Type me by my answers to these questions

[Creepy-male]

Who are you?

I'm Gul.

What are you interests?

Interesting things

Maths, mechanics, World of Warcraft lore and theory, statistics, numbers,

What do you do for a living?

Mooch of mum while I'm studying

Are you in school? How do/did you like it?

University yeah. I enjoy it. Maths is great fun, and I enjoy reflecting about the overall big picture in this other unit I do where we're given readings and lectures and things.

Future goals? Past experiences?

Get work as a statistician. Getting a government job in the Australian Bureau of Statistics would be real swell, but I've gathered that's pretty far off.

Past experiences with what? My parents sucked, my school sucked, my entire life sucked; and then one day I woke up and stopped caring about it all. Then another day I woke up and it didn't suck any more. Today is a pretty good day in the grand scheme of things.

What are your friends like?

They're awesome. I tend to stay friends with interesting and fun people (typically people I can get positive reactions out of, or who don't mind me being silly). Boring people I tend to be diplomatically distant from. Anti-fun people are my mortal enemies, and so are people who generally like to stir up shit and unpleasantness (I appreciate that this is fun for that type of person, but it's not fun for me).

What would you say the focal point of your life is?

Being a blob and enjoying life. Avoiding being taxed or strained. Getting by calm and content. Genuine happiness is good too, but I don't bank on it, nor do I really trust it.

Beliefs? General thoughts about w/e?

The Universe is fundamentally complex. Models are good, but they're models. Simplify systems of thought, but always remember the world is never simple.

Everyone is right, just some people are more right or less right than others. There's a grain of truth in every opinion. Sometimes. Some people are just intellectually militant and overly dogmatic and don't really have anything of value to provide or contribute and should be avoided to preserve the peace. Other people have those grains of truth on a different beach on a different continent, so there's really no way of getting to it, but people who aren't you should be free to enjoy that understanding and knowledge, even if you yourself are unable to appreciate it.

Live and let live.

Fights happen, but conflict happens. Break the chain of hatred, walk away from people who like to start fights.

Life will challenge you, and it takes pride and courage to back down, as much as it does to stand firm in the onslaught of adversity. Know when it's time to put the cards down and walk away. Understand that this is not losing.

Pride is respect for your own dignity. Never forsake it, never compromise that of others.

Open-mindedness is good, and does not conflict with caution about new ideas. You can approach something hesitantly and more critically than usual and still give it a place for consideration.

Idealogical consistency, as much as possible. Don't feel bad when you're not 100% consistent; use that as an impetus to refine, expand, or distill your personal beliefs.

Nobody is perfect, nothing is perfect. Not in the real world.

There ought to be more confusion and chaos. Shatter people's expectations of stability, consistency, straightforwardness and predictability. This ties in with my belief in a complex Universe.

Paradoxes don't exist in three dimensions. Stop thinking like a square and start thinking like a human.

Women are important. Be proud of them, treat them well. They aren't men. What you can cope with she might not. What you can't cope with, she may well. This is invaluable.

More broadly, individuals are IN-DI-VISIBLE. Spell that out with me. What works for you may not work for someone else. Respect that, and respect that you yourself are an individual.

Maintain strict double standards. Treat yourself as well as you do other people.

Love is respect and protection. Be honest with yourself. If you're hurting her, you need to change. If you can't do that, grow some balls and walk away. I have little regard for people who can't do this.

Changing too much is also bad, because A) you can't maintain it, and B) it's a pretty poor relationship if you need to maintain that much distance and that many pretences.

Change is also different from growth and development. While growing as a person will cause you to change, it is a natural process of improvement on what is already there within you. Change is holding yourself in funny and uncomfortable shapes to try and fit in with someone.

Society is a bitch. Fit in enough to not have it mess with you and then quietly tell it to bugger off. If it pushes the envelope, assume defensive formation and beat it back.

How would you describe yourself compared to others?

I wouldn't

Actually I'd draw on how other people have described me, or how I've come to understand myself as matching with various categories I feel I belong to, such as Enneatype.

How would others describe you?

Silly, funny, charming, bright, witty, relaxing, comforting, stabilising, grounding, fun, "dualising" (lol), reflective, insightful, intelligent, quirky, weird, kind, loving.

Guarded, distant, reserved, defensive, disconnected, lazy, unmotivated, doesn't apply himself, coasting, weird (it's been used both ways), girly, emotional, too intense, manipulative.

[Skeptic]

Irrational, but that's as far as my confidence goes on this one.

You articulate yourself fairly well; I know an ISFp who, when asked questions like the ones above (that don't have to do with people), will kind of start and trail off (can't complete his thought, too complex/overwhelming for him) and will visualize his difficulties as though he is starting a bid for his listener to participate and add some integrity to what he is saying.

However, I'm sure you have given the questions more thought than in conversation/have deleted the parts that were poorly articulated (the luxuries of an internet post). You may just want to type what you think when asked those questions without actually 'thinking' about them, you know? Or perhaps you've already done that, in which case I might suggest a different type...

[Galen]

You know my answer to this question.

[mu4]

Still delta NF

[redbaron]

SEI or IEE

[WVBRY]

Do you have a penis or a vagina?

[Creepy-male]

Irrational, but that's as far as my confidence goes on this one.

You articulate yourself fairly well; I know an ISFp who, when asked questions like the ones above (that don't have to do with people), will kind of start and trail off (can't complete his thought, too complex/overwhelming for him) and will visualize his difficulties as though he is starting a bid for his listener to participate and add some integrity to what he is saying.

However, I'm sure you have given the questions more thought than in conversation/have deleted the parts that were poorly articulated (the luxuries of an internet post). You may just want to type what you think when asked those questions without actually 'thinking' about them, you know? Or perhaps you've already done that, in which case I might suggest a different type...

Yes. I tend to limit my writing on here to thoughts that I've actually thought about reasonably extensively beforehand. In actual conversation when I'm trying to grapple with my thoughts in real time, I'm much less well articulated, and often have to backup and redo my explanation or stumble around my thoughts. I rely on extensive gesturing to try and physically manipulate my thoughts and try to squeeze them out. Whether is is an ISFp thing or a consequence of needing to think about complex ideas in visual/spatial terms (where I later refine them into verbal form; often through imagined conversations with people where actual conversations cannot transpire).

I also have a high degree of verbal intelligence (according to the WAIS; I think my score was 130ish). It's quite possible that the SEI you're thinking of is not comparable to me in those terms, somewhat invalidating the comparison. I'm also much better at expressing myself through writing than through speaking, where I find it easier to communicate with things such as touch and gestures than through words.

The easiest sign that I've put a lot of thought into something and explained it to a bunch of people a bunch of times is that I'm able to--as you say--articulate myself well and speak lucidly and clearly. See if you can measure how much I've thought about the various paragraphs I've put into my beliefs/thoughts section.

Also please keep in mind that I'm not trying to convince anyone here of my SEI typing. I'm just providing my thoughts and opinion on the matter as discussion arises.

Also, please feel free to suggest a different type Let's see some discussin'.

You know my answer to this question.

No, I know your answer to "What do you think my type is". Which I also view as your opinion.

For the purposes of this exercises, let's take this thread as a collection of facts that you may construct a theory around. Let's see that conformity to the demands of objective reality, Mr Serious Type.

IOW, don't come in here with prejudices about my type. I'd like to hear your comments on the information I've provided.

Ne type or self-type. You sound awesome, either way. Yay for Gully!

aww thanks. That's two Ni bases and one Si base who like something about the things I say, lol. Maybe I'm some sort of freaky Se/Ne/Si base of doom, come to shatter everyone's belief in Socionics. Sort of like the Antichrist, only of Socionics.

Perhaps this is where DCNH is useful. Any of the DCNH-versed peeps, am I describing being a Creative type?

Do you have a penis or a vagina?

That depends

[Galen]

No, I know your answer to "What do you think my type is". Which I also view as your opinion.

Oh, I thought that's what the question was.

For the purposes of this exercises, let's take this thread as a collection of facts that you may construct a theory around. Let's see that conformity to the demands of objective reality, Mr Serious Type.

I'm on it skip *salutes*

IOW, don't come in here with prejudices about my type. I'd like to hear your comments on the information I've provided.

"Prejudice" seems like a weird word in this situation. Coming to conclusions based on prior observations of your person doesn't sound like a "prejudice" as much as it does a conclusion.

Genuine happiness is good too, but I don't bank on it, nor do I really trust it.

Actually before I get into heavy analysis of your OP, I want to know what you mean by this. How are you defining "genuine happiness," and what about it don't you trust?

[Creepy-male]

"Prejudice" seems like a weird word in this situation. Coming to conclusions based on prior observations of your person doesn't sound like a "prejudice" as much as it does a conclusion.

Sorry, "prejudice" was a poor choice of word. I meant to discard precisely what you've just described--a prior conclusion about my type. Of course if you're blessed with the ability to mould that conclusion truthfully based on fresh evidence, by all means...

Actually before I get into heavy analysis of your OP, I want to know what you mean by this. How are you defining "genuine happiness," and what about it don't you trust?

If "contentment" is a positive feeling of satisfaction, then I define happiness as a much more transient, much more elevated positive feeling. I don't consider contentment to be "not genuine happiness" though.

I don't trust it precisely because it's a transient elevated state. I tend to temper down "Happy" states by reminding myself "This too will pass", much like how I take the bite out of a low mood. When I do that, I find it tends to reinforce my positive state without a resulting decline as I "come down" again.

IOW acknowledging the transience of "happiness" while I'm experiencing it improves the positive elements of my general state of "contentment", which I view as preferable.

[Galen]

Sorry, "prejudice" was a poor choice of word. I meant to discard precisely what you've just described--a prior conclusion about my type. Of course if you're blessed with the ability to mould that conclusion truthfully based on fresh evidence, by all means...

Well I mean it's pretty difficult for me to ignore all prior evidence that I've come to acknowledge as true. But for the purpose of this exercise I'll see what happens.

If "contentment" is a positive feeling of satisfaction, then I define happiness as a much more transient, much more elevated positive feeling. I don't consider contentment to be "not genuine happiness" though.

I don't trust it precisely because it's a transient elevated state. I tend to temper down "Happy" states by reminding myself "This too will pass", much like how I take the bite out of a low mood. When I do that, I find it tends to reinforce my positive state without a resulting decline as I "come down" again.

IOW acknowledging the transience of "happiness" while I'm experiencing it improves the positive elements of my general state of "contentment", which I view as preferable.

Hmm, that's weird. I would figure that "genuine happiness" is something constant, like a source of happiness that doesn't run out (at least not easily).



Anywho, you talk a lot about your fondness for math and numbers and statistics etc. I'm sure lots of types enjoy numbers and stuff like that, but the fact that you state such a thing up-front would have me think some T ego. The part where your life simply "stopped sucking" one day makes no sense to me so I don't know what to make of it lol. You also seem to easily bring up a lot of sweeping opinions about the universe on a very grand scheme, which I guess would be more indicative of some N ego, perhaps Ne. You say that you tend to avoid "anti-fun people," which I guess on a surface level sounds Fe/Ti valuing to me, although that would be delving into stereotypes. You describing yourself as a "relaxing" person, but I'm kind of afraid to say anything about that because you want me to analyze you only based on the OP and not from what I've observed myself.

I agree with much of your moral standards, which tend to sound like they come from a normal, healthy human being than anything type-related. However, your focus on "consistency" in ideological beliefs would have me think Ti valuing. I've never particularly identified with the sentiment that "society is a bitch," or that an entire group of people are inherently bad; I'd like to think it's type-related, but I will reserve judgment. I'm not sure what you mean by "paradoxes don't work in three dimensions," could you explain what you mean by that? It seems important.

I guess overall alpha works, Ne and Ti seems pretty apparent. INTj would be weird considering as how you see people seeing you as "too intense" and "silly". That would leave ENTp.

Is this the sort of thing you're looking for?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I really like you. Probably because you 'own your nerdiness' when so many people are self-conscious/emo about theirs. You can just get umm kinda annoying sometimes but other than that I really do enjoy your positivity. You don't make people feel left out just because they like nerdy shit. I like that in people. (I just wish you were hotter. And gay. But God gives with one hand)

[Creepy-male]

Well I mean it's pretty difficult for me to ignore all prior evidence that I've come to acknowledge as true. But for the purpose of this exercise I'll see what happens.

The implication being that I've misrepresented myself in the OP? Why would you evaluate your prior evidence as "true"?

Anywho, you talk a lot about your fondness for math and numbers and statistics etc. I'm sure lots of types enjoy numbers and stuff like that, but the fact that you state such a thing up-front would have me think some T ego.

You say that you tend to avoid "anti-fun people," which I guess on a surface level sounds Fe/Ti valuing to me, although that would be delving into stereotypes.

Inconsistent. You've not avoided delving into "Nerd = NT" stereotype in the first quote. This is an example of a typing prejudice preventing you from making valid evaluations of a person's type.

Of course I'd be interested to hear how you explain this. Perhaps I'm just seeing a lack of consistent reasoning where none exists.

Also, I should be clear: this thread has two additional purposes. To get people to think how they type, and to discuss some of these processes. I can see myself disagreeing on a fundamental level with Serious methodologies for typing, since they will inherently be "misapplying" (from my Merry POV) a Ti system with their Te. Whether this is a valid Socionics explanation remains to be seen, and I suppose is something else I'm curious about in this thread.

You describing yourself as a "relaxing" person, but I'm kind of afraid to say anything about that because you want me to analyze you only based on the OP and not from what I've observed myself.

Don't be afraid to say anything. That said, your personal observations are moot. I have been described as relaxing by other people, irrespective of your personal feelings on the matter.

This is the only way to ensure an objective typing, since your dealings with me are purely online, and thus your opinions of me will in fact be your opinions of your image of me in your mind; the two are not the same and should not be confused.

I'd like to think it's type-related, but I will reserve judgment.

No you won't

What's the relationship with type you're thinking of?

I'm not sure what you mean by "paradoxes don't work in three dimensions," could you explain what you mean by that? It seems important.

Seemingly opposing stances are illusory. I'm a firm believer there is always some common ground.

Think of it this way. You're a two dimensional being, living inside a box. I draw a line down the middle of the box dividing it into two boxes. In three dimensions, we can clearly see that we're dealing with a box with a line down the middle; and yet to the two-dimensional chap living in the box it seems like he's in one box and other stuff is in "the other" box.

I can always find that common ground, I can always find how things are related. I prefer to think one dimension higher than dichotomies.

Is this the sort of thing you're looking for?

Bingo

Also, please don't feel like I'm singling you out. You're just the first person to have volunteered their thought processes, and for that, many thanks

Basically, I'll do my best to keep an even hand here.

I really like you. Probably because you 'own your nerdiness' when so many people are self-conscious/emo about theirs. You can just get umm kinda annoying sometimes but other than that I really do enjoy your positivity. You don't make people feel left out just because they like nerdy shit. I like that in people. (I just wish you were hotter. And gay. But God gives with one hand)

And hey, everyone gets annoying sometimes. Also, I may not be gay, but I am Alphagay. And I will be hotter, just give my corner of the Earth a few months to warm up

It also occurs to me that you can shorten Alphagay into Alphag, can I use that non-offensively?

[Mediator Kam]

Galen, I would say the same thing about numbers and math. It doesn't mean much at all except Ti valuing.

[Galen]

Galen, I would say the same thing about numbers and math. It doesn't mean much at all except Ti valuing.

I know that by itself it doesn't mean much, but the fact that he used an interest in numbers and statistics as one of the very first things about him to describe himself, perhaps the only thing used to describe himself in the interests part, that I can't help but think of him as some T ego.

Inconsistent. You've not avoided delving into "Nerd = NT" stereotype in the first quote. This is an example of a typing prejudice preventing you from making valid evaluations of a person's type.

See the above. I'm not making any claims that "nerd = NT," I'm simply saying that I would find it weird for an alpha SF to be so up-front about their fondness of numbers and mathematics. I mean, sure I like that stuff too, but I would never use them as initial descriptors of myself. I'm sure there are quite a few not-nerd NTs who would express a fond appreciation of numbers and the like. Riddy seems like that kind of guy, as well as shindaiwa.

Besides, even if I am inconsistent in trying to avoid stereotypes, does it make what I say any less true?

Don't be afraid to say anything. That said, your personal observations are moot. I have been described as relaxing by other people, irrespective of your personal feelings on the matter.

If my personal observations don't matter then why are you even allowing me to speak? All I can ever be able to say is what I observe, and so can everybody else, so for you to say that my observations don't matter is so insulting and it makes me feel like I'm wasting my time once more.

FWIW, I'm not saying that the opposite of "relaxing" is "anxious," and I definitely don't see you as that. It just seems that from past observations you're much more willing to get people excited via means of joking and general goofballish behavior as opposed to calming others down. "Relaxing" could also just mean that you try to avoid major confrontation, as you've said many times in your OP, and as such it's probably much more E9 related. However, if you did mean "relaxing" as "pacifying the energy of others" then I would definitely disagree with that. Or wait, my past observations don't matter.

This is the only way to ensure an objective typing, since your dealings with me are purely online, and thus your opinions of me will in fact be your opinions of your image of me in your mind; the two are not the same and should not be confused.

But the you online and the you in person are the exact same thing. You've been using this argument a lot, and it seems so painfully invalid. It's not like your brain physiology changes every time you go on the internet or use stickam. It's all you, and you can never hide the idea of you behind "the internet". Plus the fact that historically you've seemed so insulted by this sentiment is all the more reason for me to think Fi PoLR. Except wait, my past observations don't matter.

No you won't

What's the relationship with type you're thinking of?

Yes I am. I'm not sure of the validity of what I thought, so I'm not going to bother throwing it out there to be critiqued.

Also, please don't feel like I'm singling you out. You're just the first person to have volunteered their thought processes, and for that, many thanks

Well you seem very adept at trying to tear apart arguments, if you haven't yet already noticed.

Basically, I'll do my best to keep an even hand here.

Except that my personal observations don't matter.

It also occurs to me that you can shorten Alphagay into Alphag, can I use that non-offensively?

Alphaggots
Betards
Gammaggots
Deltards

[redbaron]

I really like you. Probably because you 'own your nerdiness' when so many people are self-conscious/emo about theirs. You can just get umm kinda annoying sometimes but other than that I really do enjoy your positivity. You don't make people feel left out just because they like nerdy shit. I like that in people. (I just wish you were hotter. And gay. But God gives with one hand)

[Creepy-male]

I would suggest, Galen, if you're so sensitive, that it would not be in your best interests to continue to participate in this thread.

[Aiss]

Typing by the answers (as requested, but really because I missed all the typing battles including you), I'd guess IEE.

And math doesn't equal Ti-valuing. There are probably more Ti-egos in mathematics than there are Ti-PoLRs, but it's by no means deterministic. Delta NFs in particular aren't this uncommon.

[Creepy-male]

Cool Could you elaborate on that guess at all?

[Jarno]

Well thanksarthur, I've never met an ISFp that fits your answers. But maybe it has to do that you are pretty intelligent. ISFp is not the first thing that comes up to me to be honest.

[The Exception]

ILE or IEE. The is beyond obvious. I like you, you're funny.

[WVBRY]

SEI or IEE

This is what I think also.

[mu4]

I don't believe there's anyway he's ENTp.

His answers tell you very little about himself, except maybe he's a bit wishy-washy.

His whole Beliefs? General thoughts about w/e? more or less devalues Ti rather then valuing it.

The world isn't complex, the world is simple. It's amazingly comprehensible, you just have to work at it.

Having a grain of truth in what you say is meaningless, because one falsehood in all those grains of truth brings about error, the deeper and more integral that falsehood is, the more dangerous and wide reaching the deception. There are no truths except the ones that are tested, there is no validation except by doing and proving. Truth is subjecting everything to doubt and reason, cutting away all the contradictions and misconceptions, until what is there is clear. It's the act of exercising one's own mind on all the perceptions.

I won't really comment too much more but I think there is not much chance he is ILE.

He actually puts out a whole bunch of Fi in this sections, almost everything he talks about is ethical in nature and imo, not Fe valuing.

I don't think he's Se/Ni valuing so Si + Fi valuing, so Delta NF.

[sarinana]

IEE?
To be honest I haven't read everything because there was so much of Ne mixed with some Si and it would take too much of time and effort for me to focus and really understand what you want to say. But I will do it later when I won't feel so sleepy and maybe I will change my typing.

[Absurd]

Well thanksarthur, I've never met an ISFp that fits your answers. But maybe it has to do that you are pretty intelligent. ISFp is not the first thing that comes up to me to be honest.

SEI or IEE. That's still a wall of text to me.

[sarinana]

SEI or IEE. That's still a wall of text to me.

Duals share some things

[Absurd]

Duals share some things

You mean SEI and IEE are duals ? Or that he is a dual to himself even though he isn't ?

[Mediator Kam]

Gul, I am going to do this too.

[squark]

Beliefs? General thoughts about w/e?

None of the other stuff means anything. This is the only section of any value, imo. It's a whole lot of Ne, without any Ti. IEE.

[Creepy-male]

Why do you say it's Ne?

[Nowisthetime]

Well thanksarthur, I've never met an ISFp that fits your answers. But maybe it has to do that you are pretty intelligent. ISFp is not the first thing that comes up to me to be honest.

I studied math and science when I was younger, but it didn't work out because I wasn't intelligent enough. But maybe Thanksarthur is a very intelligent SEI, as you suggested.

[Aiss]

Cool Could you elaborate on that guess at all?

Beliefs section sounds Delta NF to the core, with strong focus on both Ne and Fi, as well as Te-valuing. I saw no evidence for Ti-valuing whatsoever in all answers. Even the part with mentions of consistency sounds rather like integrity. Your attitude towards people seems a typical Ne+Fi blend which I find hard to describe, but very characteristic - an extra pressure is placed on treating humans like humans, on them being whole persons, on respect and walking away if needed. I'm probably doing a lousy job of explaining it, but my point is, while it's obvious to most people, Delta NFs are especially touchy on that point, feel the need to underline it, sometimes see this value threatened while others don't consider it so, for example questioning categorizing people (such as typing) without leaving what they feel is sufficient room for individuality. And seeing that half or so of your thoughts there resolved around this, conveying this noticeable, if universal sentiment, I'd be very surprised if you weren't one of them. Parts about models and truth sound Ti-devaluing/Te-valuing. Ti and Te are like proof and evidence, or correctness and accuracy. While dogmatism is by no means limited to any type, it's often related to Ti, especially in beta flavour.

I don't think you're dynamic either, but I'm less convinced of that. You seem clearly irrational, and from what else I know of you, probably Ep.

[Creepy-male]

Thanks! I understand what you're talking about with the Delta NFs there, not to worry

so, for example questioning categorizing people (such as typing) without leaving what they feel is sufficient room for individuality.

This is actually an interesting point of disagreement I had with an IEE I introduced Socionics to. He was quite hostile to the idea of "putting everyone into boxes", where I quite like the system because it lets me quickly and easily extrapolate a whole lot about people within a few minutes of interaction.

Parts about models and truth sound Ti-devaluing/Te-valuing. Ti and Te are like proof and evidence, or correctness and accuracy.

I don't think you're dynamic either, but I'm less convinced of that. You seem clearly irrational, and from what else I know of you, probably Ep.

Coming from the context of considering myself an SEI, I would pin my attitude to models and systems on being a Dynamic type.

I guess I should clarify, I love models. They're brilliant. Half my degree will be dedicated to mathematical modelling. The other half to things actually useful for my intended career

The thing with models is they provide a simplified abstraction of the real world, which is confoundingly complex. Where the real world stubbornly refuses to yield useful information, a model can prove far more cooperative.

That said, I acknowledge the shortcomings of the things I love. You'll always be delicately balancing oversimplification to the extent that a model's predictive capabilities are compromised with overcomplexification (self-example ) that sets you straight back to square one with something too unwieldy to be useful.

(@hkkmr) I don't think reality is incomprehensible either. Again, I think models and systems are useful in the extreme. It's just that they're abstracts and simplifications, and as a consequence I don't feel they will ever be able to fully grasp all the finnicky and unpredictable aspects of reality.

--

Unrelated note, but some general commentary on typing...

The first thing is undermining people's authority on themselves. Galen, if you're still reading, this is the thing I have problems with: when an individual, as a third party with a narrower scope of experience presumes that they are a greater authority on a given person than people said person interacts with closely/frequently. Those people will know quite a bit more than you. Also, in most cases, the person themselves will know quite a bit more about themselves than you. It is presumptuous and outright disrespectful to attempt to undermine that authority. You have a duty to put aside your own opinions and listen to what someone else has to say about themselves, and other people's opinions of themselves, not simply discard them off-hand as being false "because they're not mine".

The second thing is confirmation bias. Since a lot of people in here have a preconception of me as being some sort of Ne base, they'll filter my posts for evidence in support of that conclusion, not even on a conscious level. I think, speaking of duties, that it is down to the person discussing their typing to introduce alternative interpretations of the raw information.

I guess a third thing is "best fit typing". I wonder how many IEE typings come from "Ne + not logical"? Socionics doesn't really work that way, but I appreciate that such tends to be the only real option in a case where information is sparse, such as typing people on an internet forum.

[Aiss]

This is actually an interesting point of disagreement I had with an IEE I introduced Socionics to. He was quite hostile to the idea of "putting everyone into boxes", where I quite like the system because it lets me quickly and easily extrapolate a whole lot about people within a few minutes of interaction.

Yeah, this is the extreme stance I've met with from an EII. But there are many EIIs and IEEs, it's more about an extrapolation of a general concept.

Coming from the context of considering myself an SEI, I would pin my attitude to models and systems on being a Dynamic type.

I guess I should clarify, I love models. They're brilliant. Half my degree will be dedicated to mathematical modelling. The other half to things actually useful for my intended career

The thing with models is they provide a simplified abstraction of the real world, which is confoundingly complex. Where the real world stubbornly refuses to yield useful information, a model can prove far more cooperative.

That said, I acknowledge the shortcomings of the things I love. You'll always be delicately balancing oversimplification to the extent that a model's predictive capabilities are compromised with overcomplexification (self-example ) that sets you straight back to square one with something too unwieldy to be useful.

(@hkkmr) I don't think reality is incomprehensible either. Again, I think models and systems are useful in the extreme. It's just that they're abstracts and simplifications, and as a consequence I don't feel they will ever be able to fully grasp all the finnicky and unpredictable aspects of reality.

What you say is precisely Te-valuing attitude: models are imperfect and ought to be used, but not taken too seriously - reality over theory. Ti acknowledges models' imperfections, but rather seeks to perfect them than use them. The goal is in understanding through theoretical means, not in using them to direct the understanding where necessary, if it makes sense (this might be more of Ni thing though). What you say here is very much in line with what I consider Ti-devaluing and exactly how I interpreted your original statements. You repeatedly declare your lack of real belief in models' potential while appreciating their usefulness. This is clearly opposed to 'refining understanding' Ti types go on about, as well as to what I often see Fe-egos expect.

Unrelated note, but some general commentary on typing...

The first thing is undermining people's authority on themselves. Galen, if you're still reading, this is the thing I have problems with: when an individual, as a third party with a narrower scope of experience presumes that they are a greater authority on a given person than people said person interacts with closely/frequently. Those people will know quite a bit more than you. Also, in most cases, the person themselves will know quite a bit more about themselves than you. It is presumptuous and outright disrespectful to attempt to undermine that authority. You have a duty to put aside your own opinions and listen to what someone else has to say about themselves, and other people's opinions of themselves, not simply discard them off-hand as being false "because they're not mine".

The second thing is confirmation bias. Since a lot of people in here have a preconception of me as being some sort of Ne base, they'll filter my posts for evidence in support of that conclusion, not even on a conscious level. I think, speaking of duties, that it is down to the person discussing their typing to introduce alternative interpretations of the raw information.

More NeFi goodness, I see. J/k, I know very little about you and probably 'feel' you less than many other forum members, but what you write in this thread sounds Delta NFish to me. You seem constantly focused on potentiality in people like that, emphasizing treatment of them, respect and consideration over being correct. I can't imagine you dualizing with ILE, to be honest.

I guess a third thing is "best fit typing". I wonder how many IEE typings come from "Ne + not logical"? Socionics doesn't really work that way, but I appreciate that such tends to be the only real option in a case where information is sparse, such as typing people on an internet forum.

My guess comes more from clear - to me - Fi, secondarily Ne and not Gamma SF, and then Ti-devaluing which effectively only speaks for Fi anyway. I suppose it all comes down to the same, though.

[Creepy-male]

Yeah, this is the extreme stance I've met with from an EII. But there are many EIIs and IEEs, it's more about an extrapolation of a general concept.

Ah yeah, fair enough.

What you say is precisely Te-valuing attitude: models are imperfect and ought to be used, but not taken too seriously - reality over theory. Ti acknowledges models' imperfections, but rather seeks to perfect them than use them. The goal is in understanding through theoretical means, not in using them to direct the understanding where necessary, if it makes sense (this might be more of Ni thing though).

<Thoughts parked>

The general gist of what I was going to say is that I often see myself clashing with Deltas either directly in conversation, or indirectly in idealogical terms in how they seem to treat Socionics. Rick is one example, as he seems to harbour this--to me--absurd belief that, since Socionics is limited, and does not have 100% predictive capabilities, it is bunk. Clearly he is intelligent, clearly he is quite capable of critical thinking; so it cannot be a lack of either of these factors, but a simple clash in values. To me, Socionics is not flawed if it can't predict things 100%, that's simply a reflection of the fact that Reality Is Complex. It then becomes an intellectual exercise to use the various extensions of the theory other people have developed to explain the seeming gaps in theoretical coverage. Of course, some leeway will always need to be permitted.

Similarly, discussing things with Ryu, I have to be cautious not to make any reference to Socionics, since he seems to view the system with a great deal of scorn. Again, mystifying. With Isha I can quite comfortably make any links I want (and I do, way too much ) with confidence that she'll only nitpick the really, really bad ones

More NeFi goodness, I see. J/k, I know very little about you and probably 'feel' you less than many other forum members, but what you write in this thread sounds Delta NFish to me. You seem constantly focused on potentiality in people like that, emphasizing treatment of them, respect and consideration over being correct.

The reason I have such a thing about respect for individuality is that I was overlooked as an individual all through my childhood. My school was distant, impersonal and inattentive, and my parents didn't seem to understand me (in my dad's case), or even fully acknowledge that I existed (in my mum's case). I try to embody my ideals of individual attentiveness as much as possible because I just can't stand to think of anyone experiencing what I did.

I mean, there's psychological reasons why I do that/think that way that I wouldn't expect to be found in a typical member of the population who'd had a happy childhood.

I can't imagine you dualizing with ILE, to be honest.

Oh?

I mean, in my opinion, I'm currently living the experience of dualizing with an ILE*.

*If it's a valid explanation at all, that's why I'm so weirdly logically confident, I think. My grasp on Socionics and the presence of any reasoning I can refer back to is basically the result entirely of my discussions with Isha.

My guess comes more from clear - to me - Fi, secondarily Ne and not Gamma SF, and then Ti-devaluing which effectively only speaks for Fi anyway. I suppose it all comes down to the same, though.

Well, in your case, you've actually provided a direct argument for Delta NF, so I wasn't talking about you at all

[Galen]

The first thing is undermining people's authority on themselves. Galen, if you're still reading, this is the thing I have problems with: when an individual, as a third party with a narrower scope of experience presumes that they are a greater authority on a given person than people said person interacts with closely/frequently. Those people will know quite a bit more than you. Also, in most cases, the person themselves will know quite a bit more about themselves than you. It is presumptuous and outright disrespectful to attempt to undermine that authority. You have a duty to put aside your own opinions and listen to what someone else has to say about themselves, and other people's opinions of themselves, not simply discard them off-hand as being false "because they're not mine".

How am I supposed to trust a person I don't know? I shouldn't have to be expected to listen to a stranger's opinion of yourself and take that as an objective fact. I'm sure you think they know a lot about your because you've known them for far longer, but I have no reason to believe that they possess any more accurate observations of yourself than I do. I can only go off of what I've seen, and if a stranger who I have no ability to get in contact with believes otherwise, and whose real thought processes behind those conclusions are completely unknown, then I have no reason to take those beliefs into account. This thread just feels like you're making all the rules, and I'm feeling really frustrated and constrained because of it.

[Creepy-male]

How am I supposed to trust a person I don't know? I shouldn't have to be expected to listen to a stranger's opinion of yourself and take that as an objective fact. I'm sure you think they know a lot about your because you've known them for far longer, but I have no reason to believe that they possess any more accurate observations of yourself than I do. I can only go off of what I've seen, and if a stranger who I have no ability to get in contact with believes otherwise, and whose real thought processes behind those conclusions are completely unknown, then I have no reason to take those beliefs into account. This thread just feels like you're making all the rules, and I'm feeling really frustrated and constrained because of it.

Step back a bit. To paraphrase what you've said, "My opinion is correct and above scrutiny, while anything anyone else thinks is highly questionable and dubious, so I won't listen to it."

Phrased like that, do you see the clear double standard?

It is also a sentiment of illogic. You know less about me. Your perceived knowledge of me is likely built on extrapolations and assumptions, many of them contradictory to the truth of things.

I mean, I can prove this to you. As an exercise, tell me the traits of an ILE.

[Galen]

Step back a bit. To paraphrase what you've said, "My opinion is correct and above scrutiny, while anything anyone else thinks is highly questionable and dubious, so I won't listen to it."

Phrased like that, do you see the clear double standard?

Yes, it would be terribly illogical if that's what I said.

You're asking for my opinion. You're not asking for the opinions of your friends, because you already provided. Am I only here to affirm the observations of people I don't know? Am I not allowed to disagree with provided information?

It is also a sentiment of illogic. You know less about me. Your perceived knowledge of me is likely built on extrapolations and assumptions, many of them contradictory to the truth of things.

I know what I know. I'm not obligated to believe what your mystery friends say, I'm only here to provide what I observe and the conclusions I draw.

I mean, I can prove this to you. As an exercise, tell me the traits of an ILE.

Ep temperament, Ne/Si and Ti/Fe valuing. I've already provided my case for Ep a while ago, and you adamantly dismissed it on account of "who I am on tinychat/stickam isn't how I am in real life", which I adamantly dismissed as bullshit due to my belief that people don't inherently change themselves when the context changes, to which you responded that I was an asshole, to which I responded that you're full of shit. Can we please not have this argument again?

[Rubicon]

This thread just feels like you're making all the rules, and I'm feeling really frustrated and constrained because of it.

fwiw, I feel the same way.. maybe it's Type related :0

[Rubicon]

anywayyyy.. I think you're ESE or IEE, Gul

[Creepy-male]

Yes, it would be terribly illogical if that's what I said.

So then, what did you say? By which I mean, what did you mean? And how did it differ in any way from what I presented?

You're asking for my opinion. You're not asking for the opinions of your friends, because you already provided. Am I only here to affirm the observations of people I don't know? Am I not allowed to disagree with provided information?

I'm asking for your opinion based on the information I provided in the OP, as free as possible from any preconceived notion you may have about my type. It's not that your opinion doesn't matter, it's that it's outside the scope of this exercise. I'm very sorry you took me as snubbing your opinion, I was not, it is simply just not relevant to the discussion.

Do you understand the exercise yet?

I know what I know. I'm not obligated to believe what your mystery friends say, I'm only here to provide what I observe and the conclusions I draw.

You are not obligated, no, but it is intellectually dishonest to uncritically discard evidence because it does not comply with your view of things. If you are incapable of this measure of critical thinking and intellectual honesty, again, I would suggest that it would be in your personal interest to refrain from further participation in this thread.

Ep temperament, Ne/Si and Ti/Fe valuing.

Alright, but what does that mean?

Give me things like, am I high energy or low energy, am I hyperactive or inactive, do I have cyclical or linear moods, etc. Tell me everything that you claim to know about me based on my type. Everything, no omitting details because it suddenly occurs to you that they're untrue.

I've already provided my case for Ep a while ago, and you adamantly dismissed it on account of "who I am on tinychat/stickam isn't how I am in real life", which I adamantly dismissed as bullshit due to my belief that people don't inherently change themselves when the context changes, to which you responded that I was an asshole, to which I responded that you're full of shit. Can we please not have this argument again?

We are having no such argument. We are not on the path to having any such argument. Relax.