Deleted.
Deleted.
Last edited by FarDraft; 12-16-2018 at 12:18 AM.
> MBTI dichotomies: INTJ based on tests and self-analysis.
seems it's correct
Socionics has IR theory to check your type. You may try my IR test or just to look at my examples and to analyse your impressions - which people look as more comfortable for you.
I like your voice
I like your voice too FarDraft lol. After watching part of the video, I'm gonna say ILI is your type. I'm out and about right now, so maybe I'll have time for more later, but I wanted to get this out now.
In case you did not opened the key before the sorting (in other case the results are lesser meaningful) - this points not badly on the possibility of base Ti type. Two base Fe types are there. Other 2 types are close to neutral for LII, are not against it much.Originally Posted by FarDraft
> quaternary (least favourite): IEE, SEE, LII, SLE
for LII: subrevisie, superego, identity, revisor
2 - good fit, 1 - do not fit but is not strong contradiction, 1 - acceptably. in general - it's possibly for LII
If you'd followed the recommendations with longer watching - in the context of LII type, mb there was lesser mess between NTs of alpha vs gamma - they are close types and distinguish impressions from them in the borders or IR theory is harder.
> Overall, I don't think that this test was very accurate for my personal case
It has worked, even with partial following to the recommendations. As have given you the result which significantly correlates with my VI and even your main opinion. It have pointed that LII has good possibility for you. You like both base Fe types, and among base Ti you are doubtful to be LSI as at top is their suborderie. At bottom there is no serious against LII, while 2 types fit good.
3 approaches independently have pointed on most possibility of the same type - you should be LII. This accidentally could happen with the low chance.
People by my IR test may see that Socionics is not bs. But seems do not understand the importance of not ideal, but useful results this test gives sometimes. I've given the easy method to prove that Socionics mess sometimes (with normal experimental conditions) and regularly show that this obscurity theory works on practice. Even with random bloggers, not IRL and long communication or special videos.
> Moreover, I have never had a partner in real life, so that will likely skew the results.
The important is that you communicated with people, liked some of them and disliked others. In many cases IR influenced on your sympathy and so doing IR test that experience helped you.
You could be ILI
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I think Delta NF
I feel like I went back in time and I'm looking at myself. You look like a fucking hobo, kid. Get your act together.
Honestly, you VI like my 10 years ago college self to a very scary degree: mostly unkempt, minimalist style, etc. I didn't care because it didn't matter to me at the time if I didn't look presentable.
I'm curious where you from, if you don't mind me asking.
I don't have a strong opinion on type because I feel like its something that really only manifests over a long period of time, but as a first impression you seem Ti valuing, or maybe Ti role or demonstrative. This rules out Ti polr and ignoring basically
I've gotten ENTJ and INTJ in MBTI. Mostly LII in socionics, self typed. But I entertained the possibility of being SLE too. I still keep an open mind. That is pretty much it.
I don't rule out Ti role because role is precisely the thing likely to show upon introductions and so forth, in my opinion.. a lot of people are bound up in their role function and it has to do with preferentially presenting their persona for a good while. im not saying you're definitely Fi base, I'm just saying it can't be ruled out in my mind based on what I've seen
I don't know if you are asking me or thinking loudly. I don't think you are qualified to judge the compatibility of both systems yet though, no offence.
I've read your threads and I think you have spent a lot of time identifying with being INTJ (and possibly reinforcing a lot of stereotypes, good or bad) and less on yourself, you need to take a step back. You could be the truest INTJ there is to the highest degree and still not like where you at in life. I believe if you are looking for self improvement like most people who look into personality types, you need to reassess if being a stereotypical INTJ, like you understand it, is actually beneficial to you.
I hope that makes sense.
Last edited by Ryan; 04-11-2019 at 02:58 PM.
For IR is important which _types_ you like _more_. As you saw - your results fit to the theory ok, if to assume your type as LII.
In IRL communication you'd got more clear IR theory fit on the level of concrete people.
Your type is LII by my opinion by VI. I notice your behavior fits to this type ok too. And you've goten the same type by dichotomy tests before. 3 methods have given you the same type as most possible, what is ~ 1/256 chance of the mistake. All of this was independently. I did not remembered your opinion about own type, at least, besides have low conformism to what other people think about types.
Also if your sorting groups have inner order too, then ESE (your dual) was your favorite type among all, not just among the top 4 types. This rises the chance for being LII additionally.
To understand the types better and such to understand own type - you need to type people near you IRL, to compare them, to check IR effects. You need practice and some time to accept your type as LII. Just stay away from heretic and doubtful hypotheses like Reinin's traits, subtypes and other as that may mislead you. NTs like theoretical plays much and may fall to overspeculation by doubtful theories to rationalize wrong types. I saw one LII which knows the types for long and types himself as LSI much because of Reinin's bs. This may prevent your correct self understanding the most.
> Also, I'm unsure as to how some of the SEE videos are actual SEE.
The maximum real (when opponents did not know beforehand the external opinions) typing matches I saw were <50%. But anyway, being a novice which doubts in own type it's early for you to be sure in your typings more than in mine.At now you see the results of the test fit to other methods for you and that is argument for my good enough typing skills in general to trust me, and also for IR theory correctness.
> While there are several factors pointing to my being an LII, I still have certain doubts.
You need to watch people IRL to understand the typology good enough to accept your type. Such was with me and should be common for all base T types. We need data to be sure. And you are in the process of geting that data, understanding of it. My help is to point you on the more possible types so you payed more of your attention on them. When I typed myself I've got from several people LSE as my type and then for several monthes read books and typed people to notice the theory fits best for this type for me. Until that moment I was in doubts and sceptical to Socionics in general, as it's on the level of hypotheses mostly. My subjective experience have given me positive opinion about Socionics and confirms it for 15 years.
Later I did more objective experiments to prove VI is effective as gives typing matches higher than chance and comparable with other today methods (in 2015 on socioforum) and now I'm geting the prove my typings and IR theory often works for other people by IR test. On you all have worked ok, at least.
> Are there ways around these concerns?
You need to _compare_ people of different types on practice to understand the types, where they differ and such to get the needed explanations. Try to feel the types traits in those people - use your strong Ne, - to which sides they are closer - to T of F, to S or N, to Fe or Fi in case of F types, etc. There is no better way for both of us. Today Socionics has too speculative basis for discussions, but you may see and feel in your personal experience the needed.
> VI-wise, how would you say I fit, and what specific elements led you to believe that?
VI is _intuitive impressions_ from your nonverbal behavior. I do not think about your "specific elements", but feel you in general - to description of which types traits you are closer, and also to which IR with me.
"specific elements" in VI are used in physiognomy - the baseless heresy I do not use, as body's form has no direct relation to the psyche, unlike behavior, including the nonverbal one. What I do - Ne analysis from your nonverbal behavior. Intuition gives the results, while the process stayes hiden for the consciousness.
When you did my IR test you used your Ne to sort the types - and you did it ok and fast, much because Ne is your ego function. You felt some people as giving more sympathy to you without thinking "why" - you just felt that intuitively. It's like Socionics works IRL, nonverbal IR effects - people know nothing about types, but feel that some people they like more without even having serious deals with them - they trust to them higher without conscious reasons and feel better communicating with them.
Also being base T with good N, mb you noticed that some people are easy minded compared to you, and warmer/emotional than you - those are F types mostly, while you did not know about Jung's typology in that time. You could to feel intuitively types' trait in them before knowing about Jung's types. This was with me, at least, having my LSE type. IR and types's traits people feel intuitively much, even without specific types knowledge. It's how I typed you and others. I may then to see how good my such type's assumption fits to common behavior - generally all fits good enough to trust to this method, for many years it fits on many people I typed.
> I am supremely uneducated in that department, so any and all enlightenment would be appreciated.
The theoretical part is short and is above. The practical - you may assume types by your N of any people you communicate IRL. For example, take short descriptions of T and F types - look at a human and try to feel to which side, to which description you feel him closer.
When you did IR test you studed VI typing method on my examples. You may use them further to get my understanding of types and how I type people. Watch people of a type and try to feel the types traits in all of bloggers, to feel your impressions from those people and how they may correspond with IR effects for LII. Compare your impressions with people of other types, to feel the difference - how differ your impressions from T and F types, from Te and Ti people, etc. Also I have actors list, but it's outdated - my skills changed with years when many actors were added there and many ones there were typed by movies what is worse than videointerviews and bloggers I'm using in last times.
I have nothing to add. You need own types research of real people near you and mb to try to use my examples. It's best what mb done until you'll understand own type as LII and will notice your typings are correct enough to see IR theory works good. This may take the monthes. I recommend you to read Filatova's book - seems the only relatively normal Socionics source in English.
I don't even know what INTJ means, I only recognize ILI or LII
I think Sol’s suggestion to observe other people around you is very valid, and, honestly, I must say that I agree with some posters’ impression that you seem to have identified yourself with INTJ traits so strongly that you lost sight of yourself somewhat. It’s a novice mistake to make - suffice to say that I’ve identified as an INTP for the longest time in MBTI and I had a really hard time letting go of that typing, before I could open my mind and look at myself objectively. In my experience, what we “are” is not the same thing as what we “value”, or rather, what we “have led ourselves to believe we value”.
Instead of attempting to make yourself and your personality fit into a narrow model (because that’s what Socionics is, ultimately), try and do opposite: observe yourself, your spontaneous behaviours, your thoughts and your values - and only after you’ve observed them, ask yourself if and how they could fit into the model (pay attention to the “if” - not everything can be explained by Socionics). And try to apply the same to other people around you, too, if possible, and pay attention to how you relate to them.
Don’t worry at first if everything doesn’t make sense 100%, if every little theoretical detail doesn’t immediately fit neatly into its supposed place in the system. Just let the flood of external information come in, and, as it flows, interpret it, consider alternative explanations, and build a model of yourself from the bottom-up. If you really are an NT type, this should come easy to you.
Sometimes, the “truth” hides exactly into those little details that seem so out of place and contradictory to the model one is building. For example: why is it that Fe ego types were so high on your list of preferences? Why does your - supposedly - ESI sister seem to “clash” with you so much - in terms of how she evaluates information - if, assuming that you are ILI, you are from the same quadra and are, in fact, Activity partners? ILIs value Fi, which means that you’d value her input more - find it more “interesting” - than you have showed here. At least that’s how I see it.
And so, that’s all. I hope this post doesn’t come across as annoying or condescending, and if it does, I apologize. I just thought I’d share some tips that I personally feel have helped me in my quest to find my own type.
Good luck.
Also, not absolutely everything about a certain type you happen to identify with has to fit your personality 100%. Avoid relying on descriptions too much, because a lot of them are actually full of stereotypes - and it’s really something unavoidable, considering how a single little description of a type has to encapsulate a massive group of people in it. I actually think that a big part of beoming more of an “expert” in Socionics is slowly forming your own understanding about which information is really kind of bullshit and is perhaps worth discarding (even if not everyone will agree with you).
Of course, if it’s major parts of the theory that you find yourself being at odds with, it’s probably more likely that you’ve mistyped yourself.
this just goes to show MBTI is idiotic because it calls half of its perceiving types Js... socionics doesn't make this mistake and thats what differentiates the two systems, among other things
I could argue the logic all day but if a person really believes MBTI INTP = socionics LII then I really just think they're hopeless so whatever, because the nuance underlying why that's not the case is whats required to really understand socionics at all, and if they lack that there's no point. they can literally come up with anything because for them the fine lines that differentiate any type from any other type is irretrievably blurry and hopelessly subject to group opinion. in essence people like that are unable to escape the forer effect. I do think you'll figure it out though, I'm just not interested in arguing about it
a lot of people will say its not true socionics, but Gulenko's is the best system I've personally encountered
I've personally started reading all the articles on this site, whatever interested me. Then I used Russian sources/sites and google translate. I read everything. Even the wacky theories. I've lurked Russian forums too.
It takes time though, for me it was a couple of years, reading on and off, but mostly thinking of it in the back of my mind and observing.
When I started I liked debating with people because it felt like it speeds up the process of learning. It puts me under pressure and forces me to change my perspective. Even if I don't concede my position I still think very thoroughly of the opposing arguments and I may change my mind, but I very rarely admit that lol. It's a useless method though if people aren't interested in engaging on the same level or don't have a deep knowledge of the subject that satisfies you, which is why I refrain from doing so anymore. It's also tasteless when some people just want to connect and all you want is to headbutt and argue all day.
Yes, I am talking about my experience within Socionics. I got interested in MBTI about 5 years ago, and was quite invested in it for a long time, until I came to see it as too narrow and simplistic, as well as riddled with a number of stereotypes that I feel seriously compromised my ability to look at myself honestly - in the MBTI community, identifying as an SJ type seemed something akin to a death sentence. Socionics is largely free from this bias.
As for what led me to change my perception, I’d say it was a number of factors. I was sure of being a rational logical type (i.e. that my base function was either Te or Ti), and I was sure that I valued Si and Ne as opposed to Se and Ni, with everything else being left to determine. To list a few examplese of these “factors”:
- I was sure that I used Ne in some form, but I came to realize that I was probably overplaying how much I used it, and it had to be a “weaker” function than I imagined. In Socionics, this strongly indicates that the function is in the “Hidden Agenda” position - a function that you value and respect in yourself and in others, and that you sort of “practice” in an attempt to be better at it; but in fact doesn’t come as naturally as your ego functions. My initial position was that my Ne probably didn’t feel as strong as it should if I were LII because of a strong Ti subtype, but overall I find that the hidden agenda explanation is much simpler and more accurate.
- I have noticed that I highly prize and respect Fi, while I give comparatively little importance to Fe. Both of these fit Fi suggestive and Fe role much better than the other way around.
- Finally, I find that I simply find it much more natural to think about myself as a sensor, rather than an intuitive, and it was in fact a bias that I carried with myself from MBTI that prevented me from seriously considering this possibility sooner. Si does, in fact, feel much more “effortless” than Ne, and a lot of little “issues” that I have in my life can in fact be explained by bad Ni.
In the end, as my understanding of Socionics deepened, reaching this conclusion felt quite natural - despite a few mistypes along the way. Hopefully you will reach the same level of confidence and “naturalness” in your typing.
@FarDraft this is also largely how I obtained my information, bar lurking on Russian forums.
This site has a ton of articles both on the more “basic” parts of Socionics and the more advanced, abstract theories, although one must keep in mind that not everyone espouses every part of the theory beyond its bases. For example, Bertrand appreciates socionist Gulenko (as do I), but if you speak to someone like Sol he’ll tell you he’s a filithy heretic, lol.
EDIT: on this basis it can be pretty hard to recommend you for sure which sources are trustworthy and which are not; at least, I don’t feel confident enough to say for sure. My only recommendation is, again, not to pay too much attention to type descriptions that are excessively “behavioural”, or better yet, to critically evaluate those by comparing them to your personal experience, without feeling that you have to accept them by face value. But you probably already know this.
Read Jung's "Psychological types" - it's obligate at least for 10 chapter. That Filatova's book is good for beginners.
You may read Augustinavichiute's articles, if they were translated to English. Though it's better to be sceptical to places in her works where she clearly contradicts to Jung (sometimes she describes only from other sides, like she did with E/I) or says something too far from the essence of his types (like Reinin's traits). Not anything at Jung's texts deserves the high trust, but the core definitions of his types should be trusted.
The problem of English sites is that they may contain additions to normal Socionics, which are not by Jung or Augustinavichiute, and nowhere it's pointed. You may be misleaded by baseless fantasies of different authors, to think it's Socionics and such trust to this bs like to core theory (taken from Gulenko's additions, for example).
You may read in Russian some not bad books (by Filatova, Beskova, etc). Which describe the classical theory, the basics from it which is practically interesting and deserve to be trusted. The farther from core theory of Jung and general reason - the more it's doubtful and hence lesser should be used.
It's better to stay in limits: 4 dichotomies, 8 functions, Jung's model (from his book), how functions of model A work in short, IR theory. Read types descriptions by different authors to notice the similar there. Watch types examples of people to notice how types are expressed. The lesser of theory you are using, the closer you are to core of Jung's typology - the lesser chances you'll be misleaded by wrong hypothesis. It's not needed to know much and to use much to type people good and to use IR theory, - study to use correctly the basics, the essence without doubtful extentions like Reinin's traits, acceptive/productive functions, etc. Those extentions have no good theoretical basis and no experimental one - just fantasies which most probably are incorrect.
It's my approach to Socionics and it allows to type good enough to notice IR theory works and even create things like IR test which you see as worked on you. LII like new and complex theories, - but it's reasonably to leave anything besides core theory for experiments, not for real life usage. Or you may do redundant mistakes only because of wrong conceptions of extended theory, its bad descriptions, not developed practical usage, etc. Those mistakes may create real problems if you'll use that extented and more doubtful theory on practice.
LII.
You have the same "essence" as the people I've classified as LII. Edward Snowden, Maynard James Keenan, and others. There's no specific trait I can point to to make a deductive argument. However, if you want traits that often come with this type: penchant for finding the right term for a concept, interest in classifications, inclination toward thinking in terms of compare/contrast. You make sure what you have to say makes sense, conceptually and logically.
Tbh, you also remind me of myself when I was younger, but you seem introverted, since you want to factor information in to how you conceptualize the world. And you also take your time to articulate thoughts according to subjective logic before putting your thoughts out there.
EDIT: what do you think?
MBTI is irrelevant. You can't port your typing from that system into this system because they have different logical foundations. I recommend spending some time on this forum and sociotypes.com so you can parse one system from the other. I understand it can be confusing because they have similar nomenclature, but you should probably start by looking at Model A to see where the systems differ.
I think the correlation of values between "INTJ" (MBTI) and "gamma" is more because MBTI has really developed in the USA and its a gamma culture, its more or less contaminated a lot of the descriptions especially the "popular" ones
the bottom line is I think you'd be well served by simply trying to forget MBTI completely and not try to use it as a launch pad into socionics. its tempting because on the surface they seem so similar but its misleading in a most pernicious way. once you get a strong handle on socionics qua socionics (and Jung as a primary source), then you can go back and decide on how MBTI and socionics relate
also keep in mind: this website is not totally error-free, I've noticed various errors in things like beneficiary descriptions and so forth. that is one thing I like about gulenko's website, it doesn't have those kinds of problems because its not an english audience cobbling together different socionists and translating them and so forth. lots of errors creep in but people can't tell because its all so ambiguous to begin with
It's possible that your ILI, but nevertheless, your reasoning has a lot of flaws. MBTI types don't have valued functions, they have preferred functions with stackings that are determined on the unconscious level. There's a difference. For example, ILI in socionics values,
,
, and
, (they actually gain a sense of appreciation, satisfaction, or fulfillment from these functions). On the other hand, INTJ in MBTI simply processes information primarily through the lens of Ni and Te because they are the most conscious, and while Fi and Se are also in the stack, it's implied that Fi and Se don't play as much of a role in the psychological life of the INTJ. Moreover, MBTI practically implies that INTJ doesn't get much out of Fi and Se, so for what little MBTI even addresses anything close to the notion of value, the systems still don't line up.
Beyond that, MBTI functions and Socionics IMs aren't the same.
And even if the systems were that similar, your reasoning wouldn't rule out other types because many of the traits converge in a number of ways between various types, temperaments, quadras, functions, and IMs.
So, after reading this post, I'd recommend learning about both systems to understand what they are and where they differ. Model A is still a good place to start. Jung's Psychological Types is also extremely recommended.
well, itll be interesting to revisit this idea in a year or so, if you stick with it emot-smug.gif
edit: deleted for having been dublicated for some reason.
Last edited by Dee; 10-01-2018 at 08:29 PM.
I go for INFj. Seen a bunch like that. My female primary teacher was like that. Then I know another person like that. No offence, if anything. I guess types of the same subtype look and move similar. At least in some cases.
P.S. There was an LII typing I have seen. I haven't read why it came about, but I just want to say that EIIs have Ti role, and types use role quite often, especially in presentation situations like this one. I have noticed over the years how people would type a person an Fe / Si type based off the person being jolly and bouncy / social. That is superficial typing. Things with socionics are not as straight forward like that.
Last edited by Dee; 10-01-2018 at 08:31 PM. Reason: added, then grammar / syntax
Good video - not a VI video really but a questionnaire video.
Main points:
-technical/abstract way of speaking, often confusing metaphorical phraseology
-focus on understanding things deeply
-intellectually confident
-say that you lack "emotional nuance, tact, sympathy, empathy"; people note lack of caring, should be nicer
-emphasis on foresight, planning, achieving goals
-focus on exploring the dark aspects of life
-"use these components to my advantage, to pursue my vision"
-precise, chooses words carefully, sometimes long pauses in speech
-themes of darkness, inevitability
-derives enjoyment from seeing that things work and checking the truth of abstract theories, not just coming up with them
-passive person, low energy
-not very confident, forward, or aggressive - fear of failure
-yet - highly determined at times also, powers through pain, obstacles, etc.
It seems clear that you have high Ni and Ti, and low Se and Fe, with your focus on intellectual interests and relative disinterest and issues with being tactful and forceful. Actually, the way you describe your determination or lack thereof was somewhat inconsistent, but the picture is clear socionically.
As for ILI vs. LII, like you, I really didn't see any evidence of valuing Fe or Si anywhere - you seem highly clinical in your thinking and don't seem to care if this seems "harsh or callous" (your own words) or rubs people the wrong way (unless that would lead to more tangible consequences). The difficulty you have communicating your thoughts is typical of Ni leading types. Actually you remind me of Jung quite a bit (who may have been ILI, or otherwise IEI).
On the other hand there is a definite emphasis on SeFi (primarily Se) in terms of you achieving concrete goals in the real world, and your competitive attitude towards sports and other skill acquisition.
btw: I don't recommend using static VI for typing. Mannerisms can be helpful but in a limited sense - understanding people's motivations through what they say and do is more reliable.
Also, you might be interested in this, since you're studying pure math: https://wholesocionics.herokuapp.com/socionics_math [PDF link]
There are other articles there too that are more about the practical side of socionics.
If you're talking about rationality then I think it is generally a mistake to rely on the dichotomy for typing purposes - its classical description has some problems. An ILI has high Ni and Ti so of course they can be planned and structured.
Well...I don't really use videos for "VI" per se. Certain things can help, like noticing that you don't generally seem to be an expressive or energetic person, and how I noted you tend to think a lot before you speak. If we met in person other things might come out also. But there's no reason to make a video where you don't talk about yourself too.I was always skeptical of static VI, which is why I questioned it when members of the forum were typing a person that wasn't even on this forum based on one picture. I can't see how one out-of-context picture is enough to determine factual data about a person's sociotype or personality, given that we aren't neural networks that can weigh the significance of each pixel with respect to the whole. Intuitive impressions only work properly when ample data is provided, as people are rarely as they seem at first glance.
Since I have a break coming up, if you can tell me what a VI video should be like, I could definitely make another.
Thanks for the link.
All people may follow plans. The important is how much they do this. ILI should not do and follow detailed plans for minor things, they should prefer general planning only and should easily change the plans. You may use this if to better understand what it's about and to have the experience of seeing how people of real types behave.
Also there is more specific difference of J/P, that J types prefer steady acting, without waves like procrastinations and then intensive short time work.
> Well...I don't really use videos for "VI" per se.
You do not use [intentionally] intuitive impressions from nonverbal for typing. What is objectively proved as the useful info for this. You are using VI anyway, despite you want or not, when get IR impressions from people. They appear from the start when you see them and last always further affecting you.
your type is LII
your behavior on the forum, impressions and even IR test point on this more than on other types
when you'll notice IRL that base Fe girls you like more than base Se, you'll get it
Reply With Quote
