Tbh, I think most of the self-typed IEIs on here are either ESI or LII, followed by the odd IEE-Fi or SEE-Fi.Originally Posted by lynn
Tbh, I think most of the self-typed IEIs on here are either ESI or LII, followed by the odd IEE-Fi or SEE-Fi.
I think that offense at a third party's contradictory typing to an individual's self-typing is a justifiable reaction because it implies that the individual being typed is self-ignorant. The magnitude of the offense may be greater for those who consider themselves to be introspective and/or self-aware.
I think there's nothing wrong with typing others, but because of the above reasons I don't think that the "typists" should be surprised if the "typed" react negatively.
I also think that if you are going to type someone, you have the responsibility to know what you are talking about instead of spewing nonsense. The magnitude of ignorance demonstrated in this thread is alarming, and I regret having contributed my own half-assed typings of other forum members earlier in the thread.
Then you're in my clubLol it's possible, as I very much relate to some aspects of SEI... though, also very unlikely that I'm a caregiver as I can hardly take care of myself, let alone another person/thingI'm too out of touch with reality to be a sensor, as I'm in constant daydream mode and I hardly notice the world around me 95% of the time lol. I'm sure the people here who've met me in person can attest to this, lol.
And yeah, no way I'm ESI.That one I don't relate to at all.
JESUS CHIRST PRAISE THE HEAVENS
tbh your opinion means shit. you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
I think its vital that we have some people around to challenge other's type since people tend to look at members here as examples when trying to figure out their own type, which to me seems far more important then worrying about if the person being typed will get upset or not. That being said I do agree that typers at least need to be able explain the reason for their typings, or at the very least state that they are just going by vibes if they can't or don't want to.
Have you tested for ADHD/ADD?Lol it's possible, as I very much relate to some aspects of SEI... though, also very unlikely that I'm a caregiver as I can hardly take care of myself, let alone another person/thing
And yeah, no way I'm ESI.
Yeah, that is exactly the main reason why I do it.
P.S: The fact I challenge people's typings is probably also the main reason why I am semi-unpopular.
I have observed that there seems to be a bias on the forum in favor of those doing the typing, as if being aggressive, assert, and confident of typing abilities means that they are correct. Many of their typings are based on their own understanding of the theory, what they think the functions mean, how they present, etc. As people disagree on the fundamentals, it is no surprise that people disagree on a person's type. But, instead of recognizing the actual vagueness of the theory and looking to understand the underlying reasons people identify with the type they present, people argue with a rather cynical attitude about hidden motivations for their self type.
What is it that gives one person the authority to type another and the assumption that they are correct? How do they know anything about the person beyond what is written. There are so many assumptions, such as the person asking to be typed(or not asking) is writing as "naturally" as possible, as if it is the most accurate observation in the universe about that person. It leads to an "I've got you!" mentality. This is where earlier statements are taken as verifiably true and any subsequent statements are disregarded as inauthentic. There is no reason this to be the case anymore than when you come across a stranger and assume everything about them based on a few statements they made.
People ought to be less egotistical and be willing to admit that they can be wrong. It is entirely possible with a theory laden with confirmation biases and varying interpretations and opinions and very little observational evidence. I like to start with the premise that a person knows what is occurring inside their own heads more than anyone else. Very often, people misunderstand what is being stated and what it means, which leads to haughty assumptions. Assumptions are the killer of knowledge. I suggest people try and withhold judgement and certainty on a person's type until there is much, much more information. This is developed through trust, patience, and time. That is the best typology could possibly be, as opposed to arrogant speed typing and certainty. Type dogma is idiotic, unproductive, and often incorrect.
I swear socionics and mbti are hardly different than religion in that everyone thinks their interpretation is correct and will argue as far as their egos will allow them. This happens in a culture that undervalues empirical evidence. There are already different sects of Jungianism.
Frankly, I think when people's retypings of other forum members are done out of personal agenda, malintent or drama-stirring, it's painfully obvious.
If people try to on top of this justify their "innocent retypings" with shoddy reasoning, this is also obvious to those who understand the mechanics of the theory.
It's not as if those who are open-minded about truly learning and advancing their knowledge and skills are going to be fooled, so this should be a non-issue in terms of that anyway.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
People have talked about how the kinds of guys you were into were "Chads", and that kind of guy is typically Se lead.
I think Ezra and Brendon are both probably ESI.
An example of an ILE is Seth Green, and another infamous Ne lead is Russell Brand.
But ofc all of this depends on your personal interpretation of the theory like @Scientia said, so oh well
There is no objective way to measure the types of people (yet?), so technically anyone could be wrong or right, I suppose.
Hahaha!
That's stereotypically one common fate of Beta NFs.
(And yes, I believe he was IEI-Ni, and now several people will disagree with me and say he was LII etc etc etc. Haha.
It is not a big deal, okay? Haha. Agree to disagree, and move on.)
You type the IEIs on the forum ESI, etc, then type yourself IEI. When surely you have no Ni.
Are you still trying to type me ISTP?
Yeah I thought Lady Gaga was a 4, but she could be a 3. Looking at her songs, there are very few "confessional songs" that are about her own "authentic"/shameful etc personal feelings. Most of her songs are kind of about just being cool.
This sounds like 3:Gaga says: 'I still sometimes feel like a loser kid in high school and I just have to pick myself up and tell myself that I'm a superstar every morning so that I can get through this day and be for my fans what they need for me to be.
This sounds like 4:'But sometimes I still feel like people are trying to destroy me. I cannot be destroyed, I will not be destroyed and you will never destroy the kingdom that is my fans.'
'I'm fighting for every kid that's like me, that felt like I felt and feels like I still feel.'
Wanting to be a winner... that's more 3:'It hurts when I know how much authenticity and how much genuine blood is in my spirit and how much I feel like people don't know that... 'cos they see wigs and lipstick and they shut down, 'cos they don't understand.
'I just wanna be a queen for them and sometimes I don't feel like one. It's not about being a winner for me any more. It's about being a winner for all of them.'
She then bows her head in prayer, asking God for courage before she hits the stage in New York.
Gaga says: 'Please give me strength to be a winner for all of them and not myself... Please help me to be strong and know my own strength. Please help me to be brave, Lord. Dear God, give me courage. Do not let me give in to my own insecurities.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...cumentary.html
In that pic, he looks a bit like Stephen Colbert, whom I type as IEI.
I think you're probably SLI. You could be a really weird SLE but it seems less likely to me.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
I don't type Jung, Jung is dead.
So you only type living people?
I'd say I have similar amounts of Ni and Ti like Jung.
People who do not see him as IEI-Ni are probably not gonna see the Ni in me neither.
What exactly signifies Ni to you, in general?So you only type living people?
I'd say I have similar amounts of Ni and Ti like Jung.
People who do not see him as IEI-Ni are probably not gonna see the Ni in me neither.
Jung is ESE. Jung remains ESE. And we have typed him. How shall we, psychoanalysts of all psychoanalysts, type ourselves?
To be IEI, you must open your third eye and transcend space and time to a new dimension:
One has to understand that you are not merely born IEI, you are chosen to be IEI by some kind of spiritual force. Only then will you have attained the most deepest and kindest type you can possibly be. Otherwise, you are some mere mortal type like ESI or SEI. They strive to be IEI, but they cannot be IEI, since IEIs are made in the spiritual realm, which mere mortal types can only dream about in the mortal realm.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Raver gets it.To be IEI, you must open your third eye and transcend space and time to a new dimension:
One has to understand that you are not merely born IEI, you are chosen to be IEI by some kind of spiritual force. Only then will you have attained the most deepest and kindest type you can possibly be. Otherwise, you are some mere mortal type like ESI or SEI. They strive to be IEI, but they cannot be IEI, since IEIs are made in the spiritual realm, which mere mortal types can only dream about in the mortal realm.
Usually I find that people type themselves wrong less because of delusion about themselves than because of misunderstanding the theory. It can be difficult to disentangle these aspects though, since once the self-typing is entrenched it tends to warp their self-image accordingly.
This is true. I am also guilty of publicizing certain typings before being really sure (and usually I am not very sure of online typings unless I've seen a video or something) and I will try to avoid that in the future.I also think that if you are going to type someone, you have the responsibility to know what you are talking about instead of spewing nonsense. The magnitude of ignorance demonstrated in this thread is alarming, and I regret having contributed my own half-assed typings of other forum members earlier in the thread.
Yes agreed, though I will say I don't believe it is true that a person necessarily knows better than someone outside themselves about what is going on in their own head, and even if they do, that person may not have the ability to be able to label what it is that is going on. They may only have the raw observation of what is going on. Degrees of self-awareness vary between people, and it's something that many people, particularly those who come to personality theory struggle with.
I think the best attitude to take is to know that people are fallible, to assume that the other person isn't entirely correct about what's going on, and that you aren't either.
That being said, in my opinion, I don't think that the majority of people on here who give typings should be doing so. This has nothing to do with me thinking they are right or wrong, but the lack of rigor and thoroughness applied to different methods. There is value to be gained in exchanging ideas, regardless of them being right or wrong, but ideally we want people to get to their right types. Facilitation of this requires a lack of intellectual laziness which I do not see in many of the typings that are thrown out. Vibes, how a person dresses, if they remind you of other people of that type, are all well and dandy but don't substitute for thorough analysis. You need to look at a person, not be influenced by their self-typing, gain knowledge of them through what you see and apply that to the elements and functions. It shouldn't be half-assed, if you aren't willing to take the time to get to learn about someone else and question your own ideas, then maybe you shouldn't be throwing out an opinion. Any well-thought out analysis should take a decent amount of time. People are digesting opinions, this does influence the way they look at themselves, and is very likely that it will have an effect on their actions. Not in all, but Ive seen it enough, especially in typology communities where people are looking to find their own identities and who they are, that there should be at least a bit of care thrown out with these typings.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
Lady Gaga is also a transparent 6w7, with a stronger 3 connection. 4w3 heart type prolly
This is CP 6w7
It's time to feel the rush to push the dangerous
I'm gonna run right to, to the edge with you
Where we'll both fall far in love
I'm on the edge of glory and I'm hangin' on a moment of truth
Out on the edge of glory and I'm hangin' on a moment with you
You're unpopular because you type by cherry picking certain things within your rigid Ti standards and it comes off as typing people by your feelings. Because you can easily separate someone who's obviously one type into another one doing this. I can give an example if you want.Yeah, that is exactly the main reason why I do it.
P.S: The fact I challenge people's typings is probably also the main reason why I am semi-unpopular.
You also have a problem of passive aggression that goes alongside this.
You have too much of a "THIS TYPE MUSSSSSSTTT BE X 10000000% OF THE TIME" atittude too, even if you say you don't, and you abuse it with the cherry picking.
You also have what I've seen as being an IEI problem of having to be right all the time and ignoring others arguments because of this, even if they're right.
How are you anything like JungSo you only type living people?
I'd say I have similar amounts of Ni and Ti like Jung.
People who do not see him as IEI-Ni are probably not gonna see the Ni in me neither.
(Don't take this post as hate, it's not
･ﾟ*✧ 𝓘 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉 𝒶 𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒 𝓘 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝑒 ✧*:･ﾟ
I dont believe in socionics but cassandra you really dont have much intuition or "think outside the box". Your "theories" are of things that already exists like "instinct compatability". Jung would never do plain basic shit like that lol. The only thing you have in common is that hes a 9 and you have an obvious 9 fix hence your passive-aggressiveness and stubbornness
you may not dislike IEIs, but I do; in part for all the very good reasons you laid out here
(Don't take this post as hate, it's not
beta ethicals are always trying to push their narratives on people and it drives me nuts, mostly because they're so transparently self serving in one way or another, which wouldn't even be that bad, but try to get a beta to admit even one iota of moral culpability ever--it won't happen
If you still believe I have no intuition (or 5 wing for that matter) after reading this, so be it.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion (as long as it does not harm anyone).
Oh and also, being So/Sx, I am naturally concerned with what people would like to read.
I have seen many people in Typology forums asking for and contemplating instinct compatibility theories, that is why I started to tackle the issue myself, in order to not only gain a better understanding of the theory myself but also to bring value and some advice to others.
I hope @Raver was joking there.
His post pretty much showed why almost all "spiritual" people who discover Socionics end up typing themselves as IEI, no matter what their "real" type is. And no, just being "spiritual" does not automatically make you an IEI, just like being an atheist does not automatically make you a Logical type. But sure, there can be correlations.
Everyone has intuition, you definitely can get a "feel" of people, but i think you are more scattered in that area, like with the Gaga thing for example. I wrote that because you were comparing yourself to Jung who made way more extensive 'deep' theories, more organized mind etc which I think is the Ni Ti thing you are talking about.
I know that the compatability thing is your soc instinct and i think thats interesting
Cool poems, but what do you mean is 5 wing in them?
Hm, when you read Jung's work it is very unorganized tbh. It can be like a word salad, even when reading it in the Original (aka in German) as a native speaker, it can be tricky to understand. His writing can be very symbolic and vague. His ideas were surely valuable, and other people who had better logic than him (as in, Alpha NTs) took them on and formed them into what we know as Socionics today. Without those Alpha NTs, his ideas would have remained without a system and incomplete.Everyone has intuition, you definitely can get a "feel" of people, but i think you are more scattered in that area, like with the Gaga thing for example. I wrote that because you were comparing yourself to Jung who made way more extensive 'deep' theories, more organized mind etc which I think is the Ni Ti thing you are talking about.
I know that the compatability thing is your soc instinct and i think thats interesting
Cool poems, but what do you mean is 5 wing in them?
Well, and besides that, who knows – Jung could have very well just been smarter than me.
Dunno, when I read through them once again I thought they come across as more 4w5 than 4w3, especially the one about Death. The poem about plastic people could be read as a mockery and critique of "shallow" Type 3 ness – selling your soul to the devil metaphorically by forming yourself into a doll (like that real life Barbie chick).
Mini derail but type-related
Jung was torture for me to read. I was going "what is he trying to say, what's his point, what's the use, why does he take so long, wtf" with every sentence. I drew very few applicable things from it. The difference in
Oh yeah hes super subjective in his writing. Just saying you cant compare your work to his, you know lolHm, when you read Jung's work it is very unorganized tbh. It can be like a word salad, even when reading it in the Original (aka in German) as a native speaker, it can be tricky to understand. His writing can be very symbolic and vague. His ideas were surely valuable, and other people who had better logic than him (as in, Alpha NTs) took them on and formed them into what we know as Socionics today. Without those Alpha NTs, his ideas would have remained without a system and incomplete.
Well, and besides that, who knows – Jung could have very well just been smarter than me.
Dunno, when I read through them once again I thought they come across as more 4w5 than 4w3, especially the one about Death. The poem about plastic people could be read as a mockery and critique of "shallow" Type 3 ness – selling yourself to the devil metaphorically by wearing a "mask" and forming yourself into a doll (like that real life Barbie chick).
All 4s dislike fakeness because their Trap is Authenticity. I am 3 wing and I cant be fake because then I feel guilty as fuck. I hate shallow people and people who are fake, I can spot it immedietly because of my tritype which is triple 'emotionally real'.. this is a big dilemma with my sister, who is tritype 639 and basically clings hard to whatever her friends do, like, and dislike and is overly nice to people in a fake way etc.
Theres a headyness you can tell with a 4w5 and I dont feel it for you, you are very heart-y, even though 4 is close to the head triad which makes 4s think alottt.
3 is an attachment type, 5 is a rejection type. So, 5wing is gonna be less bothered by others opinions and you already said a reason you wrote about compatability is because others wanted it.
I type Johnny Depp so/sx 4w5 and with him you can tell he gives less fucks, just by looking at his face.
I highly doubt that doll girl is a 4
Hm okay. @Satan keeps saying I am being "too logical" sometimes and should use my femininity more, ha. Or @Adam Strange would keep saying how I use my Ti a lot for an IEI. So, I suppose it really depends on your perspective. For some people, I come across as more "logical" or overly Ti HA focused. For you, less so. (Probably because you compare me to LIIs and the occasional EII in your mind. And yes, I know you don't look at people like that, but I have found you have primarily typed people as 5-something when they were LII or Fi lead/Fe Ignoring/Ti Role.)
I'd type Johnny Depp as Sp/Sx, he's incredibly awkward when it comes to social situations and you can tell it is his blindspot. He does not truly like the fame and attention like the So/Sp celebs (e.g Brad Pitt, George Clooney) do.
Yes, I have partly written the article for others, but again that was just my SO instinct.
It seems like you are typing Social 4s with a 3 wing, SO blindspot 4s with a 5 wing, and 4w3 people as Type 3 and/or SO.
The Social instinct can have a certain "3 vibe" to it (without being actually 3 fix), in that it tends to desire social recognition from either friends or fans or similar. And SO blindspot can have that "withdrawn" quality to it that is kind of like 5, I suppose. So that's probably why.
You must be right. I used to superficially think she's 7 or 3, but nah, chica is 6w7.
I think youre very feminine, which is also kind of a 3wing thing + 9 fix
Theres no darkness with you like there would be if you had 5 influence. Youre very light. Yes the so/sx brings a light element but if you had a 5 wing it would cover some of that up, which it doesnt. 4w5 (and 5w4) is alien and often seem soc last when theyre not.
While I can see where ghost is getting the 3 wing thoughts from, I agree that you focus on/fetishize that Ti HA hellas.
･ﾟ*✧ 𝓘 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉 𝒶 𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒 𝓘 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝑒 ✧*:･ﾟ
Posting Permissions
