Ti-LII
Ne-LII
Not LII
Ti-LII or Ne-LII?
I never considered subtypes much, mostly because I'd prefer to type myself without getting into some convoluted reason for my type that becomes more an attempt at rationalizing rather than being an actual rational decision. However, now that I've "tested" LII enough, I thought now would be an appropriate time to hone in on subtypes without jeopardizing my entire knowledge of Socionics in the process.
Anyone have thoughts on it?
I don't know you well enough yet to discern your subtype. You're probably somewhere near the middle of the spectrum. Not too extreme on either one. You definitely strike me as LII though.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Yes, Ne. In a nutshell: you seem closer to INFj than ISTj and you're more like Brilliand who's Ne and closer to INFj than you're like labcoat who's Ti and closer to ISTj. You seem more of a perciever than judger. More about generating ideas than defending them ridiculously. Also you're kinda pushy with your weird opinions in a way that is highly characteristic of IJ-Nes (for reference see Maritsa and Brilliand and also see your discussion with me in the Alpha Census 2010 thread) (Ti can also be pushy with its opinions, but the IJ-Ti opinions are never weird, just highly subjective, irrelevant, wrong and fiercly defended with a characteristic preselected discard of other people's opinions). Also, your sense of humor is more Ne than Ti (again, Brilliand-likeOriginally Posted by MatthewZ
).
Last edited by Trevor; 04-17-2010 at 03:12 PM.
Removed at User Request
Ne, because you don't seem Ti. Also, you were seriously on the fence about P/J in MBTI if I recall correctly, so there's that to consider (although I'm probably more of a Te-subtype yet obviously p, so who knows).
Eh? Why this choice of smilies? I thought you liked me more than that.
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
I went back and read some more of your posts. I also agree with those who voted LII-Ne. You seem more similar to Brilliand and me and less so to labcoat.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Oh, I do like you more than that. It's just; I ask myself: "Why can't you all be more liek me?".Eh? Why this choice of smilies? I thought you liked me more than that.
Removed at User Request
That would be two months, in my case. I guess.
I say Ne with low certainty.
ah yes. more points for Ne.
I'm only capable of attracting Alpha and Gamma NTs to my threads?
I clearly need to do better headhunting.
Getting back to the thread, I agree with what some have said above that I can relate to Brilliand more than most other LIIs here, compared to others such as tutu. (although I believe that's due to the language barrier more than anything else) Of course, he does appear to be one of the more mature posters here, and who doesn't want to relate to the "cool kids?" He doesn't assume others to be stupid or ignorant for not seeing the point he is trying to get across, doesn't resort to name calling, and doesn't obsess with trying to prove others wrong after a disagreement. Naturally, many other members of this forum embody those same essential qualities, but Brilliand is the example I'm using presently.
Removed at User Request
Last edited by Pied Piper; 04-18-2010 at 11:26 AM. Reason: "...fall in disgrace"
My point was not about social conformity. What I admire in Brilliand is his lack of extreme arrogance. Sure, it's theoretically possible that every single thing a person believes is entirely true and anyone who doesn't agree is consequently ignorant or oblivious to reason, but how could a person ever believe in nothing but the truth if they've changed their beliefs/ideas even once? It is therefore possible that a given person is mistaken in what they hold to be true. Why then, immense disrespect because of disagreements? Immediately disregarding another's input because it differs from what is "established" only leads to closed mindedness, which can then lead to something more dangerous.
When I said "name calling," I was alluding to ad hominem attacks and flaming, both of which cheapen many potentially enriching discussions on this forum.
As for the last good quality I listed, he doesn't bring up old arguments in some attempt to win them a second time around. Without any new information being brought to the issue, it's nothing more than a personal vendetta completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
In conclusion, by no means did I or do I ever promote holding back intelligent thought for sake of maintaining a polite atmosphere. I simply loathe discussions that contribute nothing new and merely reiterate old points for no reason other than the person presenting the points being wholly convinced of their own correctness. Either the person presenting is incorrect or they are speaking to masses that will not accept their point of view. In either situations, what's the point?
To address your anecdote on LIIs and politics, I would have a hard time supporting a "common sense" candidate for politics. Common sense is merely a collection of over-applied algorithms without any sense of rigor because, apparently, everyone can relate to them without needing any sense of critical thinking. I'm in favor of a system that actually works, not something that "should work."
Don't worry about subtypes. There is so much to learn about socionics without them. As for me, I never really got extra insight into people by "subtyping" them.
Subtypes have become an important part of my use of socionics. DCHN is very effective for identifying why, for example, one person is less serious, or less commanding, than another. They've even helped me to understand my family. It was, in fact, the limits of socionics in helping me to understand my family members that led me to affirm the existence or non-existence of socionics. I have two harmonizing cousins who hate disagreements, for example. They are very laid back and try not to get too serious about anything. And they have both meant a great deal to me: I spend more time with them than any of the others. Type helps me to see where they are coming from, and dual-type theory... helps me not to be jealous of their talents.
tbh, I don't know much about DCHN.
These sound like socionic traits, no?I have two harmonizing cousins who hate disagreements, for example. They are very laid back and try not to get too serious about anything.
1.) If you want to determine your subtype just compare the subtype descriptions. People are not able to determine your subtype by reading your posts...
2.) It might be possible to determine your subtype by V.I....
3.) Actually, there are not 2 subtypes but 8. The system with accepting and producing subtypes doesn't help much to understand people better...
4.) I tried to create a benchmark list of INTj subtypes here. If you are really an INTj you should look like a twin of one of those celebrities...
I probably should have clarified in the OP that I'm only delving into the two-subtype system for the time being. I've read enough of DCHN to type myself as H-LII. I'm not well-versed in an 8-subtype system, but I'm presently avoiding it along with DCHN because one can generally derive a subtype without figuring out a person's main type, in one sense disconnecting the subtypes from Socionics as a whole. For now, I favor the 2-subtypes simply because it's almost entirely subordinate to a person's main type.
Could you explain that? Must be a misconception. You can't determine the subtype without determining the main type first. Being dominant doesn't mean you are dominant subtype, being creative doesn't make you a creative subtype. You can't determine the subtype by adjectives or descriptions, only by functions and comparisons to other persons of the same main type. The subtype names are even misleading because people like Adolf ****** (Ni-ENFj), Hermann Göring (Ni-ESTp), Joseph Stalin (Ni-ESTj) and Che Guevara (Ni-INTj) are all the so-called "Harmonizing subtype" I think. So just forget about those adjectives...
On the other hand, the names of the 8 subtypes are much more accurate: ****** was an Expert Actor, Göring an Expert Conqueror, Stalin an Expert Director, Guevara and Expert Analyst...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
