Does irrationality have anything to do with chopping and changing with type?

[Ezra]

I did it a lot, and Gilly does, and so many others do it too.

Is it because we're all irrational?

I've noticed that most of - if not all - the rationals I've encountered on this site tend to stick to their type. That's not to say that many irrationals don't as well - it's just that a lot more of them change their type.

I'm not saying that we are also irrational in the general sense of the word, because when it comes down to living, I am one of the most rational people I and many others know.

But is there some link? And does anyone have an inkling of what it is?

[Creepy-male]

I don't think it's related to j/p.

I can think of my ESI mum not liking retypings, yet, by comparison, my ESI friend is merely resistant. Compare that to an EII and SLI friend who never engaged with socionics to begin with (and poke fun at me throwing suggestions for their types around), and an IEE friend who seems to waver between rehashing the non-caring group sentiment and figuring his type out. Also, my LII friend is open to discussions, but has settled on LII as a self-typing and seems fine defending that against other suggestions. Compare to my ILE friend who really doesn't like being retyped (not confident on that typing, but it's his self-typing, and seems about reasonable).

Also, I suppose it depends on what one defines as a retyping. I'm going to exclude myself from this discussion for obvious reasons, though.

[stevENTj]

Yeah I think it's a j/p thing.

[The Exception]

I agree with Ezra, I see the type hopping as being more common with irrational types. Rational types are more likely to have the opposite problem, insisting they are a certain type, even when there is clear evidence against it.

[Creepy-male]

I agree with Ezra, I see the type hopping as being more common with irrational types. Rational types are more likely to have the opposite problem, insisting they are a certain type, even when there is clear evidence against it.

Ok, fine. I'm posting, I'm posting!

As I mentioned to another user, I'm fairly comfortable just dumping my stream of consciousness on these boards, in the name of Accuracy (I decided on this way back when I first started posting!) As such, when I was penciling in new typings rather frequently to try them on for size/community agreement, it might well have looked a lot more like an "actual" retyping, rather than me seeing if it was valid or not. And you know how poorly I conduct myself in Gultypan threads, fending off data and evidence, left, right, and center

Enneatype 3??

I guess any of the core triad will have that problem. I suppose Sixes will want to react to any doubt by blustering SUPER SOLID CERTAIN SURE FOREVER (anndelise or Implied, feel free to correct me on this; I'm mostly thinking about Jake here (<3)) though, while Nines duck under the drama or go for a consensus typing (or type themselves based on their current identifications... *ahem* Chameleon Gul, "Delta NF" T-Reg, LII MysticSonic, etc, etc).

[normal]

mmm maybe irrational and extrovert. But who knows...

[krieger]

I have considered a lot of possible types for myself during my first 2 years of familiarity with socionics, but I never established a typing other than INTj. I did internally "convince" myself I was ENTp or INTp a few times to see what would result from the endeavor and wether such an assumption would lead to a good big-picture view of things, but these were exclusively private experiments.

Also during these first 2 years, I lived in almost constant doubt of my type despite at all times more or less knowing that INTj was the most likely type for me by far. These days I feel no doubts whatoever anymore at all.

[Ezra]

Rational types are more likely to have the opposite problem, insisting they are a certain type, even when there is clear evidence against it.

I think this issue is probably more rife in rational Ti types than rational Te types, who would probably bow to clear evidence. However, I'd hope the more intelligent Ti types amongst us would also accept that they were a different type were there clear evidence of the contrary. I attribute blind dogmatism to no type - rather I attribute it to those unable to adapt, which I don't think is a trait innate in any type.

I have considered a lot of possible types for myself during my first 2 years of familiarity with socionics, but I never established a typing other than INTj. I did internally "convince" myself I was ENTp or INTp a few times to see what would result from the endeavor and wether such an assumption would lead to a good big-picture view of things, but these were exclusively private experiments.

Also during these first 2 years, I lived in almost constant doubt of my type despite at all times more or less knowing that INTj was the most likely type for me by far. These days I feel no doubts whatoever anymore at all.

Yeah, I reckon that could be a Ti thing. I've done that a few times too.

[mu4]

I don't think irrationality has much to do with changing types. I think type search is essentially a identity seeking endeavor. I think the different clubs manifest this need differently, although as a whole this is a important facet of life.

I've observed and think that identity seeking behavior is a primary objective of the NF club, they have a deep desire for self-understanding and self-knowledge as well as idealize their outward behavior to this internal image. They have two "internal" functions manifested in their ego, intuition and ethics which are in their nature more "subjective" then pragmatic sensing and thinking. I think these types also have the highest chance of convincing others of their self-typing via their convincing nature and pleasantness. I've made some observations in the past about Beta NF and their typing issues, but this can apply for all NF's but the manifestation is different.

NT's I've found typically have a alternative typing, but hold their primary typing as most probable. Conclusions are tempered by skepticism but reinforced by probability. I've found the introtim NT's to be more dogmatic as a whole. For me, I view identity seeking as secondary to understanding the commonalities and differences within human psyche, objectifying myself in the process.

ST's are either quite confident in their typing or simply don't care as their identity is external, material and pragmatic. Althrough I've found many ST's secretly harbor the same identity crisis as their dual counterparts, this is something they hide behind their concrete achievements. As a whole identity is secondary material achievement.

SF's are more concerned with their identity, especially the rational subtypes. Identity is shifting, situational. Identity crisis often is channeled thru artistic displays, sexual adventure, academics, athletics, caring for someone and many concrete endeavors. The "Now" self rather then the "True" self.

[Jarno]

I've noticed that most of - if not all - the rationals I've encountered on this site tend to stick to their type. That's not to say that many irrationals don't as well - it's just that a lot more of them change their type.

I don't see that pattern. It's often more the way people interpretate socionics and what method they choose to type themselves.

[The Exception]

I have considered a lot of possible types for myself during my first 2 years of familiarity with socionics, but I never established a typing other than INTj. I did internally "convince" myself I was ENTp or INTp a few times to see what would result from the endeavor and wether such an assumption would lead to a good big-picture view of things, but these were exclusively private experiments.

Also during these first 2 years, I lived in almost constant doubt of my type despite at all times more or less knowing that INTj was the most likely type for me by far. These days I feel no doubts whatoever anymore at all.

When I first learned socionics, I went through a period of uncertainty. I wasn't sure if I was LII or ILI but once I more thoroughly understood model A, and the relationships, and the quadras, it fell into place and I knew I was LII and not ILI.

Once in while, I'll still have brief periods where I'll wonder if some other type is a better fit (namely ILI and ILE). I've had the occassional person suggest one of these two types for me. Someone on socionics.com suggested INTp but I think they were taking a more dichotomous Myers-Briggsian approach to it. I appeared more p than j to the person, so INTp. I don't think this person was using Model A at all, which is really like the core of socionics. As far as people typing me as ILE, I think its not at all uncommon for people to be mistyped as their mirror types. Especially producing subtypes.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[stanprollyright]

Someone on socionics.com suggested INTp but I think they were taking a more dichotomous Myers-Briggsian approach to it. I appeared more p than j to the person, so INTp. I don't think this person was using Model A at all, which is really like the core of socionics.

I would take anything Prometheus says with a grain of salt. He is an Ashton follower and believes that MBTT dichotomies are exactly the same as socionic ones. He looks for excuses to tell people they are wrong, and he tends to type a lot of people (including himself) as ILI.