KazeCraven's Socionics Type = ????

[KazeCraven]

I would guess I'm ILI, however I do not relate to the nonemotionality, and despite keeping to myself I am quite friendly when approached.

-Irrational, because I do things in a nonlinear fashion, my sense of time in the broader sense is rather poor, and I'm a neophiliac (love novelty of environment)
-Introvert, because I much prefer others to initiate, and I seek depth over breadth
-Intuitive, because I like concepts and underlying principles
-Logic, because I am more prone to thinking about truth rather than right/wrongness, and like playing around with complex systems

Also relevant: I would consider myself INTP by MBTI, but only by the cognitive processes; by description I fall under INTP and INFP.

[EyeSeeCold]

I noticed no one has posted in a while.

Try the Reinin dichotomies:
Dichotomies - Wikisocion

And read some descriptions:
Ïñèõîëîãèÿ è ñîöèîíèêà :: Ïðîñìîòð ôîðóìà - Psychology, NLP, Socionics, MBTI

Then come back and present the possible types you've come up with. It'll be easier this way.

[Creepy-male]

Guesstimation is ISFp. What are your problems with that type?

None of your original post necessarily contradicts that.

[KazeCraven]

I noticed no one has posted in a while.

Try the Reinin dichotomies:
Dichotomies - Wikisocion

And read some descriptions:
Ïñèõîëîãèÿ è ñîöèîíèêà :: Ïðîñìîòð ôîðóìà - Psychology, NLP, Socionics, MBTI

Then come back and present the possible types you've come up with. It'll be easier this way.

Well, I was pretty strongly Democratic and somewhat strongly Judicious, which points to Alpha and a possible secondary Gamma. Other dichotomies were more situational, or many of my traits were split among the two categories. I'm ruling out the j-types especially the Ejs (reading the descriptions you gave), and ESFp due to it being way too in-your-face-esque to fit me.

That leaves ENTp, ISFp, and INTp, and the descriptions of these don't grate on me (but don't necessarily describe me to a T either). I'm leaning towards ENTp at the moment, but not because it's an E-type, rather the overall description rings a little better.

Guesstimation is ISFp. What are your problems with that type?

None of your original post necessarily contradicts that.

The ISFp seems a bit too family and practically oriented, but I don't have any serious objections to it. I looked at INFp for comparison, but the description I read just now was very dramatic and a little ridiculous I thought. I might need to consult another source though, because it looks like the authors for these are just random people.

Other sources paint the ISFp as more aesthetically oriented than I have been most of my life, and there is a general lack of the off-beat page that I tend to start people with. I don't approach people often, but when I do it's usually with a smile and lots and lots of questions (unless the other person redirects the conversation, which often is the case). There's no way I could get at the core of someone's character quickly, like one description said, unless that person was very open with me.

[KeroZen]

-Irrational, because I do things in a nonlinear fashion, my sense of time in the broader sense is rather poor, and I'm a neophiliac (love novelty of environment)

Without falling into clichés too easily, is often more associated to time and to possibilities, but as your initial guesses are all types having N in slot #1 or #2 it shouldn't be used as a criteria (if you have strong you also have strong and you are very likely to understand and exhibit patterns and variants of both)

Also relevant: I would consider myself INTP by MBTI, but only by the cognitive processes

Unfortunately, and I'm in the process of collecting enough evidence of that, there are illogical facts in the MBTI functional breakdowns. It's so subtle you might have the impression you are reading something that makes sense, whereas it doesn't and it's only a "corrective patch".

Now INTj and INTp are similar types, and INTp and INFp also are but for different reasons.

ENTp are not always very extroverted in the "outgoing" sense, and are not far from INTj.

Tell us more about yourself KazeCraven.

[Jarno]

ENTp are not always very extroverted in the "outgoing" sense

Tell this to polikujm plz.

[Jarno]

I would guess I'm ILI, however I do not relate to the nonemotionality

INTp's aren't robots. We are emotional, but just not the drama queens that INFp's can be.

My bet is that you are INTp, and I'm quite certain about it.

[KeroZen]

Sorting between ILI and LII should be easy using the polarization sorter question.

Sorting between ILI and IEI might be a little bit trickier because they use the same tools to perceive the world but different thought processes.

Usually mature and objective IEI will acknowledge they might be a tad weaker on the logic side and mature and objective ILI a tad weaker on the ethics side.

Following the IxI hypothesis, reading socionics descriptions of these two types should definitely ring a bell in you (they share the Ni and Se aspects) but one is likely to get you more a "gut feeling" than the other.

ILI are proud of being at times more logical than IEI, and IEI are proud of being at times more ethical than ILI... :wink:

Let's try to determine if you are more Te than Ti or the inverse perhaps. If you are Te then it would rule IEI, LII and ILE out at once.

[KazeCraven]

@Jarno: Thanks for the input. I'm guessing the reason you didn't elaborate is because it is difficult to articulate what, exactly, makes me seem INTp? Being able to say with such certainty with so little information would have to be due to such a process.

@ZeroKen: Tell more about myself? What sorts of things shall I say? I can say many things about my general life path, or my self-image, or my interests, etc.

And what is this polarization sorter question? Is this simply reading about the dichotomies and deciding which seems to fit better? I'm guessing not, though I've done this already and resonate more with XXXp than XXXj.

If Te and Ti are the same in MBTI as in Socionics, then Ti over Te. (To clarify, this would be the difference between holistic subjective logic used for extracting logical essence and stepwise objective logic used for directing/organizing.) But seeing as how you claim that the MBTI functions are flawed, I would suppose not. Also, since you've brought it up, what are you referring to when you say that such functional breakdown contains illogical facts? Without knowing your reasoning I am inclined to discount your judgment as faulty.
--

I'm tired, so if you're trying to type me by my way with words you should know that I'm not thinking as much about how, exactly, to appropriately convey my questions and concerns. And in retrospect, perhaps this is even better for producing such an analysis.

[Jarno]

@Jarno: Thanks for the input. I'm guessing the reason you didn't elaborate is because it is difficult to articulate what, exactly, makes me seem INTp? Being able to say with such certainty with so little information would have to be due to such a process.

Good guess!

If you spend some time here you'll notice that LII's and IEI's talk a different 'language' then ILI's.

You sound somewhat more bussiness-like and to the point to be a wooshy wooshy IEI.

And LII's posts are very hard to read for me.

It's not hard to spot.

And you seem to be talking/posting in a familiar way.

[Singu]

Usually mature and objective IEI will acknowledge they might be a tad weaker on the logic side and mature and objective ILI a tad weaker on the ethics side.

I actually don't think that this is a very good advice, since it's not like as if the Jungian archetypes are supposedly valid and universal in all places.

ILI are proud of being at times more logical than IEI, and IEI are proud of being at times more ethical than ILI... :wink:

I don't think that you should be "proud", at all. There comes a problem... when one's development becomes lopsided. It's no longer logic and feelings but logic versus feelings. Then the either side becomes a taboo and an enemy to be avoided. I know a few IEIs who have an unhealthy obsession with being "logical" as well the belief of the supremacy of the mind over feelings, and I'm sure that there are some ILIs who are rather proud of having a "heart". And you know, neither can be a good thing. And neither are really type related, obviously.

You sound somewhat more bussiness-like and to the point to be a wooshy wooshy IEI.

That's not (really) type related!!

[Jarno]

That's not (really) type related!!

huh? Te is defined as 'business like'

[golden]

That's not (really) type related!!

I disagree completely. Listen to me woosh.

KazeCraven's posts sound just about zero percent like an IEI's posts, and that's bearing in mind the fairly wide range of IEIs you'll find on this forum. Including someone like Silverchris, who uses a helluva lot of Ti.

Like this? Kaze wrote:

And what is this polarization sorter question? Is this simply reading about the dichotomies and deciding which seems to fit better? I'm guessing not, though I've done this already and resonate more with XXXp than XXXj.

If Te and Ti are the same in MBTI as in Socionics, then Ti over Te. (To clarify, this would be the difference between holistic subjective logic used for extracting logical essence and stepwise objective logic used for directing/organizing.) But seeing as how you claim that the MBTI functions are flawed, I would suppose not. Also, since you've brought it up, what are you referring to when you say that such functional breakdown contains illogical facts? Without knowing your reasoning I am inclined to discount your judgment as faulty.

I can follow that. But only barely. And it's not because I'm feeble-minded, not is it because there is any flaw whatsoever in Kaze's logic. It's just slightly foreign to me, like 30 degrees away from where I stand. And I have a few good ILI friends, and it's always like this for me with them, so my guess as to type is currently ILI.

I don't know a single IEI who would generate a stream of thought quite like this, and that last statement? Whatever it IS, it is not IEI. It's a statement from someone whose ego-block functions differ from mine. Pretty obvious.

BTW, do you have anything positive to contribute, Singularity, or is it your mission to simply tell everyone why they're wrong? Any dumbass can do that.

[KazeCraven]

huh? Te is defined as 'business like'

Where are these definitions? Is this part the same as in MBTI?

@Golden: Don't people change how they say things to accommodate others? Not that I'm saying that that post you quoted isn't a pretty raw one (because it is).

---
Also, FWIW when I ask these questions I am asking for the Socionics viewpoint. If you are giving your own opinion beyond that, please let me know.

[Jarno]

Where are these definitions? Is this part the same as in MBTI?

I ignore MBTI functions because of their flaws they can only confuse you when studying socionics.

But Te and 'business like' is something you read often or is often used on this forum etc.
There aren't standardized definitions of the functions, but Te is usually defined as:
business logic
factual
algorithmic
practical logic
etc

[Singu]

What I'm getting at is that you can't just type someone by their first impressions or just by how they write like. People write in all sorts of different ways. Some people write in an organized way, some people don't. It's not so clear and cut. It's not like as if there are standards for how each types are supposed to write like.

And if that was true, Jarno, then you sound nothing like "business-like". I get what you mean, but it's not like you come across as a "business" type. Maybe that means that you're not Te, or maybe you are. I don't know.

BTW, do you have anything positive to contribute, Singularity, or is it your mission to simply tell everyone why they're wrong? Any dumbass can do that.

WHAT? I'm not sure you what you have against me, but am I not allowed to criticize anything that I disagree with? But maybe you're right though, so I'll take that into account.

[KeroZen]

Singularity: did you read the information elements semantics study? (2006) If you think preferences don't show up in language then you're wrong (even if we can't just transpose this study to English language, it should give you a strong hint) Not only do they tend to influence vocabulary, but also style and speech figures!

Also nobody is "typing him" with just that aspect. If you read again we all proposed paths to be explored, but the only person really able to know his type is KazeCraven himself. But we still must put some hypothesis on the table otherwise we're not advancing.

I second Golden for the fact I wouldn't have written the block she quoted and more especially the bold sentence, even if I got strong apparent Ti myself (but not EGO Ti)

KazeCraven: as hard as it might sound, please believe us for the MBTI incompatibility warning. If you can't wait, read the end of the SLOAN thread on this forum and you'll see what I mean. If I could explain these subtle differences with just one sentence I would have done it for a long time. But until we're able to pinpoint them and write them down in a proper FAQ entry, it's safer (and simpler) to just forget MBTI for now.

[Pa3s]

And if that was true, Jarno, then you sound nothing like "business-like". I get what you mean, but it's not like you come across as a "business" type. Maybe that means that you're not Te, or maybe you are. I don't know.

I think he writes his posts in a quite concrete way. In general, he comes mostly straight to the point and doesn't attach much emotion (okay, it's written, but still) to them. It depends on the content if texts are perceived as business-style, but I think this term could be used here.

[Jarno]

What I'm getting at is that you can't just type someone by their first impressions or just by how they write like.

You just haven't experienced it enough.

[KeroZen]

Usually mature and objective IEI will acknowledge they might be a tad weaker on the logic side and mature and objective ILI a tad weaker on the ethics side.

I actually don't think that this is a very good advice, since it's not like as if the Jungian archetypes are supposedly valid and universal in all places.

Argh, I should put quotes around everything so people don't take anything to the letter. I also should have put "mature" and "objective" in bold, because those are the most important words in the sentence. Also a "tad" means what it means, it's very subtle, so subtle I'm in a "comparative" relation with my own ILI friends (I can "compare" to them, hence no one is really better)

For the being proud of remark, again it's only in a ILI vs IEI sorting context. Immature people will think they have strong "weak functions" whereas mature ones will tend to be honest with themselves.

My ILI friends often tell me they'd like they knew the ethical rules and how to behave gently with people like me, and in return I tell them I'd like to have a mind as sharp and as logical as their.

But they're fine being ILI and wouldn't exchange their place, as much as I'm fine being IEI and wouldn't exchange my place.

[Singu]

You just haven't experienced it enough.

Oh please, don't give me that bull. There's no analysis of functions, there's no analysis of behaviors, in fact there's no analysis of much of anything. It's all just typing based on a "hunch".

[KeroZen]

If there's nothing, then why waste your time?

[Singu]

I'm not wasting my time, what the hell are you talking about? In fact, I wasn't even talking to you nor was I even addressing you.

[KazeCraven]

KazeCraven: as hard as it might sound, please believe us for the MBTI incompatibility warning. If you can't wait, read the end of the SLOAN thread on this forum and you'll see what I mean. If I could explain these subtle differences with just one sentence I would have done it for a long time. But until we're able to pinpoint them and write them down in a proper FAQ entry, it's safer (and simpler) to just forget MBTI for now.

Oh, is that what you were saying? I was under the impression that you were saying that the MBTI was just plain wrong in a subtle way, not just that the two systems are incompatible with one another.

But in the meantime, I'll do a search for SLOAN.

I think he writes his posts in a quite concrete way. In general, he comes mostly straight to the point and doesn't attach much emotion (okay, it's written, but still) to them. It depends on the content if texts are perceived as business-style, but I think this term could be used here.

I'd attribute that to the fact that I'm not particularly invested in my Socionics type one way or another (the nonemotionality). Just curious at this point.
---

Is this the part where I pull up posts from other sites I've been on? I'm still unsure about what type of information you need to get a better idea of what type I probably am. Casual text conversations?

Or, better yet, how can I be reasonably sure I've found my type? Are there certain type descriptions that are supposed to resonate with me when I read them? Currently I'm still inclined to say ILI with ILE and SEI as possible secondaries.
---

Random posts from another forum:

@Last Dawn: To me, that's akin to asking why we need social interaction. We don't, but (most) people crave it all the same. In fact, to me, having a purpose and overarching life goal is more necessary than human interaction.

Unfortunately, I'm unable to lie to myself and thus I'm stuck with trying to figure out what my own personal significance is. In a way, I suppose I'm stuck with the absurdist line of thought, that we seek but will never find the inherent meaning (if it does exist). I almost wish I could go back to being certain about what's meaningful in life (almost, because I would never agree to selling myself to a lie). The only problem I would have with an inherent purpose would be the old philosophical question of, "why should we do what we are supposed to do, even if our biology or God says to?"

Actually, yes. I don't deliberately softstep around people, but I'm also not one to poke fun at or tease people, which seems to discourage the people who enjoy that type of interaction. I think it has a lot to do with people expecting me to grate on them a little by speaking my mind, and when I have nothing to comment on they take that as an effort to be nice, which makes them less comfortable grating on me.

Fortunately, there are some people who do that stuff anyway, i.e. people who don't change to fit with who you are, and I find I like those people the most. I think if you don't feel comfortable being somewhat antagonistic, you have to accept that some people will be turned off by that. However, if you don't speak up when there really is a problem, that might be something you need to work on. Relationships can't grow if you hide yourself from them.

Yay! Comments are great.

I know someone quite experienced with the MBTI, and he would say that the 'housewife' is an archetype which anyone could inhabit, whereas ESFJ just is well-suited to adopt the housewife archetype. I would think that your experiences have changed you in a way, but that what you most likely did was handle these situations in an INFJ-ish way. Perhaps the housewife role wasn't satisfying to you, so you either downplayed it or found a way to do it that satisfied your Ni (probably a creative tactic). And perhaps your entrepreneurial experience was shaped quite uniquely due to your type. I would think that if you were to suddenly take over a business that operated in an ENTP-ish way, you'd either change it or get a little stressed out.

I'd guess that they could very well arise due to life circumstances, though I'd be more inclined to say that they change the development we have within our types. For example, a lot of detail-oriented work for you would develop your sensing function so that you can use it better, but wouldn't make you want to do detail-oriented work any more than you do now. Similarly, whatever your enneagram type is, you might develop a wing due to life circumstances, but I'm currently of the opinion that we are born, more or less, into a specific enneagram type too. I say that because both my brother and I are of the same MBTI type, but we clearly behaved very differently as young children. I'm not sure whether this is due to enneagram or perhaps to something else (like the temperaments: choleric, sanguine, melancholic, phlegmatic).

As you can see, I'm just bouncing ideas around here, so don't think I have the answers.

[KeroZen]

Singularity: I assume you're in a bad mood or something, but posting on a public forum and getting upset because people you were not directly talking to answered your posts is a bit awkward...

Also we're trying to help KazeCraven here, I got nothing against you at all. So perhaps just try to be more cautious with your "tone"... Sometimes a couple of extra words in a sentence can ease the atmosphere a lot. :wink:

[Singu]

Yes, I AM in a bad mood, thanks for noticing. But how can I not, right, when somebody tells me that I'm wasting my time? But anyway, I agree, this is KazeCraven's thread and people should be typing him/her. I don't really have anything against anyone either and I don't want to cause any trouble.

So actually, I kind of see Fe in his posts. Take a look at how he's reading the motivations of the other person. Fe is not only limited to being emotional or bubbly.

[Jarno]

Currently I'm still inclined to say ILI with ILE and SEI as possible secondaries.

After dichotomies I find clubs the most easy thing to notice in yourself.

ILI and ILE are researchers (NT)
While SEI is socialiser (SF)

Are you a researcher that delves into interesting subjects, or are you the cozy party person who likes to talk for hours about family matters etc.

(It's evident that I exaggarate a bit just to make the contrast clearer)

[KeroZen]

Oh, is that what you were saying? I was under the impression that you were saying that the MBTI was just plain wrong in a subtle way, not just that the two systems are incompatible with one another.

With the help of other users on this forum I'm trying to see if we can advance the consensus on the MBTI conversion issue, or at least make the life of new users easier (those being confused) as well as senior users (those wasting energy correcting the confusion) be it with a properly written FAQ including strong evidences or with an online conversion form (or both)

There's definitely a correlation. Explaining it precisely is hard, hence for many it's safer and simpler to just say "they're not compatible" and in a way, if you're not too MBTI-infused, sometimes it's not too late and often better to tell the person to forget it all and start from scratch with socionics.

The most prominent issues we've spotted so far are cases of skewed dichotomies (mixing one with another in some places) and subtle warping of the function definitions (if you look at it in a rational way, you see after j/p switch that the function order matches on paper, but if you read the functions text/breakdown itself, you see that it's all warped and is just a corrective patch on a system they admitted had flaws for introverts)

[KeroZen]

Yes, I AM in a bad mood, thanks for noticing. But how can I not, right, when somebody tells me that I'm wasting my time?

Sorry, my bad, I interpreted your post wrong and thought you were saying socionics in general was "nothing"...

KeroZen throws some Fe on Singularity, but not too much or they'll say I'm wooshy wooshy!

PS: pardon me I'm french (heh) but the only definition of wooshy I found is "wooshy deuce" in urban dictionary.. what's the exact meaning of "wooshy wooshy"?

[KazeCraven]

After dichotomies I find clubs the most easy thing to notice in yourself.

ILI and ILE are researchers (NT)
While SEI is socialiser (SF)

Are you a researcher that delves into interesting subjects, or are you the cozy party person who likes to talk for hours about family matters etc.

(It's evident that I exaggarate a bit just to make the contrast clearer)

If that's the difference, I'm very far on the researcher side. With most people the only thing I have to talk about is what I know, and longer conversations are either focused on discussion of theories (lately the Enneagram), playing with ideas for a fantasy world, or me just listening to someone.

I can sit and listen to someone talk about drama for quite a while and find it interesting, but rarely do I have something similar to comment on. And even then I'm focused on what this says about the person I'm talking to, not really caring about the people talked about.

[KeroZen]

Remark about "business logic":

From my point of view, LII's Ti logic sounds to me like the "scientific method", going from a concept/theory and trying to make facts or anomalies fit into the framework afterwards (but they can be accused of neglecting objective facts)

While ILI's logic is sharp, factual and to the point. They are able to spot in a flash if something makes sense or not. And facts are for them objective truths enough to void any theory. The sentence "it must make sense" is very important in my eyes.

I'm unsure if the term business logic is appropriate in the end. For instance I've been told I have a kinda algorithmic logic (my job is to code software after all), but it also applies to ILI and LII (and all NT types in fact)

[KazeCraven]

ZeroKen, I noticed you used "NT types". Does this mean that you are grouping types into 4 temperaments, as per Keirsey?

[Aiss]

NT group is a "club" in socionics, which is a lot like Keirsey NT temperament, but that word is used differently here.

Club - Wikisocion
Temperament - Wikisocion

[golden]

@Golden: Don't people change how they say things to accommodate others? Not that I'm saying that that post you quoted isn't a pretty raw one (because it is).

---
Also, FWIW when I ask these questions I am asking for the Socionics viewpoint. If you are giving your own opinion beyond that, please let me know.

First, a disclaimer: Please assume that I'm always giving my viewpoint or opinion, because I cannot speak for Socionics and never would, even if I thought I'd achieved some expertise. (And I'll probably never think that.)

As for your question, yes, people do change how they say things depending on context and audience, but only, I think, within a range. I could expend a ton of energy to pretend to be really different from myself, but why would I?--especially in a thread where I ask people to help me determine my type.

It would be very, very difficult for me to generate a small patch of text like the one you wrote. It doesn't match up with my thought processes. At all.

[golden]

PS: pardon me I'm french (heh) but the only definition of wooshy I found is "wooshy deuce" in urban dictionary.. what's the exact meaning of "wooshy wooshy"?

Here you are seeing a made-up term using a little onomatopoeia. Like, swirly, fancy, you can hear the air swooshing in it, the speaker's arms are gesticulating, loose, light, free, full of hot air, on and on. Something like that.

[golden]

Yes, I AM in a bad mood, thanks for noticing. But how can I not, right, when somebody tells me that I'm wasting my time? But anyway, I agree, this is KazeCraven's thread and people should be typing him/her. I don't really have anything against anyone either and I don't want to cause any trouble.

So actually, I kind of see Fe in his posts. Take a look at how he's reading the motivations of the other person. Fe is not only limited to being emotional or bubbly.

I get moody myself and also don't like to cause trouble. I assume that you have ideas to contribute, and I'd like to know what they are. When I see a lot of posts beginning with a brash and brief version of "you're wrong," it gets difficult for me to make my way to the positive contribution. Maybe I am alone in this reaction.

[KeroZen]

"We're not wooshy!!!" exclaims KeroZen while running around the forum in large circles! "Woooot?!!! How dare you?!!!"

[golden]

"We're not wooshy!!!" exclaims KeroZen while running around the forum in large circles! "Woooot?!!! How dare you?!!!"

Speak for yourself, but I freely admit to being wooshy-wooshy.

[KeroZen]

It's easy for you! You're a grrrrrrl!

Being a male IEI is another story! haha

[KazeCraven]

@Aiss: thanks for the links.

First, a disclaimer: Please assume that I'm always giving my viewpoint or opinion, because I cannot speak for Socionics and never would, even if I thought I'd achieved some expertise. (And I'll probably never think that.)

As for your question, yes, people do change how they say things depending on context and audience, but only, I think, within a range. I could expend a ton of energy to pretend to be really different from myself, but why would I?--especially in a thread where I ask people to help me determine my type.

It would be very, very difficult for me to generate a small patch of text like the one you wrote. It doesn't match up with my thought processes. At all.

I'm simply making the distinction between going with or against the Socionics theory. Whenever I speak about MBTI, I make the disclaimer that I think MBTI only operates at the level of thinking styles, which makes my view of it much narrower than it is intended to be.

Also, to clarify, I am not implying that I am manipulating my text. I'm speaking more generally. What I type here should be an indication of my normal writing pattern (which is slightly, but noticeably, different from my speaking style due to the allowed time to find words). Especially once it came into my awareness that how I type would be a big factor in what type I'm read as. I'm doing my best to start at ground zero here, due to my strong MBTI background.