What is my type? (Quadra)

[Octet]

Hello,
I'm new on this forum and I'd like to request the help of users that have experience in VI and socionics in general.
Having stumbled upon socionics theory a few weeks ago, I've been reading every information I could find on the subject.
Unfortunately I'm still having trouble deciding my type and a second opinion would be much appreciated. I've already made a few guesses, but I am aware that it is difficult to remain objective with self-typings and so I will not list them here.

First of all, I would like you to identify my quadra. the reason for this is that if a consensus is reached about my quadra, it will be easy to identify my type using Temperaments.
If you have any additional questions feel free to ask.

Here are my pictures:

The first one is posed (obviously)

In the second one I tried to maintain a neutral face...

In the last ones I wasn't expecting to be photographed.

Have fun and thank you for your time!
EDIT: Pictures removed

[Galen]

Welcome!

You look Fe/Ti valuing, so Alpha or Beta. I'm getting a rough idea of what you may be, but if you have any more pics of your face in larger resolution that'd be much appreciated.

[woofwoofl]

I see Introversion, I think I see valuing (though I'm not absolutely solid here) - this would leave EII and SEI, and wow at this point I noticed I only included types with F in the Ego block

I like EII, I get Causal-Determinist cognitive style in your posts pretty strong, and you have similar eyes and a similar smile to a lot of Delta NFs I've seen...

[Octet]

I see Introversion, I think I see valuing (though I'm not absolutely solid here) - this would leave EII and SEI, and wow at this point I noticed I only included types with F in the Ego block

I like EII, I get Causal-Determinist cognitive style in your posts pretty strong, and you have similar eyes and a similar smile to a lot of Delta NFs I've seen...

Hmm... Interesting, I've never seen myself as a NF; I can relate to certain of the lower functions of the EII, but I highly doubt I have Fi as a base function. However, I would not be surprised if people, who didn't know me well ended up typing me as a EII.

English is not my native language and as a result my vocabulary is rather limited, I'm still learning it in high school and have not yet grasped all the nuances of this language, so I don't know if my writing in french would reflect another cognitive style.

If you had to choose between LIE, ILI and LII for my type what would it be?

[krieger]

If you had to choose between LIE, ILI and LII for my type what would it be?

of those it's INTj.

you look very similar to user Logos. writing style is almost stereotypically INTj.

preliminary guess, to be taken for for what it's worth.

[Absurd]

I get Causal-Determinist cognitive style in your posts pretty strong

I don't see it, where do you see it ?

[The Ineffable]

of those it's INTj.

you look very similar to user Logos. writing style is almost stereotypically INTj.

preliminary guess, to be taken for for what it's worth.

This.

[krieger]

This.

congrats on the successful die roll.

[The Ineffable]

congrats on the successful die roll.

I was in absolute control of the situation, as usual.

[Octet]

of those it's INTj.

you look very similar to user Logos. writing style is almost stereotypically INTj.

preliminary guess, to be taken for for what it's worth.

I guess that this comes from the fact that I've try to convey my thoughts in the most unambiguous way; If I were to write my thought process exactly, it would end up in a unreadable mess and I usually take a lot of time to write something clear enough.

I can relate to LII in many ways, but the problem is that the description of Ti as a demonstrative function is much more accurate for me than of Ti as a leading one:
"The individual often criticizes others' views from a logical standpoint, picking apart statements and postulates and showing that they are logically flawed. However, he does not choose to do this excessively and does not expect that reality can be accurately expressed in a neat logical systematic anyway."
For example, I can understand the logic within the cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am) from Descartes, but even if it is logical I am not convinced by it personally. Moreover, I find doing Math just for sake of it boring, if there is no connection to a real phenomena I see it as an empty exercise. Probabilities are very interesting, because I can actually imagine myself winning money by using the theory.
My sister,an EII, who may be one the persons who knows me the best, clearly states that I'm not an LII and that ILI description fits me more, so I'm bit a lost between all the possibilities...


But what would be the main differences between ILIs and LIIs?

[Nico1e]

Perhaps, tell us something you have a very strong opinion about. You have an opinion about something, and this opinion is so strong, nobody can tell you that you're wrong about it. You don't even need to read books to learn about this subject, because you already know, although you enjoy reading about it anyway, and you are always learning about it.

I can give an example for myself. I have strong opinions about anything that people do to harm someone's body. It can be the body of a child, or an adult. It can be something you do to yourself out of ignorance, or it can be something that somebody else does to you by force, to harm your body. I am always looking for knowledge to help stop myself and other people from doing these harmful things. I could go into detail, but this is your thread, and I'm just giving an example so you will have an idea what I mean.

So, what are your strongest opinions about?

[Octet]

Perhaps, tell us something you have a very strong opinion about. You have an opinion about something, and this opinion is so strong, nobody can tell you that you're wrong about it. You don't even need to read books to learn about this subject, because you already know, although you enjoy reading about it anyway, and you are always learning about it.

I can give an example for myself. I have strong opinions about anything that people do to harm someone's body. It can be the body of a child, or an adult. It can be something you do to yourself out of ignorance, or it can be something that somebody else does to you by force, to harm your body. I am always looking for knowledge to help stop myself and other people from doing these harmful things. I could go into detail, but this is your thread, and I'm just giving an example so you will have an idea what I mean.

So, what are your strongest opinions about?

Asked like I can't really think of something that satisfies me completely, but let me think about it for a while and I may come up with something...
Right now, I'm inclined to think that there is no absolute truth and that every belief is relative, but this seems a bit biased; I may give a better answer in a day or two...

[The Ineffable]

For example, I can understand the logic within the cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am) from Descartes, but even if it is logical I am not convinced by it personally. Moreover, I find doing Math just for sake of it boring, if there is no connection to a real phenomena I see it as an empty exercise. Probabilities are very interesting, because I can actually imagine myself winning money by using the theory.?

Then why not ILE? In fact why do you exclude ILE in the first place?

But what would be the main differences between ILIs and LIIs?

I think that became a cursed question and my impression is that people are tired of it - I am tired of it, at least. I recently expressed my opinion in detail along this thread.

[krieger]

I can relate to LII in many ways, but the problem is that the description of Ti as a demonstrative function is much more accurate for me than of Ti as a leading one:
"The individual often criticizes others' views from a logical standpoint, picking apart statements and postulates and showing that they are logically flawed. However, he does not choose to do this excessively and does not expect that reality can be accurately expressed in a neat logical systematic anyway."

INTjs see Ti in light of Ne, so a lot of this goes a long way towards describing what their attitude to logic is like. they're always re-tooling and changing systems so it's not like they view these as set in stone.

For example, I can understand the logic within the cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am) from Descartes, but even if it is logical I am not convinced by it personally.

you think you don't exist?

Moreover, I find doing Math just for sake of it boring, if there is no connection to a real phenomena I see it as an empty exercise.

a pretty common sentiment. as an INTj i feel largely the same way. not incompatible with being one at all.

Probabilities are very interesting, because I can actually imagine myself winning money by using the theory.

a while ago we had a bunch of gamma NTs strongly resisting the notion that their Te has anything to do with money...

My sister,an EII, who may be one the persons who knows me the best, clearly states that I'm not an LII and that ILI description fits me more, so I'm bit a lost between all the possibilities...

depends on her reasons for thinking this. on its own this isn't much help.

[Octet]

Then why not ILE? In fact why do you exclude ILE in the first place?

This is mainly due to the fact that the EP temperament doesn't really fit me, but also because I tend to see ILE as some sort of "inventors" who are always generating new ideas and sharing them with others. (But then again I might be wrong about this concept of ILEs.) I have a friend, whose type almost certainly is ILE, who is constantly imagining new devices (self-heating clothing among the things I can remember). While I do find his ideas interesting, I always question their real use and wouldn't be able to imagine the same things. Please tell me if this image of ILE is unfounded...

Another thing I've noticed is that I can relate to the super-ego functions descriptions from many NTs, I don't know if this is common or not.

I think that became a cursed question and my impression is that people are tired of it - I am tired of it, at least. I recently expressed my opinion in detail along this thread.

Thanks for the link, I realize that it must be a very frequent question, this thread seems to cover a lot troubles that I also have with identifying my type.

INTjs see Ti in light of Ne, so a lot of this goes a long way towards describing what their attitude to logic is like. they're always re-tooling and changing systems so it's not like they view these as set in stone.



you think you don't exist?



a pretty common sentiment. as an INTj i feel largely the same way. not incompatible with being one at all.



a while ago we had a bunch of gamma NTs strongly resisting the notion that their Te has anything to do with money...



depends on her reasons for thinking this. on its own this isn't much help.

This gave me a lot to think about and changed my views on LIIs, I'll retreat in my mind for a while and see if I can stop the cacophony that is taking place there.

Concerning Descartes, I do believe I exist but I don't find that he proves anything with his cogito; I can his follow his thought process and explain it, but something that I cannot really describe prevents me from being totally convinced by it.

[woofwoofl]

I don't see it, where do you see it ?

Process>Result is pretty blatant to me - his end goal is to identify his type, but his methods of getting there are pretty strict and structured in a linear manner:

1) - have lots of people do their best to identify his quadra
2) - see if a strong enough consensus is reached (those two steps sound pretty valuing to me - not enough to settle things maybe, but it's there regardless)
3) - get a type from that quadra based on temperaments

I don't see the type of uncertainty or wiggle room, for lack of better terms, I see in DA - there isn't much room to breathe here


I really like EII for Octet so far, you might have another Dual

[woofwoofl]

Hmm... Interesting, I've never seen myself as a NF; I can relate to certain of the lower functions of the EII, but I highly doubt I have Fi as a base function. However, I would not be surprised if people, who didn't know me well ended up typing me as a EII.

I couldn't figure out my type for a while either - I knew I was from Gamma, and an Extravert, and that I thought about things a lot... LIE didn't seem right because a lot of pieces didn't fit together, and SEE didn't seem right because my brain works a lot and all, and I was never too outwardly emotional - how could I possibly be F>T?

After the votes for SEE came pouring in, I looked at the description and noticed that it's something that fits right with me

Ethical =/= idiot

SEE =/= Homer Simpson

(alright, he might be one of us, but certainly not all of us)

English is not my native language and as a result my vocabulary is rather limited, I'm still learning it in high school and have not yet grasped all the nuances of this language, so I don't know if my writing in french would reflect another cognitive style.

It isn't in the specific vocabulary you chose - it's more of a way that you reason through things (I went over this in more detail in my above post)

If you had to choose between LIE, ILI and LII for my type what would it be?

The wrong one

[Absurd]

you might have another Dual

The more the better.

[silke]

But what would be the main differences between ILIs and LIIs?

the Te-Ti differences may be difficult to agree on - a few posters on this forum use different conceptual models of these functions and come to disagree on the Te/Ti assignments

you can take a look at the mobilizing IEs aka hidden agendas - ILIs use introverted ethics Fi while LIIs use introverted sensing Si and likewise the dual-seeking functions are different (Se vs Fe) - which ones can you relate to the most?

[Octet]

Process>Result is pretty blatant to me - his end goal is to identify his type, but his methods of getting there are pretty strict and structured in a linear manner:

1) - have lots of people do their best to identify his quadra
2) - see if a strong enough consensus is reached (those two steps sound pretty valuing to me - not enough to settle things maybe, but it's there regardless)
3) - get a type from that quadra based on temperaments

I don't see the type of uncertainty or wiggle room, for lack of better terms, I see in DA - there isn't much room to breathe here


I really like EII for Octet so far, you might have another Dual

Cognitive styles may be a good clue to identify one's type, but at the same time I also believe that the cognitive style would be more faithfully represented with a larger sample of posts. From how I see it, it is more of a trend thing than a general rule.

I don't know if this is relevant or not, but multiple choice questions in exams are usually a pain to me, even more so if they are written ambiguously. I start to ask myself: "what if they meant that?" "In certain cases it is true, but not in all of them" "maybe I got everything wrong from the start, I need to recheck my answers"... It's even worse if they subtract points for wrong answers, In the end I often get them right but with a lot of self-doubt.

I've just read EIIs domain page and it doesn't feel at all like me, "being connected too much to people" just describes the opposite of what I am.

I couldn't figure out my type for a while either - I knew I was from Gamma, and an Extravert, and that I thought about things a lot... LIE didn't seem right because a lot of pieces didn't fit together, and SEE didn't seem right because my brain works a lot and all, and I was never too outwardly emotional - how could I possibly be F>T?

After the votes for SEE came pouring in, I looked at the description and noticed that it's something that fits right with me

Ethical =/= idiot

SEE =/= Homer Simpson

(alright, he might be one of us, but certainly not all of us)

I've never considered ethical types as idiots, they are able to handle people very well, and it is a skill that is very often much more useful in today's world than cold logic. One of the things that I find particularly appealing in socionics over MBTI is that instead of feeling/thinking you have ethics/logic; I noticed that in MBTI a lot of ethical types ended up being labelled as Thinkers, because they valued rationality and didn't want to be seen as illogical. I guess the issue is not whether you think or not but more about what subject occupies your mind. An ethical type, if I am not wrong, would be more concerned with topics involving people in some way: relationships, friends, etc. While I do spend a lot of time in my mind, it is rarely related to people and more about concepts and ideas...

It isn't in the specific vocabulary you chose - it's more of a way that you reason through things (I went over this in more detail in my above post)

Perhaps, I didn't express myself well here, but it's more as if I had a mental barrier that prevented language from flowing freely. When I read my posts, I have the impression that they lack a "soul"; they sound a bit dry.

the Te-Ti differences may be difficult to agree on - a few posters on this forum use different conceptual models of these functions and come to disagree on the Te/Ti assignments

you can take a look at the mobilizing IEs aka hidden agendas - ILIs use introverted ethics Fi while LIIs use introverted sensing Si and likewise the dual-seeking functions are different (Se vs Fe) - which ones can you relate to the most?

Before I knew the existence of this forum I was almost convinced I was an ILI; the description of wikisocion described me surprisingly well and pretty much solved my problem of being an INTX in the MBTI system. Hungry for information about my possible type, I quickly found my way in this site. During my searches here I noticed some threads implying that ILIs were overrepresented and that many self claimed ILIs were actually wrong about their type. This made me feel unsure about being an ILI and I tried to find the best ways of identifying my type objectively. VI sounded like a good option: I couldn't influence it directly, however I saw it as an unreliable method to identify type only and felt it was more suited for quadra identification. If the majority of users saw me as a non-Gamma, I would have considered another type... It's a what's happening now and I don't know what to decide...
At least I'm almost certain that I am an Intuitive type... well maybe

[The Ineffable]

Based on these pictures alone: IEI.

[woofwoofl]

Cognitive styles may be a good clue to identify one's type, but at the same time I also believe that the cognitive style would be more faithfully represented with a larger sample of posts. From how I see it, it is more of a trend thing than a general rule.

I'd go with that in more ambiguous cases, but your CD hit me like a ton of bricks!

I don't know if this is relevant or not, but multiple choice questions in exams are usually a pain to me, even more so if they are written ambiguously. I start to ask myself: "what if they meant that?" "In certain cases it is true, but not in all of them" "maybe I got everything wrong from the start, I need to recheck my answers"... It's even worse if they subtract points for wrong answers, In the end I often get them right but with a lot of self-doubt.

I hate ambiguity when it clogs things up!

I won't say that it's not type related - I get a faint whiff of > from that... nothing I'd hinge everything on, but I'll throw it on the pile

I've just read EIIs domain page and it doesn't feel at all like me, "being connected too much to people" just describes the opposite of what I am.

...and speaking of ambiguity

The domain pages are good to have (as an SEE, I wouldn't know first-hand - we don't have a page ), but that quote has a lot of wiggle room in it - there's a lot of different ways to be connected to people, and I don't know if the "too much" is a qualitative thing or a quantitative thing...

I've never considered ethical types as idiots, they are able to handle people very well, and it is a skill that is very often much more useful in today's world than cold logic. One of the things that I find particularly appealing in socionics over MBTI is that instead of feeling/thinking you have ethics/logic; I noticed that in MBTI a lot of ethical types ended up being labelled as Thinkers, because they valued rationality and didn't want to be seen as illogical. I guess the issue is not whether you think or not but more about what subject occupies your mind. An ethical type, if I am not wrong, would be more concerned with topics involving people in some way: relationships, friends, etc. While I do spend a lot of time in my mind, it is rarely related to people and more about concepts and ideas...

A big "yes" to the bolded in particular - you're gonna do alright here I think!

I think about stuff too a lot - types, though, are most apparent when social situations happen, and it would be very difficult to observe these interactions while being a first-hand participant in them without muddying the waters...

Perhaps, I didn't express myself well here, but it's more as if I had a mental barrier that prevented language from flowing freely. When I read my posts, I have the impression that they lack a "soul"; they sound a bit dry.

I get hints of and valuing from this (once again, nothing to hinge everything on, but I'll throw it in the pile nonetheless)

Raw text and language can be a tricky thing for people on the receiving end and on the creating end (especially if this isn't your first language - you're doing really good, by the way ) - nonverbal nuances get lost, and those account for 93% of communication when it comes to Ethical related issues...

Before I knew the existence of this forum I was almost convinced I was an ILI; the description of wikisocion described me surprisingly well and pretty much solved my problem of being an INTX in the MBTI system. Hungry for information about my possible type, I quickly found my way in this site. During my searches here I noticed some threads implying that ILIs were overrepresented and that many self claimed ILIs were actually wrong about their type. This made me feel unsure about being an ILI and I tried to find the best ways of identifying my type objectively. VI sounded like a good option: I couldn't influence it directly, however I saw it as an unreliable method to identify type only and felt it was more suited for quadra identification. If the majority of users saw me as a non-Gamma, I would have considered another type... It's a what's happening now and I don't know what to decide...
At least I'm almost certain that I am an Intuitive type... well maybe

A lot of IEIs mistype as ILIs (it's a common thing to do) - you VI like an INF of some sort, and since types take hold while in social settings, I'm going with this pic:



This pic is just screaming EII at me, especially in the eyes and in that particular smile

[Trevor]

This pic is just screaming EII at me, especially in the eyes and in that particular smile

No, it's screaming LSEESEIEIILIIEESILE.

[Trevor]

i.e. it can mean anything, imo

[Octet]

Woofwoofl, you raise many interesting points in your post, Unfortunately due to a lack of time I cannot bring you a complete answer right now; this quest for the self has been depriving me of my precious sleep hours and as I have an important exam at the end of the week I'll rather answer you with more time in my hands.

As a side note, I would like to tell you that I strongly identify with the type 5 from the enneagram. It really describes my weaknesses in a way that is both stressful and annoying. I'm still unsure about my wing, but 4 seems more appropriate. That would make me a 5w4 sp.

And before you say that I am a 9, who mistyped himself consider that nothing in this page lead into thinking I was a 9.

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/me...isid/5and9.asp

I could still be a 6 though, but I don't think it is very likely.

PS: would a description of myself as a child be of any use in identifying my type?

[Octet]

I'd go with that in more ambiguous cases, but your CD hit me like a ton of bricks!

Cognitive styles are firstly an internal process and while they can be apparent through direct speech, I don't think writing would represents it very faithfully. The process of writing requires an externalisation of the contents of the mind, which adapts the writing style to the context and circumstances present. I'm inclined to think that everyone is capable of mimicking cognitive styles without too much effort. As an example take argumentative essays, they're loaded with Cognitive-Determinism artifices, but we can largely assume that any average student can produce an acceptable one without having necessarily a CD brain. I can write somewhat good argumentative essays but I always felt they were too rigid and hindered capacity of expression. Furthermore, I really don't have a deterministic view of the universe.

If you want to take into account the dichotomies here are my guesses:
I am almost sure about being a Negativist, not so sure about being Evolutionary and having no idea for Static/Dynamic...

The domain pages are good to have (as an SEE, I wouldn't know first-hand - we don't have a page ), but that quote has a lot of wiggle room in it - there's a lot of different ways to be connected to people, and I don't know if the "too much" is a qualitative thing or a quantitative thing...

It is neither a qualitative nor a quantitative thing, actually EIIs see it as a problem, they're so receptive of others emotions and feelings that they cannot achieve peace of mind if people they hold dear are distressed. Similarly, much of their self worth comes from other people; in short they have great empathy. While I can sometimes figure out how people feel, it is usually because I can work the reasons explaining their emotional state logically; there's no connection involved and I don't feel their emotions, my internal state stays the same. I also have the tendency to keep everyone at a distance and of the few people that I really care, I have trouble in showing clear signs of affection. I doubt EIIs would have problems in this area.

Raw text and language can be a tricky thing for people on the receiving end and on the creating end (especially if this isn't your first language - you're doing really good, by the way ) - nonverbal nuances get lost, and those account for 93% of communication when it comes to Ethical related issues...

Exactly, just one more reason showing that VI really is more effective with real life behaviours and videos and that photos, by not showing these non verbal clues, are largely unreliable for visual identification. Many times a photo gives a false image of someone and a video interview can reveal unexpected behaviours.

A lot of IEIs mistype as ILIs (it's a common thing to do) - you VI like an INF of some sort, and since types take hold while in social settings, I'm going with this pic:



This pic is just screaming EII at me, especially in the eyes and in that particular smile

I realize now that this image wasn't a very good choice, I don't know if it is the poor timing of the shutter or something else, but it froze my expression into an expression that isn't really representative of how I am under most circumstances.