Your typing of forum members

[squark]

DCNH on Big 5 scale:

D heightened Extraversion
C heightened Openness
N heightened Conscientiousness
H heightened Agreeableness

in terms of typical type manifestation.

Well, I tend to get higher A score than one would expect on some tests...

Hm. Yeah, I think those correlations work.

I get high openness and medium to high conscientiousness on every Big 5 test. But typically low extroversion and varying agreeableness depending on test. Neuroticism is always very low.

[Ave]

DCNH on Big 5 scale:

D heightened Extraversion
C heightened Openness
N heightened Conscientiousness
H heightened Agreeableness

in terms of typical type manifestation.

Well, I tend to get higher A score than one would expect on some tests...

Openness is my highest trait.

My agreableness is actually kinda low on tests.

C confirmed?

[The Reality Denialist]

Openness is my highest trait.

My agreableness is actually kinda low on tests.

C confirmed?

Maybe. If it is low according to many tests. I think some H logicals might have agreeableness in medium range. I usually have had it in medium to low high in some tests but it really depends on test. Openness is high but not extremely remarkable.

I think there is ILE-D on Oli's Discord server whose agreeableness was at 0 and extroversion quite high.

[Ave]

Maybe. If it is low according to many tests. I think some H logicals might have agreeableness in medium range. I usually have had it in medium to low high in some tests but it really depends on test. Openness is high but not extremely remarkable.

Various tests tell me various things, the only consistent thing is high openness and fairly high neuroticism. The rest varies. Usually my agreeableness is medium to low, but not very low.

[WinnieW]

Openness is my highest trait.

Same for me. I did at least five Big5 Tests and I scored highest in Openness in every test.

I score not high in the other categories.
Pretty low in Conscientiousness,
medium in Agreeableness, Extraversion and Neuroticism.

C for me (in the DCNH system) as well, I guess.

[Myst]

myst: thanks. also, i fully agree with myst's points in her(?) post about ILE/Bertrand.

Her

DCNH on Big 5 scale:

D heightened Extraversion
C heightened Openness
N heightened Conscientiousness
H heightened Agreeableness

in terms of typical type manifestation.

Well, I tend to get higher A score than one would expect on some tests...

I type as D in DCNH - I have low/medium Extraversion in tests. Very low Openness, mid/high Conscientiousness, low Neuroticism and again very low Agreeableness.

[Ave]

@Myst I personally have never seen an ESI with such a "messy" process and writing style as Bertrand, no offense to the guy intended. Maybe he is an ESI with low conscientiousness.

I also think the - thought process is more streamlined than you give it credit for. Ime IEE- and ILE- express a messy thought process. You're probably thinking of ILE-Ti subtype which is much more structured.

Can you give an example of him expressing and going by his ethical judgements? Are you thinking of what he says about Adam? And where does he says he doesn't want discussions about potential and alternatives to go too far? I'm sorry, but I'm seeking and I sense no in my interactions with him. I don't have anything against him per se, just not a dual.

[Bertrand]

my thought is like a jackson pollock, people think its a mess their 5 year old could create, but to me its artistic

[Sol]

I personally have never seen an ESI with such a "messy" process and writing style as Bertrand

this mb due to nontypes factor like ADHD. Bertrand talks strangely and mb will say is he totally ok

he looked closer to introverts on the video and his forum talking reminds Fi type. so my main suspicion is E*I for him

> I'm sorry, but I'm seeking and I sense no

your type is most probably not base Te and similarly you may do not understand good what is Fi and how it's expressed in IR

[Ave]

This thread was a mistake.

[Spermatozoa]

Based on the article I linked yesterday (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1289161), I decided to calculate the percentage of themes and subthemes from each IE which appear in my commentary (both verbal and written). To prevent bias, I got three people unfamiliar with Socionics (family members) to assess me and averaged their lists:

Ni 4/24 17%
Ne 18/19 95%
Si 17/33 52%
Se 4/28 14%
Ti 19/22 86%
Te 8/23 35%
Fi 2/18 11%
Fe 15/20 75%

My theory is that we use the themes from valued IEs more often in conversation, regardless of position and strength, because they reflect the areas we desire to explore. So from the above I have determined ILE as my type over IEE.

[Spermatozoa]

my thought is like a jackson pollock, people think its a mess their 5 year old could create, but to me its artistic

^ Fi. Deliberately creating a style of expression which reflects your personal aesthetic and present mood (down to the most mundane things like how you post on a forum), that is Fi.

[Myst]

@Myst I personally have never seen an ESI with such a "messy" process and writing style as Bertrand, no offense to the guy intended. Maybe he is an ESI with low conscientiousness.

I also think the - thought process is more streamlined than you give it credit for. Ime IEE- and ILE- express a messy thought process. You're probably thinking of ILE-Ti subtype which is much more structured.

Messy doesn't make one Ne. Ne =! messy.

I don't think F types are necessarily streamlined in expressing thoughts, Se/Ni or not.

Can you give an example of him expressing and going by his ethical judgements? Are you thinking of what he says about Adam?

That's an example but he expressed it about other people too. But in his "messy" writings too, a lot of them.

OK, example from one of the most recent "messy posts":

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1287569

"you go further actually, in fact both are wrong, for failing to make it grotesquely obvious and line up their words rationally, as if they personally owe you the duty to do so. as if in lockstep perfection inheres. built into your own critique is an incredible amount of assumptions such that all your preaching seems like it begins, ends, and, ultimately, is really only directed at your own flaws (like an ode to order from a disordered mind). you never touch the outside world, and you assume that the world operates like you do, and interact with the world on that assumption, when its just one more illicit move, by your own standards, except one you've seemingly glossed over in order to set your entire ridiculous carriage in motion."

"you talk about wanting to solve problems but you have ignored the most basic and obvious solution in what seems like little more than a scheme to elevate yourself while at the same time having to expend no real effort--what efficiency!--what rationality! except its trivially easy to talk big about the need to generate solutions upon which everyone agrees and no one can possibly deviate from and cast aspersions on anything less than this pristine standard, and yet you never think that such a thing is so simple and easy its not that no one ever thought of it, its that they have long since moved on and tried to make what progress they can instead of, childishly, using perfection like a stick to harass people with. because its so elegant but only from the perspective of your own personal laziness it is rational only if we consider its purpose not as solving a problem from without but within, namely the problem of your own assumptions, but this whole thing is little more than a scam you've perpetrated primarily upon yourself and then, when right on the very cusp of self awareness you, instead, blink and literally make it everyone elses problem"

There is no Ti here, just subjective Fi judgments, very implicit "reasoning" instead of explicit logic, and I think it's also obvious that it's not extraverted like Fe.

And where does he says he doesn't want discussions about potential and alternatives to go too far?

This was the post. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1211196

"honestly I just find the discussion interesting. I'm not sure what it points to. at this point I think the culture has absorbed that idea so completely (I think it is essentially considered a "Platonism" not in a robust sense, but almost as a pejorative short hand) that any type could believe such a thing. Its technically an Ne thing, but it doesn't necessarily mean you value Ne but I do get the sense we're in that ballpark. my own tendency is to distrust any idea that leaves things open like that, to me that kind of infinite regress is as close as we get to the universe saying something like "this is not it!--look elsewhere!" and I think thats in some ways linked to decisiveness which is the other side of of Ne/Si i.e. Se. like I would find almost any other argument that didn't terminate in that kind of open ended idea to be "more convincing" as long as it did a decent job at everything else, etc"

I agreed with him there strongly (I posted in there about that).


A similar post where actually he called the speculation Ti but I believe it was Ne, here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1210248

I again strongly agreed with him here and I'm defff no ILE, lol.

I'm sorry, but I'm seeking and I sense no in my interactions with him. I don't have anything against him per se, just not a dual.

Maybe you are actually Se dual seeking actually (ILI-Te). Anyhow you are definitely gamma NT thus you do have some Fi seeking... just perhaps not as strongly as an LIE.

[Bertrand]

ha don't feel bad for me, I'm enjoying this discussion. its always useful to get a glimpse of how people view you from the side

[Vespertine]

you seemed to be in a low mood yesterday, perhaps my imagination

btw cant find your videos @Bertrand

Bert's vids:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Thread/page44
Post #1748

I knew I saw them somewhere... -w-b

[Spermatozoa]

ha don't feel bad for me, I'm enjoying this discussion. its always useful to get a glimpse of how people view you from the side

Well if you think our assumptions are in any way inaccurate, feel free to explain why. Like I said, we're here to learn.

I am curious to know what you take out of these typing threads, anyway. For me, they're mainly a starting point I can use to discover more about Socionics, but not so much a means to type anyone. Some people at least make an effort to distill the concepts we talk about (like say Model A function order) and what they mean, which speeds this process up. Also if links are provided, I will look through them and that often lead to me surfing around and encountering yet more content which might've been unrrelated to the original discussion, but still very interesting.

EDIT: I watched your videos for a minute and on that basis, I would type you are a Fi-ego, probably ESI. You seem sincere and give off warmth unconsciously (meaning it appears in your facial expression, but you don't vary your tone of voice a lot, like a Fe-ego would). While you say you are unaware of sensory things, you seem quite aware of how you look and confidently describe many aspects of your physical environment.

[Bertrand]

lol i dont like to argue with myst. as for ethics I think people make too of much stereotypical behaviors and themes when determining attitude and should look at it instead as static/dynamic, because stereotyping kind of launders it through this other process, in my mind, whereas if you just look at my posting you can see it is dynamic, which means if Fe ego its alpha or beta quadra, and if Te ego its gamma or delta. there's a possibility Im just not dynamic, and that is where a big divergence would lie

and crack sorry if I mislead you, I guess I don't remember where I actually posted it

[Vespertine]

That's why stalkers are useful. *^*

[Spermatozoa]

lol i dont like to argue with myst.

No, never argue with a woman. You can't win.

as for ethics I think people make too of much stereotypical behaviors and themes when determining attitude and should look at it instead as static/dynamic, because stereotyping kind of launders it through this other process in my mind whereas if you just look at my posting you can see it is dynamic, which means if Fe ego its alpha or beta quadra, and if Te ego its gamma or delta

I haven't considered the Reinin dichotomies when typing people, mainly because they are not very clearly defined to begin with, but they also contradict other parts of the theory. For example one of the character traits assigned to Static types (according to Sociotype.com at least) is a general, recurring theme or character. However this contradicts the nature of Ne, one aspect of which is to continuously invent and juxtapose random concepts together. So which part of the theory is correct?

[Bertrand]

you can think of it more generally which is attention to the changes, i.e. the links between states, vs the state itself. function (dynamic) v structure (static), I think of myself as "going places" with any given post, and when I respond to people I home in on the divergent part that makes the difference to me. I don't do the line by line, drop a brick on your table, type structural analysis (unless its really really necessary). also the reason I don't argue with myst has zero to do with her being female, its just that it gets too bogged down and I don't feel like i can influence her opinion anyway. i dont feel like her observations are worthless or anything, I do note them

[Spermatozoa]

*Offensive content removed*

Moderator note: Please watch what you say a little better.

[Vespertine]

Pfft, only beta cucks stalk women. Real Men (TM) take matters into their own hands and rape them.

That's proof I ain't no Real Man (TM), how soul crushing... *sobs in the distance*

[Spermatozoa]

That's proof I ain't no Real Man (TM), how soul crushing... *sobs in the distance*

You just need to take some steroids bruh.

[Vespertine]

You just need to take some steroids bruh.

Here is what I think of most of yout posts :
Attachment 13703

I'll be a butterfly on steroids then.

[Spermatozoa]

Here is what I think of most of yout posts :
Attachment 13703

I'll be a butterfly on steroids then.

[Chthonic Daydream]

@crAck same but honestly, is there anyone who doesn't?

[Ave]

currently this thread is Your sex guess of forum members

Lol wth man...why do you want to know my gender so badly? You don't reveal yours, why should anyone be excpected to tell you theirs lol?

In any case, the information you are looking for is on my profile, if you had taken two seconds to look, lol.

[Ave]

Maybe you are actually Se dual seeking actually (ILI-Te). Anyhow you are definitely gamma NT thus you do have some Fi seeking... just perhaps not as strongly as an LIE.

I have seriously considered this before but I think it is less likely, are you seeing ILI over LIE or was that just because of my saying I don't get from Bert? Because I get do a strong connection with some EIIs and ESIs, and even some SEEs. I am not saying however that just because I don't get such a connection with someone they are not dom. Seeking connections can also be a Sx first thing. I just experience a certain type of connection with some doms, if they draw me close to them which isn't always the case.

The reason I think LIE is the way the functions are stacked makes more sense. For example, I am can't see myself as seeking. I am not inert, I need a bit of a push sometimes, but reading the descrption of seeking I get the impression they like others to set goals for them, which I couldn't accept! I set my own goals, I just lack discipline at times to carry them out, so I need to be pushed slighly in the right direction which makes ego introverts more attractive than doms. With the exception of strong SEEs and strong SLEs, doms are too domineering for me. Pretty sure I am a rational type, too. I initiate change, but can't stand change forced upon me, which would seem unusual for an dom type as they are the most gowiththeflow type in the socion, lol.

But if you have a different take on my type, that is fine, at least we're both seeing gamma values and NT strengths.

As for Bert, I don't know what to add. I was seeing ILE, but you're telling me the things I am seeing are not wrong, they just don't correlate to the functions I thought they did. Very well. You win. Until I formulate a better argument, which is unlikely as my life doesn't revolve around typing Bert, lol.

[Ave]

anyhow m8, evidently you have some beef,

No, I don't, I just don't understand the way you behave. It comes off really strange to me. You ask me for tons of information about me, my photos, my gender, and yet you yourself have been especially cryptic and secretive about your identity. So I don't have "beef" in that I wanna fight with you, I don't want enemies, but your behavior does piss me off, as I can't stand people who make demands on others but freeze up when you make the same demands on them. I once asked you in chatbox what type you thought you were, you don't have to answer if you don't want to, I respect your privacy and space but please respect mine.

ok no more correspondence

...Then you turn around and quote something I said by taking my name out of the quote. This is strange behavior, "m8", if you don't want correspondence don't ghost quote.

[Myst]

I have seriously considered this before but I think it is less likely, are you seeing ILI over LIE or was that just because of my saying I don't get from Bert?

Not just that, I considered it before too. I'm not sure though, I'll let you know if I think of something decisive about typing for you.

Because I get do a strong connection with some EIIs and ESIs, and even some SEEs. I am not saying however that just because I don't get such a connection with someone they are not dom. Seeking connections can also be a Sx first thing. I just experience a certain type of connection with some doms, if they draw me close to them which isn't always the case.

Well that's just Fi superid for preferring that type of (Fi) connection. And yeah sx too for the general focus on connecting.

The reason I think LIE is the way the functions are stacked makes more sense. For example, I am can't see myself as seeking. I am not inert, I need a bit of a push sometimes, but reading the descrption of seeking I get the impression they like others to set goals for them, which I couldn't accept! I set my own goals, I just lack discipline at times to carry them out, so I need to be pushed slighly in the right direction which makes ego introverts more attractive than doms. With the exception of strong SEEs and strong SLEs, doms are too domineering for me.

Well because of those exceptions, this doesn't exclude ILI-Te for you. Though noted on what you like from xSIs, hm.

Afaik Ni leads also set their own goals? And Se helps them find the concrete steps. You don't need that bit of help, tho'?

Pretty sure I am a rational type, too. I initiate change, but can't stand change forced upon me, which would seem unusual for an dom type as they are the most gowiththeflow type in the socion, lol.

This bit actually sounds like a very good argument for LIE for you.

Out of curiosity, how are you with Fe? What kind of emotional expressions do you display if any?

But if you have a different take on my type, that is fine, at least we're both seeing gamma values and NT strengths.

Yeah that is pretty clear for you.

As for Bert, I don't know what to add. I was seeing ILE, but you're telling me the things I am seeing are not wrong, they just don't correlate to the functions I thought they did. Very well. You win. Until I formulate a better argument, which is unlikely as my life doesn't revolve around typing Bert, lol.

[Ave]

This bit actually sounds like a very good argument for LIE for you.

Out of curiosity, how are you with Fe? What kind of emotional expressions do you display if any?

This is going to be bias as it is done to support my self-typing but it is also a reflection that lead up to my self-typing.

Basically, while I don't enjoy atmosphere and environments, I am good with in the sense I express emotions and tend to say things in a way that isn't too cut and dry, but tend to maybe sugarcoat a little, depending on how I know the person will react? It's hard to explain, but I find ILIs much less likely to lace their words with a smile or a joke to get their point better accepted by others. I also tend to empathize with people, though I am not really into getting mawkish either.

Another thing is . Criticism towards my clothes, appearance, diet, etc is really painful to me. Criticism towards my emotional expression is usually easier to take.

This is part of the reason why I think LIE, and not ILI, especially since ILI- has weaker and stronger , and I am the other way around. Pretty sure my isn't that bad, just totally unvalued.

[Ave]

lol. ok.

1. i asked your gender because i was going to say something thatd be wrong if my assumption was incorrect. so i slowed myself down - i sought to ask first.

2. i "ghost quoted" not as an intentional "ghost quote", but because i copied that single sentence from that post, hit End to get to the reply box at bottom, then manually typed the quote tags (/things)

all sensible, you see...

as well, i change my mind sometimes seconds later -> just as ive done here with "no more correspondence". i dont mind it, "you gotta deal" i guess.

Ok.

It's cool, I'm not mad or anything, I just didn't get your behavior.

Perhaps you post your thoughts a bit too quickly, often the info you are looking for is out there, you just take a minute to search. Maybe using a smiley or making a joke wouldn't hurt.

Peace.

[Ave]

did you read somewhere ni base is the most gowiththeflow type?

Isn't that how irrationals are usually described?

I think base is more likely to follow a "strong current" because of their DS.

[squark]

I haven't considered the Reinin dichotomies when typing people, mainly because they are not very clearly defined to begin with, but they also contradict other parts of the theory. For example one of the character traits assigned to Static types (according to Sociotype.com at least) is a general, recurring theme or character. However this contradicts the nature of Ne, one aspect of which is to continuously invent and juxtapose random concepts together. So which part of the theory is correct?

Static/dynamic isn't just a Reinin dichotomy, it's one of the basic dichotomies the aspects are built on; it's a fundamental tenet of socionics itself. Also, you're mistaken about Ne. It's very clearly static. It's not about where things are headed or leading (Ni) but rather the alternatives and options, the other possible realities for any given person, place, or thing in the current time. Seeing the static elements as occupying space, and the dynamic ones as occupying time can be a useful perspective tool imo.

As a side note: Ti, and even Fi get misattributed to Ne at times since the Ne egos also have one or the other of those elements in their ego, they merge them a bit. Ne makes no connections whatsoever, as it's an object element, looking at the qualities of objects. It's the field element in the ego that makes the connections.

Anyway, Ne with Ti (and Te demonstrative) can indeed be inventive, and I've seen some ILEs that were amazing at cranking out unique real-world solutions to problems people didn't even know they had yet. Ne with Fi (and Fe demonstrative) is not inventive in that same way as none of their strong elements are focused on the tangible world, and they tend more to the hidden potential of people, things, events but again, not where things are headed, but all the various possibilities present. It's why some IEEs will argue for the rehabilitation of imo clearly non-repentant criminals, seeing not the current reality of the things the person has done and probably will continue doing in the future, but the chance they could be reformed. And that chance to them is equally valid and likely in spite of evidence. In fiction, Ne + Fi I think is best at character development and introducing unexpected possibilities, and rather than following cliché they can create very original work, since "anything is possible." They can easily introduce the absurd into their stories, the unexpected and unusual. Ne is broad with all those choices and possibilities, but short-sighted like all the static elements can be.

[squark]

lol i dont like to argue with myst. as for ethics I think people make too of much stereotypical behaviors and themes when determining attitude and should look at it instead as static/dynamic, because stereotyping kind of launders it through this other process, in my mind, whereas if you just look at my posting you can see it is dynamic, which means if Fe ego its alpha or beta quadra, and if Te ego its gamma or delta. there's a possibility Im just not dynamic, and that is where a big divergence would lie

My perspective: Your posts are like brain trails. A lot of twisting and weaving up and down hills and around trees and across streams and through tunnels, describing the scenery along the way. When I respond to them, I typically grab the signposts I see along the trail and focus attention on those.

[squark]

IMO reinins arent cut-and-dry, you can be some reinins of your TIM, but also the opposite.

e.g.: iirc its 'decisive/judicious' thats said to be x TIM (vs y), but it also said judicious correlates with Introverted. so if you are an Introverted-x, you might more identify with y's designation (judicious) than x's (decisive).

reinins are sorta detailed so theyre interesting for self-discovery, but using them as a differentiator for yourself makes for a bad time. others, just no lol.

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...omies#Overview

Static/Dynamic isn't a Reinin trait. Or rather, it shouldn't be considered one, because it's really much more basic than that. It's one of the very most basic things to understand regarding socionics. I've had to explain this multiple times lately, so I'll just link to the wiki even though it contains some errors: http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...ation_elements

[squark]

oh, i know, sorry/evidently it was unclear: i mentioned reinins because sperm did in the quote (which i saw just then, so).

ty for link

Right, ok. I thought you were responding to me. np

[Vespertine]

From my understanding, Ni lead have more of a big goal they strive to acheive, yet are too ahead in their head to get the steps done in the present, which is where Se strikes, refocusing the big goal into what to do now to make it happen tomorrow.
I'm honestly not so sure of this, so correct me if I'm wrong.

[The Reality Denialist]

Yes, thee are people who need some reminders from others that tells them something what they want in the future [which is something that makes me bit rebellious when I hear those things and try to find counter arguments like that this vision does not potentially go like it could and its external implications... ].

[Ave]

Afaik Ni leads also set their own goals? And Se helps them find the concrete steps. You don't need that bit of help, tho'?

@Myst I accidentally skipped over this question.

I would say I need that help, but as Troll Nr 7 says, the future is never like we imagine. The question of concrete steps in acheiving a goal is a complex one, to say the least. My pov: reality is filled with limitations. You can't fly if you jump out the window, nor can money be produced without incentives, for example. The best way to acheive a goal is to select one that is realistic, within the laws of reality. I also have discovered, at least recently, the idea that "the shortest way between two points is a straight line" could be false. You get what you want when you stop pushing to get it. Unlike travelling in spacetime, where you just have to walk or drive or fly from point A to point B, human goals are more complex, they involve factors of internal happiness too, and often even if we get what we want it can be dissapointing.

So I'd like to give you a clear answer, but it depends on the nature of the goal. Usually I get things done as soon as I visualize the steps in my head. Or else I can be stuck in a rut. Visualizing helps if it's something you've done before...however goals related to people are not linear, there are no clear steps to undertake to find love for example.

There are also things which were always thought to be impossible, such as flight, which have been proven possible. So what gives? However flight, the aircraft, is not a result of magical thinking but of understanding the laws of reality and combining various areas of knowledge to sythnesize the aircraft...I struggle more in the realm of influencing relationships tbh. I think that is a different type of goal, related to people, and not to the laws of outside reality...so you have to be non-linear with people, unlike with things.

^^Word salad.

TLDR: I don't struggle so much with realizing goals as I do influencing people/relationships.