Quote:
Originally Posted by
Contra
Ok, so this is going to be extremely scattered. I do have some thoughts on your type, but really I'm fairly confused so don't be surprised if I don't end up saying anything that definitively.
Oh, sorry lol. I guess I should disclaimer that I'm purposefully using different elements for various reasons.
Quote:
Starting with VI, based on the picture of you now you dress like a LOT of the Ne creatives I know. i mean a LOT.
Really? Lol. I don't take a lot of pictures, and of course, it's me, so it's odd to do one's own visuals like that lol. Most are done with my parents around on vacations, and I be who I need to be, so figured the pics may give off more Beta vibes. Hell, they still may.
Quote:
If i were to look solely on your picture from a decade ago I would've probably said LSI.
Don't know if I would agree or not. That was basically the last time I had any concern for Se, as well as the end of my "super-ego block development" in Yermak's theory. I believe it was around 4-5 months after those pics that I underwent internally violent rejection of Se.
Quote:
Regardless, I can see how you look like an EII more than an LII. I generally notice the difference in the eyes and you VI more Fi dom than Ti dom. However, I could probably easily get you confused for a perceiving dominant type so I don't think it counts for much. You do look similar to my EII friend, FWIW.
I'll throw up some more later lol
Quote:
That's pretty much the entirety of my thoughts on VI, which I generally consider to be secondary when I type people. I do notice VI similarities, which fascinate me, so I always consider it anyway.
Socionics is most likely "TPL," types of physical looks lol
_____________________________________________
Quote:
If i type purely on SSS, which you reference a lot, i can easily see how you've come to EII.
Was EII long before running into them. SSS has the only decent library of English resources, and they'll reply to you, if you have a question. On the minus side, they act pretty ticked if you if you question on alternate paths.
Quote:
You do seem like normative Ti from everything I've read so far where you take the theory and don't really experiment with what aspects could be right or could be wrong-- something that I think people with Ti of higher dimensionality do. In another way this seems to enforce (Weak) Te valuing for you simply because you do treat the theory more on a factual basis. I will say that there seem to be quite a few Ti doms who take the theory for granted, which pretty much contradicts what I just said, but even so you don't seem to require the rigor they do when considering certain arguments. If you were to provide me with evidence that you do play around with the theory I might be inclined to change my typing. And if you disagree with this at all, i could be inclined to change my typing.
I actually do play with the theories a lot in my head. I don't know all the Socionists, but I'm probably deeper into Socionics than anyone outside of Bukalov, Yermak, and Strat. Bukalov's deep parts get into pretty high level theoretical sciences, that I don't have the education to follow properly sometimes. Yermak's stuff uses systems and models theory as his based. Strat, I haven't read outside of his narrative descriptions. Mine lean towards computing, ability to be changed into applied theory on the lower levels, and bridging the various systems of socionics, psychology, philosophy, etc. I don't normally write it down due to the time it takes, concerns over if it is ethically in opposition to humanity if it's divulged, and ever-expanding and recorrecting it. I don't actually use the logic on a high level, but rather filter in an enormous amount of relationships information from the environment into it, and use objective and simple data to bridge them, and place others logics together into something that makes sense and works without blowing a gear or tire or something after a week.
Quote:
What makes this typing troublesome is that I really don't see much Fi from you. I mean you do seem to connect with others when you aren't just playing around on here, but that's not something i couldn't see an LII doing. And, furthermore, your discussions seem to gravitate toward theory more than anything. I see the ethical types on this forum gravitating toward the non-theory threads for more serious discussion- ya know such as the plus size models thread. Perhaps the gravitation toward theory is almost more of a 'male' or 'masculine' thing rather than an ethics vs. logic thing-- I think this could have some weight to it. Or maybe your Ne keeps you interested. It's not something I could seriously answer.
Well, Fi isn't an action, nor is Ti. Both are internal rationale that use various other extroverted elements for varying effects. When people "see Fi," they are usually confused about seeing Fe in relation to their understandings. What you will see often in the static types are the extroverted elements Se and Ne. Both can come from Ti or Fi directly. Because these forums existence is to discuss a logical system, you will see Se, Ne, or Te coming from a Ti source when discussing Socionics. Most often (simply because socionics is inherently alpha) you will see Ti+Ne, which is normally what I use when discussing socionics. Other times, you will see someone basically enforcing their logical systems on others, Ti+Se. When I defend/attack based on such, for instance, it is accompanied by negative control emotions. Finally, you will see appeals to objective logic via transition from Ti to Te. That said, with Ne blocked with Fi, you will only see such when the common "counseling" is used. I do sometimes counsel on here and on other forums, though it usually goes through PM's. Occasionally it will be public, and it's pretty obvious when one person is counseling another. Usually it involves them bringing up a real relationship issue. The only "practical" use I find in Socionics is using it to have people type themselves and others as a psychoanalytic tool to better flesh out where the "splits" between parties are. Can also use it the self to better pinpoint and give structure to thoughts on what you yourself see as the issues between others. Since it is a Socionics forum, heavy with low Fi and Ne, most choose to introduce their problems through the logical lens of Socionics, so it is only natural to generally heed their request and reply through the same lens. However, if it seems like they aren't just derping on the internet and are having a legitimate issue, then the Fi-Ne route will take precedence, as it is a real and serious issue.
Quote:
Soooo are you an EII with super apparent logic functions? or are you a Ti ego? I don't believe you're Te ego because i get a very strong sense you do not have Pi or Je functions in your ego. Don't ask me why i think this. I just can't see it. Along with LII, I would maybe consider you are the same type as Transkar who is a member on here who is often banned for messing around (but he repeatedly makes new accounts). As far as I know, the possible types for him that have floated around have been ILE, SLE, and LSI with SLE being the most likely. You don't strike me as SLE, but maybe ILE-- this could potentially be way out in left field, im working on a pretty thin amount of data here, but it could make some sense.
Don't know him, so can't really comment on it. Wouldn't an EII using Se look similar to SLE? Using Se- entails going in reverse order through the Mental, which is basically the same order as SLE. It's an issue with Socionics that they try and match static pieces with the reality that humans are dynamic. If you "want to see" someone as something, Socionics leaves enough loopholes that you're able to do such.
For myself, I wouldn't say "super apparent logic functions," simply because I know myself and my life. Nowhere in Socionics is I.Q. really brought up. Probably the hardest types for me to accurately type are my own and LSE, simply because I am trying to say someone is "like me" or has traits that "match up with my own" well. I've been on the very high end minority scale of intelligence my whole life, so separating me into any system that ignores this aspect will seem "off" in some ways. Especially when I.Q. stereotypes are placed with a couple of elements that have no necessary baring on the other elements. Someone could be Ti PoLR and Ne Role, and have an I.Q. that is off the WEIS scale, with Se Leading and Fi Creating far beyond the average SEE or anyone else for that matter, or they could be SEE and be terrible with their Ego compared to other SEE's. No one knows, because, much like gender, Socionics chooses to ignore these very real things.
Quote:
Anyone who doesn't reference dimensionality of functions would probably say you are logical, fwiw- hell, even people who do reference dimensionality of functions would probably say you are logical. If i ignore my thoughts on dimensionality and where you might fit in then i'd be compelled to say logical also. You just seem way too interested in the theory.
Really, i don't know your type. These are all just thoughts for your consideration. The transkar idea is something that's been stewing in my head for a while but I didn't really become conscious of it until now.
As an aside, i might come back and edit this as more thoughts occur to me or as i spot revisions because, well, i don't proofread my posts before posting.
I think LSI's (real ones) would all automatically consider Socionics to be bulls***, and ignore it, simply because the system is full of logical holes that appear to be in place on purpose to please the users.
It's a logical system and I had need of it. Basically done with it now though. The tool and the exercise seem to have run the course of their utility.