We need more ISTjs around here

[MatthewZ]

That's not a suggestion. Someone get recruiting, NAO.

[MatthewZ]

what do you need an LSI for?

Not an LSI; multiple LSIs. I feel Beta rationals are horribly underrepresented on this forum relative to Beta irrationals. I'd ask for EIEs too, but in all honesty, who wants ANOTHER Gilly?

[krieger]

My ISTj brother thinks socionics is Nazi witchcraft or something. He refuses to talk about it on a rational level.

[Aiss]

I know one LSI.

He'd have to go on rehab before coming here. Spends his days playing WoW.

[thePirate]

LSI girls are quite possibly the sexiest creatures to ever walk the Earth tbh

[somavision]

LSI girls are quite possibly the sexiest creatures to ever walk the Earth tbh

mmmmm... forbidden fruit.

[silverchris9]

Seriously, I want more people to join, of all types. JOIN 16TYPES!!! Then POST!!!! WE WILL BE FRIENDLY I PROMISE UNLESS YOU ARE DUMB!!!!! EVEN IF YOU ARE WRONG, WE WILL BE NICE, AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT STUBBORN ABOUT BEING WRONG!!!!




*dumb = do not agree with me.


*wrong = do not agree with me.

[Existential Potato]

Ha, I know an LSI who I've made interested in socionics, but I've specifically warded him away from this forum. I think he's become attatched to socionics workshop because of it.

A bit funny, considering this topic.

[Park]

I know one LSI.

He'd have to go on rehab before coming here. Spends his days playing WoW.

[DividedsGhost]

Lol, someone told him to "shut up".

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

So how is an Ne type supposed to react to your random allegations that they are ISTj. To reject the suggestion is to behave exactly how you think an ISTj would. To accept it is to fuel your delusions. No matter what one does, one ends up affirming your beliefs. And this is how you posess an important property of the stubbornness you describe yourself.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

You see, the idea you come from is to "abruptly reject" this opinion, without any investigation.

Lol. On the contrary. I've been investigating the possibility for 5 years as I checked each possibility of what type I might be through the course of getting acquainted with socionics. How long do I have to be at this before I may "abruptly reject" any typing? Ten years? Twenty? There has been a person whose opinion I respected greatly at the time (smilingeyes) who suggested I might be ISTj (he had to use a "type change" model to defend the typing but anyway) and I have spent a great deal of time trying to "see myself as" ISTj from that point onwards, but after two more years the excercise just proved hopelessly futile. I liked the idea of being ISTj. There are advantages to being of that type. I had to tell myself I wasn't ISTj exactly because telling myself I had the positive traits of an ISTj took too much wishful thinking.

Of course, you're pretty similar to LIIs, for example what I note to be a connection between the LSIs and the LIIs on the forum, is adherence to formal definitions and conventional pen-and-paper rules.

The only "rules" I ever come close to "adhering to" are the ones I've devised for myself after reshaping and reinventing everything I had been given to fit my observations. And even these "rules" are under constant revision. You say I use formal rules, but formality requires a set of common agreements, something that can never apply to a personal set of heuristics. Your entire image of me is fictional.

About the pickle you talk about, I would like to be able to find a solution, I simply could not. I'm afraid that things will stay like this forever, your real type became obvious in time, strengthened with every occasion, like the current one (where you simply reject my claims as "random"), the difference is that you see everything in labels, like you are LII because "you are LII". Because of the peculiarities of this type, I think that even if all the community would agree and establish that you're another type, or if you'd be typed by Russian experts would not change anything, for you, that would mean to ruin all your concepts, you'll be worthless for yourself.

I'm at the point where I find it totally inconceivable for either of these things to happen. You might as well postulate for the world to change into a giant mango.

I'm afraid you're doomed to this state. Maybe - but maybe - something can happen to straighten the things, I just don't know what. Assuming that you're an LII, yes, in the end everyone will probably realize and accept that. Assuming you're not, things will stay as they are, unless a miracle that would make you change your mind. The first case is definitely not "preferable", how you may think - allegedly because it's the only way to have things settled - that's only a theoretical assumption,all evidence demonstrates that you're an LSI.

Everybody does realize and accept it, except some crazy kook who has been known to make dubious typings in the past such as calling ArchonAlarion and Arctures ISTjs. You can't possibly think anything other than calling you deluded and wrong is the simplest way to explain what is going on. You also talk about evidence without ever having provided any.

If you have the most basic flexibility but simply can't accept you're wrong in front of the people, I would recommend something to you (and to other LSIs, if willing): make another account and use it, don't betray your preference in theory or something that you've written previously, but simply talk, as much as possible. Don't use a type, just wait for me to type you, and see what happens along several months of activity. I really have no motivation to bring all arguments again unless you do this, but in that case, you're "someone else" this will most likely happen, you're not the same person, but someone else we can type from scratch. Also, don't show yourself after the first try, because of the artificial persona, you may come across as different, but in time, in discussions, your personality will be obvious.

And if you're an LII, you should be easily capable of doing such thing, to get you rid of this uncertainty.

I may or may not do this, but if I ever did, the opinion of the rest of the forum would at least be as important as yours. We already know that you have strange ideas about what the ISTj type comprises. There is nothing preventing you from applying them falsely a second time, and it would mean nothing beyond an affirmation of your delusions if you did.

[thePirate]

You see, the idea you come from is to "abruptly reject" this opinion, without any investigation. No, they are not "random", your brain makes you think like that, more than I demonstrated this view along the time, more than you people proved this type (with almost all occasions, including this one!) can't be done. You (or your brain) simply refuses to take any alternative into consideration, everything for you is nonsensical, "random" and so on, it's immediately qualified without being even conscious about it.

Besides this, that this behavior applies to you guys, I was talking about how this happens in LSIs in general. For you, the type you have chosen is so "obvious" that you don't even consider the possibility that someone who retypes you is not wrong. I think we discussed previously that at least you, labcoat, don't possess and trace of traits in your personality that would qualify you as an Ne type. None. There is absolutely no evidence about it, your whole typing is based on a simple "yeah, he appears LII" assumption. Of course, you're pretty similar to LIIs, for example what I note to be a connection between the LSIs and the LIIs on the forum, is adherence to formal definitions and conventional pen-and-paper rules. But this is the similarity, but the difference is what you don't consider.

About the pickle you talk about, I would like to be able to find a solution, I simply could not. I'm afraid that things will stay like this forever, your real type became obvious in time, strengthened with every occasion, like the current one (where you simply reject my claims as "random"), the difference is that you see everything in labels, like you are LII because "you are LII". Because of the peculiarities of this type, I think that even if all the community would agree and establish that you're another type, or if you'd be typed by Russian experts would not change anything, for you, that would mean to ruin all your concepts, you'll be worthless for yourself.

I'm afraid you're doomed to this state. Maybe - but maybe - something can happen to straighten the things, I just don't know what. Assuming that you're an LII, yes, in the end everyone will probably realize and accept that. Assuming you're not, things will stay as they are, unless a miracle that would make you change your mind. The first case is definitely not "preferable", how you may think - allegedly because it's the only way to have things settled - that's only a theoretical assumption,all evidence demonstrates that you're an LSI.
---

If you have the most basic flexibility but simply can't accept you're wrong in front of the people, I would recommend something to you (and to other LSIs, if willing): make another account and use it, don't betray your preference in theory or something that you've written previously, but simply talk, as much as possible. Don't use a type, just wait for me to type you, and see what happens along several months of activity. I really have no motivation to bring all arguments again unless you do this, but in that case, you're "someone else" this will most likely happen, you're not the same person, but someone else we can type from scratch. Also, don't show yourself after the first try, because of the artificial persona, you may come across as different, but in time, in discussions, your personality will be obvious.

And if you're an LII, you should be easily capable of doing such thing, to get you rid of this uncertainty.

you're more likely to be LSI than labcoat

[DirectorAbbie]

I know two LSIs, both male. I'm pretty sure they have better things to do than join the16types, but I could try bribery.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[DividedsGhost]

I just want to say that typing people based on text alone is not enough to get the full picture of a person's type. You can only really suggest and let them figure out themselves after learning as much as possible and hearing all arguments from the people around them because of this. Unless videos are posted where the person is displaying what they feel is natural, the typings are a bit sketchy.

It's really the best way. If Labcoat thinks he's INTj after spending so much time and thought considering the theory, he probably is. I would say he's most likely a Ti subtype. Anyway, if you really want to know what his type is I suggest invading his privacy by sticking cameras in his place of residence and later putting the incriminating footage on the internet for all to enjoy at a later date. Everyone will rejoice. And besides, you want to see him naked, Pinocchio, so it's win-win for everyone.

[Beautiful sky]

I could do with as few LSI personally in my life as possible, no offense to those helpful LSI, but I've spent the last week working my tush off trying to run the new SYSTEM my LSI boss just installed. If he wasn't so super focused on (keeping it real -istic). I could come on and hear me complain about him draining my energy reserves. I need a dual right now...exhausted.

[Computer Loser]

me me me i'm lsi!

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[717495]

I'm serious about it my friend.

Don't take Pinocchio seriously, he's an ILE

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[silverchris9]

I love LSI's

YouTube - Katy Perry dissing Kara American Idol

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. lol. That made me really happy. I've never liked Kara. and Katy Perry looked so hot while she totally destroyed her. I'm seriously going to have to revise my I-hate-katy-perry stance. Just because she can't actually sing and her first hit was a piece of three-braincell dreck that was obviously excreted by a mentally handicapped elephant, doesn't mean she's not still really hot, and therefore awesome.

[717495]

And you're an idiot. Maybe you joked, but you participate in building this stereotype, that ILEs say things because they have nothing better to do, and you judge me and you're fucking judging me wrong!
Nothing more false, remember Aushra.

No, I'm very serious about his type, I checked his older posts and I'm rather convinced of that. You can tell that even reading his signature.

Simple merry/serious joke. Don't you see my type? Though I was also just making fun of you, for fun, because you're an ILE. Nothing serious.

This here is serious:

[krieger]

There is, for example, the full range of Reinin dichotomies, which is just adopted and agreed upon by adherents. There were many people who adopted them blindly, you just built on them as if they "make sense", "confirming" them by artificial constructs. Again this is not an argument for LSI, as long as some LIIs did it, too.

I don't use the Reinin dichotomies. Period. Like I said: your image of me is fictional. I only occasionally use their labels as a means of communicating facts about the various type groups in socionics. Since it is impossible to rationally communicate anything without to some extent agreeing upon names, I fail to see how doing so reveals anything about the way I think.

The most obvious difference between you (and other LSIs) and these LIIs is that when something/someone is wrong about something, you consider that "totally wrong", compared to LIIs you use absolute conclusions, eg here above "entire image is fictional". LIIs were always able to see where people were wrong and where right, even in the same set of conclusions, unlike LSIs who either accept something or dismiss it totally. You are unable to conceive that someone who's wrong with something can be right with something else.

I am well read up on theories like Smilexian type change, tcaudilllg's political types, dimensionality, DCNH subtypes, dual types and Reinin. I consider much of what this claimed in these theories dubious if not simply wrong, but I still speak about them where this is relevant to the discussions on the forum, and spend a great deal of time considering how parts of the theories might still have merit. The only one towards which I manifest the attitude of considering the input wrong to the point of malicious and unsuitable even for casual reference is you.

When I became aware of people, you and Brilliand were two big guys with big theories. When contradictions or new views were presented, he was capable to see and discuss about them, you were not, you adamantly stood on the same position with unjustified confidence.

The difference is that Brilliand doesn't have theories that are to a significant extent materialized. Your view of him is wrong in that regard. His level of investment in socionics is not comparable to mine, nor is that of any other INTj on the forum here except tcaudilllg.

Ceausescu (wife) and Hussein denied the reality up to the moment of their deaths. Maybe they thought as well that the world would rather turn into a giant mango than conceive that they are guilty of something or lost the leadership.

They knew very well that there was a million things wrong with their situation. It just suited them to pretend otherwise. You mention of their predicament in relation to me is a non-sequitur.

Total denial, again. Those numerous occasions I've taken on you what are then? They were qualified as "nonsense" by you, it is no one's fault that you are incapable to accept evidence contesting something that you consider true.

You are the "crazy kook" in my comment, Pinocchio. If all it takes is a random type challenge for someone's type to be in question, nobody's type is certain. Just about ever person on the forum has a Pinocchio or Marista type of person claiming they are something else. I am as close to unanimously called INTj as one can get on a forum like this.

Btw, while Archon is relatively open-minded and intelligent, being therefore very hard to confine him to this LSI stereotype which people use, Arctures is a stereotypical LSI, as long as you're incapable of seeing that, your understanding in the socion is seriously put into question.

I'm bolding this so people can look at it and consider what this means to their assessment of your mental integrity. Myself I have no idea how to respond to this on a matching level of communication. Should I sqwawk, froth and squeal? Should I throw my computer out of the window? Should I burn the building I'm in down and stark kicking people in the streets? How am I supposed to keep up with you?

I agree wit this. The community is still living in a dark age, they are currently incapable to type someone as LSI (mnemonics people use: the inspector, the dictator), even SEE (mnemonics: the politician, the bitch) against their will - apart for someone extremely eccentric. Admit it, these are yet taboos around. Maybe we should wait for a better age. This was discussed previously and it answers the OP: LSI is a still taboo.

The reason for this is that the person's "will" coincides with one of the strongest arguments in favor of any typing in socionics: the self typing. If a person spends years trying to figure out their type and come to decide on a typing, this is a significant indication of what type they really are.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Absurd]

Retype them all, Pinocchio. You have my blessing.

[krieger]

I know, just you found the same dichotomies, even with different descriptions, based on themselves as a target. Basically from the ground up you tried to demonstrate them to yourself. It's suspicious that you found explanations for all of them. You talked about some descriptions of Process/Result and - I think - Negativist/Positivist? And there were not discovered, they were demonstrated, just these demonstrations are artificial constructs and are not based on real type traits, IMO. Anyway, again, these apply to both LIIs and LSIs, afaik.

What on earth makes you think the "functions" are any less artificial constructs than the dichotomies you mention? Neither of these has scientific, empirical backing, so one always ends up accepting them on the basis of a mixture of faith and personal observation. The two don't differ in this regard. The annoying thing here is that you're accusing me of dogmatism and stupidity when it is actually you that refuses to review all of the possibilities. Dichotomies, functions, it's all the same to me. I can work with both. You have the more restricted attitude.

This is exactly what's annoying about you, you qualify things as "nonsense" and "random" while arguments are given to you. When someone else presents arguments, your only objective is to get rid of them by no matter of what means: deconstruction, minimization, etc - I can't accuse you of avoidance, that's true.

Again, I only behave this way towards you. The things you've said to me have made me to such an extent convinced of the malicious falsehood of your views that I'm left with no other option.

No, associating me and Maritsa is one of your biggest mistakes, our reasoning has nothing in common, with this you prove how superficially you judge the arguments of people. You definitely lack Ne by saying this, you can't find similarities between us, we are "identical" because we retype people, that's the thing you can't see past through. One of the most ignorant things one who knows both of us can say on this forum, IMO.

It is an association that people have picked up on. I'm not the only one mentioning the two of you together these days. Pretty soon you're going to have to call the entire forum crazy to keep your worldview consistent.

You may be satisfied if unanimously called LII, I won't accept it as long as it's not sensible. That's also not a typing procedure, you have to admit it: Socionics is a tough field, not anyone can learn it so easily, it's ridiculous to think that every Joe can correctly type, apart in your "self esteem" camps there in the US, maybe.

Any random person on the streets could eliminate 12 out of 16 of the types the instance they get acquainted with socionics in the most superficial way. In my case one of the eliminated types is ISTj.

Please don't... You may ignore all apart for Arctures - he is not an IEE, there's nothing to justify such monstrosity, I had several arguments against that, but no one had arguments pro IEE. This is the only sensible conclusion, that he's an LSI, his typing is based on the principle "repeat a lie until everybody believes it" which I'm unable to counteract with arguments - that would require an enormous amount of energy to expend - but by the same means, to remind people the same things and that it's not true.

SQUAWK, FROTH, SQUEAL!! *rampages through city Godzilla style*

Nonsense. There are two requirements in this, that you should agree with:
- understanding the person
- understanding Socionics

While arguably the first is validated though self knowledge, the second is not valid in most of the cases. If two people disagree in typing other people, that implies at least one of them doesn't know to type, for how fucking many times have I to repeat you a simple logical deduction? If they disagree, they can't be both right. And because one is wrong, his/her self-typing has no justification - it's invalid. Knowing oneself is not sufficient for self-typing - this is what you have to remember once and for all.

It's basic 9th grade logic. You're simply and obviously wrong. Besides, we discussed about it previously, now you turn to the same fallacy again, you're doing this everytime, then invoke "lack of evidence".

You don't have a guarantee that your understanding of the theory is correct either, Pinocchio. This is where you make the fatal philosophical mistake of engaging in solipsism (believing you are special, like some kind of "god"). To test your own understanding of the theory the only option you have is to test it against that of others. Since the self typing is the easiest and first typing anyone ever makes, without which any other typing has no right of existence, these should be seen as bastions of understanding. The way to test your understanding of theory best is to try to accept as many selftypings as possible and adjust your view of the workings of the theory to these.

[Computer Loser]

Lol, I really doubt it. I think you're an SEI for some time now. I'm serious about it my friend.

Really?

I feel too serious, painstaking, routine and depressed to be SEI, lol.

I also tend to get suspicious and paranoid of people (can't fully trust 'em) and imagine worst case scenarios.

...I also can't have fun unless I get my school work out of the way. (can get really uptight) Is that an SEI trait?

This description fits me pretty well. http://www.bestfittype.com/istj.html

I wish typing was easier.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Computer Loser]

I think you should read the Socionics descriptions, they are kinda more accurate for what we're up to here. Socionics is not the same thing with other personality systems, MBTI, Keirsey - I didn't tell you yet because I though you know it. Of course, ISTJ in MBTI would theoretically be LSI/ISTj in Socionics, but the descriptions have different focus, and in the end people may type differently.
Try wikisocion.org, socionics.com, socioniko.net, psychotypes.com and so on - read as many descriptions of a type possible and try to make a resume in your mind - that's IMO the only way to understand at first.

All what you say fits for SEI, IMO, including that paranoia, the way you said it, and I think I could find somewhere these things written, that the SEI needs its Dual for it's foresight which defuses its anxiety. Then, in the EIE/LSI pair, it's the EIE who's always concerned about the future and sees everything somber, while the LSIs are confident that things will be fine. I really think that you don't fit either way.

Yes, been there, done that. I've actually been reading socionics stuff/descriptions like crazy for the past year...Often in secret (and when I get into something I find interesting, I REALLY get into it).

I'm also basing my type from observing my relationships:

My INFp brother and friend tire me out (activity), My ESTp and I always have interesting conversations, can get things done (mirror). And I always find myself telling my ENFj friend, "don't worry, you got this." Oh, and I just ejaculated in my pants thinking of ENFj women, but maybe that is not type related.

My ex was an ENFp...We couldn't plan anything out together. I remember trying to plan a BBQ with her, that was the worst. Communication was horrible. Superficial play is as deep as it got. My ISTp roommate...Sometimes I view him as lazy, too lax. I think he sees me as too strict, textbook.

I remember the Keirsey description said that my ideal match was an ESFP...And I'm like helllllllllll nah, (those guys are too party party for me) so I turned to socionics.

But yeah...Maybe I'm just crazy and making stuff up in my head, but I typed myself pretty carefully.

[Computer Loser]

@Peteronfireee: funny thing, it appears that some descriptions indeed tell that SEIs are carefree people. I will find that somewhere, and from my experience - it's not like that. My gf is an SEI and she uses to be concerned of all crappy details, if everything is fine, water shut, gas, windows, plants, if what she said to a certain person was right, or how it affected him/her and so on, without even actual reasons.

Exactly few minutes ago she got alarmed telling me that they announced floods and what will happen to her granny, because a dike broke and her granny lives half an hour from that river. So what? I think there are low chances to be flooded as long as your place has no history of being flooded, and since her granny was young, a different infrastructure was build, besides - the river is fucking long, the dike might have broken everywhere. But like you said - she thinks in terms of the worst. It's enough to think about all the factors and make a reasonable explanation like above and everything is fine. Other times, there's nothing one can do about it, just accept it and think about important things: for example if you blundered out with someone. That's it, the next time you meet him you just tell him that you blundered out - this always works .

Haha, well when it comes to natural disasters/tornados I don't freak out. Pshh what are the chances, right? It's mostly duties, obligations, and people that do. If I saw someone I was "close to" and that person didn't say hi to me, I'd think in my head, "dude, why isn't that guy/girl saying hi. what a douche."

Is your girlfriend super-competitive? :wink:

[Aiss]

@Peteronfireee: funny thing, it appears that some descriptions indeed tell that SEIs are carefree people. I will find that somewhere, and from my experience - it's not like that. My gf is an SEI and she uses to be concerned of all crappy details, if everything is fine, water shut, gas, windows, plants, if what she said to a certain person was right, or how it affected him/her and so on, without even actual reasons.

In my experience, SEIs actually tend to be far on the carefree side.

[Computer Loser]

In my experience, SEIs actually tend to be far on the carefree side.

This is also true, in my experience.

[Creepy-]

I love LSI's

YouTube - Katy Perry dissing Kara American Idol

Katy Perry is LSI??

[matilda]

If I saw someone I was "close to" and that person didn't say hi to me, I'd think in my head, "dude, why isn't that guy/girl saying hi. what a douche."

An LSI/SLE friend has said these exact words.

Peter, how do you personally distinguish betweeen IEI and EIE?

[The Exception]

I'd ask for EIEs too, but in all honesty, who wants ANOTHER Gilly?

What about numbers? He's a likeable EIE.