand and accept this this, you don't understand Socionics, and you don't understand the types.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana
    Likewise for E-I. Instead, learning about the elements is very useful and your relation to each. An NT doesn't have just any SF as his/her dual, it's not the dichotomies that are actually important there but the functions and elements.
    The functions and the four dichotomies never ever contradict each other. They are ALWAYS in perfect agreement. If they don't match each other, you have made a mistake and must start all over, because then you KNOW that you have mistyped the person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana
    An ESFp is far more similar to an ISFj than to an ISFp, even though it shares more dichotomies with the ISFp.
    Only in some attitudes, not in behaviour and not in temperament and not in biological life rhythm. And that is what the four dichotomies are about. They are about your natural inborn temperament, which you can never change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana
    The two gamma SFs are more similar because of the shared focus on Se and Fi, and the shared appreciation for Ni and Te etc.
    They are not more similar in behaviour and life rhythm. In that respect they are opposites.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana
    An ILI conflicts with an ESE, but has a dual in SEE, and there is only one dichotomy different. They would do much better with an ESI than with an ESE, even though ESI has fewer dichotomies in common with the ILI's dual. The reason is the focus on certain elements over others, not in having the most right letters lined up.
    Here you reveal that you confuse things completely and don't know what you are talking about. Intertype relations is one thing, temperaments and dichotomies is another. You don't know the basics of Socionics. You should study it much more than you already have. You are just wrong, and you don't even realize it.

  31. #31
    Haikus Sirena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    GAH, US
    TIM
    Mumpsimus
    Posts
    2,549
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    Why do you ask questions? So that you can answer them yourself?
    Someone has to!

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    Everyone both perceives and judges, but whether the hierarchy of ego functions (accepting vs producing) favors perceiving or judging will determine whether the social interaction will take on elements of perception or judgment, because it is the ego that primarily responds to social interactions.
    Whether you perceive or judge in a particular situation has nothing to do with the four dichotomies. The four dichotomies define your inborn natural temperament, which is always the same and can never change.

  33. #33
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Whether you perceive or judge in a particular situation has nothing to do with the four dichotomies. The four dichotomies define your inborn natural temperament, which is always the same and can never change.
    I think that you misunderstood what I said - in social interactions, which are the standard by which other people are usually judged, a dominant perceiving function will define the attitude in a way that encourages perceiving rather than judging.

  34. #34
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    Fuck you. As if you have any idea of who the real person is behind an online persona. In my experience you've shown me that you don't.
    Do you think he meant that personally against you? He himself had a very hard time typing himself for a pretty long time. So it seems like he'd be including himself when he says that. The two greatest reasons people would mistype themselves would seem to be either they misread themselves or they misread the theory. That's all he said and I think it makes sense.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  35. #35
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carla View Post
    This is the condescending shit that he feeds me, Slacker Mom. Anyway, never mind. Carry on.
    Yes that is condescending. Carry on. LOL.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    I think that you misunderstood what I said - in social interactions, which are the standard by which other people are usually judged, a dominant perceiving function will define the attitude in a way that encourages perceiving rather than judging.
    Yes, but your comment is irrelevant and misleading, because by that way of thinking one might get the idea that the temperament and thus the four dichotomies are not set in stone. But they are set in stone. Your inborn temperament is impossible to change, whatever functions you may use or not use in different situations.

  37. #37
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Yes, but your comment is irrelevant and misleading, because by that way of thinking one might get the idea that the temperament and thus the four dichotomies are not set in stone. But they are set in stone. Your inborn temperament is impossible to change, whatever functions you may use or not use in different situations.
    I am sorry if I made it seem this way. I was referring to the point when IM preference first becomes distinguished as it is becoming positively reinforced and supported from within.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    I am sorry if I made it seem this way. I was referring to the point when IM preference first becomes distinguished as it is becoming positively reinforced and supported from within.
    Okay, I think we agree on that. I want people to accept simple but indisputable truths about the types. And yet they don't for some obscure reasons. How can we help them to avoid becoming victims of muddled and incorrect thinking? I don't believe that more and deeper theoretical analyses is the best way to go. People don't understand the basics yet.

  39. #39
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Okay, I think we agree on that. I want people to accept simple but indisputable truths about the types. And yet they don't for some obscure reasons. How can we help them to avoid becoming victims of muddled and incorrect thinking? I don't believe that more and deeper theoretical analyses is the best way to go. People don't understand the basics yet.
    The theoretical analysis provides a consistent and reliable foundation for typing. Most people cannot understand the repertoire of tools that someone experienced uses to type, and there are a lot of conflicting opinions that cannot be disambiguated. The point is to allow a relevant frame of reference to take precedence and act as a common ground for speculation. I know that can be hard to accept as a -creative type, but ultimately I think that it will prove useful, especially for educating newcomers.

  40. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The ultimate solution -- which we are nowhere near -- is in three parts:
    - Distinguish all 256 dual-type combinations, correlate with VI
    - Correlate the VI differences with brain activity differences; correlate these with DNA similarities between people of the same dual-type.
    - (presumably) continue to narrow down what the functions mean. (not the elements, the functions) Create questions which test the connection between the elements and their manifestation as functions. Long term goal, ultimately unacheivable?

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •