How many of the types have you ever seriously considered as possible for yourself?

[ClownsandEntropy]

ILE, LII. But I reckon I'm LII as heck.

[Pa3s]

More seriously: LII, ILI, SLI

Less seriously: LSI, EII

[aixelsyd]

IEI (how I used to score in MBTI which led to...), ILI, ESI (due to superficial resemblance), SLE (due to superficial resemblance) , SEE (currently makes the most sense in how I relate to other people and where natural strengths and weaknesses lie)...vaguely IEE except there's no way in hell I'm Delta, so I don't really count that, but I'd say my temperament is similar to some Fi-IEEs I've come across which made me consider.

[Amber]

apart from ESI ... around 4.

I considered LSI, of course. It would have actually made enough sense to be a LSI ... maybe also because it fits the German social style and "work regimen" so well, I may actually value Ti (regardless of what Socionics says). Plus I shared some years of my life and convived with LSI, so I guess I learned to gauge and understand Ti ways of thinking and action quite well.

Less seriously: ILI, IEI, and EII. However there's no way in the world I'm a Delta (Ne/Si) and there seem to be lots of differences between me and both IEIs and ILIs on the forum. I'm not exactly an irrational type. I guess I also pondered EIE ...but rather for the hell of it, I know I'm not an extrovert. I do consider myself to be a bit of an ambivert though. Still being an EJ type sounds cool enough.

[Creepy-male]

Three -- ILI, IEI, EIE

[ryoka14]

SEI SLI ILI IEI EII ILE IEE LII....................

[Misty]

IEI, EIE, EII, IEE and SEI. The first four because I'm NF by temperament, but I kept misplacing myself into beta and ignoring delta because I came from MBTI land where ESTJ sounded awful. Socionics ESTj is much nicer, and ISTp nicer still. When I finally read the IEE description, it was embarrassingly like my life-story. I still wonder if I'm SEI sometimes because I seem to really click with ENTps IRL (though maybe I am mistyping them) and I love the alpha quadra, however, the severe lack of Si kind of gives me away. But if I could choose a type, it'd probably be SEI as they are just so dang lovely.

[silke]

I've read about cognitive functions, which is what IEs are called in MBTI, on the very same day I got introduced to Jungian typology, so this narrowed types down for me quickly.

[niffer]

Younger, MBTI: ENFP, ENTP
Older, JCF: FeNiSeTi (ENFJ MBTI)
Older, with socionics knowledge: only SLE

[Delilah]

I selftyped IEE for the longest time. Only last year I started considering ESI. Who knows if i might go back to IEE. Test-wise i've been getting a lot of EII in the last couple of years.

[Rebelondeck]

My first type test was MBTI, which said I was ISTP; I think the result was a reflection of my job at the time more than me. Since then, I've taken numerous tests resulting in INTP/p, INTJ, ENTp, ISTJ/j and ISTp, which were likely reflections of my misinterpretations of the questions and scenarios because none of the associated descriptions fit. One MBTI INTP description was the closest so I thought I was that for the longest while, but I was never fully sold because the test said that I was something else. The long test on the socionics.com consistently identified me as INTj; however, the descriptions left a lot to be desired. I never really became convinced of my type until I started developing my own interpretation of things; many hard-science people need hard-science models to even entertain notions....

a.k.a. I/O

[Adam Strange]

One.

I took an MBTI test many years ago (the test in Keirsey's book "Please Understand Me") and got ENTJ. When I discovered this site, I took a number of tests and always got LIE or LIE-Te.

I think the major "change" for me was in the way that Keirsey and Socionics describes the type. Keirsey described the ENTJ as a "Field marshal", and since my father was in the military, I could identify somewhat realistically with that description. Certainly, I usually ended up "marshaling my forces" and organizing the people around me toward some clear objective.

But Stratiyevskaya's description of the ENTj was a heck of a lot closer to how I actually am. It was what initially made me think that there might be some truth to this weird cult of Socionics, and I needed to find out more.

[Kernel]

In MBTI I got INTP in the test but I was hesitating between INTP and INFP. I found socionics, did the test three times and always got EII, my friend did the test in my place (their perception of me) and also got EII. I read the EII description by Gulenko and was surprised by its accuracy. But I think some bad past experiences have affected my self perception (in the worst days I even considered ILI), I'm young and not in the best psychological condition so I can't say for sure I'm EII or any other type. In this period, I've considered IEE (because I related a lot to some IEE posters and irl I have the same mood/energy of IEEs), ESI (because someone said I was this type and now I'm contemplating it).

I think I'm 80% sure I'm Fi ego.

[User Name]

Two, of course: LII and ILI (a.k.a. "The Great INTx Dilemma").

I switched many times between the two and everything seems to be so unclear now, more than ever. I've been reading Socionics articles for 2 years and a half, but even if I tried to write the longest essay possible on LII vs ILI, the answer was none. In terms of subtypes, I've been considering mostly LII-Ti and ILI-Te, but LII-Ne is actually not a bad guess at all, since the main issue with my typing is Rationality/Irrationality. It's incredibly difficult to discern between this quasi-identical types, especially when you're in your teens. In this forum there seems to be a general consensus for LII (something like 15/16 people in the typing spreadsheet agreed on that), but right now I'm leaning toward ILI because I noticed many traits that are very ILI-ish in their nature.

The funny thing is that, even if I switch to ILI for a while, I'll always come back to LII, no matter what the circumstances are. This sometimes makes me think that LII is my actual type.

Who knows. It's all fine by the way. As long as this dilemma encourages me to learn more about Socionics I'll always be glad.

[Bertrand]

its possible you're SLI too. both ILI and LII kind of write like nerds, compare rebelondeck (LII) to soupman (ILI). lovable nerds, no doubt, but basically speaking their own language. something about heavy ti and ni just puts people in a very distinct headspace whether ILI or LII. SLI has an easier manner (VS cognition being considered the most "natural"). your sig also seems dynamic

[User Name]

its possible you're SLI too. both ILI and LII kind of write like nerds, compare rebelondeck (LII) to soupman (ILI). lovable nerds, no doubt, but basically speaking their own language. something about heavy ti and ni just puts people in a very distinct headspace whether ILI or LII. SLI has an easier manner (VS cognition being considered the most "natural"). your sig also seems dynamic

Wow, never considered that. I love SLIs, but I never thought to be a one... There's a lot of stuff about Si Lead that doesn't convince me though. Dunno.

[User Name]

Also, you're the first one to find a dynamic trait in my personality. Everyone was so much sure about a clear static preference, also in other fora. Interesting. Shit, I love Socionics so much.

[Bertrand]

yeah I think Si is stereotyped all wrong, but thats a different issue. the static/dynamic thing is iffy but i think you can tell via introspection: it occured to me that every once in a while everything seems super clear and set and I realized that's what its like for statics all the time, not in the sense of enlightenment but in the sense that it doesn't feel like the words are falling off the page or whatever. like sometimes I can just see everything as one giant crystal but its super rare. most the time I feel like Im just trying to get stuff down before I forget, kind of like waking from a dream but not quite as bad. like I can't zoom in and inspect a thing, like hold it in my head in a set configuration its always moving so as soon as I zoom in something else changes. kind of like one of those long water baloons that if you squeeze one end it goes to the other, whereas I get the feeling statics can take the same thing and just freeze it and look around it, which is very useful when you get into very complex logical concepts at least from the point of view of making it look good on paper. I still think dynamic is more true to life

[para]

Seriously torn between: LII, IEI and ILI

Slightly less probable but still an option: ILE

Don't really fit but can see signs here and there: IEE, SLI, SEI

[Chthonic Daydream]

IEI, IEE, EII because I can't count.
Slightly less of a possibility but sort of makes sense if I think about it too hard to the point where i distort reality: SEI, EIE

[Tallmo]

Only ISFP / SEI

10 years ago I was sitting with some MBTI descriptions that I had printed out. I felt like I just had to figure out my type. I considered some intuitive types reading descriptions over and over again. Then at one point I read the ISFP description once more and I realized that if I look at myself simply what I am, then ISFP fits me best.

It was a big thing, but it wasn't until Socionics that I could confirm my typing 100% with the relationships etc. I had to admit that I had gotten the functions wrong and that I actually had a base sensing function.

My Si was in pretty bad shape at that time.

With Socionics you can be 100% sure of your type, provided you have exposed yourself to a lot of relationships and worked with different people. DCNH also helps.

[The Reality Denialist]

Well, first MBTI test: ISTJ. I have came to more into to my senses over the fact that I can't be so much dwelling in my senses. It sounded bit to be practical, grounded and feces which I'm not.


There seems to be the highest resonance for lots of process types descriptions. Over those descriptions: ILE, ILI, EIE (in that order) have sounded very good to somewhat good. Outside of process I have looked into LII but it really steers me away based on what LII's write here and poo.

So as I lean towards irrational fun lyfe and excrement I tend to lean towards ILE.

[Ave]

ILI, LIE, EIE and ESI.

The first three more seriously, but I have nagging doubts I might be the last one.

I rejected EIE because I am not aristocratic and clearly don't value /.

ILI is not abad fit, but I am not so pessimistic or unexpressive emotionally, plus I can't see SEE as my dual, they are too demanding.

LIE is not bad, but I have good aesthetic sense, even if I'm not a relaxed person and don't enjoy passive pastimes the way egos do either. I'm can also be fairly moody, and LIEs are described as more phlegmatic.

ESI is good too, but I think my strengths are NTish and not SFish.

[chrys]

a hearty 6, i only see inconsistencies. every definition creates an alternate reality where I can be one type more than the others

[Adam Strange]

ILI, LIE, EIE and ESI.

The first three more seriously, but I have nagging doubts I might be the last one.

I rejected EIE because I am not aristocratic and clearly don't value /.

ILI is not abad fit, but I am not so pessimistic or unexpressive emotionally, plus I can't see SEE as my dual, they are too demanding.

LIE is not bad, but I have good aesthetic sense, even if I'm not a relaxed person and don't enjoy passive pastimes the way egos do either. I'm can also be fairly moody, and LIEs are described as more phlegmatic.

ESI is good too, but I think my strengths are NTish and not SFish.

I have a pretty good aesthetic sense, too, but just for judging, not for creating.

[Sol]

To consider some type as own seriously I gathered the opinions of several typers, read books and made IR research. Then I've accepted one of types with the assurance. It was the one and I did not doubt in it still.

[The Reality Denialist]

I have a pretty good aesthetic sense, too, but just for judging, not for creating.

Well, I have pretty good ethical sense which is not made for relations or relating people. It is just full logic not feeling (causal thinking).
I thought that people estimated this stuff by thinking in long chains of cause and effect. It turns out to be different.

[photon]

EII, IEI, SEI, ESI, and SLI

[falsehope]

So the first theory I came across was socionics, and I've just took 3 tests and each showed something else, so then I've read the type descriptions, and the two people I've been working with were LII and LIE, so I recognized their type, so based on IR with them I typed myself as ILE. The LII one was quite obvious as well mirror relationship with him. Compared to him, I was more like extroverted (feeling about coming customers a lot better), but with similar approach. So that was it. I also recognized my mother EII and supervision at that time.
It was a lot easier to guess other people types before guessing myself. So once I guessed other people (which was easy because I knew them very well), it was easy to guess myself.
But the other ILE in the company was disgrace hehehe.

[Not A Communist Shill]

bump

[vesstheastralsilky]

Naturally I have seriously considered them all. But at what length I held the belief I could be such&such, well... I have most seriously at length in the past considered INFP, INTP, INFJ, INTJ, ENTP, ISFP, ISTP, ENFP & ENFJ for durations of at least one day Sigh.

[Exodus]

I like to periodically revisit typings. When I came back to the online community a few years back I considered one other type, for about a month. Eventually decided it was unlikely to be correct.

[VenusRose]

1 probably - EII
IEI semi-serious
IEE even less seriously than that.

Perhaps it's the 4D Ni maybe that's contributing to this...once something feels 'solid' it often stays that way, even though I am always open to options.

[Memento Mori]

EIE-Ni and IEI-Fe. That's it. The former was a product of ignorance cause I was transitioning from MBTI. Never seen myself nor typed as anything else. (Full history in my Sig)

[Varlawend]

4 types:

At first ILI just fit when I got into Socionics briefly almost a decade ago and then dropped it. I was miserable back then and was a spitting image of some of the worse stereotypes of the type.

Then, I got into Socionics again a little more than a year ago, and people were telling me that I am LII so I went along with it. I thought ILI, but they said, no, you’re too nice/gentle, considering of options, and apparently interest in abstract math and semantics is associated with LII. Those observations add up to Judicious and Ti-valuing, together. I went along with it, but wasn’t convinced. I’ve never been able to relax; my psyche’s mobilization over wariness and internal contradictions is VERY insistent.

Then, I considered EII. Fundamentally, I do think character is very important and I relate to some profiles of this type, and I struggle when it comes to respecting Ti frameworks even though I’m fond of other uses of Ti like philosophy and semantics and mathematics. Instinctually, my thought process feels too vague, flowy, inconsistent and pluralistic to be Ti-dominant. I was also worried that I was possessed by wanting to seem intelligent, and thus I might not be considering EII out of some prejudice against Ethical types even though of course Ethical types can actually be very intelligent. I also think Delta tends to be the most underestimated Quadra, and was worried about the effect of this prejudice on me.

Then, I had brief flash of considering myself EIE. I can write in a mystical sort of way that gets to people deeply with those I know well, I have a complex spiritual world full of contrasts and contradictions that I would sacrifice much for, I can determinedly fight for strange underdog causes and I can be made to care a lot about certain people. There are many great spiritual leaders and artists of this type that I look up to. Some of my friends of this type have made me a much braver person, and expanded the range of punches I thought I could take from the world. Despite this increased power and ability, they also put me in difficult situations based on their antics that caused me significant spiritual pain that I still have not fully uncovered the meaning of.

But, as far as type is concerned, much of that is confusion even though some of the observations are true. I don’t have the energy and ability to deal with emotions in real time to be an Ej or EIE. I don’t have the steady firmness of LII; I have the weak, dynamic, receptive nervous system of a Receptive-Adaptive type. I’m clearly a Negativist rather than a Positivist, and a Logician over an Ethical type. My first instinct was correct: I am ILI, officially typed by Victor Gulenko. His explanations made way more sense than any other I’d seen, and incorporate so much verbal and nonverbal information with an impressive coherence to boot. Goes to show, as Malcolm Gladwell and Daniel Kahneman argue, that our first instincts can make some of truest decisions of all.

Since my true type was explained, I don’t see myself looking back anytime soon. It feels right, rather than just making sense in a way, though it also makes an enormous amount of sense and has increased my keenness of comprehension of my life in a short time. But, there is of course more to discover about my individuality and everyone else’s. Uniqueness and conformity interest me equally, as they did Carl Jung.

[ghost of forum past]

6 types so far.

When I first found Socionics, I was a teenager. At that time, I initially thought I was LII. After that I got caught up in the MBTI "conversions" (I test INTJ in MBTI fwiw), and thought that that made me ILI. And to be honest, both types seemed like they fit ok, but I think that they were also manifestations of my developing ego and self-image at the time. A couple years later, when I became somewhat active on this forum, I was confident in my LII typing.

When I hit my 20s a couple years later, I began to feel a sense of impostor syndrome regarding Socionics - I began to question if I was really significantly better at "NT things" then the average gifted-IQ individual. Basically I feel that I can do well at just about anything if I expend enough effort, and even if it's true I am irritated by the idea that I am predestined to be terrible at something or butt heads with someone just because of the way my brain prefers to process information.

So currently I am reevaluating my own approach and my own relation to the system of Socionics, learning more Socionics material in my limited spare time, and also evaluating whether or not it is useful for me. I think the models (eg T, G) are at least useful starting points for personality analysis, but I think the inter-type relations are severely overemphasized in the Socionics community.

I've been considering the aristocratic quadras recently. Tentatively I think I am a Beta introvert of some sort. If I'm LSI then I'm relatively undisciplined and contemplative compared to the baseline; if I'm IEI then I'm relatively disciplined and analytical compared to the baseline. I also have considered EII and SLI, basically all of the introverts but the SFs.

Of course it could be that I end up back at LII as my type. Many people seemed to be of that opinion last time I filled out a questionnaire or made a video. But if I'm being honest, what people think about my personality based on limited internet interaction isn't what I am going to base my judgement on.

And finally, I have no intention to take this field as seriously as I have in the past. Humans are exceedingly complicated and I will always be skeptical of anything that claims to be able to simply and unambiguously analyze human personality traits, particularly if it does not take into account the reasons (or lack thereof) that people act in certain ways.

[Starvish]

EII, IEE, ESI, LII, SEI, IEI... all of these at different times across the past year.

[Skepsis]

I have only really considered 2 types: ILI and ESI. I do not think I am intuitive enough to be ILI for a couple of reasons, but one is I don't feel comfortable using the term intuitive to describe myself. I prefer abstract and artistic. I also feel I am too friendly, polite, and accommodating in real life to be an ILI. I have a really vivid mental landscape, which makes me good at storytelling and art, but I lack the verbal abilities(and confidence in them) of intuitives. I do think I am more ethical and have strived to be more logical due to interests and job/educational requirements. I have worked hard at being logical. It was a forced effort, but now I feel I have good logical abilities, although not great. It has allowed me to do relatively well in math and the sciences.

I also think that I am too abstract to be ESI. Many ESI descriptions emphasize the Guardian archetype, which I do have to some extent, but it seems too small minded and authoritarian for my tastes. I try to have an open mind. I think looking at myself as either FiNi or NiFi is more useful, honestly, and resonates the most.

There have been a few wild cards thrown in by the suggestion of others, but in regards to functions, I identify with Ni,Fi,Se,Te the most. The only type with these preferences I can rule out for sure is SEE.

Some of my main strengths is my ability to recognize beauty, empathize with others, and make art that tries to represent my perspectives. For instance, I am really good at realism, especially portraits. I like trying to bring out someone's individuality. However, I am not opened to every person's individuality. There are a lot of people that I find very annoying(as they probably do me) and I find their worldview and perspectives very annoying as well. I only like to draw and bring out that which resonates with either my feelings and/or artistic perspectives. Art is very non-verbal and very hard for me to try and articulate using words. I would rather just show representations.

[huiheiwufhawriuhg]

3, EII, IEE and IEI. I don't think I'm moral enough to be an EII and also I'm too scattered and impulsive to be an Ij. There's still a little possibility of me being just a very introverted version of an IEE, I do relate to them quite a bit, but I'm not enthusiastic enough. IEI makes sense I guess, although I could find things that don't fit. I thought about EIE for a very short time once, but I'm by far not Fe and definitely not Ej enough.

[Nocturne]

3
IEI, ESI, and SEE.