Retype Suede

[suedehead]

I want to know how I seem Se-ego, Gamma or ESI, not based on what I say about certain cliche things, but how I interact with people, the content of my posts, etc. How often do I get on a moral high-horse, shame people, or get into heated arguments about forum drama like most active Gammas? Most of the time, I don't give a shit. Why not something like Delta NF or Si-base when I make infantile threads like these:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...rst-Old-people
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-person-s-walk

Along with a lot of the pseudo-philosophizing I do, and talking about how I'm spiritually bankrupt or whatever, which doesn't seem like something a Se-ego would do. None of the types are that good of a fit, and I only went with ESI because some people agreed on that after I posted a video and I stopped caring about questioning it. It feels like you can type as anything and people will buy it.

[suedehead]

The other types that I could see myself as are IEE, EII, SLI or SEI.

Me being Delta makes sense in theory, if it just meant being mild and Fi-valuing, but Deltas feel naive and removed from reality to me, and there's usually this weird aristocracy vibe and anxiety that puts me off or feels superfluous. They can be practical, but it feels like they're coming from this isolated, dreamy place and everything's about being emotionally healthy and accepting of everything. They seem stranger as a group than Alphas to me somehow, since Alphas are at least sort of casual and transparent. That would probably be weird thing to say if I were Gamma, so I'm not sure where that leaves me.

[suedehead]

I sometimes feel put off when Beta NF's talk about alpha males, which makes me feel like I'm really a dreamy, faggy intuitive nice guy as opposed to Se-ego. I'm touchy like how I imagine a male ENFp to be. The way I use hyperbole and drag things out seems infantile, and like something a caregiver as opposed to a victim would respond to because I'm a lame motherfucker.

[suedehead]

I also let @Sienna get away with talking shit instead of using .

[Amber]

so suedehead is calling me and intends to use my name of all people in a typing thread of his for comparison. Here you go : you are FiSe, but most of what you say about not giving a damn about "morals" and societal problems actually derives from your being a passive withdrawn E 9 sp/sx. This may also affect your Se in problematic ways. It makes you way more passive-aggressive. You don't strike me as a fighter for anything, but I can see from the pics you post you do mentally focus on "Se matters" (body language, violence, power balance etc.) Your pics are almost never symbolic or abstract.

I hardly let people get away with talking shit, as suedehead knows well. Sadly he may not be among the best examples of ESI . Most ESIs are E6s and that's part of what you may hear about when reading profiles. Unlike with other ESIs ...with you it's less clear whom you like and whom you don't , who's your friend and who's your enemy, whom you're ready to defend or crush ...because usually it looks like you care mostly about yourself ...and not in a very intense way ..only a bit.

You don't actually engage in any substantial philosophising to qualify as Ne ego (but perhaps you have some manuscripts at home that you plan to show us as soon as possible) and I don't see any abundant original/ quirky ideas spread in threads. When you come up with what you call "infantile threads"... they are rooted in a rather concrete perspective on people (walk >> body language >> small traces of Se). They deal with fairly factual issues on whose existence anyone can agree....they ain't creatively imaginative or "spiritual" in any way.

[suedehead]

When I write things like this for example, how is it different from Ne noticing external trends?

Exactly. It's just prosaic, Sp-first sensory stuff with no passion behind it. Sex is treated as just an exchange of fluids, or a means of achieving physical pleasure/homeostasis.

It's probably one way that an Sx-last could view it. It's said that Sex for Sp is often about the sensory aspect, warmth, closeness, release, body-to-body, etc., while sex for Sx is about intense merging and emotional charge. So with a blind spot towards the latter, you could potentially have someone who has a cruder, detached attitude towards sex. Sp/Sx could probably have a similar attitude towards sex, every now and then, but this video doesn't seem to vibe like something they'd do. It's light and kind of...immediately accessible. Contrived weirdness. Like a fart joke.

[suedehead]

But beyond the pictures, why is it obvious that I'm FiSe when you're saying that I lack some of the traits integral to the type, Gamma Quadra, etc. I don't see Ne-egos as oozing 'ideas' either, Ne just seems more like this way of perceiving things that isn't concrete, and I'm not exactly sure why it has to be my PoLR when I can write things that seem dreamy or airy-fairy too.

And by psuedo-philosophizing, I'm referring to when I talk about my emotional states, and write posts about stackings, 'vibes', etc. and other nerdy intuitive stuff. What isn't clear to me is how my approach to those things is different from when a Ne-ego does it, who tend to like making comparisons, generalizations, noticing trends, etc.

[Radio]

i've been thinking about this for a while, how it's kind of wrong to describe Ne as conceptual or as looking at patterns, because not only are these very broad terms but their definitions extend out of what functions like Ne or Se strictly mean. essentially they're easy mental cheats, to communicate with people who already understand what you mean without having to be specific, so it can be misleading to describe Ne that way, and i think part of that is what is happening here. being conceptual or abstract (to be more specific) is a general property of any function when it is part of the ego complex, so you would be able to abstractly think of Se or Fe or Te when it is part of your ego functions even when you are not an Ne type, obviously. i feel like this is something that isn't stressed enough in discussions so it leads to endless hairsplitting. the same applies to looking at patterns, because you can apply that definition variously to Ni, Te, Se or even Fi, depending upon the kind of patterns you're talking about. again this is a general property of ego functions regardless of if they're N/T/F/S.

sorry i don't mean to imply nothing is definable, because socionics clearly is, with a little more effort. IMO the core mechanic (insert i've been watching too many game dev tutorials apology) of Ne is generalizing and this is again something that isn't stressed enough. Ne bounds things into brackets and generalizes common traits as being characteristic of the thing. a lot of the times Ne-polr types have a problem with this bracketing of traits, because (speaking from experience with Ne polrs) the definitions seem to narrow or too inaccurate or too unrealistic or too impractical, and their beef with Ne types is mostly this constant generalizing of traits. how many times have you seen IEEs get angry at people being racist, sexist, whatever, even when no one was being offended? because the general idea of racism is wrong, even if specifically no one is being offended. often EIIs generalize ethical behavior of what people should and shouldn't do on the scale of the entirety of human race, even if it is completely improbable or impractical or stupid, because their Ne pushes them to idealize generic principles (when i say generic i don't mean ordinary, just something that is applicable in general).

ESIs are a lot more rooted in specifics than this, even when they get pissed or irritated or angry about social issues it has to do with specific situations and consequences in their mind, rather than general principles. if you insult feminism it means you're trivializing my experience, not so much trivializing an overarching social philosophy that applies to all ages and times. so if you don't share that experience it's normal to not care about that sort of thing, plus you're sort of young and also seem to be wired to not care, so i wouldn't really worry about how that doesn't apply to typical ESI behavior. also notice how your threads are mostly stuff where you're asking sort-of provocative questions that are seeking specifics rather than generalities, for example, the question about old people that are sx-first is painfully not-Ne.

i also wanted to make a point about how this, especially the bolded parts, may be indicative of an Se preference, rather than an Ne preference, even in something you quoted:

It's probably one way that an Sx-last could view it. ["one way" -> moving away from generalities] It's said that ["it's said" rather than something that would indicate this is how it is] Sex for Sp is often about the sensory aspect, warmth, closeness, release, body-to-body, etc., while sex for Sx is about intense merging and emotional charge. So with a blind spot towards the latter, you could potentially have someone who has a cruder, detached attitude towards sex. Sp/Sx could probably have a similar attitude towards sex, every now and then, but this video doesn't seem to vibe like something they'd do. It's light and kind of...immediately accessible. Contrived weirdness. Like a fart joke.[lungs-esque analogy, referencing something very solid and concrete to explain something vibe-based]

anyway, yeah i think you're ESI and yes you'll always be able to talk about Fi in abstract terms, that doesn't make you Ne-Fi or Fi-Ne, it means Fi is part of your ego functions.

[blackburry]

eek...


Btw I have only based your type on "but how I interact with people, the content of my posts, etc."


Not going to say anything further because most of what you said rubbed me the wrong way and/or didn't feel like reading. but be whatever type ya want, bro.

[suedehead]

What rubbed you the wrong way.

[Iris]

Ok I mostly can't follow this discussion because, well, it's Iris. So I will share one of my stupid little stories which seems to be my only way to contribute.

My LSE friend was talking about an Alpha whose husband surprised her with a midsize SUV. The Alpha returned it to the dealership, not because it was a gas guzzler, but because she thought it was too large and that it wasn't fair to the other drivers on the road. Then the LSE and an IEE who was also present both nodded their heads in this slightly bemused but yet understanding way that implied that the Alpha was validated in having her own unique opinion.

My Beta reaction was how stupid, how ridiculous, who cares about the other drivers. Get a safe car, its a jungle out there.

Would a Gamma might have a similar reaction? @Sienna.

@suedehead So how do you react to idiosyncrasy? Are you tolerant even though you might not agree?

[suedehead]

Ok I mostly can't follow this discussion because, well, it's Iris. So I will share one of my stupid little stories which seems to be my only way to contribute.

My LSE friend was talking about an Alpha whose husband surprised her with a midsize SUV. The Alpha returned it to the dealership, not because it was a gas guzzler, but because she thought it was too large and that it wasn't fair to the other drivers on the road. Then the LSE and an IEE who was also present both nodded their heads in this slightly bemused but yet understanding way that implied that the Alpha was validated in having her own unique opinion.

My Beta reaction was how stupid, how ridiculous, who cares about the other drivers. Get a safe car, its a jungle out there.

Would a Gamma might have a similar reaction? @Sienna.

@suedehead So how do you react to idiosyncrasy? Are you tolerant even though you might not agree?

I would have never thought of that as a factor @the suv scenario, and I'd just think ok...

Being strange? It's not a deal breaker or anything. If it's someone I'm blatantly annoyed by, I don't go out of my way to be tolerant or fake-like them.

[suedehead]

If you're talking about differences in opinion, a lot of things aren't that serious. I don't have a strong superego when it comes to things like correcting people or putting them directly in their place. If it's something severe, it shapes my opinion of the person, but rarely anything cathartic happens unless we're close and it just stews. I don't naturally try to understand opinions that I disagree with or have some negative reaction to.

[Iris]

One other thought. I think it is a mistake to think that Gammas are the only ones capable of morals and moralizing. I think every quadra has values that are important to them that they will act upon or speak out against. The more outspoken members will speak out and criticize what they think is wrong. You will find that in every quadra.

You are going to be less annoyed by behavior from your adjacent quadras, but they can still annoy you. So what does annoy you?

And I think every type is going to experience different types of annoyance. For me, having to dine out at what I consider an overpriced restaurant, and listen to my dear EII cousin spend 5 minutes talking to the waiter about different aspects of her menu choices, and then listen to her observations about the food, combined with her LSE husbands instruction about wines, makes me want to run screaming out of the restaurant. Even though I like good food. The Si overfocus is what starts to make me uncomfortable, but other types would think I was being ridiculous to mind any of that.

Regarding moralizing, I actually think that the Gammas that I know IRL are quite smooth in knowing how far their influence will reach. They mostly come across as amiable, even charming. They don't bother trying to influence someone that they know won't listen. They are quite chill to be around, and intriguingly cat-like to me. You can see their more independent mindset, in contrast to the more group-minded Betas.

[suedehead]

Assuming I'm Gamma.

Beta: They sometimes act weird when in a group or when they're putting the right 'Fe-face' on.

Delta: Some of them are passive-aggessive and have this way about them where they subtly show off how they're more moral or wholesome than whoever they're talking to. It's like they take one-step forward, and two steps back when it comes to disagreeing with somebody or showing that they don't approve of them. It's like some of them can never admit to having some intense negative reaction to somebody, or maybe being a bit fucked up or crass about something which I guess I view as being more authentic. Like there's no nasty, visceral, Id-impulse in there. I don't get why it annoys me because it's not a bad thing necessarily and it can feel nice and empathetic in other cases, but in arguments it just feels like passive-aggression or weird haughtiness.

[Aylen]

Assuming I'm Gamma.

Beta: They sometimes act weird when in a group or when they're putting the right 'Fe-face' on.

Embrace the Fe-face! To me Fe feels more like a free flow of natural human emotions, even if it is not always appropriate or endearing, than a masquerade. I love to be in a group of betas that I feel comfortable enough with that I can be goofy/silly. There are times we even sing our conversations to each other. With the right people I can be as playful as I want to be and know that they are not going to automatically label me an airhead because I chose to express myself in a different way than I would in a group of delta or gamma.

My sister is delta and I have had to hear from her so many times how her friends thought I was an airhead party girl. It was like they forgot all the times we had long intelligent conversations on mutual interests because I decided to dance on a table one night. I am still an introvert at the end of the day and need to chill alone and contemplate some of my actions and why I find some people amusing and uplifting and others to be real downers when it comes to letting others be themselves. If I managed to get a delta up on the table with me I give myself extra points for ingenuity.

[Aylen]

I am still an introvert at the end of the day and need to chill alone and contemplate some of my actions and why I find some people amusing and uplifting and others to be real downers when it comes to letting others be themselves.

It became very clear to me today how much I dislike this. Not related to your thread but since I had just commented on it here I found it amusing that I gave myself an example this morning.

It is interesting how I can question myself on certain beliefs then synchronistically manifest an example to illustrate. There are signs pointing to the answers, to your questions, all around you.

#threadjack

You can be SLE, but just for the day, Suede.

[wacey]

I want to know how I seem Se-ego, Gamma or ESI, not based on what I say about certain cliche things, but how I interact with people, the content of my posts, etc. How often do I get on a moral high-horse, shame people, or get into heated arguments about forum drama like most active Gammas? Most of the time, I don't give a shit. .

Means you pick your battles. Nothing unusual there.

[suedehead]

Means you pick your battles. Nothing unusual there.

Sure, but it stands out enough that I wonder if it makes me a different quadra. Like I get where it comes from, but I'm not nearly as reactive or trigger-y. There's like this paranoia where if someone on the forum does something, then it reflects how fucked up people are, or maybe they picture someone in their life doing that messed up thing to them and it makes them feel like it's their duty to correct it. Whereas I don't make that connection and just see one asshole. The typical attitude I have in comparison sometimes makes me feel like I lack empathy or altruistic feelings, or like its too easy for me to relativize it or not care if I just happen to be in that mood. It looks nihilistic.

[wacey]

Sure, but it stands out enough that I wonder if it makes me a different quadra. Like I get where it comes from, but I'm not nearly as reactive or trigger-y. There's like this paranoia where if someone on the forum does something, then it reflects how fucked up people are, or maybe they picture someone in their life doing that messed up thing to them and it makes them feel like it's their duty to correct it. Whereas I don't make that connection and just see one asshole. The typical attitude I have in comparison sometimes makes me feel like I lack empathy or altruistic feelings, or like its too easy for me to relativize it or not care if I just happen to be in that mood. It looks nihilistic.

Hmm, maybe you are making some assumptions about how it goes with people on the forum?

[wacey]

One thing about ISFj's, and I have read this in several places on the forum is that often times they are ruled by their insecurities:

I feel your pain. I really do! ISFJs are my supervisee, so I want to help them. Help them not be afraid of everything. Help them relax. Help them blah blah blah. I've had two ISFJ girlfriends, one I chucked pretty quickly, and another one that really fucked with me over the course of a year. They're damaged goods if you ask me. I don't usually make sweeping judgement calls, but every ISFJ I've met has been ruled by their insecurities. They're nasty lying shit-talking fakers. But I too love a challenge, so by the time i realize just how damaged they are, it's too late. Argh.

And just as often their behaviour makes little sense especially as introverted feelers, they might even seem bi-polar.

And that's perhaps the explanation for the sometimes perceived so-called "bipolarity" of ISFjs: they are assuming that everything is under control and fine, so they have no barriers at all; then something happens to show that no, it's more "chaotic" than they thought, so they so an U-turn and erect those Se barricades for worst-case scenario. For an outside observer, those U-turns may look bipolar.

[suedehead]

I think I relate to critical anger and like/dislike, moreso than morality. I can more easily see how the former color my worldview. They overlap, but I guess the idea of being moral feels like it implies that I always value being 'good', or that I strive to create the illusion that everything I do is fair or justified.

[suedehead]

I can't tell if I still sound like an isfj after all that I wrote, lol. It almost feels like I sound SLI but I don't dual-seek Ne, so I guess I'm being stubborn and should just connect 2-and-2 together and accept that certain things aren't going to add up that well. Typology is bullshit.

[Aylen]

I can't tell if I still sound like an isfj after all that I wrote, lol. It almost feels like I sound SLI but I don't dual-seek Ne, so I guess I'm being stubborn and should just connect 2-and-2 together and accept that certain things aren't going to add up that well. Typology is bullshit.

When I landed here it was pretty obvious the Deltas didn't want me. That was fine with me because I have been around enough Deltas to know that I get along better with them one on one. In groups I feel like a total outsider though.

If all else fails, you can always consider...

 

[wacey]

As Statics, Holographers attain reliable precision of thought. As Negativists they periodically turn the object of thought to its opposite side. As Involutionary types, they sporadically change the angle of examination or criterion of judgment.

As a holographic cognition style, it's hard to see all sides of an issue at once. It's hard to see the yes and the no at the same time, which is what I read in your posts.

As to morals, I will try and demonstrate a little bit about what I think it means with an ISFj.

They are personal, becoming built up over time and experimentation and many of them are open to change. Could be something like the following.

"I choose not to drink because I don't like the feeling the next day, I don't want to loose my drivers licence, I had a parent who drank and still drinks, ect. But because I don't drink, doesn't necessarily mean I force upon others the need to stop drinking. Go ahead, drink all you want around me, I don't mind. Somehow though, the personal standards I hold for myself leak out, even though I try to remain open and non-judgmental, and I truly am non-judgmental. It's just that the next day when my friend is hung over and I feel perfectly normal that they might feel I am "moralizing" when I state, "See that is exactly the reason why I don't drink". I'm not meaning it as a slag against them, I couldn't care-a-less what they do with their time. But to them, I might come across as moralizing."

"This is partly the reason I can accept a lot in other people, simply because in truth I have done the same things myself. I have lied, cheated, stole, hurt, faked, yelled, felt heartless, damaged, confused, ect. myself. And I have also changed my habits and ways again and again, and know that if I of all people can change, or improve, or even just try, then I know that others are capable of doing so as well. Sometimes I forget to let others know that I accept them as people, but have a harder time condoning their behaviour, BECAUSE I have a harder time condoning my own."

"The so called pressure that is applied isn't some bizarre drill sergeant ways. It's showing by my own example the inner, I wouldn't even call them values, just life habits and over time that has a way of playing upon the people around me. This is one of the reasons for the people I keep around me are, imo, of high quality. It's also the reason I have been described as a "hard, prickly" growing up, and not a "warm-fuzzy". Very confusing for a young person. This is also another reason that I keep to myself a lot. "

"What is troubling is that I know how difficult it is for myself to change, so I sometimes have little faith that others can change because I know how difficult it was/is to do so myself. "

Of course this is how any Fi-dom blocked with either Se, or Ne, may view the world.

Does any of this sound familiar?

[Amber]

Since someone recently tried to convince me Dude is actually ILE and by the light of the newest experiences, inability to get desired relationships, and self-esteem issues, I concede that Suedehead's initial self-type works better than ESI.

SEI

[suedehead]

I don't give a fuck.

[suedehead]

I'm not a fisherman's wife and most people have a shadow side. Noone's thoughts are proper and moral, or match up perfectly with some ideal or caricature all the time, and whenever blackburry accuses me it feels like projection or a neurotic fear response but you can call that Gamma Fi or whatever. I don't value the things that she does and I don't have the same triggers as her. I'm not going to justify how I'm ESI because I think it's a boring type even though I used to have it on a pedestal and most of the cliches either piss me off and make me think of bitchy neurotic women. I don't take my type nearly as seriously as you do and you have a weak understanding of how people work.

[Amber]

He has a strong understanding of how people work beyond type, which is why he talks about persons he likes and he's dating in rather lengthy, enthusiastic, and sophisticated posts.

OP doesn't understand self and others, which is why he resorts to type to rationalize his lack of a sexual/romantic life.

What AS doesn't grasp totally error-free is the fact that he can utterly dislike a dual ... bcause, well, he's a sorta idealist. Plus why don't I have pretty much the same kinda conflicts and communication issues with some Identicals and some Ne egos. Man.

[suedehead]

You're always butting in to make some commentary about someone you barely know being bold, fierce, couture and sophisticated like some gay fashion designer and expecting me to care. There's dynamic and spontaneous about what you write - it's the same shit over and over. How are you not So/Sp?

[Amber]

You're always butting in to make some commentary about someone you barely know being bold, fierce, couture and sophisticated like some gay fashion designer and expecting me to care. There's dynamic and spontaneous about what you write - it's the same shit over and over. How are you not So/Sp?

no, I meant sophisticated in a manly and female-attraction-maneuvering kinda way. At least that´s obvious from a few posts here http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...53#post1087153

[Suz]

NPD type.

Disclaimer: Lest it be misinterpreted, this is not to be taken as an official diagnosis but rather as a layperson's gestalt impression. Visit your local mental health professional for an official evaluation, if you so desire.

[suedehead]

Shut the fuck up suz. You have zero no self-awareness. All you ever do is shit on people and brag about how well-adjusted you think you are when it's ironically just another form of vanity. I blatantly admit to how fucked up I am whereas all you ever do is play up your positive qualities and slap disorders onto people who disagree with you. That's okay though because you're superficially pleasant to people that you disdain. Lmfao.

Amber, tell me how you're Te-seeking and would benefit from having a logical dual. How are you not already adept at dry Ti categorizations. How are your contrived emotional histrionics not in line with Fe-seeking. Why do you sound stiff and phony whenever you try to take cliche 'moral' stances.

[Suz]

Shut the fuck up suz. You have zero no self-awareness. All you ever do is shit on people and brag about how well-adjusted you think you are when it's ironically just another form of vanity. I blatantly admit to how fucked up I am whereas all you ever do is play up your positive qualities and slap disorders onto people who disagree with you. That's okay though because you're superficially pleasant to people that you look down on. Lmfao.

Amber, tell me how you're Te-seeking and would benefit from having a logical dual. How are you not already adept at dry Ti categorizations. How are your contrived emotional histrionics not in line with Fe-seeking. Why do you sound stiff and phony whenever you try to take cliche 'moral' stances.

feel free to delude yourself that way, if that makes you feel better about your insecure self...

[Amber]

Shut the fuck up suz. You have zero no self-awareness. All you ever do is shit on people and brag about how well-adjusted you think you are when it's ironically just another form of vanity. I blatantly admit to how fucked up I am whereas all you ever do is play up your positive qualities and slap disorders onto people who disagree with you. That's okay though because you're superficially pleasant to people that you disdain. Lmfao.

Amber, tell me how you're Te-seeking and would benefit from having a logical dual. How are you not already adept at dry Ti categorizations. How are your contrived emotional histrionics not in line with Fe-seeking. Why do you sound stiff and phony whenever you try to take cliche 'moral' stances.

you are allegedly Fi base and you take no moral stances whatsoever. You're only a drama queen who floods the forum with personal insecurities, deprivation, and hatred.

If by "cliche" you mean liberal values ...well, that's what I work with and write about. It's bone-deep in me. So I can't really publicly support Republicans, Nazism, Communists, capital punishment by guillotine, terrorism, harakiri, or harem-type polygamy only to sound more morally upbeat and fancy.

[suedehead]

You're basically saying that you base your morality off of pervasive ideologies and societal structures. That's not what base Fi is.

[Amber]

You're basically saying that you base your morality off of pervasive ideologies and societal structures. That's not what base Fi is.

I'm basically saying:

1. I am a convinced feminist and anti-racist because of what is one of the main priorities in my life. I have a passion for the kinda work I'm doing and for contributing to some sort of change through what I believe in. I wrote my PhD on an African American author whom I totally love.

2. I find you totally unworthy as a person and as a man (on an individual level). You creep me out. You are a disgusting human wreck and there's way more distance between us than I experience with ppl of many other types (and that includes said A-Am author).

[Words]

Haha this suede guy is so well adjusted himself he's got to constantly scream projections at people, not just projections of his ways of behaving, but projections of the emptiness within him, note how empty his posts are of actual content which is how empty he is on the inside, just a pure shell which only wants to be a sadist and torture other people.

When did I say his supposed niceness and meekness was just an act? Yeah some point earlier here or on another thread. He just keeps proving it right.

[Kill4Me]

All day 3w4 sp/so...competency triad > positive reframer. 3w4s are what I call the withdrawn types of the assertive triad....sp/so > sp/sx....sx-instinct adds some aggression/wildness, sp/so is more domestic. sp/so also accentuates the 3's disintegrating line to 9 since that stack has a drive towards harmony, cooperation, politeness. That said, I don't yet have a strong read on your socionics type. I'm leaning towards SLI atm. You remind me of this guy I sometimes shoot pool and play cards with. He's SLI 3w4 sp/so....you two have a very similar kinesthetic as I've seen your video before. He is coldly realistic in his self-assessments and always quick with a negative, but competent retort.....he can make an incredible shot, and somebody tells him "helluva shot" and he'll be like "how many of those do i ever make...." "I miss those nine out of ten times". Also image triad > gut triad is clear from your posts (an easy way to parse out image from gut is by the fleshier introspective style feeling types have....more towards 4w5 you go the fleshier it gets....too much external "bleeding" in your older posts for a gut triader as the self-awareness for gut types is more in the body).

[Adam Strange]

you have a weak understanding of how people work.

He has a strong understanding of how people work beyond type, which is why he talks about persons he likes and he's dating in rather lengthy, enthusiastic, and sophisticated posts.

Actually, suedehead, you are right about me having a weak understanding of how people work. I have almost no natural talent for it, which is one of the reasons I find ESI's so appealing. Not only do they have real values (which I kind of lack), they have thought about those values for a long time, and have a huge amount of experience in testing them in the real world. They do relationships the way Te-doms do orbiting weapons systems. Also, they can get me to do things that I wouldn't do for anyone else and their way of doing it doesn't feel controlling to me, which is not true of any other type. But, would I have ever known this just by talking to them online? No. I had to discover Socionics (to know that this kind of relationship is even possible) and even then I had to meet a few in person to see, or feel, really, their appeal. I had to have some real-world experience.


It seems to me that there are three ways you could discover your type. One is to simply sit around and try to analyze what kind of information processing you are doing. But this is going to be really hard, because how can you compare two styles when you only use one? I don't see how that can be done by every type. IEI's can maybe do it, but probably not LSE's. Or, you could take an on-line test or two and see what unfolds. That assumes you are old enough to have settled into a single style.


A slightly better way, in my opinion, is to interact with other people and see whom you get along with, and whom you don't, and allow for the normal error bars of like/dislike for odd reasons, then try to have them type themselves, and compare the results.


If you can figure out why you like or don't like someone, within the confines of Socionics, you stand a pretty good chance of discovering your own type.


I mean, the system I'm suggesting isn't perfect. Before I learned that there is a fairly set interaction style between any two types, I just experimented and hoped for the best, and most of my experiments ended in greater or lesser failure. Before I discovered Socionics, I was attracted to the following series of women (only the ones I can type with some assurance are listed, and as Myers-Briggs types for my convenience): INTP, ISTP, ISTJ, INTJ, INFJ, INFP, ISFP. I knew nothing of Socionics, but I was naturally attracted to certain characteristics in these women even without knowing their type at the time.


I basically said to myself, Yes, this woman is nice but there is this problem, and The next woman is nice but there is this problem, and this could have endlessly cycled if I had not actually met two ISFP's (ESI's here) and said, yes, this woman is a bolt from the clear blue sky, the personality is exactly what I need, and now I can concentrate on similar life goals, etc.


My natural understanding of people is very weak. Yours might be, too, but if you just meet some people, you'll naturally like some more than others, and there will eventually be one that you really, really like. Just expect to meet a lot before you meet her. And here's some final advice about meeting women (not PUA advice, because you're not trying to pick her up). When you meet a woman, try to find out who she is and what her best qualities are. This is easiest to do if your brain is not smoking from sex, which seriously clouds your judgment. Don't push, take some time to get to know her. It is better to pass than to make a stupid mistake, because mistakes take up your time and mess up your life. Ask yourself what is it about her that you respect, what is it about her that you like, how does she make your life better and how can you make her life better, and are you happier and more like yourself when around her than when you are not?

Brief encounters can be a lot of fun (I found them to be easier and more fun when I was drunk, but eventually I always sobered up ), but they're not going to tell you anything at all about your type. Well, maybe something, because ime some types do brief encounters a lot, but that still leaves a fairly wide range of choices.

When you meet your dual, you probably won't be attracted to her at first, and this is exactly why you need to know her for more than a few hours. If, after a while, you find yourself liking her more and more without having to look for reasons to like her, you might have found your dual. Then, have her take the test, and there is your type.