Ghouse Type Me Video

[ghouse]

Video Version: https://youtu.be/jOBVNZb4bU4

Alright, here's an experiment. My current understanding of the lead function is as follows: the lead function is most differentiated function in the individual's psyche, it embodies the individual's domains in which he exhibits the highest levels of skill and confidence. Given that this definition is somewhere in the ballpark, I think it may be a good idea to talk about what I personally think I am best at.

I was pondering this question awhile ago to try to figure put what kind of career made the most sense to pursue. The conclusion I came to is roughly this. My greatest skill or asset, what I feel like I can go toe to toe with anyone on the planet on is my perspective on reality. This is not necessarily my world view. Its not really the what I know , but how I look at things, how I arrive at knowledge.

I also made another video in which I expand on what I talk about in this post in a rambling and unstructured way.

https://youtu.be/jOBVNZb4bU4

[Tallmo]

I changed my mind. I think youre ILE now

Thanks for the videos. Very interesting to try to type

[Myst]

Alright, here's an experiment. My current understanding of the lead function is as follows: the lead function is most differentiated function in the individual's psyche, it embodies the individual's domains in which he exhibits the highest levels of skill and confidence. Given that this definition is somewhere in the ballpark, I think it may be a good idea to talk about what I personally think I am best at.

Good idea.

I was pondering this question awhile ago to try to figure put what kind of career made the most sense to pursue. The conclusion I came to is roughly this. My greatest skill or asset, what I feel like I can go toe to toe with anyone on the planet on is my perspective on reality. This is not necessarily my world view. Its not really the what I know , but how I look at things, how I arrive at knowledge.

The leading function is pretty much your perspective on reality so this was not very specific, sorry

I also made another video in which I expand on what I talk about in this post in a rambling and unstructured way.

Don't have time to look at this now, but if you have a summary in a couple sentences, mind writing it down?

[Myst]

I changed my mind. I think youre ILE now

Thanks for the videos. Very interesting to try to type

ILE would be a bit more confident in throwing out well-developed Ne perspectives

[ghouse]

Don't have time to look at this now, but if you have a summary in a couple sentences, mind writing it down?

I can try. Unfortunately what I realized today is that I spent a lot of time in the video talking about my lead function in terms of my lead function. Meaning I spent a lot of time saying "my greatest strength is my perspective on reality" which is of course anyone's greatest strength since the lead function provides a perspective on reality. Which is good and bad, because it means that I do recognize that my lead function is my greatest strength, but I'm not yet very good at articulating what my particular perspective is.

Maybe instead of recapping the video I can describe the types of information I feel I can metabolize the best and with the highest level of confidence. I thought about this for awhile and what I've been able to come up with is that I am most confident i my ability to be open to different interpretations of reality. This is an ability to consider any proposition using any set of criteria with the attitude that both the proposition and the criteria may honestly be true or false.I could be sitting here typing or I could be dreaming. Socionics could be science or pseudoscience. The universe may exist physically or it could be a computer simulation. I honestly can consider any of these propositions to be true without fully believing in any of them. To put it simply I'm most confident in my capacity to suspend belief and consider alternative possibilities.

[Myst]

I can try. Unfortunately what I realized today is that I spent a lot of time in the video talking about my lead function in terms of my lead function. Meaning I spent a lot of time saying "my greatest strength is my perspective on reality" which is of course anyone's greatest strength since the lead function provides a perspective on reality. Which is good and bad, because it means that I do recognize that my lead function is my greatest strength, but I'm not yet very good at articulating what my particular perspective is.

Maybe instead of recapping the video I can describe the types of information I feel I can metabolize the best and with the highest level of confidence. I thought about this for awhile and what I've been able to come up with is that I am most confident i my ability to be open to different interpretations of reality. This is an ability to consider any proposition using any set of criteria with the attitude that both the proposition and the criteria may honestly be true or false.I could be sitting here typing or I could be dreaming. Socionics could be science or pseudoscience. The universe may exist physically or it could be a computer simulation. I honestly can consider any of these propositions to be true without fully believing in any of them. To put it simply I'm most confident in my capacity to suspend belief and consider alternative possibilities.

OK, what kind of goals can you go for with this ability / what kind of product do you create out of this? Ego functions do that. Leading function: "Profession-wise, the base function provides the best platform for developing a unique niche that will bring real value to other people. Rather than describing the professions a person would be best at, the base function describes a general approach and behavior style that can be successfully applied to virtually any field of activity." (See: www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Function)

[ghouse]

I fear this may be too vague, but I think the end product is a worldview that isn't based on conventional assumptions that most people make about things. This is a worldview that is not formed out of immediate or widely accepted facts. The worldview itself isn't based on concrete facts, its more of a quantum understanding of reality. Everything is a spectrum, anything is possible and nothing is certain.

[Myst]

I fear this may be too vague, but I think the end product is a worldview that isn't based on conventional assumptions that most people make about things. This is a worldview that is not formed out of immediate or widely accepted facts. The worldview itself isn't based on concrete facts, its more of a quantum understanding of reality. Everything is a spectrum, anything is possible and nothing is certain.

So do you engage people in intellectual discussions of these possibilities regularly or it's a private pastime?

Out of curiosity, got an example of such a conventional assumption that you purposefully don't use for your worldview (this isn't about your typing now, just curious).

[ghouse]

So do you engage people in intellectual discussions of these possibilities regularly or it's a private pastime?

Out of curiosity, got an example of such a conventional assumption that you purposefully don't use for your worldview (this isn't about your typing now, just curious).

It's more of a private pastime and more of a passive understanding than an active exploration.

It's not that I purposefully don't use conventional assumptions, it's that there's no place for them in my mind. Conventional assumptions are just that, assumptions, assumptions that something or some things is or are absolutely true. Nothing is true or false, nothing is binary. That's not how the universe or reality works. An example of such an assumption would be human rights. Human rights don't exist. They're an idea first of all. You can't say everyone is entitled to a set of abstract ideological constructs, it doesn't make sense. That may be bad example actually, but that's my perspective on that. A better example may be one I already stated, that reality is real. You can't prove that and that's an assumption that I don't make.

[Tallmo]

ILE would be a bit more confident in throwing out well-developed Ne perspectives

Yes I know. Maybe i am simply nor able to type him. I m just changing my mind all the time. Really irritating. I want to know his type. Better take a break. Maybe next week I will see him with fresh eyes

[Myst]

It's more of a private pastime and more of a passive understanding than an active exploration.

It's not really an Ego function then but just something that's still important to you.

It's not that I purposefully don't use conventional assumptions, it's that there's no place for them in my mind. Conventional assumptions are just that, assumptions, assumptions that something or some things is or are absolutely true. Nothing is true or false, nothing is binary. That's not how the universe or reality works. An example of such an assumption would be human rights. Human rights don't exist. They're an idea first of all. You can't say everyone is entitled to a set of abstract ideological constructs, it doesn't make sense. That may be bad example actually, but that's my perspective on that. A better example may be one I already stated, that reality is real. You can't prove that and that's an assumption that I don't make.

OK, I see, thanks for sharing.

As for typing (though that's not why I asked you about this originally), I think based on this Ti leading types can be truly safely excluded for you (all Rational types as well, you aren't sticking to a Rational consistent worldview), also you sound like Ne>Se valuing again. And where you concretize ideas, such as calling human rights an idea, or when you say "can't say everyone is entitled to a set of abstract ideological constructs", that seems Sensing>Intuition to me. Taking abstract ideas on a certain concrete level. It's as if you have a hard time seeing the abstract idea (of human rights) affecting anything because it is not directly visible-tangible implications. Let me know if this made sense.

Hmm, so on the whole, how do you see the SLI typing for yourself? I remember you said you don't see the essence of yourself as just taking care of internal sensations. That's a very technical way to put it though, I don't think anyone (SLIs either) would identify with that statement as is. What would make more sense is the SLI seeing themselves as a realistic person who knows how to manage concrete things well and flexibly, valuing facts and experience highly, liking new impressions, etc.

So, other than that, have you had any other big issues with typing as SLI?

And, here's a great take on Si, about how it's involvement in internal experience: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1203942

[ghouse]

That analysis makes sense to me.

I definitely think it's possible, but I guess that's not saying much based on my "anything is possible" worldview. I guess the main issue with SLI is that I don't feel like it explains my skills or areas of confidence (Should it even do that though?). I don't see how I pursue Si "most vigorously when [I] have a choice". Maybe activities and interests aren't good metrics for typing, but it's been how I've been going about it up till now.

[Myst]

That analysis makes sense to me.

I definitely think it's possible, but I guess that's not saying much based on my "anything is possible" worldview. I guess the main issue with SLI is that I don't feel like it explains my skills or areas of confidence (Should it even do that though?). I don't see how I pursue Si "most vigorously when [I] have a choice". Maybe activities and interests aren't good metrics for typing, but it's been how I've been going about it up till now.

It should explain areas of confidence, yeah. Maybe ask the SLIs on the forum how they see this statement about pursuing Si "most vigorously when having a choice".

This stuff in your questionnaire, "Maybe, when I was hiking up a mountain off of the trail and making a path for my group which was following me. Also maybe while exploring a cave and again leading people into the unknown. These experiences were both examples that speak more to the "at one with the environment" part", it sounded like it was significant to you. So could this be an example of what naturally strongly interests you?

Or where you said you smile when you physically feel good. What sort of things make you feel good in that way?

Try to read SLI articles, like this one is pretty good, see if it helps you understand your own stuff more, the Si lead, Ne suggestive, Fe PoLR etc sections - http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...Stratiyevskaya

[ghouse]

My strongest natural interests at this point in time lie in studying socionics and other typology systems. The thing is, I'm doing what I want right now and my main interest is in identifying my sociotype. I could easily be outdoors, but I'm not. At the same time, I don't feel "at home" in the area of typology research. It feels like something I do in order to get an end result as opposed to in order to enjoy the activity in the moment.

I meant that more in the general sense that everyone smiles when they physically feel good. I may have been over simplifying, but I think I mentioned something related to humorous observations or thoughts, which are not really physical sensations.

I checked out that article and while I may be examining it too intensely the first thing I didn't relate to was that SLI's can tell someone is hungry just by looking at their eyes. Maybe that's too nit picky, but it's the first thing that I didn't agree with.

I'm trying to think of significant events of my life where I've felt a sense of belonging or being at one with the environment and while this event didn't come to mind while I was answering the questionnaire it comes to mind now. I was caving with some people and we were back at the mouth of the cave after we had finished exploring. There was a barred iron gate with a latch that we had to open to get out. This would have been a simple task were it not for the rain that had fell while we were in the cave. Essentially the latch on the door wasn't moving because it was wet and we had to get it to open. It couldn't be opened by hand so we had to use what was in the cave to try to get it to open. Eventually what worked was placing one rock on top of the lock and hammering down on that rock with another rock to get the gate to open. I figured out all of this stuff out through trial and error. When I got out I felt energized by the experience and as if I had been living life as it was meant to be lived. That's not quite a sense of oneness with the environment (flow state?) or a sense of belonging, but it's the closest thing I've got.

[Hope]

I definitely think it's possible, but I guess that's not saying much based on my "anything is possible" worldview. I guess the main issue with SLI is that I don't feel like it explains my skills or areas of confidence (Should it even do that though?). I don't see how I pursue Si "most vigorously when [I] have a choice". Maybe activities and interests aren't good metrics for typing, but it's been how I've been going about it up till now.

If you think that certain type don't explain yourself then keep looking. Don't let others to push you into directions that you don't feel entirely to fit in. Maybe you dont know all about theory now, but ultimately its you the only one who knows yourself better.

I checked out that article and while I may be examining it too intensely the first thing I didn't relate to was that SLI's can tell someone is hungry just by looking at their eyes. Maybe that's too nit picky, but it's the first thing that I didn't agree with.

That part of the description is ridiculous indeed. No one can guess if other ppl is hungry just for looking into their eyes.


If you have questions about Si, SLI or something you can ask me.

[ghouse]

If you have questions about Si, SLI or something you can ask me.

To be blunt, what's your experience of Si?

Edit: Ti = "logical relationships between objects: systems of rules and categories, hierarchies, comparisons of quantifiable properties, logical judgments".

The way I see this typing process is essentially from the perspective that I'm trying to categorize myself. I know this doesn't mean that Ti is my base function, but does this at least indicate that I am actively using Ti?

I also can think of the base function as determining what information aspects someone is most aware of. At this point in my life, I'm most focused on being aware of and thus understanding systems of rules and categories, and the system of rules and categories that I'm most focused on is information metabolism theory.

[squark]

Edit: Ti = "logical relationships between objects: systems of rules and categories, hierarchies, comparisons of quantifiable properties, logical judgments".

The way I see this typing process is essentially from the perspective that I'm trying to categorize myself. I know this doesn't mean that Ti is my base function, but does this at least indicate that I am actively using Ti?

I also can think of the base function as determining what information aspects someone is most aware of. At this point in my life, I'm most focused on being aware of and thus understanding systems of rules and categories, and the system of rules and categories that I'm most focused on is information metabolism theory.

Watched 2nd video, and did notice how you were constantly trying to sort the information into categories, as in, I'm doing this now, so is it this? or does it fit this? And yes, that was an active use of Ti.

A logical type seems obvious, but I don't know which one yet. I found your statements about not ever really being sure what's true, and being able to go toe-to-toe with anyone on their view of reality interesting, but I'm not sure exactly how to place them. Also, the comments about not having beliefs.

Edit: Read your posts after the video, and it sounds like Ne.

[ghouse]

I also wonder if anyone has an idea which function(s) was/were in action during the following event. I don't think this is a common thing that people do when they're kids so that's why I'm sharing it. I remember clearly asking myself what my own instincts were. My thinking was, "Animals have instincts, humans are animals, I must have instincts". I remember putting down my toys and listening to my own mind for a while, before deciding that I heard nothing and going back to playing. Not even sure that that was a manifestation of my lead function, but just thought sharing another significant life event may be helpful.

[Myst]

My strongest natural interests at this point in time lie in studying socionics and other typology systems. The thing is, I'm doing what I want right now and my main interest is in identifying my sociotype. I could easily be outdoors, but I'm not. At the same time, I don't feel "at home" in the area of typology research. It feels like something I do in order to get an end result as opposed to in order to enjoy the activity in the moment.

You say you don't feel "at home" with it and it just feels like something to get a result, that isn't what I meant by a natural interest, if I'm reading your tone/intent here correctly. I mean, it sounded like you aren't all that enthused about doing this instead of enjoying some activity in the moment. By the way the latter one is Si.

I meant that more in the general sense that everyone smiles when they physically feel good. I may have been over simplifying, but I think I mentioned something related to humorous observations or thoughts, which are not really physical sensations.

The question you were responding to was asking about when you smile. I noticed that answer of yours as really salient. I myself don't smile just because of feeling good physically, btw. (I mention that just to let you know it's not true for everyone. I found that generalization of yours interesting, just wanted to say it doesn't seem to always apply.)

I checked out that article and while I may be examining it too intensely the first thing I didn't relate to was that SLI's can tell someone is hungry just by looking at their eyes. Maybe that's too nit picky, but it's the first thing that I didn't agree with.

Lol that is a weird part, I remember self-typed SLI also didn't agree with it before on the forum.

I'm trying to think of significant events of my life where I've felt a sense of belonging or being at one with the environment and while this event didn't come to mind while I was answering the questionnaire it comes to mind now. I was caving with some people and we were back at the mouth of the cave after we had finished exploring. There was a barred iron gate with a latch that we had to open to get out. This would have been a simple task were it not for the rain that had fell while we were in the cave. Essentially the latch on the door wasn't moving because it was wet and we had to get it to open. It couldn't be opened by hand so we had to use what was in the cave to try to get it to open. Eventually what worked was placing one rock on top of the lock and hammering down on that rock with another rock to get the gate to open. I figured out all of this stuff out through trial and error. When I got out I felt energized by the experience and as if I had been living life as it was meant to be lived.

That's a very SLI thing. Analyzing sensations and solving tricky tasks about physical objects. I don't want to "read into" what you said here too much but it does sound like you were connecting with something that for you is very important. Maybe that's the kind of natural interest that would indicate Ego for you, I don't know and that's what I mean by not wanting to "read into" your description too much.

Btw, just to clarify because of other posts here, I'm not pushing you into any direction, I just think it could be useful for you to check out SLI deeper. I have zero investment in how anyone types themselves here (long story). I just hope I can help a bit here.

Edit: Ti = "logical relationships between objects: systems of rules and categories, hierarchies, comparisons of quantifiable properties, logical judgments".

The way I see this typing process is essentially from the perspective that I'm trying to categorize myself. I know this doesn't mean that Ti is my base function, but does this at least indicate that I am actively using Ti?

You are a 4D Ti type so of course you use it a lot regardless of which type you are beyond being 4D Ti.

The SLI article I pointed you to (sorry I got the old broken wikisocion link for you originally but I guess you figured it out) talks about Ti demonstrative being Ti that's "relativized" like you do it. It's like, you operate with a lot (!) of Ti logical bits and you do seem to like to do it a lot but you do not want to stick to them too much beyond a point or spend too much time to systematize all of it from start to end in an "unchanging" system without being flexibly (Irrational) playful with the bits, it would be overdone focus for you to actually settle with a Rational (as opposed to Irrational) judgment. Though SLI will be stubborn in arguments for other reasons.

It does also say SLI cares about Ti to a degree, beyond just "relativizing" it: "And it would be nevertheless erroneous to assert that always and in any case the demonstrative reasonableness of the SLI is only of its kind trick. Certainly not! There are indeed some aspects, which actually occupy their attention. And analyzing them, the SLI no longer pretends to be open."

This also shows Ti as a quite important IE and function for the SLI: http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p..._SLI_composite

"SLIs like to philosophize and analyze life, but they use logical categories situationally rather than searching for a single cohesive structure for understanding the world. There are always unknown variables and a whole realm of inner experience that they feel is hard to classify, but must simply be experienced for what it is. They are typically skeptical of established social rules and, although understood, they prefer to break away from such formal standards, such as traditional greetings and handshakes. SLIs will keep to themselves unless approached directly. They have a strong sense of individuality in their reasoning and do not like having it challenged. SLIs are often pessimistic about what other people believe is true if these beliefs counter their own understanding, and will defend what they feel is correct if someone tries to discount them. However, getting someone to understand their logic is not a serious priority.

SLIs at times may play skilfully with categories and formal logical arguments, but they do not usually take themselves too seriously. However, they consistently label and classify the things and people around them - their understanding of the world is important. They become easily annoyed with people who emphasize theory and generalizations instead of solid factual knowledge."

Also where you were "trying to sort the information into categories, as in, I'm doing this now, so is it this? or does it fit this", Ti demonstrative as described above does mention a lot of focus on categorizing.

I also can think of the base function as determining what information aspects someone is most aware of. At this point in my life, I'm most focused on being aware of and thus understanding systems of rules and categories, and the system of rules and categories that I'm most focused on is information metabolism theory.

I can see that. But the difference between Base and Demonstrative is that the Base includes the entire process of processing the particular IE as a consciously accessible process that goes with Rationality or Irrationality as well. Demonstrative doesn't consciously access the entire process. For Ti to be Base function it would have to be absolute in its Rational judgments, not relative-flexible like Demonstrative Ti (which is also a function of an Irrational type).

Let me know if this made sense.

Btw self-typed SLI did say before on this forum that they use Ti a lot, viewing themselves as an SLI with "high Ti". I've seen several self-typed SLIs even identify with Ti-dom (ISTP) in MBTI I think. That's in line with the theory though, with Irrationality being a deciding factor for the type if we assume that Ti Demonstrative does cover for the Ti aspects.

I also wonder if anyone has an idea which function(s) was/were in action during the following event. I don't think this is a common thing that people do when they're kids so that's why I'm sharing it. I remember clearly asking myself what my own instincts were. My thinking was, "Animals have instincts, humans are animals, I must have instincts". I remember putting down my toys and listening to my own mind for a while, before deciding that I heard nothing and going back to playing. Not even sure that that was a manifestation of my lead function, but just thought sharing another significant life event may be helpful.

ST analysis (Sensory + Logical) Specifically, that there was an example of utilizing formal logic about a sensory topic. (Btw I like that anecdote with you thinking about that like that. ) Can't type from one bit though, you have to spot the trends instead throughout your whole life. Not that I doubt much that you are ST but obviously I could be wrong as I'm only using the data you've given here so far. You yourself will want to decide on your own type.

[ghouse]

Would it be unwise to look at it from the perspective of the four jungian dichotomies?

Rationality in socionics is a perceptual quality defined by a focus on actions and emotions. In contrast, Irrationality means a focus on states of mind and body.
- I think my interest in socionics is best described as a attempting to maintain a desirable state of mind. There's a desire to know more about myself and to get information. This is opposed to trying to maintain a certain bodily, emotional or active state. p>j

In socionics, "extraversion" is a perceptual quality defined by a focus on the characteristics and behavior of objects (people, things, events) outside the observer. In contrast, "introversion" means a focus on the observer's response to and perception of objects.
- Whatever it is I'm focused on right now it's not outside of me. i understand that I'm using my relationship with the object that is socionics theory in order to better understand myself. I>E

Sensing in socionics is a perceptual quality defined by a focus on the tangible, directly sensible, and visible content of reality. In contrast, intuition means a focus on intangible, indirectly perceivable, and hidden content of reality.
- My sociotype is not visible. It's an abstract label and it's what I'm focusing on. N>S

Ethics in socionics is a perceptual quality defined by a focus on the human, social, moral, and emotional content of reality. In contrast, logic entails a focus on the inanimate, measurable, systemic, and procedural content of reality.

- Socionics is more of a logical system than a moral one. T>F and thus INTp.

Edit: @Myst I understood what you were saying about Ti

[squark]

I also wonder if anyone has an idea which function(s) was/were in action during the following event. I don't think this is a common thing that people do when they're kids so that's why I'm sharing it. I remember clearly asking myself what my own instincts were. My thinking was, "Animals have instincts, humans are animals, I must have instincts". I remember putting down my toys and listening to my own mind for a while, before deciding that I heard nothing and going back to playing. Not even sure that that was a manifestation of my lead function, but just thought sharing another significant life event may be helpful.

It's an example of causal-deterministic thinking (ILE, LSI, SEE, EII) "Causal-Determinist cognition is known under synonymous names as formal logic or deterministic thinking, both of which emphasize its rigid nature. Speech in this cognitive style takes shape with aid of the connectives "because", "therefore", "consequently" (causal conjunctions). The mental process consists in constructing chains of cause and effect, reducing explanations to deterministic mechanisms." Link People don't stay entirely in one thinking style but some are easier to switch to-from than others from your main style. Something I wrote a long time ago to someone else explaining this:

some thoughts on cognition in general. they can be pared down to two dichotomies: static/dynamic and deductive/inductive.

I think it's hardest for CD and VS to understand each other and for DA and H to understand each other's thinking style because they are opposed on both dichotomies.

CD is static deductive. If they switch from deductive to inductive (going from the parts to forming a whole view or overview) they move to holographic thinking while still staying static. This isn't a big leap and occurs pretty easily and naturally. They do this when they start drawing analogies or creating a basic (and static) model of their deductions. H also can switch to CD by focusing on the details that make up their overview picture. They remain in the static frame of mind - the picture, snapshot type of view and move between inductive and deductive.

If CD takes their chain of reasonings and puts it into motion it becomes dynamic. So from static deductive they move to dynamic deductive. The links become a moving flowchart branching and with purpose and origin becoming more clear. I think it's harder for CD to go into DA than for them to go into H because it's harder to move from a static viewpoint to a dynamic one than it is to go from parts to overview of the static picture (imo)

The hardest mode of thinking for CD is VS because they have to switch not only to the overview inductive viewpoint but simultaneously into a dynamic viewpoint - the whole allowing things to flow and solutions to emerge spontaneously is probably the most difficult for CD types to use effectively.

Works the other way around too, with DA and H finding it easier to use CD than for VS to. But, since people can and do use different styles of thinking I wouldn't recommend typing off a single sample.

As for dimensionality of functions Link the more flexibility, the higher the dimension, and if you have very rigid use, it's usually a 1-dimensional function. Also, "Experience in finding TIMs shows that those who are being typed often cannot assess and evaluate the adequacy of their one-dimensional function, and may consider it to be the most "powerful" one (mistake it for 1st function)" So, maybe it would be a good approach to think about how others describe you, and what those people closest to you see as your strengths and weaknesses and how those things might relate to different elements.

Also, sometimes just talking about an entirely different subject will better show your type rather than thinking very specifically about type. If you have some free-form writing that is a good representation of how you typically talk/think you could look over it and pick out the elements you use most often.

[Myst]

Sensing in socionics is a perceptual quality defined by a focus on the tangible, directly sensible, and visible content of reality. In contrast, intuition means a focus on intangible, indirectly perceivable, and hidden content of reality.
- My sociotype is not visible. It's an abstract label and it's what I'm focusing on. N>S

Well you said that "I'm not doing a lot of reading into the data I'm collecting. i'm pretty much taking it as is". Sensors can also try to spend time to figure out their type as an abstract label too, it's not an activity exclusive to Intuitive types. I (as ST type) definitely had to spend time on understanding the implicit parts.

Maybe more helpful: if you wanted to find the common threads in what you were doing in life/how you were viewing things before you started doing this typology stuff, what would that show?

Edit: @Myst I understood what you were saying about Ti

OK, cool hope it helped. Do you think you relate to Ti demonstrative?

[ghouse]

@Myst As for what my interests were before typology, in high school I was mostly focused on academics and sports. My main extracurricular besides athletics was competitive public speaking and acting. As of right now my main interest outside of typology is improvisational comedy.

As for Ti demonstrative, "Ti as Demonstrative Function

The individual often criticizes others' views from a logical standpoint, picking apart statements and postulates and showing that they are logically flawed. However, he does not choose to do this excessively and does not expect that reality can be accurately expressed in a neat logical systematic anyway"

I don't think I engage in a lot of criticism of other's views at all, but I don't expect that reality can be accurately expressed in a rational way.
@squark I think I do have some examples of free-form writing...

Comments on Tater Tots

I don’t like it when the cooks at our dining hall make tater tots for dinner. Because I want a nice starch to soak up the grease from the burger I want to eat, but tater tots are a breakfast food and I don’t like eating breakfast foods for dinner but there's something about tater tots because tater tots are so... the word tater tots sounds so infantile not potato, tater, and then tots like a toddler like they're supposed to be baby potatoes but they aren't even baby potatoes they're diced potatoes rolled into small balls and deep fried. They are such an infantile food I would get kind of offended if they were offered to me unannounced...

"Hey you want some tater tots?"

"What am I a fucking baby fuck you!"

Its also kinda lazy. Like make fries. Are you out of fries? Buy more fries! Don’t buy as many tater tots in the future and buy more fries. I feel like it takes a lot of gall to serve people tater tots as a part of their dinner the meal that will sustain them through the night. Tater tots are not a noble food they are infantile... they are... the name itself is a bastardized way of saying baby potatoes, but the name sounds like you were trying to explain the food to an uneducated person who didn’t want to eat them...

"Look, they are just minced potatoes rolled into small portions and deep fried why wont you eat it?"

"Don’t trust it. That ain't no tater I've ever seen!"

"Well they aren't taters, they are tater tots."

I hate unoriginality like my friends like to make the same jokes over and over again and make the same sound effect o ver and over again and its not funny. I don’t like insensitive people I don’t like stupid people you have to learn to be sensitive, it’s a skill, stupid you cant fix, but there's no excuse for being insensitive because all you need to be sensitive is knowledge. Wrote memorization...

"This is a disease. Some people have it and they can't do anything about it. Be aware that this thing is out there and adjust your behavior accordingly! How hard is that?"

I wonder if you could start a civil rights movement for conservative people. I wonder if you could start a support group for insensitive people. Like you'd have a bunch of people, like if insensitive people are going to end up becoming a marginalized group. Assholes. I’m all for political correctness and social justice, but the way things are going, assholes are going to start having their own special interest groups. The whole notion of...

"Hey! That’s just the way I am and you need to get used to it!"

Is great, but why couldn't assholes start using it too? There's no reason for any conflict over social issues, we reached the final argument, the argument all these groups use is essentially...

"Hey! This is the way I am! Get used to it!"

Everyone can use that argument! Assholes, racists, sexists! Relax! No one needs to argue anymore! Which is great because I'm sick of seeing those messages on my newsfeed.

[squark]

@ghouse lol. Taking everything together that you've said and written about yourself, I think ILE looks like it fits best after all. Take a look at Ne and Ti as ego fxns in ILE here:

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p..._ILE_composite

[Hope]

To be blunt, what's your experience of Si?

Tip: In this link you can find an easy, practical and simple description of functions on each type. So, f.e. if you want to look at SLI, you'll have to look on Si as Leading function, Te Creative Function, Ni Role Function, Fe Vulnerable, Ne Suggestive, Fi Mobilizing, Se Ignoring, Ti Demonstrative...the same with the rest of the types. I think this could help you to get a practical understanding of functions of types and in that way compare yourself with the types that you find alike and see the differences and look where do you fit better.

 

The use of a function as a leading, means that we use it on its full capacity. Its called also intellectual function or 4th dimensional function. For understanding my point I consider useful to look the nature of the dimensionality of functions. Also it could help you to understand the types and fit yourself in the one who suits you better.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...by-Irina-Eglit

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...Dimensionality

Brief explanation of dimensions:
1. Experience: experiential , subjectivity and subjective evaluation, experience in first person (sorry for repetitiveness and redundancy, I'm in lack of words).
2. Norms: What is correct or inappropriate according societal norms.
3. Situational: What is convenient and suitable on each situation. Making exceptions. Using the function on a creative (not normative) way. Freedom.
4. Time: Consistency or development over time, parameter or perception of time. Manipulation of function leading over time.

Si 4D:

1. Experience. Si being experiential Its lived subjectively through 5 senses and external stimuli, it's physical not intellectual, it's irrational (more instinctive), earthy.
It's about what suits you personally, separated from the rest of the world.

F.e. I usually take seat when I'm in public or when I'm working if I need too. Some people, specially types with Si1D and Fe4D can look this as something wrong. I see it as natural and perfectly normal…why should I stay stand if I'm tired? Its not the most natural thing to take a sit when I'm tired? If rest of people in there wish to keep standing, I'd take a seat, I don't feel any kind of pressure to do what the rest is doing when its about my own comfort.

2. Norms.Taking care of own physical needs. Moderation. Well being. Common sense (on physical matters). Physical comfort (like in clothes and shoes, etc). Looking good or physically attractive. Fashion or traditions on clothing etc. Tend to be traditional in appearance or physical perception, aesthetics.

F.e. I don't like excessive piercings and totally dislike tattoos. I think they look ugly and I see tattoos as an unnecessarily risky and painful experience.

3. Situational. Creativity. Find solutions for particular situations. Freedom.

F.e. If I don't need to go outside the house I usually keep pajamas on. The situation doesn't require me to be on more uncomfortable clothing? Perfect! I'll use whats more comfortable. Another example, if I just need to go to the grocery store (the situation doesn't require me to go outside looking extremely presentable) I would perfectly use active wear. Why not?
On the other hand, my IEE with 1DSi, almost never use active wear even if he just need to go to the convenience store.

4. Time: Consistency or development over time, parameter or perception of time. Manipulation of function leading over time.

F.e.The things that I remember the most from past are often related to Si. How good or bad I felt on my physical of psychological being, If something was pleasurable or insufferable.
The things that I remember most of my childhood are Si things…I remember toys, I remember their colors or texutures. When I was a kid my mother used to give me milk chocolate, I still remember the taste. I remember that I liked a lot to play with plasticine and draw. If you want me to describe or imagine something, the way I'd do it is through Si. I'd describe the sounds, images, smells, sensations on a pretty vivid way, since I've a lot of resources in mind to express it in detailed way. The situations on fictional writings for example, pretty much round through sensorial experiences too.

Some of my basic explanation of Si as leading function:

-Experiential: Sensorial experience in first person. Seek of stimuli. Can I look at it? Can I touch it?
-Bodily: Taking care of own physical needs. Common sense. Moderation. Well being. Peace.
-Attuned: Comfort, usefulness, practicality. Reserve of energy and material resources; principle of minimum effort.
-Caregiving: Well meaning. Preservation. Pro Life. Adviser. Teacher. Tradition. Moderation.

Sensorial experiences is the base of the type. Si is entirely experiential. It's a function related to the senses (5 senses), it's physical not intellectual, it's irrational (more instinctive), earthy.

Pleasure seeking, comfort seeking, living through senses on an introverted way (own way), appreciation of aesthetics, internal evaluation of external stimuli, such as objects, environment (shape, light, sound, smell, touch). Aesthetics ( on philosophy).

Heightened senses: hypersensitivity to external stimuli such as loud, temperature, colors, atmosphere, touch etc. attended specially on relation of situational evaluation of comfort/discomfort. Attentive to energy level (high, low, in need of rest etc).

I don't want to suggest that my senses are more heightened than in the rest of types, its just a way to explain the concept, basically I think that I just put more attention or I'm more sensitive to that kind of things that ppl with different leading function. Deep attachment to 5 senses.

Explained? I'm slave of my own personal living experience of situations always seeking for comfortability and pleasurableness.
I'm able to sacrifice my own comfort (tbh its hard but I do it anyway ) for those I love or for a good cause (when strangers), but I'm absolutely unable and indisposed to do it for superficial or shallow goals such as ambition, fame, prestige, power or that kind of things (please notice the contradiction since pleasure seeking could be seen as being shallowness too, remember that Si is an irrational function).
This is translated in that I'll always look for the most comfortable, practical and convenient way to do things for me and others (categorically).
Taking care of practical physical matters such as clean, cook, etc. I really enjoy doing this, it can bee seen as the caregiver tendency, I enjoy this kind of physical handy work when its for loved ones, I've a feeling of purpose or usefulness when doing it for someone else. I'm always offering my help, specially when I see that is really needed.

I hope this helps.

Let me know your conclusions.

[Myst]

I think I do have some examples of free-form writing...

OK... A lot of Si and Ne focus in there. Some Fi where you talk of having to learn to be sensitive, etc.

I found the bit on diseases/support groups funny.

[ghouse]

I read through the Si bit and didn't relate a lot to the care taking vibe. I thought it was interesting that you said you remembered the Si moments of your childhood most vividly. I'll read up on the dimensionality of the different functions as well.

To be honest, I've already read through numerous type descriptions including the wikisocion composites and have not ben able to relate particularly strongly to anyone of them in particular. Lately, I've been thinking that maybe I'm not far enough along in the jungian individuation process for my type to be clearly defined at this point in my life. Are there any other methods of type verification besides reading descriptions? I've read most of them already. I was trying to deconstruct the types and functions into their essential components and build up my understanding of them from more basic parts. Also, I've been trying to come to my own original understanding of jungian based typology by revisiting jung's original texts.

I guess long story short, I'm not exactly a newbie to this stuff and I've been coming at it from a lot of different angles for a long time. I've done tests, professional typings, MBTI, socionics, independent theories and as I've mentioned, even tried to come up with my own. Long story shorter, are there any other angles I could come at this from which I haven't already attempted?

Also, I'm glad people were entertained by my writing.

[Myst]

I read through the Si bit and didn't relate a lot to the care taking vibe. I thought it was interesting that you said you remembered the Si moments of your childhood most vividly. I'll read up on the dimensionality of the different functions as well.

As for the care-taking vibe... Interestingly enough in MBTI, the stereotype of ISTP (still a jungian Irrational type) is a somewhat different take on what I, S, T and P/p mean together - it's an adventurous and daredevil type seeking sensations, though the caveat is mentioned that they don't actually take true risks, they are just very skilled in the activities that they are doing for getting good sensations. Some SLIs do supposedly go on adventures, too. Though not as crazy with acting without limits as Se bases would be. Si limits that sort of thing a bit more (same as with MBTI's ISTP).

To be honest, I've already read through numerous type descriptions including the wikisocion composites and have not ben able to relate particularly strongly to anyone of them in particular. Lately, I've been thinking that maybe I'm not far enough along in the jungian individuation process for my type to be clearly defined at this point in my life. Are there any other methods of type verification besides reading descriptions? I've read most of them already. I was trying to deconstruct the types and functions into their essential components and build up my understanding of them from more basic parts. Also, I've been trying to come to my own original understanding of jungian based typology by revisiting jung's original texts.

Mind writing a bit about your own understanding? You made me really curious there.

As for the deconstruction - I noticed before that you were operating with concepts that are building blocks in the theory. The only problem I could see there is that you didn't try to anchor them to the tangible so you never got anywhere with them. This is just how it came off to me, though.

I guess long story short, I'm not exactly a newbie to this stuff and I've been coming at it from a lot of different angles for a long time. I've done tests, professional typings, MBTI, socionics, independent theories and as I've mentioned, even tried to come up with my own. Long story shorter, are there any other angles I could come at this from which I haven't already attempted?

Again you gave me the impression that you operate with "empty concepts". If this makes sense. That way they can't be used for typing yourself.

If you can try and make them concrete that could help. Like you did notice your body language is flexible/Irrational. So that's something you can anchor your typing into, the Irrational bit of it. The Logical dichotomy as well, you have been able to see yourself how you are very dry and not into emotional/animate/personal aspects of things too much.

So would you say that you are able to at least fix these two dichotomies, Logic>Ethics and Irrational>Rational?

Introversion too, though, I would say, since nothing you said in your questionnaire etc hinted at Extraversion much at all. Do let me know if you have any doubts on this one, tho'...?

So you'd be only really conflicted on S/N?

Let me know if this analysis is off anywhere.

Also, what is it that you really are looking for by trying to type yourself so much? Trying to see your potential for what you can do as career? Anything else?

Oh and out of curiosity, what are the professional typings you have received?

[Hope]

I read through the Si bit and didn't relate a lot to the care taking vibe. I thought it was interesting that you said you remembered the Si moments of your childhood most vividly. I'll read up on the dimensionality of the different functions as well.

To be honest, I've already read through numerous type descriptions including the wikisocion composites and have not ben able to relate particularly strongly to anyone of them in particular. Lately, I've been thinking that maybe I'm not far enough along in the jungian individuation process for my type to be clearly defined at this point in my life. Are there any other methods of type verification besides reading descriptions? I've read most of them already. I was trying to deconstruct the types and functions into their essential components and build up my understanding of them from more basic parts. Also, I've been trying to come to my own original understanding of jungian based typology by revisiting jung's original texts.

I guess long story short, I'm not exactly a newbie to this stuff and I've been coming at it from a lot of different angles for a long time. I've done tests, professional typings, MBTI, socionics, independent theories and as I've mentioned, even tried to come up with my own. Long story shorter, are there any other angles I could come at this from which I haven't already attempted?

Also, I'm glad people were entertained by my writing.

Dimensionality is a different way than reading descriptions (but you need to know the functions). The link with functions also its an easy and practical way imo.
Here are some typing methods.

[Bertrand]

Lately, I've been thinking that maybe I'm not far enough along in the jungian individuation process for my type to be clearly defined at this point in my life.

damn son, when I read this I was like if you're thinking this way you're definitely far enough along to be typed. this stands out to me as mega Te reasoning and your "Im glad people were entertained" seemed very Fi.. so I feel pretty strongly you're Te/Fi valuing at least

[squark]

I read through the Si bit and didn't relate a lot to the care taking vibe. I thought it was interesting that you said you remembered the Si moments of your childhood most vividly. I'll read up on the dimensionality of the different functions as well.

To be honest, I've already read through numerous type descriptions including the wikisocion composites and have not ben able to relate particularly strongly to anyone of them in particular. Lately, I've been thinking that maybe I'm not far enough along in the jungian individuation process for my type to be clearly defined at this point in my life. Are there any other methods of type verification besides reading descriptions? I've read most of them already. I was trying to deconstruct the types and functions into their essential components and build up my understanding of them from more basic parts. Also, I've been trying to come to my own original understanding of jungian based typology by revisiting jung's original texts.

I guess long story short, I'm not exactly a newbie to this stuff and I've been coming at it from a lot of different angles for a long time. I've done tests, professional typings, MBTI, socionics, independent theories and as I've mentioned, even tried to come up with my own. Long story shorter, are there any other angles I could come at this from which I haven't already attempted?

Also, I'm glad people were entertained by my writing.

That is a problem with descriptions, as too often it seems either none of them will entirely fit, and they all will in some form. I linked to that one only because I thought it summed up what you had been saying about yourself. If it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.

You can as you mentioned already start with the aspects, and break down what each means individually, and then put them together (a static deductive approach) as the entirety of socionics can be built up from just the interactions of those 3 dichotomies of static/dynamic, objects/fields, and internal/external. I know you've already done some of that, but there's a lot that can be covered with that approach.

Or you can take a different set of dichotomies and build the entire system from those as well, like I mentioned regarding the cognitive styles the dichotomies of inductive/deductive with static/dynamic. Other sets also bring you to the same point because each is interrelated with the others. Process/result with negativism/positivism for example.

You can take the quadra values approach, but that's not a very well fleshed out approach and ends up depending more on flimsy stereotypes than anything imo.

The Jung-based approach and socionics do diverge in some areas, but you'll probably have a more in-depth understanding overall if you go that route.

And you can take the observation and comparison route, learning about the types and elements by trying to identify them in action in other people, and then applying what you've learned to your own cognition.

Not sure I can think of any others right now.

[ghouse]

I just took Sindri's test and I thought it was really good. I got ILE on it too (only at 47%), so maybe there's something there.

As for my own understanding I can give an example of my visual model of Jung's perceptive functions in this five minute video.

https://youtu.be/Y4xMQT21YoU

The only dichotomies I'm willing to fix are the ones I got greens on from Sindri's test. T>F Judicious>Decisive and Process>Result, but mostly T>F. I'm really just into this stuff for the pure knowledge. I just want to know what I am in this system and if it's legit. Professionally I've been typed as INTJ INTP and INFP (all MBTI based assessments).

[nokomis]

SLI/LSE

leaning towards the latter

[squark]

Completely unrelated to thread, but the way you described Ne in your Jung video reminded me of Abstract Object Theory

[Myst]

As for my own understanding I can give an example of my visual model of Jung's perceptive functions in this five minute video.

Thanks for the link.

The only dichotomies I'm willing to fix are the ones I got greens on from Sindri's test. T>F Judicious>Decisive and Process>Result, but mostly T>F. I'm really just into this stuff for the pure knowledge. I just want to know what I am in this system and if it's legit. Professionally I've been typed as INTJ INTP and INFP (all MBTI based assessments).

Which test is Sindri's test?

I dunno what counts as "legit" to you. Socionics in its current form is pseudoscience.

Pursuing pure knowledge is stereotypically a Te ego motivation. And enneagram 5.

OK, I don't think I can add more to this thread anymore. But I'll say, you still come off somewhat schizoid PD-ish. (I could be wrong, sure.) Maybe checking that out would work better for you than Socionics, it's a legit label officially too if that helps... (Disclaimer: I don't mean to diagnose here at all. Just wondered.)

[ghouse]

@Myst this is the test I took https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...#gid=453723227

[Myst]

@Myst this is the test I took https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...#gid=453723227

Thanks.

And I'll try to put a bit better into words what I've seen, you being so interested in accumulating pure knowledge with interest in also analysing the data and solving tricky tasks with physical objects, those parts seem most significant for how you have been coming off here (to me) and what I really meant by the SLI typing. You said many things but I see these as central. I don't know if this helps, but this is my best try Good luck to your further journey towards self-knowledge!

[ghouse]

Here's a video of me answering the questions from that 80 questions thread

https://youtu.be/0Gt6AFXIQX4

[idontgiveaf]

ILI - Ne

[idontgiveaf]

I don't think you're a sensor. You're more of an intuitive.

I can sense intuition all over your video..

Like thinking 💭 uhm.. Ya know. in the head. like for real.

I'm also guessing you can be ILE or IEI. I don't know i can sense something.... Actually i don't know if it's Ne or Fi.. I don't know. That's all.