It took me a long time to conclude, but I don't understand socionics well

[Disturbed]

i can't decide whether more information is better, but i went primarily by aushra augusta's the dual nature of man and couldn't balance between V.I. and definitions when typing myself (but I know that Ne is my weakest function, it's certainly my older brother's weakest function). I went with her definitions primarily (even though they're ambiguous which irritates me) since she was the creator of socionics even though she left out subtypes, which change a lot of her original theory (to be more precise, it means just 16 types doesn't mirror themselves and reality/people very well) and seemingly even reinin dichotomies. Simply, subtypes are glaringly obvious in most cases and I usually go by memories of my meetings with people and what other people say... i guess i've never really understood theory well, but i don't do so well with practice either... i am more oriented towards practice though, thinking the real world, physical interaction, and economic success are more important and better than being a researcher/always with books... i'm not the most open-minded person, when i was a kid i was super materialistic and loved good tangible things (and often playing with them with others although at other times hated it when others touched my things and i could get very, very angry from it, i was a mean kid) and good sensations.

if gammas truly were what made for bright lights and stores popping up everywhere when i was a kid and betas were the catholic church, then, well you get the idea that i enjoyed gamma more/they made my little pecker more hard...

[Beautiful sky]

i can't decide whether more information is better, but i went primarily by aushra augusta's the dual nature of man and couldn't balance between V.I. and definitions when typing myself (but I know that Ne is my weakest function, it's certainly my older brother's weakest function). I went with her definitions primarily (even though they're ambiguous which irritates me) since she was the creator of socionics even though she left out subtypes, which change a lot of her original theory (to be more precise, it means just 16 types doesn't mirror themselves and reality/people very well) and seemingly even reinin dichotomies. Simply, subtypes are glaringly obvious in most cases and I usually go by memories of my meetings with people and what other people say... i guess i've never really understood theory well, but i don't do so well with practice either... i am more oriented towards practice though, thinking the real world, physical interaction, and economic success are more important and better than being a researcher/always with books... i'm not the most open-minded person, when i was a kid i was super materialistic and loved good tangible things (and often playing with them with others although at other times hated it when others touched my things and i could get very, very angry from it, i was a mean kid) and good sensations.

if gammas truly were what made for bright lights and stores popping up everywhere when i was a kid and betas were the catholic church, then, well you get the idea that i enjoyed gamma more/they made my little pecker more hard...

Are you confused about your type or typing others using the theory?

[Disturbed]

@Beautiful skyI am confused about my type, can't stay with LSI-Ti or ESI-Fi but I'm pretty good at typing people... in my ~35 years, I've barely spent any time with most Alpha subtypes and never spent time with anyone I knew to be SEI, SLI (they truly are rare), IEE-Fi, or ESI-Fi (because I don't know if my mother is an LSI-Ti or an ESI-Fi). Never spent time with anyone I knew to be ESI-Se female, no clue why. Spent a certain degree of time with LSI-Se females, they're everywhere in Virginia, they vary from each other, but I can somehow tell they're LSI-Se.

[Sol]

couldn't balance between V.I. and definitions when typing myself

Intuitive-nonverbal method is for typing _others_. It may be used for own type indirectly by IR effects from other people, which you identify also by noverbal.
Intuitive-nonverbal method uses same _definitions_. The alternative to this can be to take into account common behavior, not nonverbal one.

> but I know that Ne is my weakest function

It's doubtful to understand directly the strenght difference inside weak and strong functions.

> I went with her definitions primarily

Functions and dichotomies (except J/P) were defined by Jung. Augustinavichiute gave expanded, partly correct descriptions.

> since she was the creator of socionics

She only added some ideas to Jung types. The main is about that some pairs of functions are complementing and other are opposing.
Besides useful additions, her texts contain some serious mistakes. Where she contradicts to Jung's more basic theory.

To understand types the best work stays Jung's book. Which also has problems. Augustinavichiute's additions and interpretations should be taken with good criticism. I'd recommend to read Filatova's book to understand what Socionics adds, and as easiest initial way to Jung types. MBTI books would be good as initial text, if not wrong functions for introverts.
Augustinavichiute's texts are more interesting to know formal side of term "Socionics", a history. As initial studing material it's not good.

Limit the theory to: 4 dichotomies, 8 functions, strong/weak + valued/nonvalued functions, IR. It's what is most based.
Read Jung and Filatova. Then other what you'd like.
Try to understand types of other people you know IRL. By common behavior, nonverbal intuitive impressions, tests. By IR effects you may suppose are your and their types correct.

If you want opinions about your type, then 10 min video is useful. With good seen face, random tale about yourself, without glasses. In a typing theme the video link in 1st message.

[Lycantrope]

Functions and dichotomies (except J/P) were defined by Jung.

J and P are equivalent of Jung's Rational and Irrational dichotomy. There is a whole article from Bukalov I think, about this and why mbti probably got it wrong and switched J and P for introverts.

Augustinavichiute's additions and interpretations should be taken with good criticism. I'd recommend to read Filatova's book to understand what Socionics adds

But isn't Filatova even worse? She almost makes a horoscope out of the descriptions and her method for typing is very bizarre and innacurate.

It's doubtful to understand directly the strenght difference inside weak and strong functions

that's true

Just out of curiosity: what exactly do you look for in a 10 minute span? I used to believe in that but nowadays I think it's too short a time to be sure of someone's type. Mainly because they will most likely be enganed in super-ego functions in the first 20 minutes or so.

[Renna]

^Typing people online is just bullshiting most of the time and mostly for fun or to give some direction, to be honest.