Summoning help for determining my sociotype

[Creepy-ssss]

Greetings to everyone. WARNING: very long post.

I've participated in several typology forums to present day. As expected for a western user, my first contact came from MBTI-Keirsey. I've been for a while in what some users have called JCF (jungian cognitive function, a sort of MBTI function-focused descendant).

Actually I'm more into Socionics. I recongnize that my first impression was not good: Socionis.com; V.I.? what's that, phrenology? (I know, it's more like interpreting gestures) etc. But actually I see it as superior to previous models.

I've been learning for a while before choosing to join this socionics specific forum. I've had problems for determining my sociotype, and the "solutions" that I found satisfied me only temporally. Doubts come periodically to my mind, doubts that I had not about my MBTI type, neither reading profiles nor deep analyzing this mindset (at least in those days): INTP. I still see too much contradictions that I cannot properly solve about my sociotype, and I never feel comfortable with strong contradictions.

I do not nor cannot ignore data (objective data which has proven some connection with facts) that disagree with me only for feeling comfortable. But I do not feel comfortable with contradictions, feeling them as a insufficient knowledge or concept misunderstanding. While I'm not able to solve them I do not feel that the task of "understanding" is complete.

This behavior is linked to my E5 enneagram, I suppose. This is almost not subject to debate. Well, I can discuss whatever aspect of my personality, but I see much less likely being a different enneagram than a different sociotype or MBTI type. I have not found any serious contradiction between my behavior, way of thinking, fears, etc, that does not fit better in E5 than any other enneagram. Maybe some periods of temporal "hyperactivity" (when I'm geeking or debating an interesting idea, for example) but nothing that could suggest E7. I doubt that an high sensory stimulant ambient like a disco could be so toxic for an E7 (who usually enjoy this) like it's for me (if hell exists, here it is), or that an E7 could feel so unconfortable and be so awkward when socializing with strangers under "uncontrolled" conditions. The wing is another issue, but I see 5w6>5w4.

Well, now the main point. This thread in another forum express the reasoning I made those days for archiving the Ti-ILE conclusion. An user of this forum partly copied it here, so probably some of you have already read it:

http://www.personalitynation.com/soc...ociotypes.html

I'm not convinced that my particular hypothesis about how Ti_acc+Ne_pro Vs Ne_acc+Ti_pro were correct, which were the key for choosing Ti-ILE. I recognize I overvalued this aspect in a more broader issue, and maybe I misunderstood this concept (accepting vs producing) and/or several others, because as happened before I do not feel comfortable (or sure) about my election.

So, what's my sociotype? Am I a LII (a "direct" translation of Ti>Ne INTP)? Or maybe an ILE? (same ego functions, P character as expected for an MBTI INTP). Or maybe an ILI-INTp? Any other less likeky option?

I've observed that most users in this forum think that the more probable "translation" for MBTI to Socionics imply maintaining the 4-letters-code. I said probable, I know there's no 1:1 equivalence (functions and concepts are defined differently) but still some options would be more probable than others for each sociotype. Both profiles (INTP and INTp) are interpreted as representative of the same mindset. I do not agree with this, because in my opinion the MBTI INTP represents much more an alpha (theoretical oriented NT) than gamma (purposeful oriented NT) type, but I'm still open to this option. Quite confident about being an alpha NT, but of course I'm open to debate. This apparently puts ILI at the bottom of the three more likely options.

If there would not exist the question of subtypes which could "color" the behavior of the main type, I would probably choose LII. The average ILE, specially Ne-ILE, is usually described in a way that remember a lot the MBTI ENTP, which I'm not. Neither extroverted in a classical sense (external behavior, social, etc), nor I fit in the E7 enneagram (the most usual for them). I know the Jungian extroversion only predisposes to that behavior but is not equivalent to it. Extratim is not the same as "classical extrovert". This opens the "Ne leading, not Ti" option. But I consider myself an introvert, usually energized by an internal point of reference and depleted by an external one. The "Ti subtype" was useful for this. Being a "trick" I used I cannot trust it too much, but at the same time I have to be open to the idea that maybe I overvalue my supposed introversion and I could be an "introverted extratim" (this aspect is considered in the upper thread).

How to interpret my behavior... when I'm dealing with my "inner circle" of friends I could be seen as Rodney Mckay-like, but outside this conditions I'm much more like Daniel Jackson (maybe a bit more hiperactive). Usually extremely serious. Ignoring the E7 enneagram of ENTPs and their predisposition to "classical" -MBTI behavior- extraversion, the biggest problem with the ILE possibility is the EP temperament. They're supposed to be outside seekers (maybe in the world of ideas, but not people) and adaptable, something I'm not. I'm counter-adaptable; I find very difficult dealing with unforeseen issues, at least negative ones. I need a time for diggesting them (if I'm able to do so...).

Not sure that all of this automatically implies having an IJ temperament, because my "J" behavior is almost absent. I have very poor reliability, very chaotic, messy behavior. All of this was also reconciliated with the Ti-ILE option, something like "a Ti+Ne ego user with P behavior but as focused in Ti, introverted". But damn, this is only a trick, a sort of made-to-measure answer, how can I trust this? I can't. I need a more objective answer than which I was able to achieve. Obviously I did not choose in those days Ti-ILE only for this, but mainly for the accepting/leading question I developed in the upper thread. But I'm no more confident in it.

PoLR? Apparently Se>Fi. If there's something I can't deal is being forced to do anything I do not want, or agree. My internal demon explodes under these circumstances, and I can become even agressive. Se is usually "pushy". "Do what I say" or "submit to this" method, rule, whatever, only gets that I become proportionally rebellious to the pressure made to me. Convince me or you will get nothing from me.

Another problem with Se is the idea of "act now!" If I had a miriad of different ideas, options, ect, how can I simply choose one without completely considering all of them, with all their implications and depth? I can't. Being forced to act inmediately is like being forced to ignore the ongoing process of thinking and reasoning, whichs "interrupts" the normal flows of my thoughts and cause a sort of mental BSOD...

Fi is also superego, but reading Wikisocion descriptions about Fi role Vs Fi PoLR, it seems that I can deal with Fi better than Se. Usually a very polite person, sometimes as a defense mechanism (Fi role).

Mobilizing? This seems to contradict the upper conclusion, because I would say Fe>Si. DS is supossed to be always welcomed and liked, whereas HA only in small doses. And I like Fe, but only in small doses, whereas I like Si comfort. This issue of DS is a bit strange. Introtims would have extroverted DS, wich would imply that introtims "seeks" extroversion, as represented for dual relationships. The fact is that introverts deal better and are happier with introverts, and vice-versa. "Complementing your dual" sounds well, but does not fit in observed reality. Introverts are energyzed by introversion, therefore introverted people, and the same for extroverts. This is the aspect of socionics I find less convincing.

I offer a personal description of my life that could be useful:

I've been always a curious person. I have good memory so I can point some details about my early chilhood (3 years old). As I live in a very small village, I have a lot of surrounding fields and meadows. I remeber walking on it and observing the ground, the stones, differences in shapes and colours, which one was heavier, etc. I collected some of them; I liked the shinier ones (like a magpie) and more well shaped. I still collect minerals (these which come in small boxes with names).

The same with small animals and plants (although I tend to dislike some bugs). I captured some tadpoles from a near abandoned pool and observed their growth.

My first day of school (kindergarten) I was terrified. I was afraid of stranges, specially elder ones. I cried because I did not want to go...
I was also much less impulsive than other kids, so too many people, or too loud noise was very displeasant. I even remember what picture the teacher make us to coloring... it was filled with empty umbrellas, and I discovered my favorite color: purple!

I loved learning to read, something I made quicker than the other kids.

Few years later I discovered my childhood hero: McGyver. I really loved this guy (I know now how absurd his "science" was, but that's another history) Solving almost any problem in such an intelligent and imaginative (and fake) way! So I decided that I want to be an inventor and make a lot of weird dispositives.

Continuing with the school, I loved Maths and Natural Sciences. I had two professors in different years who teached us more Maths knowledge that it was programmed, like equations one year before the supposed. My father proposed to me a popular riddle about a number of birds, and I solved it by equations. He does not know this (he couldn't study in his childood beyond basic learning, as happened to my mother) so he was really surprised that I was able of solving it.

I really love this, solving game problems. But they have to be logic ones, I still dislike... mmm how to say, visual quizs? I usually see them as if they have to be solved by "cheats" (this could point to my total lack of Ni). These logic problems, the more original solution they require the more I like them. Recently I have been tutoring a boy who does not know still equations. In his Math book there was a game problem of these ones, which could be easily solved by equations. So I was forced to find a creative solution... I really enjoyed it.

Altough I interacted with most of other kids, I did not consider any of them as a friend. I did not feel a link. They were so different: always "thinking" in football (soccer), girls, and any other form of crap. Well I also liked girls, but only as a small part of myself.

Things went better in the institute+high school (same building although different grades). I went to the main city of this region (Seville) so the difference with my village was brutal. Well educated people, still different from me but with more working brain areas than the limbic system...

I knew two guys similar to me. All of us had names starting with 'A': Agustín, Alberto and Antonio (myself). Curious . The first one one a more grounded man and more related to technical areas (he has studied computing); the second man has been the more similar person to me in all my life. He has studied Physics. All of us loved "geeking" and examined options for making crazy stuff. This has been the happier years of all my life. I made also a lot of personal experiment (alone) in my house, some of them really funny and some of them really DANGEROUS. I had several accidents. What I can say. I had so many ideas in my mind and so few opportunities for making them than I was not able to moderate/repress myself despite being aware of the danger. This was almost the unique area were I act like an extroverted person (geeking).

Now I have lost contact whith these guys. Agustín became too technified and grounded for my taste (he was not really a deep thought person). Alberto changed drastically in his years of University. He became too extroverted and with a behavior that few years before would never manifest. I have shared with him some random deep thoughts and personal issues, and originally he resonated with them a lot. I think that he finally adopted a "standarizing" way of facing life. I suspect he could be an E9 INTP.

The last years of the high school (17-18) were not so happy. I start manifesting severe procrastination problems, the more insecure I became about life the more I procrastinated. Well, I have never been a "duty worker" but more or less I did what I needed (what was not much in that epoch, I practically got A's studying the previous one or two days, although I made regularly my homework). I meet a guy which was a bad influence. So secure about himself, so stable life, zero problems, etc. I suspect he was an E3 ENTJ. He also utilized me a lot for his convenience, I mean, we were "apparently" friends when in fact he was benefiting of my deep knowledge. I suspected this a lot but I was unable of deal with it.

These days I was unable to say "NO" to someone who asked for help. Some girl (who I did not physically like) even convinced me for doing once her homework (technical drawing). I feel so bad that I promised myself that this will never happen again...

This have been a constant problem in my life. People asking help, taking profit of my knowledge in several areas, as if I were a sort of "deus ex machina". But they only used me, they really did not appreciate me (several of them, not all of course). It has been difficult, but I have consciously developed evilness? and I do not allow today that anyone manipulates myself.

That guy so secure about himself was in fact a "bad influence" because he manages so well in the world that makes me more insecure about my inability of doing this. The world has always been something "extrange" to myself, as if I live in it but I were not part of it. I like observing/analyzing the world when I can do this freely, but I dislike being forced to participate in it. I have always abhor having to "adapt" myself to the external world, to do things that no one has asked me if I want to (my opinion), only because they're supposed to be done, etc. What if I do not agree wit the task? What if I think it's incorrect? What if I later realize that another option is better? What if I simply do not want to to that shit? Etc. Feeling forced to act in a way makes me feel angry, insecure and finally depressed. External world is very Te-ish, and I'm not.

My years of University have been diverse. I first chose Telecommunications (aka Teleco) as a career. The biggest error in my life. Good grades people were always suggested for this or another technical career. I later moved to Computing. Not because my friend Agustín was also here. I like computers and programming, but not enough as a final job. In my last year of institute (high school) I remeber reading a Visual Basic handbook and making a Tetris. I used a graphical interface, but I do not know anything about DirectX so I used square fixed buttons as pieces for the bricks. The first code I made, completely ununstructured, very difficult for debugging. It was a long time task, but I made it. So I like computers as a tool or a form of entertaintment, but not as a full time work. Too technical and delimited area for a "pure thinker" like me.

So finally I went to Chemistry. Success. I have always loved Sciences, and was my first "heart" option. But as in my country there is no much options for someone like me, except for Chemical Engineering (which I also dislike) I doubted about it. It offers to me a broad thinking field, and I have excelled in some areas (usually the most abstract). And I also have enjoyed a lot finding errors in the teachings that I received, beacuse of the incompetence of some professors . I see them as a source of knowledge, but never as a figure of authority or "truthness". They offer ideas to me which I take as information (raw data) not as a truth that I must simply accept. I make my own evaluations.

A collection of questions and answers about myself:

1. What are 5 key qualities about you, and what is each of their direct opposites?

Intelligent, as opposed to be unable of understanding.
Imaginative, as opposed to be unable of innovate concepts, ideas.
Self-centered, as opposed to live for the non-self (Universe minus me).
Loyal, as opposed to be selfish.
Polite, as opposed to be ill-mannered.

2. Now explain why each of the opposites COULD be you and why it might be GOOD to be that opposite characteristic. Own them even if they are negative traits.

Intelligent. The more you know, the more you're aware about not knowing. A lot of times I'm unable to achieve the knowledge I want, desire or need, depending on the concrete circumstances. Having less understanding would made by life easier.

Imaginative. Sometimes I cannot see beyond the inmediate "temporal knowledge" I have. This made me not doubing constantly about my assumed ideas.

Self-centered. I usually ignore most people or any form of issues which does not concern to me. But I'm aware of people's needs, I'm not a sociopath. I care a lot about my close friends, putting their needs over mine if necessary (the closer to me, the more likely).

Loyal. I'm aware about the concept of reciprocity. I hate not receiving what I offer to others. But sometimes I have the same fault (at least in not too high level), and this could help me in some circumstances, as when I'm in too bad mood for caring about others.

Polite. I like to interact with people with respect, but some people get my nerves. I feel very good insulting them.

3. What would you say to a 5-year-old child if he or she asked you what the purpose of life is?

Life has no purpose by itself. There's no predefined goal in our existence. The best he/she can do is trying to discover what makes he feeling really happy, feeling good with himself and try to achieve it.

4. What type of advice would you give that same child on how to survive in this world?

Knowledge is power.

5. If you were told you only had one year to live from today, and it was 100% guaranteed that you would die exactly 1 year from now, what would you do in that year?

I would try to make a sort of impact in the world considering the limited time I have for it.

6. Why aren't you doing this now?

Lack of opportunities and not enough developed concrete goal.

7. What do you really want in your truest self?

I would like to make a trascendental impact in the world.
I would like to be the God of my concrete world. I would not like to rule over others, I would like to rule over my limited nature and my surroundings, what I consider an extension of myself and transform it, redesign it... according to my concrete ideas in a concrete instant.
Maybe being Skynet?

9. What are your defense mechanisms?

Ineffective: Procrastination. Passive-agreesive to the object of my frustration, usually myself. Impulsive behavior. Blaming against the world.

Effective (when I'm able to do it, not too often unfortunately): Deep focusing. Speeding "my conscious": under stress a lot of chaotic thoughts come to my mind, without control. When I'm able to correctly process information at higher speed than it's coming to my mind, I can retake control of my mind. Disconnecting my feelings about the ideas I'm having help a lot, as happens by seeing issues outside themselves.

10. What are some good habits that are needed for living a healthy adult life?

Healthy body (obviously) and healthy mind. But the last depends on the concrete user. I doubt I can go deeper in this without theorizing in something like Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

11. What are you like in relaxed and non-threatening situations?

Friendly. A fountain of knowledge and interesting ideas. Good advisor.

12. What does your heart feel like it needs and wants?

I miss knowing more people like me in real life. My heart sometimes desires a partner, but my mind knows that I'm not made for such life.

13. What condition is your heart in right now?

Nothing relevant after 12th question.

14. What does your head say it needs and wants?

My head says I need achieving my goals of self-development (I define what I want to be, not world neither people) and focusing is the best way of doing it.

15. What condition is your mind in right now?

Unstable. I've experienced periods of strong stability and really high level of self-awareness. I miss them, but too much external and internal troubles prevent me for achieving them.

16. What does your body say it needs and wants?

It says I should lose weight.

17. What is the condition of your body right now?

Easy for being deduced after question 16.

18. Which do you trust the most in making an important decision between your head, body, and heart? Why?

Head. I'm my mind, and my mind lives in my head.

19. Which do you trust the least in making an important decision between your head, body, and heart? Why?

Body. It's only the container for my mind.

20. What is your predominant fault?

I'm too indecisive.

21. Think of a time when you felt at ease and connected to yourself and others. What did you think about yourself, others, and the entire world during this time?

I thought I was able to do whatever I would like to do. I saw my life as full of potential, and so myself.
I doubt I once have feel trully connected to people, except my closest friends. I saw the guys mentioned in my OP as a sort of another versions of myself. I actually do not know people like them, but I have good friends that are not like me. I have a very good ISFJ friend (yeah, I'm able of appreciating her human qualities).
The world was the substrate for developing my potential.

22. Think of a time when you felt anxious and disconnected from yourself and others. What did you think about yourself, others, and the entire world during this time?

My mind does not work properly and this is basically the source of all my troubles.
People are stupid, sheeps, not aware of themselves or reality, selfish and in general terms, worthless.
The world is a f*ing tyrant, whorse than the OT God.

23. What is an addiction or urge that seems to drive you as almost as if you’re not in control? Almost like an alien force that drives or pushes you down.

None.

24. What things do you feel you cannot do because they might jeopardize your survival?

Not sure. Nothing comes clearly to my mind.

25. What do you need in your life to face your fears?

Achieving a perfect mental state.

26. What is your own personal mission statement?

The kind of person I would like to be: a better version of myself.
The kind of activities I would like to be in: something not done before, like exploring deep space.
My personal mission is: to make a trascendeltal impact in the world.

Finally some pictures for V.I.

Usual "stay away from me" serious faces.



More relaxed:


With a friend:


What type do you think he could be? Sure about NF, INFj I think.


I will specially acknowledge any information about misconceptions, errors, etc I could made in my accepting Vs producing reasoning if I finally a LII instead an ILE, as I suspect.

[Absurd]

I think I've seen you before.

EDIT: Yup, confirmed, you even speak the way someone on here does/did.

[Creepy-ssss]

I think I've seen you before.

EDIT: Yup, confirmed, you even speak the way someone on here does/did.

Who is that user you are speaking about? Maybe I can use him as a reference.

[Jinxi]

Are you Romanian? Italian? Turkish? Middle-Eastern? Where?

[Creepy-ssss]

Spanish

[Amber]

Are you Romanian? Italian? Turkish? Middle-Eastern? Where?

lol

[Absurd]

Who is that user you are speaking about? Maybe I can use him as a reference.

Click

Just checking, no offence.

[Creepy-ssss]

Click

Just checking, no offence.

Which user in that thread, the OP? I suppose you're joking.

[Absurd]

Which user in that forum, the OP? I suppose you're jocking.

I'm not, I also see this 'jocking' and I am willing to run through your wall of text there, just to state not to my own nor your surprise that you're the one jocking here unless you have some damn good translator at hand.

Take it easy though, I can be wrong.

[krieger]

the vibe i get is of an INTp... i'm not going to be like every other idiot in this thread and say it's a conclusive reason for a typing or spin convoluted rationalizations to cover up the fact that it is just that, but this is the fact as it is.

[Creepy-ssss]

the vibe i get is of an INTp... i'm not going to be like every other idiot in this thread and say it's a conclusive reason for a typing or spin convoluted rationalizations to cover up the fact that it is just that, but this is the fact as it is.

Another vote for ILI option then.

[Creepy-ssss]

That happens only when your criterion for validation is quantitative, empirical. You IMO don't talk about principles but about phenomenae - you make some formulation and experiment to verify whether the result matches your model.
You can tell what's certainty by means of logical correctness, this is human, of course, however how can you externally verify certainty, which by definition happens only in human mind? (not to be confused with subjectivity, which is not bound by logical rules, by justification)

Interesting how being so close to my opinion you "value" the issue differently.

Of course I spoke about phenomenae. You recognize that such certainties about principles only exists in human mind, making de facto them not real, in the sense that they do not have more "essence" than what we have put. If they're not real by themselves, they cannot "teach" you what is real or what is not.

These principles you're speaking are not real, because they're man-made constructs.

Asuming you become god-like for a period in which you can witness everything in the whole universe (by this I mean absolutely everything physical and also assume the universe is materialistic and limited in space). What are you going to do, are you going to understand everything? No, you won't, because "everything" does not exist. You will only refine your previous knowledge indefinitely, although this does not necessarily mean your previous knowledge was "imperfect", belief or error, unless the case. A statue may be correctly proportioned without a head. Logical correctness does not depend on how much you know. You should understand, IMO, that all our knowledge is only how we sort in mind what we perceive. It is sufficient if either (one is enough):
- it makes us feel good for whatever reason;
- we simply (want to) believe it;
- makes logical sense to us (or the other way around, no logical contradictions);
- it is confirmed experimentally (or the other way around, no refuting evidence);
- possibly something else I can't figure out.

IMO you still miss the point or haven't noticed the implications of "a subsystem cannot contain as much as information as the system to which it belongs".

You focus in principles that you agree they're man-made as a proof of a certainty in a bigger system (call it Universe, reality or whatever). This is not correct. Take a look to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. The liar paradox cannot be solved by logical rules because, in certain way, it belongs to a bigger system. Even Maths are not perfect.

A simple principle similar to 2+2=4 is enough to understand everything, if that's only what you want to understand in this everything. It was discovered long ago and it's not an approximation. Models are infinite in number and more than one can be correct and rationally indisputable (meaning to have reasons, logical correctness), IMO. You will never find out whether the Earth gravitates around the Sun or the Sun around the Earth (or even they gravitate a 3rd point, etc), unless you decide a reference frame. This decision means defining your model, what you take as a reference is arbitrary, what you conclude based on that should not.

About 2+2=4, see upper. Using words like "discovered" points to the idea that they exists by itself (wrong, IMO), instead "they work because that's how they're defined".

Maths are based in axioms, so they are not discoveries but constructs. Unless you can prove the axioms. Can You? I challenge you

About Earth, irrelevant. Changin your point of reference change your interpretation of the phenomenon, but the phenomenon is still the same. You can use the point of reference which you need and work in it. You will obtain a functional answer, which will work.

And you can obtain a relations between as much points of reference as you will use. So not having "a single superior point of reference" is irrelevant.

And in fact, the real principle won't even tell you that 2+2=4 but anything like this, it can tell you that x+y=z and only z. The rule. We say we discovered "different principles" when we transited from newtonian physics to quantum physics, but in fact we used the same old principles of logic/science to actually do that, rules which are absolute and correct (a priori, of course) otherwise you can't tell whether your understanding increased or decreased. For instance, the simple fact that you "know" that the results of more experiments are more precise than the results of less experiments.

More of the same.

You claim all our models are imperfect. Fine. If you acknowledge that quantum mechanics is truer/better than newtonian mechanics, you are forced to admit that you use a superior, absolute, perfect and universal model which confirms that your knowledge advanced. Now bow to your subconscious Super-Id and move along .

And yes, the contingent knowledge is limited at the moment, place and senses, therefore your dream to find that "universal principle" will always stay like that, merely a dream, even if you could live forever. Did you ever hear ILIs are dreamers, living in their imagination?

Apparently you are unable to work with fuzzy logic or uncertainties .
I see were you're going on. But I do not need an absolute "answer" that proves to me that QM is more correct than Classical Mechanics, for example. I do not need to believe for moving along, trusting is enough for me. I do not believe, I trust acorrding to which model can correctly predict more temporal known phenomena.

Hahah, maybe ILIs live in their imaginations, and maybe I'm even an ILI, but at least I do not believe in not universal rules as if they were, limiting myself. Checkmate .

We, the Ti types make the rules, you do the dirty work. We transcend time, we are infinity! Everything Merry types do is a destination in itself.

Subjective valoration. Irrelevant.

It's not, it concludes necessity.

It is! If you cannot naturally recognize this so evident example of a tautology that amost bite your brain, then...

A tautology is a by definition a proposition that always is true. Saying "All a priori truths are necessarily correct" is like saying "all a priory truths are necessarily true", because a truth, by definition, is true (correct)..

A proposition is not a tautology if a conditional input generates different cases of output; at least one true (contradiction if not) and at least one case of false. Your sentence is always true, therefeore it's a tautology and void (it does not contain useful information).

Circular reasonigs (like tautologies) are more usual in Ti egos (I'm not implying that I'm not one because of this). A good way of not falling in them (or doing it less frequently) is adopting this motto: don't assume... whatever. It helps to open the mind.

But why do you mix the two? Maths is maths and physics is physics. You can't judge one based on another. I think your extrapolation is fallacious, from maths to physics. How can you "don't know" whether your greater purely theoretical system won't work since it's developed from the former, by the same reasoning you use for validation, since the greater system is exactly what actually "works", what was made by you to work?

And I am me and you are you... Interesting that a simple comparison is understood as an extrapolation when in fact your way of thinking is almost "a pure extrapolation" of what it's supposed to be "universal principles".

All already said should be an aswer for this.

My personal opinion is that you have to learn to differentiate between rationalism and empiricism to be able to differentiate between Ti and Te IEs, but that's just me.

I understand the difference between rationalism and empiricism, but I simply do not agree with your apparent black and white conception of and .

You use "relativism" with multiple meanings, while the meaning I used was precise. To understand my feelings about this, I once had as my signature: "equivocation should be declared illegal". I have presented you what kind of relativism I was talking about and my reasoning behind it, and IIRC it was rather related to Te. Of course, there are probably traits that we may call "relativism" which can easily apply to Ti Egos, I don't deny that but neither it necessarily contradicts what I stated. My arguments made my justification to think you're a Te Ego, if you think you're Ti because of something else - that it's not impossible to exist Ti relativists - I am fine with that, just I fail to agree with your inference.

I do not affirm my ego due to this, but deny the "almost perfect" correlation between empiricist= and rationalizer=.

This fragment sounds like confirmation bias, am I guessing correctly that since you found out that quite several people who relate to you are typing themselves Alpha NT while I disagree you concluded you have the probabilistic evidence you're Alpha NT and I may have a problem in understanding, regardless of whether I'm apparently right or wrong? I told you so from the very beginning, if it's true please give me at least several karma points for understanding the snowball effect .

Dream on.

Yeah, a ego must be damned to think accordingly to what is strictly defined to do. No more variable exists...

But IMO your reasoning is in strong contradiction with most of his conclusions.

GOTO previous paragraph.

I have a different understanding in the difference. I find that "quantization of time" imaginary, the poor man's painkiller to discuss Dynamic/Static. Time and change are not even applicable to Static information.

My understanding: Static information deals with persistent attributes, qualities, concepts, while Dynamic with temporary, accidental, circumstantial. For example, if you tell someone "you're an ass", it has two meanings:
- he behaves like an ass;
- he is an ass all the time (like he is a doctor).

In fact I was not thinking in time, but concepts, as you are doing. Static as persistent attributes=well defined concepts. They can change, but they change from an accurate definition to another accurate definition, from a well defined property to another well defined property. This would be the transition between " quantized states" I was speaking. Whereas concepts, being diffuse, with not accurately defined frontiers, evolves "softly".

My insistence in the usage of well defined concepts when dealing with Ni egos is a clue about my -ness that can't be ignored, but it will not be "the last proof" of course. As everything, this also admits alternative interpretations. As well as a I think a Ti can be relativist, a Ni could learn to think and manage accurate concepts, ideas. I suppose Maths and Science could help a lot.

That can even be deduced from the IE descriptions, flawed as they are:
: harmony, pleasure, health, comfort, pleasantness, satisfaction, convenience, quality, cosiness, aesthetics - these things happen, ehn you feel them or when you predict them to happen;
: potential/possibility, the unique and unusual, ability, essence, perception of the whole, uncertainty, the unknown, search, internal makeup, suddenness, chance, being, permanence, impermanence - these things are, they are in things, the potential is in something regarding of whether something happens or not; "search" (I guess it refers to "pattern", "matrix" or "target") taken literally is dynamic, however;
: analysis, law, principle, universal truth, fundamental truth, hierarchy, classification, understanding, order, (legal) right, system, structure, formal logic - these things simply are as defined, as conceived, persistent concepts independent of time, they don't change, they can be only replaced;
: emotions and emotional expression, passion, mood, excitation, exuberance, romanticism, imitation, acting - these things happen whey you feel them, when they affect you or you act;
: development over time (processes), cause and effect, history, planning, forecasting, past/future, rhythm, speed, urgency, fantasy - these things happen in time, obviously;
: authority, influence, desire, political interest/personal investment, competition/struggle, willpower, impact, force, appearance, readiness, tactics, territory - these things are, they exist in objects, except for desire and "competition/struggle", which IMO are improperly used here;
: like/dislike, decency and niceness, morals, good/evil, etiquette, humanism, attraction/repulsion, sympathy, compassion - this things are, same as Ti, just subective, good/bad shit rather than correct/incorrect; attraction/repulsion is arguable, has two meanings, based on views/values (this case) or arousal (which is Fe);
: benefit, efficiency, action, knowledge, method, mechanism, act, work, motion, reason, technology, fact, expediency, economy - happens in time, without doubt, not sure about "reason".

Most of these definitions are "static" in the sense that they're a collection of properties. Although I globally can agree with them, I see them insufficient due to the fact that different functions can generate the same conclusion/behavior. They must be observed "at work" (how, not what) for avoiding this problem.

I actually see you ambiguous, prone to symbolism, "bended meanings" (don't know a term) and probabilities.

Well, I'm more ambiguous than you, sure, but less ambiguous than most s also. I could be a ... or a less rigid ego.

Based on my understanding of the situation, that will be the case anyway. However, you may want to prove that my understanding is incorrect.

You must prove that your understanding is correct, not I than yours is incorrect.

If you're talking about a new typing, then of course, though there's another issue in that post: Krig's definitions are incorrect, if that indicates something is that he mistyped himself. Even more, he had a lot of time to analyze the matter, and if I remember correctly, he even told me "I lack Ne" because when I have some clues, I already draw an approximate conclusion and I'm not "open to possibilities". Returning to your issue, you took him as evidence, you use this criterion of more people who type themselves LII who relate to you. Imagine the next one who will come to this forum and relate to you all, you will be one more person to give testimony he's an LII, the certainty will be even greater.

Like I said, a social snowball effect, you have the occasion to break this vicious circle, but it requires effort, needing to get rid for good of this "vote my type" approach and *really* understand the premises yourself. My recommendation, don't hurry to type yourself now, then merely stick to it. MegaDoomer is yet another user with this LII/ILI dilemma, I think he's still looking for his type. Although he has too this social sensibility for people opinions, he was reasonable, listened and analyzed my points (as others') and I guess he has currently more experience.
(I hope I'm not too personal).

The number of how many people thinks I'm a LII is not very important, only the reasons they're offering. You've seen that I've been receptive to any argumentation and considered it, agreeing and disagreeing with you according to my own reasonings, not things like "everybody says...". The "function at work" argument I'm using has been genuinely mine, or at least I've not read about it in this forum before.

The biggest difference with the way you understand the issue is the fact that you seem to belive in some way in the existence of functions in human mind. I mean, you know as me this is a model of cognitive processes, but you apparently behave as thinking that "they're real in certain way" instead a representation of reality. And as they cannot be tested, that way of facing the problem is illogical, IMO.

An example. Green color. We all know what's this. But really? What's green? Does it exist? What exists is electromagnetic radiation which spreads along the EM spectrum. Inside it there's a small region which we call "visible" and inside it, a smaller one that we know as green. But all of this is very subjective: we arbitrarily designated as "visible" some region of these spectrum according to some concrete properties we observe. There is no real frontier inside the spectrum, "all is the same" so to speak, we arbitrarily designated some areas according to some observable properties they usually have: microwaves, infrared, visible, etc. IRs use to change vibrational states in molecules whereas MWs use to change rotational ones. But some molecules can change rotational states by close to the border IRs, some molecules can change vibrational by close to the border MWs... the frontier is diffuse. Green does not really exist; it's only a convention. The same about functions, with all the consequences of this.


As I can't make a strong decision about my type, not choosing one sounds good. I will take a reflexive period and adopt a more passive (observant) role. I know about MegaDoomer question. Apparently the LII faction won a lot of points after his last type me thread.

I also think we could derail the thread too much with the philosophical debate. Let's accept we have different visions, I doubt I can convince you and the same in opposite direction.

It has been a good debate. Thanks for your participation .

[The Ineffable]

It has been a good debate. Thanks for your participation .

Thank you too!

PS: you're still wrong here and there, esp that "tautology" which is true only if you ignore that there's also contingent truth. Kant, the heavyweight LII, must be twisting in his grave by now

[Creepy-ssss]

Thank you too!

PS: you're still wrong here and there, esp that "tautology" which is true only if you ignore that there's also contingent truth. Kant, the heavyweight LII, must be twisting in his grave by now

Nah, Kant mind was probably ill because he rejected strongly a medical advance like vaccination, which he literally called "inoculation of bestiality" .

Now seriously, a small comment. The quid about that tautology is not if what you were affirming is true or not. According to the rules propositional logic, it is a tautology. But this does not imply being incorrect; it implies being void because a tautology like your sentence does not contain useful information, so to speak. "Green is green" is also correct, but its implications (what you can do with it) are zero. You cannot prove (test) a proposition using a tautology as a tool, or any other form of circular reasoning.

If this implies disagreeing with Kant, then I disagree. Does this make me an ILI (Te instead Ti)? Who knows...

[Creepy-Snaps]

hiperactive

I found a spelling error in reading that post!

Nah seriously, if English is really your 2nd language, that was very easy to follow.

Lastly.... YAYYYYY FOR HAVING ANOTHER DUAL ON 16TYPES!!!!

[woofwoofl]

Lastly.... YAYYYYY FOR HAVING ANOTHER DUAL ON 16TYPES!!!!

Congrats!

I got the impression of LII due to the type interactions on the thread - MSM and The Ineffable are having a really great connection in the thread and it's cool to see

I've tried to read a lot of the posts, and they melted my brain over like only Alpha NT is able to do

[Creepy-ssss]

Congrats!

I got the impression of LII due to the type interactions on the thread - MSM and The Ineffable are having a really great connection in the thread and it's cool to see

I've tried to read a lot of the posts, and they melted my brain over like only Alpha NT is able to do

Take a look to the last posts. It has been an increasing clash between us, what could fit in contrary relationships or could be acually a coincidence.

I'm not sure, labcoat has presented to me Ti in such way... If really some people could work in that way I'm not one of them, and I see it absolutely illogical (from my point of view, at least). Begoner has made also interesting observations.

Maybe I will never be enough sure about my type but hey, that was not my initial objective. Good if I do it but if I don't it's not too relevant. I'm sure about not working in "Labcoat's Ti mode", so I have now a refined, improved vision about how my psyche works. Being it cannonical Augusta's Ti, MBTI's Ti, etc, is interesting but not is not the key, all of this are simply conventions, different intepretations for a supposed same phenomenon. Mutiple POVs for being considered.

[silke]

I'm not sure, labcoat has presented to me Ti in such way... If really some people could work in that way I'm not one of them, and I see it absolutely illogical (from my point of view, at least). Begoner has made also interesting observations.

Labcoat is Ne-LII afaik so his descriptions of LIIs will naturally put more emphasis on workings of Ne, while you sound like a Ti-LII. He is actually not describing Ti alone but rather Ne->Ti flow of information:

in INTjs' minds, ideas and beliefs form more or less spontaneously through an interface with the subject matter (Ne) ... it is only after the belief system is formed that logical implication chains are asserted. (Ti)

I would disagree with him that your "exhaustiveness" of reasoning is indicative of ILI but rather I think it is indicative of the difference between your subtypes. Ti-LIIs who place focus on Ti and Si seem to be given into engaging in more extensive and detailed analyses than Ne-LIIs like labcoat.

[Creepy-ssss]

Labcoat is Ne-LII afaik so his descriptions of LIIs will naturally put more emphasis on workings of Ne, while you sound like a Ti-LII. He is actually not describing Ti alone but rather Ne->Ti flow of information:

Regardless you could be right or not, I think your analysis should not be correct. Being a different subtype should not change the direction of the flow of information. That should happen between mirrors:

Ti leading + Ne creative = Ti -> Ne (LII)
Ne leading + Ti creative = Ne -> Ti (ILE)

If you change the flow of information, you change the "nature" of the same function. Different subtypes would be manifested, AFAIK, as different "key goals", being more focused in one aspect or the other.

I would disagree with him that your "exhaustiveness" of reasoning is indicative of ILI but rather I think it is indicative of the difference between your subtypes. Ti-LIIs who place focus on Ti and Si seem to be given into engaging in more extensive and detailed analyses than Ne-LIIs like labcoat.

This could be true, although the "exhaustiveness" was not the key of his post, IMO. He presented qualitive, not only quantitative, differences between what should be a NiTe way of reasoning and TiNe.

I'm considering if those qualitative differences could be alternatively interpreted or not.

[krieger]

Labcoat is Ne-LII afaik so his descriptions of LIIs will naturally put more emphasis on workings of Ne, while you sound like a Ti-LII. He is actually not describing Ti alone but rather Ne->Ti flow of information:



I would disagree with him that your "exhaustiveness" of reasoning is indicative of ILI but rather I think it is indicative of the difference between your subtypes. Ti-LIIs who place focus on Ti and Si seem to be given into engaging in more extensive and detailed analyses than Ne-LIIs like labcoat.

there are more people calling my a Ti subtype than an Ne subtype, and there are plenty of people who associate Ne with the more possibility embracing, exhaustive way of reasoning and Ti with the more quickly concluding, idiosyncratic way.

your post is on multiple levels a non-sequitur and a red herring.

[woofwoofl]

Take a look to the last posts. It has been an increasing clash between us, what could fit in contrary relationships or could be acually a coincidence.

The Ineffable is ILE, which means, if you're LII, then the two of you value the same functions in the Ego, Super-Id, Super-ego, and Id blocks, but interpret them in wildly different ways due to one person's Accepting functions being the other person's Producing functions (and vice-versa)...

You also made a comment about him being more than you, which stuck in my mind a lot - his cognitive style (and mine, for that matter) is Causal-Determinist, and due to its directness and straightforwardness, it can make a person come off more "T" or "J" than they should... if you were LII, yours would be Holographical-Panoramic, which has the most openness and the most breathing room of them all - such differing ways to interpret such similar perspectives can be absolutely frustrating...

Whatever specific NT Intratim you are, you certainly have a good command of your Id functions

[Creepy-ssss]

The Ineffable is ILE, which means, if you're LII, then the two of you value the same functions in the Ego, Super-Id, Super-ego, and Id blocks, but interpret them in wildly different ways due to one person's Accepting functions being the other person's Producing functions (and vice-versa)...

Well, you're right, Ti leading and accepting should be different in essence despite the global result would be similar. It's not the same "understanding" reality through Ti than deducing "logical rules" (internal consistency) from it.

But this still does not explain accularety our big disagreement, which is more in method than in conclusion. For example, he tends to seek for a single valid solution whereas I consider the existence of multiple valid solutions. This is better explained, IMO, by the negative (divergent thinking) Vs positive (convergent thinking), which correspond to Holographical-Panoramic (LII, etc) and Dialectical-Algorithmic (ILI, etc) cognititions; Causal-Determinist (ILE, etc) and Vortical (LIE, etc) cognitions. This fits in him being ILE (CD) and me LII or ILI (HP or DA).

You also made a comment about him being more than you, which stuck in my mind a lot - his cognitive style (and mine, for that matter) is Causal-Determinist, and due to its directness and straightforwardness, it can make a person come off more "T" or "J" than they should... if you were LII, yours would be Holographical-Panoramic, which has the most openness and the most breathing room of them all - such differing ways to interpret such similar perspectives can be absolutely frustrating...

Your analysis seems to be a bit conditioned by your positive opinion of HP cognition . The fact that HP "sees" from diferent point of views/angles does not make it automatically more "divergent" than DA, I mean, more capable of generating multiple solutions.

What you have probably observed in my way of reasoning is the big inclination for considering multiple options. But this is equally valid for HP or DA. The difference should not be how many options could be achieved, but HOW they're achieved.

Whatever specific NT Intratim you are, you certainly have a good command of your Id functions

Thanks. Assuming this is true, this could help for determining my subtype once I become reasonably confident about my type. But that's another question.

I'll comment about cognitive styles, which one I think better represents me and why.

[Creepy-ssss]

I found a spelling error in reading that post!

Lastly.... YAYYYYY FOR HAVING ANOTHER DUAL ON 16TYPES!!!!

... or conflictor...

[Aleksei]

I'd say LII > ILE, though on JCF:

I do not nor cannot ignore data (objective data which has proven some connection with facts) that disagree with me only for feeling comfortable. But I do not feel comfortable with contradictions, feeling them as a insufficient knowledge or concept misunderstanding. While I'm not able to solve them I do not feel that the task of "understanding" is complete.

This actually sounds like extroversion > Ti, so I'd go with ENTP over INTP.

5w6 sounds very much right.

[Creepy-ssss]

I'd say LII > ILE, though on JCF:

This actually sounds like extroversion > Ti, so I'd go with ENTP over INTP.

5w6 sounds very much right.

The ILE option was discarded very early in this thread, and your argumentation about my LIIness is superfluous compared with what it has been used here.

[InvisibleJim]

I have for a long time believed MensSuperMateriam to be an LII-Ne type. He has a natural logical inquisitiveness and need for categorisation.

The reason for this is that the he lacks what someone often described as the 'loosey goosey' appreciation of the ILI socionics type.

However, he does have a very good skill for relating his ideas in the extroverted mode and seeking explicit solutions with his environment rather than observing his internal logical compass. This would possibly suggest that he could be an ILE type.

Considering that the need for categorisation comes from Si-Ne in the Ego-Super-id and the need for dynamic understanding comes from an Se-Ni preference in the Ego-Super-id I have decided that it may be the case that a wildcard suggestion is ESTJ, Te-Si.

An honourable and worthy type for any individual if ever there was one. That is all!

Of course this is all based upon my frames of reference, as I say, the problem with typology.

[tcaudilllg]

Mens are you schedule obsessed?

If not, you are not an ILI.

[Creepy-ssss]

Mens are you schedule obsessed?

If not, you are not an ILI.

Obsession w/ schedules = PoLR

It depends on the meaning of "obsessed". Ashton is right for the usual interpretation of the concept and presumably Tcaud was refering to the same idea, but there are alternatives.

"Obsession" would usually be what worries a user due to incompetence for dealing with, combined with disliking. In that case, we became obsessed with those things which are represented by PoLR. Schedule obsessed = Ni PoLR.

"Obsession" could also be something you focus very much because you see it as a big aspect of reality and you enjoy it. The user will try to apply "the correct way" for this aspect, improving it whenever it is observed as not working properly, because "I know better"... In this case, it's represented by leading function. Schedule obsessed = Ni leading. But as the user is always confident in his/her skills with leading, this "obsession" is always much softer than the former except in very unbalanced users. For most cases Ashton is right.

I'm not obsessed with schedules.

[InvisibleJim]

Ni leads may 'appear' routine obsessed because they fall into patterns readily. But there is a marked difference between setting a natural routine and obsessively scheduling everything.

[Creepy-ssss]

Wow ESTJ, I never imagined you would present such case. I have to disagree for multiple reasons.

I have for a long time believed MensSuperMateriam to be an LII-Ne type. He has a natural logical inquisitiveness and need for categorisation.

Guilty.

The reason for this is that the he lacks what someone often described as the 'loosey goosey' appreciation of the ILI socionics type.

I'm not sure of understanding that expression (maybe a popular proverb?). Nonnative speaker here.

However, he does have a very good skill for relating his ideas in the extroverted mode and seeking explicit solutions with his environment rather than observing his internal logical compass. This would possibly suggest that he could be an ILE type.

Considering that the need for categorisation comes from Si-Ne in the Ego-Super-id and the need for dynamic understanding comes from an Se-Ni preference in the Ego-Super-id I have decided that it may be the case that a wildcard suggestion is ESTJ, Te-Si.

I'll answer to this in probabilistic terms. It's not possible to determine even a single sociotype with complete accuracy. We have different interpretations for these phenomenons (cognitive processes, functions), different results for every of them (external behavior and internal thoughts), depending on the individual, etc. And the big question, how much of this stuff is real and in fact represents what happens in brains.

So no type could be completely discarded, neither no type could be completely attributed for any individual. We will always have contradictions that could be "solved" by alternative methods... All we can have is make a sort of "calculus" which consider every aspect with its associated relative weight. The result will point towards the direction of one type over the rest.

The are much variability in the question of extroversion, more if we consider those "introverted extratims" and "extroverted intratims". But "swapping" external attitudes is very unlikely if the average type is too polarized in this scale. ILEs (as happens with LIEs) are barely polarized. We have some of them quite socials and some of them who are happy with a more individualistic and isolated life. And it's common to observe both "moments" in the same individuals. But LSEs are usually much more "extroverted". They could be calm, quiet, but I've never seen any of them really introvertizing.

I am by all effects very introverted, regardless I'm intratim or not. And as something natural, something that "I need" (nature), not a result of shyness or similar (nurture). As this an observable phenomenon (experimental proof, if you want) it cannot be negated. E5+LSE???? I would say "impossible".

The fact that I try to refer all knowledge/ideas to the "ultimate judge" which is external reality does not make me an extratim. Extratims will not only use the world as a source of knowledge, they will interact with it much more than the average introverted. Not my case, definitely (introverted). It could be considered (at most) a proof that I'm not a weak Te user, therefore Te ego or id. Which of them? I would have said Te id until Labcoat presented his argument: I have two tools which I recognize as important, useful and necessary. But what happens when instead of working together we have a direct confrontation? What happens when I have to "take side"? Te wins as the ultimate source of truth. The discussion with Ineffable is a good example.

It cannot be denied that I'm "Ti perfectionist" but it would fit in the fact that I'm 5w6 instead the more common 5w4 for ILIs. All fives search for truth, but 5w4s introspect more whereas 5w6s need a reliable source of truth, which implies a "reliable, more depured method". As LIIs tend to be 5w6, this makes me more similar to them. Maybe something like Normalizing ILI, if we consider DCNH subtypes.

Well nothing said about strong Te is an argument against LSE. But if we add to the fact that I'm strongly introverted (E5) my core values and life goals, which are more "observable, experimental proofs" then the LSE option clearly vanishes. Hardly delta user, hardly a pragmatist (ST club). The OP expresses my particular case. I'm by no way speaking about something like intelligence, NTR. But hardly any ST will spend life "thinking so much and doing very little in the tangible world" as I do, because this does not correspond with their self-image and life goals. These things emerges from the core of nature, and IMO it's clear that my core does not fit in the ST club. Nither I share the "conservatism/inmovilism/what you want to call it/" of deltas. Innovation is my surname .

I think the most likely option should belong to the NT club, because of these "life goals" stuff and because inside a club, the types are strong and weak in the same functions.

Now theoretical argumentation. Mainstream Socionics:

You have considered SiNe as need of categorization and NiSe as need of dynamic understanding. It seems to be not correct. True that they're complementary and valued/devalued simultaneously. But despite of inside there pairs some aspects are shared, other aspects are shared by NiSi and NeSe. The need of a categorization should be a static aspect, NeSe are static whereas SiNi are dynamic. If you still consider me as a static user, then you have to discard LSE. Te and Si are both dynamic according to Socionics. Static/dynamic is a property of every whole block, not functions isolated.

LSE=Ni PoLR. Definitely not my case. No way. Fe PoLR is the most likely situation.

LSE=Te leading. Again, I focus in the world as "the last word for what is true". But altough I'm consicious about effcience and I know how to improve, I do not pay too much attention in it as LIEs and LSEs do, everyone in its particular style. It is important, but secondary for me. I'll try to change what it's not working properly for achieving my concrete/general goal, but it's always subordinated to the relevance, trascendence, of the goal itself.

LSE=Te leading=Ti ignoring. Strong but the least confortable function inside the ID because it represent the opposite attitude of leading. Considering my focus in Ti, demostrative is much more likely for Ti as an id function.

Since I've refined my understanding of Se, I would say that I'm weak in it but probably valuer. Not delta then, but I'll leave this question still in the air.

Heretic Socionics:

LSEs are aristocratic, I'm democratic by all effects.
I consider myself constructivist, whereas LSEs are emotivists.

An honourable and worthy type for any individual if ever there was one. That is all!

Of course.

Of course this is all based upon my frames of reference, as I say, the problem with typology.

As happens to everyone.

[Nico1e]

I've been for a while in what some users have called JCF (jungian cognitive function, a sort of MBTI function-focused descendant).

Pardon, totally off-topic. Thanks for mentioning the letters 'JCF' again. I keep trying to remember those letters because I keep calling it MBTI when what I'm trying to say is Jungian Cognitive Functions. Anyway, back to topic. JCF, JCF, JCF, don't let me forget.