Printable View
If you are being serious about that, I don't know what to make of you. You should question for a bit that method keeping in mind that there are a multitude of factors that can determine that kind of philosophical orientation in an individual. I don't think having absolute certainty in such an abstract matter would be a good idea for you.
That's interesting. Hm. I don't know what that means, I wouldn't have guessed Fe-lead by your questionnaire or posts at all. And to have your second most likely be Fe-polr, well, that's a kind of weird result. They do of course both have Ni in common. I can draw different conclusions from that, but nothing substantial or helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by frankwithyou
Cassandra, yes. Some time ago. Scored ILI, if I remember correctly.
So...Quote:
Originally Posted by frankwithyou
You want to know your Socionics type... But don't want it to follow Socionics...
:thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking:
And I rub you wrong when acting like an ILE...
:thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking:
The plot...
Tis thickening!
You misinterpret me. I didn't say determining my type shouldn't follow socionics. Just that your one way fits all with those dichotomies might be wrong.
I appeared introverted until I was about 27 or so. If you take the test she recommended, take the extended version.Quote:
Originally Posted by frankwithyou
You can also get at your type by Inter-Type Relations. Which types do you get along with best? ESI's or SEE's, in particular?
Personally, I get along GREAT with SEE's, and ESI's less well, especially on first meeting, but long term, ESI's are more reliable and actually provide good advice.
SEE's will get me deeper into trouble, ESI's will tell me to avoid it.
I actually get along with pretty well with SLE/LSI types. Had one SEE acquaintance. Didn't really connect. Same with one ESI. I also get along fairly well with one LII. Starting to see a pattern here. Ti types I get along with well, generally.
Newp.Quote:
Originally Posted by frankwithyou
Reductionism IS Declatim.
Utilitarianism IS Merry.
Skepticism IS Constructivist.
You can't be any type other than those 2, unless you lied or are untypeable.
Wait... So you can type other people but not yourself? Hows that even make sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by frankwithyou
I don't find it useful to base one's self-typing on one's typings of other people.
If you are unsure about your own type, you are very well unsure or inaccurate about applying the theory in general. IMO.
I have always found that I have the hardest time when it comes to relating things to myself. But regarding others, I usually type correctly(meaning that they confirm).
I see your point, anyway.
If that's not Fi suggestiveQuote:
Originally Posted by frankwithyou
Again, that strikes me as a weak Fi problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by frankwithyou
Haha @Chae, we surely do have compatible Cognition styles. xD
@Cassandra Lmao we had the same point :lol:
So... Confirmation bias?Quote:
Originally Posted by frankwithyou
If that's the case, why didn't you just post in your original post that you're ILI and ask for some free handsies from the SEE's?
It happened again ffs
You sure you're not IEE? Or I'm IEI :lol: (Sorry, actual derail here xD)
Maybe I sounded too sure regarding those types that I mentioned. I always hold the benefit of the doubt. After all, I can't be certain regarding someone else's type, much less so if I can't be certain of my own type.
Where does that sense of uncertainty come from? I suspect :Ni:/ no focus on ST type functions.Quote:
Originally Posted by frankwithyou
OK, so I've had two LSI GF's who both wanted to get married and I get along great with my LII sister, and I actually think an LII that I work with is kind of hot, same with female SLE's. (For the record, I also married (and divorced) an SLI and have chased two IEI's.)Quote:
Originally Posted by frankwithyou
I'm starting to see a pattern here, too.
TBH, ESI's can be a pain in the ass if you aren't trying to see past the negativism. They weren't even on my radar until I came here and learned about duality. Prior to this, I'd classify them as either brainless strippers or as hopelessly depressed negativists. However, I've had so many relationship fails that I thought I'd give ESI a chance. And much to my surprise, I've found that the ones I've met are very compatible, and I like them. I mean, I was wrong about them because I didn't know them well. They are sensible and have good communication skills and give good advice and we can talk for hours without getting bored or offended (IRL). I'm thinking that they are good for the long term. At least, this has been my experience with them so far. I haven't actually dated one yet, :oops: so this is all pretty theoretical, aside from the fact that I haven't seen any red flags with the ESI's that I know.
Of course, your mileage may vary. Duals rarely seem appealing in the long-term to non-duals.
..... Are you fucking with us?...
Lol. I find myself in a similar situation as to your classification of ESI. At least to the people which I think are ESI.
Harder than you think, Jeremy.
Kidding. Now you know why I couldn't settle on one type.
If he's an e3, then probably, just a bit. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
Well, your logic and intuition are junk, so that leaves SF types.Quote:
Originally Posted by frankwithyou
What is your basis for that statement?
If you are an e3 LIE-Te, let me say this, regarding your attraction to LII's:
Do not marry an LII, no matter how smart or attractive or well-turned out she seems to be, or how much you imagine having her by your side can advance your career. This kind of relationship will turn your life into a living hell, from which you will not escape, because she will financially ruin you if you try to divorce her.
(From the experience of an e3 LIE-Te friend of mine.)
Damn. I'll keep that in mind.
Socionics. You.Quote:
Originally Posted by frankwithyou
What can I say. Very eloquent argument you present there.
Anyway... I appreciate the effort, guys. Even you, Jeremy. I know you mean well. Seeing as I am 21, maybe my personality isn't so developed as to show certain preference for some functions, dichotomies.
Doesn't matter what argument I nor anyone else offers, because you're disingenuous both with yourself and others. No system is going to accurately place you, because you'll just continue to lie about it. You already had your mind made up on a type when you came in here, and you've just been lying your ass off until someone presents some BS three sentences about the type you wanna be, and then you're going to be like OMG you're right it all makes such clear sense now!Quote:
Originally Posted by frankwithyou
You are partially correct. I did came in here with SOME types that I may be. But I don't want to be a certain type. You, again, misinterpret me. I didn't lie here. I don't want to be a certain type, even though it may be appealing(referring to LIE). I just want to figure out what I really am. You should think this through before you post again. The reason I don't accept some possibilities right away is because I want to be as certain as possible. If you take that as lying, that is your problem.
If the last part that you said was to be true, I would have long settled on a type that was convenient for me.
Ye ol unfalsifiable lying...
You don't make sense.
Well, SSS types your patterns as ILE, which is known to be a troll.
So, yup.
Lol. Came in here feeling all awkward trying to be as sincere as possible only to be classified by your genius as a troll.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...NTp-by-Beskova
Aha! I win!
Deez Nuts everybody else! I R The Gweatest!
Considering Jeremy is probably LII-Ne, I doubt frankwithyou will have problems with being attracted to the LII-"forbidden fruit". :P
Thinking you posted the female profile on purpose. Who's the troll here? I may give you a hint if you so want.
Ewww gross.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassandra
Ne-Ti is my contact functions :}