Deception in Self-Typings

[Creepy-Snaps]

Hello, everyone. It's MD. And yes, I'd like to talk about self-typings. I know many of you consider me to be a type-switcher, which actually makes me the best person to talk about this topic. As frustrating as it can be to see someone change types constantly, I'm more amazed at how easily someone will change their logic/understanding of socionics to reconcile a person's self-typing.

I would like to dispel the myth that, if you act like your true self, in the long run, your true type will come out. This is not true. Ananke and several others told me this roughly 8 months ago, and I used to believe this strongly, almost made a forum thread devoted to this idea, but I now believe this to be false. Over the past year, I have acted as best as I could just being myself, under a myriad of different self-typings, only to see people's opinions of my type constantly change.

Right now: over 90% of people think I'm either ESFj or ESTj. Why? Because those were my last 2 self-typings. Because I confidently spoke and believed in them, truly did, which swayed the logic/understanding of other people. Sure, not everyone likes considering themselves gullible. Sure, there were people who were extremely skeptical at first, said they could not see it at all, ever. But guess what? People change their minds.

What happened when I self-typed ESTp for so long? I had over 70% of the forum believing I was ESTp, I believe at one point even hitting 80%. What happened to that?

What about a year ago? Do you guys even remember, when over 75% of people thought I was Alpha NT, ENTp?

Does anyone remember when people thought I was ENFp? Or is that just too long ago.

My point is, I think, to the left of every post, the "Sociotype: XXXx" really has MUCH more power than I think people give it credit.

To be honest, I feel, if I changed my self-typing to something in Gamma, I'm sure I could have you all believing it in 3-6 months. Seriously. It's nothing bad against you, I don't think anyone is any less intelligent, but I think unfortunately, it's human nature, to go along with the confidence of another man. Persistence beats resistance.

I think I know what my type is now. But it doesn't matter. What matters is perception. People's perception is their reality. Where people perceive confidence, they abandon their own thoughts, own ideas, own confidence. I think, as humans, we need to make sure to have enough confidence to truly stick with what WE think, in the long run.

There are a few people who still believe I'm this type, or that. Like I said, the 10% who don't think I'm ESFj or ESTj, but the 10% who have enough courage to stick with their own ideas. I applaud you. To everyone else, I appreciate your open-mindedness, truly thank you for welcoming me in your quadras, but am just pointing out what has happened over the past year, so you can be aware of it in the future.

Be stronger in your own understanding. Don't be swayed by other people. Have a great day!

[Korpsy Knievel]

To borrow a pet phrase from the IEIs: whatever.

[717495]

Thanks for stopping by.

[Absurd]

To borrow a pet phrase from the IEIs: whatever.

I've seen it used not only by IEIs on here, or are they in fact IEIs?

[Creepy-Snaps]

To borrow a pet phrase from the IEIs: whatever.

You don't care how easily people's opinions can be swayed? How easily people can be controlled? How easily their thinking can change? Not only in socionics, people go with a confident, repetitive message, but it's true in life as well, in media, politics, war, everything. It's very easy to control people, if you know what you're doing. You don't care about this?

[InkStrider]

I would like to dispel the myth that, if you act like your true self, in the long run, your true type will come out. This is not true. Ananke and several others told me this roughly 8 months ago, and I used to believe this strongly, almost made a forum thread devoted to this idea, but I now believe this to be false. Over the past year, I have acted as best as I could just being myself, under a myriad of different self-typings, only to see people's opinions of my type constantly change.

But don't you think that socionics is about how you think and not how you act? If this is so, it matters not how your behaviour changes when you change your type, because you would be unknowingly acting according to your base/actual type, and your behaviour can be interpreted through that lens.

Persistence beats resistance.

I agree very much with your point on the power of self-perception and its capacity to shape our individual realities.

[Creepy-Snaps]

But don't you think that socionics is about how you think and not how you act? If this is so, it matters not how your behaviour changes when you change your type, because you would be unknowingly acting according to your base/actual type, and your behaviour can be interpreted through that lens.

I would agree with this. It begs the question though, are some types more likely to use their thinking to change their external behavior? Some types more inclined to act like a chameleon.

[Korpsy Knievel]

I'll lend a more attentive ear to your latest sermon on the obvious once you've stopped deceiving yourself.

[Absurd]

are some types more likely to use their thinking to change their external behavior? Some types more inclined to act like a chameleon.

It can be done but at what expense, what loss? Not my problem. People start talking jibberish without even knowing nor checking what they talk about/agree with.

Although, don't think there is any thinking involved at all.

[ashlesha]

assuming there is anything at all to socionics i agree with inkstrider that your type will come through regardless of how you act because intelligent and capable people will be looking for the patterns beneath the behavior.

but i think the power of the self-typing is pretty obvious. the fact that socionics can be shaped into whatever form people want it to take (and that people act like it cant be) is behind a lot of my frustration with it.

[woofwoofl]

From the get-go, I set you at ESE, waffled on subtype for a while, then went for you as Fe-ESE. I'll very likely continue to have you as an Fe-ESE. I don't see any reason to go with you as anything other than Fe-ESE.

I've got you as a definite Positivist, a definite Judicious, and a definite Extratim; those three converge at ESE and ILE, and when I look at Ethical versus Logical as well as Result versus Process, the former win across the board (the fact that you come across differently than the ILEs I know helps out a ton too).

What's your current self-typing?

[717495]

Ah yeah true, I always thought ESE.

[ashlesha]

lol yeah, ftr i never typed you anything but ese.

[Crispy]

lol @ expecting people who are not you to know you better than people who are you.

[Korpsy Knievel]

I certainly never bought into your self typing of SLE, nor most of the other types you threw out (like IEI, amazing!). Since you're patently Ni-polr I did give thought to LSE for a while but that one seems like a self image you'd like to project (btw, nice attempt at greasing the ol' shoehorn by ceasing to litter each post with 300 emoticons; I doubt many failed to note that "look at me, I'm really a logical!" behavioral change). All told, between the intentional and accidental disclosures in your writing, interaction with forum member, videos, photos, and so on, I have long thought that you're ESE.

[Absurd]

Make a new account à la Cat King Cole and no one will notice you ever self-typed ESE MountainDew. Trust me.

[Jenna]

The main problem with typing you is that you put on a mask. You type yourself as XXX, then portray how you believe that type acts. Of course, so do others, but it's just really transparent with you. Like what k0rpsey said - the LSE one WAS the worst typing, imo. I definitely do not believe that 90% type you as LSE/ESE. Many do still think you are ESE, but LSE? Really? I don't think so.. Joy did this really well too... ESE thing maybe? Although I'm not entirely sure that she is ESE, just a thought.
*shrugs* I think that "outrage" that you posted awhile, when you thought you were SLE, was actually Se demonstrative, not Se base function.
I just reread this and for some reason sound almost bitchy, or something.. I don't mean to lol it's not personal

[Sumer1an]

The main problem with typing you is that you put on a mask. You type yourself as XXX, then portray how you believe that type acts. Of course, so do others, but it's just really transparent with you. Like what k0rpsey said - the LSE one WAS the worst typing, imo. I definitely do not believe that 90% type you as LSE/ESE. Many do still think you are ESE, but LSE? Really? I don't think so.. Joy did this really well too... ESE thing maybe? Although I'm not entirely sure that she is ESE, just a thought.
*shrugs* I think that "outrage" that you posted awhile, when you thought you were SLE, was actually Se demonstrative, not Se base function.
I just reread this and for some reason sound almost bitchy, or something.. I don't mean to lol it's not personal

I was actually about to say this. When you typed SLE you didnt seem to portray any real amount of expressiveness and when I say expressiveness I mean capital letters, emoticons, exclmation marks, etc.. You switched to ESE and all of the sudden you started to practically yell through your posts. It was annoying. It is much more likely that you put on a mask rather than the entire forum is gullible.

[Absurd]

When you typed SLE you didnt seem to portray any real amount of expressiveness and when I say expressiveness I mean capital letters, emoticons, exclmation marks, etc.. You switched to ESE and all of the sudden you started to practically yell through your posts. It was annoying. It is much more likely that you put on a mask rather than the entire forum is gullible.

The fuck?

Go snuggle with George Orwell.

[Jenna]

And it completely stopped when he changed to LSE, but his idea of that type was flawed.
But he did use a lot of them when he first joined. *shrugs*

[Sumer1an]

When you typed SLE you didnt seem to portray any real amount of expressiveness and when I say expressiveness I mean capital letters, emoticons, exclmation marks, etc.. You switched to ESE and all of the sudden you started to practically yell through your posts. It was annoying. It is much more likely that you put on a mask rather than the entire forum is gullible.

The fuck?

Go snuggle with George Orwell.

I like how you're a Hispanic alcoholic. I guess stereotypes are true. I suppose you are lazy too.

[squark]

I've always just typed you as a Mormon, Mt.Dew. Don't know if that's accurate or not, might be totally wrong, but you sure look and act like one.

[Absurd]

The fuck?

Go snuggle with George Orwell.

I like how you're a Hispanic alcoholic. I guess stereotypes are true. I suppose you are lazy too.

You're so predictable it hurts my arse, really. Lemme check: Jenna, Gilly, korpsey, Ashton and last but not least you. Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

[Jonathan]

I don't think you can blame people from giving people the benefit of the doubt regarding their self-typings. Although each person may be blind to some aspects of him/herself, people know more about themselves than anyone else does. It's one thing if someone types Person X. How much do they really know about Person X? So we should tend to be more skeptical.

But if someone says "I'm an ABCd" type, then the only question really is whether that person understands Socionics. If the person is new to Socionics and seems to know very little, then people will take the self-typing with a grain of salt. But if the person seems competent, why doubt that he/she is ABCd?

Of course, it's true, people keep changing their self-typings. But then again, in most cases, why should most people really care to have an opinion of the typing of everyone else on the forum?

[Korpsy Knievel]

If the spreadsheet is any indicator it's somewhere between hardly anyone and absolutely no one who has an opinion on every member's type. Your question is fatuous.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Thank you everyone for the feedback! Even though some of it was rather blunt. I appreciate the open honesty. Gives me lots to think about.

I do admit I was wrong to assume it was the forum's fault or people's fault, when I have acted noticeably in 2 different ways. For this reason, my offer from my other thread about Skype is still open, if anyone would like to hop on Skype one night, to VI me/chat/identify my true personality.

As an extra incentive, I'll only tell my current self-typing on Skype. That way you can just see if it's accurate or not. I will say, squark, that I definitely don't self-type as Mormon.

Hopefully that answers concerns about me, this thread can finish in that regard. I do, still think self-typings can be deceptive, in general. I know I can still get thrown off some when someone self-types confidently, to later realize it's not true. Maybe it's just me though.

[FDG]

That's like complaining that people think you're a brunette because you dyed your hair black but you're naturally blonde.

[squark]

I will say, squark, that I definitely don't self-type as Mormon.

Okay, cool. I get mistyped as Jewish sometimes. I've been mistyped as an asian male here on the forum too. Took awhile for my self-typing as a non-asian female to catch on with that one. I think everyone has finally come around.

-But in seriousness to the thread, of course people are going to notice self-typings. And, it does slant how a person is perceived.

[Jenna]

I will say, squark, that I definitely don't self-type as Mormon.

Okay, cool. I get mistyped as Jewish sometimes. I've been mistyped as an asian male here on the forum too. Took awhile for my self-typing as a non-asian female to catch on with that one. I think everyone has finally come around.

-But in seriousness to the thread, of course people are going to notice self-typings. And, it does slant how a person is perceived.

Lmao

[Aiss]

[stating and restating and rephrasing the obvious]

Dear Mountain Dew,

You must be either naive or delusional to believe you have discovered something new here. Please let us know when you actually make the next major breakthrough.

Regards,
Aiss

PS. You're never going to be a Gamma.

[marooned]

In your case MD, I've always seen you as XSE and would be really skeptical about Ni/Se valuing regardless of your self-typing that I haven't paid a great deal of attention to. But when you self-typed as SLE I kept thinking "there's no way he's SLE!" I personally think that ESEs can be one of the easiest types to spot on an internet forum.

I can get confused by people's self-typings... it often occurs when I don't know very much about the person anyway and don't see a reason why they can't be their self-typing, and so I just follow along. Sometimes I feel the person seems to be quite self-aware and/or quite knowledgeable and so who I am to think I can see their self-typing better than them. (And well, in a way, who am I to think that in general, is how I feel sometimes.)

In my case I think that a lot of the typings of me as IEI have been due to my typing myself as that in the beginning because I just don't disclose very much out of my total cowardice. I used to be more clear about which types were most like me and which weren't, but unfortunately I've spun myself into a state of total confusion on the matter, seeing umpteen ways to interpret everything, myself and the descriptions, and so I've lost all perspective. This is why I've been warding away most thoughts of Socionics in my mind these days. It's lost any utility. But in a couple years when I'm so much better (for other reasons), I'm sure the clarity will be there and I can look at it again in a more detached way, no longer relying on these crutches for my narcissism to lean on. Then I will achieve the total joking enlightenment of those who mock all of this. I look at such people with admiration.

[Timmy]

Dew's original post screams Ti DS, so I'll throw him some Ti to chew on:

Dew, your message is internally inconsistent (in any language except Fe). For starters, you insist that one ought to "have the confidence" to think independently and "not be swayed by other people," and yet you are lecturing your audience on how they ought to think. That is, you are inveighing against deference to authority as though it were epistemologically invalid (whereas nothing of the sort is true) and then demanding that your reader defer to your authority on the matter.

Your grand narrative tracing alterations in forum member's impression of your type contradicts the actual course of events inasmuch as your message contradicts itself. Remarkably, you fail to recognize the extent to which you have been swayed by the opinions of various forum members who've voiced strong opinions regarding your type. You are seemingly oblivious to the influence of certain forum members on your multiple self-typing reappraisals. Remember, you changed from SLE to ESE only after various forum members presented a strong case for your being ESE. This of course implies that many had proclaimed you ESE prior to your accepting that label. Moreover, there is almost 100% overlap between the set of individuals who proclaimed you ESE prior to your identifying as ESE and the set of individuals who continue to insist that you are ESE despite your having disowned that label. It is ironic that you now dismiss those who view you as ESE or LSE as incapable of independent thought seeing as these are the members who have most obviously demonstrated the capacity for independent thought on the matter of your type. Were any of these particular members to decide that you are not ESE/LSE based upon your effort to associate opinions that involve your being one of these two types with group think, only then would they be evidencing a serious lack of objectivity and independence of thought.

I will admit that there were others who, though perhaps harboring suspicious of your being ESE, abstained from passing judgement on the matter until you provided confirmation by self identifying as such. And there were still others who casually accepted your initial self typing in lieu of much else to go by. However, that others should take your self typing seriously is not as insane a proposition as you have indicated. Provided an individual generally comprehends socionics, that individual's self-typing deserves the serious consideration of others as they attempt to determine for themselves his/her type. After all, nobody knows more about an individual than himself. The only error committed by those took seriously your early self typings was to assume that you had a rudimentary understanding of socionics, when if fact you did not.

--

Taken at face value, Dew's original post is devoid of cognitive content. I probably ought to dismiss all that Dew has written with K0rpsey's line "whatever," but in the name of originality I'll take a stab at divining what's really going on in Dew's head. What drives Dew is truly unfathomable, but here's my take:

On account of various misunderstandings about socionics, Dew has developed a negative impression of Ni PoLR or else feels that being labeled as one particular type limits him. Consequently he is bothered by the suggestion that he is ESE/LSE, and he wants your (the reader's) permission to think otherwise since it is HE who is essentially incapable of independent thought. Deep down Dew must be aware that it is he most of all who lacks independence of thought, and yet he has projected this character flaw onto others whom he has unreasonably argued are responsible for pervasive and supposedly incorrect views about his type. Now he hopes that you'll do precisely what he has literally condemned. That is, Dew wants you to accept on his authority that he is not ESE/LSE lest he label you as less than independently minded. He wants your reassurance that he is not ESE/LSE so that he can believe this lie. He's banking on your being sufficiently Fe-suggestible to allow yourself to be guiled into adopting this Orwellian form double-think on his behalf. Some among us probably are.

[The Ineffable]

MD, IMO - and I think I told you this before, but maybe not - you are looking for some certainty and stability that someone else should provide to you. You want a verdict, and immediately/directly, you're in Dual-seeking mode. You scream that you want someone to explain what's going on to you even when there's no one capable to do that, that would make me ask myself, if I were more ignorant, "WTF does this guy want?" [1]. This - and few others - makes me pretty convinced that you're Rational and Ethical (Extroverted for similar reasons).

If you agree with me, the rule of thumb is that Logical Rationals feel they are themselves responsible for the answers, while Ethical Rationals feel that someone has to to provide them the answers on a silver plate. If you are Fe-Base, things fall into place, in my opinion [2].
---

[1] - I normally could never understand such people, such reasoning, in fact it used to be very annoying to me, and I'm sure I'm not the first, neither the last. Just to give you some insight about an angle from where you can be assaulted in the future, in order to be prepared about it (because I noticed you are easily disappointed and hurt). Through Socionics however, the explanation is simple and I have no problem with it any longer .
[2] - the scope of this post does not exclude Fi-Base, I haven't addressed Extroversion.

[Timmy]

MD, IMO - and I think I told you this before, but maybe not - you are looking for some certainty and stability that someone else should provide to you. You want a verdict, and immediately/directly, you're in Dual-seeking mode. You scream that you want someone to explain what's going on to you even when there's no one capable to do that, that would make me ask myself, if I were more ignorant, "WTF does this guy want?" [1]. This - and few others - makes me pretty convinced that you're Rational and Ethical (Extroverted for similar reasons).

If you agree with me, the rule of thumb is that Logical Rationals feel they are themselves responsible for the answers, while Ethical Rationals feel that someone has to to provide them the answers on a silver plate. If you are Fe-Base, things fall into place, in my opinion [2].

Effie, is it possible we actually agree on something? Call me stunned!

[The Ineffable]

Effie, is it possible we actually agree on something? Call me stunned!

I noticed that, too . I guess I'm too tired now to have a feeling about it.

[Leader]

You sound like Ezra.

[Timmy]

You sound like Ezra.

Who? Mountain Dew?

[Creepy-Snaps]

Dew's original post screams Ti DS, so I'll throw him some Ti to chew on:

Dew, your message is internally inconsistent (in any language except Fe). For starters, you insist that one ought to "have the confidence" to think independently and "not be swayed by other people," and yet you are lecturing your audience on how they ought to think. That is, you are inveighing against deference to authority as though it were epistemologically invalid (whereas nothing of the sort is true) and then demanding that your reader defer to your authority on the matter.

Your grand narrative tracing alterations in forum member's impression of your type contradicts the actual course of events inasmuch as your message contradicts itself. Remarkably, you fail to recognize the extent to which you have been swayed by the opinions of various forum members who've voiced strong opinions regarding your type. You are seemingly oblivious to the influence of certain forum members on your multiple self-typing reappraisals. Remember, you changed from SLE to ESE only after various forum members presented a strong case for your being ESE. This of course implies that many had proclaimed you ESE prior to your accepting that label. Moreover, there is almost 100% overlap between the set of individuals who proclaimed you ESE prior to your identifying as ESE and the set of individuals who continue to insist that you are ESE despite your having disowned that label. It is ironic that you now dismiss those who view you as ESE or LSE as incapable of independent thought seeing as these are the members who have most obviously demonstrated the capacity for independent thought on the matter of your type. Were any of these particular members to decide that you are not ESE/LSE based upon your effort to associate opinions that involve your being one of these two types with group think, only then would they be evidencing a serious lack of objectivity and independence of thought.

I will admit that there were others who, though perhaps harboring suspicious of your being ESE, abstained from passing judgement on the matter until you provided confirmation by self identifying as such. And there were still others who casually accepted your initial self typing in lieu of much else to go by. However, that others should take your self typing seriously is not as insane a proposition as you have indicated. Provided an individual generally comprehends socionics, that individual's self-typing deserves the serious consideration of others as they attempt to determine for themselves his/her type. After all, nobody knows more about an individual than himself. The only error committed by those took seriously your early self typings was to assume that you had a rudimentary understanding of socionics, when if fact you did not.

--

Taken at face value, Dew's original post is devoid of cognitive content. I probably ought to dismiss all that Dew has written with K0rpsey's line "whatever," but in the name of originality I'll take a stab at divining what's really going on in Dew's head. What drives Dew is truly unfathomable, but here's my take:

On account of various misunderstandings about socionics, Dew has developed a negative impression of Ni PoLR or else feels that being labeled as one particular type limits him. Consequently he is bothered by the suggestion that he is ESE/LSE, and he wants your (the reader's) permission to think otherwise since it is HE who is essentially incapable of independent thought. Deep down Dew must be aware that it is he most of all who lacks independence of thought, and yet he has projected this character flaw onto others whom he has unreasonably argued are responsible for pervasive and supposedly incorrect views about his type. Now he hopes that you'll do precisely what he has literally condemned. That is, Dew wants you to accept on his authority that he is not ESE/LSE lest he label you as less than independently minded. He wants your reassurance that he is not ESE/LSE so that he can believe this lie. He's banking on your being sufficiently Fe-suggestible to allow yourself to be guiled into adopting this Orwellian form double-think on his behalf. Some among us probably are.

I already apologized for blaming the people of this forum, if you had missed reading my apology. But thank you for the psychoanalysis.

tl;dr

But does this mean you're going to be rightfully self-typing as ESE again?

No. TLDR: Come see me on Skype to see what I am/ see what I think.

[Leader]

You sound like Ezra.

Who? Mountain Dew?

Yep.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Dew, your message is internally inconsistent (in any language except Fe).

I'm glad you pointed this out.

MD, IMO - and I think I told you this before, but maybe not - you are looking for some certainty and stability that someone else should provide to you. You want a verdict, and immediately/directly, you're in Dual-seeking mode. You scream that you want someone to explain what's going on to you even when there's no one capable to do that, that would make me ask myself, if I were more ignorant, "WTF does this guy want?" [1]. This - and few others - makes me pretty convinced that you're Rational and Ethical (Extroverted for similar reasons).

If you agree with me, the rule of thumb is that Logical Rationals feel they are themselves responsible for the answers, while Ethical Rationals feel that someone has to to provide them the answers on a silver plate. If you are Fe-Base, things fall into place, in my opinion [2].
---

[1] - I normally could never understand such people, such reasoning, in fact it used to be very annoying to me, and I'm sure I'm not the first, neither the last. Just to give you some insight about an angle from where you can be assaulted in the future, in order to be prepared about it (because I noticed you are easily disappointed and hurt). Through Socionics however, the explanation is simple and I have no problem with it any longer .
[2] - the scope of this post does not exclude Fi-Base, I haven't addressed Extroversion.

The Ineffable, of course I'm looking for someone to validate my opinion. I don't think asking for the opinions of others, on any particular topic, is necessarily dual-seeking.