Obligatory Type Timmy Thread
Everyone else is doing it, so I will too. I boldly submit my personality to the scrutiny of this forum.
With sincerest intentions, I promise not to pull an iceehotcold and ignore all perspectives but my own in this matter. I will accept immediately and without reservation the final decision of the forum.
Choose wisely; for, you may not get another chance.
INFp; you're a carbon copy of silverchris9.
IEI - this post for example sounds very much beta http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...788#post765788 plus there were several other instances, for example you trying to mediate conflict between Jinxi and korpsey
first to vote for EVERY SINGLE ILI
Given your stance, I suspect you will find this post to be exceptionally suggestive of beta.Originally Posted by siuntal
But what will you make of this post? And this one?
Remember, all types use all functions. All types, moreover, value a combination of thinking and feeling functions. What about my writing suggests Ti/Fe valuing over Te/Fi valuing?
Your reasoning seems to be result oriented (inductive) assigned to IEIs rather than process oriented which is assigned to ILIs.
But how they use them differs. That's how we're able to differentiate between the types.
Sure, but there is a quite a difference between having creative function of Fe vs Te and mobilizing function of Ti vs Fi.
Perhaps. I've never been able to make heads or tails of most of the renin dichotomies. I tend to consider the majority to be rather useless. For what it's worth, I do consider myself democratic over aristocratic and declarer over asker (ILI>IEI). I'm not sure I have a good grasp over the negativist vs. positivist dichotomy, but I suspect my negativism may have something to do with labcoat's insistence that everything I say is tautological. I assert what cannot be known or is not apparent (negativism) to counter what appears to me to be baseless speculation on the part of labcoat (efforts to assert what is--positivism). For some reason labcoat misconstrues this as tautology. Negativism>positivism=ILI>IEI.
And there's the kicker. I consistently get along well enough with Fi/Te people (per my own type assessments), while Fe/Ti people are more of a mixed bag.Sure, but there is a quite a difference between having creative function of Fe vs Te and mobilizing function of Ti vs Fi.
Moreover, Ti ethical frameworks (e.g. legalism) have always left me cold. My father, whom I consider LSI, frequently accuses me of having slippery ethical standards. I'm not offended by the accusation. To his way of thinking, I lack some crucial ability to "differentiate right from wrong," whereas in fact I have a thorough understanding of what he considers right and wrong but am compelled to subjugate such standards to my own, internal sense of what feels right, irrespective of the internal consistency of my feelings.
Last edited by Timmy; 05-02-2011 at 05:33 AM.
I want you to be in my type.
You can also be ILI, if you really want to. Why do you prefer ILI over IEI?
I would provide detailed serious analysis, but I do have to actually write this paper tonight, even if I bullshit it 100%.
EDIT: And also, your capacity for analytical logic is no evidence for or against IEI. Aren't you a guy (I assume so by the name, it just occurred to me that you never had a post that said, "I, Timmy, am male," so I wanted to avoid assuming)? Male IEIs (myself included) will often place special emphasis on developing their strongest logical function (Ti), so as to be more immediately/obviously "useful." (See: strrrrrng). Also you're obviously intelligent, and of course, intelligent =/= logical type. I'd like to see someone call coleridge unintelligent, and he was no logical type. (Alternatively, if he *was* a logical type, I'd like to see someone call one of the leading romantic poets unemotional).
Last edited by silverchris9; 05-02-2011 at 07:30 AM.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
I think Timmy's IEI as well. No justification. Don't ask why.
The toy entrepreneur thread gave me a big impression ofnot being valued, at least not as much as
in the general text, but I found more specifics in the gold thread:
"If the US suddenly figured it's shit out (reads to me like/
"In all likelihood, gold will be run up quit a bit more if news continues to suck (looks like a blast of
"If you aren't good at timing these sorts of things (once again, reads like/
By no means is this an all-exhaustive analysis of IEI>ILIit's a 4:39 AM night for me here though, and I need to sleep... what I will say for certain, though, is you've got absolutely loads of
Hey Timmy how is it going ? The way you planned, I think.
Absolutely! Last I checked, ILI was way ahead in the polls! So far it would seem the forum is fully on board with how i've been self typing!
I think forum thought that behind every ILI vote available, totalling 16, there is a catch in the form of you masquerading entire socion starting from alpha, then beta, after that gamma and ending it on delta as lord almighty has prophesied.
This actually makes sense and explains IEI typings you got, although little they know, that they err in great many ways.
Am I making any sense here ?
It definitely does, with all of the T getting valued, and the interest in economics and all... but wouldn't a
I t definitely does, but it definitely didn't - what the heck are you ? Dumb ? I'm glad you're not in my quadra.It definitely does, with all of the T getting valued, and the interest in economics and all... but wouldn't a
Te doesn't stand for having interest in financial matters or economics. One's interests and hobbies do not directly reflect one's information metabolism type. Ti/Te also do not reflect how logical, reasonable, or intelligent a person can be.
Here is some more beta Fe+Ti attitudes expressed in his past posts:
And more expressions of Fe:
... you'd have been wise simply to have held your head up high, turned the other cheek, and gone about doing useful, rewarding things with your time than trying to damage his self esteem and make others lose respect for him. There was no evil that needed to be corrected, no injustice that needed be responded to. If he was dicking you around, to have personally let him know that you found his behavior disgraceful would have been sufficient. ... Although, as with all people, there is much to gain by interaction if you can bring yourself to show others a modicum of respect.He is also frequently analyzing other people's motives asking why someone has said this or done that.Every person I know I either love or love to hate, and so I love everyone. You all should do the same, it's away to live.
Life is apparently more interesting in "storms"
and reality is bubbling in into conscious in pieces
I agree with labcoat that he sounds like silverchris but older, less Fe and more Ti.
Bye, Timmy. The IEIs are dragging you out the door and your dual just pried your fingers from the frame to help them speed your abduction. Serves you right for having Fe-valuing parents. You've picked up their contagion. *sigh of relief inside hazmat suit*
yes ILI.
no he sounds way more business like.
I'm actually thinking he's an ILI-Te.
I agree. Some IEI women will do this too (though, admittedly not as many in my experience -- likely due to a cultural bias favoring thinking in men and feeling in women). My uncle, whom I type IEI, is as powerful a thinker as any Te or Ti ego I've ever met. Thirty some years ago he solved a math problem nobody before him had been able to crack. Growing up, my siblings and I would always consult him when we needed help with math homework.
I dredged up a couple "thinking" examples because I fell under the (probably incorrect) impression that siuntal was judging me a feeling ego based upon a couple obvious instances where I appeared to draw more heavily on feeling than thinking . Clearly the relevant question is not whether I think or feel, but whether I demonstrate a market predilection for Te/Fi or Fe/Ti.
This is a hell of a complicated question to answer because there are so many different angles from which to evaluate a person's type in socionics. Independently, each and every diagnostic criterion commonly employed in assigning a person his/her type involves a great deal of definitional and interpretation subjectivity.Why do you prefer ILI over IEI?
For example, we could argue for days with one another over whether I'm "negativist" or "positivist" without reaching a consensus. From the get go we'd probably be arguing over different things since our divergent conclusions will be influencing our interpretation of the correct way of defining positivist/negativist. Even if we could agree upon a "correct" way to interpret that dichotomy we'd probably disagree over which data was most relevant and how to interpret that data within the context of the agreed definition. Finally, whose to say the agreed upon definition has any merit to begin with?
Suffice to say, these sorts of conversations don't go anywhere.
To be blunt, I arrive at ILI out of gesalt. Since I know myself better than anybody else, and since I am the common denominator in all of my inter-type relations, my self typing becomes the focal point around my understanding of socionics coalesces. Imagining myself to be different types is akin to playing around with the focus on a pair of binoculars. Everything comes out blurry at all focal settings other than ILI. At ILI, everything snaps into focus and I am taken aback by how well socionics premises appear to jive with my own experiences. Every other focal setting produces a jumbled mess of incoherence from which nothing of value can be gleaned.
To be fair, I typed myself ILI before I delved too deeply into socionics theory or began attempting to assign types others in my life. I grant you the possibility that my self typing has skewed my understanding of socionics in such a fundamental way that I now find myself unable to interpret things in the same way as others do. To extend my previous analogy, this would be akin to using a pair of binoculars that come into focus at the wrong focal setting because they were put together incorrectly. I consider such a possibility remote given just how well socionics, as I understand and interpret it, seems to resonate with my own life experience. Naturally, one would not expect a pair of improperly constructed binoculars to reveal a clear, focused image at any focal setting for the same reason people don't expect jigsaw puzzles to yield multiple solutions.
If socionics can be drastically altered and still appear meaningful to me, that suggests to me that my impression of its meaningfulness is more likely than not illusory -- a product of my wanting to ascribe meaning socionics rather than socionics actually having any inherent meaning or predictive value. If such is the case, then socionics is indistinguishable from fiction and I'd be best to banish it from my mind all together as I can create for myself a more compelling fictional narrative for my life than socionics any day.
So, I suppose what I'm getting at can be reduced to the following: either I'm ILI or socionics is bunk. I cannot think of any way around that.
I've nothing but respect for you and your ideas Silverchris. I'd put you in my quadra in a flash if I thought it could be justified. Unfortunately, I do not think it can.I want you to be in my type.
It's not posts where you're expressing more feeling, it's orientation of your feeling. You have been telling others how to live up to some sort of ethical standard, behave in a way that constitutes in your opinion as better human beings. That's extraverted feeling, 'objective' ethics.
lol K0rp. I'm not leaving gamma just yet. I think Siuntal is mixing up Fi with Fe; I think Labcoat wants to believe himself a more naturally gifted thinker than I and so dismisses me as Ti HA (in no way do I believe feelers are necessarily inferior thinkers, but Labcoat may); I think Silverchris relates strongly with me on a Ni level and so assumes himself the same type as I (the same may go for Jinxi); And I have this sneaking suspicion woofwoofl may not be SEE at all (not to put him on the spot or anything).
Last edited by Timmy; 05-03-2011 at 02:51 AM.
I don't assume I'm same-type as you O.o.
Edit: I just see too much Fe from you.
If this article is any true http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ical_Cognition) Timmy also shows instances of the Vortical cognition, gestalt, seeing order emerging out of chaos, if you focus a pair of binoculars the right way suddenly a focused image realizes itself amidst all the mess and incoherence.
INFps have vortex cognition, not INTp.
I figured someone would bring up vortex cognition when I made the binocular analogy given the superficial comparisons to be drawn between what I wrote and what gulenko described. I have two points to make on the matter. First, types are thought use of all forms of cognition. Type only establishes tendencies along the margin. I'd argue that if the style of conceptualization/thinking I utilized in the binocular example was vortex cognition, then vortex cognition is the only suitable gulenko thinking style for job (irrespective of type). Second, I challenge the premise that the example I gave is necessarily indicative of vortex cognition. Taken as a whole, I honestly believe one could just as easily look at what I just wrote as a product of dialectic thinking, which I actually relate to much better than vortex cognition. Here's a description of dialectical thinking (supposedly the domain of the ILI).
Notice how, although I stuck with ILI, I HAVE considered the possibility of many other types. The reason I continue to identify as ILI is that my being any other type implies all sorts of self-contradictory or implausible scenarios which, though I have not written them out here, I have carefully thought through in my head on multiple occasions. At bottom, I can conceive of no empirically meaningful way of looking at socionics that involves my being any type other than ILI."The essential distinguishing feature of the Dialectical style, is a view of the universe as a unified struggle of opposites. In speech it often uses syntactic constructions "if-then-else", the predictive branches of a developing process. Within limits, the Dialectic strives to find an intermediate point of dynamic equilibrium between contrasting extremes. Dialectical cognition is born from the colliding flow and counterflow of thought, the consciousness and unconsciousness. Thinkers of this style are characterized by an express inclination towards the synthesis of opposites, the removal of contradictions, which they so keenly perceive."
Last edited by Timmy; 05-03-2011 at 01:46 AM.
And I almost forgot to mention..I refuse to accept that aixelsyd and dolphin are not my duals. In my book, they are both far too awesome for semi-dual status. The day I embrace INFphood is the day both of them convert to ESTp...and tcaud starts a successful dating site.
Correct. Ethical standards aren't exclusive to Fe peeps, nor their introduction to or imposition upon others. Your tone in, say, pianosinger's toy rental thread, reads a great deal like my own when I plot a course for friends through their prospective enterprises, and it takes on a similarly wide-ranging, systematizing cast. And as much as I love to argue, I often counsel others to drop their disputes and chill out. Also, your writing exhibits a knottiness I find common to a lot of Te-driven thinking, where exacting specificity can sometimes overshadow elegant style.
Labcoat teases with false typings in one moment and demeans with them in another. It's possible that he even assigns them in earnest at times.I think Labcoat wants to believe himself a more naturally gifted thinker than I and so dismisses me as Ti HA (in no way do I believe feelers are necessarily inferior thinkers, but Labcoat may)
The fact that you aren't a surly bastard probably factors into his favorable evaluation of you as well.I think Silverchris relates strongly with me on a Ni level and so assumes himself the same type as meare generally yupped upon without reservation and you integrate yourself easily into multi-gamma conversations.
It's too early for me to comment on woofwoofl's "actual" type, but his heavy use of emoticons definitely caught my attention right off the bat. It seemed odd that this didn't gall me as it often does, but a quick inspection of woofwoofl's posts showed that he uses smileys to indicate enthusiastic goofiness and good spirits, not passive-aggressive smarm and wounded sarcasm. It fits a genuine Fi mode of expression, not the empty posturing of Fe. In further contrast to Dew he's more familiar with socionics, and reading him doesn't make make my brain wince like it's being fed lemons. On those grounds I'm less likely to doubt his self assessment.And I have this sneaking suspicion woofwoofl may not be SEE at all (anyone else getting a mountaindewII vibe?).
Last edited by Korpsy Knievel; 05-03-2011 at 02:25 AM.
You make several good points. I pretty much agree with that assessment. Woof doesn't actually bother me, and I have no solid reason to interpret his use of emoticons as suggestive of Fe>Fi. He definitely does use emoticons differently that br're dew. Of course, so far I have little reason to reject the possibility that he is an Fe type. Physiologically healthy/stable/mature extroverted feeling types balance out Fi and Fe well (same is true of Fi types).
Last edited by Timmy; 05-03-2011 at 02:52 AM.
I can see it. I certainly don't know him well, but so far Woof's cool in my book. He doesn't appear to fit the stereotypical profile of SEE I've got in my head, but that may well be for the reasons you just gave.
Semi-duality is actually quite attractive. According to Russian socionics website I've seen it ranked pretty close to intra-quadra relations and it is not out of the ordinary for IEIs to get along with SEEs. One of my best friends is a SEE and I really like his diplomatic-Fi style and admire him for non-type related factors (in short, he's just a cool person). All of this doesn't make him my dual though.
Legalism is not Ti ethical framework at all. If anything that would fall under the realm of Te. There is a pretty good description of Te here http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml - notice that it states "correct actions in various situations" which is most similar to legalism. As far as I know Ti-types are the most likely to go against commonly established laws. Beta quadra is associated with elements of social instability and unrest, and that requires the inverse of adherence to laws and respecting authority. Consider that may be you have mis-typed your father.
what "IEIs" lol? there is one LII, one SEE, and one IEI who have suggested INFp since Timmy has posted this thread
I think he's referring to you, me and chris.
chris only asked a few questions since labcoat mentioned him in thread - and you're still not confirmed
I find SLE women very attractive (and they me), but I notice that I'm never fully at ease around them. I constantly feel as though they are requesting something I don't really know how to give (probably Fe) and likewise they leave me feeling less than entirely satisfied. A particular SLE has been trying to pin me down for months and while I've seriously considered reciprocating her advances, it just doesn't feel right. Of the only two ladies I can truly say I have loved (excluding family), one I type ESI, the other SEE.
I don't mean that legalism is tantamount to Ti, but only that legalism strikes me as an example (or subset) of Ti. I would agree that many Ti types hold a set of principals that are incompatible with law. My father is not one of these. He is a lawyer and has come to see himself as a defender of the law. He places much faith in the ability of the law to serve justice as he understands it, and gets very worked up when others treat the law as though it were unimportant.Legalism is not Ti ethical framework at all. If anything that would fall under the realm of Te. There is a pretty good description of Te here http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml - notice that it states "correct actions in various situations" which is most similar to legalism. As far as I know Ti-types are the most likely to go against commonly established laws. Beta quadra is associated with elements of social instability and unrest, and that requires the inverse of adherence to laws and respecting authority. Consider that may be you have mis-typed your father.
That Te is described as "correct actions in various situations" would not lead me to the conclusion that Te is related to legalism. To be perfectly honest, I don't believe "correct actions in various situations" is a meaningful description of Te because it doesn't actually say anything unique about the function. The phrase could equally well be applied to Ti, Fi, and Fe. IMO, all judging functions are concerned with correct action (directly or indirectly). They differ only in terms of how they go about determining correct action (Te and Fi are used in combination to determine correct action for Te/Fi types; Ti and Fe are used in combination to determine correct action in Fe/Ti types).
Three IEI's if you count Jinxi!what "IEIs" lol? there is one LII, one SEE, and one IEI who have suggested INFp since Timmy has posted this thread
Last edited by Timmy; 05-03-2011 at 06:26 AM.
I am by people in this thread. Timmy, Ashton, Half of you.
Shhh. The forum isn't ready for such disclosures.
Chris didn't type Timmy as anything, only asked a few questions. Ashton deferred typing you. So out of "IEIs" it has only been me.
so does duality sometimes due to the multitude of factors that socionics doesn't account for
Formulating for one's personal consideration is Ti, introverted individualistic logic. Actually implementing and enforcing these frameworks as objective criteria corresponds most to Te. This is from description of Te from that socionics.us website: creating measurements "correlating names with phenomena", "substantiating things" as well as checking that they are being met "evaluating quality; process indicators" "the operational characteristics of people as objects" "correct actions in various situations" or in other words "legalizing".Formulating legal codes and protocols would be more suggestive of structural logic (
Grrr... Timmy is both refusing to be IEI AND stealing all the good duals. This is totally unfair. (Like 0 SLEs post here anymore. I miss them!) That said, I'm much more convinced by the "socionics only fits my experience with me as this type" argument, than any "I must be type x because person y must have intertype relation z with me" argument.
I do think that you seem more diplomatic than most ILIs I know. I mean, do you see Fe-polr in yourself at all?
Regardless, if your whole system of socionics only works if you're ILI, then by all means, be ILI. Real life is a much better test anyway.
Side note: your dad is LSI too? That's funny.
I think... that Ti is very much invested in an unshakable set of principles, and LSIs especially are disinclined to value any theoretical evidence disproving their principles (they usually have to run into a wall with one of their principles in order to throw it out). And I suppose if one were a lawyer, one could be inclined to adopt the principles of the constitution or something like that as the unshakable principles one defends, which could lead to legalism. But one could just as easily make a certain kind of compassion, which would run counter to legalism, a fundamental principle.I don't mean that legalism is tantamount to Ti, but only that legalism strikes me as an example (or subset) of Ti. I would agree that many Ti types hold a set of principals that are incompatible with law. My father is not one of these. He is a lawyer and has come to see himself as a defender of the law. He places much faith in the ability of the law to serve justice as he understands it, and gets very worked up when others treat the law as though it were unimportant.
In other words, although a Ti-ego could have a legalistic "one must never lie to the Nazis about the Jews in the upper room" as a principle, he/she could just as easily have "one must always lie to the Nazis about the Jews in the upper room" as a principle.
Ashton: semi-duality isn't bad... maybe I only say that 'cause I grew up with a semi-dual brother though. We fight like all the time, but we also forgive each other in rather short order. Although you might never reach that stage with a semi-dual you aren't forced into frequent contact with. Shrug.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
What's the verdict, then ?
The poll makes it abundantly clear.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote