Back to the drawing board

[The Exception]

Lately I've been wondering if EII is a better fit than LII. I know I've asked this before but I'd really like some more feedback. It's not just because Pinocchio suggested it either. There are other reasons too. Main ones being a high level of identification with the EII profile and intertype relationships. I think I may prefer LSE to ESE in terms of close relationships. ESEs feel too emotionally in your face to me. I know test results don't always mean much but I want to point out that while I almost always get LII as my type, EII is usually coming up second.

I know that subtypes can influence this. Those with a strong creative subtype can resemble their look-a-alike type. So an LII-Ne can look alot like an EII and an EII-Ne can look alot like an LII. So what I'm really interested in finding out is, am I truly an EII or just an LII who happens to resemble an EII in some ways?

I'll elaborate more on reasons for and against me being EII later. I'm too tired right now to go into extensive detail.

If you think I'm neither LII nor EII than please indicate that in the poll as well.


P.S. Thanks alot Pinocchio, now you've got me bolding key words in posts.

[Timeless]

I'm no "Master of Socionics," but I felt like responding today:

If you were an LII, would things make more or less sense when it comes to why you get along (or don't get along) with other types?

If you were an EII, would things make more or less sense when it comes to why you get along (or don't get along) with other types?

I don't believe there's such thing as total 100% in anything, but what I'm trying to say is hey, consider all the factors; If they all lean towards something, then that means something.

Like, for instance, to put in a simply way; if you like (or identify with) red, orange, and yellow then you most likely like warm colors. If you like (or identify with) red, orange, and blue, then you are still more likely to like warm colors. When things outweigh each other then that's when you should reconsider. The way I see it: more factors, more accuracy. On the other hand: less factors, less accuracy. I can see why relying on tests alone is wacky.

Personally, when it came to my type, I considered all the possible factors; not just one source, article, opinion, relationship, or test. I put everything there in the blender; now it's not 100% concentrated ILE juice, but I sure taste like it.... an ILE smoothie.

...And I think everyone is a smoothie one way or another.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

I'm not 100% confident to say that you are INTj, but INFj isn't among the types I would consider as an alternative.

[The Exception]

Okay, here's some more detailed explanation of how I identify/not identify with EII and LII. Time for the epic battle of the PoLR types!

One factor to look at is quadras. I've looked at the descriptions on Rick's site. I related to every word of the alpha description and everything in the delta description except for the statement about delta quadra not appreciating high ideals or abstractions that don't relate well to real life. I can become overly zealous of a theory (like socionics!) or ideal just because its interesting on itself even if it doesn't play out so well in real life. I'm impractical like that. I guess alpha fits a tad better than delta which is more suggestive of LII, however the the quadra I feel most opposed to and least identify with is beta, not gamma. I think that's more suggestive of EII. Looking at intertype relations, I seem to have good rapport with and understand well where both the alphas and the deltas are coming from. With gammas its more neutral. As a whole betas, seem most likely to rub me the wrong way. Of course there are exceptions and not every beta is problematic for me and some here are really great.

Then there's the dual seeking functions. I read over the EII description in Wikisocion, related very well to this part:
5. Extraverted Logic

EIIs have a great admiration for people who are able to get things done neatly and efficiently in the outside world. They themselves consistently forget to consider whether their activities are actually achieving their intended goal, whether their time spent is bringing worthy proceeds, and whether their activities are organized in the most rational way. They subconsciously expect and appreciate it when others take interest in the effectiveness of their activities and helps to take an objective look at what they are doing.
EIIs are usually very curious and thirsty for information. When they have an interest in a particular topic or subject, they will try their best to read anything and everything about it in order to gain a thorough understanding.
They are willing to listen to anyone who is knowledgeable or has a brilliant idea to share regardless of whether that individual is an expert or authority in his/her field since they strongly believe that there are many perspectives in an issue.


I highly respect and admire leading types. I don't know a whole lot of LSEs but I think I would get along with them pretty well.


And here's the dual seeking function of the LII:

5. Extraverted Ethics

Being a naturally private person, the LII finds it difficult to believe that others would be interested in what he is thinking or feeling at any given moment. He feels like something is not quite right if his interaction with the people around him is too aloof. However he only rarely makes an effort to venture into more open spheres, because he usually avoids making small talk, preferring to talk about his real interests and say only what he truly believes.
To this end, the LII, above all things, appreciates others' attempts to get him to "open up" emotionally and express his true thoughts and views of the world - not just as an abstract ideal living in his head, but as something that other people actually care about enough to participate in and bring to fulfillment. His focus on important abstract matters also leads him to detach from the world, if it is not complemented with a healthy dose of silliness. The LII is usually oblivious to his emotional-psychological state and feels little responsibility for improving it, not to mention the state of others. This means that "bad emotions" can build up in him until some environmental factor comes along to alleviate them. Visible demonstrations of emotional warmth play a major part in this: something as simple as a big smile and a hug is enough to brighten an LII's day. The LII can be attracted to insincere displays of affection, even if he consciously realizes that they are only in jest.
The LII is often at a loss for what to do in social situations, and appreciates others who make him feel included in a new group and in the emotional side of a situation. The LII tends to take life very seriously, and appreciates others who can show him the lighter side of things.


Again I relate very well to most of this as well. The only thing that doesn't fit so well is the crossed out statement. I am well aware of my emotional state although I don't always know best how to fix it and appreciate some help here. I like people to display emotional warmth and enthusiasm but if someone's overly effusive it makes me uncomfortable. I guess there's a couple of reasons for that. If they're too effusive, I wonder if they're really being sincere about how they feel. Second, if they're too effusive, I feel some pressure to somehow match they're emotional energy which I'm not always so comfortable doing. My experience with some of the ESEs and also some of the EIEs (semi-dual for LII) has been they have been too emotionally effusive. It's this part of it that makes me doubt if I'm really dual seeking. Other than that dual seeking is something I relate a lot to.


to be continued....

[electric sheep]

I think your 2w1 fix makes you seem a bit like EII, just like my 1w2 fix can make me seem like an ESI. There are those qualities to us, but I don't think they're strong enough to warrant a type change.

[The Exception]

Next, I'll compare the base functions of LII vs. EII:

LII:

1. Introverted Logic

The LII naturally assesses statements, opinions, and actions in terms of conformance to certain principles. These principles may in practice be rules of thumb based on experience, but LIIs will usually appeal to more general, self-evident reasons, if the need arises. The LII is most engaged in communication when he is critically analyzing people's decisions and actions as well as how they generally are or are not consistent with certain pre-established goals. His dual, the ESE, likes hearing the LII's judgment, and simultaneously softens its edge by shifting his focus to how he is communicating his ideas, letting him see the intellectual thought process from the outside. The ESE appreciates and praises his ability to take the information seriously, but the ESE will find funny ways of reminding him of how he is coming across when he seems more serious than he realizes.
"Just because" is not in an LII's vocabulary. If there is a reason for something, the LII will probably want to find it. The LII strives to reduce things to their most essential aspects, and mentally recreate the whole from the bottom up. The LII's theoretical tendencies can often leave him out of touch with reality, and if unchecked may lead to abstract theories that make logical sense but have little bearing on the real world.
The LII may explore many avenues of thought, but in the end only tell others his refined conclusions, because he sees the intermediate steps as irrelevant. He is often too concise for his own good, making it difficult for others to understand his ideas.

Most the the base function stuff in the description I strongly relate to except for the crossed out parts. I really don't do much critical analyzing of people's decisions and actions. And I often have trouble being concise.

However, there are some things I've observed with LIIs on that I don't really do. Other LIIs seem to be a lot more keen on debating issues, something I don't really like doing that much. I've seen LIIs (and a few other types) do things like rewrite type and function descriptions from scratch. I would find coming up with an original yet accurate description like that from scratch to be very difficult.

I often question how much I really know about something or how sound my understanding of something really is. I never can seem to get enough validation of my intelligence, something I don't see most LIIs needing. I've wondered if is actually my role function but only I partially identify with with the role function in EIIs:

3. Introverted Logic

EIIs are not easily able to abstract themselves from the human dimension and apply "cold" logic. When they try to do this, they easily become unsure if their reasoning is correct.
EIIs feel that not everything can be classified under the system since everything has its unique individual attributes.

I identify with the part about questioning my own reasoning but not so much because I've had to apply "cold" logic. I think its more a case of, am I understanding the basic terms properly? I seem to have the opposite tendency of EIIs in that I'll wan't to try to fit everything into a theory, even things that don't really belong there.


Regarding the base function of EII:

1. Introverted Ethics

EIIs are very attuned to the psychological atmosphere of interaction and to their own feelings towards people and things. They treasure deep feelings of attachment and strive to deepen emotional bonds between people and harmonize relationships. When those people that the EII is close to suffer emotionally, the EII will do everything in her power to raise the emotional condition in the individual, often at the EII's expense.
EIIs are very capable of "sizing people up". They rely heavily on their instincts to understand the inner feelings of an individual. They are very empathetic people and find it very easy to feel with others. This makes them very sensitive to the moods of people, and they treat them the way they want to be treated, that is, with respect.

Most of this also describes me very well. Especially the parts about being attuned to the psychological atmosphere and others' emotions and sizing people up. I am well aware of my own feelings towards people and things but sometimes I have trouble expressing those feelings and not letting them bottle up inside me too much. However, what makes me doubt as a base function is even though I am very sensitive to other peoples' emotions, I often feel helpless when it comes to raising the emotional condition of the individual. I'm also pretty useless when it comes to any advice in the feelings arena. Only on very rare occasions have people seeked me out for such advice and assistance. I'm much better at and much more likely to be sought for advice in more intellectual, matters like help on a math assignment.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[The Exception]

One last thing I want to mention is my attitude towards moral issues and ethics. I'm not the moral crusader type that many people seem to make leading types to be. To me, most moral and ethical matters are pretty relative and circumstantial. There are few things in my mind that are absolutely right or wrong. To me, more of it depends on the circumstances and the context of the situation. I think the moral crusader part probably fits better with subtype than subtype. If I'm an EII, I'd almost certainly be the latter one.

[The Exception]

I'm not 100% confident to say that you are INTj, but INFj isn't among the types I would consider as an alternative.

Just out of curiosity, what other type(s) did you have in mind?

[Timeless]

Pure Extroverted Logic. I'm sorry that I'm so insistent (especially because you're a nice guy), but again I remind you that you're mistyped. Such method is flawed when it comes to Socionics because it's relative and is based on subjectively defied amounts.
Relationships can tell a type when these peers are correctly typed themselves, the analysis to do that doesn't seem to be found in your procedure. Besides that, the the strict understanding of the quadra and type values is the only real correcting reference, imo.

It would be good if some Gamma Te types with a satisfactory understanding around are willful to talk to you about this, eg. Azeroffs, Jarno, etc - or rather you to be willful to accept that you might be wrong and talk to someone who could clarify these things, whatever.

So, let me ask you this, do you think every ILE (or any type for that matter) online, offline, and that has ever existed in the history of the planet thought, perceived, behaved, valued, laughed, believed, joked, imagined, spoke, farted, smelled, smiled, looked exactly the same way, in the exact same manner, with the exact same belief systems, with the exact same line of thinking (etc.) as the next ILE?

By the way, what's your Enneagram? I'm curious.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Krig the Viking]

Here's the relevant Filatova descriptions (who herself is EII):

Here's her description of EII Fi:

Fi – program function. Introverted ethics determines that the EII focuses her attention on judgments about good and evil, morals and depravity, decency and dihonourableness. She precisely senses the norms of behaviour, which govern different groups of people, and she tries to follow these norms in order not to insult the feelings and morality of those that surround her. When she first arrives amongst a group of people she holds herself back. Once she has established a degree of control in regards to the psychological atmosphere of occurences within the group, and only then, after she has soaked herself in the atmosphere, will she consider becoming a full-fledged member of the collective.

EII often makes acquaintence with those that are weak or unhappy. These people serve to incite the desire to help, to support, and to comfort others, within her. To her others will frequently turn for help and she accepts them by examining their confessions for hours on end. She attempts to get accustomed to the psychological difficulties being experienced by the collocutor and she tries to take their side and support them.

EII is often wounded and always emotional, however, she turns all her experiences inward; thus these qualities are not always observable from a distance. She sometimes appears as a steady, even cold person, but this impression is illusory. Every event, even those popularly deemed insignificant, leaves in her soul a deep track that survives for a long time. As a rule she represses in herself anger, irritation, and the desire to reproach. One of the EII’s characteristic manifestations of offense is the creation of a psychological barrier between themselves and the offender. In such cases she’ll assume a position emanating stressed, cold, politeness. She’ll answer all questions monosyllabically. This style of behaviour, characteristic of this psycho-type, is very difficult to deal with for some people; they’d prefer that the EII shouted or somehow otherwise expressed her indignation. It is not even easy for her to exist in such a state. However, if the offender asks for forgiveness and manifests the desire to change the situation than this state of offense may rapidly pass.

High emotionalism, in combination with rationality, frequently leads the EII to replay their role in a past situation over and over. The center of excitation, in their consciousness, darkens all other aspect of life when this occurs. She finds it difficult to focus on anything different. Mentally, again and again, she returns to one and the same; she may speak about this lest it occur that others, around her, find it irritating.

Contrast that with her description of LII Fi:

The realm of ethics presents weakness for LII. In this area she adheres to the norms and traditions of society. May develop sufficient care and restraint so as to avoid such situations, in which she’s badly oriented. LII poorly measures the emotional climate, prefers not to interfere in conflicts and – as much as possible – to avoid such situations. Finds it difficult to comfort others. In such cases prefers to render concrete assistance, or, if this is impossible, to simply walk away and not interfere. Does not understand what to do, or what to say, when confronted by another’s tearful emotional outburst.

Tends to associate from a distant psychological distance; does not express familiarity well with others. Thus, as a child and as an adult, she fails to develop and maintain many friendships. In this the weakness of the ethical function manifests itself.

LII follows tradition. Is proper and exercises restraint, does not succumb to deplorable expressions of behaviour, but this is not the essence of her nature – under the mask of restraint is often hidden a strained spiritual life, influenced by intense experiences. However, her reserved nature does not permit her to share her misfortunes with others. For years she may carry an offense, in the depth of her soul, only with difficulty pardoning the offender.

LII develops relations with caution, behaves towards others with restraint and respect. Is noticeably enkindled by intellectual conversation – in this area she feels herself sufficiently well grounded.

Likewise, her description of LII Ti:

LII’s ideology is founded upon the idea of the interdependence of phenomena in the surrounding world; everything that occurs is subordinate to laws and structure.

Her thinking takes an analytic nature. She gathers knowledge and, investigating it, analyzes the facts. She understands the essence of a situation by creating a model for this knowledge in her consciousness that corresponds with her experiences. She’s guided by the universal ideas she’s found and comprehended, regardless of others’ opposition. By no means will she be distracted from what she deems the principal purpose in her life and will only forsake something she’s started if convinced, on her own, of its error. Her work frequently becomes the focal point of her existence.

LII loves precision and order in everything; she is scrupulous and meticulous. Finds pleasure in systematizing, organizing everything “on the shelf.” Everything is done according to plan. Considers that the behaviour of people, especially at work, must be subordinate to a logical and definite system. Immediately notes the illogicality and contradictions present in the actions of people and, as much as possible, attempts to introduce corrections: depending on whom she’s dealing with can express criticism or propose assistance. Generally is irritated by chaotic, disorderly, inconsiderate people.

Contrast that with Filatova's description of EII Ti:

Ti – normative function. The EII attempts to consider all its activities ahead of time. She determines concrete priorities for herself, which serve to shroud the main plan. Such an approach does not always succeed as emotionalism frequently pushes or pulls her from the original direction she planned to follow. Nevertheless she tries to organize her activity into a definite system, to organize order, and this requires vast efforts from her.

Trying to work as conscientiously as possible, EII is not always capable of working effectively. Thus she spends much of her time in an unproductive fashion. She sometimes compensates for this by working from dawn to dawn. She finds it difficult to bind her workday with a reasonable framework: there always seems to be something that’s unfinished. As a consequence of her propensity to self-perfection she sometimes devotes herself to work, which contradicts her nature; the feeling of duty exceeds her other needs.

I dunno if this'll help. I don't usually trust the Wikisocion descriptions. In my opinion, you match the LII stuff better than the EII stuff. In this case, try not to focus on what you'd like to do or be, but instead focus on what you're good at doing. After all, you can only be strong in one of the two (Fi or Ti).

Given all that you've said in this thread, in my opinion I'd say you're almost certainly an H-LII rather than a C-LII as I had initially speculated. My understanding of both you and the DCNH theory has grown quite a bit since then. H-LIIs are more focused than other LIIs on creating and maintaining harmony in their surrounding environment, which could explain why you feel a connection to EII. It's mainly the C-LIIs who do things like come up with new type and function descriptions from scratch. N-LIIs are focused on maintaining order in their little personal domains, and D-LIIs are more focused on achieving whatever logical goals they've chosen in the outside world.

Not to pimp my own work, but I think my analysis in this thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...pes-bones.html might be helpful in that regard.

[The Exception]

Here's the relevant Filatova descriptions (who herself is EII)

From the Filatova descriptions, I relate more to the Fi in LII than Fi in EII but I still found the majority of the Fi EII description to fit me. The part that didn’t fit so well was making acquaintance with those who are weak or unhappy. I usually feel sorry for these people but I generally don’t go out of my way to make acquaintance with them. I think its primarily because I feel awkward around such people, don’t know what to say in their presence to make them feel better. Which suggests weak Fi.
Most of the LII’s Ti description fits me. What doesn’t fit as well is the part about the behavior of people having to be subordinate to a logical and definite system and correcting of people who are contradictory in their actions. That seems rather severe to me. I may be like this some of the time but not as a general rule. Could be subtype related. I think maybe N-LIIs are more like this?
About half of the EII Ti description fits. I do have issues with working effectively at times. I can overfocus on certain details that don’t really matter that much in the whole scheme of things. I am also prone to distraction. Not so much emotionalism but rather I get distracted by something like a new idea I should consider. Thus it takes me awhile to finish projects. I can be exhaustively thorough, wanting to consider every possible angle, overlooking nothing. I identify strongly with the self-perfection and the feeling of duty mentioned in the description.
So going by the Filatova descriptions, LII is a somewhat better fit but I still don’t feel convinced enough to make LII definite.

I dunno if this'll help. I don't usually trust the Wikisocion descriptions. In my opinion, you match the LII stuff better than the EII stuff. In this case, try not to focus on what you'd like to do or be, but instead focus on what you're good at doing. After all, you can only be strong in one of the two (Fi or Ti).

Just out of curiosity, why don't you trust the Wikisocion descriptions? They look pretty good to me. Which brings me to another point. I've noticed that other LIIs appear to be more assured about which descriptions are trustworthy and which are less so. Its harder for me to distinguish a good description from a not so good one. Of course I'm still in the beginner stage of socionics so that could explain it. The only one's I've been rather skeptical about were the socionics.com ones because they're too dichotomy and VI oriented without a solid model A foundation.

I have noticed that I'm overall less skeptical about things in general than some other LIIs. When exposed to new information, I generally don't reject it straight away. I view it as additional data to consider and some more stuff to try to fit in to my framework.

If I had to pick one, I'm better at Ti than Fi but I've come to wonder if I'm good enough at Ti to claim it as my base function.

Given all that you've said in this thread, in my opinion I'd say you're almost certainly an H-LII rather than a C-LII as I had initially speculated. My understanding of both you and the DCNH theory has grown quite a bit since then. H-LIIs are more focused than other LIIs on creating and maintaining harmony in their surrounding environment, which could explain why you feel a connection to EII. It's mainly the C-LIIs who do things like come up with new type and function descriptions from scratch. N-LIIs are focused on maintaining order in their little personal domains, and D-LIIs are more focused on achieving whatever logical goals they've chosen in the outside world.

Not to pimp my own work, but I think my analysis in this thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...pes-bones.html might be helpful in that regard.

Wouldn't an H-LII feel a stronger connection to ILI since is enhanced and is the base function for ILI? This may sound kind of crazy and I don't know if how much you subscribe to the 8 subtype system that JohnDo talks about, but what about Normalizing- subtype for me?? I would think this subtype would definitely have a strong resemblance to EII. Although I have to admit I kind of hard time imagining how that subtype would play in practice. It makes more sense that an LII would have a stronger function enhanced like , , , or instead of a weaker one like , , , or .

Not trying to question your typing of H-LII for me. Subscribing to the 4-subtype system I definitely agree that its the best fit one. I'm just wondering more how the connection of H-LII to EII works when the function in the H-LII enhanced is not in the ego, let alone valued in the EII. I will say though that ILI is another fairly high scoring type for me on socionics test but, its usually ranked lower than EII. Typically the top four types are LII, EII, ILE, and ILI in that order although the last three can and do switch places sometimes.

Just out of curiosity, how would the four DCNH subtypes play out in EII's? Can you think of examples of board members or famous people with each of the four EII subtypes?

Also, how do you perceive the DCNH subtypes of other LIIs on this forum?
I think Matthew said he was H and Tcaud said C and I see no reason to disagree to disagree with those but what about the others?

I'm going to see if there is a way I can view a Bones episode through YouTube or some other similar site.

[The Exception]

I think you are thinking too hard. I could never see you as EII and I could not not see you as Alpha NT (and agree LII-Ne is the most sound type). But whichever. A little type role-playing hurt nobody.

Yeah, I could be thinking this through way too much. An EII would probably be feeling this through too much.

Actually I'm thinking I'm really an SLI right now.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
JOKING!!!!!

[The Exception]

Alright, whoever voted other better fess up and have a goooood explanation.

[Krig the Viking]

From the Filatova descriptions, I relate more to the Fi in LII than Fi in EII but I still found the majority of the Fi EII description to fit me. The part that didn’t fit so well was making acquaintance with those who are weak or unhappy. I usually feel sorry for these people but I generally don’t go out of my way to make acquaintance with them. I think its primarily because I feel awkward around such people, don’t know what to say in their presence to make them feel better. Which suggests weak Fi.

I agree, my impression of you is not of someone who is comfortable comforting other people or advising them on their relationships and feelings. This is a weakness I, of course, share.

Most of the LII’s Ti description fits me. What doesn’t fit as well is the part about the behavior of people having to be subordinate to a logical and definite system and correcting of people who are contradictory in their actions. That seems rather severe to me. I may be like this some of the time but not as a general rule. Could be subtype related. I think maybe N-LIIs are more like this.

Yeah, Normalizing and Dominant LIIs tend to do this more. Dominant LIIs especially are more likely to try to make everyone around them obey logical rules; Normalizers will ignore everyone who is outside of their "domain".

About half of the EII Ti description fits. I do have issues with working effectively at times. I can overfocus on certain details that don’t really matter that much in the whole scheme of things. I am also prone to distraction. Not so much emotionalism but rather I get distracted by something like a new idea I should consider. Thus it takes me awhile to finish projects. I can be exhaustively thorough, wanting to consider every possible angle, overlooking nothing. I identify strongly with the self-perfection and the feeling of duty mentioned in the description.

So going by the Filatova descriptions, LII is a somewhat better fit but I still don’t feel convinced enough to make LII definite.

I'm starting to get the impression, based on this and what you were saying about not being able to distinguish between good descriptions and bad descriptions that you are an LII who has a somewhat underdeveloped base function. I can actually relate to this quite a bit, from when I was younger. Do you have Fi-valuing parents? If your Ti was supressed during childhood, it would explain it being underdeveloped, and why you're having a hard time distinguishing whether your Ti or Fi is stronger. The dimensionality of the functions is more indicative of capacity than actual strength -- even if I have a natural talent for math or basketball or whatever, I still have to be taught the skills before I can be any good at it. If one was never taught or encouraged to practice one's analytical Ti skills, one naturally won't be as confident as others in that area.

If you do turn out to be EII, then the above paragraph could still be true, just with Ti and Fi switched. If someone who understands the theory is having difficulty determining between her Base and Role functions, then it seems likely to me that either the Role function is strengthened, or the Base function is weakened.

In either case, the only real solution is to find people of your own quadra to interact with, who will be supportive of your base function.

Just out of curiosity, why don't you trust the Wikisocion descriptions? They look pretty good to me. Which brings me to another point. I've noticed that other LIIs appear to be more assured about which descriptions are trustworthy and which are less so. Its harder for me to distinguish a good description from a not so good one. Of course I'm still in the beginner stage of socionics so that could explain it. The only one's I've been rather skeptical about were the socionics.com ones because they're too dichotomy and VI oriented without a solid model A foundation.

I have noticed that I'm overall less skeptical about things in general than some other LIIs. When exposed to new information, I generally don't reject it straight away. I view it as additional data to consider and some more stuff to try to fit in to my framework.

If I had to pick one, I'm better at Ti than Fi but I've come to wonder if I'm good enough at Ti to claim it as my base function.

I feel the same about Wikisocion as I do about Wikipedia -- it's a good place to start your research and get a basic overview, but since anybody with any level of expertise can edit it, it's best not to trust the details too much.

Like I said, this could be a case of underdeveloped Ti, although Socionics is a pretty complicated theory that does take a while to learn completely. I studied it for a few years myself before I felt confident enough to start generating my own theories and criticizing the theories of others.

Also, the thing about LIIs is that a lot of the time, they only state their conclusions, and not everything leading up to it. They appear to be assured and self-confident about everything because you're only seeing the end-product, the result of all their reasoning and doubting and hours and days of uncertainty, muddling through everything until they finally got a clear picture. To put it another way, the only reason you're not as assured and self-confident is that you haven't "come out the other side" yet of the reasoning and learning process.

Of course, part of it may just be your overall level of self-confidence, which LIIs vary on just like any other type.

Wouldn't an H-LII feel a stronger connection to ILI since is enhanced and is the base function for ILI? This may sound kind of crazy and I don't know if how much you subscribe to the 8 subtype system that JohnDo talks about, but what about Normalizing- subtype for me?? I would think this subtype would definitely have a strong resemblance to EII. Although I have to admit I kind of hard time imagining how that subtype would play in practice. It makes more sense that an LII would have a stronger function enhanced like , , , or instead of a weaker one like , , , or .

Not trying to question your typing of H-LII for me. Subscribing to the 4-subtype system I definitely agree that its the best fit one. I'm just wondering more how the connection of H-LII to EII works when the function in the H-LII enhanced is not in the ego, let alone valued in the EII. I will say though that ILI is another fairly high scoring type for me on socionics test but, its usually ranked lower than EII. Typically the top four types are LII, EII, ILE, and ILI in that order although the last three can and do switch places sometimes.

Like I said, I think the reason you're confused between EII and LII is from weakened Ti rather than strengthened Fi. Strengthened Fi would of course imply the Fi-Normalizing subtype, whereas a Harmonizing subtype could easily have weakened Ti. Mind you, I'm not arguing that this is absolutely the case, I'm just proposing it as one possible explanation.

An Fi-Normalizing LII would put a strong emphasis on being polite, and following the ettiquette and social rules of the surrounding society. She would be very strong in Ti, as Normalizers have both Ji elements strengthened, and would be very similar to the Ti-Normalizing subtype in that she would be reserved, fairly dispassionate, and very, very orderly and fastidious, almost a parody of the IJ temperament.

Harmonizing LII, by contrast, is relaxed and easy-going, and wants peace and harmony in her environment so she can stay relaxed and easy-going. Si-Harmonizing focuses more on being physically relaxed and peaceful, whereas Ni-Harmonizing would focus more on a less tangible, almost "spiritual" harmony, where "life" in general is peaceful and harmonious. Of course, that's not always possible in either case, just like order and tidiness isn't always possible in the case of N-LII, whether it be logical order or relational, social order.

Just out of curiosity, how would the four DCNH subtypes play out in EII's? Can you think of examples of board members or famous people with each of the four EII subtypes?

Let's see -- N-EII would be quite reserved, always seeking to behave "correctly" with regard to other people, and making judgements on how well she and the people close to her are behaving. D-EII would be more outgoing, focusing more on making sure other people are also behaving "correctly", and on creating a better, more humane world. C-EII would tend to think a lot about "humanity" and ideas of how people in general should treat one another. And H-EII would be extra-nice, supressing her own needs so that everybody could just get along.

Also, how do you perceive the DCNH subtypes of other LIIs on this forum?
I think Matthew said he was H and Tcaud said C and I see no reason to disagree to disagree with those but what about the others?

I'm going to see if there is a way I can view a Bones episode through YouTube or some other similar site.

Subtypes can be quite difficult to determine via text communication, and to be honest as an "Ignoring" C-LII I haven't really paid enough attention to most of the people here to be able to say much about their base type, never mind their subtype. I would definitely agree that Tcaud is C-LII though, and JohnDo probably is as well. C-LIIs are the ones who come up with complicated new theories. The "harsher" LIIs like labcoat and Logos might be some kind of Rational subtype, either D or N LII. I dimly recall something about Logos being mistaken for LSI, which can happen with N-LIIs. Otherwise, it's hard to say.

I think you'll like Bones -- the main character herself is also LII (although she's the Dominant subtype), one of the few examples of female LIIs in popular entertainment. I have to admit, that was quite unnerving when I first started watching, like seeing a female version of myself or something. I got used to it, though. It's a solid show.

[Timeless]

No, but I wasn't implying that. As long as you're using Extroverted Logic and have an LIE behavior, I don't know why should I think about ILE :|. Just because it's said that they're interested in novelty?

Ok, but still, does that mean ILE's don't use (by your own unique interpretation of) Extraverted Logic and absolutely cannot behave in a LIE/IEE/SLE etc. manner at all whatsoever under any circumstances? No exceptions? Taking the Extraverted Logic example further; do you personally see it as an appendix or a left arm (if you're right handed)? In other words, do you see it as a pointless thing, or a weak thing, or possibly something else?

Even if it was pointless; could it be possible that one becomes aware of the potential in it?

Even if it was weak; could it be possible that one exercised his or her own functions?

Even if it was something else; does it have to be "left" there at all and not realized?

Think about the other side, does that mean every type out there has to only and only use, speak, talk, and behave from their first two functions in the forum or world disregarding the rest (whether consciously or not)? If they use anything else, it's :buzz: they're out of the quadra! Stereotypically speaking, does that mean all our lovely SEIs have to only talk about inner sensations and fun in order to be a SEI?

To offer you some starting points, I'd ask you: can you make the difference between Introverted Logic and Extroverted Logic, how does this manifest in people? Then the Intuition? Or when you read that ILEs have a messy appearance or forget easily, you thought that those were some mistakes or "trivial" details? These are things to seriously consider.

I was talking with my friend about this a while ago, and so far from my understanding extraverted logic is more of the what, while introverted is more of the why. Ti is structural and systematic, while Te is more about productivity and utilization. Another way to put it—in computer talk—Ti is the system and source code, while Te is the program and application.

As for intuition, I'd like to think of Ne as an oak tree and Ni as bamboo, they both grow except, one grows wide, and all over the place, and one grows straight and tall. To put another way; (Ni) One is time-oriented and goes—pretty much—one way … and the other (Ne) is Timeless and goes many ways.

Even for the last question; if I answered yes they are trivial, or mistakes, does that mean all ILE's believe the same exact thing? If I answered no, does that mean all ILE's believe the same thing? And to really answer that, I don't think things are ever "mistakes" as we all learn; but sometimes things can get trivial.

...Does that mean all ILE's must think like me (or you)? And everyone who doesn't isn't one? Or that I (or the next person) must not be an ILE because of this single-factor?

I'm not saying that we should be totally identical in speech, appearance etc, but there are similar things which relate to type, I can tell you true ILE people on this forum which are not completely like me: hkkmr, jxrtes, I think that Claudius Almagest and I'm sorry if I omit others (about Blaze I'm not sure). This type is not a matter of dunno, "crazy ideas", it's something more deep, it's like the core, the way of seeing things day-by-day - and it's valid for any type, of course.

Yes, we have similarities revolved around a core I agree with that.

But even the core is not exactly the same. It's like the sun, it's is not a perfect sphere, it has prominences, and flares. Our Earth isn't even a perfect sphere, we have mountains, and valleys. While they are both spheres in a basic sense, they are not exact or precise, so I agree on the similarities, but there are also the differences to consider. Those similarities and differences make the unique (insert type here) smoothies.

...These, the previous, and the above, are all the factors:

Why focus on one, and cut away all the possibilities out there? That's like saying everybody should listen to you and only you, or everybody should take one test, and only one test, or everybody should read after one book and only one book. It's not to say you, a test, or book are insignificant, not at all; I'm simply saying there is more to just one single source. Why have a book when you can have a whole library? Speaking of that, it's all up to the person to decide themselves, like our warrior librarian here!

I have the feeling you see this as some sort of a brand, correct me if I'm wrong.

You mean like in a Socionics Soda type of way? No way, not even Diet Socionics do it.

I've done a test and my type was 7w6 as far as I remember. Let me check and edit here.

Edit: yes http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post605185

Cool, I thought you were a different number entirely there.

[Krig the Viking]

Haha, Timeless, that was such a classic ILE speech.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Just out of curiosity, what other type(s) did you have in mind?

INTp and ISTp.

[The Exception]

INTp and ISTp.

I can see why you'd say INTp but why ISTp? I have poor

[krieger]

Your serious calmness is what most stands out in you. The ISTp suggestion would reconcile a Te IP typing with the general view that you are also Ne/Si valuing (prefering safe, clean environments).

INTj is not a type incapable of giving rise to serious calm behavior, though, so none of what I see in you is strictly incompatible with the INTj typing.

[The Exception]

I'm starting to get the impression, based on this and what you were saying about not being able to distinguish between good descriptions and bad descriptions that you are an LII who has a somewhat underdeveloped base function. I can actually relate to this quite a bit, from when I was younger. Do you have Fi-valuing parents? If your Ti was supressed during childhood, it would explain it being underdeveloped, and why you're having a hard time distinguishing whether your Ti or Fi is stronger. The dimensionality of the functions is more indicative of capacity than actual strength

My family members are:

Mother ESE, strong but unvalued Fi
Father SLI, weak but valued Fi
Sister EII, strong and valued Fi

I don't think any of my family members discouraged use of Ti or any function for that matter. They just wanted me to do what made my happy.

An Fi-Normalizing LII would put a strong emphasis on being polite, and following the ettiquette and social rules of the surrounding society. She would be very strong in Ti, as Normalizers have both Ji elements strengthened, and would be very similar to the Ti-Normalizing subtype in that she would be reserved, fairly dispassionate, and very, very orderly and fastidious, almost a parody of the IJ temperament.

I care about being polite but I'm not too big on following social rules unless they make logical sense. Basically I want to be kind and respectful to others, to avoid hurting their feelings and be able to coexist harmoniously with them. I am reserved and I suppose I appear dispassionate on the outside but once you get to know to me better, you'll start to see the more passionate side. I am generally orderly in the sense that I keep my surroundings neat and organized but I'm not overly fastidious. I don't see myself as a parody of the IJ temperament. In fact I have identify quite a bit with the IP temperament and some of the irrational type descriptions. Which suggests more harmonizing and less normalizing.

Harmonizing LII, by contrast, is relaxed and easy-going, and wants peace and harmony in her environment so she can stay relaxed and easy-going. Si-Harmonizing focuses more on being physically relaxed and peaceful, whereas Ni-Harmonizing would focus more on a less tangible, almost "spiritual" harmony, where "life" in general is peaceful and harmonious. Of course, that's not always possible in either case, just like order and tidiness isn't always possible in the case of N-LII, whether it be logical order or relational, social order.

I think I generally *appear* relaxed and easygoing to most people in most situations but I am well aware that there is alot of internal tension going inside me. Yeah, I place a high value on feeling relaxed and wish I didn't have all this internal tension. I think I identify more closely with Ni-harmonizing, the wanting life in general to be peaceful and harmonious is my motto. I hate the thought about life having to be a battle or a struggle that some other types seem to embrace.

Subtypes can be quite difficult to determine via text communication, and to be honest as an "Ignoring" C-LII I haven't really paid enough attention to most of the people here to be able to say much about their base type, never mind their subtype. I would definitely agree that Tcaud is C-LII though, and JohnDo probably is as well. C-LIIs are the ones who come up with complicated new theories. The "harsher" LIIs like labcoat and Logos might be some kind of Rational subtype, either D or N LII. I dimly recall something about Logos being mistaken for LSI, which can happen with N-LIIs. Otherwise, it's hard to say.

The thing I've noticed with JohnDo is he seems rather dogmatic about his ideas unlike you. He seems more N or D although he could be a C subtype with a strong secondary or N or D whereas you're probably a C-LII with a secondary H. I don't see any H in JohnDo even though he claims to be that subtype. A long oval face doesn't make you an H subtype!

I think Labcoat is almost certainly some T subtype, and could probably pass for an LSI. I'm not sure though if he's more N or D.

I don't know Logos that well, he hasn't posted as much lately as some of the other LII's. I didn't get a "harsh" impression from what I saw in his posts.

[Aiss]

I can see why you'd say INTp but why ISTp? I have poor

FWIW I don't think you're Fe-PoLR. I also think you're using introverted judgment, or rather - seeking extraverted judgment.

One thing that came to my mind is that you're probably underestimating your base function. People take leading function for granted and unless confronted with it, tend to assume everyone else thinks/sees the world/whatever you call it the same way. So if you're only judging Ti and Fi by yourself, you probably have a biased opinion about them, especially if you aren't close to anyone who's really good with whichever is your role. It seems unlikely to me now but I thought I was Ti-leading at some point. Exactly because Ni is so natural to me that I assumed it's to everyone else, too. On the other hand, I realized my T function was on a stronger side - and even more that my F stands for fail.

If you're sure of your sister's typing, you should have a good idea by now if you've got strong Fi or not.

[The Exception]

Your serious calmness is what most stands out in you. The ISTp suggestion would reconcile a Te IP typing with the general view that you are also Ne/Si valuing (prefering safe, clean environments).

INTj is not a type incapable of giving rise to serious calm behavior, though, so none of what I see in you is strictly incompatible with the INTj typing.

I looked over wikisocion's ISTp description and was surprised to find that alot of it fit. Especially the part about the PoLR. I was blown away at how accurately the PoLR description fits:

SLIs feel insecure and tense in situations with loud emotional displays — whether positive or negative — as well as in any situations expecting vocal displays of feelings and passions. Therefore, SLIs try to ignore anything relating to their vulnerable function. However, it becomes most prominent when they cannot properly organise the sensations, actions, and movements of their physical world. When this happens, they will feel hopelessness and extreme loss.
SLIs prefer to have lots of time to get to know people so that they can let out their hidden passions in a safe and friendly environment where no one will judge them. These passions are tender and must be treated with respect. If they are told they are not passionate enough or are too passionate, they will take offence and hide their emotions from that person in the future. They find it offensive when people assume things about their emotional state based on their expressions, because they find such inferences are too often wrong. Instead of explaining to the person how they are actually feeling, they will get annoyed and push the person away. If an SLI feels comfortable with a person, he can go on and on about his feelings, explaining them in-depth - not anything related to his present state but instead opinions about people he knows and, more often than not, what he finds irritating about them (which is perhaps related to ).
SLIs see no reason to get worked up about things. They tend to condemn people who do not control their emotional displays and "fly off the handle." They believe that people should think first about the effect their words and emotions will have on other people rather than just spilling out negative or potentially hurtful feelings as they feel like it. If someone has chewed them out in an emotional way just once, they tend to hold this incident against the person for years. To them such behavior is unnecessarily demeaning and malicious.
SLIs extremely dislike socialising (particularly amongst large groups) because they are incapable of creating and sustaining a wide range of emotions for people. They are also quite unable to deal with the painful and complicated job of organising the unpredictable emotions that they can receive from so many people at any one given time. Consequently, SLIs are often reclusive and socially unengaged despite being rather comfortable around a few people they have learned and when having one-on-one conversations on subjects in which they are knowledgeable.


This doesn't mean I'm ready to go and switch my type over to SLI yet but it is an important piece of data to consider. It was interesting that you suggested the possibililty of ILI and SLI as types for me. Since relating this to H-LII subtype, the harmonizing subtype has both strengthend and , which are the base functions of SLI and ILI, respectively.


I think my is weak but I also think I have somewhat stronger or should I say better access to compared to other LIIs. I seem to care more about health and comfort and the like.

However, on socionics tests, I've always scored as an N. It's probably my strongest dichotomy of the four. SLI is way down the list.

[The Exception]

Ti is about correctness, when things contradict, something doesn't make sense definitely. If something doesn't make sense, then it might be all wrong.

Yes, I relate very much to this. In my journey to find my true socionics type, I want it all to be correct, to have no contraditions whatsoever.

This is why your Logic is called also "business logic", because is uses statistical graphs inside, what side "wins", what are the odds, which side has the most chances of being correct. Te types accumulate a lot of information and make the sum of each party supporters. One of the things you probably have done when typing yourself was to read all the descriptions, find out which one contains the most adjectives you though that describe you then made the comparison.

However, I relate very well to this too! In my self-typing journey that's exactly what I've done. Cross compare type descriptions and determine overall fit based on factors like what percent of the type description fits vs. doesn't fit and what the general consensus on the forum seems to be regarding my type.

So I admit to being confused as to whether I'm a Ti or Te valuer.

Here's another thought:
I was always very good in math at school, which seems to be a very domain. However, I hated the aspects of math involving proofs and conjectures and the like. When I had to prove something, like my geometry teacher made us students do sometimes, I found that to be tedious and unnatural. I was much more at home in just using math to solve problems. I didn't care so much why a theorem was true.

[The Exception]

Okay, who's the sole EII voter on the poll? Is it you Pinocchio?

[krieger]

The "harsher" LIIs like labcoat and Logos might be some kind of Rational subtype, either D or N LII.

I'm inclined to type myself as some irrational subtype, because my everyday habits are very irregular and chaotic. I manifest several of the behaviors that are sometimes said to be typically P such as postponing work until the deadline arrives.

I should also say that my behavior on this particular forum is harsher and more definite than my behavior in most other places.

One of the reasons I don't subscribe to subtypes is that these methods of determining the type produce such contradictory results in my case.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Beautiful sky]

I have a question; are you disappointed by your loved ones at all, ever?

[Timeless]

@Timeless: I don't know what's your purpose with that, but it seems that you have no understanding in the functions and the types - why do you avoid to address them so much? You took a defensive position which was not necessary, because that stuff you wrote is completely irrelevant to what we were talking about - namely your type.

The questions I asked you were for yourself, I know your exact type. You put the problem that why you are not an ILE as of I tell you that you don't have enough /money/mana/karma to be an ILE, that's not the problem, but you're an LIE instead. Oh, Ni association with "lie"? No problem: ENTj. You're asking me a lot of irrelevant questions like "should we have identical cores?" or something, for what point? Did I tell you that the only reason for which you're not an ILE is the fact that me and you are not completely similar? No, I pointed things out to you along the time that demonstrate not only that you're not ILE, but why you're an LIE, independently of me or any actual person - although this is not something to be excluded - again, that evidence you talk about yourself.

You said previously that you draw a bottom line and see how much/many evidence/sources drags you towards a certain conclusion, but those things are only the illusory ones that could confirm you the so-much-valued type you want to be, the rest are just details? You take each thing that differentiates you from an ILE as a "little difference", separately, "cause people can't be exactly identical", but at the end of the day these differences accumulated and these "little differences" compose all your typing. So how do you gather this amount of "evidence" since every little thing that doesn't match your opinion you dismiss as a "little difference"?
---

And BTW, did BlackCat brought you here? Did you know that me and him previously agreed on his type as being an ESI, he was angry on people who didn't acknowledge that, but something made him change his mind later. That's not important, what's important is that this (my typings in you both and the fact that you guys now take LIE as ILE and ESI as SEI) would demonstrate you that my typings are consistent and it's not just a coincidence. This is also consistent with the ESI traits you described to be what you are looking for in a woman, in Kama's thread, which I pointed you out there.

I'll use some Ne here, maybe you guys will be pissed on me for profiting off history, but in my opinion it is you who changed BlackCat's opinion, establishing that you're an ILE and he's an SEI, am I correct? You're his Dual in the end, so no matter how adamant one is previously, his/her Logical Dual can make him/her think again.
I realized this after I typed both of you, than I realized what he told me previously about an ILE guy he is getting along very well with, while he used to be pissed off by the other ILEs. I don't know how much he would allow me to reveal from our private discussions, ESIs value confidence immensely, I don't want to offend him.

Besides the Fi DS confirmation - that means that Fi types would most like enjoy the idea and Fe ones would send you *somewhere*, this is not even correct when it comes to Socionics. It's not up to the person to choose his/her type, the type is inherent in the human psyche, it's up to the person to understand and acknowledge that, only. That's the only think one can do about this.

No, ILE/ENTp force - and stuff, and things from your videos. The ILE stereotype is that it's the smartest guy in the room, with the most crazy ideas, but this stereotypes overlooks the true criteria. There are a lot of smart people in all types, why would you unreasonably stick to this one out of the void? Other types are not dumb at all, especially LIE.

So how comes that all our evidence from your posts points otherwise? You're again working against any Ti in the world: Ti is about correctness, when things contradict, something doesn't make sense definitely. If something doesn't make sense, then it might be all wrong.

This is why your Logic is called also "business logic", because is uses statistical graphs inside, what side "wins", what are the odds, which side has the most chances of being correct. Te types accumulate a lot of information and make the sum of each party supporters. One of the things you probably have done when typing yourself was to read all the descriptions, find out which one contains the most adjectives you though that describe you then made the comparison.
What we're doing now is pure Ti vs Te, while you're trying to show how many sources support your position, I'm trying to demonstrate you which of these assumptions are incorrect. This discussion alone demonstrates that we're on opposite sides of valued (Socionics) Logic! Do you so much like to live in delusion, to let the illusion of "supporting evidence" keep you mistyped?
---

I have an idea: send PMs with your videos to Alpha then Gamma types here on the forum and find out their reactions, just take care to ask them to be sincere, people answer politely usually. What d you think?

Krig, I'm convinced what you're made of already, you're just holding a political battle here... what's this "classic ILE speech" you're talking about, may I take a look on something like that to be able to compare it to what Timeless have said?

To keep it fair, I'll continue this when you answer those "irrevelent" questions.

[OnePiece]

I'll use some Ne here, maybe you guys will be pissed on me for profiting off history, but in my opinion it is you who changed BlackCat's opinion, establishing that you're an ILE and he's an SEI, am I correct?

Nah, it was me, all I did was link him to Rick's site, specifically the page about Fe. Apparently he had a misguided understanding of the function.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Krig the Viking]

Krig, I'm convinced what you're made of already, you're just holding a political battle here... what's this "classic ILE speech" you're talking about, may I take a look on something like that to be able to compare it to what Timeless have said?

Oh, come on, man, a passionate rant about how we shouldn't be narrow-minded and must not overlook alternate possibilities in our theorizing? That's like the epitome of an ILE speech!

My family members are:

Mother ESE, strong but unvalued Fi
Father SLI, weak but valued Fi
Sister EII, strong and valued Fi

I don't think any of my family members discouraged use of Ti or any function for that matter. They just wanted me to do what made my happy.

Hmm. ESE-SLI parents, eh? If it's not too personal to ask, how did they get along when you were growing up? Were you closer to one than to the other? More data = better analysis.

I care about being polite but I'm not too big on following social rules unless they make logical sense. Basically I want to be kind and respectful to others, to avoid hurting their feelings and be able to coexist harmoniously with them. I am reserved and I suppose I appear dispassionate on the outside but once you get to know to me better, you'll start to see the more passionate side. I am generally orderly in the sense that I keep my surroundings neat and organized but I'm not overly fastidious. I don't see myself as a parody of the IJ temperament. In fact I have identify quite a bit with the IP temperament and some of the irrational type descriptions. Which suggests more harmonizing and less normalizing.

Yeah, this is in line with my intuitive impression of you. I think Harmonizing makes the most sense, even if you did turn out to be EII. However, LII looks much more likely to me at this point.

I think I generally *appear* relaxed and easygoing to most people in most situations but I am well aware that there is alot of internal tension going inside me. Yeah, I place a high value on feeling relaxed and wish I didn't have all this internal tension. I think I identify more closely with Ni-harmonizing, the wanting life in general to be peaceful and harmonious is my motto. I hate the thought about life having to be a battle or a struggle that some other types seem to embrace.

Yeah, a Harmonizing type isn't always going to be able to acheive harmony and relaxation, just like a Normalizer isn't always going to be able to acheive order. The internal tension is related, though -- a Harmonizing subtype is going to feel internal tension when things are not harmonious, and a Normalizing subtype is going to feel internal tension when things are not orderly.

The contrast between us is intereting -- while I like peace and harmony, I am far more focused on my "Quest for Truth", related to my Creative subtype. My ideal life involves going out on my quest to seek the Truth during the day, with whatever (intellectual) struggles or battles that may bring, and then returning home to peace and harmony to rest and recover. That's why Creative and Harmonizing are "subtype duals" -- they handle different, complementary aspects of life.

The thing I've noticed with JohnDo is he seems rather dogmatic about his ideas unlike you. He seems more N or D although he could be a C subtype with a strong secondary or N or D whereas you're probably a C-LII with a secondary H. I don't see any H in JohnDo even though he claims to be that subtype. A long oval face doesn't make you an H subtype!

I think Labcoat is almost certainly some T subtype, and could probably pass for an LSI. I'm not sure though if he's more N or D.

I don't know Logos that well, he hasn't posted as much lately as some of the other LII's. I didn't get a "harsh" impression from what I saw in his posts.

JohnDo is more dogmatic about his ideas, but I still think Creative fits him better than Normalizing or Dominant. I think N-LII would tend to sort out and organize other people's ideas, rather than generating a lot of ideas of his own. I haven't entirely ruled out Dominant for JohnDo yet, but I think a D-LII would be somewhat more like Pinocchio (who I'm quite certain is a Dominant subtype, whatever his base type) -- focused on forcing the world around him to bend to his will. JohnDo may be dogmatic about his ideas, but I haven't seen him proselytize his ideas in the same way I would expect a Dominant to do.

Your idea of a secondary subtype is intriguing. Rather like the Enneagram Tritype. Gulenko's method for distinguishing differences within subtype was to expand it to a 16-subtype system. It's possible that I may have a NeFi subtype, and JohnDo a NeTi, for example. However, I haven't done much study in that area; I want to make sure my understanding of the basic 4-subtype system is accurate before moving on to a finer level of detail.

I'm inclined to type myself as some irrational subtype, because my everyday habits are very irregular and chaotic. I manifest several of the behaviors that are sometimes said to be typically P such as postponing work until the deadline arrives.

I should also say that my behavior on this particular forum is harsher and more definite than my behavior in most other places.

One of the reasons I don't subscribe to subtypes is that these methods of determining the type produce such contradictory results in my case.

Hmm. Well, as I said, I find subtype very difficult to determine based solely on text communication like forums. The only reason I feel at all confident about warrior-librarian's subtype is that I've seen her videos. I don't suppose you have any videos of yourself?

[The Exception]

Here's another interesting thought I've had. According to Tcaudillg's dual type theory, I'm quite confident now that my EM type is EII. That could explain some of the type confusion I've been having.

The general consensus on the forum definitely leans towards LII for IM type and after some more thinking about it all, I probably am an LII, even if there are some things about me that are rather atypical for that type. It's about what the best overall fit is and no type is going to fit absolutely perfectly. If I keep waiting for the absolute perfect fit, I'll just be spinning my wheels needlessly. Having an H subtype has also contributed to some of the type confusion I've been having, especially in regards to feeling more sensitive about things relative to other LIIs.

So I'm going back to LII, again. Hopefully this will be my last foray into questioning my type for awhile.

[Beautiful sky]

Bump