Newbie.....FNG

[hatesyardwork]

Typology novice with some Myers Briggs understanding. Just became immersed in the forums here, and have found this stuff to be fascinating. Such a contrast from an interpersonal relationship perspective, but admit I find some of the language translations frustrating to glean. . My best guess is I am a Gamma given my initial understandings. Strongly connect with the Gamma values and believe I favor NI/Te/Fi/Se. Self typed MB INTJ and understand the different p versus j on assessment in this system. I find the ESI descriptions to be far different than the vanilla isfp standards that I had accepted in the MB model. The ESI sounds far more resolute and 3 dimensional in socionics descriptions, given my earlier understanding of the "carefree and loving" isfp. The Quadra behavioral breakdowns I especially find compelling. Thus I will stick with Gamma for now and not proclaim myself ILI. Interesting stuff indeed, detailed to a level that seems far more penetrating than MBTI. Duals, relationships, functions, romantic styles, subtypes.......wow, excellent stuff.
Give me a year and maybe I can add something to the lively forums. Greetings to all. and

[Sol]

You may make a typing thread with video to get opinions about your type. In many cases people think about own type wrong.

understand the different p versus j on assessment in this system

No difference as preferences are compatible. MBT model of introverted types is just not-Jungian and wrong. INTJ (LII) in Socionics is INTJ in MBT

I find the ESI descriptions to be far different than the vanilla isfp standards

As MBT uses as main method MBTI wich uses only preferences, - their types descriptions should contradict to where they type people in more cases. As types have many common, they type incorrectly in many cases and descriptions are abstract, - people don't notice much the discrepancy. If that people after many years still don't notice Jung's model was other, to don't notice problem in descriptions is simpler.

P.S. subtypes, Reinin's dichs, Gulenko's styles, etc - is not Jung's types and classical Socionics. you better go past it

[hatesyardwork]

@Sol........I hear you, again I am not caught up on all the literature.......which is why I was hesitant to only claim Gamma. I am open to being typed by others......will try to upload something and watch a few member examples.

[The Exception]

Welcome @hatesyardwork

[hatesyardwork]

This a couple of years old, but it is me.

[Sol]

here you are without glasses


LII (=INTJ) is more probable, than ILI.

[hatesyardwork]

So I am missing glasses and Fi?

[Sol]

So I am missing glasses and Fi?

one of things - definitely
You may look at examples of types in my signature to check your perception of different types. There should be correlation with intertype relations theory.

[hatesyardwork]

From gamma to alpha in one fell swoop.....damn, it could be. Never occurred that I could be LII, but your examples are very interesting. Been reading non stop since your post and see a lot that I should consider. I always knew NT, just felt I was more of a Te type over Ti, and certainly not Fe at all. Again your insight is interesting, and I am quite shaken actually, but thanks for your honest assessment. I am scared shitless seeing the possibility of my Activity partner suddenly being SuperEgo.. Fuck if I can't type myself, how can I be sure she is ESI? Probably a lot more objective outside of my own self perception. I may have to dump her. No !

[tejing]

From gamma to alpha in one fell swoop.....damn, it could be. Never occurred that I could be LII, but your examples are very interesting. Been reading non stop since your post and see a lot that I should consider. I always knew NT, just felt I was more of a Te type over Ti, and certainly not Fe at all. Again your insight is interesting, and I am quite shaken actually, but thanks for your honest assessment. I am scared shitless seeing the possibility of my Activity partner suddenly being SuperEgo.. Fuck if I can't type myself, how can I be sure she is ESI? Probably a lot more objective outside of my own self perception. I may have to dump her. No !

Mistyping as the quasi-identical is one of the more common mistakes, especially among those newer to socionics, however I'm 99% sure that hasn't happened here. You're an ILI.

[ghost of forum past]

Welcome to the forum! Your expressions in your video suggest Te-valuing (Fe-devaluing) to me. I guess ILI works.

One thing that will get mud in your understanding of Socionics is people trying to tell you that there is a perfect correlation between MBTI and Socionics. I recommend that you go your own way and develop your own horizons.

[glam]

@hatesyardwork since you're new to socionics, just want to say that @Sol's opinions in this thread do not necessarily reflect what everybody in the socionics community thinks. for example, many (including myself) would disagree that there is a 1-to-1 correlation between MBTI types and socionics. if it was true, INTP in MBTI would always equal ILI in socionics, but personally i haven't found that to be the case. i have seen INTP that end up typing themselves ILE, LII, or IEI in socionics. both systems make use of Jungian functions, so there are overlapping aspects and similarities, but they are still different systems.

also, many people here utilize subtypes, Reinin dichotomies, and Gulenko's work - these things are a part of socionics theory, and i think it's dishonest for Sol to dismiss them on the basis that they aren't "real" socionics. subtypes especially are widely used and accepted and have been written about by many socionists. Reinin dichotomies are also widely used (IMO they are inherent to the theory), and Gulenko's work is quoted and referenced all over the place. i would say continue researching the theory, and you can learn about these things for yourself, and decide if they're useful to you.



welcome to the forum!

[hatesyardwork]

@glam thank you, I will keep that in mind, thanks for the welcome

[hatesyardwork]

@Hacim thanks for that friend. Does that mean I should hold on to that ESI for now?

[hatesyardwork]

thanks, appreciate that..........questioned my whole existence there for awhile.

[hatesyardwork]

People should realise that getting along or not getting along with others affects the INTp self esteem and is a large part of their Fi use and it's certainly not about judgements on large or expensive housing, boats or shoes and am bringing this up as that is what a lot of the second video seemed to be about.

I hear you........not getting along with someone, often just points to my not wanting to engage with people whose values seem very superficial from the outset. Self esteem affects me if it someone I like who I am not getting along with. I am pretty guarded so I am just not going to make the effort if I sense I won't like them.

[huiheiwufhawriuhg]

Welcome on board!

[hatesyardwork]

Mistyping as the quasi-identical is one of the more common mistakes, especially among those newer to socionics, however I'm 99% sure that hasn't happened here. You're an ILI.

The only people saying I am not LII are the LII

[glam]

The only people saying I am not LII are the LII

i don't think you're LII, and I'm IEI

i think you could be some kind of ST type, but not SLE

[ghost of forum past]

The only people saying I am not LII are the LII

It's pretty easy for quasi-identicals to tell themselves apart. Types outside the pair that do not know​ both parties well may perceive ILI and LII to be similar, however.

If you think you're ILI, go with it (you seem like a Te subtype IP). I could also see SLI-Te.

[hatesyardwork]

It's pretty easy for quasi-identicals to tell themselves apart. Types outside the pair that do not know​ both parties well may perceive ILI and LII to be similar, however.

If you think you're ILI, go with it (you seem like a Te subtype IP). I could also see SLI-Te.

I remember your earlier post along the same lines that I seemed Te valuing, which I agree with. Actually I very much see your point, it's Si or Ni that is not clear in the video if I am a Te ego. So do I value Si or Ni? I value Ni friend, trust me on this. I am closer to ESI than SLI

[hatesyardwork]

i don't think you're LII, and I'm IEI

i think you could be some kind of ST type, but not SLE

Logical yes, this seems to be the only agreement. Lead Se? No. Unless I'm drinking. LSI? I gave this a lot of thought more than SLI because I have Se in me somewhere..........but not an erotic aggressor, way more victim craving and I believe I value Te. When I first got into typology I used to think I might be a Te Dom because IRL I am very engaged, but I am truly an introvert. So I am either SLI Delta or Gamma ILI it we can agree on Te and introversion. Do I then value Si or Ni?????? I am in my own world.......an Ni dom. Subjective but sincere video interpretations aside.......I am an Ni dom. I have matured a lot with age to a very Te heavy sub type, but if you read the Balzac description or the Ni Te subtype..............that is me.