If I'm Alpha NT, am I most likely to be

[Pa3s]

I fit I N T and P dichotomies the most, but reinin makes it to where E N T and P fit the most, and I've always gotten that, even though it doesn't directly make much sense (unless I'm misinterpreting what E really means in Socionics) ? Or I'm misinterpreting J ?

I don't know... when I first read about the Reinin dichotomies I thought they're really great. But nowadays I'm doubting their merit for typing purposes. It's quite likely that you concentrate too much on a single dichotomy and less on the overall picture, imho. Subtypes also have such a deceiving character. Many people seem to know their subtypes before they know their basic type and explain their deviations from that with subtype traits.

[717495]

I don't really have a good INTj description that would fit me, but I remember reading this a month ago and it really fit me well: http://personalitycafe.com/entp-foru...socionics.html

I don't know... when I first read about the Reinin dichotomies I thought they're really great. But nowadays I'm doubting their merit for typing purposes. It's quite likely that you concentrate too much on a single dichotomy and less on the overall picture, imho. Subtypes also have such a deceiving character. Many people seem to know their subtypes before they know their basic type and explain their deviations from that with subtype traits.

I think thats why I'm to a large extent confused, because I don't know how types are really "supposed to be." Someone says one thing, and another says a contradictory thing. A general picture envisioned by me still generates something contradictory to things lots of people will say, so I need to know if there are variants because there aren't a lot of Socionics descriptions that do fit me well.

I would say that some ILE and ILI descriptions have fit me the most, but a lot has lead me to believe that I'm not a Gamma or Se/Ni valuing.

[Galen]

Neither, because your reasonings for both of them don't sync up to the types in question. If I'm just reading the descriptions, I'd have to go with the first one because I'd say you're far from being wacky, irregular, or inconsistent.

[717495]

Neither, because your reasonings for both of them don't sync up to the types in question.

Hah, thanks for keeping me in mind for Delta :wink: (I'm guessing), or maybe you're just trying to make a point that I have no idea what I'm talking about. Either way, sounds fine to me. However, it does seem like I'd be an "Ne-INFj" on the basis of Jungian typology and Socionix, I've looked a lot into that as well and it makes sense. The huge thing I'm worried about is that traditional Fi description about typical Fi and EII descriptions seem not to fit me at all, they sound like an overly polite, highly relational, girly, politically correct figure that's sort of opposite from me. I've never found one description fitting me, like I have for ILE and ILI.

[Galen]

Hah, thanks for keeping me in mind for Delta :wink: (I'm guessing), or maybe you're just trying to make a point that I have no idea what I'm talking about. Either way, sounds fine to me. However, it does seem like I'd be an "Ne-INFj" on the basis of Jungian typology and Socionix, I've looked a lot into that as well and it makes sense. The huge thing I'm worried about is that traditional Fi description about typical Fi and EII descriptions seem not to fit me at all, they sound like an overly polite, highly relational, girly, politically correct figure that's sort of opposite from me. I've never found one description fitting me, like I have for ILE and ILI.

The problem though is that you're sooooo IJ. Everytime I see you on tinychat your energy is just so consistently low and stagnated. Calling you "wacky" or "inconsistent" are opposites of what I'd use to describe you.

[717495]

Everytime I see you on tinychat your energy is just so consistently low and stagnated.

This is often true, I don't like move around everywhere all the time. I feel like I go on tinychat when I need some excitement because I'm tired or bored. I'm not really high-strung. I only have bouts of high and random explorative energy, especially when no one is there or I'm not "focused" on something, only then will I be different. Though:

Calling you "wacky" or "inconsistent" are opposites of what I'd use to describe you.

That's a little odd to say. I think most people would disagree. Also, its all about energy and such, what about personality, and the type descriptions that don't go off of physical aspects I said I related to? I certainly can't just limit myself to what I've already said about being low energy, as there are more areas of a type to look into.

[ashlesha]

i might not know your type but one thing i'm quite sure about is you're not Fi polr. umm..

1. what are the chances of relating a lot to jungian Fi but having it as a polr in socionics. i'm not going into whether or not jungian descriptions are applicable, blah, blah...but it just seems very odd to me.

2. everybody feels at least a little shitty when they get made fun of or find out somebody doesn't like them. i don't understand this reasoning. even if its a major focus for you...idk. i'm sure it would hurt to get hit with a blunt object as well, but that wouldn't be a point for Se polr.

3. i dont relate to the proper and moralizing descriptions of EII either, you'll drive yourself nuts looking for a description that actually fits you without exception.

4. i wouldn't describe you as wacky at all.

[EyeSeeCold]

Once you understand, you have a hard time understanding how you could have not understood, or is that just me?

Do you take in new dimensions produce static conclusions(systems)?
Do you take in new systems(analyses) and produce new dimensions?
Do you take in new fields and produce dynamic conclusions(applications)?

[717495]

Do you take in new dimensions produce static conclusions(systems)?

This sounds exactly like what I do often, in a very inconsistent way.

[717495]

Once you understand, you have a hard time understanding how you could have not understood, or is that just me?

Do you take in new dimensions produce static conclusions(systems)?
Do you take in new systems(analyses) and produce new dimensions?
Do you take in new fields and produce dynamic conclusions(applications)?

I think I'm starting to understand what LII does now, the mirror process. I guess I never looked at it totally that way before, because I've been so into thinking and learning about other stuff, but this actually makes a lot of sense now, hah. I mean I certainly don't relate to it, I'm like the mirror of it. Veerrrry innnteresting, thanks for sparking this insight. For some reason it reminds me of MBTI Ti as the "dominant" way of seeing everything, for some reason I didn't catch on entirely (Ti enfuses its system with the world/perception) It's very obvious using this concept why Ne dominant would fit me perfectly.

While it is true that extroverted types tend to be outgoing and social and introverted types tend to be withdrawn and antisocial, it is not necessarily true. It goes both ways. Personally, I identify more strongly with INTp when going by the dichotomies but the functions just weren't right.

personalitycafe ENTp
Even though they are extroverts, ENTps may demonstrate a subtle tendency towards reservation. Those who have had problems establishing friendships may manifest a quiet nature and a lack of general outgoingness, one day appearing social and friendly only to be indifferent or avoidant the next. Over a period of time specific social patterns may develop, appearing unfriendly and reserved to some and friendly and open to others.

And this seems definitely true, as living proof it seems easily verifiable. Extroversion in the context of Socionics doesn't necessarily mean social ability or attentiveness to the world around you even though it is recommended as a proper correlation. Even if Ne in a number of people is often focused on what's going on around oneself, it doesn't have to be (which is what Socionics is trying to say.) It makes sense that Ne+Ti or Ti+Ne could both be stereotypically introverted, I see no contradiction, because extrovert dominant here is merely a focus on the internal static object, of anything, physical or mental.

I still haven't really found an entirely satisfactory description of the E vs. I dichotomy, save for that it alters the function orientation.

Attentiveness to the object, I guess. I'm not going to say that I don't often focus on external objects around myself, like I need something tangible to look at, but I certainly will say that I don't need to seek out new places and faces every day and am not focused much on activity involving physical reality.

[EyeSeeCold]

There are many perspectives on type and functions.

Ti-Ne ego also implies that you "creatively" use conceptual aspects to avoid physical aspects. For instance, building a mech to protect you from actual fighting.

Ne-Ti ego implies that you "creatively" use observable associations to avoid implied associations. For example, acknowledging explicit connections to people/objects to protect you from having to measure how you truly feel about something or how close something really is to you.

[Exodus]

The problem though is that you're sooooo IJ. Everytime I see you on tinychat your energy is just so consistently low and stagnated.

This has very little to do with type, by the way.

[MatthewZ]

If the universe were a giant pair of underpants, the milky way galaxy would be...

[Creepy-]

You sound a lot like me, and I am ILE. I fit with every one of those words you used to describe both LII and ILE.

I still haven't really found an entirely satisfactory description of the E vs. I dichotomy, save for that it alters the function orientation. While it is true that extroverted types tend to be outgoing and social and introverted types tend to be withdrawn and antisocial, it is not necessarily true. It goes both ways. Personally, I identify more strongly with INTp when going by the dichotomies but the functions just weren't right. (Ne-Ti and Ni-Te are very different and it shouldn't be too difficult to determine which is closer to you if you are considering these two types). I even identified as INTp with the Reinin dichotomies (which I later came to find was due entirely to misunderstanding of a few of them).

If you know that you use Ti-Ne as your ego functions, then it shouldn't be too hard to determine whether you are LII or ILE. LII's, being Ti dominant, primarily create logical systems and methodologies. ILE's, being Ne dominant, primarily consider potential or possibilities of an idea or situation. From the way you described yourself, you definitely seem more irrational, and you pretty much nailed Fi PoLR exactly.

Then there are the Reinin dichotomies... like MegaDoomer said, I don't think the Reinin dichotomies or subtypes are intended to be definitive, but they are useful tools.

Just for reference, what LII and ILE Reinin dichotomies do you disagree with?

[717495]

You sound a lot like me, and I am ILE. I fit with every one of those words you used to describe both LII and ILE.

I still haven't really found an entirely satisfactory description of the E vs. I dichotomy, save for that it alters the function orientation. While it is true that extroverted types tend to be outgoing and social and introverted types tend to be withdrawn and antisocial, it is not necessarily true. It goes both ways. Personally, I identify more strongly with INTp when going by the dichotomies but the functions just weren't right. (Ne-Ti and Ni-Te are very different and it shouldn't be too difficult to determine which is closer to you if you are considering these two types). I even identified as INTp with the Reinin dichotomies (which I later came to find was due entirely to misunderstanding of a few of them).

If you know that you use Ti-Ne as your ego functions, then it shouldn't be too hard to determine whether you are LII or ILE. LII's, being Ti dominant, primarily create logical systems and methodologies. ILE's, being Ne dominant, primarily consider potential or possibilities of an idea or situation. From the way you described yourself, you definitely seem more irrational, and you pretty much nailed Fi PoLR exactly.

Then there are the Reinin dichotomies... like MegaDoomer said, I don't think the Reinin dichotomies or subtypes are intended to be definitive, but they are useful tools.

Just for reference, what LII and ILE Reinin dichotomies do you disagree with?

Thanks for responding, it was unexpected. I remember greenantler also thought we could easily be the same type ILE, identified with various ILE descriptions, the reinin, and related a lot to how we put Fi-PoLR, Ti-creative, Ne-dominance, etc and we were pretty sure we were INTP in MBTI. I know for a fact that I'm INTP, and I would find it odd that an "INTP" would be high-strung. But also know that I fit various versions of ILE that have been professionally described in Socionics well, and not the ENTP stereotype. Einstein was an INTP, and perhaps I'm more introverted than he was.

I've had trouble knowing if I'm really Ne dominant or Ti dominant tbh. There are things that can be said that I'm either, which if there weren't I don't think I'd have this as a recurring question to ask for help. But I do feel like how ILE is described, aside from extroversion, sounds very close to me, more than most of the types. Like LII, EII, IEI dont as much as ILE in description, that is what is so interesting about identifying with recurring themes of this type.

As far as Reinin dichotomies go, I don't think I've had a problem with any one of them. I've always fit all the ILE ones, when I began. Perhaps I could do a more extensive analysis on which ones I do fit and why, but I typically just go by my memory about what I remember thinking of them. Because I used to look them over a lot more, and I don't think any one has changed.

1. what are the chances of relating a lot to jungian Fi but having it as a polr in socionics. i'm not going into whether or not jungian descriptions are applicable, blah, blah...but it just seems very odd to me.

True, but I mean you read Socionics Fi descriptions and Jungian Fi. I relate not well at all to the typical Socionics one, yet I do the Jungian one. That obviously means they're different.

2. everybody feels at least a little shitty when they get made fun of or find out somebody doesn't like them. i don't understand this reasoning. even if its a major focus for you...idk. i'm sure it would hurt to get hit with a blunt object as well, but that wouldn't be a point for Se polr.

Well yeah, that's not what I would define Se-PoLR as, but why wouldn't you see me as Fi-PoLR if you had to use the traditional Socionics description of it? That is a different question, and I stated why I don't relate to it.

I'm happy you're trying to help me out. Thanks

[Jarno]

You sound a lot like me, and I am ILE.

Finally a 16typesmember with brains...

Yeah, I see poli as ILE-Ti.

Poli shows signs of creativity and brainstorming. But not the ILI kind of creativity. ILE fits him nicely.

[717495]

Finally a 16typesmember with brains...

Yeah, I see poli as ILE-Ti.

Poli shows signs of creativity and brainstorming. But not the ILI kind of creativity. ILE fits him nicely.

Yes, and I know just what you're talking about.

Though I wouldn't say that MBTI is the same, because as it exists as an already developed community and not a frame of perspective, ie) ENTPs of the community are typed it because of their social tendencies, and some INTPs (like Einstein) who are obviously introverted, are ILE. (MBTI also has statistics of INFJ in 1% and their duals in 12%, which I doubt in Socionics).

Even if I <you know what I mean>, I don't necessarily dislike you. You're simply not my piece of cake, I'm not into absurd humour, neither relativism, neither humanism, and whatever else you belong to.
I think that you should not draw generalized conclusions, to feel like stigmatized or something, at least I don't see you as some kind of person that will be rejected by anyone. Maybe you have unrealistic aims, that you should be liked by everybody - I used to think like that years ago, maybe all people in their lives. I realized that when I fail at someone or something (eg a company) it's because we're simply not made for each other. I sometimes struggled to please by getting out of my way, and after being accepted realizing that I actually am the one that don't like what I've got and either leave or obstruct. No gain, in any case.

And you know what? I observed that truly being myself, I'm more liked by the people than when I try to catch all the balls. Really. Maybe I'm a bit clueless, since to be myself means that I don't give a shit about what others think of me, but still I think that's the case, things work smoother with many people. But it's tricky to find what this "true self" is, some people become unnaturally relaxed and careless, believing somehow that that's how a "natural" person should be, but that's bullshit. If your nature is to be careless, then fine, if not - then it's something else entirely. Get what I mean?

And in fact, if you can't be yourself or suffer because of people, so what? It's like the difference between sadness and joy none is worse, they're just two emotions specialized for different cases. You're neither the first, nor the last in this situation. Life goes on .
---

Btw, about that "haunting", maybe it's not the same thing but I often get haunted by things I said or done, sometimes I simply sit and something reminds me of something awful, for example something embarrassing, so my heart begins to pound, I feel the creeps, and then in minutes it's over. Because I'm anyway random and unpredictable, I have often lows and highs, I can't tell whether this affects my moral, but apparently not.

Thank you for taking time to read. Well we do sound similar, just from listening to you on the forum all this time, your way of putting things into perspective, and I have the same perspective on what you say about ourselves and people in general. I don't feel like I beat myself up over anything too hard because my perspectives always change, I get back to a neutral stance on things fairly quickly, and I always see the other side of things. I can be different one day, and some might say I'm acting fake, but you know I can adapt or play a different card, I'm not afraid of not being myself (even though it is myself, see? ). I'm mainly afraid of doing something foolish and over the top, and might second guess myself because something is not publicly normal to do, and might yield to people seeing me as much too weird and shun me (and this leads to more wariness about Fe as well as a general social introversion, having fears of the limelight). But lets say if there is someone who is pumping me up full of positive emotion/energy and it resonates through me, I have no doubt in my mind I can outperform myself no matter what, that is I can either sometimes be spontaneous and do even wackier things, or in a neutral state of mind I feel that today is a good day and things are looking up for me. It all really depends on who I'm around as I'm fairly adaptive. I don't get a lot of attention in my daily life, as I'm in my thoughts and learned to not expect it. But when I'm in a positive limelight, backed up by a true feeling of comradery, then I can prove to be hyper-creative and amusing, that is I feel comfortable being somewhat social and that let's people know that I am rather weirder than what they had in mind.

I speak of Fe and socializing, but it's really just not a part of my character, and I don't consider myself really to be much of a humanist, humanitarian. Really from getting to know me I'm much more of a theorist and researcher, or interested in mental creations, scifi and possibilities, overall I'm just imaginative and thoughtful but not much in relation to the human element. I am though definitely a relativist. I'm one of the least opinionated people I know. In regards to Fe, it feels in general, emotiveness and feeling expression, as a hidden agenda, I experience as its always something that comes to me and resonates in a soft way, and I experience it through writing and playing symphonic music, but not something I personally give off or am good at giving off (explained more a the bottom of my post), and Ti as (I think we've discussed before) a creative (not primary) function, but one to draw from in little bits and theorize from a non-biased perspective often. It is good with helping me invent and see categories for any of my interests, in a creative pursuit. I always have a sense of potential first and foremost (and that always seems to be the true source of creativity where as Ti is what "can be changed" or "form a new idea using knowledge of categories or systems"). There is not much of a chance I'd think that Ti is my dominant function from reading and witness how they are, or Fi as my dominant as it is explained in Socionics. I think I'm much too open to how things work and the possibilities (filling in what's really there with options) and lack wanting to make judgment, even though I think I've learned that I can be good at judgment. I just feel like remaining relative and open, it seems naturally more comfortable. Some of the ILE descriptions make a very good case for me as Ne+Ti and all the extra things added in. With ILI (a few other descriptions that might fit) does not make complete sense and pins me with the wrong quadra, but both have reasonable instances of being right. IJ type descriptions seem never to fit.

I have often thought I'm both T and F dichotomy, as I fluxuate near evenly as a balanced human, but most of the time it is T, and I think people who introduced me to MBTI and studied it have not seen me as F enough, and I don't feel as though I connect enough to the ethical element to be considered F. Though I think I've come to realize that I do connect well to Fe (emotion/expression) in an obviously non-ego way, as it comes in and out of consciousness a reminder of my passion.

polikujm: Next time I see you on tinychat, I'm going to talk to you.

Sure, sounds good.

I don't know what type you are, I don't see you contribute much other than your own particular style of humour, which seems more 'within' than out.

This is quite true it is often more "self-humor," as I have problems connecting with people in the right way. It could be related to ILE's PoLR function. I've heard various people tell me that my humor is alpha in nature, and I like and relate to the humor of other ILEs on this forum.

Just to throw it out there, maybe a low activity SEI

Whatever your type, it's irrational over rational imo.

I think I've lately come across as stronger in F because of expression of my hidden agenda and a lack of dualization (becoming a faulty dual). It doesn't seem like the same thing as being my normal 'silly' or 'witty-esque' self, however it's often me saying something weird and sometimes unrelated (and that is not really "funny humor" that's just me either being bored or trying to make a valid point. I don't think various people actually understand this and think I'm trying to be funny ) SEI or IEI is kind of a misstep with Fe-creative, but thank you I can see why you might say that's possible. I have personally liked much of how SEIs, especially Fe subtypes, are, the way their ideas and music expresses very serenely and paints an unique aesthetic picture. It's kind of hard to explain, but there's a certain feel to it. In talking to greenantler about being ILE, this was a main reason which seemed fairly identifiable as to why SEIs are my dual, because of this difficult to explain attraction of something I can easily now identify of their essence. Serene is the word used for SEI, but there is something else that brings SEI and IEI together in it. Esp. Fe-subtype, there's a way they are able to alter sound and word expressions in pleasant ways, and play with their voice, and an SEI I once knew would always be intruigingly dancing and humming to herself, a good appreciation for lyrics as well as aesthetics. I'm not at all overlooking this as something irrelevant, it's a very stimulating part of my dualistic attraction and not something I am good at doing. Of those I know they seem to have an overall dormant enthusiasm and positive attitude towards life.

[The Ineffable]

Talking about the "hard days", I noticed that sometimes everything is against you, others everything appears to be "with you". Not only people, but even events, or mechanical things. I don't know the rules - it's maybe some cycle, but I was lazy to keep a journal - but since I was 26-27 (or so), I disciplined myself so that when I notice that things are "against" me I don't become even more assertive and nervous, but the other way around. I just quit and relax, because I know my time will come again. The other way around, too, when runs smoothly, I expect a period of failures.

I think that this happens to everyone, just people react differently to this, even when these highs and lows are caused by people. I recall recent situations when my brother-in-law was refused and rejected by everyone in the house, including me. In my case, at least, I could not do concessions with him because that means to affect myself, for example when he disturbs my work or asks for something, he's the "sticky" kind of man, when you give him something he'll ask for more and more (either attention, help, borrowing things, or something else). But the interesting thing with this guy is that he never becomes depressed, possibly because he's an EIE. He at most gets upset and grumpy for a little while, but he appears always optimistic and has a plan to do something about it, often acting so that he blends with people (eg. suddenly appears to be interested about your problems in a certain field that he normally doesn't give a shit about). But I don't buy this, I keep him at an arm's length with "no, it's nothing", otherwise he'll get again under my skin and interfere with my activities.

So through extrapolation and other observations, sometimes people may reject you even if they sympathize with you, based on some objective reasons.

I speak of Fe and socializing, but it's really just not a part of my character, and I don't consider myself really to be much of a humanist, humanitarian. Really from getting to know me I'm much more of a theorist and researcher, or interested in mental creations, scifi and possibilities, overall I'm just imaginative and thoughtful but not much in relation to the human element. I am though definitely a relativist. I'm one of the least opinionated people I know.

Well don't confuse "humanist" with "humanitarian". You many not care about people, but you're humanist when you reduce most of the things to the human, social or personal interpretation - fiction, art, relativism are some examples. You're not one when everything to you is based on strict "universal laws", or something. Here's a philosopher (typed ESI by me) who I despise, but who I actually recommend to you, Ashton, 1981slater and Timeless alike (Huitzilopochtli is probably aware of his works, even): Paul Feyerabend. Don't "philosophy of science" and "epistemological anarchism" sound good? They sure do. He's just some sort of Ashton born in a different time and place:

For is it not possible that science as we know it today, or a "search for the truth" in the style of traditional philosophy, will create a monster? Is it not possible that an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined will harm people, turn them into miserable, unfriendly, self-righteous mechanisms without charm or humour? "Is it not possible," asks Kierkegaard, "that my activity as an objective [or critico-rational] observer of nature will weaken my strength as a human being?" I suspect the answer to many of these questions is affirmative and I believe that a reform of the sciences that makes them more anarchic and more subjective (in Kierkegaard's sense) is urgently needed.

-- Paul Feyerabend, Against Method. p. 154.

No problem with such currents of thought myself, but I think that science and research should be surrounded by an high-voltage electric fence .

In regards to Fe, it feels in general, emotiveness and feeling expression, as a hidden agenda, I experience as its always something that comes to me and resonates in a soft way, and I experience it through writing and playing symphonic music, but not something I personally give off or am good at giving off (explained more a the bottom of my post), and Ti as (I think we've discussed before) a creative (not primary) function, but one to draw from in little bits and theorize from a non-biased perspective often. It is good with helping me invent and see categories for any of my interests, in a creative pursuit. I always have a sense of potential first and foremost (and that always seems to be the true source of creativity where as Ti is what "can be changed" or "form a new idea using knowledge of categories or systems"). There is not much of a chance I'd think that Ti is my dominant function from reading and witness how they are, or Fi as my dominant as it is explained in Socionics. I think I'm much too open to how things work and the possibilities (filling in what's really there with options) and lack wanting to make judgment, even though I think I've learned that I can be good at judgment. I just feel like remaining relative and open, it seems naturally more comfortable. Some of the ILE descriptions make a very good case for me as Ne+Ti and all the extra things added in. With ILI (a few other descriptions that might fit) does not make complete sense and pins me with the wrong quadra, but both have reasonable instances of being right. IJ type descriptions seem never to fit.

I have often thought I'm both T and F dichotomy, as I fluxuate near evenly as a balanced human, but most of the time it is T, and I think people who introduced me to MBTI and studied it have not seen me as F enough, and I don't feel as though I connect enough to the ethical element to be considered F. Though I think I've come to realize that I do connect well to Fe (emotion/expression) in an obviously non-ego way, as it comes in and out of consciousness a reminder of my passion.

IMO you're not Ti/Fe valuer at all. And BTW, my opinion is that this kind of pervasive relativism is tightly connected to Fi and Ni - possibly because they're Fields + Internal.

Using such twist of words, connotations and "alternative views" one may easily "demonstrate" that Gandhi was a sexual pervert and Stalin was an angel. This is why - not trying to be harsh, but objective - the value of your reasoning in Socionics discussions is usually zero.