my type

[drzhivago23]

as you may note, I am a new member.
as explained in my introduction thread, I am fairly well-grounded in socionics.
however, I occaisionally have doubts about my socionic type, resulting, it would seem, less so from a lack of knowledge of either myself or socionic theory, but rather due to excessive scrutiny.

this is why this thread exists.

what is my type?

rather than providing something of an excessive self-description, I shall wait for socionically relevant questions to be asked of me (for maximization of efficiency).

go ahead.

[Mediator Kam]

lol hello.

I love this question: How do you deal with personal relations, such as with your friends?

How about describing yourself in less than 15 words?

[drzhivago23]

I love this question: How do you deal with personal relations, such as with your friends?

hmmm...

what exactly do you mean by ¨deal with?¨
in terms of establishing new contacts?
or maintaining pre-existing contacts?
or a combination thereof?
or something else?

[Mediator Kam]

hmmm...

what exactly do you mean by ¨deal with?¨
in terms of establishing new contacts?
or maintaining pre-existing contacts?
or a combination thereof?
or something else?

both would be helpful for us prenim.

[drzhivago23]

most of my socialization is forced (via school), rather than a choice of my own, to begin. I am usually uncomfortable in social settings, particularly when amongst strangers. on a similar note, I feel more anxious in ¨non-business¨ settings. in a ¨business setting¨ (i.e. a class at school) I feel much more confident. there is no dabbling in emotional responses, which comforts me. I will tend to feel much more uncomfortable at, say, a party, where the importance of any non-socially-related skills begin to exponentially degenerate, and the importance of social and emotional cues becomes more significant. I often grow anxious or frightened when thrown in a large social setting. in all honesty, my lack of social confidence is probably a result of my trouble understanding social cues, norms, etc. when I do recognize what is considered a social cue or norm, I often disregard it simply because I think it is foolish. as a result, I often give off the impression (according to others) of being asocial, odd/eccentric, and/or arrogant. so, for the most part, most of my friends are there either because I have recognized striking similarities in interests, hobbies, thought-processes, et cetera, in the first place, or because that individual was interested enough in an aloof and eccentric person such as myself to initiate some form of dialogue.

I have very few friends. I do not put any effort into maintaining these pre-existing cotacts. nevertheless, I occasionally visit their homes and such. I would rather have one or two very strong friends than large quantities of feigned friends.

[Mediator Kam]

You sound like a guy around here called Niffweed, and there is an ILI/INTp I have talked to online that has a similar idea of what friends are to you.

[Elro]

Dr. Z, could you talk about what your typical day is like?

[Mediator Kam]

Dr. Z, could you talk about what your typical day is like?

good question.

[drzhivago23]

Dr. Z, could you talk about what your typical day is like?

I wake from the comforting world of my dreams to the obnoxious scream of my alarm.

I consume food.

I prepare myself for the horrors that await me.

I spend a large degree of time in my head, my books, or my computer.
High school is dull, as there is little stimulation.

I return home.

I do my work.

I sleep.

In essence, I try to make the best of a dull and monotonous by indulging in my own interests and fantasies.

Things would be very different, however, if my daily schedule went about in the manner I wished it to.

[Elro]

From what you've said, I'm going with ILI as well.

[Gilly]

pre-existing cotacts.

rofl

ILI works, IMO.

[Khamelion]

heyyyyy thar :wink: :wink:

[Khamelion]

holographic (static, negativist), strategic, thinking, superego F, constructivist, yielding and i'm not going more than post #5. so SLE is very very likely imo.

LOL WHAT THE FUCK?!? IS SLE AN ACTUAL SERIOUS IDEA YOU'RE HAVING FOR THIS FELLER?!?! IS THIS A JOKE?!?!

[Khamelion]

LOL WHAT THE FUCK?!? IS SLE AN ACTUAL SERIOUS IDEA YOU'RE HAVING FOR THIS FELLER?!?! IS THIS A JOKE?!?!

assuming you are a feller that is....

[drzhivago23]

LOL WHAT THE FUCK?!? IS SLE AN ACTUAL SERIOUS IDEA YOU'RE HAVING FOR THIS FELLER?!?! IS THIS A JOKE?!?!

I would tend to agree.

@ dee: where the hell did you get SLE from? (out of curiosity)

[crazedrat]

I think he is LII. His writing is too concrete for ILI, IMO. I am fairly certain of this. I suppose it could just be a difference in personal writing style . ..
SLE is rediculous.
To what extent does the Ti description ring bells with you? And how about the Ni description?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Yup, definitely T. Fe-PoLR sounds good. *reads part of a post* Definitely.

[crazedrat]

I changed my mind, I can't decide beween LII and ILI . I don't think you're acting like your natural self here, are you? You seem a little bit too political in the way you write for ILI, but this could be due to circumstances and deliberation

[Mea]

what you wrote so far, which i found quite type-revealing 'cos i know so many SLEs.

EVERYONE IN DEE'S LIFE IS SLE

LOOK AT HOW MANY PEOPLE HE'S TYPED SLE SO FAR!

[drzhivago23]

I think he is LII. His writing is too concrete for ILI, IMO. I am fairly certain of this. I suppose it could just be a difference in personal writing style . ..
SLE is rediculous.
To what extent does the Ti description ring bells with you? And how about the Ni description?

descriptions, taken from wikisocion. the phrases that are in bold letters do not apply very well, and the phrases written in italics apply little, or only to a certain degree.

dominant / demonstrative:

As a base function, Introverted Intuition generally manifests itself through a lack of direct attention to the world around oneself, and a sense of detachment or freedom from worldly affairs. This can lead to a highly developed imagination and very unique mental world, but it can also result in a great deal of laziness and apparent inactivity. Because the individual gets his/her primary information about the world through imagination, a person with base Introverted Intuition may be able to thrive in situations where data are scarce, or where he/she lacks the usual prerequisite experience. However, this may also become a disadvantage if the person ignores real data about the world too much. The ability to transcend the axis of time and understand the cause and effect relationships that occur is also a feature, sometimes resulting in the ability to accurately predict general future trends and outcomes of certain events.
The individual often criticizes others' views from a logical standpoint, picking apart statements and postulates and showing that they are logically flawed. However, he does not choose to do this excessively and does not expect that reality can be accurately expressed in a neat logical system anyway.

dominant / demonstrative:

The individual views reality through the lens of logic, immediately recognizing the correctness and appropriateness of things and their proper place in reality and in his system of views and behavior. He freely makes logical assertions (often exaggerated) about new information and experience. He holds highest those rules to which exceptions do not exist, and is a habitual critic of people or things that don't follow a set of rules, whether they are those accepted by the community, or his own, or even the other person's. Although he is able to adopt others' rules, his own are always the last word, and these are subject to continual refinement. Often seen as "demanding", due to high standards.
The individual is quite adept at following discussions on the developments of present trends into the future and at contributing to them on occasion if he feels so inclined, but he does not take that as seriously compared to investigating possibilities in the areas he is interested in at present. He usually dismisses supernatural claims as being silly, wishful thinking, unless they happen to be related to the very specific religion he feels inclined to believe in and which he may be inclined to make part of his leisure activities.

I changed my mind, I can't decide beween LII and ILI . I don't think you're acting like your natural self here, are you? You seem a little bit too political in the way you write for ILI, but this could be due to circumstances and deliberation

my writing and speach is often a bit odd and stilted (my mother has occaisionally referred to it as "robotic") when I introduce myself (as a result of mild anxiety), or when I talk to someone or a group of people for the first time. perhaps this is what you are referring to?

[Ezra]

I changed my mind, I can't decide beween LII and ILI . I don't think you're acting like your natural self here, are you? You seem a little bit too political in the way you write for ILI, but this could be due to circumstances and deliberation

Oh yeah, great distinction.

So what, he's either Alpha or Gamma?

You're an idiot.

Zhivago, what you got in terms of quadra values so far? You know, are you Te/Fi or Fe/Ti valuing? Se/Ni or Ne/Si valuing? Maybe you should read about the quadra differences at socionics.us or wikisocion.org.

[Elro]

Oh yeah, great distinction.

So what, he's either Alpha or Gamma?

You're an idiot.

No he's not, not from that alone. I was trying to decide between ILI and LII also - what he said seems to point towards Ni valuing moreso, but LII is still plausible. Not everything is clearcut, even when it seems like it should be. There's a difference between saying "you're either ILI or ESE" and "you're INTx."

[Ezra]

No he's not, not from that alone. I was trying to decide between ILI and LII also - what he said seems to point towards Ni valuing moreso, but LII is still plausible. Not everything is clearcut, even when it seems like it should be. There's a difference between saying "you're either ILI or ESE" and "you're INTx."

Then you're an idiot too. You're not understanding that the most effective way to type someone is not dichotomically. It's not a case of "you're Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking... and I'm not sure if you're p or j..." That's so backwards! Socionics is not about dichotomies. It's about functions, and an ordering and/or valuing of functions that makes up quadras. So quit this stupid little game of MBTI and bring yourself to the real world. It's painful to hear people even talk like this when it comes to such a great, practically beneficial system; hearing them rip it apart with such bullshit. It's like buying a cheap chipwood wardrobe and then a high quality, hand-made one, and suggesting that there is no difference between the two.

[Elro]

Then you're an idiot too. You're not understanding that the most effective way to type someone is not dichotomically. It's not a case of "you're Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking... and I'm not sure if you're p or j..." That's so backwards! Socionics is not about dichotomies. It's about functions, and an ordering and/or valuing of functions that makes up quadras. So quit this stupid little game of MBTI and bring yourself to the real world. It's painful to hear people even talk like this when it comes to such a great, practically beneficial system; hearing them rip it apart with such bullshit. It's like buying a cheap chipwood wardrobe and then a high quality, hand-made one, and suggesting that there is no difference between the two.

I'm not typing by MBTI, actually - here was my thought process:
weak Fi
weak Fe (therefore T)
possibly less concern for Fe than Fi? not much information in this regard
eccentric/seen as unusual: strong Ne or Ni? (I know Si types often don't like to stand out, for instance) However, this may also be a weak argument.

That's what I got from his first post - this leads to NT, not by letters directly but by the functions, and my impressions of LIE and ILE (especially ILE) are different from how he sounds, so that leaves LII and ILI. Which was why I asked my own question: his answer seemed more Ni dominant/Se-seeking.

Keep in mind that some function combinations lead to "letters." I think in general it is good practice not to assume someone is being an idiot on too little information, even if they arrived at significantly different conclusions from you. Although people seem to enjoy not doing that here. Idiots.

[Ezra]

I'm not typing by MBTI, actually - here was my thought process:
weak Fi

Before you even reach the conclusion of weak Fe in a second, it should be automatic that weak Fi implies a logical type. However, the trickier, but more pertinent question is this: does this logical type value Fi or Fe? Since you explain that there isn't much information, the best thing to do is look at whether they value Ne/Si or Se/Ni. If you cannot deduce this, then it's a failure on their part; it's their lack of information to help you type them, not your ability to type them.

eccentric/seen as unusual: strong Ne or Ni? (I know Si types often don't like to stand out, for instance) However, this may also be a weak argument.

I agree. I'm seen as unusual, and I'm a sensor type. Obviously the later reasoning you provide is void due to the fact that this argument is poor. So I'll disregard the inductive leap, and just talk about the reasoning itself.

That's what I got from his first post - this leads to NT, not by letters directly but by the functions, and my impressions of LIE and ILE (especially ILE) are different from how he sounds, so that leaves LII and ILI. Which was why I asked my own question: his answer seemed more Ni dominant/Se-seeking.

This is a problem. What you're basically doing is using a process of elimination for type, which is a bad idea. You're venturing into Phaedrus territory by doing so. First of all, how he "sounds" and how he actually is are two different matters. Secondly, you're using your impressions of types, rather than functions, to dictate what type he may be. What are types? They're eight functions in a certain order. Type descriptions are flawed; as they're a) always open to interpretation and b) often founded on false opinion. Identifying functions is a far better step to take, because it means that you're left with a particular quadra, rather than a few completely different types.

Keep in mind that some function combinations lead to "letters." I think in general it is good practice not to assume someone is being an idiot on too little information, even if they arrived at significantly different conclusions from you. Although people seem to enjoy not doing that here. Idiots.

I wouldn't say it's significantly different; if one arrived on a totally different conclusion, I'd ask why; I'm less interested in the answer and more interested in the method one applied to get the answer. And I think if you apply the process properly, no function combinations lead to "letters". For example, if I think someone is NT, that means I think they are Ne or Ni, Te or Ti. Hence, I haven't really used the method properly at all, otherwise I'd know exactly which ego functions they had. If you're asking whether someone is Ne or Ni or Te or Ti ego, you've clearly applied the wrong method.

[Elro]

This is a problem. What you're basically doing is using a process of elimination for type, which is a bad idea. You're venturing into Phaedrus territory by doing so. First of all, how he "sounds" and how he actually is are two different matters. Secondly, you're using your impressions of types, rather than functions, to dictate what type he may be. What are types? They're eight functions in a certain order. Type descriptions are flawed; as they're a) always open to interpretation and b) often founded on false opinion. Identifying functions is a far better step to take, because it means that you're left with a particular quadra, rather than a few completely different types.

Do you think he sounds like an ILE or LIE, then? Or do you disagree that he's even necessarily NT from what he has said? I deliberately said "sounds" because I'm not 100% convinced he's being accurate - I also get the impression that crazedrat did that he might be fitting the description to himself a bit. But he might also be being completely honest, and since I have no evidence to the contrary and no way of telling if I'm wrong, I'm just going by what he literally said.

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with my general typing procedure as far as eliminating certain types goes (even if it seems like "Phaedrus territory" to you, just because Phaedrus does it doesn't mean it's a bad thing - he's just extremely poor at justifying things), however I do admit the step where I decided he didn't sound like my impression of an ILE or LIE is a possible source of error.

I don't believe I was sourcing type descriptions except in my visualization of ILE and LIE, and in that case it was based on generalities, not specifics, and augmented by observations of others that I am fairly confident are those types. Also, what the types represent - for instance, from his description I don't think he is EJ, so I don't think he's LIE.

I wouldn't say it's significantly different; if one arrived on a totally different conclusion, I'd ask why; I'm less interested in the answer and more interested in the method one applied to get the answer. And I think if you apply the process properly, no function combinations lead to "letters". For example, if I think someone is NT, that means I think they are Ne or Ni, Te or Ti. Hence, I haven't really used the method properly at all, otherwise I'd know exactly which ego functions they had. If you're asking whether someone is Ne or Ni or Te or Ti ego, you've clearly applied the wrong method.

I don't think there's only one method that's "correct" to type someone - Socionics is an extremely redundant system. It's sort of like physics, where there are many different ways to view it and still arrive at the same answer. (At least, one would hope the same answer, if it works. )

You do indeed get "letters" from function combinations. NT types are those that are strong in Ne, Ni, Ti, Te, and weak in Se, Si, Fi, and Fe. Depending on quadra they will value one set of introverted and extroverted functions and not care about the other. Similarly, you can get EJ/IP/EP/IJ from functions: EJs always are either Te or Fe dominant, IPs are always either Ni or Si dominant, EPs: Ne/Se, IJs: Ti/Fi. It's all emergent. You might not like how I choose to describe the function combinations, but it's somewhat arbitrary.

Is there a particular method that you think is more effective to achieving an accurate typing?

Edit: I propose we take this to PM to stop derailing this thread, as it is more about my typing process than Dr. Z's type.

[Ezra]

Do you think he sounds like an ILE or LIE, then? Or do you disagree that he's even necessarily NT from what he has said? I deliberately said "sounds" because I'm not 100% convinced he's being accurate - I also get the impression that crazedrat did that he might be fitting the description to himself a bit. But he might also be being completely honest, and since I have no evidence to the contrary and no way of telling if I'm wrong, I'm just going by what he literally said.

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with my general typing procedure as far as eliminating certain types goes (even if it seems like "Phaedrus territory" to you, just because Phaedrus does it doesn't mean it's a bad thing - he's just extremely poor at justifying things), however I do admit the step where I decided he didn't sound like my impression of an ILE or LIE is a possible source of error.

I don't believe I was sourcing type descriptions except in my visualization of ILE and LIE, and in that case it was based on generalities, not specifics, and augmented by observations of others that I am fairly confident are those types. Also, what the types represent - for instance, from his description I don't think he is EJ, so I don't think he's LIE.


I don't think there's only one method that's "correct" to type someone - Socionics is an extremely redundant system. It's sort of like physics, where there are many different ways to view it and still arrive at the same answer. (At least, one would hope the same answer, if it works. )

You do indeed get "letters" from function combinations. NT types are those that are strong in Ne, Ni, Ti, Te, and weak in Se, Si, Fi, and Fe. Depending on quadra they will value one set of introverted and extroverted functions and not care about the other. Similarly, you can get EJ/IP/EP/IJ from functions: EJs always are either Te or Fe dominant, IPs are always either Ni or Si dominant, EPs: Ne/Se, IJs: Ti/Fi. It's all emergent. You might not like how I choose to describe the function combinations, but it's somewhat arbitrary.

Whatever, do what you want. Just know that you're wrong.

Is there a particular method that you think is more effective to achieving an accurate typing?

Did you actually read my post?

[Khamelion]

Then you're an idiot too. You're not understanding that the most effective way to type someone is not dichotomically. It's not a case of "you're Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking... and I'm not sure if you're p or j..." That's so backwards! Socionics is not about dichotomies. It's about functions, and an ordering and/or valuing of functions that makes up quadras. So quit this stupid little game of MBTI and bring yourself to the real world. It's painful to hear people even talk like this when it comes to such a great, practically beneficial system; hearing them rip it apart with such bullshit. It's like buying a cheap chipwood wardrobe and then a high quality, hand-made one, and suggesting that there is no difference between the two.

I'm gonna have to agree with Ezra's frustration here. 110%

[Khamelion]

Is there a particular method that you think is more effective to achieving an accurate typing?

The superior way of achieving an accurate typing is by communicating with said person. Feel that shit out man....just feel it out. This is especially effective if you are relatively on point about your own type.

[crazedrat]

i intuitively use a combination of both methods. sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish between dominant and demonstrative over the internet if people are typing out their replies carefully. i am not going to reply to your obsessive mind games you're playing with yourself, because it would take too much time. i already explained to you about how dichotomies are the foundation of logic and object differentiation in the other thread. You flat out tried to ignore my reply and shift focus with a joke. it was pathetic. Seeing as how this fellow is also having trouble distinguishing whether he is ILI or LII, I don't think my position is too unfounded. Despite all this, I did say LII from the beginning and still am inclined more toward LII than ILI. Now fuck off and go away. Go find your dual

[Mea]

yeah, 1/16 of all people i typed, that's right.

i wouldn't have said that if you hadn't type so many people SLE in your posts.
it's like a new trend or something.