How to be the full version of "you". 100%.

[Zero]

Do you notice how much easier it is to type some people? The moment they walk into your sight you think "ha! that is a SLE" (has happened most often with SLEs, ESIs, LSIs) What works differently in these people's brains and what is about their fundamental beliefs that makes them so much "themselves"?

I think it is important to focus on being 100% you. This mindset of: "alittle like type X probably cause my dad was one, alittle like this and that under different influences" NO! But who are "you" then?

So how can we be more aware of our own preferences and attitudes and develop the fuller version of ourselves?

[Myst]

Do you notice how much easier it is to type some people? The moment they walk into your sight you think "ha! that is a SLE" (has happened most often with SLEs, ESIs, LSIs) What works differently in these people's brains and what is about their fundamental beliefs that makes them so much "themselves"?

I think it is important to focus on being 100% you. This mindset of: "alittle like type X probably cause my dad was one, alittle like this and that under different influences" NO! But who are "you" then?

So how can we be more aware of our own preferences and attitudes and develop the fuller version of ourselves?

I just follow my instincts/gut on what I feel good with. That is, if I do have some reaction to something. I don't always. Those things where I don't have a reaction are just neutral in terms of my main aims. I guess my main aims I formed myself. I guess based on a little bit of openness to introspection and to those instincts and desires and inspiration based on them coming up sometimes. They can be purely intellectual or material or emotional or whatever it is that some people call spiritual. I heard some people just do what their parents told them to do, that's foreign to me. No idea what makes someone like that. So I don't think I can give further advice on this, sorry.

I guess the way I conceptualize following those instincts and desires is just that the way your brain was formed is what gives rise to them so they are "true" in this sense and so if you follow them then you are creating a compatible environment for your brain.

(There's a lot of "I guess" in here lol, these things are not very concrete to me.)

[DavidH]

Do you notice how much easier it is to type some people? The moment they walk into your sight you think "ha! that is a SLE" (has happened most often with SLEs, ESIs, LSIs) What works differently in these people's brains and what is about their fundamental beliefs that makes them so much "themselves"?

I think it is important to focus on being 100% you. This mindset of: "alittle like type X probably cause my dad was one, alittle like this and that under different influences" NO! But who are "you" then?

So how can we be more aware of our own preferences and attitudes and develop the fuller version of ourselves?

Those would be highly differentiated individuals. Why would the assumption be that the full version of an individual is highly differentiated? The individual would be missing large portions of his or her own self in favor of a select portion.

[niffer]

Those would be highly differentiated individuals. Why would the assumption be that the full version of an individual is highly differentiated?

True.

The individual would be missing large portions of his or her own self in favor of a select portion.

Not necessarily (it depends).

Some people have more "extreme" or unique traits than others. This makes some people stand out more as certain sociotypes than others (this is also based on how they fit stereotypes, and it's also highly subject to the individual interpretation the typer has of the sociotypes @Zero ).

Why would these people be missing a large portion of themselves just because of this though? They would still be 100% themselves, living out their full potential.

That said, people do have a "shadow" to their stronger or more conscious traits. Some people have integrated their shadow more (we can see this as being synonymous with the Id, Ego, Super-Id, and Super-Ego all being integrated in Socionics) and are more balanced in a sense that way.

[DavidH]

True.

Not necessarily (it depends).

Some people have more "extreme" or unique traits than others. This makes some people stand out more as certain sociotypes than others (this is also based on how they fit stereotypes, and it's also highly subject to the individual interpretation the typer has of the sociotypes @Zero ).

Why would these people be missing a large portion of themselves just because of this though? They would still be 100% themselves, living out their full potential.

That said, people do have a "shadow" to their stronger or more conscious traits. Some people have integrated their shadow more (we can see this as being synonymous with the Id, Ego, Super-Id, and Super-Ego all being integrated in Socionics) and are more balanced in a sense that way.

That is not full potential. That is pride. Pride above that of the shadow. Pride above acceptance. Pride to place faith in differences rather than commonalities. That is not success in life. That is rejection of life.

[niffer]

That is not full potential. That is pride. Pride above that of the shadow. Pride above acceptance. Pride to place faith in differences rather than commonalities. That is not success in life. That is rejection of life.

Well I know you apparently have pride in yourself being "undifferentiated" now >_> but whatever.

If you can't be one thing/trait more than you are the other traits or at least have some definable traits, you are more nothing than yourself.

Everybody has a shadow @DavidH . Perhaps your shadow is differentiation.

[Pallas]

That is not full potential. That is pride. Pride above that of the shadow. Pride above acceptance. Pride to place faith in differences rather than commonalities. That is not success in life. That is rejection of life.

Differences are the acceptance of life. The human condition is one of being different from everyone else. The commonality is the differences. So just do what you want and don't worry about "acceptance" or "differentiation" and you'll be doing things right.

[DavidH]

Well I know you apparently have pride in yourself being "undifferentiated" now >_> but whatever.

If you can't be one thing/trait more than you are the other traits or at least have some definable traits, you are more nothing than yourself.

Everybody has a shadow @DavidH . Perhaps your shadow is differentiation.

Not at all. Nor does everyone have a shadow.

What you are describing is the state of remaining differentiated with prideful inability to be undifferentiated or exist in and with the opposing shadow. There is a difference between such, being undifferentiated, and being undifferentiated while remaining capable in these areas of differentiation.

[DavidH]

Differences are the acceptance of life. The human condition is one of being different from everyone else. The commonality is the differences. So just do what you want and don't worry about "acceptance" or "differentiation" and you'll be doing things right.

This is not representative of my post.

[Pole]

I'm me. You would know my type instantly. I stand out.

[wasp]

i actually think an individual's reaction to an unhealthy home environment can be an effective albeit roundabout method to discovering their type.

edit: Ne-doms stand out to me like a sore thumb. they have an inherent magnetism about them, but maybe that's just me. Fe creatives have a distinct presence, too, but i don't think it's one i could accurately pinpoint. they're just "warm". Ij types are difficult to pin down, but, on the whole, i'd say that "merry" types are significantly easier to spot in a crowd than "serious" types, aside from xEEs. they kinda blend in with the "merry" types.

[niffer]

What you are describing is the state of remaining differentiated with prideful inability to be undifferentiated or exist in and with the opposing shadow. There is a difference between such, being undifferentiated, and being undifferentiated while remaining capable in these areas of differentiation.

Okay, sure. What the OP was talking about was more people standing out as being more typeable because of their more distinctive traits though, which is what you labeled as being differentiated as a whole, without differentiating your intended meaning from being related to that.

Not at all. Nor does everyone have a shadow.

Interesting idea. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this in the Random Thoughts thread or elsewhere (visitor message, etc.) if you have any interest in telling me about them. Before we derail this thread further.

[DavidH]

Okay, sure. What the OP was talking about was more people standing out as being more typeable because of their more distinctive traits though, which is what you labeled as being differentiated as a whole, without differentiating your intended meaning from being related to that.

Interesting idea. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this in the Random Thoughts thread or elsewhere (visitor message, etc.) if you have any interest in telling me about them. Before we derail this thread further.

I did reference my intended meaning. I included the word "highly" to represent such. The original post references highly differentiated individuals as being the intention of life. Extremes are not the intention of life. Nor is living in a perpetual state of an extreme differentiation. It is abstinence of other facets of life which are necessary. I would neither tell you to eat cake every day nor would I tell you to never eat cake. Healthy moderation of all aspects of life are necessary to experience all aspects of life. This is why we as people have the terms of being "well-rounded individuals." These three words coexist and with reason substantiated by the course of human history. The original poster is referencing individuals who stand out due to lack of such.

It is not a derail. It is directly related and in response to the original post.

[Nehtaro]

@DavidH I think you have good points. However I also believe that highly developed individuals do tend to broadcast their type and add the most value through their Ego functions.
For instance, https://youtu.be/pxBQLFLei70?t=2m59s
This man is articulate and seems to be quite well-rounded and successful. His type also shines through quite clearly--this speech is an instance of his gift, his message to the world. It may not always be visible because sometimes people are not in their zone, sometimes they are quiet, etc., but when you get a person talking about _their thing_ or communicating in their element (no pun intended), then their 'social mission' becomes apparent.

[wasp]

@DavidH I think you have good points. However I also believe that highly developed individuals do tend to broadcast their type and add the most value through their Ego functions.
For instance, https://youtu.be/pxBQLFLei70?t=2m59s
This man is articulate and seems to be quite well-rounded and successful. His type also shines through quite clearly--this speech is an instance of his gift, his message to the world. It may not always be visible because sometimes people are not in their zone, sometimes they are quiet, etc., but when you get a person talking about _their thing_ or communicating in their element (no pun intended), then their 'social mission' becomes apparent.

i guess it's similar to how if you were to put a mathematician on a soccer pitch, you wouldn't get a very good idea of what his/her talents are. einstein's flying fish quote or whatever. i don't really use socionics irl but i did figure out a dude was ILE after asking him why he chose to major in kineosology. he told me his favorite thing about it was figuring out why something's not working, you know, what happens if you do this to that part and vice versa, especially if it's a problem that baffles other students. i can't quite recreate his rant but he didn't express it using kin jargon. he just went on and on about how each new case is akin to a new "puzzle". another ILE dude was hyper into bdsm but his fascination with it seemed detached from the sexual aspect of it. instead there's a heavy focus on pushing boundaries. taking something apart just so you can put it back together again, albeit in a different way, and doing this repeatedly until you create something entirely new on its basis. no matter their field of interest, there's going to be a lot of, "why? how car can i go? let's go further. what does this button do? how can i make it better?" tl;dr yea i feel u (maybe)

[DavidH]

@DavidH I think you have good points. However I also believe that highly developed individuals do tend to broadcast their type and add the most value through their Ego functions.
For instance, https://youtu.be/pxBQLFLei70?t=2m59s
This man is articulate and seems to be quite well-rounded and successful. His type also shines through quite clearly--this speech is an instance of his gift, his message to the world. It may not always be visible because sometimes people are not in their zone, sometimes they are quiet, etc., but when you get a person talking about _their thing_ or communicating in their element (no pun intended), then their 'social mission' becomes apparent.

That is synonymous with the definition of the Ego functions. Yes. An individual will provide to society with their Ego functions to the degree of strength of their Ego functions. This is not the same thing as stating their Ego functions must be such. It is only a declaration of the their present psyche. It is not a necessary reason for their present psyche to remain as such.

The original poster stated a message. A message of differentiation to the highest degree against conformity. You have stated the same message. The Admiral in the video you have provided has stated the same message. If a message moves forward. Then the message must move backwards as well. To the original source of the message. The message is potential over order. IEE. There is a source of this message. You should find it.

[Nehtaro]

Oh I see.
LSI (along with EII) are integrating (declaring) static positivists. To 'make whole,' to put the pieces of the puzzle into a complete picture. Separation of the parts of this whole is contrary to this aim. Your duals (EIE and LSE), the differentiating (asking) dynamic negativists, isolate negative deviations and cleanse them (I hope you don't need examples). This allows the whole to remain good AND intact.
So when OP comes in and says 'how can we be more like ourselves,' you're all, 'bish if we focus on our differences we won't be able to fit into the puzzle!'
OP's like, 'dawg I just want to feed my suggestive Fi+'
And I'm saying that our natural differentiation is what allows us to coexist and thrive. You can't help it--it's part of who we are. Your inclination to order is, ironically, a differentiation.

[DavidH]

Oh I see.
LSI (along with EII) are integrating (declaring) static positivists. To 'make whole,' to put the pieces of the puzzle into a complete picture. Separation of the parts of this whole is contrary to this aim. Your duals (EIE and LSE), the differentiating (asking) dynamic negativists, isolate negative deviations and cleanse them (I hope you don't need examples). This allows the whole to remain good AND intact.
So when OP comes in and says 'how can we be more like ourselves,' you're all, 'bish if we focus on our differences we won't be able to fit into the puzzle!'
OP's like, 'dawg I just want to feed my suggestive Fi+'
And I'm saying that our natural differentiation is what allows us to coexist and thrive. You can't help it--it's part of who we are. Your inclination to order is, ironically, a differentiation.

Not quite.

Your line of reasoning is the correct reasoning which I was presenting. This is not the same as the reasoning being presented being the only reasoning which I present. What you are stating is false equivalency. Well-rounded individuals more easily maintain their center than those who are not well-rounded. They are able to fulfill the roles and traits of each of the types of information metabolism both to small and large degrees. They are able to maintain lack of differentiation or the opposite. This is not the same thing as one being capable in only one aspect of life while being incapable in another aspect of life. It is false equivalency.

What you are describing is not the ability to be both oneself and to fulfill the various aspects of life. What you are describing is inability to be both oneself and to fulfill the various aspects of life. It is a prison of the self.

[Saoirse]

The sequence of this thread is a bit too abstract for me, so apologies for my rudeness, I am just popping in to make a brief response to OP: I think some people's instinctual stackings and enneagram types are just more consistent with the stereotype of their sociotype. E.g., I'm EII, but my social-first stacking + a strong 3 in my tritype make me more outgoing, apt to take the initiative, and comfortable in groups (of friends) than the stereotypical EII.

I don't think having an easily identified sociotype is a necessary or sufficient condition for reaching one's full potential or fully being oneself. E.g., for reaching one's full potential, pretty much everyone agrees Donald Trump is SLE, but he's obviously a very immature SLE and does not show how good mature SLEs can be. For fully being oneself, I think all the things that influenced you, like your parents, are things that make you you, so if you rejected them to try to force yourself to become some stereotype of your sociotype, you would be becoming less "you."

[Bertrand]

haven't you heard? Donald is SEE now

[Pookie]

I think it is important to focus on being 100% you. This mindset of: "alittle like type X probably cause my dad was one, alittle like this and that under different influences" NO! But who are "you" then?

So how can we be more aware of our own preferences and attitudes and develop the fuller version of ourselves?

You have it backwards. You are a little like X experience, because other people influence and alter your life. Someone is not their type. They are a factor of their actions and events. No one exists in a vacuum.

You are those preferences and attitudes. At every moment you are the full version of yourself.

[Tallmo]

I AM NOT MY TYPE

My type is a certain set of psychological abilities but it's not me.

I am the Ego in a general sense, I decide to use weak functions if the situation demands it. I decide things.

If you always want to be your type you worship the type as a "god"

I prefer to work in the base, but I can't always do it.

Let's say that a higher god is demanding attention, Life is calling you out to do work, adventure, relationships...

are you then just gonna be "your type" or will you meet the demands of life with the discomfort that follows from it?

Example from SEI:

Neurotic SEIs are often "themselves". Being in a natural state doing their thing, but not fit for society and life.

Healthy SEIs often suppress their ego functions for the sake of going into society and life. That's a sacrifice, but they gain something higher from it.

Sometimes sacrificing your type is necessary to be yourself.

Whether you suppress or live out your type depends on your life situation and your type, and the gods that are active in your life at the moment.

[The Reality Denialist]

Yes, letting my ego run wild all the time. Let's put it in concrete and... we have a disaster. Everything goes back to drawing board so to say. Nothing gets finished. OTOH it hardly ends up in concrete realm.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Ideally we should all just be ourselves but sometimes you have to manipulate other people by pretending to be what they are into so they will leave you alone. Then you can properly backstab them later.

[UDP]

Do you notice how much easier it is to type some people? The moment they walk into your sight you think "ha! that is a SLE" (has happened most often with SLEs, ESIs, LSIs) What works differently in these people's brains and what is about their fundamental beliefs that makes them so much "themselves"?

I think it is important to focus on being 100% you. This mindset of: "alittle like type X probably cause my dad was one, alittle like this and that under different influences" NO! But who are "you" then?

So how can we be more aware of our own preferences and attitudes and develop the fuller version of ourselves?

non on no no no no no no no

being easily recognizable in terms of how you are psychologically lopsidedness is nothing about being 'the real you ' or being 'authentic

part of it is just age and having enough life-stuff happen that you settle in some ways
hardships and pain also help sort some things out for better or worse


but yeah in no way should someone's apparent-ness or fit-into-box-easily-ness be taken for 'being the real you' or some kind of affirmation towards self actualization

[UDP]

maybe that's not what the op was getting at specifically but - just in case anyone was wondering about that angle

[Olimpia]

Do you notice how much easier it is to type some people? The moment they walk into your sight you think "ha! that is a SLE" (has happened most often with SLEs, ESIs, LSIs) What works differently in these people's brains and what is about their fundamental beliefs that makes them so much "themselves"?

I think it is important to focus on being 100% you. This mindset of: "alittle like type X probably cause my dad was one, alittle like this and that under different influences" NO! But who are "you" then?

So how can we be more aware of our own preferences and attitudes and develop the fuller version of ourselves?

In a Socionics sense, that would mean stop focusing on either your HA or Role function, and instead fully embrace your Ego functions. Many people tend to neglect their Creative Function in pursuit of the HA, for instance, and that usually makes them look like a different type.

[Saoirse]

In a Socionics sense, that would mean stop focusing on either your HA or Role function, and instead fully embrace your Ego functions. Many people tend to neglect their Creative Function in pursuit of the HA, for instance, and that usually makes them look like a different type.

Agreed that this results in looking like a different type. In the MBTI community, there's a theory that neglecting the Creative in favor of the HA is unhealthy ("tertiary loop"), because then one is mainly using two IEs with the same direction (both extraverted or both introverted), causing a lack of balance in the individual. Do you think that's accurate, or can someone be healthy while skipping their Creative for their HA?

[Olimpia]

Agreed that this results in looking like a different type. In the MBTI community, there's a theory that neglecting the Creative in favor of the HA is unhealthy ("tertiary loop"), because then one is mainly using two IEs with the same direction (both extraverted or both introverted), causing a lack of balance in the individual. Do you think that's accurate, or can someone be healthy while skipping their Creative for their HA?

I'd mostly agree with that... based on personal experience, also.

But Socionics says that focusing too much on the HA is not really fruitful, too; it's not just MBTI.

People tend to feel more fulfilled when engaging in their Creative (and Lead function) – for it is in an alignment with their values and actually something they are rather good at.

I used to say that Lead+HA "loops" are worse than Creative+DS "loops"... Because a boosted DS at least achieves a more balanced personality, theoretically. But at the end of the day, the "ideal" type to be is probably "no subtype". That's the most balanced kind of person. I find "no subtype" introverts not too common, actually. Most "no subtype" people were extroverts in my experience. Though the least common subtype combo has been Lead subtype extrovert.

Personally, I am starting to see my "Ni-Ti loops" as nothing but mental masturbation. Haha. When I use my Fe, I actually engage with people. I feel more fulfilled when I create or do something people actually want to see or read. Otherwise, I lack direction in a sense.

[Simo]

Do you notice how much easier it is to type some people? The moment they walk into your sight you think "ha! that is a SLE" (has happened most often with SLEs, ESIs, LSIs) What works differently in these people's brains and what is about their fundamental beliefs that makes them so much "themselves"?

I think it is important to focus on being 100% you. This mindset of: "alittle like type X probably cause my dad was one, alittle like this and that under different influences" NO! But who are "you" then?

So how can we be more aware of our own preferences and attitudes and develop the fuller version of ourselves?

types are abstraction of people personalities used to ease understanding what makes them different & how to relate with them, and in general abstractions describe the common building blocks of a thing but not the FULL thing, because the thing itself has so many variations which can't be listed or it would take long to list. so fitting perfectly into a type doesn't mean you are being a full version of yourself. still I respect you for your desire to be a full version of yourself.

You are the only one who knows your full potential. so ask yourself (and be honest with yourself) "what would the best me do in this situation?" and do it, and when you review what you already did ask yourself "would my the best me do this?" if yes good for you, if no then ask the first question so you would be aware of what you should do next time