Type me please!! ILI or LII?

[Number 9 large]

This is interesting because a Ti-lead when presented with evidence will often say, "But does it make sense?" In other words, evidence isn't enough, it has to hold together in a coherent way. So, for them, it's not true unless it is logically consistent within itself, even with evidence.

They still care about reality, but the primary concern for a Ti-base is still always "Does this make sense according to my understanding of reality, and does it hold together, is it a rational explanation?" In other words, they operate in the opposite direction of what you've said here - to be true, it first must make rational sense to them.

Actually I agree on a theory having to make ''sense'' in the sense of it not contradicting itself. When it does, the whole theory loses it's credibility. It's essentially falsified.
That doesn't mean that the theory doesn't hold tiny elements of truth in it, just that the theory as a whole has failed.
What I said here though is that the theory (of socionics) doesn't just have to make sense with itself. (e.g. the 8 functions and everything are ordered perfectly, each type has a conflictor and dual etc so the theory is complete and seems to make sense within itself, UNTILL you, for example come to realise that you are having a great relationship with a conflictor.) This is why I always try to falsify something if I want to know if it is true or not. I test it to reality. Reality is what I see and experience. (yea you can argue about point of view, opinion etc but for the most part you can agree that we can see objective reality to such a degree that we can infer facts from it, and therefore reason)

This either means that he's not your conflictor, OR that the theory is simply wrong, because if one card of the house of cards falls, the whole cardhouse breaks down, see what I mean? A big foundation of socionics is intertype relations. So if you're having a great relationship with a conflictor, there must be something wrong with the theory (assuming that you know 100% that both your types are actually conflictors, I know you can't really know for sure but bear with me). It's like a domino stack, if one brick falls everything falls.
This is because every fact is based on the premise of another fact. So if you can prove that one fact is wrong, every other fact that bases its validity on the falsified fact is therefore also wrong. This is why it is very easy to falsify theories which have a lot of loopholes and dead ends like religion, but also ungrounded theories like socionics.
It may look like I'm trying to make fun of it, but really all I want to know is the truth. That's why I'm so skeptical. Anyway

Function #-1 – objective logic (Te): the world is the way I see it, everything else I ignore. Real circumstances can be perceived simply as annoying obstacles.

Why are ''real circumstances'' seen as obstacles in Te? I thought Te was objective logic. Shouldn't that mean that it's foundation is in the very thing it claims here to reject?

In other words, you're quite right that you are not Ti-lead.

I'm actually not sure of this yet.

You also seem to be IP temperament.

Can you give me an example of this?

victim stands out above everything else.

I think I have to agree on this, although childlike might also just be an option. (haven't rules this out yet, and if anyone can give examples of childlike flirting, it would be much appreciated, because I don't really understand how this works, or would work.) Edit: I'm gonna make a thead about this

(The poking for a reaction - seeing if people can banter back is very typical victim behavior) So, no, I won't be proving your self-assessments wrong, as I only see evidence backing them up.

Ah okay, this makes sense. Anyone else agree on this? @Cassandra @Myst ?

I've still yet to see what's so Se creative about me

[soulclap]

lsi is worth exploring. compare your original questionnaire responses to a basic type / IE breakdown like on sociotype.com. the type of recognition you value and your views of a unified brotherhood are quite Fe valuing. add Se, and so too is typically wanting an environment for crude jokes and expression. fe polr types (sli or ili) may be the least likely of all to mask their emotions with a smile or want to affect the mood of the environment or lighten it up as you describe. the search for meaning is something a lot of lsi are going to struggle with and seek Ni/Fe solutions for, believing in and having views of certain social orders worth protecting is also going to fall into super-id ni territory (your views on no war and working together) for instance.

"What people see as my weakness is never ending doubts, indecision. My weakness is endless pondering over situations and usually social obligations, which I then usually, after a couple of nights bad sleep, blow off, usually regretting it later, but it's the only way to stop the never ending doubt and fear that bugs my mind at times."

explaining this statement can shed light onto how you interact with Ni and Fe. what about social obligations do you ponder over, why do you regret blowing it off, what do you doubt, what do you fear

thanks for sharing and good luck with your journey through socionics btw.

[Number 9 large]

The way you went through all of the information and dissected it as you did is rather typical of a Logical type, @Number 9 large.

Usually, being plagued with doubts and wanting to find security ( valuing types usually seek it out in some kind of system) is a Type 6 problem and not related to any particular IE. Apparently some people associate that with , but that is not what is truly about. is about time and an abstract perception of the world; think of how Plato saw objects containing "ideas" – this is very .

A lot of people in this world are doubtful or indecisive, and they are all supposed to be lead? Not really. A lot of people are 6s. I know that for a newbie or even advanced people, there can be the difficulty to discern Sociotype from Enneagram type, but the differences have to be considered.



Another Enneagram motivation vs IE issue. No, as far as I understand it, this is not Fi HA in particular; this is simply being either SX first or second.

A good rule of thumb to distinguish whether something is IE related or Enneagram related: Could other (potentially very different) sociotypes go through the same thing or feel the same way about something? In this case, again, plenty of non-Ni lead or non-Fi HA people always have someone they are obsessed or infatuated with. And those people are usually SX first, sometimes second. And there are SX blindspot ILIs (and other types) who don't feel that way much at all.

But I get it, the problem with the HAs is the fact there is not enough information about them out there, and the information that is there is very vague and too open to interpretation for some people. I see HA as being related to wanting to develop your , and finding ways to express yours better. This can go by wanting to "love" (or despise, for that matter) certain things in this world; but it is not necessarily as closely related to romance itself as it sounds like.



W

ho likes rejection? I don't know anyone who does. (Except for some women who have a thing for jerks, maybe.)

Well, what I meant by that is that I wouldn't even risk success with a women, because of my fear and dread of rejection. I know everybody hates rejection


Yes, you do not value it, but having very strong as an LSI, you'd be able to relate to some of the Si (lead) description aspects. The way you critique the lead descriptions sounds pretty much like Demonstrative to me, from a valuing perspective. And you do relate to , otherwise you wouldn't have bolded entire sections of it.

Anyhow, I still see an LSI Type 6 finding difficulties with fully embracing the theory because of general doubts, and maybe a lack of clear information in some parts. And it is not helping that you like SEEs (assuming they are typed correctly) so much. It makes you believe that they must be your Duals. SX problems.

Okay I gotta look up this SX thing, because I really haven't read up on enneagram before, in a serious way at least.
But can you explain then why you see me as a LSI and not LII or ILI, for example? What exactly is so ''sensing'' about me? (of course apart from the fact that you think I look like an LSI)

[Pallas]

@Number 9 large I'm pretty sure it's just "you look like an LSI" combined with Cassandra not having found an LSI in the wild for a long time. Your questionnaire mostly comes off like some sort of stereotypical vague Ni-dom questionnaire (as in, it's vague which one, not that you're vague). Cassandra's looking for 6-ish qualities mostly seems to follow from her looking for LSI qualities, since most LSIs are 6s according to her. I'd say everyone should doubt things sometimes and that's good. Was Socrates a 6? He was kind of characteristically uninterested in security.

[squark]

Actually I agree on a theory having to make ''sense'' in the sense of it not contradicting itself. When it does, the whole theory loses it's credibility. It's essentially falsified.
That doesn't mean that the theory doesn't hold tiny elements of truth in it, just that the theory as a whole has failed.
What I said here though is that the theory (of socionics) doesn't just have to make sense with itself. (e.g. the 8 functions and everything are ordered perfectly, each type has a conflictor and dual etc so the theory is complete and seems to make sense within itself, UNTILL you, for example come to realise that you are having a great relationship with a conflictor.) This is why I always try to falsify something if I want to know if it is true or not. I test it to reality. Reality is what I see and experience. (yea you can argue about point of view, opinion etc but for the most part you can agree that we can see objective reality to such a degree that we can infer facts from it, and therefore reason)

This either means that he's not your conflictor, OR that the theory is simply wrong, because if one card of the house of cards falls, the whole cardhouse breaks down, see what I mean? A big foundation of socionics is intertype relations. So if you're having a great relationship with a conflictor, there must be something wrong with the theory (assuming that you know 100% that both your types are actually conflictors, I know you can't really know for sure but bear with me). It's like a domino stack, if one brick falls everything falls.
This is because every fact is based on the premise of another fact. So if you can prove that one fact is wrong, every other fact that bases its validity on the falsified fact is therefore also wrong. This is why it is very easy to falsify theories which have a lot of loopholes and dead ends like religion, but also ungrounded theories like socionics.
It may look like I'm trying to make fun of it, but really all I want to know is the truth. That's why I'm so skeptical. Anyway

There are too many things besides type factors influencing any given relationship for socionics to have as much predictive power as people often claim it does. There are some things you can see just through observation that have merit, such as people really do think differently and you can watch different elements show up as you listen and observe. Is it proven? No. Are you going to find it to be 100% accurate? Nope. Does everyone have a tendency to put their own spin and interpretation on it? Yes. Is it possible to have a good relationship with your conflictor? Yes.

So, question is, if you can't depend on it to be a completely accurate representation of reality, are you still interested or not? Because it isn't, and won't be. There are parts that hold true, and you can retain those and still work within the theory without having to throw the whole thing out.

Why are ''real circumstances'' seen as obstacles in Te? I thought Te was objective logic. Shouldn't that mean that it's foundation is in the very thing it claims here to reject?

Yes, objective logic is what Te is, and Ti leads have Te-ignoring, so they ignore Te in favor of Ti. That section was referring only to how Ti-leads relate to Te. (BTW, Te-creatives like ILI have strong Ti, they just value Te more and what you said in first paragraph fits that pattern)

Can you give me an example of this?

Examples of IP temperament from what you wrote:

My weakness is endless pondering over situations and usually social obligations, which I then usually, after a couple of nights bad sleep, blow off, usually regretting it later, but it's the only way to stop the never ending doubt and fear that bugs my mind at times.

I would let the kid decide his life for himself mostly. I would let him make obvious mistakes I would see coming, because I know life is the best teacher, and I would only withhold him from her teachings if I would protect him from every harm, it would make life boring and meaningless ( which it already is, but you know what I mean.)
(IP and Ni)

restrained, passive

I only really approach women, or take a chance when I know I will succeed. I don't like taking meaningless risks, and being ambiguous shows that I can't decipher what you really think of me, or it just means that - that you don't know. In either case, it makes for a useless endeavour to try and court somebody like that. I don't like to waste my time.
(IP and Te)

Because I'm pretty sure I'm bored out of my mind of people who exhibit Ni (at least in romantic sense), because they're so introvert, silent, basically coming across as boring.
I mean, that's basically what I am already, so I look for the opposite.

I don't like taking initiative, being assertive sexually, although I may seem like it, or act like it.
I actually like it more when girls show initiative and interest in me, because I'm unsure in that area and rather have someone come to me, that way I know for sure if somebody likes me.
(INxx in general)

This seems pretty spot on, actually, especially the not that proactive part. I am a pretty passive person. Resistant to fast lifestyle changes (such as changing jobs or just diving into the deep, not knowing what to expect), I think that's why I like SEEs so much, cuz they're the opposite therefore could bring fun into my life, cuz I like never want to try new things/ throw myself on thin ice, even though I know it's part of life and going forward/becoming a stronger version of yourself.

[Olimpia]

@Number 9 large I'm pretty sure it's just "you look like an LSI" combined with Cassandra not having found an LSI in the wild for a long time. Your questionnaire mostly comes off like some sort of stereotypical vague Ni-dom questionnaire (as in, it's vague which one, not that you're vague). Cassandra's looking for 6-ish qualities mostly seems to follow from her looking for LSI qualities, since most LSIs are 6s according to her. I'd say everyone should doubt things sometimes and that's good. Was Socrates a 6? He was kind of characteristically uninterested in security.

What is that supposed to mean? I meet LSI guys quite frequently, actually. You are mistaken. I meet more LSIs than any kind of Se lead for that matter.

Also, you are denying he has 6 qualities? If his behaviour is not obviously Type 6, I don't know what it is.

You are not actually dissecting my arguments, but mostly focusing on how my typing of him is just some kind of confirmation bias.

I typed him as LSI way before I ever saw his profile pic, too. (Note how I initially typed him as LSI-Ti based on the questionnaire alone, and later he seemed like an LSI-Se to me via V.I. At the moment, I am not really sure what his subtype is.) I was basing my main typing on his questionnaire only.

[Pallas]

You are not actually dissecting my arguments, but mostly focusing on how my typing of him is just some kind of confirmation bias.

I did though. You just ignored the arguments I made, like that most of the questionnaire comes off Ni-dom-ish and you're ignoring those parts, and doubting anything ever doesn't make you core 6. I see a lot of 6-ish things on there (like his comments about being afraid of being alienated and wanting everyone to work together), but typing someone as a 6 just because they doubt something is very shaky since there are lots of motivations for doubting things besides testing to see if they'll be secure to cling onto. There are lots of things on the questionnaire that really can't be interpreted as 6-ish in addition to the ones that can, like being a nihilist (nothing more secure than believing in nothing?), identifying with great philosophers, and hating "useless bureaucratic procedures that always get [him] into trouble" and not deciding his potential future children's lives for them (nothing more secure than not knowing anything your offspring will do). Yes, LSIs and ESIs are more likely to type as counterphobic 6, but the way these particular things are stated doesn't even hint that he's thinking about security.

[darya]

There are lots of things on the questionnaire that really can't be interpreted as 6-ish in addition to the ones that can, like being a nihilist (nothing more secure than believing in nothing?), identifying with great philosophers, and hating "useless bureaucratic procedures that always get [him] into trouble" and not deciding his potential future children's lives for them (nothing more secure than not knowing anything your offspring will do).

These are exact things that speak against 6 imo as well. It would be unusual for a 6 to state those things in this way, even if counterphobic. If OP is a 6, he's a very unusual one.

Edit: I could see cp 6's fighting against certain bureacratic procedures that they personally don't agree with, not just every procedure just because (they like order in some way), but especially weird is the nihilistic, not believing in anything part, life is boring and meaningless...odd things for LSI 6 to say. 6's are the opposite of nihilistic, they like to cling to a belief system (or strongly oppose it), whatever it is.

[Number 9 large]

what about social obligations do you ponder over, why do you regret blowing it off, what do you doubt, what do you fear

Interesting, also I usually just doubt whether it will work out (with people/friends/relationships), if I will be liked etc. I usually have the gnawing feeling that when people REALLY get to know me, they will reject me because of my antisocial tendencies. Also these nihilistic thoughts usually scare people away, but it's at the core of who I am.

Whenever I try to have a good or ''deep'' conversation on the subject I am usually met with people that have ''never thought about it'', or are irrationally clinging onto their religion or some other nice white lie they tell themselves to keep themselves going. Or they just don't care. But for me, this is really important, it made me who I am today. I have went through depression trying to figure out the meaning of life and realizing there just isn't any.

By antisocial tendencies I mean I am extremely attached to the fact that I am independent. I can't stand having to be dependent on somebody else for financial or even emotional reasons. This is also why all my ''friendships'' are very platonic. It's all surface, because at the end of the day, I don't want to have to rely on them emotionally, because I always feel it never is deep enough or that it's just not worth my time, usually people of my age are very shallow, I feel. Also I feel very insecure about my social interactions. I feel people will reject me in the end anyway, so why bother starting relationships or friendships? I feel like I want something from them that they can't give, and rather than trying to start a friendship based on drinking booze together or whatever I'd rather be alone most of the time. Rather alone, than lonely/feeling out of place in company, see what I mean?
I feel like most social interaction is a real chore for me, I always feel like I have to stoop down to peoples level, and it's just irritating. If I don't, I won't fit in. If I do, at least I'll be liked but I get no satisfaction out of it. So often I choose to be ''liked'' but never really commit.

This is also why I rejected a lot of girls that were quickly just getting too close to me. It made me feel asthmatic, like I couldn't breath anymore. Like I had to answer to some random girl about whatever I was doing, justify my actions to her. I don't want that, I wanna be my own person, to have freedom. I also just don't like limiting myself to one girl. What if there are better girls out there, shouldn't I save myself for them? Because when you're in a relationship, you can't afford to cheat (at least I know I wouldn't, and this limitation of my life drives me crazy, it closes doors and I hate that.).

I feel smothered really really easily, and this is what gives me sleepless nights, until I break it off because I can't handle it anymore. It just keeps on bugging me, I keep on overthinking about it, and in the end I just lay it off. I don't wanna be bound to people, I don't want people expecting things from me. I also don't wanna be expecting things from people either, because they usually let me down. So in order to prevent all this I keep everyone at bay. If they get too close to liking me, I offend them to increase psychological distance. This gives me breathing room again. I know it's probably not healthy, but this is what I learned along the way. People disappoint. I disappoint people, so don't get too close to me and nobody will get hurt.
This is also why I got conflict with my mother all the time, because she is always sticking her nose into my business (even though she knows I always get into trouble putting off stuff like renewing a pasport, or paying a bill, sometimes I forget and the bill multiplies etc). I know she's just trying to help (I believe she's ESE, she tested as ESFJ once on an MBTI test and it seems pretty accurate) but I fucking hate it. I fucking hate having to rely on my mother for practical matters. I'd rather just fix it all myself, even though I hate fixing these things.
My father learned that he can't meddle in my life, so he basically just ignores me.
With my sister I can get along sometimes, but we are growing apart because she chose the muslim life, whereas I chose the nihilistic point of view. We sometimes have discussions about it, but it leads nowhere because she is deluded/brainwashed. Cannot fight religion with logic, because logic doesn't reach where religion is stored. We both learned about religion when we were small kids, and when you're small you accept anything your parents say to you as truth. And when you're older, sometimes people don't have enough critical thinking capacity to see beyond what might be. Or NOT be, in my case.
She never looked for answers past her religion, and I pity that.

One of the reasons why I think I might be ILI instead of LII (I always test as LII on sociotype.com) is why I always get into fights with my mom (ESE). Because she just can't help but try to help me, and it's driving me fuckin nuts. I keep telling her I don't want her help, but she doesn't listen. I think this might point to a Fe PolR, but I'm not sure. She also gets annoyed when I forget to clean up after I make food or that I don't tidy up my room; I don't care if my room is tidy, as long as I know where to find my shit, I couldn't give two shits if people regard it as ''clean''. Must be Te logic clashing with her Si/Fe wanting to have a nice atmosphere, aswel as me being too occupied with Ni stuff (like this forum ).

I also identify much more with being a victim romantically, than childlike, which is another reason why ILI might suit me more than LII.
I also don't identify with being the agressor, which is why I kind of doubt myself being LSI.
Also I still haven't heard a really good argument of why Se would be my creative function @Cassandra @soulclap @Myst . Have only heard indirect arguments of ''you might have Fe seeking and Ni seeking'', but never why Se would be my creative.
I don't really care about dominating my surrounding environment at all. I'm actually subassertive, as @Slade pointed out. Se people draw me out/into action. Fe mostly annoys me, has me feeling smothered, belittled. Just because I oppose war/cherish peace doesn't mean that in my daily life I want everybody to be all cosy with me, in fact, the opposite is true

You seem like the kind of person who whines and complains if something doesn't go their way rather than be proactive about it [...]It seems, rather, that you "need" or a better word might be benefit from a kick in the ass. I detected a little bit of self loathing, mixed with arrogance, which when together give me the impression of fragility.

This describes me really really well.

[Number 9 large]

There are too many things besides type factors influencing any given relationship for socionics to have as much predictive power as people often claim it does. There are some things you can see just through observation that have merit, such as people really do think differently and you can watch different elements show up as you listen and observe. Is it proven? No. Are you going to find it to be 100% accurate? Nope. Does everyone have a tendency to put their own spin and interpretation on it? Yes. Is it possible to have a good relationship with your conflictor? Yes.

So, question is, if you can't depend on it to be a completely accurate representation of reality, are you still interested or not? Because it isn't, and won't be. There are parts that hold true, and you can retain those and still work within the theory without having to throw the whole thing out.



Yes, objective logic is what Te is, and Ti leads have Te-ignoring, so they ignore Te in favor of Ti. That section was referring only to how Ti-leads relate to Te. (BTW, Te-creatives like ILI have strong Ti, they just value Te more and what you said in first paragraph fits that pattern)




Examples of IP temperament from what you wrote:

My weakness is endless pondering over situations and usually social obligations, which I then usually, after a couple of nights bad sleep, blow off, usually regretting it later, but it's the only way to stop the never ending doubt and fear that bugs my mind at times.

I would let the kid decide his life for himself mostly. I would let him make obvious mistakes I would see coming, because I know life is the best teacher, and I would only withhold him from her teachings if I would protect him from every harm, it would make life boring and meaningless ( which it already is, but you know what I mean.)
(IP and Ni)

restrained, passive

I only really approach women, or take a chance when I know I will succeed. I don't like taking meaningless risks, and being ambiguous shows that I can't decipher what you really think of me, or it just means that - that you don't know. In either case, it makes for a useless endeavour to try and court somebody like that. I don't like to waste my time.
(IP and Te)

Because I'm pretty sure I'm bored out of my mind of people who exhibit Ni (at least in romantic sense), because they're so introvert, silent, basically coming across as boring.
I mean, that's basically what I am already, so I look for the opposite.

I don't like taking initiative, being assertive sexually, although I may seem like it, or act like it.
I actually like it more when girls show initiative and interest in me, because I'm unsure in that area and rather have someone come to me, that way I know for sure if somebody likes me.
(INxx in general)

This seems pretty spot on, actually, especially the not that proactive part. I am a pretty passive person. Resistant to fast lifestyle changes (such as changing jobs or just diving into the deep, not knowing what to expect), I think that's why I like SEEs so much, cuz they're the opposite therefore could bring fun into my life, cuz I like never want to try new things/ throw myself on thin ice, even though I know it's part of life and going forward/becoming a stronger version of yourself.

Could you maybe point out how this is different from IJ temperament? I'm sorry for my lack of knowledge in socionics

[Olimpia]

I did though. You just ignored the arguments I made, like that most of the questionnaire comes off Ni-dom-ish and you're ignoring those parts, and doubting anything ever doesn't make you core 6. I see a lot of 6-ish things on there (like his comments about being afraid of being alienated and wanting everyone to work together), but typing someone as a 6 just because they doubt something is very shaky since there are lots of motivations for doubting things besides testing to see if they'll be secure to cling onto. There are lots of things on the questionnaire that really can't be interpreted as 6-ish in addition to the ones that can, like being a nihilist (nothing more secure than believing in nothing?), identifying with great philosophers, and hating "useless bureaucratic procedures that always get [him] into trouble" and not deciding his potential future children's lives for them (nothing more secure than not knowing anything your offspring will do). Yes, LSIs and ESIs are more likely to type as counterphobic 6, but the way these particular things are stated doesn't even hint that he's thinking about security.

Well there is a reason that counterphobic 6s are called... counterphobic.

Most 6s are generally doubtful about both their own beliefs and those of others; many of them either fall into a nihilistic mindset of not believing in anything (mainly because nothing seems "certain"), and others into the extreme of believing too much in something.

I don't see anything unusually non-6-like in his behaviour. It is rather classic counterphobic 6 with a Social blindspot.

[squark]

Could you maybe point out how this is different from IJ temperament? I'm sorry for my lack of knowledge in socionics

Well Se-creative can be eliminated by your sheer passivity, and Se-polr can be eliminated by the way you seek strong reactions from people. So, all the IJs are already eliminated. That aside. . .

Your response regarding child-rearing of just letting things take their course, knowing where it would be heading, and only stepping in if things got bad and your reasoning (because life would be boring and meaningless otherwise)

This is dynamic and Ni (paying attention more to how things are changing over time, where things are leading, knowing when to step in, and welcoming the changes.) IP is described as receptive-adaptive. This means they are accepting of change and adapt to it as it happens. That describes your approach very well to child-rearing.

When you say that you are "resistant to fast lifestyle changes" that could be a counter point against that approach but then you go on to say "that's why I like SEEs so much" "they bring fun into my life" in other words you like the changes you just don't initiate them yourself.

On the other side you have IJs who are calm-balanced, for them sudden changes are jarring, it throws them off-balance, and they want things to settle down again. They would be far more likely to have specific guidelines in place for their children for example, and not enjoy the chaos, preferring things to be settled rather than finding it boring.

Temperament describes how you usually are, there will be exceptions to this, so you have to take general approach into account rather than notice just the times when someone acted counter to that approach. What I mean is, everyone gets bored sometimes, and everyone wants things to calm down sometimes, etc. Also, subtype matters. The extroverted subtypes of the introverts will be more proactive, and more prone to making changes themselves, shaking things up a bit, and the introverted subtypes more in line with their respective temperaments (IP or IJ.)

[Aylen]

I read through the whole thread and my impression is that ILI-Ni 5w6 could be best fit. I have described an ILI who I knew very well, in various threads, but I posted a bit about him in the following thread if you care to check it out. There are some similarities between you regarding motivations and overall temperament.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1090428 and post http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1090476

No longer sure he had a 3 in tritype so could be 514 but definitely 5w6.

He definitely didn't come off as a dark person, maybe a bit antisocial if anything, but he was drawn to darker things when it came to humor and to a certain degree sex but nothing too far out and nothing gross/repulsive. He wasn't much into watching movies or TV since he found it boring, especially horror. He was more into developing his interests and the range was vast. He definitely didn't pursue things like art, music, martial arts, computer programming and library science for others recognition. He did it purely for his own reasons. His 3 came into play in a more subtle way so it would have been more of a 513 order of the tritype. On the enneagram test he got 5w6.

He did not want me to discuss our lives, good or bad things, with anyone or tell anyone what he was doing. I think that was where his 3 came into play a lot because he was raised in a family who were constantly warning him about image and privacy . He was into bodybuilding and looking physically attractive (I guess that might be 3 related too since he didn't want people to see us together and wonder why I was with him) but he was very private about things he enjoyed doing. Like he would not play his guitar for anyone but me after he left the musicians institute but he was so good. He didn't want me to praise him on his playing in front of others or even mention he played. I think it had to do with not feeling good enough. It was weird in a way but I learned to be more discreet because of him. I don't think he planned to move on to new things but it happened when a new passion took hold. That could probably apply to any type though.

Keep in mind this is only an impression not an analysis.

Oh and is number 9 in anyway related to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorien_Legacies

[Skepsis]

ILI sounds reasonable. I wouldn't rule out LII completely though. Keep your options open. These things have a way of working themselves out over years of contemplation.

[Skepsis]

[Number 9 large]

Oh and is number 9 in anyway related to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorien_Legacies

No, it is related to this

[Aylen]

No, it is related to this

.

I was wondering why no one had asked. Maybe they did and I missed it.

[Pallas]

Well there is a reason that counterphobic 6s are called... counterphobic.

Most 6s are generally doubtful about both their own beliefs and those of others; many of them either fall into a nihilistic mindset of not believing in anything (mainly because nothing seems "certain"), and others into the extreme of believing too much in something.

I don't see anything unusually non-6-like in his behaviour. It is rather classic counterphobic 6 with a Social blindspot.

How he wrote doesn't show much fear at all though. If 6s are not consciously aware that fear is driving their behaviors, there wouldn't be any way for him to basically entirely edit out all traces that he's acting to prove his fears wrong.

[Olimpia]

Somehow I get the impression you want to prove me wrong out of principle alone.

I'll just quote a description of Intimate/Sexual 6s that also addresses counterphobic behaviour (bolded).
Because my own words don't seem to be valid enough for you.

Intimate Sixes

• Lead disciplined lives that bring them strength – physical, emotional or spiritual. Being strong calms their fears.
• Creative; need to transform a harsh world into a beautiful one; often confused with Self preservation Fours.
• This subtype brings an artist’s eye and an aesthetic perspective, an acute awareness of beauty, a love of nature and landscape.
• Sixes with this subtype tend to act strong or alluring when insecure.
• More likely to be counterphobic; they take risks, talk tough, worry about looking weak, having their fears show.
• When beauty is the focus they try to seem attractive to contain fear, get approval and distract others.
• Some need to create and make things, to transform what they see and feel into something tangible.
• Can be image conscious; their preoccupation with beauty can mutate into personal vanity; a stronger connection to Three.
• May hide and contain their fears behind an attractive mask; a sense of protective distance and once-removed control.
• A defiant/aggressive life stance is possible, an imitation of strength.
• Anti-authoritarian and knee-jerk rebellious.
• Intimate Sixes may project their power onto a sexual partner or sexuality itself; some report feeling addicted to sex.
• Project power onto authorities and then fight with them.
• Can be reckless, impulsive and prone to bad judgment.
• Whatever the question the answer is no; can be mistaken for Eights.
• This subtype can conflict with the Self preservation impulse in Sixes. Being creatively daring, open and unguarded is at odds with surviving and staying safe.
• If self preservation Sixes are addicted to security, Intimate Sixes are addicted to insecurity.

It is not unusual for counterphobic 6s to be unaware of their deep-seated fear(s); most of them mistype as 8 for that reason.

I'd say this description fits him rather well. He could be Sx/Sp after all.

[Myst]

It pretty much is. If you got a better discription tell me, but don't tell me that society isn't based upon the premise of ''live and let live''.

OK let's clarify one thing first. What exactly do you mean by "live and let live"?

I'm pretty sure I'm a logical type, if anything. Also pretty sure I'm intuitive. E/I and P/J are more debatable, I think.

I'm not entirely sure that you are a logical type. Maybe. I simply don't know at this point. That was Cassandra that was typing you a definite LSI, not me.

I don't know if you are intuitive, either, though. Introvert and Se/Ni valuing works for you, sure.

(I didn't read the new posts in the thread yet btw, idk if there's been more info provided on these since then.)

So it doesn't work for you then?

This part I'm not really good at: so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged. The best way to say something is highly dependent on the situation and the implied purpose of the exchange

How exactly am I stuck in some ideas? Which ones, and why?

E.g. you were stuck for quite a while on the idea of Forer effect. I've seen IEIs on this forum do this sort of thing. Not saying it must be Te PoLR though. Others can do this too, not a thing specific to IEI or even Te PoLR.

But I'm pretty sure that if you absolutely hate your job, you're gonna not be doing that for the rest of your life. A.k.a your perception of fun is one of the factors of your choices, as is said in the discription of Si. It doesn't say that enjoyment is the only drive of Si people.

No, my perception of fun is not always a factor. Also, even when it is, it doesn't mean I'm going to give more effort to the thing to become more skilled at it over time. Nope, my main reason for giving something more effort is a goal to go for.

But how do we know if these trends are based on the truth? By falsifying, or by engaging in confirmation bias?

Another example of where I have the impression you got stuck on some idea after learning about the scientific method or something. Maybe just the wording though. Maybe just you trying to run away from Socionics while something draws you into it

Anyway. Trends can be measurable by operationalizing. Nothing is in the way of doing so for the model, except this will be hardly a model with actual causal explanations (which is where you cannot operationalize it in a way that would not falsify the model instantly ). Just a draft of a collection of trends.

Amen, brother

That's not really what I am saying. I am saying that most of these function discriptions are so general that they can apply to way more people than 2/16th of them as socionics claims, if we, for the sake of my point allow ourselves to believe that each type is equally distributed over the world population.

You were saying "anything can resonate with you as I proved in this post"...

If you take each statement separately while you don't generalize them beyond what it actually states (you seem to have generalized easily), then some will apply, some won't.

I agree however that some statements will definitely apply to more than one type or even to all 16 types under some circumstances. The trends they refer to shouldn't apply to every type equally, though.

So you didn't have trouble typing yourself in the past?

I had to observe myself and my cognition a lot, especially relative to other people. That took time, but afterwards I did build up a good picture of how I am and how that matches a typing. No trouble matching it to my typing, though it's of course on that level of trends only beyond some specific rules about the cognition itself. This latter part is the part of the model that could be good. But, my cognition and people's cognition are more complex than what this model covers and so I view it as not a very valid model of that beyond some good bits.

Because with me a lot of these function discriptions are so general (or at least I thought they were, apparently you guys are very keen in distinguishing the discriptions of functions per position on the functional stack) that I can identify parts of myself in a lot of them.
That's why I have so much trouble typing myself.

Did you check out the Leading function descriptions specifically, ignoring everything else? Then pick the ones that do fit you rather well and pick the ones that really do not fit you much at all. See what type(s) that points to. Let us know.

These ones: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...lements-Primer and http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Dmitry-Golihov

I'm still waiting for your argument of me being Se creative. I don't see it honestly. Ti I can see myself in.

That was Cassandra, not me. I questioned the LSI typing before because of your sexual preferences but I also added that if it's just a "kink" of yours and not a pervasive Se seeking pattern in your life then it can still be Se creative.

Where I said I pat your TiSe that was a joke about you possibly being TiSe superid (IEI).

[Slade]

Good posts @darya, @Wyrd. I felt the 6 typing was so off-base I couldn't be bothered to respond to it, but those were essentially my thoughts. If you read what number is saying in context it makes 0 sense.

Well there is a reason that counterphobic 6s are called... counterphobic.

Most 6s are generally doubtful about both their own beliefs and those of others; many of them either fall into a nihilistic mindset of not believing in anything (mainly because nothing seems "certain"), and others into the extreme of believing too much in something.

I don't see anything unusually non-6-like in his behaviour. It is rather classic counterphobic 6 with a Social blindspot.

I couldn't name you one core six type I have ever seen that I would classify as a nihilist. Sixes are too 'of this earth' to become actual nihilists. They don't have the capability to detach, they are too attached, the opposite of what this guy seems to be. If we were to even accept this as a possibility, counterphobic sixes would be the least likely (vs phobic) to actually become nihilistic as their response to fear is to go into it, not away from it. Also, I'm not sure how you can take his descriptions of being passive and then suspect him of being CP 6. Have you met an actual CP 6? They are frequently mistaken for 8's. Here's some more things that don't make sense for a core 6:

By antisocial tendencies I mean I am extremely attached to the fact that I am independent. I can't stand having to be dependent on somebody else for financial or even emotional reasons. This is also why all my ''friendships'' are very platonic. It's all surface, because at the end of the day, I don't want to have to rely on them emotionally, because I always feel it never is deep enough or that it's just not worth my time, usually people of my age are very shallow, I feel. Also I feel very insecure about my social interactions. I feel people will reject me in the end anyway, so why bother starting relationships or friendships? I feel like I want something from them that they can't give, and rather than trying to start a friendship based on drinking booze together or whatever I'd rather be alone most of the time. Rather alone, than lonely/feeling out of place in company, see what I mean?

I feel smothered really really easily, and this is what gives me sleepless nights, until I break it off because I can't handle it anymore. It just keeps on bugging me, I keep on overthinking about it, and in the end I just lay it off. I don't wanna be bound to people, I don't want people expecting things from me. I also don't wanna be expecting things from people either, because they usually let me down. So in order to prevent all this I keep everyone at bay. If they get too close to liking me, I offend them to increase psychological distance. This gives me breathing room again. I know it's probably not healthy, but this is what I learned along the way. People disappoint. I disappoint people, so don't get too close to me and nobody will get hurt.
This is also why I got conflict with my mother all the time, because she is always sticking her nose into my business (even though she knows I always get into trouble putting off stuff like renewing a pasport, or paying a bill, sometimes I forget and the bill multiplies etc). I know she's just trying to help (I believe she's ESE, she tested as ESFJ once on an MBTI test and it seems pretty accurate) but I fucking hate it. I fucking hate having to rely on my mother for practical matters. I'd rather just fix it all myself, even though I hate fixing these things.
My father learned that he can't meddle in my life, so he basically just ignores me.
With my sister I can get along sometimes, but we are growing apart because she chose the muslim life, whereas I chose the nihilistic point of view. We sometimes have discussions about it, but it leads nowhere because she is deluded/brainwashed. Cannot fight religion with logic, because logic doesn't reach where religion is stored. We both learned about religion when we were small kids, and when you're small you accept anything your parents say to you as truth. And when you're older, sometimes people don't have enough critical thinking capacity to see beyond what might be. Or NOT be, in my case.
She never looked for answers past her religion, and I pity that.

One of the reasons why I think I might be ILI instead of LII (I always test as LII on sociotype.com) is why I always get into fights with my mom (ESE). Because she just can't help but try to help me, and it's driving me fuckin nuts. I keep telling her I don't want her help, but she doesn't listen. I think this might point to a Fe PolR, but I'm not sure. She also gets annoyed when I forget to clean up after I make food or that I don't tidy up my room; I don't care if my room is tidy, as long as I know where to find my shit, I couldn't give two shits if people regard it as ''clean''. Must be Te logic clashing with her Si/Fe wanting to have a nice atmosphere, aswel as me being too occupied with Ni stuff (like this forum ).

The more of these posts I read, the more confident I am becoming that he is a 5. What I see here is rejection triad, and the core sin of avarice. This feeling of suffocation, smothering, independence, are all classic 5 themes, as well as not wanting to feel obligation, which I believe might be a sign of disintegration into 7. Sixes are all about the obligation, and from what I have seen in 5's is actually an aspect that annoys them about sixes. Also, how is this post not a huge Fi rant?

[Olimpia]

Well, what if he is 6w5?

[Aylen]

ILI sounds reasonable. I wouldn't rule out LII completely though. Keep your options open. These things have a way of working themselves out over years of contemplation.

I agree. There are no shortcuts on the path of self actualization. If that is someone's motivation for seeking out these systems. I found this chart pretty helpful when I was new. I found another version too but it goes as far as saying some functions are hated which I don't agree with.




I think of them as cheat sheets.

[Myst]

Actually I agree on a theory having to make ''sense'' in the sense of it not contradicting itself. When it does, the whole theory loses it's credibility. It's essentially falsified.
That doesn't mean that the theory doesn't hold tiny elements of truth in it, just that the theory as a whole has failed.

What I said here though is that the theory (of socionics) doesn't just have to make sense with itself. (e.g. the 8 functions and everything are ordered perfectly, each type has a conflictor and dual etc so the theory is complete and seems to make sense within itself, UNTILL you, for example come to realise that you are having a great relationship with a conflictor.) This is why I always try to falsify something if I want to know if it is true or not. I test it to reality. Reality is what I see and experience. (yea you can argue about point of view, opinion etc but for the most part you can agree that we can see objective reality to such a degree that we can infer facts from it, and therefore reason)

This either means that he's not your conflictor, OR that the theory is simply wrong, because if one card of the house of cards falls, the whole cardhouse breaks down, see what I mean? A big foundation of socionics is intertype relations. So if you're having a great relationship with a conflictor, there must be something wrong with the theory (assuming that you know 100% that both your types are actually conflictors, I know you can't really know for sure but bear with me). It's like a domino stack, if one brick falls everything falls.

This is because every fact is based on the premise of another fact. So if you can prove that one fact is wrong, every other fact that bases its validity on the falsified fact is therefore also wrong. This is why it is very easy to falsify theories which have a lot of loopholes and dead ends like religion, but also ungrounded theories like socionics.
It may look like I'm trying to make fun of it, but really all I want to know is the truth. That's why I'm so skeptical.

Interesting. This shows some of your thinking. I like your approach with testing rules of systems in reality. I would say we share some way of thinking quite strongly but I don't really identify with the Se seeking-ish parts of your questionnaire. What I also find is a bit "off" for my pov is where you say "every fact is based on the premise of another fact". I mean, that's a big part of having logical consistency, yes, but I'm kind of missing the emphasis on the systematic logical rules/principles themselves. Don't know if this means Te valuing or simply Ti not in Ego or you just happened to word it like that.

I think I have to agree on this, although childlike might also just be an option. (haven't rules this out yet, and if anyone can give examples of childlike flirting, it would be much appreciated, because I don't really understand how this works, or would work.) Edit: I'm gonna make a thead about this

You are a bit too comfortable with "Se force" (valuing it, I don't mean it can't be Se superid/seeking) for me to see you as LII or any other Infantile Ne ego lol.

Ah okay, this makes sense. Anyone else agree on this? @Cassandra @Myst ?

I've still yet to see what's so Se creative about me

I haven't seen anything specifically Se creative. Se valuing yes, that's not the same thing.

Could you maybe point out how this is different from IJ temperament? I'm sorry for my lack of knowledge in socionics

A lot of it was not specific to Ip temperament because you did not expose your motives behind your behaviour/thinking/opinions.


Some alternative interpretations:

My weakness is endless pondering over situations and usually social obligations, which I then usually, after a couple of nights bad sleep, blow off, usually regretting it later, but it's the only way to stop the never ending doubt and fear that bugs my mind at times.

Enneagram or some other psychological issue. Socionics-wise a focus on Fe, can't be determined what function position it would be (that generally almost never can be determined from bits of statements because the Socionics model's principles on this are flat out wrong).

I would let the kid decide his life for himself mostly. I would let him make obvious mistakes I would see coming, because I know life is the best teacher, and I would only withhold him from her teachings if I would protect him from every harm, it would make life boring and meaningless ( which it already is, but you know what I mean.)

This one can be Ni, doesn't say which function position but you seemed to have a natural enough focus on aspects of it here.

restrained, passive

Introversion. If always passive in all kinds of circumstances throughout your life (and not just currently because, say, you are depressed) then lower Se more likely (but of course an active person doesn't have to have high Se...).

I only really approach women, or take a chance when I know I will succeed. I don't like taking meaningless risks, and being ambiguous shows that I can't decipher what you really think of me, or it just means that - that you don't know. In either case, it makes for a useless endeavour to try and court somebody like that. I don't like to waste my time.

You don't like ambiguity, not specific enough to type, let alone to Ip. Wasting time: hints at being goal focused and possibly Decisive (Se/Ni), says nothing specific about functions though. ILIs don't like to waste effort but that goes way beyond just not wasting time.

Because I'm pretty sure I'm bored out of my mind of people who exhibit Ni (at least in romantic sense), because they're so introvert, silent, basically coming across as boring.

I mean, that's basically what I am already, so I look for the opposite.

That is, you look for strong Extraverts.

I don't like taking initiative, being assertive sexually, although I may seem like it, or act like it.
I actually like it more when girls show initiative and interest in me, because I'm unsure in that area and rather have someone come to me, that way I know for sure if somebody likes me.

Again, you look for strong Extraverts. This one is something where I did originally say that you sound Se seeking possibly.

This seems pretty spot on, actually, especially the not that proactive part. I am a pretty passive person. Resistant to fast lifestyle changes (such as changing jobs or just diving into the deep, not knowing what to expect), I think that's why I like SEEs so much, cuz they're the opposite therefore could bring fun into my life, cuz I like never want to try new things/ throw myself on thin ice, even though I know it's part of life and going forward/becoming a stronger version of yourself.

The resistance to changes part is stereotypical Ij, not Ip, esp stereotypical Ne PoLR. But it can be something else, too.

lsi is worth exploring. compare your original questionnaire responses to a basic type / IE breakdown like on sociotype.com. the type of recognition you value and your views of a unified brotherhood are quite Fe valuing. add Se, and so too is typically wanting an environment for crude jokes and expression. fe polr types (sli or ili) may be the least likely of all to mask their emotions with a smile or want to affect the mood of the environment or lighten it up as you describe. the search for meaning is something a lot of lsi are going to struggle with and seek Ni/Fe solutions for, believing in and having views of certain social orders worth protecting is also going to fall into super-id ni territory (your views on no war and working together) for instance.

Yeah I could possibly see Fe valuing. A confrontational male IEI wanting to focus on logic strongly, happened before. Oh, and before I forget, possible Te PoLR here: "renewing my identification card or other useless bureaucratic procedures that in the end always get me into trouble". @Number 9 large what do you think of this one?

The way you went through all of the information and dissected it as you did is rather typical of a Logical type, @Number 9 large.

I've seen this from some male IEIs too. Some of them have the stamina to argue for hours and utilize decent enough Logic (impersonal arguments) during it. But their Te PoLR comes out pretty quickly as soon as it comes to dealing with enough facts. Overall, they do take time to take in the new facts though that on its own could be Te ignoring, sure. (And, I've seen ILI take their time with it too, mainly with Ti based systems though. They don't like to have to parse through all the Ti definitions too much etc.)

There are too many things besides type factors influencing any given relationship for socionics to have as much predictive power as people often claim it does. There are some things you can see just through observation that have merit, such as people really do think differently and you can watch different elements show up as you listen and observe. Is it proven? No. Are you going to find it to be 100% accurate? Nope. Does everyone have a tendency to put their own spin and interpretation on it? Yes. Is it possible to have a good relationship with your conflictor? Yes.

So, question is, if you can't depend on it to be a completely accurate representation of reality, are you still interested or not? Because it isn't, and won't be. There are parts that hold true, and you can retain those and still work within the theory without having to throw the whole thing out.

I would think if it's true that you can have a good and *close* relationship with your conflictor then that's a very very big point against the theory because this touches on truly fundamental principles of it. "Close relationship" here means you do not have to adjust/change/hide too many parts of yourself to be able to spend much time on a close psychological distance with the other person.

My solution (regardless of whether the above example about the conflictor relationship is possible) is keeping the parts that hold true in a different framework (non-socionics) because this one just does not hold well together. Currently working on this.

Just because something is logically consistent within itself doesn't mean that it is logically consistent with reality, and the latter makes something true or not, not the first.

This is interesting because a Ti-lead when presented with evidence will often say, "But does it make sense?" In other words, evidence isn't enough, it has to hold together in a coherent way. So, for them, it's not true unless it is logically consistent within itself, even with evidence.

They still care about reality, but the primary concern for a Ti-base is still always "Does this make sense according to my understanding of reality, and does it hold together, is it a rational explanation?" In other words, they operate in the opposite direction of what you've said here - to be true, it first must make rational sense to them.

That sentiment about it having to match reality I have expressed before and even you have strongly expressed it before that you need stuff to be true in reality, here.

All in all, this isn't Te valuing on its own, no. It's normal human common sense.

As for the idea that the statement from OP showed in what direction his thinking is going (Te>Ti or Ti>Te) - unfortunately no, too ambiguous for that.

[Myst]

Well, what if he is 6w5?

The brotherhood idea and focus on the issue with religious beliefs: maybe. And, the doubting thingy about social stuff, though it doesn't have to be 6, sure. His provocative style possibly too.

I didn't analyze OP from an enneagram pov tho'. Just these things make me think of 6w5.

[Number 9 large]

You are a bit too comfortable with "Se force" (valuing it, I don't mean it can't be Se superid/seeking) for me to see you as LII or any other Infantile Ne ego lol.

Fair enough.

I haven't seen anything specifically Se creative. Se valuing yes, that's not the same thing.

@Cassandra, you still seem to be on the LSI boat, can you elaborate?

A lot of it was not specific to Ip temperament because you did not expose your motives behind your behaviour/thinking/opinions.

Okay I'll explain my motives for what I've said. The red is the original text of me, the black is my elaboration on it.
If theres none its cuz I already did.

restrained, passive
Because I always expect the worst/ am afraid to fuck things up.


I only really approach women, or take a chance when I know I will succeed. I don't like taking meaningless risks, and being ambiguous shows that I can't decipher what you really think of me, or it just means that - that you don't know. In either case, it makes for a useless endeavour to try and court somebody like that. I don't like to waste my time.





Because I'm pretty sure I'm bored out of my mind of people who exhibit Ni (at least in romantic sense), because they're so introvert, silent, basically coming across as boring.
I mean, that's basically what I am already, so I look for the opposite.

I don't like taking initiative, being assertive sexually, although I may seem like it, or act like it.
Because I am unconfident in my social interactions with girls, at least when I know I've got some sexual motive that I must accomplish. Takes out the spontaneity, makes me turn the girl from a human being into an object that must be retrieved, goal that must be reached. And that makes things awkward.
I feel like she can read my thoughts, so I try to hide my feelings because I am ashamed of them, afraid of showing my motives. Also, if you show a girl that you like her too much she knows she can play with you. So that never works. That's why I rather have them come to me. Interaction is more natural that way.
Also makes me more confident in my interaction, because then I already know she is interested in me, giving me some kind of power over her and confidence in myself. A sense of security that I don't have to win over her heart by showing only the good bits of myself, because I already have it (or at least interest, but you get what I mean).



I actually like it more when girls show initiative and interest in me, because I'm unsure in that area and rather have someone come to me, that way I know for sure if somebody likes me.

This seems pretty spot on, actually, especially the not that proactive part. I am a pretty passive person. Resistant to fast lifestyle changes (such as changing jobs or just diving into the deep, not knowing what to expect), I think that's why I like SEEs so much, cuz they're the opposite therefore could bring fun into my life, cuz I like never want to try new things/ throw myself on thin ice, even though I know it's part of life and going forward/becoming a stronger version of yourself.

Yeah I could possibly see Fe valuing. A confrontational male IEI wanting to focus on logic strongly, happened before. Oh, and before I forget, possible Te PoLR here: "renewing my identification card or other useless bureaucratic procedures that in the end always get me into trouble". @Number 9 large what do you think of this one?

Interesting, I have almost never thought of myself as an ethical type, due to the lack of intimate relations I have in life. Since puberty I've also had this feeling of never really fitting in, and I still don't really know why. A friend of mine once suggested that I may be gifted (as in high intelligence). Since he was also gifted, I never really let that go but I can't be bothered to test, because if I turn out not to be gifted then that would be another let down
It's nicer to be left in the dark with this huge potential than to pop the bubble and come back to reality, at times, because I always assume the worst.
This is also why I have a hard time confessing feelings to a girl, because that would mean I lay all my eggs in the basket and there's no turning back.
I rather just admire from afar, knowing that I at least have the potential to be with her, rather than possibly eliminating that possibility through action. I know it's pretty ridiculous, but I have been let down by so many people that this is where I am now, basically.

People often say I am cocky or pedantic, because of my skeptical and often know-it-all nature. But really to me it feels all I'm doing is constantly fact-checking everything I hear.
I often talk as if I know it all, because everything I hear I always question with simple logic.
I always ask myself the question ''why''. Often people don't do that, and they regard me as annoying because I often question their beliefs which they hold as true.

I outlined the Te PolR text in red, I'll elaborate on it.
Te as Vulnerable Function

That is manifested as a skepticism and dislike for basing your beliefs, arguments, and actions on external sources of information.
For me; not necessarily, as long as they have good basis in truth, seem trustworthy, coincide with what I already regard as fact, etc.


For instance, a SEI will rather trust the expertise of someone who seems to have hands-on experience, even if limited, than of someone who demonstrates to have read many books on the same subject.
Agreed, reality always overrules theory, that's why I would rather trust somebody with hands-on experience than some douche who read a book. Books contain mistakes, or can be interpreted falsely. Hands-on experience with reality is what it is, there's no real doubt about it.

IEIs will base their opinions and views on their own personal insights and be, again, skeptical of "second-hand" factual information that contradicts it. "Don't trust everything you read" is a typical sneer of this function, especially when applied to sources of information otherwise seen as neutral and reliable, such as encyclopedias and handbooks.
Agreed. mostly because of my skeptical and mistrustful nature. I rely on my own logic rather than that of others, that's why I'm always skeptical of third-party sources, and always check with what I already regard as fact if it is consistent with that or not. If it's not then either what I regard as fact is wrong, or the external source is. Usually I blame the source for being wrong, because basic things like natural laws are already proven to be right, so if anything clashes with that, I am naturally inclined to disagree.

Can give you an example.
Was having lunch with colleagues a couple of days ago, somebody had a grilled cheese sandwich. One of my colleagues mentioned that if you grill the cheese, it will start to contain more fat than if you hadn't grilled it.
I called bollocks, because of the law of conservation of mass (law of laviosier), it would be impossible for the cheese to magically gain more fat through heat. Is this Ti > Te or Te PolR? Or just common sense?

Another manifestation is a dislike for dealing with issues involving efficiency, productivity, and factual accuracy of statements made; statements are made according to input from other functions, not from double-checks against external facts which are seen as of lesser relevance to the issue at hand.

Actually I don't agree with this. I am pretty perfectionistic, everything I do I must give 100% or else I cannot forgive myself for not giving 100%. So this naturally means I am going to be interested in efficiency and productivity. I also get annoyed when my colleagues, for example, don't match up to my standards, or ignore advice from me that would increase their efficiency.

Types with this function lack confidence in their ability to find relevant information in outside sources.
Also, as you may have noticed, I have no problem discussing factual accuracy of statements made, and I'm pretty sure I don't lack concidence in my ability to find relevant info from outside sources either. I also find this statement a bit dodgy. I mean, at the end the day all information is gathered through our 5 senses from outside sources (our environment). Yes you can gain more insights through introspection, but there would be nothing to think about in the first place if you had never experienced anything, ever.

I would think if it's true that you can have a good and *close* relationship with your conflictor then that's a very very big point against the theory because this touches on truly fundamental principles of it. "Close relationship" here means you do not have to adjust/change/hide too many parts of yourself to be able to spend much time on a close psychological distance with the other person.

This is one of the reasons why I started doubting my LIIness. I always scored as INTP in mbti and LII in socionics, but because of a decent friendship w/ benefits I got with a SEE I started to doubt it. Let her take the test on sociotype.com and she got SEE 100% with ESE 86, so she might still be ESE although SEE would probably suit her better.

My solution (regardless of whether the above example about the conflictor relationship is possible) is keeping the parts that hold true in a different framework (non-socionics) because this one just does not hold well together. Currently working on this.

Yeah, so that would shake the ground of socionics, because, as I said, it is a theory that is bases it's conclusions on premises (facts based on other facts). The conclusion in this example being that ESE and ILI are conflictors, based on the premises of conflicting functions, PolR etc.
So if we find that ESE and ILI get along great in a close relationship, both the conclusion and it's premises fall subject to doubt and scrutiny.

As for the idea that the statement from OP showed in what direction his thinking is going (Te>Ti or Ti>Te) - unfortunately no, too ambiguous for that.

I also don't really know yet. It seems like the way I test reality to the basis of my own concept of what I regard as fact seems like I regard Ti as important. (subjective logic.)

I just read Te creative and Ti lead on sociotype and both seem to resonate with me.
Break down;

Ti as Leading Function

The individual views reality through the lens of logic, immediately recognizing the correctness and appropriateness of things and their proper place in reality and in his system of views and behavior.
Rings very true to me, I even gave an example of this in this post.

He freely makes logical assertions, often exaggerated, about new information and experience.
True aswel, I am not afraid to base and state conclusions based on premises I regard as fact.

He holds highest those rules to which exceptions do not exist,
Also true

and is a habitual critic of people or things that don't follow a set of rules,
I don't really mind if people don't ''follow a set of rules'', honestly. What I do find really annoying is when people claim to believe something but don't consistenly act according to that belief (I'm not sure if that's what they mean by that so I'll leave this example here anyway for you to judge)

my father and sister are muslim and are fasting in the ramadan. They believe that the Qu'ran is the word of God. In that book it says that muslims must fast in the ramadan from the moment of sunrise to sunset. In the Netherlands, where I live (pretty high up north on the globe) the sun sets relatively late in summer (10pm) so it is a really long and exhausting day to fast. So they fast on Saudi Arabian times, instead (until 6 pm). But the sun is still shining here. So they basically defy the word of God, while at the same time claiming that God is their superior and that they are nothing compared to him. Then why do they defy his word? Things like this get on my nerves really quickly, and make me lose my respect for anybody that behaves this way.
It's okay if you don't follow a ''set of rules'' (still don't really know what they mean by that, life philosophies maybe?) so long as there is at least some logical consistency regarding your actions.

whether they are those accepted by the community, or his own, or even the other person's. Although he is able to adopt others' rules, his own are always the last word, and these are subject to continual refinement. Often seen as "demanding", due to high standards.

Still don't know what the mean by rules
Am quite demanding, though. Always expect people to give their best, and secretely think lowly of people that consciously make the decision to ''just fuck around'', at work, for example.
Te as Creative Function

It is manifested as a preference for factual accuracy over ideological consistency,
I'm pretty sure factual accuracy and ideological consistency are nearly the same thing.
The only difference is that an ideology can be consistent with itself without being based on facts.
I only care about the facts, and ideological consistency is one of the ways to achieve it, manifest it, but not essential to it.
So yes, I guess I agree with this up to a point.

and for objective, "harsh" communication over careful words that avoid a negative atmosphere.
People often accuse me of this

A view of the external environment being efficient, reasonable, and making sense is essential to their well-being and sense of inner peace,
Efficiency, maybe not necessarily, depends on how seriously I take something.
Reasonableness and making sense are more important to me.

but they do not feel a pressing need for being proactive or productive themselves in that area.
I think it would be pretty hypocrite to demand something from others, whilst not doing it yourself. I'm not sure if I'm like that.


Te as Leading Function

Extroverted logic as base function is manifested as a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information, etc, on matters of personal interest or of professional activity.
One of the reasons I'm into socionics.

This also gives these types confidence on being well-informed on the same matters, which enables them to enter arguments related to them with confidence on their knowledge, which may come across as arrogance to others.
Yea people often accuse me of that whenever I get into an argument and I am sure I am right.

Another manifestation is an evaluation of external reality - work activities, world events, finances, procedures, personal relationships, conversations - from the point of view of factual accuracy and "making sense" and efficiency.
True, not always though, the element of ''fun'' also comes to mind, especially when dealing with relationships and leisure time. But yea mostly I seek to fill in my time with productive stuff.

It leads to an inclination to be proactive in increasing the efficiency and reasonableness of the external world, as well as a sense of self-worth connected on being involved and productive in activities seen as useful, profitable, or that increase one's knowledge base.
Resonates with me, but am often hesistant to be ''proactive'' about this, because often people find me annoying whenever I try to improve or question the status quo.

To give out information that the individual knows not to be factually accurate is disturbing and avoided as much as possible.
Is true, I hate having to lie, and being lied to.
Aight, shitload of reading, enjoy
Im done

[Myst]

Because I am unconfident in my social interactions with girls, at least when I know I've got some sexual motive that I must accomplish. Takes out the spontaneity, makes me turn the girl from a human being into an object that must be retrieved, goal that must be reached. And that makes things awkward.
I feel like she can read my thoughts, so I try to hide my feelings because I am ashamed of them, afraid of showing my motives. Also, if you show a girl that you like her too much she knows she can play with you. So that never works. That's why I rather have them come to me. Interaction is more natural that way.
Also makes me more confident in my interaction, because then I already know she is interested in me, giving me some kind of power over her and confidence in myself. A sense of security that I don't have to win over her heart by showing only the good bits of myself, because I already have it (or at least interest, but you get what I mean).

(...)

Interesting, I have almost never thought of myself as an ethical type, due to the lack of intimate relations I have in life. Since puberty I've also had this feeling of never really fitting in, and I still don't really know why. A friend of mine once suggested that I may be gifted (as in high intelligence). Since he was also gifted, I never really let that go but I can't be bothered to test, because if I turn out not to be gifted then that would be another let down
It's nicer to be left in the dark with this huge potential than to pop the bubble and come back to reality, at times, because I always assume the worst.
This is also why I have a hard time confessing feelings to a girl, because that would mean I lay all my eggs in the basket and there's no turning back.
I rather just admire from afar, knowing that I at least have the potential to be with her, rather than possibly eliminating that possibility through action. I know it's pretty ridiculous, but I have been let down by so many people that this is where I am now, basically.

Hmm ok. Maybe it would be more productive to spend your time working on these issues directly instead of playing with Socionics.

People often say I am cocky or pedantic, because of my skeptical and often know-it-all nature. But really to me it feels all I'm doing is constantly fact-checking everything I hear.
I often talk as if I know it all, because everything I hear I always question with simple logic.
I always ask myself the question ''why''. Often people don't do that, and they regard me as annoying because I often question their beliefs which they hold as true.

Yeah heh I can see you doing this. The pedantic know-it-all lines up with an ILI stereotype but that's all it is, stereotype.

Agreed, reality always overrules theory, that's why I would rather trust somebody with hands-on experience than some douche who read a book. Books contain mistakes, or can be interpreted falsely. Hands-on experience with reality is what it is, there's no real doubt about it.

Agreed. mostly because of my skeptical and mistrustful nature. I rely on my own logic rather than that of others, that's why I'm always skeptical of third-party sources, and always check with what I already regard as fact if it is consistent with that or not. If it's not then either what I regard as fact is wrong, or the external source is. Usually I blame the source for being wrong, because basic things like natural laws are already proven to be right, so if anything clashes with that, I am naturally inclined to disagree.

Hmm ok I can see why Cassandra said 6. Eh, you'd need to ask self-typed ILIs on this forum if they relate to this. To me this approach of yours is a bit too weird to see this as strong Te.

Can give you an example.
Was having lunch with colleagues a couple of days ago, somebody had a grilled cheese sandwich. One of my colleagues mentioned that if you grill the cheese, it will start to contain more fat than if you hadn't grilled it.
I called bollocks, because of the law of conservation of mass (law of laviosier), it would be impossible for the cheese to magically gain more fat through heat. Is this Ti > Te or Te PolR? Or just common sense?

I guess you are more into physics than chemistry then... The claim is probably not true but that has nothing to do with the law of conservation of mass.

Actually I don't agree with this. I am pretty perfectionistic, everything I do I must give 100% or else I cannot forgive myself for not giving 100%. So this naturally means I am going to be interested in efficiency and productivity. I also get annoyed when my colleagues, for example, don't match up to my standards, or ignore advice from me that would increase their efficiency.

My IEI brother is very stuck on this stuff and keeps giving advice on efficiency and how to do stuff all the fucking time. Except the advice is like... very weak Te. And he loves theories but when he argues about them with me (for hours he's one of those "logical confrontational IEIs"), he has really weird reasonings for what counts as a fact and what doesn't.

I'll give you two recent/typical examples on that:

1. We were arguing about how there is (according to his claim) no known way to wean yourself off antidepressants (note, an additional peculiarity of his is that when he refers to antidepressants he always just means SSRIs). I gave him a link to some document (published by a respected organization) that I googled for that described protocols for it and I also told him he can go and ask a psychiatrist if he needs help there (not that he'll ever try antidepressants, he's paranoid about them). He looked at it and then claimed that he could have made up the numbers for the withdrawing protocol described. Therefore the document isn't real and a protocol for withdrawing doesn't actually exist. :straight face:
2. I wanted to sell something, he instantly started talking about what ebay is like (not ebay, but it's a site in my country that's well known like ebay and he knows anyway that I've used that site a lot before) and how to use it, very much basics. I was baffled and asked him "but you know I already use ebay, why are you telling me all this?" He just gave me this weird smile in response lol.

Yeah, so that would shake the ground of socionics, because, as I said, it is a theory that is bases it's conclusions on premises (facts based on other facts). The conclusion in this example being that ESE and ILI are conflictors, based on the premises of conflicting functions, PolR etc.
So if we find that ESE and ILI get along great in a close relationship, both the conclusion and it's premises fall subject to doubt and scrutiny.

Exactly. *pats your TiSe again*

(Lol, though, I don't think it can only be said by TiSe ego or superid - with that, I just expressed how much I agree, how completely.)

I also don't really know yet. It seems like the way I test reality to the basis of my own concept of what I regard as fact seems like I regard Ti as important. (subjective logic.)

Yeah that's what I strongly relate to in your way of thinking.

and is a habitual critic of people or things that don't follow a set of rules,
I don't really mind if people don't ''follow a set of rules'', honestly. What I do find really annoying is when people claim to believe something but don't consistenly act according to that belief (I'm not sure if that's what they mean by that so I'll leave this example here anyway for you to judge)

Yes that's what they mean by it.

It's okay if you don't follow a ''set of rules'' (still don't really know what they mean by that, life philosophies maybe?) so long as there is at least some logical consistency regarding your actions.

There is no logical consistency without consistently following a set of rules (that is, statements that assert what you have to go by in your actions, with some objective reasoning behind the rule. Or they can be theoretical too for understanding phenomena. Like, with Socionics theory, you follow and apply the rules on how IEs work with each other and then if ESE and ILI get along on a close psychological distance without any adjustments, then if you notice the rules of the system regarding that failed to apply in reality on the phenomena, you were following the rules of the theory for logical consistency).

I'm pretty sure factual accuracy and ideological consistency are nearly the same thing.
The only difference is that an ideology can be consistent with itself without being based on facts.
I only care about the facts, and ideological consistency is one of the ways to achieve it, manifest it, but not essential to it.

You just said above (in earlier posts too) that you care about logical consistency too. Or what do you mean here now?

Ideological consistency isn't a way to achieve "caring about the facts". Sorry, that didn't make a whole lot of sense in the way you put it, mind elaborating on what you meant there? (You don't have to)

and for objective, "harsh" communication over careful words that avoid a negative atmosphere.
People often accuse me of this

I can see that I've seen harsh IEIs tho'

Extroverted logic as base function is manifested as a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information, etc, on matters of personal interest or of professional activity.
One of the reasons I'm into socionics.

"Factual" and "accumulate" were key words in there. If you are "hung up" on how consistent the theory is that you are reading about, you are no longer just accumulating facts at that point.

This also gives these types confidence on being well-informed on the same matters, which enables them to enter arguments related to them with confidence on their knowledge, which may come across as arrogance to others.
Yea people often accuse me of that whenever I get into an argument and I am sure I am right.

I don't mind your argumentativeness

[squark]

That sentiment about it having to match reality I have expressed before and even you have strongly expressed it before that you need stuff to be true in reality, here.

It's normal human common sense.

No shit. Which is why I said, "They still care about reality." Also, using oneself as an example when typing other people is retarded and prone to biasing results strongly. Especially if someone is mistyped, but even if they're not.

@Number 9 large

Here's the Te/Ti breakdown from that thread I linked earlier. It might be helpful.

Te/Ti

Te-base are focused on particular cause and effect processes in the external environment. They know well how to manipulate things and make them work the way they want them to. They have a strong orientation toward tasks as they are drawn to produce beneficial results from their actions. As they are involved with these external processes they find general patterns and rules that can be concluded from the world. They can build a pretty strong knowledge base in this way. A potentially infinite number of conclusions can be drawn from the facts derived from the external world. Te-base are skilled in these comparisons and logical conclusion building, but they have a need to consult reality. If a structure becomes too far removed from reality, they become uninterested because it doesn't help them interact with the world and distrustful of it's accuracy even if it is logically valid. They may be reluctant to jump to conclusions even when it makes logical sense. If there's no external basis, it should be questioned.

Ti-base is focused very heavily on what does and does not make sense. They are always aware of whether things fit together logically or not, and they are skilled at following a logical train of thought and coming to a logically accurate conclusion. They are well aware of the practical workings of the world and often refer to it in order to get more information from which more conclusions can be built. They feel little need to interact with the world though. They can much more easily learn about reality through reflection and conclusion building. They can be prone to dismissing evidence that contradicts their logical conclusions, because there are always exceptions to the rules. Often they will try to reclassify the contradictory fact in order to explain why it was an outlier. Unless enough external evidence is shown to prove something to be incorrect, they won't let go of guidelines that represent how reality is at least most of the time, and even then they prefer to understand the logical reason they were wrong before accepting the evidence.

Te-Creative are focused on causal functioning of the world. But, they spend less time directly involved with the world unlike Te-base. They spend more time observing the processes taking place and they begin to build an understanding of how it works. They also become aware of the various explanations behind why the world is the way it is. When they do interact with their environment they are guided by how they understand what they are interacting with. However, they know the limitations of logical analysis and will quickly let go of explanations which they cannot rely on when interacting with the world. For them, evidence always trumps explanations.

Ti-Creative are focused on how they understand the world. They build and deconstruct understandings very often and quickly. They like the exercise of discovering new ways of explaining the world, but they are not concerned with maintaining all-encompassing systems the way Ti-base is. While they enjoy coming up with new insights into why the world is the way it is, they are also always aware of the empirical evidence of how the world actually works, and take note when their explanations are not supported by facts. Contrary evidence causes them to question their logical analysis sooner than Ti-base, and they will freely adopt new explanations if they can find them. They find themselves deriving new patterns and ideas from processes occurring in the world, and this is because they are continually subconsciously taking note of all the ways in which the world functions. However, they are aware that there is more to the world than just the observable workings of it, and consequently they feel free to follow logical trains of thought beyond what fact and evidence can prove.

(Thanks to Krig the Viking)

Here's also the Fe/Fi breakdown from same thread in case you're considering Fe-creative:

Fe/Fi

With Fe base types, they are entirely focused on the implicit emotional dynamic that exists in peoples actions and interactions. They focus on manipulating or maintaining this in order to create mood that they would like to see. Most often this means upholding a positive, friendly, and fun atmosphere. While doing this they are aware of the bonds they are creating with others, and they enjoy creating these bonds with others. However, if they have to deal with being around people they dislike or if personal boundaries are crossed, they can easily overlook these personal fouls in the name of maintaining an atmosphere. They may even ignore the fact that they dislike someone if they see that person as fun to be around and contributing to interpersonal dynamics, and they will continue to put themselves in a position where they are around the person(i.e. invite them to parties, etc).

Fi base types have the opposite priority. They are very aware of how they feel about others, the implicit relationships that exist between people, and how to maintain, build, or break these relationships. They are skilled at working interpersonal dynamics and have to for the sake of their relationships. However, they refuse to dismiss their personal sentiments in order to maintain a friendly facade, and if pushed hard enough will even break a whole group dynamic because of the way they feel about a particular person and how they're acting. Fi-base types know that interpersonal dynamics don't always reflect what kind of relationship exists, so they will usually ignore them when determining what kind of relationship exists or what they would like to exist.

Fe creatives are like Fe-base in that they focus on interpersonal dynamics. They are aware of how they can change an atmosphere and manipulate emotions. More often than not though, they simply observe the changes going on, and are only occasionally driven to push things into a different direction. They form strong opinions of people and become clearly aware of the implicit relationships that are built and how they are built. When they do act on the interpersonal dynamics going on between people they do so with the consideration of how they feel about individuals involved. For example, they're not likely to act like best friends of people they don't know or dislike. Like Fi-base, they cannot ignore the relationships they have with people or the lack there of. However, they don't emphasize their personal feelings or implicit relationships the way Fi-base does, therefore they are unlikely to overtly ignore people they dislike or cling to people they like.

Fi-creatives focus on implicit relationships just as Fi-base does, but with a lesser priority. They aren't as focused on stable relationships as much as they like to change relationship or establish new ones. When their personal sentiments change, the way they interact with people changes to reflect it. Like Fe-base they are constantly changing the emotional atmosphere, but they tend to let themselves be emotionally free, always expressing their personal feelings. They don't feel the need to control an emotional atmosphere the way Fe-base does. Instead they subconsciously change it on a whim by letting their actions reflect their changing personal sentiments.

[Number 9 large]

I'll try to do that tomorrow

[Number 9 large]

Your retarded interpretation of my post deserves no deeper comment from me. I'm done with explaining what I meant when you distort what I said so much.


@Number 9 large - did you try the earlier suggestion here about reading all Leading function descriptions (where I have two links) and checking if any of them fits you well vs if any fits particularly NOT well?

Themes

: analysis, hierarchy, classification, understanding, order, system, structure, formal logic

I think a medium amount. I try to understand things, but don't always necessarily classify them, I think.



: potential/possibility, the unique and unusual, ability, essence, perception of the whole, uncertainty, the unknown, search, internal makeup, suddenness, chance, being, permanence, impermanence
Also accounts to me a medium amount. perception of the whole, unusual and search stood out to me, everything else, not so much.



: like/dislike, decency and niceness, morals, good/bad, etiquette, humanism, attraction/repulsion, empathy, compassion, attitude towards other human beings, how others are treated, think about other's humanity "let's hear his side," judgements determined by people doing things

Very low I think. I usually try to be indifferent to people and treat everybody about the same way. I try not to judge people on ''good'' or ''bad'' behavior. Because I know good and bad doesnt exist in objective reality. I usually blame myself whenever people treat me wrongly, because I don't really expect much better from people overall.



: authority, influence, desire, political interest/personal investment, competition/struggle, willpower, impact, force, appearance, readiness, tactics, territory
medium-low the words that stood out to me were appearance, readiness, competition and willpower. Don't really care about the rest.



: emotions and emotional expression, passion, mood, excitation, exuberance, romanticism, imitation, acting, not a moral arbiter of good/evil, how they are treated as opposed to how others are treated, sympathy, at certain instances disregards other people's humanity in certain situations, judgements are determined by the situation - at things being done

Actually this seems to resonate with me on a medium-high level, which I didn't expect. Words that particularly stood out to me were emotions and emotional expression, romanticism (can be a bit melancholic and shit), imitation, acting (took acting as a class in high school), not a moral arbiter of good/evil (I just stated that at Fi), how they are treated as opposed to how others are treated (yes! dont care about others ), sympathy, at certain instances disregards other people's humanity and judgments are determined by the situation, so quite a lot.


: harmony, pleasure, health, comfort, pleasantness, satisfaction, convenience, quality, cosiness, aesthetics
Very low, don't care about this.

: benefit, efficiency, action, knowledge, method, mechanism, act, work, motion, reason, technology, fact, expediency, economy, asks "why" to get information, facts, analysis collected data to make logical conclusions, law, legal right, generally accepted knowledge and rules/laws is more the realm of Te

High. Almost all words stood out to me. Especially the ask why to get info.


: development over time (processes), cause and effect, history, planning, forecasting, past/future, rhythm, speed, urgency, fantasy
medium-high, words that stood out were development over time, cause and effect, planning, speed, urgency, fantasy
States of Mind

: clarity and exactitude of thought, a sense of order and regularity in different levels of structure; a sense of building a complete system from simple and well-understood parts

Seems low, I don't seem to experience clarity. Usually my thoughts are slow and pondering. Lots of visual thinking and fantasising, imagining.


: a state of trying to see novel connections between or combinations of previously disparate things; a continual searching for change and newness, including things unexpected and random

medium-high; In class whenever we were brainstorming I always seemed lay connections between topics that were discussed in previous meetings, connections that others failed to see, or never thought of, made others think by asking critical questions. Easily spot discrepancies between earlier heard info and new info. I dont continually search for change and newness, though.

: endearment, closeness, moral satisfaction, and emotional sensitivity; deep personal conviction that may produce moral firmness and resolve; love, hatred, or disgust for others.
Very low. Don't like closeness, don't like bearing grudges, like to see people in a neutral way.

: a mobilized state full of vitality and energy or implied strength; the desire to make strong, bold, and powerful movements
Actually this resonates with me very much sometimes. Whenever I'm working out or cycling while listening to some song that gets me pumped (always listen to music whenever I do something that requires no social interaction) I can start feeling very boastful, feeling stong and vitalized, full of energy as they say here. Also the desire to make strong movements and impress my environment rises.

: passions; the desire to express one's feelings and experiences through expressive gestures such as dance or song
Very very low. I don't like to express how I feel. I hate when people ask how I feel about something. It shouldn't matter how I feel. All that matters is if the job gets done or not.

: a physically relaxed and comfortable state free of irritants; enjoying the pleasure of the moment

I almost never experience this. I like to wave at these moments at they fly by


: an active, but steady and purposeful state conducive to performing goal-oriented activities

I enter this mode whenever I am at work. Actually I feel like I'm always in this state. Everything I do has to have a purpose. If it doesn't I feel like I can't enjoy it. I take life too seriously sometimes.

: a dreamy, mysterious, wistful, melancholic, or reflective state of inner discovery and searching; reflecting upon the future or the past
Usually am in this state whenever I'm alone. Sometimes I get random flashbacks whenever somebody talks to me and I dream away. I even like this state. Just to ponder over some situation, asking myself how I could've done differently. Usually it always plays out better in the back of my head. I'm searching for opportunities that I had missed in the moment, because I am often not very aware of my surroundings. Takes me a lot of concentration to focus. Lose focus very fast. Just retreat in the back of my head, often
Especially if the task at hand isn't mentally tackling enough.

[Pallas]

I don't think all the IEs correlate in the way socionics wants them to.

[moloko]

ILI first impression. That was one hell of a read. lol

[Myst]

Very low I think. I usually try to be indifferent to people and treat everybody about the same way. I try not to judge people on ''good'' or ''bad'' behavior. Because I know good and bad doesnt exist in objective reality. I usually blame myself whenever people treat me wrongly, because I don't really expect much better from people overall.

Interesting, now regardless of socionics, I find this interesting, because I used to have the same line of thinking. How did you decide that "good" and "bad" don't exist in objective reality? (Again I'm just curious, this isn't about socionics necessarily.)

medium-low the words that stood out to me were appearance, readiness, competition and willpower. Don't really care about the rest.

How do you experience readiness?

Actually this seems to resonate with me on a medium-high level, which I didn't expect. Words that particularly stood out to me were emotions and emotional expression, romanticism (can be a bit melancholic and shit), imitation, acting (took acting as a class in high school), not a moral arbiter of good/evil (I just stated that at Fi), how they are treated as opposed to how others are treated (yes! dont care about others ), sympathy, at certain instances disregards other people's humanity and judgments are determined by the situation, so quite a lot.

Later you state that you don't like to express how you feel. So you only like to express emotions by just embodying some ideas? Not personal feelings of yours? Or what did you mean, how am I to reconcile it with the other paragraph.
(This one: "Very very low. I don't like to express how I feel. I hate when people ask how I feel about something. It shouldn't matter how I feel. All that matters is if the job gets done or not.")

I enter this mode whenever I am at work. Actually I feel like I'm always in this state. Everything I do has to have a purpose. If it doesn't I feel like I can't enjoy it. I take life too seriously sometimes.

High five Se/Ni valuer

Disclaimer: Not saying this must be the Se/Ni, so that wasn't entirely serious... the word "purpose" along with the Ni stuff just made me think of this. If you want, you can say more on how you interpret purpose for yourself.

Usually am in this state whenever I'm alone. Sometimes I get random flashbacks whenever somebody talks to me and I dream away. I even like this state. Just to ponder over some situation, asking myself how I could've done differently. Usually it always plays out better in the back of my head. I'm searching for opportunities that I had missed in the moment, because I am often not very aware of my surroundings. Takes me a lot of concentration to focus. Lose focus very fast. Just retreat in the back of my head, often
Especially if the task at hand isn't mentally tackling enough.

OK this along with the other Ni/Si stuff makes Ni lead likely again, consistent trend if I consider what you said about what type of woman you look for etc. Too focused on the Ni to conclude LSI from this or it would've actually been a good option.

One thing off with ILI is how you were so disinterested in the Fi and way more interested in Fe while the things you explicitly emphasized about Te were not Te specific - but still dunno for sure especially with you definitely having or trying to have a focus on Logic (Ti/Te).

[Myst]

I don't think all the IEs correlate in the way socionics wants them to.

You mean these IE themes? For sure, no, they are no better than an illustration.

[Number 9 large]

Interesting, now regardless of socionics, I find this interesting, because I used to have the same line of thinking. How did you decide that "good" and "bad" don't exist in objective reality? (Again I'm just curious, this isn't about socionics necessarily.)

Because ''good'' and ''bad'' are subjective judgments. What is good for one is bad for the other and vice versa. This means that ''good'' or ''bad'' is simply an opinion of the subject regarding a phenomenon. The phenomenon is objective reality. The opinion of it doesn't change the phenomenon, it is merely the interpretation of the subject regarding the phenomenon. Therefore it has no value to me. It is just an interpretation of reality. Not reality itself. Therefore I think it is narrowminded to explicitly make decisions based on ''good'' or ''bad'', because it is a very selfish and to look at things.

How do you experience readiness?

Basically that. Readiness to take action. State of focus/energy.

Later you state that you don't like to express how you feel. So you only like to express emotions by just embodying some ideas? Not personal feelings of yours? Or what did you mean, how am I to reconcile it with the other paragraph.

Yeah I saw that contradiction aswel. Don't know why that happened but didn't bother to change it. I just wrote down whatever came to me first, so as to not cloud it with my expectations or wants. Seems like I try to communicate my emotions more through smiles and facial expressions than with words.

One thing off with ILI is how you were so disinterested in the Fi and way more interested in Fe

Stood out to me aswel. Didn't expect that. Might point me to IEI? Don't think so though. Maybe I'll try it out.

while the things you explicitly emphasized about Te were not Te specific - but still dunno for sure especially with you definitely having or trying to have a focus on Logic (Ti/Te).

And so the search continues

[Pallas]

Interesting, I have almost never thought of myself as an ethical type, due to the lack of intimate relations I have in life. Since puberty I've also had this feeling of never really fitting in, and I still don't really know why. A friend of mine once suggested that I may be gifted (as in high intelligence). Since he was also gifted, I never really let that go but I can't be bothered to test, because if I turn out not to be gifted then that would be another let down

It's nicer to be left in the dark with this huge potential than to pop the bubble and come back to reality, at times, because I always assume the worst.

I hate tests like this since they come off as a way for people to pretend to be geniuses without really doing anything. Aristotle said that the people who win the Olympics aren't the the strongest or the prettiest, but those who compete. Taking IQ tests leads to people sitting at tables named after the Latin word for 'table' and circlejerking about their IQs instead of doing anything. Those people probably wouldn't've made any physics equations or composed any symphonies or anything anyways, but I feel like putting this emphasis on artificial achievements like test scores over natural achievements like books and inventions makes people less motivated in general and impoverishes the amount of things available to admire and enjoy. Sure, your IQ might be higher than Einstein's, but you haven't done anything with your intelligence so who cares. And children getting tested tends to mean torment by the parents, because only certain kinds of parents would test their children for "giftedness" in the first place.

[Myst]

Because ''good'' and ''bad'' are subjective judgments. What is good for one is bad for the other and vice versa. This means that ''good'' or ''bad'' is simply an opinion of the subject regarding a phenomenon. The phenomenon is objective reality. The opinion of it doesn't change the phenomenon, it is merely the interpretation of the subject regarding the phenomenon. Therefore it has no value to me. It is just an interpretation of reality. Not reality itself. Therefore I think it is narrowminded to explicitly make decisions based on ''good'' or ''bad'', because it is a very selfish and to look at things.

Ooh, ok, interesting, I had a completely different idea on that. Would you find it selfish when the good of someone else is being considered, although in a "subjective" way?

Basically that. Readiness to take action. State of focus/energy.

How much do you experience this?

Yeah I saw that contradiction aswel. Don't know why that happened but didn't bother to change it. I just wrote down whatever came to me first, so as to not cloud it with my expectations or wants. Seems like I try to communicate my emotions more through smiles and facial expressions than with words.

OK.

Stood out to me aswel. Didn't expect that. Might point me to IEI? Don't think so though. Maybe I'll try it out.

Well sure if you want, try it out and see.

And so the search continues

Yeah o_o lol

[Number 9 large]

Ooh, ok, interesting, I had a completely different idea on that. Would you find it selfish when the good of someone else is being considered, although in a "subjective" way?

I don't really understand what you mean. As I said ''good'' is only an opinion. You can't judge ''the good'' of someone. You can judge their actions and thinking though, whether you find that good or not.

How much do you experience this?

Not a lot. Mostly during/just after working out/cycling, or when I'm listening to heavy/epic music.

[Myst]

I don't really understand what you mean. As I said ''good'' is only an opinion. You can't judge ''the good'' of someone. You can judge their actions and thinking though, whether you find that good or not.

I was commenting on these sentences of yours: "What is good for one is bad for the other and vice versa" and "Therefore I think it is narrowminded to explicitly make decisions based on ''good'' or ''bad'', because it is a very selfish and to look at things".

Let me rephrase then: is it selfish to make a decision based on how "good" it would be for someone, say, a friend of yours, or just any person out there?

Not a lot. Mostly during/just after working out/cycling, or when I'm listening to heavy/epic music.

Hmm ok, definitely stick with the Ni ego options.

[Number 9 large]

I was commenting on these sentences of yours: "What is good for one is bad for the other and vice versa" and "Therefore I think it is narrowminded to explicitly make decisions based on ''good'' or ''bad'', because it is a very selfish and to look at things".

Let me rephrase then: is it selfish to make a decision based on how "good" it would be for someone, say, a friend of yours, or just any person out there?

No, cuz if you know ur friend you probably know what he likes etc.

I was more talking about morality in general