IR test (by Sol)

[Sol]

Why would I have read the key first?

Some people were impatient, especially P types tend for this.
So hurrah, we got 1st good fit to the theory, - in case you'll place your video to check your type is ENFP indeed. It would be useful to see the full sorting from you, but seems you've limited the sorting by 2 "best" types befor opening the key.
You sorted by women, men or both? You've pointed to man example, so I'm curious.

> I had an idea that # was SLI based on the old Jewish looking dude.

as the most Jewish type I find ILI - they more relate to credits having Ni related to time, also Ni relates to mysticism

> I guessed # was IEI. Lol.

when EII man did this test, he've guessed correctly 50% of types groups. that EII was a novice. Ne and Fi are main functions used there. but he sorted strangely - he prefered own type, while all S-T went to bottom. he said that men examples he could to sort more classically, but did not try this

> So maybe this doesn't work quite as well for people who already know how to type others.

They can't be sure in assumptions, so should work in good degree, anyway.

> I'm not sure what I said was necessarily due to Socionics even though it's related it seems.

Duals try to don't hit in your weak functions regions, but try support there. They see you as a kid there which needs help.

> It was then that I was able to narrow things down or give a secondary impression that contradicted the first.

So the correct sorting you were able to do only on 2nd pass, after you have watched all the types. When you did the sorting during the initial watching this leaded you to significantly other result. Interesting. What places had SLI and SEI in the 1st sorting made during watching?

> It sounds like you're just a bit salty about something.

She has troubles in understanding of own type. So it's harder for her to accept IR theory and understand effects of duality. Her type is some F, excluding base Fi ones.

[Aramas]

Some people were impatient, especially P types tend for this. :)
So hurrah, we got 1st good fit to the theory, - in case you'll place your video to check your type is ENFP indeed. It would be useful to see the full sorting from you, but seems you've limited the sorting by 2 "best" types befor opening the key.
You sorted by women, men or both? You've pointed to man example, so I'm curious.

> I had an idea that # was SLI based on the old Jewish looking dude.

as the most Jewish type I find ILI - they more relate to credits having Ni related to time, also Ni relates to mysticism

> I guessed # was IEI. Lol.

when EII man did this test, he've guessed correctly 50% of types groups. that EII was a novice. Ne and Fi are main functions used there. but he sorted strangely - he prefered own type, while all S-T went to bottom. he said that men examples he could to sort more classically, but did not try this

> So maybe this doesn't work quite as well for people who already know how to type others.

They can't be sure in assumptions, so should work in good degree, anyway.

> I'm not sure what I said was necessarily due to Socionics even though it's related it seems.

Duals try to don't hit in your weak functions regions, but try support there. They see you as a kid there which needs help.

> It was then that I was able to narrow things down or give a secondary impression that contradicted the first.

So the correct sorting you were able to do only on 2nd pass, after you have watched all the types. When you did the sorting during the initial watching this leaded you to significantly other result. Interesting. What places had SLI and SEI in the 1st sorting made during watching?

> It sounds like you're just a bit salty about something.

She has troubles in understanding of own type. So it's harder for her to accept IR theory and understand effects of duality. Her type is some F, excluding base Fi ones.

I'm gay, so I looked at the videos of the men. I realized that the intention was for us to use the gender most likely to stimulate romantic attraction/duality. You said to use the opposite sex, but I knew you mean it for the purpose of potentially arousing the strongest feelings of duality, so I broke the rule to fulfil your goal. :P

I didn't do a full sorting because I wasn't that interested in getting the full sorting. I was more interested in finding out which one or two types I felt best about. I have no problems typing others, but typing myself for some reason has always been an issue. I tend to very easily understand the mental attitudes of others at times, to such a degree that I can imagine myself being in those attitudes. Maybe that's an NF thing. It makes it a bit difficult to maintain a sense of self at times. (This is perhaps mixed with enneagram type 9.)

I didn't do the process necessarily by sorting. I just did it by picking out which ones I liked AT ALL (period, even a little bit) at first. After that, I went through and gave them either plus marks, minus marks, or left them neutral, depending on what my second impression was. There was only one that came out with a plus sign. And that was the SLI video set. Curiously enough, LII ended up being in the final running because of one particular individual that you included in the set that I thought was OK. I still felt better about the SEIs than the one LII I liked in the sets. lol

I'm not really interested in making a video for people to see. Sorry about that. I hope that my post gives you some hope about your method of typing though. I think it really does work.

[Sol]

I'm gay, so I looked at the videos of the men.

Hence, the lesser quantity of men is enough (for Ne types, at least). This is good.

> I realized that the intention was for us to use the gender most likely to stimulate romantic attraction/duality.

Yep, there was the recommendation to use the romantically interesting sex. As romantically interesting sex/gender is more associated with the soul friendship, while other sex shifts to co-operation (and hence to similar types). Also the impressions from that sex should be stronger.
I'm glad that my hypothesis seems was correct and the recommendation have worked on you. I also saw a girl (EIE) which reported homosexual behavior and showed such interests, - she have chosen quasi-identity type to top and some of her club as the best, while types of duals club placed to bottom, where own duals placed to the lowest 16th position.

> I didn't do a full sorting because I wasn't that interested in getting the full sorting. I was more interested in finding out which one or two types I felt best about.

The problem is the test is not perfect. You are lucky to have Ne type what made the sorting easier. The full sorting is intended to find tendencies, as excellent fiting to IR theory is not expected.

> I tend to very easily understand the mental attitudes of others at times, to such a degree that I can imagine myself being in those attitudes.

It's empathy - common for NF types, especially having Fi in ego.

> This is perhaps mixed with enneagram type 9.

Are you able to assume Enneagram type by impressions from nonverbal on video-interview with unknown language? Like you do with Socionics types. I'd pm you a clip to think.

> I just did it by picking out which ones I liked AT ALL (period, even a little bit) at first. After that, I went through and gave them either plus marks, minus marks, or left them neutral, depending on what my second impression was. There was only one that came out with a plus sign. And that was the SLI video set.

What types you've chosen on 1st step?

> Curiously enough, LII ended up being in the final running because of one particular individual that you included in the set that I thought was OK.

Which LII there?

> I'm not really interested in making a video for people to see.

Your type seems to be NF, at least. Some suspicion is for EII, as high empathy is more common for them, than IEE. So if you have doubts in own type you may check it by creating a second account (afte some time) and a typing thread - then you remove the video (after 2 weeks, for example) - and so keep high anonymity. On the video you may tell any general things you like, as the main text is placed in questionnaires anyway.

He doesn't even recognize subtypes

There are no subtypes in classical Socionics so I don't even try to use that bs.

> just from that I know his typing performance is low

So you think that I badly identify types because I either badly identify subtypes or don't use them. Your base T is seen excellently.
Also you may try to find someone who'd had with you real typing match >50% to think there is someone who identifies types good from your speculative opinion. That would give you some sense to say that I type badly compared to others in your perception. But objective thinking is not your strong part, what would be at LIE.
I understand that you don't like that I doubt in your LIE opinion about own type. If you'd was real LIE, then you take it simpler.

Your behavior closer to F type.

[lavos]

So you think that I badly identify types because I either badly identify subtypes or don't use them. Your base T is seen excellently.
Also you may try to find someone who'd had with you real typing match >50% to think there is someone who identifies types good from your speculative opinion. That would give you some sense to say that I type badly compared to others in your perception. But objective thinking is not your strong part, what would be at LIE.
I understand that you don't like that I doubt in your LIE opinion about own type. If you'd was real LIE, then you take it simpler.

Your behavior closer to F type.

It is not necessary to have a typing convergence with anyone to confirm someone's typing. The problem is that there is not objetive way to discern people's types. No machine has been invented that can read a person's brain patterns and tell what type their are. When this happens, discussions such as this will be over. Until then, we are just grasping at straws. A hundred people could be saying that someone is whatever type, and they could all still be wrong.

But yeah, you're right; it is always annoying to have someone question your typing, because the action carries the implication that the person being retyped has poor self-awareness, or is not able to use the theory correctly, thus rendering their contributions useless. So ironically, I've exposed your own low typing performance. Subtypes are real, it doesn't matter what "classical socionics" says. Things evolve and advance, you know?

If you doubt my skill so much, I can provide this gallery for reference. Perhaps you'll learn something

[Aramas]

Hence, the lesser quantity of men is enough (for Ne types, at least). This is good.

> I realized that the intention was for us to use the gender most likely to stimulate romantic attraction/duality.

Yep, there was the recommendation to use the romantically interesting sex. As romantically interesting sex/gender is more associated with the soul friendship, while other sex shifts to co-operation (and hence to similar types). Also the impressions from that sex should be stronger.
I'm glad that my hypothesis seems was correct and the recommendation have worked on you. I also saw a girl (EIE) which reported homosexual behavior and showed such interests, - she have chosen quasi-identity type to top and some of her club as the best, while types of duals club placed to bottom, where own duals placed to the lowest 16th position.

> I didn't do a full sorting because I wasn't that interested in getting the full sorting. I was more interested in finding out which one or two types I felt best about.

The problem is the test is not perfect. You are lucky to have Ne type what made the sorting easier. The full sorting is intended to find tendencies, as excellent fiting to IR theory is not expected.

> I tend to very easily understand the mental attitudes of others at times, to such a degree that I can imagine myself being in those attitudes.

It's empathy - common for NF types, especially having Fi in ego.

> This is perhaps mixed with enneagram type 9.

Are you able to assume Enneagram type by impressions from nonverbal on video-interview with unknown language? Like you do with Socionics types. I'd pm you a clip to think.

> I just did it by picking out which ones I liked AT ALL (period, even a little bit) at first. After that, I went through and gave them either plus marks, minus marks, or left them neutral, depending on what my second impression was. There was only one that came out with a plus sign. And that was the SLI video set.

What types you've chosen on 1st step?

> Curiously enough, LII ended up being in the final running because of one particular individual that you included in the set that I thought was OK.

Which LII there?

> I'm not really interested in making a video for people to see.

Your type seems to be NF, at least. Some suspicion is for EII, as high empathy is more common for them, than IEE. So if you have doubts in own type you may check it by creating a second account (afte some time) and a typing thread - then you remove the video (after 2 weeks, for example) - and so keep high anonymity. On the video you may tell any general things you like, as the main text is placed in questionnaires anyway.



There are no subtypes in classical Socionics so I don't even try to use that bs.

> just from that I know his typing performance is low

So you think that I badly identify types because I either badly identify subtypes or don't use them. Your base T is seen excellently.
Also you may try to find someone who'd had with you real typing match >50% to think there is someone who identifies types good from your speculative opinion. That would give you some sense to say that I type badly compared to others in your perception. But objective thinking is not your strong part, what would be at LIE.
I understand that you don't like that I doubt in your LIE opinion about own type. If you'd was real LIE, then you take it simpler.

Your behavior closer to F type.

I can do with enneagram what I do with Socionics, yes. Or at least, I think so. Instinct stacking is easier than type with non-verbal stuff. The eyes are especially important. They really are the window of the soul.

As far as potentially being EII, that's a possibility. But I think IEE is more likely. EII tend to have a more direct understanding of people by feeling somehow connected to them. My understanding comes more from a mental attitude like a behaviorist's along with being pretty good at making inferences. It just happens very quickly in my mind, so it might be mistaken for a more emotive kind of empathy that an INFx might have.

For example, one time I noticed that a girl had a certain complexion on the top of her feet that came from a certain kind of blood circulation. I also noticed that when she smiled, it was always with her mouth but not really her eyes. I concluded that she was depressed, and I was right when I asked her about it. There was also another friend of mine whom I concluded was on antidepressants because of her flattened affect one day. I was right again on the first try.

Another example is when I somehow managed to conclude that a person was untrustworthy on the basis of a single emoji. As it turned out, that person was a computer hacker who didn't recognize or respect the privacy of others.

On the first step, I think I chose 4, 6, 7, 12, and 15. Along with that, I had a strong negative impulse about 11.

I think <name> was the one LII I had a more neutral or even slightly positive association with.

[Sol]

I can do with enneagram what I do with Socionics, yes. Or at least, I think so. Instinct stacking is easier than type with non-verbal stuff. The eyes are especially important. They really are the window of the soul.

Zone near eyes have many mimic muscles - a lot info there. When people use glasses it makes troubles for nonverbal reading. If the glasses are dark - you can't read them at all.
I'll pm the clip.

> There was also another friend of mine whom I concluded was on antidepressants because of her flattened affect one day. I was right again on the first try.

What is called "antidepressants" do what they are named - stimulate, they don't touch emotions significantly. People may look unnaturally, - active, but without internal connection.
I had a case of insight about a medicine too - I suspected a girl to be F type, but when I saw her video - I could not read from nonverbal is she T or F, sometimes she reminded T, - I asked do she takes something - she said that takes a sedative, - it supressed nonverbal and she looked closer to T type.

> On the first step, I think I chose 4, 6, 7, 12, and 15. Along with that, I had a strong negative impulse about 11.

4 and 6 are more expected from EII. 7 - both. 12 - IEE. 15 - both. So 1st step was ambivalent for EII vs IEE. The 2nd step have pushed IEE, but not totally. There stays a chance for you be EII based of this test, - like 30% against 70% for IEE.
I recommend to look and compare LSE+LIE vs SLI+SEI.

> I think <...> was the one LII I had a more neutral or even slightly positive association with.

He has good body condition not common for LII what could to mix impressions.
The name is better to remove now from your post to don't open what type is there.