...
Could Suzzy be a rational?
...
Last edited by Hays; 05-30-2011 at 05:41 AM.
Wow Suzzy,
The ILI score is huge. Isn't this the second test that you have scored ILI; and I also noticed your hidden agenda was one of ILI/IEI. If you are IEI, I think I typed your husband SLE, that means you guys may be duals.
That's a lot of thinking for an ethical type. Just because you may be a T type, that doesn't mean you won't have emotions or feelings. Many ISTp's on the forum will acknowledge that they are very emotional.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 04-15-2010 at 01:43 AM.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
By rational you mean... NT? "Rational" in the Socionics sense doesn't make a whole lot of sense here, since you scored ILI (not Rational).
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
While I don't think NT is impossible for you, you strike me as more EII. I think your self-typing is correct.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
I also believe INFj/EII over INTp/ILI, i think you have become more objective and thinking over the years as a type of self-growth/learning from hardship. :redface: I think you're a very loving/feeling mumma who isnt afraid to shed a tear every now and again.
I am conservative about typing, I do think VI can be accurate if done properly but I do not believe in internet tests or any formal question-based tests, as this goes hopelessly wrong with Enneagram types more than half of the time.
I suggest you try to see the Jungian dichotomies, through the socionics approach of them, basically:
first see whether youre an E or I
then whether you´re a N or S
then T or F
then J or P
this works very well.
I just typed the doctor who´s going to operate me in some minutes with that, observing his attitudes, etc. He´s ENTj. Very extrovert, energy flows outwards, awkward with his body movements (N), very thinking-centered. It was so simple.
For me this still the best way of typing.
No, because if you were a female ILI you would be cool. (which for you isn't a bad thing)
Just ignore the tests. That's what most of us have learned to do. You should also try ignoring the wacky correlations, which is what Te-valuers must learn to do (not to say that something like enneagram is a necessarily dreadful correlation, but that plenty of other's opinions about these correlations are.)
I wouldn't take the first test's results seriously. These are Reinin dichotomies, and IMO their descriptions aren't good. The idea of there being 15 dichotomies is entirely plausible, but at least a few seem off for some types.
I don't remember who said it but it strikes me as true - Ethical types are more likely to mistype themselves as Logical than the reverse. I think weak F is more obvious in interaction with the world.
ILIs and IEIs don't share a hidden agenda.Originally Posted by Maritsa33
I mentioned IEI because it was her second highest score on the test.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
This doesn't make your statement any more valid. You couldn't have seen ILI/IEI hidden agenda in her unless you mean seeing two conflicting ones, and if so you are probably wrong about it being a manifestation of hidden agenda.
When I said before that I typed her as IEI you said I knew nothing about socionics. Care to (eventually) apologise for that?
And I still think you are ENFpAnd your mum is INFp.
Oh, your post sounds very NeFi of ENFp imo.
Potential mentioned in terms of growth, familiarity of bond, understanding of the person from long term perspective....
Whether any of that is true or just a crock, still fits in well for my typing of you, so it's as good as being good...
I appologize.
@Airborne
That's a wonderful idea and suggestion. More of your insight woud be appreciated, thank you.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
1. Tests are generally bad.
2. Type descriptions are generally worse.
3. Don't believe either of them at face value.
of course its all true. i wouldnt have said it if otherwise. gee how little you must think of my types honestyAnd I still think you are ENFp
Oh, your post sounds very NeFi of ENFp imo.
Potential mentioned in terms of growth, familiarity of bond, understanding of the person from long term perspective....
Whether any of that is true or just a crock, still fits in well for my typing of you, so it's as good as being good...
Removed at User Request
"Researchers" is better, IMO. Less confusing and more to the point.
Removed at User Request
I think "rationalism" describes Ti better, but whatever. Isn't "rationals" the Keirsey temperament term? Anyway, "club of researchers" is used in wikisocion.
Removed at User Request
I thought it was only Keirsey's idea to put SP and SJ together. You said "NT club" so I assumed you meant club as in socionics. (I rather prefer clubs + temperaments to this separation, to be honest).
I wasn't talking about what you wrote, I was talking about why I wrote.of course its all true. i wouldnt have said it if otherwise. gee how little you must think of my types honesty
To clarify: I wasn't referring to honesty of anyone in my post, I was simply saying that what I said in relation to your type could in effect simply be what is known as confirmation bias. I see other people use this tactic here, although I suspect unwittingly, but I am aware of it and therefore try to steer clear of it, so in reality I don't think it is. IEE is glove fit for you imo, i've spoke somewhat about the reasons before.
In regards to your mums type, perhaps i'll find the time to elaborate more on why I type her as IEI, i'll see, but i'm spending less time here of late, so....
Edit: I suppose I could be lazy and ask you why you don't think your mum is INFp who tests as INTp due to some hardships. She sure does seem to alwas go back to this INXp setting after all, yes/no?
Removed at User Request
Is there anyone here who is truly gifted in Socionics?
Blaze.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Removed at User Request
Well, you sure did keep wondering if you were INXp on socionics.com, and I think - although I can't re-check, you've asked the same thing here, so based on the information, it seems you perhaps do both.
If you are happy with INFj, then perhaps you could stop making threads about your type.
You won't learn much here because of the different views. Now here's me suggesting you read Jung's psychological types to see how the dominant function manifests in people. Then of course people will say Jung isn't socionics, but then of course Russian socionists often refer to him, and Ashura used what he said in her own observations of socionics, not to mention Jung was actually a qualified psychologist and his empirical observations of people probably surpasses Ashura and all of us in terms of volume so it would assume to have value with all of this considered, anyway.I was just sharing my feelings as I am getting sick and tired of someone constantly saying that I am a type that it is so obvious that I am not. This person undermines me in threads that I am not even part of.
I was not trying to point the finger or anything Pinocchio to say that there is no one here who isn't good at Socionics. It's just all so complicated, all the functions, inter-type relations, that I wonder how can people ever come to a consensus especially here on a forum where many have conflicting views. And we try to type others mainly by just words and photos, not the whole picture.
I respect you and your skills in the area of Socionics. You have been a big help to me. I do not change my mind about that.
Can I ask if you still think that I am the using the type that you originally thought?
Good luck in your frustrations, heh! :-)
Oh - this person keep saying you are type you are not, if this is dig at me, le sigh... I wasn't aware I was doing that, this is a thread about your type after all.
Ah, i've not been following the threads as much.
Re socionics. So it's basically about inter-type relations. Perhaps considering this will help you, that's all i'll say on it rather than simply more opinions:
Relations between Psychological ("personality") Types
I think it helps to re-read what this says, well, maybe an interpretation then - socionics isn't a miracle worker and should be kept in a perspective.Socionics intertype relations describe relationship between Psychological Types of people and not between the actual people. This is the reason these relations are called "intertype" relations. The relations between actual people are complicated and depend on many different factors. The intertype relations, however, form the core of any relationship and describe various degrees of psychological compatibility between people according to their Types.
People with incompatible Types have more problems with their relationship than people with compatible Types. So if you are already in a relationship (especially the one you cannot get out easily, like family for example), knowing the intertype relations mechanism can help you to avoid many problems created by incompatible types. If you are single and looking, knowing intertype relations can help you to make the right choice.
OK, think what it is useful for and how exactly you'd like it to help you, hmmm.
Well, .... i've sort of said something after all ;-)
Ah, i've not been following the threads as much.
Re socionics. So it's basically about inter-type relations. Perhaps considering this will help you, that's all i'll say on it rather than simply more opinions:
Relations between Psychological ("personality") Types
I think it helps to re-read what this says, well, maybe an interpretation then - socionics isn't a miracle worker and should be kept in a perspective.Socionics intertype relations describe relationship between Psychological Types of people and not between the actual people. This is the reason these relations are called "intertype" relations. The relations between actual people are complicated and depend on many different factors. The intertype relations, however, form the core of any relationship and describe various degrees of psychological compatibility between people according to their Types.
People with incompatible Types have more problems with their relationship than people with compatible Types. So if you are already in a relationship (especially the one you cannot get out easily, like family for example), knowing the intertype relations mechanism can help you to avoid many problems created by incompatible types. If you are single and looking, knowing intertype relations can help you to make the right choice.
OK, i'll be so bold... to say, think what it is useful for and how exactly you'd like it to help you, hmmm, well, i've sort of said something after all ;-)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
