INXp, but not sure which

[senki]

Hi everyone,

It's been years, and I'm somehow still not settled on a type. . .but am between IEI and ILI. Interested in knowing your opinion on it, because I think outside perspectives may be more valuable at this point than just reading more. I sucked it up and made a video for your viewing pleasure(?)

https://youtu.be/4ADCGU0YRo4

Open to questions that may tease out more relevant info!

[Bertrand]

you seem LSI or SLI to me

[senki]

Ha! I think both of those types seem really cool, but I consider myself way too incapable in the physical world and too much of a space cadet to be a sensing type. My living quarters are a disaster and I definitely struggle with willpower and pushing myself to get shit done. :-)

[Soupman]

Ha! I think both of those types seem really cool, but I consider myself way too incapable in the physical world and too much of a space cadet to be a sensing type. My living quarters are a disaster and I definitely struggle with willpower and pushing myself to get shit done. :-)

that's a temperament issue, both IJs and IPs are nominally low in energy

[Bertrand]

sounds like SxI to me. they're irrational with Se ignoring

[senki]

It's an interesting idea, and something I've never considered, maybe because I've tuned in too much into the perceived stereotype of Si types being really capable on a mechanical level and interested in how things work in the physical world (like good at fixing appliances and building furniture for instance). That's never something I've engaged in personally. . .perhaps it has something to do with gender.

I also feel like I really hate when I've done nothing for a whole day, and I really prefer my work and leisure activities to be more active, especially since I tend to be so tremendously inactive when left to my own devices for too long...but I imagine that that sentiment and need for some kind of action could be felt by someone who is Se suggestive or Ne suggestive.

[falsehope]

If choosing between IEI and ILI that would be more like ILI. You do not speak like IEI and you appear thinking. The description of Te in socionics or MBTI is not some super-accurate for everybody, and very often to have it their way you need to have it properly developed, so you need to work hard on that. If you don't work hard then you wont have ANY personality.

Also, if you are woman and you are confused whatever you are IEI or ILI then it's likely ILI. It's because it's thinking type and as women are more feeling regardless of the type, so it's harder to settle on thinking type. And you don't say that IEI is obvious but you have doubts.

You do not appear to have Fe expressed on your face, and in women it's quite easy to spot, but not every time but that's my guess.

Another possibility would be that you are IEI-Ni so you don't express much of Fe. But hey, just go and try doing something ILI can only do and not IEI. Maybe try computer programming and see if you are good in it. But again, women may have less inclinations to do it, but IEI would know it's not for him straight away.

Anyway, I've never seen in my life feeling type programming and I've seen many.

[senki]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I really do think that gender is causing a certain degree of confusion, since certain activities aren't really encouraged from a young age. It's also true, I think, that I'm not particularly emotive, though I think I tend to be more so when in contact with people I know and with whom I'm comfortable, of course. I have had people read my feelings dead wrong in a number of situations, particularly that I seem unengaged or disinterested. When people have expressed this to me, it was pretty baffling, especially because a lot of the time I had felt super engaged.

I am definitely capable of talking about feelings. It's not as though I curl into a ball and cover my ears when people come to me with their emotions, but when they do, I definitely think there's this really intellectualized and distant quality to the way I approach it. I also really don't see the point when people just talk about feelings to talk about them. When people come to me with their problems, I can't help but try to suggest solutions. To me, the point is to find a way to help relieve someone's pain and make them not feel bad anymore...and I don't see how just listening to someone cry and repeating how sorry I am for them is going to accomplish that.

Then on the other hand, I tend to get a lot of catharsis from music and film in particular and am attracted to really dark and bleak themes which seems really Beta to me. Also was a really prolific writer from very young into my early 20s, but I suppose that could be characteristic of any type, especially Ni. Maybe I will try your suggestion of doing something in the Te sphere and seeing whether that works out or fails miserably.

[Myst]

If choosing between IEI and ILI that would be more like ILI. You do not speak like IEI and you appear thinking. The description of Te in socionics or MBTI is not some super-accurate for everybody, and very often to have it their way you need to have it properly developed, so you need to work hard on that. If you don't work hard then you wont have ANY personality.

Also, if you are woman and you are confused whatever you are IEI or ILI then it's likely ILI. It's because it's thinking type and as women are more feeling regardless of the type, so it's harder to settle on thinking type. And you don't say that IEI is obvious but you have doubts.

You do not appear to have Fe expressed on your face, and in women it's quite easy to spot, but not every time but that's my guess.

Another possibility would be that you are IEI-Ni so you don't express much of Fe. But hey, just go and try doing something ILI can only do and not IEI. Maybe try computer programming and see if you are good in it. But again, women may have less inclinations to do it, but IEI would know it's not for him straight away.

Anyway, I've never seen in my life feeling type programming and I've seen many.

Jesus, you and your weird incredibly limited stereotypes and you dare to call yourself an ENxx type?

My ESI-Fi ex bf is a programmer. Fi lead, extra strengthened Fi, and a programmer. Yup. I was kind of dating an IEI-Fe guy too and he was a chief architect (software architect) and programmed a lot in IT. He actually taught me some programming too when I was a beginner at it.

[niffer]

I think IEI-Ni is closer for you than ILI. I have an IEI friend who is a lot like you.

I’ve never seen an ILI be as facially emotive as you are.

[timber]

What kinds of things would you quantify as being Te sphere in your own words? I def hear rational thinking when you talk, just in your tone, plus you chose to be hyper critical about the ILI-IEI switch right off the bat in the video. No quality judgments, just observations from me.

[senki]

When I think of Te, I think of people who would be good at or maybe even enjoy some activity like accounting or doing their taxes (though I can't imagine that there are actually beings out there that do). Also as said in the video, to me it's someone who is very organized and has everything arranged in their environment in a very specific manner. I think it's just the way it seems to be characterized in a lot of socionics texts.

Another reason why I've really hesitated to even entertain the idea of being a thinking type is that I just am really bad with numbers and math. Notoriously bad. And I've always associated something like hard data and figures in particular with Te types. My spheres are definitely more in the arts and philosophy, and linguistics, but like I said, it is hard to tell if that is because of gender or type.

[The Reality Denialist]

Good :
You can usually make things work naturally. Like a second nature but ILI's are possibly bit lazy in this aspect. [Although it usually feels that I could run circles around some ILI's when it comes to it (demonstrative > creative)]

So I'd say that needs bit of training but if can become quite powerful.

[timber]

Just briefly want to point out that Te isnt about what you are doing, its about how and why.

[senki]

Yeah that is true, I think it's just somewhat difficult to see it that way at times with the kinds of interests/activities that seem to be associated with the type in a lot of the stuff I've read.

I'd say an example for me which I think could be Te usage (which I describe a little in a post above) is how to tend to deal with or think about behavior and feelings. I don't immerse myself in my emotions or try to understand why I feel something, but I tend to live outside of them and instead start to criticize an emotion (whether it's beneficial or not, whether it makes any sense to have the emotion). Like I was saying in the video about being hypersensitive to people's reactions to me, I regard this as a really useless and often hindering behavior to be so aware of people all the time, and I tend to have the same response to people who are just talking about their emotions for the sake of talking about them, as in what is the point if the aim isn't to resolve a situation.

[Bertrand]

willpower is more Se, and accuracy and rules are more Ti. Te as "work" is just as much about minimizing it. the "big hard worker" is a more of a specific kind of Te dominance, namely paired with Si creative and Ni polr and it arises more from preferring to just get on with it rather than try to game how long stuff will take. also Ni dominance is about having attention to the psychic backdrop in place for all people and carrying that around with you wherever you go, it makes people really odd since they're coming from a very sideways place in making sense of other people, I don't detect that in you at all, so unless you're intentionally trying to hide that aspect to yourself I think you're just more "concrete" in the sense of relating words and concepts to real not imaginary things

this sort of "lots of people are Ni dom" and Te is about loving to work are both part of the reason why people can't figure out their type. both those things (Te and Ni) had a lot of their meaning leveled out in typology, which of course confuses people when you remove/diminish something like that. Te is really just about reasoning based on objective factors

[timber]

willpower is more Se, and accuracy and rules are more Ti. Te as "work" is just as much about minimizing it. the "big hard worker" is a more of a specific kind of Te dominance, namely paired with Si creative and Ni polr and it arises more from preferring to just get on with it rather than try to game how long stuff will take. also Ni dominance is about having about attention to the psychic backdrop in place for all people and carrying that around with you wherever you go, it makes people really odd since they're coming from a very sideways place in making sense of other people, I don't detect that in you at all, so unless you're intentionally trying to hide that aspect to yourself I think you're just more "concrete" in the sense of relating words and concepts to real not imaginary things

[senki]

First thanks Bertrand for all of the thoughtful posts. I am definitely taking SLI into consideration as you've suggested . . .maybe there's something to it.

I just wanted some clarity to what this means exactly. . .maybe some examples of it? Do you mean Ni types have a predetermined idea of how all people are and use that to inform all of their interactions?

also Ni dominance is about having attention to the psychic backdrop in place for all people and carrying that around with you wherever you go, it makes people really odd since they're coming from a very sideways place in making sense of other people

[Bertrand]

I think static v dynamic is a big help in understanding the difference between Ti and Te. although its sort of a complex issue, it can't really be helped unless people want to descend into stereotypes and all logic sort of gets collapsed when that happens. suffice it to say Ti is more about the logical relationships between things and Te is more about the overall confluence and what its functioning to do. you seem to be talking more in terms of the latter, like I don't see a lot of Ti in the sense of "my personal theory on emotions are they are simply chemicals etc etc..." rather its more about a generalized and somewhat common scenario that plays itself out where its like "people tend to act like x, I don't know exactly why but I know its created a patern and so Im thinking..." its more like looking at things in their totality of circumstances, not running it through some ground up filters. in other words it "lets everything in" and then tries to discern how it works, rather than trying to devise a system of relationships up front and then seeing if the events can be fitted into them. you will see this play out even on these forums, where people will come in and start talking about fields and stuff and basically explaining a set of relations and then proceeding to the events, or sets of stereotypes and then proceeding to events, like laying down the structure first and then fitting facts into them. starting from facts and then tying to extract out "whats going on" without recourse to the system prior to deciding that is more Te. Te/Fi is more about evaluating rules in terms of "likes" or "usefulness" and less in "this is how it is now and forever" (timeless--static) type language as well. so if someone comes in and is like "well Te is definitely x" and starts from that and whatever else necessary follows thats more Ti, but if someone says "I think x..." they're showing more willingness for facts to have a further say. Ti likes to head off factual disputes right at the start because it wants to present itself in such a way that all possible factual reality fit in and are more inclined to deny facts than rules. i.e.: miracles can't happen, vs miracles happen but are trivial. (trivial miracles would be that they were always possible, we just didn't understand the laws of nature--in other words are miracles impossible by definition, or are they things that are possible but simply expose a flaw in our understanding, etc). also the more soundly a person reasons the more Ti and Te should be in harmony, and at that point it very much does become a matter of style over substance, so dynamic and static then really start to stick out. you can see this when great minds can come to an agreement and communicate well but its nevertheless obvious they have two very different styles

[Bertrand]

yeah but its more than simple prejudice because 1) its pure perception not judging and 2) the judgements that do flow from it are flowing from something as clear to them as say knowing the layout of a city (you've lived in your whole life) or something to that effect. like they have a structural perception of the unconscious forces that drives themselves and by extension everyone else, even if the perception is "off" it still hangs together in one unified picture they bring to every interaction and they're actually interacting with that "picture" not the person in their "concrete" capacity. this totally captures other people who assume they're (the Ni dom) like everyone else because they don't mean what they say like most people mean when they say similar things, this gives them that offbeat quality that becomes easy to detect once you've experienced it and can isolate it in your head. suffice to say I would argue 9/10 people who think they're Ni base aren't, and its just part ignorance part enchantment with the idea of the thing. i think if people actually want to feel special thats actually a form of Ne valuing and I think most Ni doms know it for the big bag of tradeoffs it is, like I think some would concede its mainly a curse or at least entails significant liabilities. on these forums I personally think soupman for sure, and possibly grendel are Ni doms

[Sol]

mb ILE

[senki]

they have a structural perception of the unconscious forces that drives themselves and by extension everyone else, even if the perception is "off" it still hangs together in one unified picture they bring to every interaction and they're actually interacting with that "picture" not the person in their "concrete" capacity.

Perhaps I am confused because I think all people do what (I believe) you are describing here, meaning that they project their understanding of themselves onto other people in a self-referential and universal manner. . .or they create an image/ essence of what a certain person is or represents in their mind and naturally interact with said person in accordance with these perceptions. I would say no one is ever seeing someone as he or she 'truly is' or that it's even possible that there exists a true or concrete self. I think we're never really talking to a person, but only to our idea of that person (an image with which others may agree or disagree, based on their own perception). Therefore, I don't see this process as special or unusual, but actually inevitable and automatic.

It's also completely possible that I am *still* misunderstanding you, and you're talking about something entirely different altogether.

[Bertrand]

that all people project is sort of an axiom of having differentiated personalities to begin with, because you can only deal with the unknown in terms of things you know, thus stuff like projections become necessary consequence to fill in the gaps, but I think the idea with Ni doms is they already have a built in kind of socionics and have raised their natural ability to understand this to a very high level. for example before I ran into Jung I only had some vague idea of how projections operated and even though the word got thrown around a lot it was basically meaningless to me. meanwhile I have an ILI friend who has never heard of socionics but acts and talks like he's already fully aware of all its basic truths. i would say it is not the case that most people know these things or operate on that level innately, although it is a fact that all people unwittingly project

in other words, all people are prejudicial to some vague degree that they can't not be, but Ni sort of views the world via the lens through what they believe these prejudices are and from whence they came, a kind of bottom up structural relation of perceived operative symbols giving rise to prejudices and viewpoints. these views can be innacurate but its this fundamental underlying calculus they're always sort of working out, and looking directly at. when they interact with people then its like theyre placing the people within these assigned roles, its sort of funny because its the ultimate form of prejudice itself, except its highly sophisticated, so its sort of like refining that aspect that people unwittingly do with a low degree of proficiency to a very high level. a kind of appropriation and refinement of the masters tools. these same people often talk about how prejudice and bias is evil, like how racist people are etc, its funny because theyre more accurate than most in making those accusations, probably, but they're fundamentally the most biased people of all, literally living in their own world and only sucking others into it as stand-ins for their predefined view of relationships

in other words, all of the forgoing is the difference between 4d Ni and the lesser forms especially the archaic 1d forms, for whom the 4d "projections" are probably the most accurate when imposed on someone

the difference between IEI and IEE for example is that IEI is not actually other directed in understanding people, its been said they "see the world through the pimple on their nose" they don't remove projections so much as perfect them, whereas IEE is actually other directed and sees and is capable of removing projections not just using them as a kind of the conduit to interact

[niffer]

Welcome to the forum @senki

[HERO]

ISFj or INTp; or INFj. I also considered ISTj, although I think Gamma Introvert is more likely

[idontgiveaf]

I choose infj.. Wild guess

[Tallmo]

My guess is ILE

[The Reality Denialist]

You said: You are hypersensitive/paranoid people's relation towards you.

PoLR Fi: Oops I did it again. What did I say? Yikes... I suck at this. OK... I get it. Another person that I have offended. Could someone make it better immediately in a subtle way and not judge me?

[senki]

You said: You are hypersensitive/paranoid people's relation towards you.

PoLR Fi: Oops I did it again. What did I say? Yikes... I suck at this. OK... I get it. Another person that I have offended. Could someone make it better immediately in a subtle way and not judge me?

I definitely do get paranoid about interacting with people, however, I think it's important for me to say that it isn't because I'm worried about offending people or upsetting them. . .it's more that I am worried about appearing stupid, inept, bizarre, or even just boring as hell. I can confidently say that it's rare that I offend people.

[nefnaf]

Neither of these types seem to fit. Best guess I would say is LII

[nefnaf]

Looking at the video again, can pretty much confirm LII. The expression you give right at the end is a dead giveaway

[senki]

the difference between IEI and IEE for example is that IEI is not actually other directed in understanding people, its been said they "see the world through the pimple on their nose" they don't remove projections so much as perfect them, whereas IEE is actually other directed and sees and is capable of removing projections not just using them as a kind of the conduit to interact

This seems like an interesting distinction, and somehow suggests to me that IEI is not as reactive to their environment in regards to changing or refining their understanding of a person or thing. What it sounds like, is that the IEI develops or almost spontaneously conceives of an idea or understanding of a person or thing (how they are likely to act, the way they think, what they want, etc.) and interacts entirely based on that presumption regardless of outside input in the present. If that is how it's meant, I don't really see how it's even possible, unless they're coming to that understanding (perhaps unconsciously) by 1) their past experiences of persons or scenarios they regard as similar, and/or 2) their understanding of themselves and an unconscious belief that there's some kind of universal characteristic or way of being. Without those points as a guide, it feels overly fixed and rigid to me, perhaps even close-minded, which is something I'd never really associated with Ni. It's possible that my struggle with understanding exactly what it is speaks to my not being Ni dominant, but I cannot say for sure.

People are suggesting a lot of different types here, I'm definitely grateful for the involvement but it is doing anything but narrowing it down For all suggested types, certain parts of each description resonate with me and others don't. Two people suggested ILE, and one LII. . .I can see why people might think that based on my description of my hypersensitivity in regards to the way people react to me, and also my description of being bored with mundane tasks and being distracted. However, I don't think of myself as someone who just likes to explore different ideas or theorize for the fun of it. . .I think I want a real application or use for whatever it is that I am doing or working on. I also feel too serious to really fit in with Alpha values, somehow.

Then there's the suggestion of SLI which I'm looking into a bit more. In some ways, this seems possible, but I think that Si is function that I developed a bit later in life as a necessity, not something that I can remember as having always been with me, and also not something I particularly enjoy. When I was in my early 20s, I 'came down' with a pretty serious chronic illness and as a result started to become very aware of what my body was feeling at any given moment and how it was reacting to things, whether it be food, amount of sleep, emotional stress, physical strain, etc. Before this, I honestly don't remember having any real sense of my body or it's condition/what it was feeling in any given moment...in fact, I felt really detached from anything physical, whether it was how I was physically affected or what was surrounding me. I don't know what that means, and I also don't know what the view is on personality types changing. Part of me thinks it's impossible that they couldn't, since our environment might force us to use some IEs over others.

[Bertrand]

This seems like an interesting distinction, and somehow suggests to me that IEI is not as reactive to their environment in regards to changing or refining their understanding of a person or thing. What it sounds like, is that the IEI develops or almost spontaneously conceives of an idea or understanding of a person or thing (how they are likely to act, the way they think, what they want, etc.) and interacts entirely based on that presumption regardless of outside input in the present. If that is how it's meant, I don't really see how it's even possible,

allow me to introduce you to Singu


also I think base function is one of those things you don't know you do but you can start to gauge based on inter type reactions, so like its easy to peg some people as Ne or whatever, and if for whatever reason they seem to like you that sort of thing is telling. I think the hardest thing to do is just recognize your base function straight off. people say they can do it but Im sort of skeptical. the "ive always known i'm x" people sort of annoy me, mainly because I'm jealous. I think if it was easy to recognize your own lens the world would have far more mutual understanding than it does. I think in general some of your earlier stuff about Ni being self evident may militate toward ILI, since it seems pretty aware. it sort of depends I think on how deeply you rely on that form of cognition. its one thing to sort of admit it in principle its another to let it be like the center point you orient your ego around. im not trying to shoehorn you into SLI or anything, I just legit think it may be a possibility and I like talking about it to what seems like a very reasonable person

[senki]

I think the hardest thing to do is just recognize your base function straight off. people say they can do it but Im sort of skeptical. the "ive always known i'm x" people sort of annoy me, mainly because I'm jealous. I think if it was easy to recognize your own lens the world would have far more mutual understanding than it does.

I think this is the problem, because if it's the base function, it might be so natural to you that it's also imperceptible to you, or at least you don't even consider how it works or why since it's so automatic. . .and maybe, as said before, even project it onto everyone else in some manner like it's a given.

I don't really know what my base function is, and my reasons for choosing Ni may be due to an underdeveloped understanding of the theory and perhaps due to stereotypes and behaviors that are typically associated with people who are strong in that function. Definitely fine with considering other types, especially because it doesn't bring anything to keep believing you're something when you're not. I am hesitant to believe that socionics could truly be used for any real form of self development and problem solving, but some part of me is interested to see if knowing one's type could offer some hints for improvement.

[nefnaf]

scratch my earlier LII typing. I got tripped up when you wrote that your room is messy lol

Current best guess is LSI

ILI are very much aware of their incapability of dealing with emotions. Usually they wouldn't mistake themselves for an "emotional" type. SLI is another possibility though

[Hope]

You remind me of LIE. ILI or LIE-Ni are my guess.

It would be important for typing you to know more, like what do you seek for in other's or what kind of environments do you like, what kind of jobs, what do you look for in friendship or partner etc.

Edit. I read your post, if you feel like you need activity and action, Se suggestive, so ILI could work.

[senki]

It would be important for typing you to know more, like what do you seek for in other's or what kind of environments do you like, what kind of jobs, what do you look for in friendship or partner etc.

I think it may be more useful for me to talk about the things I don't like, as I tend to have a stronger reaction to those things and feel more certainty in them.

In terms of things that I don't like in relationships, I would say communicating in a formulaic, prescribed, or linear way. An example I have of that is that I have a friend (who has somehow remained a friend, against all odds) who whenever she messages me or talks to me is like 'hey, how are you?' and then proceeds to ask what I would regard as extremely mundane questions, like, 'How is work going?' or 'What did you do this weekend?' as if we're having small talk at a water cooler at work or something---but we've known each other for almost a decade! When I ask her questions, she seems to answer in this very superficial manner that doesn't evidence any unique inner attitude or perception in regards to what she is talking about. She will talk a lot about series she's watching, or when her next grad school class is starting. . .I just find it entirely unstimulating and it takes a lot of energy to keep up communication with her. She also often nudges me to do yoga, which I regard as mildly irritating, especially because it's been like 5 years and you'd think by now she'd understand that I'm uninterested and it just isn't going to happen. She is definitely a well-meaning and kind person, though, much kinder than most, but I just can't keep interested. . .it's just baffling to me, because I get the sense she feels stimulated by the interaction.

For jobs, this has been a really difficult area in my life. I've ended up working in administrative and clerical positions, which I really believe is the worst thing I could possibly be doing. Reasons for that are, I really don't particularly enjoy answering to an authority figure when I lack respect for them. This lack of respect can be for all kinds of reasons...whether it be that I think they're just an asshole, or I think they're not intelligent and make stupid choices. In any case, I really loathe positions where I am asked not to think and just do as someone has ordered. I would not do well in the military.

Another problem professionally has been how I am socially. While a lot of colleagues seem to like me, it's more due to a certain naturalness, as I'm not particularly friendly in that formulaic, socially coded way as I described above. When it comes to service jobs like being a receptionist, I just feel bizarre. Like I don't know whether to smile at people when they walk in a room, or what. Often I just look up and say 'Hi' and go back to whatever it was I was doing or working on. Asking if they want coffee feels weird. Being super subordinate in that secretary stereotype way seems wholly unnatural to me. I don't even know how to *act* cordial it would appear. . .it just seems so strained. I also cannot STAND micromanagement. If someone gives me a task, I want to be granted the autonomy and the ability to focus to complete it. I don't want someone always over my shoulder nitpicking about nonsense and details that I would regard as extraneous and insignificant to completing the task or just painstakingly obvious. Because of my reaction to this kind of micromanagement, a recent boss (who was a dick, but also happened to be a very intelligent one) said to me, 'you really need to find a job where your work with other people is limited.' Welp. That about sums it up.

[Hope]

I think it may be more useful for me to talk about the things I don't like, as I tend to have a stronger reaction to those things and feel more certainty in them.

In terms of things that I don't like in relationships, I would say communicating in a formulaic, prescribed, or linear way. An example I have of that is that I have a friend (who has somehow remained a friend, against all odds) who whenever she messages me or talks to me is like 'hey, how are you?' and then proceeds to ask what I would regard as extremely mundane questions, like, 'How is work going?' or 'What did you do this weekend?' as if we're having small talk at a water cooler at work or something---but we've known each other for almost a decade! When I ask her questions, she seems to answer in this very superficial manner that doesn't evidence any unique inner attitude or perception in regards to what she is talking about. She will talk a lot about series she's watching, or when her next grad school class is starting. . .I just find it entirely unstimulating and it takes a lot of energy to keep up communication with her. She also often nudges me to do yoga, which I regard as mildly irritating, especially because it's been like 5 years and you'd think by now she'd understand that I'm uninterested and it just isn't going to happen. She is definitely a well-meaning and kind person, though, much kinder than most, but I just can't keep interested. . .it's just baffling to me, because I get the sense she feels stimulated by the interaction.

For jobs, this has been a really difficult area in my life. I've ended up working in administrative and clerical positions, which I really believe is the worst thing I could possibly be doing. Reasons for that are, I really don't particularly enjoy answering to an authority figure when I lack respect for them. This lack of respect can be for all kinds of reasons...whether it be that I think they're just an asshole, or I think they're not intelligent and make stupid choices. In any case, I really loathe positions where I am asked not to think and just do as someone has ordered. I would not do well in the military.

Another problem professionally has been how I am socially. While a lot of colleagues seem to like me, it's more due to a certain naturalness, as I'm not particularly friendly in that formulaic, socially coded way as I described above. When it comes to service jobs like being a receptionist, I just feel bizarre. Like I don't know whether to smile at people when they walk in a room, or what. Often I just look up and say 'Hi' and go back to whatever it was I was doing or working on. Asking if they want coffee feels weird. Being super subordinate in that secretary stereotype way seems wholly unnatural to me. I don't even know how to *act* cordial it would appear. . .it just seems so strained. I also cannot STAND micromanagement. If someone gives me a task, I want to be granted the autonomy and the ability to focus to complete it. I don't want someone always over my shoulder nitpicking about nonsense and details that I would regard as extraneous and insignificant to completing the task or just painstakingly obvious. Because of my reaction to this kind of micromanagement, a recent boss (who was a dick, but also happened to be a very intelligent one) said to me, 'you really need to find a job where your work with other people is limited.' Welp. That about sums it up.

I think LIE works. I see that you seek for Fi more than Se in relations, like when you say that you dislike pre established social codes and weather talks, so, unvalued Fe. Your friend who does yoga sounds like alpha SF. So you feel like you can't have a connection.

You talk about being uncomfortable in subordinated positions, seems like Se HA. Plus, you say that you dislike serving coffee or being cordial and in assitant roles, which means no Si at all, no caregiving attitude, possibly Si PoLR.

ILI-Te could be, but you seem and sound more like LIE to me.

[The Reality Denialist]

I think paranoia in human sphere links it towards valued . Inanimate, referential, scheme related paranoia is something else.

LIE could make sense or maybe ILI.

LIE's are also able to be offensive towards people. If you think that could not be case for you I think ILI. Are you highly sensitive towards logical contradictions? This would also point towards ILI. Do you criticize plans?
LIE's are quite chaotic when it comes to new undertakings. They usually need some sort reminders to make them think.

[Bertrand]

yeah I agree its really tough, and definitely the source of much projection. its sort of like even when you know its the source of projection as is the case with Ni doms they just double down on it. Ne doms know about it but the problem is by evaporating it rather than doubling down they diffuse their attention and interests so greatly its hard to progress in time toward goals because they don't shut out or invalidate perceptions generally. so there's no real magic bullet. I personally think gulenko's type descriptions are the best at subtly but accurately and consistently describing types. if you think in terms of +/- as positive and negatively charged aspects to the same function you start to see how quasis and stuff are different. I think a good handle on +/- and going by function with strong introspection is the best way to figure self out (a negative charge is not not-valuing an aspect, rather they gravitate toward the negatively charged part of it, its more than a feeling but feeling is a good way to start with it. like a kind of negative valence, -Se then is confrontational in a way that is "disturbing", same with -Fe. -Fi is more about disgust etc). like you will recognize "yes I always tend to manifest this in the negative" etc it starts to become clear but its a huge system so it takes a long time to really absorb