yes indeed, you are both the same type.Originally Posted by incognito
INTp :-)
Krig the Viking & MegaDoomer, Te & Ti [split from "Type changing"]
yes indeed, you are both the same type.
INTp :-)
I don't think I'm a perceiving type. I know, I considered ILI for a long time, but not anymore. At the moment, I'm quite confident about my self-typing.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Which I don't suspect he is because he never EVER analyzes in a
Nice. I've long suspected you were LII.compares/contrasts/matches/points out contradictions kind of way. I never observe any pattern making conclusions from him either, nor do I see him settle on things keeping things very open just like a P type.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 02-18-2011 at 02:57 PM.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
^ I agree
I don't understand this "Live and let live" attitude toward's people's self-typings. It's not what type you think you are but what type you really are.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
I might not demonstrate Ti all the time but if you think I'm ILI: where's the Ni then? Maybe it's because I don't fully understand the concept of Ni, but I can't really see it. Furthermore, I keep things always open if I can't totally narrow down something or don't fully understand the issue. I don't settle on something if I don't know every aspect of it.Which I don't suspect he is because he never EVER analyzes in a
Well, it's not that I changed from ILI to LII because I wanted to. I'm genuinely interested in typing myself correctly.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
I typed myself ILI before I started to learn the information elements.
When I learned about Ni I got confused. Never doubted my type, but just confused because I wasn't thinking about time all day. I don't see time. I don't experience time. Heck I'm even always late at work!
What I do however, is daydream a lot. Have conversations in my mind with people, and know how they react. etc etc.
Information elements aren't that important for typing yourself. They do more harm than help. It's even general consensus that you cannot see what your leading function is because it's to ordinary. So why try looking for it in yourself??
I just replied to Maritsas post. I don't know if one can identify their base function easily or not, but I don't think Ni is my base function.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
The Ni is where you said when people don't take time seriously that makes you upset. Ne time is very different from that very statement alone. Keeping things open is a product of perception.I might not demonstrate Ti all the time but if you think I'm ILI: where's the Ni then? Maybe it's because I don't fully understand the concept of Ni, but I can't really see it. Furthermore, I keep things always open if I can't totally narrow down something or don't fully understand the issue. I don't settle on something if I don't know every aspect of it.
Well, it's not that I changed from ILI to LII because I wanted to. I'm genuinely interested in typing myself correctly.
About my type...
I never change it. I found out once and that's all it took.
I knew these things about myself:
1. I loved hunting for ideas so I had to have Ne in the ego block, because it was obsessive.
2. I love people, relationships, human beings. I love and value close relations and care for them very much.
3. I over-analyze everything.
4. I can not exert massive amount of energy. My senses are terrible.
5. I'm not organized. I can't organize things by color, shape, size, style, articles...pfff...no Te around. I'm not very practical, I'm very dreamy and creative.
6. I love, love, love, Si environment of rest, pleasantries, relaxation, warm hugs, warm teas, staying indoors and sleeping in, eating pasta and eating very good for you, healthy food; my internal states get confused and I don't know what I need so I need to follow lead with Si and Te.
7. I don't care about exact time. I care more about general time, Ne.
8. I ignore my own feelings in concern for empathizing with other people, animals, environment.
It's EASY to type yourself.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I never doubted that Krig is LII. That typing fits very well imho.
No, I disagree. I get upset if people are late for appointments or similar things, but that's pretty understandable. I just don't like it if people are independable. And as I said, I keep things open if I'm not fully certain about something. This is my way to ensure I don't make any mistakes. And referring to time: I'm always over-punctual because I'm not good at estimating time and how long something takes.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
First let me say, that a lot of this theoretical stuff is quite difficult for me to wade through. To be honest I have no problem seeing both Krig the Viking and Megadoomer as INTj's. The more information I see regarding Ti, the less I relate to it: structure, justice, laws, rules, systematizing, etc. For the most part not my forte, nor something I really like. It's kind of boring, dry, and arid. Whether or not I'm Ti-valuing or not is hard to say, yet I often find some of the stuff written by Krig the Viking and other Ti-egos to be quite difficult to read through. Comparatively, although I don't always agree with him, I find a lot of what Ashton (and other Te-egos) writes to be easier to read and understand/comprehend.
And to be honest, I can't help seeing some Ti-types as kind of harsh, cold, and rigid. They can be very moral, and my experience of a Ti-egos concept of morality (say an ISTj for example) is definitely not my cup of tea.
Yet other people can be biased. How does one know who is right in the matter. Is the person 'changing' their type right, or is it the observer, both, or neither. Perhaps people can change their self-typing, yet objectively they can never change what their type really is. Yet maybe when a person changes their self-typing, they might actually have stumbled onto their correct type. Maybe the others are wrong. Ultimately, everyone has one true Socionics type, whether or not they type themselves correctly, and whether or not other people type them correctly. And I'd also like to add that more often than not, an individual knows themselves and their personal history as well as their type, better than a supposedly objective observer does. Such an observer might actually potentially know the correct type of the person, yet some additional data (that might not actually be very type-related) might alter his opinion to the wrong type. So we often like to think that we're right about other people's types, but I think we should try to recognize our limitations more. It's hard enough to type oneself.
I'd say I often have a tendency to over-analyze stuff. Sometimes I can't fall asleep because my mind is racing with thoughts, and thinking about stuff (including Socionics at times). I might have some idea or train of thought that I have to write down. Sometimes I even talk to myself, even at work (yet mostly at home). Perhaps this doesn't mean I'm an Extravert, although my Aunt once said that I seek external validation way too much. Maybe I do care too much about what other people think of me, to the point of deluding myself. There have been times when I could relate a fair bit to both ENFP (Keirsey and Myers-Briggs) and ENFp (Socionics) type descriptions.
Yet, regarding what Jarno was saying about being late for work -- I'm never late for work. Yesterday I couldn't find my watch, yet I still wasn't late for work. Yet I find it hard to keep track of time without a watch. I even had to ask people what time it is. I find it hard enough to keep track of time with a watch to be honest, and I don't have the best time management skills. That's why I find it hard to work at these kind of jobs (grocery stores, etc.) yet until I achieve a higher education, I don't have too many options.
So I can say I can often relate to people who change their self-typing for a type that is actually more accurate. The way Se is used by some people at work either stresses me out, annoys me, overwhelms me, etc. And it's always been like that for me. I'm definitely not Se-PoLR, yet I don't usually respond well to Se. To be honest, I think I often like the ESTj's at my work more than the Se and Ti types.
Although there's a good chance I am actually INFp, and those who think so might actually be right... as you can see I can relate to those people whose self-typings are questioned... and for me it's easier to type myself INFp, because it doesn't really bother me if that self-typing is challenged or not, since I don't feel too attached to it. As much as I might appreciate some Beta music, it can tire me, or bore me, and sometimes I have to wonder what's so great about (some of) it; it's kind of overrated. There are people here who can appreciate some 'Beta' music, yet they usually don't get typed Beta. So it's kind of arbitrary why some people think that one person should be placed in a certain quadra and the other shouldn't. Way too many quadra stereotypes abound here.
Regarding Ni and Ne, to be honest if I didn't have to worry about exact time at work I'd be happier. But I have to work on a schedule, yet I prefer the concept of general time. I have to rush (and often even run a bit) to make sure I get to work on time; I worry about getting late, with or without a watch. And I often leave a bit later than I should, or maybe I'm just too worried about being late so I rush.
So it's safe to say that I don't like when people pressure me or criticize me or question my work ethic or what I was doing, when I was actually working. And I agree that logical types can be ethical people, perhaps even more so than a lot of Fi and Fe egos. To me, Ti (strictness, rules) kind of leaves me cold. It's so antithetical to the kind of world I'd prefer to live in, although I think that some rules are important, and I know I have to improve on more of my ethics and consistency, etc. I could easily see myself being criticized by a Ti-type. They might say I'm unpredictable, etc. And I'd totally feel that our views of the world are at war with each other.
Anyway, since I'm kind of tired, and a lot of this theoretical stuff is too much for me (partially because my education is so fractured and incomplete), I'll conclude this with something my Aunt once wrote:
"I do not know practically anything about Socionics and frankly speaking I am not very much attracted to it, maybe I have not had time to look deeply into it or maybe the attempt to classify personality based on such a mathematical sounding method does not appeal to me.... I like to contemplate the exception, the unusual, uncanny and rule-breaker, the abnormality and the singularity in people. The way people act or react cannot be imagined outside dramatic shifts in what goes on in their lives. And when something completely weird, dangerous or sublime occurs one may react in ways unexpected. Perhaps it is a poetic approach, less scientific or rigourous, more probabilistic than static or linear."
This topic makes me want to eat lemony and crisp things.
I've always thought of it like Te is efficiency, and Ti is accuracy.
So if you want to describe something to someone...
...would focus on getting another person to understand something as quickly as possible.
...
And then someone would say that isn't true in either case, so I'll add that
Neither one would actually be about uncovering objective truths or anything.
The workings of Ti doesn't need something to be objectively true. Ti only need the information to not contradict any other information used in the same context.
For example you could say: “Blue=Red”, and Ti would reply “Under what circumstances?”
Can't really say about Te here, but it's all about pragmatism. Te-people I know seems to resonate that if something is accepted by most people/most “experts”, that is the truth, and objective is a word.
This is just how I've interpreted it though. With this in mind I don't see why they can't be LII:s both. If I ignore what I've said and just base my conclusion from the things stated in this thread, I still don't see why they both can't be LII:s.
Mm, this is somewhat true for me as well. What I find with RL Alpha NTs is that to some extent, one on one, we can communicate pretty well "in the moment," because they speak more directly to my knowledge level (usually low, not always) of whatever subject they are mentally systematizing. My guess is that the more they get some Fe, which I modulate a bit to their particular light-hearted take on Fe, and they are motivated to interact with me as I am, and without talking down to me. It's usually pleasant.
Get them talking among one another about a subject they're into--as on this forum--they can become wonkish and I find myself more or less excluded. Te types are less apt to do this. So I do find myself appreciating Te in the short term, often more than Ti, even if I admire Ti.
An example, though: My most important college professor, from whom I learned an incredible amount over three semesters, was clearly a Ti type. The first course I took with her presented the most difficult material I'd ever faced, and her way of presenting it as a closed system, at a very advanced level, gave me little point of entree initially. But over time, I found my way in and discovered I had begun to master the system of thinking. I was more or less obliged to rise closer to her level ... and I was so glad that I had the chance to do that. So in a way, Ti thinkers give me something to aspire to.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Unfortunately I know I'm ILI-Te for more than 6 years now, dated the whole socion and saw each relationship work out with the typical socionics features. I've no reason to doubt my type.Yes, indeed, I think all three of us are the same time. I think you are INTj.
Cool.Nice. I've long suspected you were LII.
If you made that experience, I congratulate you. As I said above, intertype relations are not that easy and clear for me. I suppose I had a crush on my conflictor some years ago which would explain why it didn't work well.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
x
FTR: MegaDoomer, Krig the Viking, Subterranean, etc are the same type, namely LII Ne
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Since you all seem so certain, I withdraw my typing of megadoomer. You alpha's have a new member.
I think megadoom is INTp. He just seems more cautious than the average INTj and doesn't seem to have these typical ideosyncratic ideas that INTjs always hold fast to.
0.02c
imho Krig could be ILI and Subt is EII.
i could be wrong about Krig, i guess he could be LII, but to me he is very "literal" and dry, and he likes to expound upon facts and write descriptions, substantiating and clarifying various information. for example stuff like this thread, i see as Te. what Expat used to do for general socionics concepts, Krig does for DCNH. he doesn't seem to seek Fe either.
Subt is too ethically-minded, i think his personal feelings and sentiments towards things and people come out very easily in his communication, even if he may not explicitly state them. it's something i see as Ethical, especially Fi.
I wouldn't say that I expound upon facts so much as I seek to correctly categorize information logically. Ti looks at the world and tries to sort it into static categories. Te looks at the world and tries to keep track of the changing states of the objects in it. Consequently, Ti is more focused on correct reasoning and precise definitions, while Te is more focused on empirical data and efficient actions.
My posts tend to be purely theoretical and almost completely void of empirical data, which annoys actual Te types.
I can see the similarities between Expat and myself, but since I haven't really tried to type Expat for myself, I don't really know what to make of that. I've wondered if he might be some kind of Ti type in the past, but haven't looked into it.
As for my Fe-seeking -- I mostly post here when I'm in the mood for intellectual exercise. People here haven't really seen me in my sillier moods.
Quaero Veritas.
You forgot to say that you scored on a first date with an IEE
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
ah okay :-)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
