Last edited by aixelsyd; 05-06-2011 at 09:00 AM.
Life's a bitch and she's got me pussy whipped.
ILEs are some of the most naturally hilarious and adorable people in the world I'm not exactly certain what planet they come from, but I'm glad that it exists
The ESIs I've met are really warm and fiery I like them a lot, some people apparently find them harsh, but I get along absolutely great with them... and yes, this is one of those cases in which an Socionics Introverted type might be, in a non-Socionics sense, more loud and outgoing than a lot of Extraverted types...
I've always liked the LSEs I've encountered a lot too I play music with one, and we can go over the names of modes and scales and the nuts-and-bolts aspect of the music and make a lot of sense of things on that front (the drummer thought he was "being an asshole", but I knew he wasn't, and explained things to him )...
And don't be shy - it doesn't work! I managed to make a video, now it's your turn!
Outside of that though, if someone could figure out whether your train of thought fits the Causal-Determinist style or the Dialectical-Algorithmic style, we could crack this one wide open
I've been wondering if superego's are really all that bad as the descriptions say. I tend to like SLIs, even though we tend to be quite different. I wouldn't say that having an ILE best friend would go against SEE for you, in my opinion.
I don't have a strong opinion on your type though, I just have nothing better to do and wanted to share that.
When typing others or evaluating third party inter-type relations, it is easy to sweep much complexity under the rug because one doesn't perpetually monitor the inner state of others like one does with herself. Observing others is tantamount to monitoring the rolling of waves as they surf atop oceans of vast and hidden complexity. The contours of individual waves could signify just about anything, so one who is not privy to the subsurface activity (all outside observers) have an easy time justifying to themselves a-priori or weakly supported hypothesize about others. furthermore, most are inclined to scrutinize more carefully his/her own self typing than the typing of others because, we being the center of our own universes, have more vested an interest in getting our own type right than in getting right the types of others.
To be perfectly honest, I severely doubt that enlisting others help will enable you to achieve greater confidence in your self typing. Others may be more certain about your type than you are, but their interpretations will necessarily rely upon far more cursory and insubstantial an analysis of your character than you have already performed. Others may give you new ways of looking about or thinking about things, but you'll still be left with the task of parsing heaps of seemingly inconsistent data. If self typing leads you to confusion and frustration, I'd recommend you not worry too much about pegging down your one "true" type. Experience, or maybe just our imaginations running wild, has lead most to the conclusion that socionics holds some empirical merit, and it's certainly fun (and addicting) to look at the world with socionics tinted glasses. But obviously none of implies that you as a person can be neatly fit within a single type or that inter-type relational patterns will always (or even often) hold up as predicted. If you can discover no way of cleanly fitting fact to theory, the problem most likely does not lie with you, your facts, or your understanding of theory; More than likely, the problem is the theory.
I'll have you know that while a part of me is attached to the ILI designation, a more honest part of me realizes that no type really can do me or anyone else full justice.
Of course, if you're enjoying considering different types, by all means proceed!
Last edited by Timmy; 05-04-2011 at 05:48 PM.
6 months ago, I didn't pay much attention to this socionics business at all, thinking it is utter bullshit and just a waste of time and resources, I had one type in mind though obtained through a quick read on wikisocion and a few tests just to justify myself the time spent on here thinking about dropping this crap completely for it was absolutely of no value nor use for me.
Point is I was wrong, thinking I am this type I thought I am, then again it took some time and some people on here to actually to show me the light.
Anyway, I remember you self-typing: IEI, ILI, SEE and now ESI. The question is do you have a particular type in mind at all ? Is it, you know, settled and decided as one neanderthal member having connections to organised crime in L.A would say ? I don't think it is plus I think I heard you saying that both LSI and LSE piss you off, which is somewhat weird considering the fact you self-type ESI now and you're okay with your conflictor, which one is it, then ?
EDIT: Oh yea, all this type swapping sounds a bit like a swingers party to me, and I think it should say a thing or two about something, I guess ?
Last edited by Absurd; 05-04-2011 at 09:17 AM. Reason: Terribly dumb
speak a little about what made you think you were an INTp before. what could possibly make you think you were the complete opposite of what you really are in everything except values.
you're probably just backpedaling into being introvert because you realize this silly 180 degree shift was a bad idea from the start.
Internal Dynamics of Fields to External Statics of Objects?
I've been typed all on here so forum had to be really growing in degeneracy, can I even say growing in degeneracy ? Never mind, thing is this ESI and SEE stuff makes sense, I don't know, I think Fi is there, can't say more though, don't know you that well like a few other members on here.
Socionics workshop wanted quality, and I think I did a booboo there, like in every place I went to. C'est la vie.
Give this a peek. Most of the regulars are gamma/delta and it's pretty laid back.
Hey aixelsyd, when I did some statistical observations, these type descriptions came up as the highest rated. Do you relate to any of them? Thought it might help, but you seem to have a clearer idea of your type for needing them. The second highest rated ones were Gulenko's function layout, found at www.socionics.org. They're both rather short and simple, so thought it would be easier to relate to.
FWIW, if there's anything that's been apparent to me it's Se/Ni valuing with shades of Fi. Honestly, I can't recall anything that gave me a strong opinion of Te, so perhaps y-SF is the answer.
You really don't fit with the SEEs I know, but that could be simply because I don't know you very well or just variation. You could be ESI. Perhaps what you attribute to irrationality in yourself is actually role-Ti. Maybe you can elaborate on why you think you're irrational.
I wouldn't call most Fj's rational in the common use of the word.
no. this is the problem right here. you don't SEE that it is such a big change. it just goes to show that you're in a state of serious confusion about this theory to the point where the things you say about yourself can't be taken seriously.I don't see it as a 180 degree shift, for one.
Np, I just noticed some people seem to find them useful and others don't. I was able to limit myself down to 3 or 4 options using descriptions, but they all differ, and like you said they can be too limiting. I was confused for a while as to which descriptions were clearer and am still not sure, but statistics help, if you're in to objective opinions
I also looked at a lot of type benchmarks, watching videos of people. But yeah, that's something pretty obvious.
Hey Aix, what two functions (or one if that's all you can decide on) do you think you avoid more than all the others (not like or dislike, but avoid naturally in your life)? If I'm honest about it, it's definitely Te and Si over the others, strictly in terms of Jung (which is how this should be defined, in my opinion, since it is based on it). I do believe this is the most proper indicator of type, even though socionics seems a lot more invested in stereotypical explanations of the types rather than describing them with more variations.
Basically, Ti PoLR won't mean you have weak Ti, but that you naturally want to avoid it if you can. That's my pretty firm take on the superego anyway.
PoLR would plainly be avoided though since nothing enhances or supports it and would act as an element of a conditioned nature. It's reinforced or grown out of reluctant necessity more than anything else. So it can become strong, but it's differentiation from the other functions would consist of a natural focus of reluctance and avoidance. At least that's how it is for me.
She will make up her mind again in the future, so why bother answering this thread.
Some people will just never understand socionics. Accept it and don't waste energy on it.
Well I like Aixel and typing one's self can be infinitely harder than typing other people. So that doesn't really mean much for gauging someone's understanding of socionics. That's the power of the human mind, is it not? Actually, I'm starting to wonder if typing yourself would be a huge philosophical contradiction...I'm sure it is.
bullshit. why do people keep proliferating this thoughtless, braindead myth..?typing one's self can be infinitely harder than typing other people.
if multiple decades of observed information can't make you reach a typing, how can ANYTHING else? morons.
^ Sure, after all that information. But the information needs to be based on concepts that are consistent and good. This forum is full of bias and fitting nameplates to the concepts before people understand them.
So without good consistent information it will probably be easiest for static rationals to reach a type, followed by irrational static types, then rational dynamic, and lastly irrational dynamic. So it's quite possible Aixel fails under the last one.
Anyway, Aixel you could also look at what your neurosis point would be (leading and dual-seeking). I just made these now and I'm sure there are better ways of describing them and someone will tell me it's stupid, but this might help.
Ni (confusion and uncertainty) -> Se (act anyway)
Si (fear of change) -> Ne (relieving change)
Se (nervous impatience or restless) -> Ni (reassurance)
Ne (impatient intellectual searching) -> Si (enjoy what is already found)
Ti (passive rational obsession) -> Fe (assert Ti indirectly and be free from passivity) <-> Tcaud becomes more and more evident to me lately as Ti leading
Fe (act and assert passionately) -> Ti (channel Fe purposefully)
Fi (passive ethical obsession) -> Te (assert Fi indirectly and be free from passivity)
Te (act and assert dispassionately) -> Fi (channel Te purposefully)
Then there is also the Je/Pe or Ji/Pi combination with your leading. So you would identify with one of these groups as your primary mode of cognition.